Brendan O'Connor (Gorton, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Industry) Share this | Hansard source

I move the following amendment:

That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House:

(1) affirms the need to determine a site for the storage of radioactive waste, particularly in light of Australia's international treaty obligations;

(2) acknowledges that nuclear medicine is fundamental to our world-class health care system; and

(3) supports a parliamentary committee inquiry into relevant matters, such as:

(a) concerns raised by and the involvement of interested parties, including traditional owners;

(b) costs, funding arrangements, and employment levels associated with the facility;

(c) potential impacts on affected communities; and

(d) the adequacy of the Community Investment Fund and related compensation".

The National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment (Site Specification, Community Fund and Other Measures) Bill 2020 specifies the need and location for a storage facility for radioactive waste. It is a fact of contemporary life and our modern healthcare system that nuclear medicine is used, often crucially, to help many, many of our fellow Australians. Australians depend upon nuclear technology for their medicines. It is used in the diagnosis of heart disease, skeletal injuries and a range of cancers. On average, two in three Australians will benefit from nuclear medicine in their lifetime. In fact, ANSTO, the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, can deliver over 10,000 patient doses of nuclear medicines each an every week.

But, of course, with these benefits comes the responsibility to manage our waste. There are two types of waste that would be stored at the proposed facility. One is low-level waste that consists mainly of disused surgical gloves, masks and gowns. The other type of waste that will be stored is intermediate-level waste, typically by-products of nuclear medicine production as well as spent fuel rods from the ANSTO OPAL reactor.

Australia's radioactive waste is currently stored in more than 100 sites across the country, including hospitals and warehouses and, of course, the ANSTO facility at Lucas Heights. Whilst I think there is diligence and attention to that storage, it's not the case that that storage could be classified as secure or purpose-built. Radioactive waste is predominantly the by-product of nuclear medicine, and if we are to continue to support nuclear medicine then we must have a dedicated storage facility. There are also international conventions that we are bound by that state that countries which produce nuclear waste also have an obligation to store it. As one of the top three producers of uranium in the world, we also have a moral obligation to store our own locally produced waste.

Professor Andrew Stuchbery, head of the Department of Nuclear Physics at the Australian National University, has expressed support for nuclear medicine and a storage facility. He said: 'Radioisotopes are widely used in nuclear medicine procedures for imaging and diagnosis. This waste is sent offshore for processing, but the residual smaller volume of intermediate-level waste must come back to Australia under international obligations and agreements. Thus, Australia must find a long-term solution for storing this nuclear waste. My considered opinion is that the benefits of nuclear medicine greatly outweigh the costs of the waste management, for which safe technologies do exist.' That's the end of that important contribution by Professor Stuchbery.

It is completely understandable that there is apprehension around the ultimate site of a nuclear waste storage facility, particularly in any nominated community. However, that is why information, detailed questioning and a clear consultation are so very important in making this significant decision. It is worth understanding the international precedents for the storage of nuclear waste. Comparable countries—France, Spain, the United Kingdom, Canada and the United States—all have centralised purpose-built waste facilities. Farming regions like Champagne in France, the Lakes District in the United Kingdom and El Cabril in Spain, and areas in the United States like Utah and Washington state, also have such facilities.

In Australia, the main repository is, of course, at Lucas Heights. The Lucas Heights facility has limited storage capacity and is licensed by the independent nuclear safety regulator, ARPANSA, to store waste only on a temporary basis. That is on the condition that a plan is developed by 30 June this year for a permanent disposal solution. Lucas Heights produces about 85 per cent of our nuclear waste, and the department has said:

The matter is pressing. Our current store facilities will be full sometime in the next decade, maybe a bit sooner

That was said last year. It's important to note that ARPANSA, the regulator, said in their submission to the Senate inquiry that the requirement for ANSTO to provide future plans for storage and disposal as part of their licence conditions is not necessarily a requirement to relocate waste currently held at Lucas Heights. We do need, I think, clarity on those somewhat contrary contributions by the department and by ARPANSA.

Australia has been looking for a place to store this waste for more than 20 years, and it's time Australia had a single purpose-built facility. But, if we are to establish a national waste facility for radioactive waste, we should make sure we do it once and we do it right. While it's proposed that low-level waste will be disposed of at the new facility, what will happen to the intermediate-level waste is less clear. The proposal from the government is that intermediate-level waste will be moved from Lucas Heights and stored temporarily at the Kimba site until another site is established to permanently dispose of this waste. This will mean double handling of this waste at some stage further down the track. It won't be a problem for anyone in this place today, perhaps, but it will be for those who follow in our footsteps.

We all know this has been a vexed issue for this nation for many years. Much work has been done on progressing the establishment of a radioactive waste facility at different sites across the country, only to be scrapped for various reasons. If we are to finally settle the matter, we need to ensure that this site is the site that satisfies the criteria better than anywhere else.

The government claims that the site, Napandee, near Kimba, was chosen due to geological and environmental suitability as well as stronger community support than the alternative site, namely Hawker. Napandee, a property 20 kilometres west of Kimba, was nominated voluntarily, and a community ballot was held based on the municipal boundaries. As part of the ballot process, it was established that native title holders were not residents in the local government area and therefore not eligible to cast a vote in that particular ballot. It's worth noting also that 36 nonresidents were able to vote as they have property interests that are rateable in the Kimba local government area.

The Kimba ballot was unsuccessfully challenged by the traditional owners, the Barngarla Determination Aboriginal Corporation. They argued that the council contravened the Racial Discrimination Act by excluding them from the ballot. This decision was challenged, and the appeal to the full bench of the Federal Court was, I'm advised, unsuccessful. A separate ballot of traditional owners was run by the Barngarla corporation through a private company to cover Barngarla nation. Of 209 eligible voters, 83 voted against the facility, and none voted in favour. While the vote was unanimous, 126 eligible voters did not return their ballot papers in that privately held ballot.

I want to be clear with these numbers because I have seen some fairly creative accounting gymnastics used to further the arguments of both proponents and opponents of this site. I think we also need to be clear that there is no native title over this site, because it has been put to me there is, and I have confirmed there is not. However, it is also true to say there are parcels of land with native title neighbouring the site. I am advised that, while there are no Barngarla people currently living within the Kimba township, the surrounding area is used for camping and hunting by Barngarla people who live in places such as Whyalla and Port Augusta.

While we support the need for a storage site—indeed, former Labor governments, as much as this one, have been very much focused on the need for that—we note significant concerns have been raised, including from the traditional owners, as to whether the decision excluded the traditional owners from a ballot process. I think that might come down to, in part, the electorate. What boundaries should be drafted? Who should be able to vote in this process? Of course, the government has asserted that the municipal boundaries were proper and appropriate, and there's an argument for that, and, of course, there are competing arguments that First Nations people, beyond the municipal boundaries, should have had a greater say.

Some questions still need to be asked and answered, and that is why we recommended a Senate committee inquiry be established to inquire into a number of issues, including, first and foremost, the threshold issue: why is this legislation needed? The minister currently has the power to nominate a site. In fact, the previous, Labor government enacted legislation to empower the minister to nominate a site. It is therefore incumbent on the government to explain why they want to legislate the precise location rather than use the provisions pursuant to sections 14 and 18 of the existing legislation. So the minister does have a power; the minister is choosing not to use that power but instead to have the parliament make a decision. That was not the approach that was being considered by the previous Labor government. That is why we legislated to empower the minister, and the government is choosing a different path. We really haven't been given an explanation as to the need for that to happen, given the minister's currently existing power. That would be something we could explore in the committee inquiry.

Further, why didn't the government put forward a plan to establish a radioactive waste one-stop shop—that is, disposal of low-level waste as well as a permanent facility for intermediate-level waste? What constitutes broad support of the community? I think we need to flesh that out and consider it through this inquiry. The previous minister, Senator Canavan, assured stakeholders that broad community support would be the key criterion for choosing a site, and I think the government would argue that they have completed that guarantee, but there are others who challenge the proposition, and I think it's worthy of examination. What is the cost of the proposed facility and how it will be paid for? The explanatory memorandum makes references to user fees for storage and the establishment of the site. However, the financial impact of the fees, even if revenue-neutral, is not detailed and will be explored by the Senate committee.

The committee will also need to examine the unknown cost of purchasing, leasing, the land on which the site will be located. As part of the bill, there is a community development package associated with this facility, worth up to $31 million. The sufficiency of the government investment fund and related compensation could also be further analysed by the committee. The package as it currently stands includes $20 million paid out of money appropriated by the parliament through another act, appropriations legislation, in long-term support for the region. There are $8 million in grants for four years to strengthen the economic and skills base within the region and $3 million to support delivery of an Aboriginal economic heritage participation plan. Those are very good propositions, certainly in terms of providing greater support for the region, and, if this site were to be determined, Labor supports that approach in principle. But the questions are: is it sufficient? Is there more that can be done? Has there been sufficient engagement with the Indigenous communities? Has there been sufficient engagement with the farming communities of this region? I think those sorts of propositions can be tested, but in principle we support, of course, extra resources going into this region under this process. Again, that can be examined.

How many jobs will be created, both in the construction phase and ongoing? We understand that the Kimba area has been facing economic challenges of late, with people selling up due to the drought and leaving the area to find work. The jobs created during the construction and ongoing running of the facility will provide some incentive for those people to stay in their community. It has been claimed that the facility would provide 45 jobs. We would like to explore this further, with a focus on training opportunities for local people and commitments to outcomes for local Aboriginal communities. So, even if we have problems with the threshold question as to whether we could support the legislation, these are the provisions that should also be examined by a Senate inquiry, and that's what we would be intending to see happen.

What other sites have been suggested and why were they not suitable? For many years, but also most recently, people have suggested the site could be located somewhere in the Woomera area. I understand that, when asked about Woomera, the government say that the 2016 Defence white paper has forecast investment and additional activity as a barrier for locating the facility there. Are there any other reasons why it couldn't be located in what is really non-productive land, rather than using the sparse, arable land there is in South Australia? It's fair to say we'd like to examine more fully why Woomera is not an ideal location. It is a very large area: 122,000 square kilometres. This is a very small parcel of land by comparison. What are the impediments? Invoking national security or national defence without really any explanation is not sufficient. It's not adequate. We need to have a greater understanding of the government's concerns there. They may well be entirely legitimate but they haven't been fully explained, and therefore they should be fully explained.

What assurances can be given to the workers that will transport current and future waste, to people who live along the route where the waste will travel and to Kimba residents that this waste does not pose a risk to them? We understand that there are already existing risks; I think this is really important to note. I've said that back to stakeholders. For example—I think we need to be very upfront here—as I'm advised, there are roughly two million people living within a 20-kilometre radius of the Lucas Heights facility in Sydney compared with 100 people living within a 20-kilometre radius of the Kimba site. I think that's a significant issue.

Obviously there are transport and logistical issues right now. I accept that we should examine what would be the transport and logistical issues and challenges that might be faced by government and government agencies in dealing with this site, but we need to have that in the context of a comparison with existing risks, however low they may be. I think that's only reasonable. It's something that we should flesh out. It's not like doing nothing means there is no risk. In fact, we've already heard that we need to, at some point, find a permanent site. We don't have a permanent, purpose-built facility. It's not ideal to have it, I would think, in the largest city, the most populous city, in Australia—at least for a while. I think Melbourne is about to eclipse Sydney in a few years, but that's another story.

To put things into context is therefore really important. While the transport of low-level waste is very low risk, those risks increase when transporting intermediate-level waste. The community must be assured that nuclear substances and waste are handled safely and with care, and that's something we can examine. I'm sure the government, the department and others have been thinking about that.

How will this affect the broader Eyre Peninsula community, particularly primary producers? There are concerns. There have been concerns raised from primary producers across the Eyre Peninsula that their reputation for providing clean, green crops may be impacted by having the waste facility on that peninsula. Because there's no domestic market and all grain is exported, the farmers have expressed concerns about international perceptions and brand damage as a result of producing grain in this vicinity.

As I said earlier in this contribution, I'm advised that there are similar facilities, and even purpose-built facilities, in regions of other countries which produce very important products—like champagne, for example. So it may well be that that question can be answered. But the farmers who did not support this—and, of course, over a third of the vote even in the municipality did not support the location of this site—have every right to have their concerns aired and have, hopefully, adequate answers to the concerns that they may have about any potential risks to their business, their brand or their products. I think that's something worthy of examination. And that's why we wanted to have this examination prior to bringing the bill on. We did advise the government that we would rather have that examination so we could be fully informed, as an opposition, to make an informed decision.

We need to seek clarity on the long-term plan for storage and disposal of nuclear waste, particularly intermediate-level waste, in this country. How long is intermediate-level waste going to be stored in what's called a temporary facility, and does the government intend to locate the permanent storage and disposal facility at Kimba or will we have to go through this process again?

That is an important question. The government may not have a complete answer to that. I'm not suggesting this proposal hasn't got merit, but we need to know the thinking beyond this given that this is not the end of this matter. It would be interesting to see if the government has any further plans beyond this proposition.

If we are to continue to support nuclear medicine we must have a dedicated storage facility. We all agree upon that; it would appear that most if not all of us agree on that. Equally, support for this facility does not extend to support for accepting international waste or for a local nuclear power industry. There are concerns among some. I am not saying these are concerns that have been substantiated through evidence, but people do raise concerns that there may be other intentions that are not declared about providing a facility for a local nuclear power industry. That is something the government can answer in a Senate committee process, which may allay concerns which have been raised in relation to this.

When we talk about nuclear matters, it can be somewhat concerning. We need to be as clear as we possibly can in terms of the intentions—what we're seeking to do and what we are not seeking to do—in relation to these matters. We know we need to store this waste; we just need to make sure it is in the most appropriate spot, because it will most likely be there for a very long time. There are many questions still to be answered. The Senate committee is best placed to ask these questions, so that's where we'd like to have those answers provided. As I said earlier, I advised the government that we will not be supporting this bill until these questions have been sufficiently dealt with. Therefore, as it stands, we will not be supporting this bill.

See this speech in context