Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

The federal government has no mandate to situate a radioactive waste dump in South Australia. It is illegal, and the government is trying to change the law to make it permissible. People in South Australia have had this fight before. The traditional owners have had this fight before. Just as they have succeeded in the past, they will succeed again, because it is irresponsible of the federal government to disrespect the South Australian people and the traditional owners and impose a nuclear waste dump in the state of South Australia.

The site selection process has been grossly mismanaged and has been extremely stressful for the Kimba community. A waste dump in the middle of the agricultural heartland in Kimba will put at risk South Australia's 'clean, green' reputation and potentially damage the grain export industry as well. Not only has there been appalling consultation with locals but there has been zero consultation outside the immediate region, including the communities on the wider Eyre Peninsula and across SA and, critically, along the extensive potential transport corridors. The government hasn't even bothered to ask people who are going to have trucks of nuclear waste passing by their houses whether they support it. It's no wonder the government doesn't want to ask that, because you know what the answer will be. The government's plan is going to result in shipments of radioactive waste passing through South Australia's regional roads, streets and waters for decades to come. The people of Port Augusta, Whyalla, Port Pirie, Port Lincoln and in every town on the potential transportation routes should be consulted and given an opportunity to have their say.

I mentioned the situation of the Barngarla traditional owners. The traditional owners do not support the imposition of a nuclear waste dump on their lands. This parliament should stand with the traditional owners. The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights has acknowledged the affront that this bill, the National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment (Site Specification, Community Fund and Other Measures) Bill 2020, does to the rights of the traditional owners, and it's up to us to stand up for human rights and to say that the traditional owners of the land should be listened to and respected. This is a fight that many traditional owners in South Australia have had to have before. They shouldn't have had to have it but they did, and they fought hard and they won. You would think the government would listen to the wishes of traditional owners and listen to the wishes of the South Australian people, but no. It is going to ride roughshod over them.

'Why are we doing this?' many will ask. Why is the government wanting to impose a nuclear waste dump in South Australia against the wishes of traditional owners and locals and without asking the people on all the transport routes what they think about it?

The government talks about the waste at Lucas Heights. The vast majority of Australia's intermediate-level waste is currently stored at ANSTO's Lucas Heights facility. This proposal from the government is not to have a permanent new facility; it's to effectively have double handling. We're going to handle it at ANSTO and then handle it again to move it across to this new site. ARPANSA, the federal nuclear regulator, has stated that there is no urgency to move the most problematic intermediate-level waste from its current site at Lucas Heights and has made it clear that there are no safety concerns with the current storage either. This is not something that we need to do. The government says this is about Lucas Heights, but the experts in charge of the management of that site are saying that it is not something we need to do.

Look at international best practice. It is clear that unnecessary transport and handling from an above-ground extended interim storage facility at ANSTO to an above-ground extended interim storage at a less-resourced facility is not consistent with international best practice. Double handling this intermediate-level waste is not credible and lasting management; it's shirking the hard issues and handpassing these to a future uncertain, unspecified process. It's not an evidence based policy, because the experts are not calling for this; it is simply a tired and fragile political promise from a tired and fragile government.

If the experts are not calling for it and if it's contrary to international best practice, contrary to the wishes of the traditional owners and contrary to the wishes of South Australians, why is the government proceeding with it? We know that many in the government want Australia to be the world's nuclear waste dump so they can say: 'We've got a facility and we've been even able to expand it. Bring all your waste here to us and you can dump it here in Australia.' We know many in the government have been arguing for that. We know that many in the government are even arguing for nuclear power in Australia. They've let all of those people off the hook and are out saying that we need to build nuclear power in Australia.

If you have a fuel spill at a wind farm it's called 'a stiff breeze'. If you have one at a nuclear plant, it's called 'Chernobyl'. In Australia we are blessed with the best sun and wind resources, and the fuel is free and safe, so why would you want to start a nuclear power industry here? That is what some are arguing for, either because they're on the take from the nuclear power and fossil fuel advocates or because their long-term goal is to make Australia the nuclear waste dump of the world. They figure that if we can get acceptance of nuclear power and can get this waste dump up then we can start being the world's nuclear waste dump.

South Australia should not be the world's nuclear waste dump. The lands of the Barngarla traditional owners should not become a waste dump. There is no pressing need for this. That is what the experts are telling us very clearly. There is a call for a much better practice and for much higher existing international standards to be applied. We should be able to agree in this place on some basic principles. We should not impose any federal facility on an unwilling community, and that includes Aboriginal traditional owners. We should act consistently with state and territory laws and with leading international industry practice. We should ensure high storage standards at the two secure federal sites that currently exist—at the Lucas Heights facility and at Woomera—where most waste is sited, and we should have an inclusive and robust examination of the full range of future long-term management options. In other words, even if you are one of the people who think Australia should expand its nuclear sector—and I'm not one of them—then this is not the best practice that you would follow. As all of us accept, there is an issue to be dealt with in regard to the management of intermediate-level waste coming out of places like Lucas Heights. This is not the answer to that issue, because the people associated with it are saying that there is no pressing urgency or need for change. They're saying that taking waste from Lucas Heights and handling it and storing it there, and then moving it across state boundaries to another place, where there are no long-term plans, is not best practice, either.

The government has other agenda and motivations here, which we need to understand and have fully fleshed out and aired. In the meantime, what we should absolutely not do is facilitate this government's siting of a nuclear waste dump on the lands of the Barngarla traditional owners, against their will. That means we have to oppose this bill. We must say, 'No, South Australia will not become another unwilling nuclear waste dump.' This bill should be opposed. We should send the clearest possible message to the government that this is the wrong way. Go back—we will not let the government impose a waste dump against the wishes of locals and traditional owners.

See this speech in context