Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

The National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment (Site Specification, Community Fund and Other Measures) Bill 2020 seeks to establish a low-level radioactive waste storage facility at Kimba in South Australia, a site that then will also be used for the temporary storage of intermediate-level radioactive waste. The mention of the words 'radioactive' or 'nuclear' immediately raises community anxiety and confusion, and understandably so. On the one hand it is claimed that low-level radioactive waste, in particular, but also intermediate-level waste, presents very little community risk. For decades, that waste has been stored in close proximity to community facilities. On the other hand, we are told that the waste should be permanently stored in remote facilities away from people and homes. People are therefore getting mixed messages, so it is no wonder that they are confused and even sceptical.

Before I go to my substantive remarks, I want to respond to a comment made by the member for Grey. I respect the member for Grey's close relationship with the community he represents. He said that criticism about this proposal came from people outside of the area. I point out to the member for Grey and to members of the House that criticism also came from the Flinders Local Action Group, the Barngarla people and other Indigenous representatives, the No Radioactive Waste on Agricultural Land in Kimba or SA group, the No Dump Alliance, the state member for Giles and, notably, the former member for Grey, Barry Wakelin, and his wife, Tina. All of those people and groups also have a close association with the area in question.

There is general agreement that Australia should have a national radioactive waste facility, and the member for Gorton and others on this side of the House have made that absolutely clear. It is a position I also support. For decades Australia has pursued the idea, but to date a suitable site has not been agreed upon. Currently, Australia's radioactive waste is stored in more than 100 locations across Australia. In answer to a question on notice from me in February this year about this issue, the minister recently responded as follows:

9. The Commonwealth generates and holds the vast majority of Australia's intermediate level radioactive waste. Most of this waste is held by the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) in Lucas Heights, Sydney. ANSTO currently has about 1,211 cubic meters of legacy intermediate level waste in storage and an expected volume of 1,849 cubic meters of future intermediate level waste.

10. The Commonwealth generates and holds the vast majority of Australia's low level radioactive waste, and most of this waste is held by ANSTO in Lucas Heights, Sydney. ANSTO currently has about 2,711 cubic meters of legacy low level waste in storage and an expected volume of 4,685 cubic meters of future low level waste.

It seems that the options here are to either increase capacity at Lucas Heights or establish a new facility elsewhere. However, finding a suitable location is proving to be very difficult, as others have already pointed out, with no community wanting a site in their backyard, including much of the community around Kimba. Despite claims of community support for the Kimba site, earlier this year around 300 local people turned out to a rally in Kimba. For a country town, quite remote, that's a considerable number of people, and they turned out in opposition to the waste facility.

There is also an argument that many people who should have been consulted around the proposed site were not given a say and that the government's claim of over 60 per cent of locals being in support is not a true indication of community views. In particular, the Barngarla people, the traditional owners, claimed they were excluded from a community ballot. Testing community support for the site selected, amongst people in the areas surrounding Kimba, was something that should have included the Barngarla people.

The whole site selection process and the handling of this legislation has been dogged by controversy. For example, there are concerns that the bill seeks to change the objects of the original act by removing an explicit reference to 'Commonwealth waste' in relation to the proposed facility. This opens up the proposed facility for significant future project creep and waste streams—possibly, waste from more places. Secondly, the bill proposes to continue with exemptions from project compliance with both the EPBC Act and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act. These are serious concerns.

The notion of establishing a nuclear waste facility in this region of South Australia has already twice been rejected by South Australians over the past two decades. In 2004 the South Australian government took a federal government proposal to court and blocked the federal government from establishing a nuclear waste facility in South Australia—again, in this part of South Australia. In 2017 a citizens' jury overwhelmingly rejected a high-level nuclear waste storage facility, again in South Australia. That was after extensive and inclusive public consultation.

The consultation process surrounding the Kimba site selection has been widely criticised, albeit that the proposal is for low-level and temporary storage of intermediate-level waste. Labor is calling for this proposal to be referred to the Senate Economics References Committee so that questions about the concerns raised by farmers—that damage to Australia's clean and green image in producing agricultural products will directly affect them. Also, there are concerns about transport, as other speakers have said, in carting radioactive material from one side of the country to the other. There are also concerns that other sites should be reconsidered, and there are real concerns about the risks and long-term benefits to the local region that have been claimed, and they should also be open again to scrutiny. That is what is needed to restore public confidence in the process, to ensure that the process is transparent and to allay any other concerns.

I will now turn to the issue of looking at alternative sites. Once a site is selected, as others have rightly pointed out, it will be a long-term decision that will cover many, many generations to come. Once a site is selected it will be a permanent site—literally forever—and we all know that. So it's important that we get the site right. Whilst I accept that we have already spent many, many years doing that, if there is a better site than this we should be looking at it.

The federal government owns extensive tracts of land across Australia, as do all state governments. There are also extensive existing and disused mining sites that may be suitable for nuclear waste storage. For example, in 2005 the South Australian government commenced discussions with BHP, the owners of Roxby Downs uranium mine, about the possibility of storing waste there. That would seem to me an eminently sensible thing to do. And there may be other alternative places that, again, common sense would suggest are eminently suitable for the storage of waste. I don't know where that discussion led to, or what happened to it, but my point is that there are opportunities to look at other legitimate sites that, I suspect, would have far less community opposition.

There are also numerous Defence sites that may be suitable for a waste facility that would have much less impact on surrounding communities. Woomera already stores about 120 truckloads of low-level waste. The member for Lingiari mentioned earlier today other sites that were looked at in 2005. In my view, and without knowing the details, these are sites that would seem to be suitable or that should at least be reconsidered. And I imagine that these sites would create little or no community opposition.

Why are those sites not being considered, if low-level waste truly presents minimal risk? Why is it that the government is looking for a temporary site for intermediate-level waste, not a permanent site? Why are the two waste streams not considered separately? Why isn't the storage of intermediate-level waste the priority, when it should be? I think there would be widespread agreement that low-level waste is not the real issue here; it is the intermediate-level waste that is of concern to people. If that is the case and if that is what we should be trying to address, why aren't we making that the priority and looking for a site for the intermediate-level waste? Instead, under this proposal, we are simply saying the site will be used for the temporary storage of intermediate-level waste. Where does it go to after that? The truth is that nobody believes it will go anywhere; this site will probably become the permanent storage place for intermediate-level waste. Why is the government not saying: let's split the two streams and just deal with low-level waste? If we did that, perhaps there wouldn't be such opposition to the proposal at Kimba. It might be a way of dealing with that problem, if that is the truth of what this legislation is all about.

This is an important issue. I accept what others have said in terms of the importance of nuclear medicine in this country. We all benefit from nuclear medicine—there is no debate and no disagreement with that—but let's not make that an excuse for choosing the wrong site. We have spent decades looking for the right site. I chaired a committee that looked into the Muckaty Station proposal and I heard extensively from community members about that site, so it is something I've had some experience dealing with. With respect to this site, based on the objections that have been raised by people in the area surrounding Kimba, their concerns are legitimate and ought to be considered properly. A Senate select committee, I hope, would do that. I would hope that at the end of that process—if this is the site we choose, or if there happens to be another site—we get the site selection right. Because if we do, we know it will be there for the long term, and that is exactly what the Labor amendment seeks to do.

See this speech in context