Harry Jenkins (Scullin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The original question was that the bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has moved as an amendment that all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question now is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.

Danna Vale (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

To resume my comments, I point out that the scope of research that these 17 neutron beam instruments will allow is tremendous—from research on advanced materials through to molecular biology—using technologies that were unknown at the time the current reactor was opened by Prime Minister Robert Menzies, later Sir Robert Menzies, on 18 April, 1958.

As well as opening up new areas of research, ANSTO is well known as the principal producer and supplier of radioisotopes for medical diagnoses, treatment and pain relief in Australia. Last year, approximately 550,000 patient treatments were transported from ANSTO to hospitals around Australia and increasingly into South-East Asia as well. Nuclear medicines are chiefly used for diagnosis, but increasingly also to treat disease and for pain relief. For example, bone scans can now detect the spread of cancers six to 18 months sooner than X-rays. ANSTO also continually conducts new research aimed at developing new radiation treatments for different types of cancer and other medical conditions.

With additional capacity, ANSTO will also be able to expand its support of the Australian manufacturing, minerals and agricultural industries. (Quorum formed) The estimated gross benefit of support to the minerals industry, for example, currently exceeds $100 million annually. The replacement reactor will give us significantly more. This modern high-tech research facility will attract eminent foreign scientists to work in Australia and provide Australian scientists with greater reciprocal access to complementary, first-class research facilities around the world. Indeed, the return to Australia from the new research reactor will be significant in attracting to Australia the greatest scientific minds of our age. We will be truly beaming up Australia with the brightest lights in the international scientific community whereas Labor would seek to dumb us down.

The amendments in this bill will enable ANSTO to treat and appropriately package Commonwealth radioactive material before eventual storage or disposal at the Commonwealth radioactive waste management facility to be established in the Northern Territory. The act already permits movement of non-ANSTO radioactive material to the Lucas Heights site on a case-by-case basis under the regulation-making power of the act. This amendment in no way implies that Lucas Heights is now intended as the Commonwealth’s radioactive waste management facility. This government, unlike the previous Labor government, has a clear policy, backed by legislation, that the Commonwealth’s radioactive waste management facility in the Northern Territory will be the destination for Commonwealth radioactive material.

That legislation is the Commonwealth Radioactive Waste Management Act 2005, which I spoke on last year. It was welcomed by the people in my electorate of Hughes because this government is getting on with the job of bringing a Commonwealth radioactive waste management facility into creation. The idea of a national approach to radioactive material management originated in 1978, but, through careless inaction and indifference by the previous Labor government and the stonewalling by state Labor governments, this responsible national approach had been scrapped. It has taken this government to put in place a facility to manage this Commonwealth material in a suitable location.

The fact is that the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency, otherwise known as ARPANSA, would not issue an operating licence for the new OPAL research reactor until an appropriate site for the national repository had been identified. This was a condition of the operating licence. Dr John Loy, CEO of ARPANSA, had made it clear that, if the establishment process for a radioactive waste management facility had not advanced to his satisfaction, he would not issue the licence for ANSTO to operate OPAL. Therefore, last month, when ARPANSA granted ANSTO a licence to operate OPAL, Dr Ian Smith, Executive Director of ANSTO, welcomed the decision. He said:

The granting of the licence takes us one step closer to the start of a new era in Australian science.

Not only will OPAL increase ANSTO’s capacity to supply Australia and the region with critically important radiopharmaceuticals, it will provide world leading capability for our scientists to apply nuclear research to such areas as biotechnology, food and molecular biology, nanotechnology, health, environmental management processes and engineering.

This research will result in tangible social and economic benefits for Australia.

I have been assured that the licence was granted following an exhaustive examination of all the evidence presented by ANSTO, including cold commissioning tests. ARPANSA were also advised by overseas consultants, including an International Atomic Energy Agency review team—all experts in the field of nuclear reactor engineering. OPAL has met the highest possible standards imposed upon the nuclear industry. The granting of the licence will now allow ANSTO to load nuclear fuel and begin its second commissioning phase, when further testing will take place to ensure OPAL’s performance meets expectations. When this is complete, it is proposed that the current ANSTO reactor, HIFAR, will shut down early next year.

The amendments will also permit ANSTO to manage radioactive materials in an emergency situation where ANSTO’s specialist expertise might be called on—for example, in the aftermath of a terrorist incident in Australia involving radioactive materials. Numerous recent attacks and attempted attacks on Western targets all over the world underline the emergence of the use of terror by radical extremists as a major threat to Australia’s security. This threat is serious and enduring. This terrorist phenomenon is new in scale, method and ambition.

Al-Qaeda and similar networks have demonstrated both the willingness and the capability to inflict massive casualties on civilian targets, and they display no concern for the loss of innocent life. We are also led to believe that they have an active interest in obtaining chemical, biological and even radiological weapons. Unlike the terrorist groups of the last century, the al-Qaeda fundamentalists embody extremist terrorism that is uncompromising.

Australia is a Western democratic nation. Where previous forms of terrorism barely touched us, this new form of extremist terrorism has declared its aim to inflict damage on Western liberal democracies. It is indeed global in scale. No nation can afford to ignore such threats. I welcome more powers being given to ANSTO because, if the unthinkable were to happen, I know I would want the experts rendering all assistance possible to Commonwealth, state or territory law enforcement and emergency agencies.

After all the benefits that ANSTO and the nuclear industry in general have brought to Australia, I find it very difficult to understand why Labor attack ANSTO at every chance they can get. Clearly, the nuclear industry in Australia is one of the most highly regulated industries, with the greatest of safety records.

When I first entered parliament in l996, I was approached by Dr Garry Smith, an environmental scientist from Sutherland Shire Council, to lobby our government on behalf of the council for the establishment of an independent oversight agency for Australia’s nuclear activity, including that of ANSTO, to assure Australians generally and local residents in particular that world’s best practice was the driving principle at this important research facility.

The establishment of an independent oversight agency was achieved in 1999, with the successful passing of the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Act 1998. This created ARPANSA as the Commonwealth’s licensing agency for nuclear facilities and radioactive waste materials management and disposal in Australia. Like the Sutherland Shire Council, I considered it imperative for the assurance of my constituents that such an independent oversight agency of appropriately accredited scientific professionals existed to undertake this oversight responsibility.

I continue to be grateful to a previous minister for health, the Hon. Dr Michael Wooldridge, and his parliamentary secretary, the Hon. Trish Worth, the then member for Adelaide, for their work and commitment in bringing forth the legislation that created the vital, independent oversight agency that is ARPANSA. I was very proud to have been part of that process. This organisation has the statutory responsibility for, and the accountability to, the people of Australia for the activities of ANSTO and all Commonwealth nuclear activity across Australia.

ARPANSA’s specific responsibilities include: promoting uniformity of radiation protection and nuclear safety policy and practices across jurisdictions of the Commonwealth, state and territory governments; providing advice to government and information to the community on radiation protection, nuclear safety and related issues; undertaking research and providing services in relation to radiation protection, nuclear safety and medical exposures to radiation; directly and significantly reducing the risk and impact of a radiological attack by improving the physical security of all radioactive sources; enhancing Australia’s capability to undertake comprehensive in-field analysis and provide expert advice in the event of a radiological attack; and regulating all Commonwealth government entities, including departments, agencies and bodies corporate involved in radiation or nuclear activities or dealings.

It is appropriate that the activities of ANSTO are the subject of the utmost scrutiny by the world’s best scientists under a legislative regime. However, it should be of grave concern to the members in this House that other industries in Australia also come under tight scrutiny. One industry which appears not to be sufficiently regulated and which receives little publicity in the media is the toxic chemical industry.

In June this year, the television program 60 Minutes reported that in Sydney there are storage sites of dangerous toxic chemicals which cannot be described in any terms other than environmental vandalism on a monumental scale. This report informed the nation that a huge stockpile of around 15,000 tonnes of highly toxic industrial chemical waste called hexachlorobenzene, known in the trade as HCB, is stored only 12 kilometres from the Sydney CBD. This dangerous stuff causes cancer and reproductive abnormalities, as well as skin, nerve and liver damage. But that is not the worst of it.

The Daily Telegraph, in an article by David Fisher and Larissa Cummings on 23 August entitled ‘Poison in the water’, reported that a cocktail of toxic chemical waste that includes arsenic, lead, nickel, benzene, chlorinated hydrocarbons and solvents is slowly poisoning the vast watertable that lies under the Sydney area. This has resulted in a ban on the domestic use of bore water in Sydney suburbs that range from Surry Hills in the west, to Coogee in the north, to Tempe in the south and to Phillip Bay in the east. The good citizens of Sydney should be contacting their local state members of parliament and asking: ‘What in the world is the state government doing about this alarming situation?’ As the member for Grayndler expressed before, he should be advising his constituents that this exists. As he said earlier, constituents have a right to know.

I am also aware that Sutherland Shire Council have expressed their concerns to the government that, while they understand the need for ANSTO to have the ability to deal with the possibility of a dirty bomb in the event of a terrorist activity in Australia and that it is necessary for ANSTO to be able to deal with such a situation, retrieve any such radioactive material and take it back to the ANSTO site, they seek the government’s assurance that no other waste will be brought to the site for storage. I can assure the council that, while 95 per cent of the Commonwealth’s radioactive waste material is already stored at the ANSTO Lucas Heights site and a remaining five per cent may also be stored there sometime in the future, this provision will cease immediately when the national waste repository in the Northern Territory comes on line. The federal government has given a clear commitment to the establishment of this national waste repository and I will continue to take an active personal interest in its progress. I refer my constituents and the council to my record and success in bringing ARPANSA into existence. Indeed, I consider ARPANSA to be one of my most important achievements during my time here in parliament. (Time expired)

Michael Hatton (Blaxland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am happy to speak in this debate on the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation Amendment Bill 2006. This is an important and significant bill. The Labor Party supports its passage and I personally support its passage, as I do the work of the people at ANSTO. It is an extremely important facility and one that I have visited a number of times with a number of different committees, including the Standing Committee on Industry and Resources, to look at the work that is being done there and to speak to the individuals who have done such great work and given such sterling service to the Australian people.

The other members in this debate have canvassed the current functions of ANSTO and canvassed from the materials available to them—on the website, in the Bills Digest and elsewhere—just how broad the activities of ANSTO are. They have indicated that providing radiological isotopes for the treatment of a series of conditions has been one of the fundamental activities of ANSTO over many years. According to the argument by the government and a number of people from industry, one of the reasons it is located at Lucas Heights and not further from Sydney’s CBD—and why the replacement reactor OPAL, which will be replacing HIFAR, has been located there—is that there is a necessity to get those radioisotopes into the major hospitals in the Sydney region as quickly as possible, and also to access Kingsford Smith airport as quickly as possible in order to get those materials interstate because their useful life is relatively short.

This site in itself is significant—and the work that is done there is extremely so. It covers not only those health areas but also areas that are extremely significant in environmental terms. The work that is being done by their specialists on using nuclear facilities, trace elements and so on to look at the movement of clouds and river flows, to investigate the landscape and its formation and the way in which the environment has been impacted upon by various activities is a testament not just to what is being done now and what has been done in the last few years but also to the future importance of ANSTO and the fact that the broader range of applications is potentially much greater in the future than it was in the past.

The member for Hughes has the facility within her electorate. The member for Banks in his contribution indicated that he was not too far away. Given he is in the lower part of Bankstown and I am at the top, I am not too far away either. The placement of the facility in the middle of Sydney, as I have said, has been key in terms of radiological isotopes. There have been a series of concerns addressed in the past over the many years of the operation of ANSTO at Lucas Heights about the fact that it has been placed in the middle of Sydney. Of course, that did not stop Frank Walker, when he was the state Minister for Housing, locating housing in a ring around Lucas Heights. The safety record over the period it has been in operation has been particularly strong, as has been the case in most of the other similar nuclear reactors around the world.

The people who work there are dedicated to ensuring a safety environment for their coworkers and to minimising impact on the community, but this bill also extends the powers of ANSTO to deal with material that is produced by Commonwealth agencies or contractors and to then take material in from overseas. The amendment relating to that deals with fuels that have been sent to France which are due to come back here by 2011 or 2015. Having been reprocessed, it will then be the responsibility of ANSTO to see to their successful management. In doing so the particular problem is—and the amendments are there to deal absolutely with this risk—that, when those materials come back, there can be no guarantee that they are just reprocessed ANSTO material; they can in fact be mixed with some other materials and that intermediate waste can have been generated from uranium from elsewhere. So, in order to cover that possibility, that is dealt with by one of these amendments.

It is very interesting that one of the other amendments this government has done—it would not have been so surprising if we had done it—concerns the extension of the defence power to cover certain activities. The relevant section of the Constitution, which is section 51(vi) and covers the defence power, has been used to govern the way ANSTO can have its resources called upon in the event of a terrorist act or other acts that relate to the defence forces or emergency areas and, further, to ensure that its activities could not be invalidated as a result of that. Mr Deputy Speaker McMullan, I simply point out—as you would know from your experience as a minister in our government—we actually used the foreign affairs power fairly effectively.

As far as I know, apart from its use of the defence power, the only other power this government has used has been the corporations power, which is used to bring in its industrial relations legislation—and we will find out what the High Court thinks about that in due course. This is an unusual use, but I think here it is an appropriate one. The elements dealt with here and in some of the other amendments are that it is not just Commonwealth entities and agencies that can have material but also state and territory governments or local authorities, if there is a terrorist incident or other happening—and the emergencies that relate to this are not strictly defined. One of the questions for the minister that should arise with regard to this is that such emergencies are not actually specified or defined within this act and it should be asked how that would come into being. But the key here is that it is necessary to make these changes because of the changed environment we are in.

Further to that, if you look at the broader questions, the member for Hughes quite correctly said that 95 per cent of the waste that the Commonwealth has is already stored on site. Under this bill, there will be an extension to ANSTO’s capacity to store such waste. Until this amended bill goes through, ANTSO’s capacity to deal with material from other Commonwealth agencies is nil. So what has been happening to the rest of that material? It has just been sitting at those Commonwealth agencies, just as the material that is produced by state hospitals that is radioactive in nature—most of it is low-level radiation—is stored at those facilities. It is stored there because there is nowhere for it to go, which has been the case throughout our history. We know that will change in the future. Looking at the opposition’s amendments—and remembering the manner in which the Commonwealth, in pushing through the relevant bill last year in terms of waste management, opposed itself to the Northern Territory and so on—we know they will be contentious; that issue has been and will be. But the fundamental fact is that Australia has to do something about its waste management.

One of the activities that ANSTO have been involved in for a very long-time—30 years plus, given they invented it—is developing a method of dealing with medium- to high-grade radioactive materials and encapsulating that material so that it is not a danger to anyone. We have only flogged the product synroc to one other country so far. The British are using it at their facility at Sellafield. It was 30 years in the making. The Americans are the biggest market and the French have not taken it up yet. At this point, the Americans and the French are using vitrification. So they lock up these materials, which are either medium or high grade, into glass. However, synroc is a much better process. Vitrification does well enough in order to stabilise the materials, although that is after they have been left out for a considerable time in order to degrade. But we argue—and certainly the people in ANSTO have argued, although they have not been able to commercialise this until now—that synroc is much more capable. The fundamental reason is that it is a ceramic waste where the radioactive material is mixed in with the very ceramic. So, at a molecular level, you get a binding into the synthetic rock that you can then place in a repository.

We know that in Norway and the other Scandinavian countries they are already depositing their material deep underneath the earth. Where they are using vitrification there or in other places where they will be producing radioactive material, there is potential for Australia. But we also know that a whole range of other things need to be looked at to identify the problems with the development of this.

I am proud of the fact that our shadow minister in this area, Martin Ferguson, has really led the field in the last year or year and a half in this debate. He is the one who initiated the parliamentary committee’s investigation of this issue. That has helped to kick-start the whole process of a re-examination of not only the mining of uranium in Australia but also its use. Part of the key approach that he put in a significant speech in March of this year—and that speech was given to one of Australia’s key bodies—was to underline Australia’s pivotal role in the global nuclear cycle. In that speech made at Paydirt’s uranium conference in 2006, he pointed out:

After a period of 25 years when not only Australia, but the rest of the world, has let its nuclear skill base decline, there is a serious shortage of skilled people at the same time as global demand for reactors is at unprecedented levels.

He then talked about the fact that Singapore and Vietnam are the only countries in our region that do not have research reactors—and approval now has been given to Vietnam to develop one. He then talked about the use of synroc and so on and then went on to make this point:

... we have to get serious about increased support for nuclear science and technology research and capacity building.

The logical focus for that increased support is the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) where facilities, equipment and knowledge are already concentrated and highly specialised.

I can see considerable merit in establishing and properly funding a post graduate nuclear technology school under the auspices of the Australian Institute of Nuclear Science and Engineering, a cooperative venture between ANSTO and all the Australian universities.

An annual intake of 10 to 12 science and engineering graduates from Australian universities would be a big step forward in building Australia’s nuclear knowledge and skills base for the future—a skills base that is essential for Australia to properly engage with the UN, its allies and the region to make the world’s nuclear industry even safer.

Those comments are encapsulated in a broader series of comments where he and the Leader of the Opposition have argued that the current situation of non-proliferation treaties is, in a word, parlous. It has been broken in one part of the world after another; it is disintegrating. There is a tremendous amount of work that needs to be done to put that back together. Part of Labor’s program is to kick-start the process under a diplomatic initiative—using the core work done by the Canberra commission in the last Labor government—to put nuclear non-proliferation at the very core of the world’s concerns and to toughen up those provisions.

That is extremely important, but the broader context here is it is only now that the demand is becoming increasingly evident for Australia’s uranium. We produce 38 per cent of the world’s uranium as it is, but with the further extension of Roxby Downs and others it will become greater. If you look at the 10- or 20-year period they are running on from here, the production of Australian uranium is not our only concern. If you look backward—and the fresh look at this that has been taken in the last year has been quite extraordinary—we have had 30 years that have effectively been a dark night in terms of looking at these things in any really fundamental, rational, dispassionate way.

This is a dangerous process to try to harness some of the fundamental forces of power within our universe. We cannot pull the sun in too close because it will just crisp us; it is a nuclear furnace. What was tapped at the end of World War II to be used as weapons of mass destruction eventually gave rise to the nuclear industry that we have. The first major installations built in the United States in 1962 or so were big, dirty, nasty, energy-hungry nuclear facilities whose by-products could potentially last for a half-life of 10,000 years plus, and in some cases hundreds of thousands of years. Their reputation, quite rightly, was really bad.

But we also had a period of intense emotional reaction to and debate on the very idea of these things—and it is still a condition today; it is here in the debate we have seen in this chamber—rather than a balanced and scientific approach to it and a recognition of the fact that the damage done to the world by our other technologies is absolutely immense. You have to put some comparators into place. But, because there has been that dark night where it has not been looked at clearly or cleverly enough, people working for ANSTO have not stood up and argued publicly for the validity and the significance and the power and the utility of their work. They have been too afraid to do it. They got stomped on by the media because of Dr Helen Caldicott leading a campaign that focused on nuclear residue, its poisonous nature, its waste, the four minutes to midnight argument and so on. At the time she effectively sent a message—although she denied it in evidence to the committee—to the young Australian people that they really had nothing to do but to prepare to fight against nuclear weaponry and so on.

The change in making those facilities safer in the last 30 years has been enormous, but Australia, by and large, has simply been a backwater with regard to this. That is why the member for Batman put forward the proposal, which I understand has now been taken up, to build that engineering facility. It is a case of trying to rebuild capacity that we will need if we are to have a bigger role in the world and if we are to ensure that the nuclear non-proliferation treaty is as operative and as effective as we can make it. We also asked to ensure that we push along innovation and research in this area on a fundamental basis. If you are not in it, you cannot control it, which is the whole basis of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. We also ask those countries which did not take the nuclear weapons route but were able to use nuclear capacity or supply it to do so in a responsible way.

We are now at the stage where we have got generation 3 reactors worldwide. The fourth-generation and fifth-generation reactors are coming into play. We know that the problem in fourth-generation reactors of a meltdown from the core can be contained within the vessel. We know that in fifth-generation reactors, particularly in pebble-bed reactors, you simply do not have that problem at all. There has been an immense march forward.

We also know that because of the increased demand for nuclear generation—an industry which, and this is not well appreciated under the current manner in which it operates, will only run for about 60 years, given world resources in uranium because of the use-once approach—two things of great significance have happened. The first is something the Russians have done. They have used plutonium, including from the warheads they demolished, as part of SALT II. They have taken that and they have been reprocessing and reusing that plutonium, effectively gobbling it up. In waste management terms, that is enormously significant. Here are a series of proposals put forward by the Americans which open up the way in which that can happen. Effectively, they say that one of the ways forward to make this a more sustainable industry over time, and a more effective and safer one, is to allow not only the reprocessing of that plutonium material but also the reutilisation of it.

Therefore, the second thing of great significance is to do with the major waste problem. Through advances that have been made for clients with regard to the waste generated from existing reactors, the fundamental thing is this: instead of 10,000 years or a couple of hundred thousand years, we are looking at a development where we need to store this material, and we can store it in synroc, for 200 or 300 years. The parameters of what is happening because of the technological changes are great. I support the work that ANSTO has done, and the extension of its capacity to be our safety insurer Australia wide. I hope it will develop to become a stronger organisation that is wider and deeper for the benefit of the Australian community as a whole. (Time expired)

Mal Washer (Moore, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I compliment the member for Blaxland on an excellent speech on synroc new reactor technology. I hasten to add that his knowledge in this field is admirable. He knows a lot more about this than he does about changing tyres, which I discovered on the way to ANSTO where we had a good time looking around.

The Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation Amendment Bill 2006 will amend the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation Act of 1987, enabling the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation to condition, manage and store radioactive material and waste other than that associated directly with its own activities. The Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, ANSTO, is Australia’s national nuclear research and development organisation and the centre of Australian nuclear expertise. This bill will enable it to utilise this expertise in the management of radioactive material and waste in the possession or under the control of any Commonwealth entity. It will also enable ANSTO to assist law enforcement or emergency response agencies in incidents involving radioactive material, helping to ensure public health and safety. This could be a terrorist incident or a criminal one, such as undeclared materials intercepted by the Australian Customs Service. The bill also clarifies ANSTO’s authority to deal with intermediate level waste returned from the overseas reprocessing of its spent nuclear fuel.

So what exactly are we talking about when we refer to radioactive materials and waste? Nuclear radiation was discovered in 1896 by Henri Becquerel. Nuclear radiation is emitted by certain types of atoms, known as isotopes, which contain more neutrons than protons in their nucleus. All atoms of a particular element have the same number of protons in their nucleus. This determines the atom’s identity as one element or another. For example, every atom of carbon has six protons. Protons and neutrons have about the same size and mass and together make up most of the mass of the atom. The number of neutrons in the nucleus may vary. Additional neutrons do not change the atom’s chemical properties; however, for some elements the extra neutrons make the nucleus unstable and it eventually undergoes spontaneous radioactive decay. As this decay produces nuclear radiation, these unstable elements are known as radioisotopes. For example, the radioisotope carbon-14 has six protons, like any other carbon, but it has eight neutrons—the number 14 referring to the mass number, which is the total number of protons and neutrons in the atom’s nucleus.

When a radioisotope decays, it not only releases radiation but also changes the number of protons in its nucleus and becomes a different element. The radioisotope keeps decaying into other radioactive elements until a stable isotope is produced and the decay series stops. For example, when uranium-238 decays, 14 different radioactive elements are produced before the series finally ends with stable lead-208. The average amount of time that it takes for the radioisotope to decay is referred to as the half-life. This is the time taken for half of the atoms in a sample to decay. This length of time can vary widely for different radioisotopes and it greatly affects their use and disposal. For example, it takes 4.5 billion years for an atom of uranium-238 to decay through all 14 isotopes into lead. However, more than 99.99 per cent of this time is taken up with waiting for the first decay to occur. The other steps in the series are much faster, some taking millions of years and most taking just days or minutes.

The radiation released from unstable atoms as they go through decay may be made up of alpha particles, beta particles and/or gamma rays. These forms of radiation have different levels of energy and need to be managed in different ways. Alpha radiation is made up of streams of particles consisting of two protons and two neutrons—essentially a helium atom without electrons. This radiation is highly charged and is referred to as ionising radiation, as it knocks electrons from atoms. This causes these atoms and surrounding molecules to become charged particles, or ions. Beta radiation also has an ionising effect, as it is made up of electrons being ejected from the nucleus. Gamma radiation is also an ionising radiation but is uncharged. It interacts with ions already present, rather than creating them, and causes changes in the materials it passes through. It is not made up of particles but is an electromagnetic energy wave, like light or X-rays. There are gamma rays from space that are passing through our bodies right now.

Elements that have these unstable atoms are naturally occurring and have been created by the formation of the earth and cosmic radiation. Every day we are exposed to the radiation given off by these elements, as they are in our soil, rocks, the air we breathe, the water we drink and the food we eat. They are also in our muscles and bones. Living and working in buildings built from bricks, mortar, concrete and tiles increases our exposure, as they all contain radioactive elements. We have learnt how to use radioactive elements to our benefit and utilise them in medicine, industry, agriculture and other scientific fields. One of the most common uses of radioactive material in the home is the smoke detector. Ionisation smoke detectors contain the radioactive element americium and are extremely sensitive to particles of smoke. The alpha radiation given off by the americium ionises the oxygen and nitrogen particles in the air. The positive and negative charged particles created from this enable an electrical current to flow between two plates. If there are smoke particles present in the air, this current is disrupted and the alarm goes off. The radiation levels are extremely small and it is predominately alpha radiation, which is unable to penetrate a sheet of paper or even a few centimetres of air.

Our homes also contain many products which have been sterilised by radiation, such as disposable nappies and first-aid products like bandages and cotton wool. In Australia around 550,000 people benefit from medical procedures involving radioactive materials every year. Two of the major tools used in nuclear medicine are radioisotopes, and energy and particle beams.

Radioisotopes can be used as tracers to diagnose medical problems or to treat certain illnesses. The radioisotope can be traced through the body by detecting the radiation it gives off. The tracers used in medicine give off gamma radiation as this is less biologically damaging than alpha or beta radiation. Gamma radiation is also able to pass through the body to be detected by the measuring instruments outside.

The imaging process known as positron emission tomography, or PET, uses radioisotopes for this purpose. When disease strikes, the biochemistry of your tissues and cells changes. In cancer, for example, cells begin to grow at a much faster rate, feeding on sugars like glucose. PET works by using a small amount of isotope chemically attached to glucose or other compounds. It travels through your body and collects in the organs targeted for examination. If an area in an organ is cancerous, the radiation being given off in this area will be stronger than in the surrounding tissue. A scanner records this and transforms the signal into pictures showing chemistry and function.

Many isotopes used in this process have short half-lives. Fluorine-18, which is commonly used, has a half-life of 110 minutes. Because of this, hospitals which have PET facilities need to be within one or two hours of a cyclotron which generates these isotopes.

Gamma radiation energy beams are also used in radiotherapy to destroy cancers located in places that cannot be accessed easily with surgery. In order to spare normal tissues, several angles of exposure are utilized such that the radiation beams overlap each other at the tumour site, providing a much larger absorbed dose there than in the surrounding healthy tissue.

Another form of radiotherapy cancer treatment that is much more specific at targeting cancer cells is the proton particle beam. Proton radiation therapy is also an ionising radiation like gamma radiation but is made up of proton particles. When they first enter the patient, the protons do no damage to the healthy tissue as they are moving at half the speed of light. As they penetrate tissue and slow down, an increasing dosage of ions is generated and the cells which have been targeted are killed. When the protons have slowed down to around half the speed, they absorb an electron to become a hydrogen atom and ultimately join up with another hydrogen atom and an oxygen atom to form water. This is carefully tuned to occur at the back side of the tumour.

The ionising effect of the radiation kills the cancerous cells. The ions damage molecules within the cells, particularly the genetic material, DNA. Damaging the DNA destroys specific cell functions, particularly the ability to divide and proliferate. Enzymes develop within the cells to attempt to rebuild the injured areas of DNA. However, if the damage is too extensive, the enzymes fail to adequately repair the injury. While both normal and cancerous cells go through this repair process, a cancer cell’s ability to repair injury is inferior. As a result, the cancerous cells sustain more permanent damage and die. This allows the selective destruction of cancerous cells growing amongst our good cells. Hadron beams, which are beams of atomic nuclei, can complement proton beam therapy for tumour treatment. We certainly need these facilities in this country. We do not have these facilities.

Radioactive tracers are not used just in the field of medicine; they are also used in many other situations where one wants to track a particular particle in a system. A range of environmental measuring processes detecting stream flows, sedimentation rates, water quality and soil and water salinity use radioactive tracers. For example, ANSTO has been investigating the long-term sustainability of irrigation practices in New South Wales. This is something the member for Blaxland and I witnessed when we went to the facility. Scientists have labelled trace amounts of water molecules with radioactive tritium. This enables them to track these molecules and understand the subterranean water flows between the Macquarie River and the bores. Scientists can then advise on where, when and how much water can be used sustainably. Radioactive materials used for environmental measurements have short half-lives and decay to background levels in a matter of days.

Radioactive waste in Australia is produced as a consequence of these beneficial uses of radioactivity. At present low- and intermediate-level radioactive waste is stored by Commonwealth, state and territory agencies at over 100 locations around Australia. Many individual waste producers currently have the responsibility of looking after their own radioactive waste. This bill will enable ANSTO to make its expertise and facilities available to assist these agencies. (Quorum formed) With the establishment of the Commonwealth radioactive waste management facility, it will be important for ANSTO’s capabilities to be available for conditioning and repackaging waste from agencies prior to transport to the facility.

This bill will enable efficient and responsible handling of radioactive waste, enabling Australians to continue utilising the benefits of radioactive materials in their lives. I commend the bill to the House.

Kelvin Thomson (Wills, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Public Accountability and Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was pleased to have the opportunity to hear the member for Moore complete his remarks. I wish to speak to theAustralian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation Amendment Bill 2006 and, in particular, to the clause of the amendment moved by the member for Jagajaga that proposes that the government be condemned for:

... establishing a hand-picked committee of inquiry into the economics of nuclear power in Australia, while disregarding the economic case for all alternative sources of energy.

I am very pleased to support that amendment and speak in favour of it. I think that it is astonishing that the Prime Minister, having turned his face against the issues of global warming and climate change for many years, could remarkably decide, ‘Yes, there is a problem and we need to do something; the something we need to do is nuclear power,’ and institute a committee of inquiry to investigate nuclear power and nuclear energy. If the Prime Minister was serious about this matter he would have had an inquiry into the real problem, which is global warming and climate change. The real problem is how we get on a sustainable energy path for the future.

I had the good fortune last Monday night to be one of quite a number of MPs who saw a screening of the film An Inconvenient Truth, which talks about Al Gore’s post-2000 journey around America and beyond talking about the issue of climate change. It is a remarkable film, and I urge everyone who can to have a look at it. Some scientific pieces of data concerning global warming emerge from the film. Recent data from Antarctic ice cores indicate that carbon dioxide concentrations are now higher than at any time during the past 650,000 years, which is as far back as measurements can reach. 2005 was the warmest year on record since atmospheric temperatures have been measured, and the 10 warmest years on record have all been since 1990. In the summer of 2005 heat records were broken in hundreds of United States cities. Over the past 50 years the average global temperature has increased at the fastest rate in recorded history. In 2003 heatwaves caused over 30,000 deaths in Europe and 1,500 deaths in India. Since 1978, arctic sea ice has been shrinking by about nine per cent per decade, and the snows of Mount Kilimanjaro, at their current rate of melting, may be gone by 2020.

Some of the predicted effects as global warming gathers momentum are that we will have an increase in the intensity of hurricanes. Hurricanes are a function of the temperature of water; as the temperature of water increases both the severity and the frequency of hurricanes are apt to increase. Over the past several decades the number of category 4 and category 5 hurricanes globally has almost doubled. Because the ocean is getting warmer, tropical storms can pick up more energy and become more powerful. It is just over a year since Hurricane Katrina, which was truly shocking both in what occurred and in the inadequate response to it, but that is the kind of thing which is predicted to happen in future. Indeed, in Australia we had Cyclone Larry just earlier this year. On the one hand we will get severe storms, but we will also get other severe and extreme weather events; things like droughts, bushfires and the like. We in Australia, and particularly those of us who live in southern Australia, have been experiencing drought after drought and declining water availability. The statistics show that Perth has had a dramatic fall in water availability over something like 20 years. My own city of Melbourne is experiencing it and many other cities and towns in the southern part of the continent are experiencing water crises as well.

In other parts of the world, due to rising sea level, low-lying islands will no longer be habitable. Al Gore’s film talks a lot about the impact on the Arctic and the Antarctic. That is for two reasons; one is that it is very easy to measure what has been going on with temperatures and the like in the Arctic and the Antarctic because they are in such pristine condition. They have not had the influence of human habitation, so they are great places to measure things. The second is that global warming and climate change are most dramatic at the polar caps. The effects are being magnified in those areas. The prospect of the arctic shelf disappearing altogether is one which the film and indeed many other scientists have canvassed. Al Gore talks about polar bears, for the first time on record, drowning because they are simply unable to find ice on which to shelter.

Forests, farms and cities will face troublesome new pests and more mosquito borne diseases, and the destruction of habitats such as coral reefs and alpine meadows could drive many plant and animal species to extinction. In Australia, areas like the Great Barrier Reef stand to be greatly affected by things like coral bleaching, for example. It is said that the low-lying islands of the Pacific or low-lying places like Bangladesh will experience the most extreme impacts of global warming and climate change, but Australia will just about come next in terms of the impact of drought and bushfires and things like the adverse impact on the Great Barrier Reef.

A whole series of things are being brought to our attention that are incontrovertible evidence of global warming: the 10 hottest years on record having occurred in the last 14 years, the rapidly-rising incidence of severe tropical storms and hurricanes, changing rainfall patterns and temperature related habitat loss leading to the extinction of some of the world’s wild creatures.

On the other hand, we have indications that many people simply are not getting the message. One of Al Gore’s observations is that a study of all peer-reviewed scientific studies on climate change found that of some 928 papers—and this is fascinating—the number which supported global warming was 928 and the number which denied it was zero. So in terms of scientific consensus it is absolutely clear. But, in a sampling of stories from the United States mass media, some 53 per cent suggest that global warming is unproven. The message that people are getting is absolutely different from the scientific consensus and the actual evidence before us. Indeed, climate change events are kicking in in ways which are more severe and more spectacular than scientists were predicting some 20 years ago, when these sorts of issues were first raised. The problem appears to be more serious than previous predictions would have suggested.

In response to this the government has embarked on an inquiry into nuclear energy. I believe that that is a missed opportunity and it will delay the deployment of low- and zero-emission electricity generation. It is regrettable that throughout its time in government this government has done nothing to promote the renewable energy industry. The mandatory renewable energy target is simply too low to genuinely promote renewable energy, and the government has set its face against any actions which might have spurred us on in the renewable energy direction. Internationally, it has been completely irresponsible in its response to the Kyoto protocol. To our embarrassment, the film has Al Gore talking about the United States’ position on Kyoto, saying, ‘And there is one other developed country in the world which has not ratified the Kyoto protocol,’ and of course going on to mention Australia.

Here in Australia the government has not been willing to take action on emissions trading, to take action to lift the renewable energy target or to include greenhouse gases as a potential trigger in the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. It has cut funding in various renewable energy projects. As a result, Australia, which was something of a world leader in solar technologies in the order of 20 years ago, has essentially been running on the spot or even going backwards. The challenge for the government is to identify and develop appropriate market based technologies and incentives that will enable all the low- and zero-emission technologies to compete on a level playing field.

When you consider these matters it seems that the role of nuclear energy is not likely to be growing and that other energy technologies will prove to be more important. Over the past 50 years nuclear power has received pretty generous subsidies. For example, in the United States it has received $US115 billion in direct subsidies compared to less than $US10 billion for wind and solar combined. That pattern is repeated in Europe. According to the Economist, more than half of the subsidies in real terms ever lavished on energy by OECD governments have gone to the nuclear industry. Despite that intensive taxpayer funded development, there is not a single nuclear reactor built without government covering the risks. Often when people raise issues of renewable energy and alternative energy technologies you have people screaming ‘subsidy’ and saying that they oppose this, but it is quite clear that nuclear power cannot exist without significant state subsidies.

A report was put out by ANSTO suggesting that nuclear power was price competitive with coal generated electricity, but that report shows that, unless the government was prepared to take on more than half the financial risk of building a first-of-a-kind reactor, nuclear energy would not be viable. It says the nuclear power generated would cost twice as much as coal fired power and any private operator that took on the costs and risks would quickly go into liquidation. That contradicts the claims that nuclear power is cheap or cost effective and viable. It does show that very large subsidies would be necessary, would be required, if it were to be introduced in Australia.

I think that the prospect of having nuclear energy in this country any time soon is pie in the sky and that debate and discussion about it is largely a distraction from the real urgency of the need for action concerning global warming and climate change. It is yet another example of this government postponing action when action is needed.

It has also been pointed out that you cannot have nuclear power without nuclear waste. Every state and territory in Australia opposes the transport, storage and disposal of nuclear waste. There is no safe, long-term disposal or storage in sight anywhere around the world. The other significant point in relation to nuclear power is that we live in the modern age of terrorism, and we are better served in this age by decentralising our energy production. More nuclear reactors mean more nuclear materials and more chance of nuclear weapons proliferation. Mohamed ElBaradei highlighted a number of risks of this kind last year when he said:

In five years, the world has changed. Our fears of a deadly nuclear detonation—whatever the cause—have been reawakened.

In part, these fears are driven by new realities. The rise in terrorism. The discovery of clandestine nuclear programmes. The emergence of a nuclear black market.

At the present time, the international community is displaying great concern because Iran is seeking to produce nuclear energy. That concern is based around the idea that there is a link between nuclear energy and nuclear weapons, and so in the modern age it seems to me that nuclear energy is not the safe path to be proceeding down.

In this context I also note that there was a Gary Morgan poll recently with the heading ‘More Australians approve than disapprove of nuclear power plants’. As an example of push polling, it is pretty hard to go past this one. The actual question people were asked was:

Following much debate on the Australian uranium industry, more Australians (49%) approve than disapprove (37%) the introduction of nuclear power plants to replace coal, oil, and gas plants to replace greenhouse gas emissions.

…            …            …

Do you approve or disapprove of nuclear power plants replacing coal, oil, and gas power plants to reduce greenhouse gas emissions?

The question came after an affirmative, did not ask about Australia and was predicated on the idea that nuclear power was the only way in which we could reduce greenhouse gas emissions. I do not think polling of that kind ought to be taken too seriously.

In closing, I note that the legislation’s intention is to extend the power of the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation to handle, manage or store radioactive materials from a wider range of sources and circumstances than it is able to do at present. Currently, ANSTO is limited by legislation to dealing with its own radioactive materials, including waste, and in a number of ways it is argued—and I agree that this is right—that it would be sensible and practical for ANSTO to be able to handle, manage or store a wider range of materials. For this reason, the opposition supports the bill. The bill allows ANSTO to have a direct role in managing radioactive material involved in terrorist or criminal incidents, and at the moment the act limits the assistance that ANSTO can provide in an emergency to only providing advice to Commonwealth, state and territory agencies. This would mean that, in the circumstances of a terrorist group gathering material for and assembling the components of a radioactive dirty bomb, ANSTO personnel could advise other Commonwealth officers about handling the radioactive material but they would be restrained by law from handling the material themselves, from making that material safe, from transporting that material in safe containers or from safely storing that material at an ANSTO facility. It seems reasonable that these additional powers should be made available to it.

The other aspect of the opposition amendment, which I will briefly refer to, is that we have said that the government ought to be condemned for its arrogant imposition of a nuclear waste dump on the Northern Territory. This breaks a specific promise made before the last election to not locate a waste dump in the Northern Territory, and the member for Solomon was on record prior to that election saying:

There’s not going to be a national nuclear waste facility in the Northern Territory ... That was the commitment undertaken in the lead-up to the federal election and I haven’t heard anything apart from that view expressed since that election.

It is outrageous, though regrettably all too common, for this government to be saying one thing before the election and one thing after the election. The government stands condemned for breaking this promise and now saying, ‘We are going to impose the nuclear waste dump on the Northern Territory,’ irrespective of their local views and concerns.

John Forrest (Mallee, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is nice to have the opportunity to make a contribution to a debate in this House in which I have an active interest and to not be distracted by running around organising other people to speak. Coming from my background, I am delighted, contrary to the member for Wills, to see us engaging in an active debate on the possibility of nuclear power being utilised in Australia. I note that as a result of the opposition’s amendment there has been a very wide-ranging debate. I have heard contributions talking about global warming, greenhouse, waste disposal and even terrorist risks. I hope that you will allow the broad discussion to continue to occur. The Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation Amendment Bill 2006 addresses what I suppose, in the great concept of things, is the small although significant matter of broadening the storage of nuclear waste at ANSTO, and I will speak about that shortly.

I go back to my early formative years as a young engineer out of university. I started my career with the State Electricity Commission of Victoria. I have to say, my first view of the Morwell open cut shocked me with its sheer size. The first project I was engaged in was to shift the Morwell River—it was an environmental challenge, even in those days—not just a few feet but three kilometres out of the way, including four kilometres of 3½-metre-diameter pipe. After that I worked on the first stages of the Loy Yang open cut with the construction of reservoirs, storages, settling ponds and so forth, which has subsequently gone on and required as much as a billion dollars of investment. Then there is the Yallourn open cut in Victoria, now completed.

Even in those days I realised that the use of such a dirty, inefficient material—not having access to good, clean coal is Victoria’s challenge, unfortunately—was a very inefficient process by which to create electricity. So in the mid-seventies I set off with great hopes and expectations, because the great challenge was hydro-electric power. Off I went to Scotland, which was the home of hydro-electric power generation. I did some work at the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board and completed a Master of Science in what I thought was the latest, state-of-the-art, ‘come back to Australia and be part of development of hydro-electric power generation in Australia’ area. What I did not realise was that I was at the end of the time, the end of the era. Australia’s capacity for ongoing hydro power generation was already then at its zenith. It had had its peak. Of course, we have moved on now. We have now got national grids connecting Snowy Hydro and Tasmanian hydro, which gives us the capacity to meet that peak power requirement, but we are still left with the challenge of meeting an ever-increasing demand for base power.

As much as the member for Wills can complain about what he alleges is the method by which this debate is now being discussed or the mechanisms the government has chosen to create greater discussion, the sheer reality is that, with the size of the demand, the renewable energy that has been encouraged, including wind turbines and solar power, just does not have the capacity to meet the target. Even with the current emphasis on greater conservation, we are prolific consumers of power in Australia. The same could be said about our prolific consumption of water. The nature of the population of this country means that this is a serious question we need to have a mature discussion about.

In speaking to my own constituency on this matter, I have the capacity to have greater faith in the engineers and scientists that develop the complexity of a nuclear power station. I can remember in my university years being completely fascinated by nuclear physics and even then what was emerging as high-tech development of nuclear power stations. I am a lot more comfortable with the focus on not just one failsafe but multiple failsafe mechanisms to cope with the risk of dealing with such an awesome source of power and I am prepared to lead that discussion in my own constituency. It seems that most of the discussion that prevents progress on any matter is always the suggestion of fear or—ignorance is the wrong word—uncertainty and lack of trust.

The member for Wills even made mention of the word ‘fear’. I think people need to be better focused on the use of this power source in a constructive way, to be less influenced by what they see in Hollywood and to put some faith in the capacity of international scientists and engineers and Australian engineers to construct these facilities in a safe way. Fear is a very powerful emotion, and it is very sad that the politics we allow in our country feeds on that. That is not just with regard to the discussion we are having now. I see it happen on so many occasions.

I am very proud of the activities of the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, ANSTO. My first detailed exposure to their activities was when serving on a Public Works Committee a couple of terms ago when we conducted an inquiry into the provision of the new OPAL light water reactor at Lucas Heights. I can remember having a discussion with one of the witnesses who was giving evidence. I asked the question: were they aware of the actual size of the reactor? Of course, they responded by talking about a building that is 200 feet high and 150 feet square. I said: ‘No, that is the building. Could you tell me how big you think this new OPAL reactor is?’ They were quite surprised to realise that the physical dimensions of the reactor itself—that is, the real hotplate—would fit in a small domestic fridge. But such was the emotive nature of the evidence we were hearing. We cannot afford to allow that to happen if we are going to have a mature discussion about the potential for the development of nuclear power in this great country.

It is a sheer reality that we have to meet our greenhouse targets no matter what the cost. What we see happening in Victoria is the development of what is a filthy source material in brown coal—it is not much better than petrified mud. The disposal of ash waste from those power stations was the thing that staggered me in my early years building the ash disposal ponds. They are enormous. The size of the ash disposal facility at Morwell is bigger than the surface area of the open cut itself, and then there is the added overburden. Nowadays it is a mature discussion we are having about our urgent need to meet greenhouse targets.

The member for Wills is partly right in his contribution here this evening as one who, like me, has taken a great interest in the weather activity over the last 25 years—there have been some dramatic changes. Where once my constituency could boast an average annual rainfall of between nine and 10 inches a year we are now struggling to grow grain crops down in the Mallee on four inches. Thankfully, owing to the investment from levy based research funds in creating varieties of barley and wheat that can still produce a yield from low rainfall, we are still able to produce grain crops. But the pattern of rainfall that I have observed over the last 30 years has been ever-increasingly depleted. (Quorum formed) Thank you, colleagues—I was actually spending considerable time establishing my credentials to speak about the need for nuclear power in Australia and I had not realised it was such a painful thing for the opposition to hear.

This bill, as I said earlier, addresses a significant but minor matter in relation to utilising the expertise and facilities that ANSTO provides. With the establishment of the Commonwealth radioactive waste management facility in the Northern Territory, it will be important for ANSTO’s capabilities to be available for conditioning and repackaging waste from other Commonwealth agencies prior to transport to this facility. ANSTO may also be charged with the management and operation of the facility. In that case it will obviously be necessary for it to have the authority to manage radioactive waste other than from its own Commonwealth sources.

I was mentioning how proud I am to record the activities that ANSTO engages in. Over the last 30 years it has been using the high flux Australian reactor at Lucas Heights. They also have access to particle accelerators, radiopharmaceuticals production facilities and a range of other unique research facilities. HIFAR is Australia’s only nuclear reactor and a considerable amount of Commonwealth investment is now being made to bring it into the 21st century with a replacement open pool Australian light water reactor. It is in its final stages of construction. ANSTO also operates the national medical cyclotron, an accelerator facility used to produce certain short-lived radioisotopes for nuclear medical procedures. It is the advances that are being made in that particular area of medicine that all persons across Australia, including us here in this chamber, will one day enjoy the benefits from.

It is a good bill; it is worth supporting. I have appreciated the wide-ranging debate that has occurred. I am looking forward to a responsible discussion occurring from here on about where this country goes to meet the sheer demand for power generation and, at the same time, to make a significant contribution to those important greenhouse targets. It is not too late. I am well aware that there are some people around who have not yet accepted the inevitable about what is happening to the global environment, but it is very real in my electorate and it is already here. I am quite willing to engage in a constructive debate with my constituents on the matter. I commend this bill. It has been a worthwhile discussion and I am pleased to have been a part of it.

Kim Wilkie (Swan, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am delighted to be able to offer my contribution in the debate on the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation Amendment Bill 2006, which will allow the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, ANSTO, to condition, manage and store radioactive material and radioactive waste other than that which may arise directly from ANSTO’s own activities. For the member for Mallee, who just spoke: the reactor he was referring to is operational now. The OPAL reactor at Lucas Heights is working; it is not just in the developmental stages.

This bill extends ANSTO’s powers to handle, manage and store radioactive materials from a broader range of sources and in a wider range of circumstances than it is currently allowed to do under the ANSTO Act 1987. ANSTO is perfectly placed to conduct this activity. In fact, ANSTO has been storing waste at its Lucas Heights facility for some 50 years.

I would like to draw the attention of members to Australia’s long involvement in nuclear science and technology despite the fact that we do not have a domestic nuclear power industry, and in fact would probably not need one given our vast reserves of natural gas—in your own electorate, Mr Deputy Speaker Haase—coal and other reserves of fuel across the country.

Soon after the discovery of X-rays and radioactivity in 1895 and 1896 respectively, Australian universities started to use these technologies in research. Australian doctors also started to use X-rays for clinical purposes at around the same time. As usual with new technologies, Australians took up the opportunities offered by radioactivity and X-rays very quickly. Indeed, there is evidence that X-rays were being used in Albury and Wilcannia in New South Wales during 1896. Radioactivity was first used in Australia for clinical purposes to treat tumours, and in dermatology, in 1983. So we have a remarkably long history in applying nuclear technology to medical and scientific uses in this country. In 1929 the federal government set up the Commonwealth Radium Laboratory, which subsequently became the Commonwealth X-ray and Radium Laboratory, which was located at the University of Melbourne. The laboratory was established to safeguard radium purchased by the government and to distribute it to treatment centres in the capital cities. It eventually became the Australian Radiation Laboratory in 1973. The laboratory also collected radioactive waste, including X-ray tubes and other medical and scientific waste, from hospitals and scientific institutions.

In terms of investigating nuclear energy and power, the federal government enacted the Atomic Energy Act in 1946 to establish an Atomic Energy Advisory Committee to assist the government with nuclear issues. The act also asserted Commonwealth ownership and control of the minerals from which uranium, plutonium and thorium are derived. The successor to the advisory committee, the Australian Atomic Energy Commission, was created in 1953 and was later replaced by the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, ANSTO, in 1987.

As we know, during the 1950s the British government conducted nuclear weapons tests on the Montebello Islands off Western Australia and at Maralinga and Emu in South Australia. It is a matter of record that these tests caused significant radioactive contamination and these locations remain affected today.

In 1958, the high flux Australian reactor, HIFAR, was opened at Lucas Heights in Sydney’s south west and subsequently the AAEC’s small MOATA 250kw argonaut research reactor commenced operation in 1961. During the 1960s, the use of the HIFAR reactor to produce radioisotopes for use in nuclear medicine commenced.

Only a few weeks ago I had the pleasure of attending Lucas Heights facilities at ANSTO. I want to thank the staff for the innovative and informative tour of the facilities. It was absolutely fantastic. I was able to view the new OPAL reactor at the very point where they were inserting the rods into that reactor to bring it onstream. I understand that process is going very well. I also had the pleasure of looking at where they produce the radioisotopes for medicine, and was very impressed with the professionalism of the staff, the facilities, what they produce and the importance it has for medicine in this country.

I also looked at a fabulous product being developed at ANSTO called synroc, which uses rock type substances which you combine to put nuclear waste in, such as plutonium. Once it sets into a rock like substance it locks up the radioactivity for thousands of years. The main problem with synroc is that it is so effective in locking up waste that if you wanted to reprocess that waste you would not be able to because the technology would prevent that from happening. It would cost a fortune to achieve that. I was also very impressed with the new particle beam accelerator that is coming online next to the reactor. The possibilities are endless for the sorts of developmental programs we can run involving not just Australia but other countries around the world in looking at the various uses for that particular piece of equipment.

The next major milestone in Australia’s consideration and use of nuclear technology came in the early 1980s with Professor Ralph Slayter’s report on Australia’s role in the nuclear cycle. That report made a number of recommendations, including one which is most pertinent to the House’s consideration of this bill. The report called for the identification of sites suitable for the disposal of low-level radioactive waste and the development of facilities for interim storage and disposal of low- and intermediate-level radioactive waste. This recommendation was endorsed by the Commonwealth State Consultative Committee on Radioactive Waste Management in 1985. Since then we have seen a plethora of committees examining appropriate and safe nuclear waste storage and handling. Many of these inquiries were held in the context of the need to rehabilitate the former nuclear test sites which were so badly contaminated by the British in the 1950s. Other inquiries were held to anticipate Australia’s needs for waste storage in the future.

But let us fast forward to the issues raised in this bill. These issues are undoubtedly difficult and challenging for all governments. Today we are still facing the serious issue of the storage and handling of nuclear waste. Given that Professor Slayter’s report recommending the identification of sites for the storage of low-level waste was released in 1984, it is a sad indictment that we have not made the progress which we should have done in dealing with this challenge.

As I said at the beginning of my speech, the ANSTO Amendment Bill 2006 will extend the powers of ANSTO to handle, manage and store radioactive materials from a broad range of sources and circumstances. The opposition will support this legislation as it is essentially a sensible approach to Australia’s current needs in dealing with nuclear waste. But I firmly believe that Australia needs to debate the issues surrounding nuclear energy. In many countries around the world, nuclear power is being re-assessed, not just as a source of energy but as a source of power generation capable of meeting vast energy requirements in the future without producing vast quantities of greenhouse gases.

With increasing concern about climate change, nuclear power is being reassessed and, in many countries, it has become a viable option. As I said earlier, Mr Deputy Speaker Haase, I do not believe that Australia needs to go down that path for the very obvious reason that we have an abundance of natural gas and LPG in your electorate and in my state of Western Australia. We also have vast quantities of gas to our north and vast quantities of coal in Queensland and in other states. So the issue of nuclear power generation in Australia should not be a consideration. But, certainly, supporting other countries that want to go down the path of developing nuclear programs by selling them the means to achieve that energy is, I think, very important—particularly when you consider that, today, 31 countries operate 440 commercial nuclear power reactors and generate a total capacity of around 369 gigawatts of electricity.

While it is true that nuclear power is being reconsidered in some countries in Western Europe, it has experienced something of a renaissance in other regions of the world. According to the OECD in its publication Uranium 2005: resources, production and demand, nuclear power generation in East Asia is projected to increase by between 90 and 115 per cent by 2020. Overall, it can be reasonably expected that nuclear energy will play an important and significant role in meeting the world’s future energy needs.

Twenty-four new reactors are under construction and plans for a further 40 are in advanced stages. China alone plans to have 27 new reactors operational by 2020, while Japan is planning to increase its reliance on nuclear energy from 30 per cent to 41 per cent by 2014. When I was in Great Britain recently, I heard an announcement by Tony Blair that Great Britain intended to expand its nuclear power capacity and to upgrade its existing reactors.

The simple fact is that, in this era of high oil prices and with the continued strategic uncertainty looming over much of the world’s fossil fuel production, many companies are seeing nuclear energy as both economic and secure. The world’s significantly increased demand—perhaps it could be described as an almost insatiable demand—for nuclear energy will inevitably require a consideration of issues related to uranium mining.

In 2004, Australia produced almost 20 per cent of the world’s trade in uranium for fuel in nuclear power reactors. Considering that Australia is believed to possess 24 per cent of known uranium reserves and 40 per cent of reserves that can be mined at low cost, it is timely that we consider how Australia will deal with increased demand for its uranium. The market for uranium is changing significantly. Until recently, uranium was a buyer’s market. For the past 25 years, the uranium market has been oversupplied and nuclear power has been out of favour.

In addition, the existence of large stockpiles of secondary nuclear fuels—that is, those derived from decommissioned warheads, depleted uranium tails and reprocessed uranium—has dampened demand for newly mined uranium. Today, however, secondary supplies are dwindling and mining operations are struggling to meet the recent surge in demand, subsequently driving up the price of uranium. Since 2001, the spot price for uranium has increased nearly fivefold from around $US9 per pound to $US43 per pound as of June this year.

With demand to outstrip supply for the next 10 years at least, industry experts suggest that these historic prices are here to stay and may possibly rise significantly higher in the years ahead. These developments have transformed the dynamics of the Australian uranium industry, and they have changed the dynamics in which approval for new mining operations must be considered. Now more than ever Australia is in a unique position to reap the economic benefits of our current uranium capacity and to play a lead role in ensuring that uranium can be used only for peaceful purposes.

As a major seller of uranium in world markets, we must also accept responsibility for ensuring that uranium, wherever its source, is not diverted into the production of nuclear weapons or used for other military applications. This is a responsibility that Australia, as holder of the world’s largest reserves of uranium, must take a lead role in. For this reason, uranium is more than simply a commodity export; uranium policy is a fundamental aspect of foreign policy. As the member for Batman recently said in an excellent speech on the subject, Australia and the world cannot afford a ‘no holds barred’ approach to the sale of uranium. Our policy needs to balance all of the various economic, security and environmental concerns surrounding uranium exports. To get this balance wrong would be grossly damaging to Australia’s national interest and, indeed, to that of the world.

There are significant and substantial concerns about security and safety issues. As many members of the House would be aware, the global non-proliferation regime is in disarray. Much of this disarray stems from the failure of the world’s five recognised nuclear weapons countries to uphold their commitments under article 6 of the non-proliferation treaty to disarm. As the years since the signing of the NPT—back in 1968—have demonstrated, whenever countries are in possession of nuclear weapons, other countries will also feel compelled to possess nuclear weapons. The equation is that simple.

If Australia is to be a reliable and, most importantly, a responsible supplier of uranium to the world, then clearly we will need to exercise leadership in getting the global non-proliferation regime back on track. Sadly, the Howard government has been sorely lacking in this regard. I would like to draw the attention of the House to a recent report by the Australian Strategic Policy Institute on Australian uranium exports and security. In this report, ASPI examines in some detail the safety and security issues surrounding uranium exports. The report notes that Australia has for decades been a responsible exporter of uranium and a very strong advocate of international controls on nuclear technology and materials. The report also notes that any increased role in the nuclear industry will be via an approach that also emphasises security. As the Leader of the Opposition has stated:

Australia has no greater obligations and no greater international opportunities than those granted by a position as a nuclear supplier.

Australia must now work to ensure that it is well understood that our reliability as a supplier of uranium is contingent on all of our customers pulling their full weight in strengthening the integrity of the non-proliferation regime. As the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Batman have made clear, Labor’s uranium export policy will have three simple tests: first, potential buyers must accept the nuclear non-proliferation treaty; second, they must accept the world’s strongest safeguards and the peaceful use of uranium; and, third, Australia must lead a new diplomatic initiative against nuclear proliferation, which includes a review to strengthen the NPT.

Australia stands in unique circumstances to influence and enhance the effectiveness of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Australia should aim to do nothing less than apply the leverage over the global non-proliferation regime that our resources have afforded us. In this way, we can honour our obligations and advance our opportunities. The bill deserves support, but the issues canvassed in the bill are but the tip of the iceberg of the challenges faced by Australia in dealing with the issues of nuclear waste and our uranium exports. I know that in coming months there will be many opportunities for all members to participate in debates and discussions on these issues. As we all achieve a greater understanding of the topic, the interests of Australia can be advanced and protected.

Dave Tollner (Solomon, Country Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a great pleasure for me to rise tonight to speak on the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation Amendment Bill 2006. I do not think it will come as any surprise to anybody in this chamber that I am wholeheartedly supportive of this bill. I think the measures that are outlined are worth while and they are a requirement in Australia.

A couple of weekends ago the Country Liberal Party of the Northern Territory had its annual conference. At that conference I was very pleased to support a motion that was put to the conference to assess the viability of uranium enrichment in the Northern Territory. I will read part of that motion:

The Country Liberal Party condemns the NT Branch of the Labor Party for its point blank refusal to examine the viability and economic benefits of a uranium value adding industry.

The Country Liberal Party supports development of industries that add value to raw produce and mining from the Territory.

This Central Council calls for the CLP Policy Committee to undertake research on the costs and benefits to the Northern Territory of establishing a local Uranium enrichment industry to produce power generation grade rods.

The Policy Committee research should look at:

• The local and whole of Territory economic benefits of such an industry
• The type and quantity of waste products of such an industry
• The jobs created by such an industry
• The viability of such an industry
• The potential customers of such a facility
• The process to move the debate forward
• The regulation that could or would be applied to such an industry
• Possible locations for such a facility here in the Territory
• Any security issues in respect to such an industry
• The findings of the Federal Government’s current inquiry and the impact of those on the Territory
• International nuclear non-proliferation considerations
• Any other issues relevant to the debate.

The Policy Committee to report by the first Central Council meeting of 2007.

The Country Liberal Party opposes any and all moves to supply unprocessed uranium ore to any country that is not a signatory to the nuclear non-proliferation agreement.

The Country Liberal Party reaffirms its opposition to supply of uranium to any country for any reason other than power generation and scientific/medical research.

I think most reasonable people would say that that is a reasonable motion. They are questions that should be answered before committing to such an industry. But I was quite surprised that the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory rejected that out of hand. I was also quite surprised to read Labor Senator Trish Crossin in the Northern Territory News saying that ‘Mr Tollner wanted to trash the NT with nuclear waste’. I have also seen a transcript of an interview that the member for Jagajaga did on TopFM in Darwin on 25 August, where she said, speaking about Territorians:

They don’t want the nuclear waste dump that Dave Tollner and John Howard are currently imposing on the Northern Territory. And they certainly don’t want any more that might come out of uranium enrichment or nuclear power.

I find those comments alarmingly ignorant of what enrichment is all about. It is my understanding from information that I have received from the Uranium Information Centre that the process of enrichment does not create nuclear waste—or what is termed or deemed to be nuclear waste. It does produce waste. It produces toxic wastes which are dangerous and have to be managed correctly. Some of the waste is of a very high density, with a specific gravity of around 18.7, and some of this waste is used in keels of yachts and aircraft control surface counterweights. So it is not the sort of stuff that you would typically deem to be nuclear waste. For the deputy opposition leader and Senator Crossin to run around scaremongering on that issue I think just highlights their lack of information and credibility.

I have been listening carefully to this debate and I have noted that speaker after speaker on the other side has jumped up and accused me of all sorts of misinformation in the past on this issue. Just to clarify the record, in relation to the storage of nuclear waste in Australia, the national nuclear waste repository, it has always been my view that this country needs to store its nuclear waste in a particularly safe and secure manner. The best way of doing that is to have one single national nuclear waste repository. That was always considered to be the right thing to do.

Even the previous Labor government held the view that waste should be stored in a single national nuclear waste repository. To that end, the previous Prime Minister, Paul Keating, worked to find a suitable location. After much consultation and a lot of scientific research, the most suitable location in Australia was found to be outside of Woomera in South Australia. In readiness for the use of that location, Mr Keating had several thousand drums of waste transported to South Australia for storage at that facility. As we all know, the South Australian Labor government bucked the system. It decided that it would protest and take the matter to court. The Federal Court upheld their right to oppose that facility.

So, in reality, the federal government was left with very few places to store national nuclear waste. In fact, I find the hypocrisy of the Labor states quite amazing. They all say that we need a national nuclear waste facility and that it should be in the safest possible location. But none of them, to a man or a woman, agrees that that location exists in their particular state.

In the lead-up to the last election, there was a lot of debate about where this would go. Our environment minister, Senator Ian Campbell, I believe, shot off his mouth a bit early and said that there would be no waste facility located on mainland Australia. I naively believed him at that time and, as nobody told me anything to the contrary, it was my belief that an offshore location would be found. That did not happen. No place offshore was deemed suitable to take such waste. The federal government had to do something. We had to act in the interests of all Australians, because failing to act would have put pressure on the facility at Lucas Heights and could have meant its closure. That would have had devastating impacts on the health of many Australians who suffer from various cancers and need radioactive medical isotopes in the treatment of those diseases and on a whole range of other wonderful uses for the wonderful products that ANSTO at Lucas Heights produces. (Quorum formed)

Thank you very much, colleagues, for your support. I am pleased that you made it to the chamber so quickly. As I was saying, the Commonwealth was forced into the situation of finding a nuclear waste repository in the safest possible location. You will note the emphasis placed on the word ‘possible’, because it quickly became apparent that none of the states would allow the construction of a national nuclear waste repository in their territory. So the Commonwealth’s choice was really between an offshore location and the Northern Territory; there was nothing else available at all—and, as I said previously, an offshore location was not possible. So the safest possible location where the Commonwealth could possibly act would have to be somewhere in the Northern Territory.

Immediately, the usual scaremongers came out, screamed blue murder and accused the Commonwealth of all sorts of nasties. But what is interesting—and I do not think it has surfaced greatly—is that not so long ago the Northern Territory government commissioned a paper to be written by a fellow called Dr Brad Cassels. That report was entitled Some aspects of a low level radioactive waste repository site selection and was quite lengthy. In that report Dr Cassels identified that 300 to 400 clients in the Northern Territory produced medium- or low-level waste and simply put it into containers with no real checking on how it was stored. We received a lot of feedback from the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, saying that all of the Northern Territory’s waste was actually located in the hospital, which was not true. But the Commonwealth had to act, the Commonwealth did act and the Commonwealth will allow the Northern Territory government to store its waste in this repository when it is constructed.

Members here will recall that, when that bill was being debated, I moved amendments which allowed the Northern Territory government to also identify possible sites as well as allow Indigenous land councils the same right. The two major landholders in the Northern Territory would have the ability to identify locations for a particular site. I have to say there was a bit of an outcry amongst sections of the community, but overall the community supported this particular route. I note the Northern Territory Cattlemen’s Association chairman at the time, John Armstrong, said on ABC radio:

The low level waste that they are talking about, really, the radiation coming out of that low level stuff would amount to significantly less than your very average bedside alarm clock with alumina sands on it.

That’s not an issue at all. And the storage facilities that they put up and build are just so secure that radiation can’t possibly be allowed to penetrate outwards into the local areas.

So we just want to check that that is true, and it shouldn’t have any impact on carrots being grown right next door I would imagine.

There is a man from the cattlemen’s association who did not have many great fears about it.

Of course, I surveyed my electorate quite heavily and found a majority of my constituents did not take great issue with the siting of a repository in the Northern Territory. They understood that it was better to have nuclear waste stored in one single safe location than it was to have it scattered all about the countryside. Additionally, I have a media release here from the Gumatj Association, and its chairman, Galarrwuy Yunupingu. In it he says:

Each year 400,000 Australians, including many Aboriginal people, safely receive radioactive medical treatment for cancer and scans. Of course, radioactive medical waste should be safely stored in one national location rather than left in hospitals and a hundred other places.

I would be happy to consider any offer to safely locate a waste facility on Gumatj land. This could mean sealed roads, infrastructure and other long-term benefits for Aboriginal people.

And in a slap to the Northern Territory Chief Minister, Clare Martin, he said:

This is not about statehood. This is a national interest issue. The Chief Minister must publicly admit that a radioactive waste facility may be safely built in some parts of the Northern Territory.

So there are even Indigenous people in the Territory who support this facility.

I am running out of time, but the last word should go to Ian Duncan, who was quoted in the Australian on 13 October 2005 in an article headed ‘Labor MPs duck for cover on nuclear waste’. It said:

Ian Duncan, a fellow of the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering, said state Labor governments could soon be forced to abandon their policies on nuclear waste, or lose office. The expert consultant on radioactive material warned public opinion on nuclear waste storage was becoming increasingly informed, endangering the parties that continue to oppose it.

“The electorate is not stupid,” Dr Duncan said. “To those who advise political parties on this issue, I point out that the electorate is changing and it may not be long before an unthinking party becomes unelectable.”

I think that says it all, and that members opposite should take note. We are not living in an era of fear and loathing, as we used to. People are becoming informed. They understand the benefits that nuclear science can bring. (Time expired)

Warren Snowdon (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern Australia and Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It gives me pleasure to contribute to this discussion on the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation Amendment Bill 2006. I am pleased that I have followed the member for Solomon, for a number of reasons, especially because he has acknowledged that he lied to the Northern Territory community prior to the last election.

Dave Tollner (Solomon, Country Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I find that is an offensive comment and I think he should withdraw it.

Barry Haase (Kalgoorlie, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I ask the member for Lingiari to withdraw that statement.

Warren Snowdon (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern Australia and Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

With great respect to you, Mr Deputy Speaker Haase, I do withdraw it. Let me put it another way then, shall I? Prior to the last election, the member for Solomon said these words:

There’s not going to be a national nuclear waste dump in the Northern Territory … That was the commitment undertaken in the lead up to the federal election …

He said that prior to the election. After the election, he advocated the nuclear waste repository in the Northern Territory. I am not sure what a lie is to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, but if someone tells you something one day and then the following day says something entirely different, you would perhaps surmise that that was an untruth. In another language, it could be a lie.

The member for Solomon can have it whichever way he likes but the bottom line is that prior to the federal election he gave an undertaking—anticipating an election result and hopefully encouraging the Northern Territory community to vote for him—that there would be no nuclear waste facility in the Northern Territory. He knew at the time that the community was very much concerned about the proposition that there should be a nuclear waste facility in the Northern Territory. The then Minister for the Environment and Heritage said:

The Commonwealth is not pursuing any options anywhere on the mainland, so we can be quite categorical about that, because the Northern Territory is on the mainland.

Our friend over here, the member for Solomon, says that the minister shot off his mouth. He may well have shot off his mouth, comrade, but the fact of the matter is that you were suckered right into it. You believed it. The Northern Territory community were told they should believe it because you told them to. And then after the election you have the temerity to get up and say, ‘Hang on. We need a nuclear waste facility and it is going to be in the Northern Territory.’ Your words were that it should be in ‘the safest possible location’. Let us describe how these locations in the Northern Territory were selected. I ask the member for Solomon: how were they selected? You have got no bloody idea. They were selected by pulling names out of a hat. The Commonwealth asked the defence department to do a desktop survey of what available land there might be in the Northern Territory for such a facility. That is how it was done—no science to it.

The government then located three pieces of country—two near Alice Springs and one near Katherine—and said to the Northern Territory community, ‘These are the proposed sites for the nuclear waste facility.’ There was no process of consultation, discussion or inclusion. There was no process of bringing the community along with them by saying, ‘We have got a problem and we would like to sit down and solve the problem with you. We would like to use defence department land in the Northern Territory as a possible solution to the problem of storing nuclear waste.’ That did not happen. Instead we had a piece of legislation pushed through this parliament imposing the government’s will on the people of the Northern Territory and interfering in their day-to-day affairs. That is what happened in this place. What did the person who told the untruth prior to the election do? The member for Solomon, this great advocate for the Northern Territory, what did he do? Did he defend the interests of the Northern Territory? He rolled over like a sick puppy. He got in here and voted for legislation to override the interests of the people of the Northern Territory; that is what he did. That is what this great advocate and defender of the interests and the rights of the people of the Northern Territory did.

Let there be no illusion about the view of the people in the Northern Territory on this particular action. I acknowledge that there is a good argument for a single national facility. That is not an issue and it never has been an issue, but that is not what we are talking about here. What the member for Solomon is talking about is imposing the will of this government on the people of the Northern Territory by arbitrarily selecting three sites—without any scientific basis—and then telling those communities that they are going to have to accept the possibility of a nuclear waste facility. Where I come from, that is dishonest and disrespectful. I was brought up by parents who were very strong on discipline and telling the truth. If I did not tell the truth to someone I would be asked to apologise to them. I am sure you were brought up the same way. The member for Solomon has not apologised to anyone. What he has done is to sell them out and then he has the temerity to say that he has done a survey of his electorate.

He talked about the CLP, an organisation whose effectiveness is perhaps best evidenced by their representation in the Northern Territory parliament where they have four members—alongside two Independents and 19 Labor members. When they have their little meetings in the coffee shop or in the telephone booth to discuss policy for the Northern Territory they might reflect upon the fact that one of the reasons they do not represent a greater proportion of people in the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly is that they do not represent the people’s interests. I am absolutely certain that, when the question of whether or not the member for Solomon has integrity in representing the people of the Northern Territory by forcefully advocating and defending their interests comes to be judged, they will make the same judgement. To use the language of the people of the Northern Territory, he has dogged it. When someone dogs it, they know what they have done—they have scarpered and that is what he has done. He ran out of here like a ferret up a drainpipe.

It gives me no pleasure to be arguing this way. There is one part of what the member for Solomon said that I agree with. He talked about the hypocrisy of some of the Labor states. Indeed there has been hypocrisy and, indeed, he is right that the previous Labor administration undertook a process to define a site, and that site was determined to be Woomera. I regard it as hypocrisy for the South Australian government to be advocating the expansion of uranium mining in the way they are doing and at the same time say that they refuse to accept any responsibility for nuclear waste. They want to be in one part of the nuclear fuel cycle but not in another. It seems to me that, once you go down that path, you are making it easy for people like me to say to them that they are being dishonest. I think that they have an obligation. In this case it is clear that there should be a national process and that process should be based on the best science, not on a desktop survey of available land in the Northern Territory.

I say to the member for Solomon: there was one part of your contribution which was absolutely 100 per cent correct. That was fingering the hypocrisy of some people in the Labor Party across Australia. They need to understand that hypocrisy. They need to understand that the Northern Territory has been lumbered with this because of that hypocrisy. In that he is right. But he did nothing to defend the interests of the people of the Northern Territory, and now he is becoming the sublime advocate for the nuclear power industry and nuclear enrichment for not only the Northern Territory but indeed Australia, without any mandate from anyone.

This is particularly so given the fact that he went to the last Territory election saying that there would be no nuclear waste facility in the Northern Territory. So he has gone to the election holding a flag for no nuclear waste facility in the Northern Territory, he has won the election, he has come out of the election and now he says, ‘Not only do I believe that there should be a nuclear waste facility; I believe we should have nuclear enrichment in the Northern Territory.’ Pff! You have to think that he might be a little confused. Certainly the Northern Territory community are confused. You either have a position or you do not have a position. But, if you have a position and you have gone and changed it, why have you changed it? Because of political expediency, and no other reason—because of his inability to defend the indefensible. I say to him that that does not bode well for him.

But I can understand his dilemma. What we have here is a process whereby the Northern Territory is now going to suffer the consequences of decisions taken by this government which will inevitably mean either one of two things: either we end up with a nuclear waste facility which will house not only low-level nuclear waste but medium- and higher-level nuclear waste into the future, or we will have that stuff stored back at ANSTO. That is what we are going to have.

The nuclear waste facility in the Northern Territory, we are told, will be functioning by 2011—or will it? We have not chosen a site yet. We are not sure what will happen. We are not sure whether any of the sites will be appropriate. You would have to say that there is no real hurry, and people acknowledge there is no real hurry. I was delighted when the member for Solomon registered the voice of the then chairman of the Northern Territory Cattlemen’s Association. I can tell him that I have spoken to cattlemen who know the country around where these nuclear waste facilities are being proposed, and they are not too happy about it. They are not too happy about it at all.

I have also spoken to the Northern Territory Agricultural Association. What have they said about the prospect of having a nuclear waste facility in their backyard? I quote something I have quoted previously in this parliament:

The Northern Territory Agricultural Association expresses grave concern regarding the Australian Government’s proposal to position a radio active waste facility south of Katherine in the Northern Territory.

You would only have to have some knowledge of the Northern Territory and some knowledge of this region of Katherine to realise that this is an inappropriate place. It goes on:

The Australian Government’s ‘silver bullet’ proposal is insensitive to local needs and devoid of accountability.

We know that from what has been said already. What we are told by the Agricultural Association, in case of the site which has been proposed near Katherine, at Fishers Ridge, is:

Placement of the facility in close proximity to the region’s Tindal, Oolloo and Jinduckin aquifer system is fraught with danger.

They understand the implications of what has been going on here. It is a pity that the member for Solomon does not.

As we know, this legislation deals with the radioactive material or waste arising from incidents, including terrorist or criminal acts, in line with the United Nations Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism. It will give ANSTO powers to manage radioactive waste that is in the possession or control of any Commonwealth entity. This includes material designated to be stored at the proposed Commonwealth radioactive waste management facility in the Northern Territory. The government is concerned that the nuclear waste dump in the Northern Territory could be challenged based on ANSTO’s powers to participate in management of waste that has not been generated by ANSTO. Why wouldn’t the Northern Territory community be concerned a little by this? They are told on the one hand—

Steve Gibbons (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Gibbons interjecting

Warren Snowdon (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern Australia and Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He doesn’t know—well, he wouldn’t! They were told on one hand that this is waste material stored at ANSTO. Now they are being told they have to house all of the Commonwealth nuclear waste. We know that that will mean eventually that those spent fuel rods which are in France will come back and will have to be stored somewhere. We know where that will be.

We know also that the bill will reinforce ANSTO’s ability to operate the Commonwealth nuclear waste dump, should the government decide to transfer overall responsibility to ANSTO. They will have carriage of and responsibility for this dump in the Northern Territory. ANSTO are currently licensed to operate a separate storage facility for its own waste.

This legislation will ensure that nuclear waste that is handled by contractors is considered to be Commonwealth waste under the ANSTO Act. They believe this is because the Commonwealth has a view that the extension of this immunity to contractors will limit potential legal action by the Northern Territory government. So here we have another attempt to circumvent any potential threat or challenge by the people of the Northern Territory to this legislation and to the prospect of having nuclear waste facilities in the Northern Territory.

I ask you, Mr Deputy Speaker Haase: in all fairness, do you think that is reasonable? You may not wish to answer me right now, but I am sure you will at some later point. I know, given what your understanding is of people living in remote communities, that you know they like to be treated fairly and reasonably. They are not being treated reasonably or fairly by the propositions which have been put forward in this legislation or by the government in relation to the nuclear industry.

I was going to canvass issues relating to nuclear enrichment. We know now that we have encouragement from the member for Solomon to anticipate that we should have a nuclear enrichment facility in the Northern Territory. I understand that my time is going to be limited and I will have an opportunity at some later point to resume my contribution, even though it will only be a short one at that point. But I will continue on at the moment.

One of the issues which I think we need to understand is the implications of this bill for a nuclear energy future including the possibilities of uranium enrichment and the impact on the nonproliferation of nuclear weapons. George Bush is pushing the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, GNEP, which some observers—notably George Perkovich of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace—view as an act of welfare for the nuclear industry that far outweighs welfare for the poor. I think that there is a fair assessment and a fair conclusion to be drawn from that.

President Bush believes the industry to be over-regulated and is talking about tax incentives and indemnity from legal action to get the industry moving. He sees nuclear energy as safe and environmentally clean and as a sure foundation of the continuing growth of the US economy. The US industry has a problem disposing of nuclear waste.

Debate interrupted.