Stuart Henry (Hasluck, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Nuclear technology and its place in the Australian community have received a lot of attention in recent times. The Australian public has a range of strong and often conflicting views on nuclear energy. Local residents in my electorate of Hasluck hold a wide variety of opinions, from abject fear of nuclear technology to enthusiastic advocacy of nuclear technology as a solution to all of our problems. For that reason it is important for the government to ensure that policy and legislation regarding nuclear technology in Australia are sensible, responsible and clear.

With that in mind, I am pleased to speak in support of the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation Amendment Bill 2006 today. The Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, or ANSTO, as it is more commonly known, is the nation’s leading nuclear research and development organisation and the centre of our nuclear expertise. The facility operates under a 1987 act of parliament and is responsible for delivering specialised advice, scientific services and products to not only government but industry, academia and other research organisations.

The infrastructure includes the research reactor known as HIFAR, particle accelerators, radiopharmaceutical production and a range of unique research equipment. As HIFAR reaches the end of its productive life it will be replaced by ANSTO’s open pool Australian light water reactor, or OPAL. This is a more modern reactor which will soon be online. This reactor has a larger capacity and a longer life span and makes use of new technologies. ANSTO also operates the National Medical Cyclotron at Royal Prince Alfred Hospital which produces short-lived radioisotopes for our medical purposes. The ANSTO board currently and typically comprises some of the nation’s leading scientists, medical doctors, engineers and business experts. More than 800 staff work within ANSTO. Together the board and the staff represent the nation’s nuclear leadership and have done an outstanding job.

I take the time to mention these benefits because I believe that they are underrecognised and because they are relevant to the rationale of this amendment bill. These examples clearly demonstrate the extraordinary level of expertise, infrastructure and leadership that Australia has in ANSTO and why this government believes it is sensible and reasonable to correct anomalies in the act that restrict ANSTO’s operations, to the benefit of our nation. These benefits are significant and far reaching, covering health, environmental, industrial and strategic issues. For example, each year ANSTO products treat over half a million Australians who have serious illnesses such as cancer. Unfortunately, the demand for this type of assistance grows each year and currently, on average, every Australian will have at least one radioisotope procedure in the interests of their health.

Research is continuing into new nuclear treatments not only for cancer but also for conditions such as Alzheimer’s disease. ANSTO’s environmental research work includes crucial issues such as climate change, water management, pollution tracking, erosion and salinity. Across the fields of industry, ANTSO products are used for agriculture, mining, construction and manufacturing and in the areas of non-nuclear power generation. Strategically, ANSTO’s leadership and expertise ensure that Australia has both a voice and a place in international decision making on nuclear issues. ANSTO’s track record of acting in Australia’s best interests is clearly exemplary.

This amendment bill is needed for two reasons: firstly, Australia will soon have a state-of-the-art nuclear waste facility in the Northern Territory; and, secondly, the world we live in has changed. The 1987 act places restrictions on ANSTO that are outdated and will be more so when the planned Commonwealth radioactive waste management facility in the Northern Territory becomes a reality. For example, there are currently around 30 Commonwealth sites other than Lucas Heights where radioactive waste is produced and/or stored. The new facility in the Northern Territory is designed to provide long-term storage for nuclear waste, but that waste has to be conditioned and repackaged first. The current legislation prevents ANSTO from doing so. It makes no sense to create new legislation only to duplicate services already available at Lucas Heights. This bill includes amendments designed to remove these outdated restrictions. It allows ANSTO to participate fully in establishing and operating the new facility in the Northern Territory.

Amendments to the ANSTO Act in 1992 restricting ANSTO’s powers to hold radioactive waste were prompted by fears that Lucas Heights may become the site of a national nuclear waste repository. These concerns were justifiable at the time given the Labor government illegally stored some 10,000 drums of low-level radioactive waste on the site. Given the Commonwealth’s decision to establish a new facility for the responsible management of all Commonwealth radioactive wastes, there are no longer any grounds for such concern. The Commonwealth government is proceeding to establish its own radioactive waste management facility in the Northern Territory under the Commonwealth Radioactive Waste Management Act 2005. The radioactive waste currently stored at ANSTO includes waste stored since the 1960s. It will be transferred to the radioactive waste facility in the Northern Territory once it is operational.

Spent fuel from ANSTO’s HIFAR research reactor is currently being processed under contract in expert facilities in both Scotland and France. These facilities will convert the spent fuel into intermediate level waste ready for safe long-term storage and eventual safe disposal here in Australia, as is our national responsibility. This waste will start returning to Australia from 2011. The bill includes amendments intended to put ANSTO’s authority to accept this reprocessing waste beyond doubt. It makes sense that ANSTO should play the lead role not only in an emergency but also in the prevention of emergencies by working with state and federal police or other agencies that may require help and advice on radiological issues, such as dealing with radioactive evidence.

Whatever the scale or specifics of a radioactive situation, we would all want those with the nation’s best expertise and best facilities to be able to respond quickly to protect our citizens and environment. We would need them to work as effectively and as efficiently as possible with state and federal police and other agencies which may require their assistance. This may involve storage of radioactive material gathered by police or Customs services. The last thing we would want at such a time would be for ANSTO’s actions to be hampered by restrictions on what they were and were not allowed to handle and who they were or were not allowed to assist. These amendments will ensure that ANSTO will not have to rely on parliament at such a time. This is clearly important for public health and safety, but it is also important to ensure that Australia is in line with the standards set down in the United Nations International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism and to allow us to properly consider our response to this convention.

Nuclear technology is a complex issue which deserves better than scare tactics and rhetoric. There are serious concerns and safety issues which I would never attempt to trivialise, and neither would the experts who know far more than me on this topic. However, I do know that they wish the community understood more about the contribution nuclear technology makes in all of our lives and that the safety issues are seen in context. For example, the vast majority of our nuclear waste is low level, which is less dangerous to transport than more commonplace substances such as fuel or fertiliser. In fact, you could stand beside a transport vehicle for two hours and receive less radiation than if you flew from Sydney to Los Angeles and back.

I have information from ANSTO regarding the safety of various methods of power generation as measured by the number of severe accidents—that is, accidents with more than five fatalities. In OECD countries there have been no accidents and obviously no fatalities in the nuclear power industry. This compares with 75 accidents resulting in 2,259 fatalities in the coal power industry and 165 accidents resulting in 3,789 fatalities in the oil and gas industry. These figures indicate that our concerns regarding nuclear energy are often grounded in emotion and not necessarily in fact. In particular, research reactors have been operating around the world for many decades with no external public health or safety incidents. ANSTO’s main site at Lucas Heights is located 40 kilometres south-west of Sydney’s central business district. It occupies 70 hectares and is surrounded by a 1.6-kilometre buffer zone. This is far more than is commonly found in other countries. ANSTO’s performance record is something to be extremely proud of.

The Howard government’s approach to nuclear issues is sensible and responsible. Perhaps more importantly, our approach has been consistent. This is in stark contrast to that of members opposite. Not only are their ranks fundamentally divided on the issue of nuclear power, but also the Leader of the Opposition changes his own mind at a moment’s notice—three mines, no mines, as many mines as you like.

The member for Grayndler is not the only one confused by the Leader of the Opposition’s rollover. Only two months ago, the Leader of the Opposition and Senator Sterle were in my electorate of Hasluck, telling the 23 people attending a morning tea in High Wycombe that the Howard government had secret plans to build a nuclear reactor in Hasluck. Can you believe it? It is this sort of scaremongering and opportunism which has become the hallmark of Labor’s contribution to policy debate in this country, particularly regarding nuclear energy.

I am pleased that the Prime Minister has initiated debate in this country on our future use of nuclear energy by establishing a task force to investigate uranium mining, export and nuclear energy issues in Australia. This is a national debate that we must have. We can no longer fool ourselves that oil and gas will keep our society going forever. It is clear that dwindling reserves and financial and environmental costs will bring an end to the days of fossil fuels in the near future.

It is also clear that our energy demands cannot be met purely by solar panels, biofuels and wind farms. I have no doubt that they can, and do, make a valuable contribution to our energy supply, but as Allan Patience argued in the Age newspaper in June last year ‘they simply cannot meet our demands for energy’. This view is indicative of almost every opinion I have seen regarding renewable energy sources. In that same article, Allan Patience offered us the stark choice we must make, and make soon: do we embrace nuclear power generation or do we drastically reduce our per capita energy consumption? I would suggest that, while there are many innovations and programs which will reduce our energy use, these reductions will not be sufficiently significant to release us from our difficult choice.

David Noonan, the campaign officer for the Australian Conservation Foundation, unsurprisingly is a dissenting voice in this debate. Mr Noonan maintains that ‘there is no economic or environmental case for Australia to build nuclear power plants’. I disagree, in that I believe every option should be explored and that nuclear power has significant advantages. Mr Noonan, and many other members of the environmental lobby, cling to an unrealistic belief that a renewable energy source that will satisfy all our needs is just around the corner, if not already here.

The simple fact is that viable renewable energy may never be achievable. Reality must be taken into account at some point. We cannot go on believing in a fairytale. ANSTO must be given a more free hand to be involved in our nuclear future, whatever it may be. ANSTO are the experts—they have been dealing with nuclear energy safely and sensibly for 20 years. Who better to guide us on this journey?

The people at ANSTO deserve our respect and our gratitude. They make important contributions to Australia’s wellbeing every day, with little recognition, never mind understanding. This bill will enable them to do their job even better than before. It will ensure that their role and expertise are given the authority they need to ensure that Australia’s management of the risks and benefits of nuclear technology is second to none. I commend this bill to the House.

Daryl Melham (Banks, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The electorate of Banks is adjacent to the seat of Hughes where the Lucas Heights nuclear reactor is located. I was asked to visit ANSTO on 28 April 2005 by a scientist who lives in my electorate and who works at ANSTO. I was impressed by the professionalism and the commitment of the people I met. The visit certainly gave me an insight into the work which is done on the site and which assists ordinary Australians.

I can say with some confidence that changes to the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation’s responsibilities impact directly on my constituents. Certainly, my constituents do raise the issue with me occasionally. Our local newspapers maintain a watching brief on the activities at Lucas Heights. The St George & Sutherland Shire Leaderran an article as recently as 6 July reporting the launch of a partnership between ANSTO and the CSIRO which is aimed at delivering better foods to combat colorectal cancer and diabetes. The bill that is before the House today, the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation Amendment Bill 2006, expands those responsibilities in relation to the handling, management and storage of nuclear waste.

At the outset, I wish to declare that I have the highest respect for the work in medical science, environmental science and industrial applications carried out by ANSTO. A brief reference to the ANSTO Fifty years report provides some idea of the research activities carried out by ANSTO. From 1958, when the high flux Australian reactor went critical, isotopes were being produced. Radioisotopes are invaluable as they allow scientists to see inside solid objects and are used in agriculture, industry and medicine. ANSTO now produces 98 per cent of the isotopes used in Australia, as well as exporting to South-East Asia and the UK.

Diagnostic radioisotopes are used in radiotherapy to treat cancer. These release their radioactive payload directly into the tissue being targeted. ANSTO, in partnership with Australian Surgical Design and Manufacture, produces prosthetic devices such as knee and hip joints. A radioisotope labelled ‘sand tracer’ is being used to study the impact of storms on our coastline. ANSTO is working on this project in conjunction with the New South Wales Department of Land and Water Conservation at McMasters Beach.

With the Olympic Park Authority, ANSTO is working to provide a tool for sustainable management of the wetlands surrounding Homebush Bay, given the contamination of the mud over many years. The impact of air pollution on climate change is another project undertaken by scientists at ANSTO where, by using their facilities, accelerator based nuclear techniques of analysis are being applied to obtain over 25 different elemental and chemical species from hydrogen to lead.

The list goes on to outline the varied activities carried out by ANSTO which directly impact on the day-to-day activities of our community but of which little is known. I make this point because it is important for people to understand the breadth of tasks, beyond processing, that are undertaken by ANSTO. It is worthwhile noting the safety arrangements in place at ANSTO as these have pertinence to the bill before the House today. I quote the safety objectives from the ANSTO annual report 2004-05:

1. protect human health and safety – this is the organisation’s highest priority

2. develop and maintain safety systems and assessment procedures that comply with national and international standards

3. create and promote a positive safety culture

4. strive for continual improvement in safe work practices so that any risk to staff and the public from ANSTO’s operations is as low as reasonably achievable.

There is no doubt that ANSTO, of all organisations in this country, is the best placed to deal with safety matters relating to waste treatment.

The bill is to allow ANSTO to fully participate in actions which may be required to assist the Commonwealth and its agencies in the management of nuclear materials and waste beyond those which relate to its own operations. Currently ANSTO is unable to make its expertise available to owners of nuclear waste who may be required to send that waste to the proposed storage facility in the Northern Territory. This legislation will allow ANSTO to provide its assistance and advice to these departments and agencies. In addition, ANSTO will be able to provide assistance to state and Commonwealth authorities in the storage and disposal of nuclear materials which may be obtained in the course of law enforcement operations.

In its submission to the Senate Employment, Workplace Relations and Education Legislation Committee, ANSTO welcomed the amendments to the act:

In the course of its operational, research and production activities, ANSTO necessarily generates small quantities of solid, liquid and gaseous radioactive wastes on a daily basis. ANSTO has the specialised skills, equipment and facilities that enable it to condition, manage and store these wastes safely. No other organisation in Australia has comparable capabilities.

Certainly ANSTO is best placed to handle radioactive waste and ensure it conforms to the Commonwealth radioactive waste management facility standards for packaging. ANSTO noted in its submission that it is presently unable to assist other organisations to package their waste to the appropriate standard. This legislation will allow ANSTO to do so.

The original ANSTO Act did not envisage that ANSTO may ever be required to assist law enforcement agencies by taking charge of radioactive materials which may be part of ongoing investigations. The Senate committee investigating this bill found that state emergency services had approached ANSTO for assistance and advice in relation to the storage of nuclear materials. Under the current act ANSTO was not in a position to assist. This legislation will empower ANSTO to provide such advice and assistance in the storage and disposal of nuclear materials. I note that this amendment will also ensure that Australia is aligned with the standards set out in the UN International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism.

The Labor Party have no argument with the specified direction of this bill. What we must have emphatic reassurance on is an iron plated guarantee that Lucas Heights will not become the de facto nuclear waste dump for Australia. I note that the Minister for Education, Science and Training, in her second reading speech, said that in providing this authority to ANSTO:

... does not mean that Lucas Heights will become the Commonwealth’s radioactive waste store. In fact, the Commonwealth has absolutely no intention of establishing the ANSTO Lucas Heights premises as the main radioactive waste storage or disposal facility ...

I wish to remind the minister of these remarks and warn her that they will come back to haunt her if Lucas Heights does take on this role, intentionally or otherwise.

My concern is that this government will continue in the opaque manner in which it has operated for its term of government. The Northern Territory is a victim of this approach. The government has imposed the establishment of a nuclear waste facility in the Northern Territory. One might ask whether the Northern Territory government agreed with this decision or, in fact, whether the Northern Territory was even consulted—not an unreasonable query under the circumstances. The announcement by the federal government was made by the then Minister for Education, Science and Training, Minister Nelson, in July 2005. Three potential sites were identified, all in the Northern Territory: Mount Everard, Harts Range and Fishers Ridge.

The previous year saw the introduction of legislation by the Northern Territory government to prevent radioactive waste from outside the Northern Territory being transported into and stored within the Northern Territory. The Nuclear Waste Transport, Storage and Disposal (Prohibition) Bill was enacted in the Northern Territory in November 2004. This arrogant and conceited federal government has seen fit, once again, to override the rights of a jurisdiction because of its own short-term political needs. Since all three of the sites are on Commonwealth land the government does have the right, legally, to legislate with respect to the sites—the legal right but, emphatically, not the moral right.

The Commonwealth Radioactive Waste Management Act 2005 explicitly overrides the operation of both state and territory laws that ‘regulate, hinder or prevent’ the facility’s development and operation. The act also overrides the application of various state and territory laws that may present any procedural delays in progressing the development of the facility. In the parliamentary Bills Digest No. 59 produced prior to the enactment of this bill the concluding comments succinctly summarise the position of this government:

The Bill makes it clear that the Government’s decision on the preferred site is not disallowable by Parliament, is not reviewable under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977, and the Government owes no legal obligation of procedural fairness towards anybody affected by the decision.

We have no guarantee that this arrogant government will not overreach yet again if there are delays with the establishment of the waste facility. If that were to occur then Lucas Heights will inevitably become the waste management facility for the Commonwealth. I remind the minister that the electors of Banks and, perhaps more importantly to her, the electors of Hughes will not tolerate such a move. As a consequence of this bill all Commonwealth radioactive waste from across Australia could be taken to Lucas Heights for processing. I seek assurances from the minister that Lucas Heights will not become the de facto dumping ground as a result of the provisions of this bill.

Alex Somlyay (Fairfax, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I will be as relevant to the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation Amendment Bill 2006 as I can. The purpose of this bill is to amend the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation Act 1987 to allow Australia’s pre-eminent nuclear science and research agency, ANSTO, to have a fully effective and practical role in managing all radioactive materials in Australia. The member for Banks spoke passionately about the future of Lucas Heights, and I remind the member for Banks that the reactor at Lucas Heights has been there for a very long time. As Chair of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Health and Ageing, I led a delegation to visit the Lucas Heights facility earlier this year. We had a first-hand look at their work and contribution to medical science and practice in Australia. As you walk into Lucas Heights there is a plaque saying ‘Opened by Sir Robert Menzies in 1962’. The previous time that I had visited Lucas Heights was in 1962 as a senior science student in my final school year at Richmond High School. Lucas Heights has been there for many years, under many governments. It started under the Menzies government, then we had the Whitlam government, the Fraser government, the Hawke government, the Keating government and now the Howard government. The expertise that they have accumulated in nuclear technology and medicine is probably second to none in the world.

Under the existing act, ANSTO is only authorised to prepare, manage or store those radioactive materials associated with the organisation’s own activities. It cannot prepare, manage, handle or store any other radioactive materials unless specified by regulation. However, there is already radioactive waste stored at around 30 Commonwealth sites and there is no sense in making separate regulations for each shipment to Lucas Heights for conditioning and repackaging for storage. This bill gives ANSTO, the expert in the field over many years, the authority to condition, manage and store radioactive waste produced by other Commonwealth agencies and also to participate in the establishment of the radioactive waste storage facilities in the Northern Territory.

Not only does the act currently restrict ANSTO from making its expertise and facilities available to assist other government agencies—Commonwealth, state or territory—in the management of their radioactive wastes, it also prevents it from assisting in potential emergency terrorism situations. Under the existing act, ANSTO cannot assist any law enforcement agency that may have to deal with radioactive materials in the course of an investigation. I am sure that every member of this House hopes that Australia never has to face such a terrorist threat; but if we do—if the unthinkable should happen—then we want to have the expert available immediately to deal with any radioactive material, and the expert is ANSTO.

ANSTO has the experience, the established infrastructure and, more importantly, the qualified personnel to assist in such situations, but current legislation prevents it from using them. Even if it is only precautionary to consider such a terrorist situation, the Commonwealth has an obligation to be prepared. Australians have the right to believe that this parliament will ensure that the expertise of Commonwealth agencies can be drawn on immediately in an emergency. It would be appalling if such a terrorism situation should arise; but even more appalling if we fail to deal with it appropriately because our parliament was too short-sighted or complacent to trust ANSTO with the authority to deal with the threatening material immediately.

Nothing in this bill extends the production of nuclear material in Australia. There is nothing in it to alarm even the most nervous of those concerned about nuclear power. This bill is about ensuring that the expertise and experience we have accrued at ANSTO is available to safeguard our management of all radioactive material in Australia, whether that material is produced by another arm of government or presents through criminal activity.

ANSTO operates Australia’s only research reactor at Lucas Heights, and radioactive waste arises from this and associated facilities. The entire Australian community benefits from the radioisotopes produced by ANSTO, as other speakers have said. Unfortunately, the word ‘nuclear’ is linked in many people’s minds in a negative way to the words ‘bomb’, ‘power’ and ‘waste’. While I agree that people are right to be aware of and concerned about these matters, I also believe that nuclear science is much like the motor vehicle. If it is not well designed and maintained and if it is negligently driven then a vehicle can be a lethal weapon. On the other hand, a well-designed vehicle, properly maintained and carefully driven, is a wonderfully useful tool.

I know from speaking to people in my electorate that many do not understand the benefits of radioisotopes and the positive work being done through our nuclear research and production in Australia. Each year over 400,000 doses of these radioisotopes are used in nuclear medicine in our hospitals to diagnose medical conditions and to treat patients. Doctors use them to picture and ascertain what is happening within bones, organs and soft tissue, and then sometimes to treat the problem.

In industry the radioisotopes are used in a variety of ways to improve productivity and gain information that cannot be obtained in any other way. Just as X-rays show a break in a bone, gamma rays show flaws in metal castings or welded joints. The technique allows critical components to be inspected for internal defects without damaging the component. An example of this use would be in aviation safety. Unlike X-ray equipment, radioactive sources are small and do not require power. This means they can be transported to remote areas where there is no power.

There are many and varied uses for radioisotopes, including in simple things like smoke alarms or estimating the age of water from underground bores. I notice that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, who is responsible for water, is at the table. I think he is nodding in agreement with me. Radioisotopes are also used to measure and trace the movement of soil, water, gases or even insects; to track sewage dispersion; to trace small leaks in complex systems such as power station heat exchangers; and to accurately measure the flow rates of large rivers and of liquids and gases in pipelines. They are further used to measure the extent of termite infestation in a building and for mineral analysis, such as determining element concentrations in slurry streams.

The reason I mention all these examples is to demonstrate that, when we talk about ANSTO, we are not talking about a nuclear power plant or about a bunch of scientists just sitting around conducting physics experiments. We are talking about the production and management of radioisotopes essential to medicine and industry in Australia. They are essential for our health and our economy. We are not talking about the misuse of power or expertise. We are talking about making existing expertise available when necessary and about safe and effective management of the radioactive waste resulting from medical and industrial processes such as those I have mentioned. We have to accept that radioisotopes have important uses in our society, that they do produce radioactive waste and that, no matter how low-level that waste is—and some only remains radioactive for hours—we need to ensure that it is managed expertly, securely and responsibly.

This bill was referred to the Senate Employment, Workplace Relations and Education Legislation Committee, which reported on it in May this year. The majority report recommended that the bill be passed. The committee listed the three main elements of the bill as being the management of Commonwealth radioactive waste, the management of radioactive waste at the request of law enforcement and emergency services authorities and the management of waste following the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel. The majority report said that the committee regarded the bill as important and essential legislation. It said that passage of the bill would ‘significantly improve levels of protection from radioactive contamination in routine management of waste, and in the event of criminal or terrorist activities involving radioactive materials’.

I think the opposition’s reservation about the committee’s report was very interesting. The two Labor senators emphasised strongly their concern that the government may use this legislation to allow the Lucas Heights nuclear facility to become a de facto national waste repository. That concern was also echoed by the member for Banks. They said they were opposed to Lucas Heights being used as such a repository. I find their concern quite interesting because the good senators are also opposed to the establishment of the secure, remote, geologically sound nuclear waste repository the government is planning—after extensive investigation—to build in the Northern Territory. The reason the government planned and legislated for this site to be built is that we do not want nuclear waste to continue to accumulate at Lucas Heights, in Sydney, or in any other city for that matter. We want to ensure its security. This government has no desire to use Lucas Heights as a national waste repository—although it has been used as such in the past, under a Labor government, when 10,000 drums of low-level radioactive waste were illegally stored there. In its 13 years in office the Labor government did nothing to establish suitable radioactive waste management facilities. The problem was too difficult; it did not want the responsibility. The Howard government is doing it. It has shouldered the responsibility.

If you read the Australian Democrats’ minority report you will not learn much about this bill but you will understand why the Democrats are such a small minority. Their minority report is wordy, confused, a touch hysterical and very short on substance. For instance, it says that the bill opens the door for the government to import foreign nuclear waste—not just low- or intermediate-level waste, which is all we currently have in Australia, but high-level waste—and dump it on unsuspecting states and territories. That, of course, is an absurd hypothesis. Not only does the government have no such intention but such an idea certainly would not be supported by the Australian people. I certainly would not support it.

This bill aims to give ANSTO the authority it needs to securely manage our radioactive waste, but most of our radioactive waste is low-level. ANSTO and its associated facilities, including the research reactor, HIFAR, do produce some intermediate-level waste but do not produce any high-level waste at all. I repeat: ANSTO does not produce any high-level waste, so why would we import high-level waste, with the enormous problems associated with its disposal? The bill puts beyond any doubt ANSTO’s authority to accept back and to manage radioactive waste from spent nuclear fuel from its research reactor—material it previously sent overseas for reprocessing. This waste will be returned to Australia from 2011, when the Commonwealth Radioactive Waste Management Facility is scheduled to commence operation.

This bill gives authority and certainty to the leading scientific body, ANSTO, in the management of radioactive waste in Australia. As the Senate committee majority report says:

It will significantly improve levels of protection from radioactive contamination in routine management of waste, and in the event of criminal or terrorist activities involving radioactive materials.

This bill aims to ensure that our radioactive waste materials are managed expertly, securely and responsibly. I commend the bill to the House.

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

I thank the member for Fairfax. He gave an indication at the start of his speech that he would speak relevantly to the bill. I must say that I thought it was a model speech, entirely contextually relevant.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation Amendment Bill 2006 is a timely reminder of the dangers of the nuclear fuel cycle and the Howard government’s extreme approach to nuclear power. The bill serves three main purposes. Firstly, it allows ANSTO to assist Commonwealth, state and territory governments in responding to a nuclear accident or terrorist incident. Secondly, it allows ANSTO to manage or support the establishment of an intermediate-level nuclear waste dump. Thirdly, it clarifies arrangements for the storage of spent nuclear fuel from the Lucas Heights reactor.

While the Labor Party support this bill, we remain extremely concerned about the Howard government’s extreme approach to nuclear power. That is why the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has moved the amendment standing in her name. I intend to speak in support of that amendment. The bill amends the ANSTO Act 1987 to deal with the consequences of an accident or terrorist attack involving radioactive materials. Let us hope and pray that this never happens and let us make sure that every conceivable step is taken to prevent it from becoming a reality. But the truth is that, in proposing this legislation, the minister is explicitly acknowledging the cold, hard reality that must shape the nuclear debate—that is, that any further involvement in the nuclear fuel cycle involves Australia further in potential nuclear terrorism.

The Nobel Peace Prize winner Mohamed ElBaradei, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, has warned about the dangers of nuclear terrorism. He said this:

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.

We know that there have been arrests in Australia of people allegedly plotting a terrorist attack on Lucas Heights. That is one of the reasons Labor is opposed to Australia becoming further involved in the nuclear fuel cycle and building nuclear reactors, which are a terrorist target.

According to the Oxford Research Group, a nuclear weapons designer could construct a nuclear weapon from just three or four kilograms of reactor grade plutonium. About 250,000 kilograms of civil plutonium has been reprocessed worldwide. This is enough to generate 60,000 nuclear weapons. The Oxford Research Group has also suggested that two or three people with appropriate skills could design and fabricate a crude nuclear weapon using a cricket ball sized sphere of reactor grade plutonium.

It is a fact of life that the production of uranium and its use in the nuclear fuel cycle present unique and unprecedented hazards and risks. We cannot resile from that. You can guarantee that uranium will create nuclear waste but you cannot guarantee that it will not create nuclear weapons. That is precisely why I strongly believe that Australia is as far into the nuclear fuel cycle as Australians want to be.

The provisions in the ANSTO bill which allow ANSTO to assist in the response to a terrorist attack are sensible and they should be supported. We must, however, do everything we can to stop such an incident occurring, and that includes limiting our involvement in the nuclear fuel cycle. The Howard government, however, takes a different view. It has an extreme agenda. It has a nuclear obsession that is putting Australia at greater risk of terrorist attack. ANSTO has said we need four or five nuclear reactors along our coast to make the industry viable in this country. Make no mistake: that means four or five potential terrorist targets.

The French terror suspect Willie Brigitte allegedly told investigators he was part of a cell planning to blow up the Lucas Heights reactor. According to an article in the Australian Financial Review on 12 November 2003, Australian authorities who searched Mr Brigitte’s flat found photos of Lucas Heights and a list of materials needed to make the explosive TATP.

The then Acting Prime Minister John Anderson said that security around potential terrorist targets such as Lucas Heights was broadly adequate. The truth, however, is very different. The Weekend Australian reported on 19 November 2005:

The back door to one of the nation’s prime terrorist targets is protected by a cheap padlock and a stern warning against trespassing or blocking the driveway.

This is typical of the Howard government’s approach to security issues: big on rhetoric but lacking in substance and action.

We also know that a number of other possible sites for nuclear reactors have been considered by the Howard government. In 1997 the Howard government compiled a shortlist of 14 possible sites but kept the list secret from the public. The confidential briefing, which was signed ‘good work’ in the handwriting of former science minister Peter McGauran, said the short list should be kept secret because ‘release of information about alternate sites may unnecessarily alarm communities in the broad areas under consideration’.

Just think about that. The cabinet was considering 14 potential sites for a nuclear reactor and making a conscious decision to keep those sites secret from the public because it may alarm communities in the areas under consideration. Communities were not even given the right to know that their areas were being short-listed. Those areas included: Goulburn, Holsworthy, Lucas Heights and Broken Hill in New South Wales; in South Australia, the Mount Lofty Ranges, the river and lakes region 50 kilometres east of the Mount Lofty Ranges, Woomera and Olympic Dam; in Western Australia, sites in the electorates of O’Connor, Pearce, Brand and Canning; in Queensland, Mount Isa; and Darwin in the Northern Territory. What that document showed was that the Howard government has now had 10 years of secret planning and keeping information on these issues from the public.

I put a question in writing to the Prime Minister on 31 May 2006. The Prime Minister is given 60 days to answer questions in writing. It was a very simple question: will he rule out locating a nuclear reactor in each of the 150 federal electoral divisions? The Prime Minister has refused to answer that question, contrary to the rules of this parliament, because he does not want to rule out any sites because that will narrow where potential nuclear reactors will go.

He did provide an answer to a second question, question No. 3591, placed that day, asking him to rule out a high-level nuclear waste repository in the 150 federal electoral divisions. His answer to that was to refuse to rule out a single potential site but to indicate that he has established his nuclear energy review committee. That, of course, is a committee stacked with proponents of the nuclear industry. There is no-one on that committee who has ever expressed any scepticism about nuclear energy and furthering Australia’s involvement in the nuclear fuel cycle. Indeed, a prerequisite for being appointed to that committee would appear to be support for the nuclear fuel cycle. It is being chaired by Ziggy Switkowski, who, of course, was the chair of ANSTO. He has stepped aside—he has not resigned—from his position as the head of ANSTO while the inquiry is going on, but as soon as it is over he will go back as the chair of ANSTO.

It is a bit like having an inquiry into what the best football code is for Australia and asking the AFL commissioners to conduct it. It is absolutely absurd. But it gets worse because this inquiry will not look at where the reactors or the nuclear waste will go. So we have an inquiry which is going to examine the economic cost of Australia becoming further involved in the nuclear fuel cycle without looking at the sites where nuclear reactors will be located. It is like a ‘virtual’ debate. You cannot have a nuclear energy industry in this country without having the nuclear reactors somewhere. They have to be somewhere. It is a bit like asking for the price of a pie without the pastry and the meat. It is absolutely absurd. What is more, this inquiry specifically will hold no public meetings whatsoever. There will be no public process whatsoever. There will be no opportunity to have a serious examination of the issues. Everyone knows that, whether you are establishing a residence to live in or a business to operate from, location is a key component of cost. It is like a real estate agent advertising a house without saying where it is and how many rooms it has. It is absolutely absurd. The government does not want a transparent debate on involvement in the nuclear fuel cycle.

At the place where there is a facility, at Lucas Heights, there have been significant concerns about how the Howard government has dealt with these issues. On 1 May 2006 ANSTO ceased having health physics surveyors, who monitor radiation levels and safety measures, on site between 11 pm and 7 am. What that means is that firefighters may not be able to immediately enter the premises during an emergency. The New South Wales Fire Brigade may be unable to fully respond to an emergency at the reactor unless these health physics surveyors are present on site to brief those officers. Let us be honest: that decision could put at risk the safety of employees and those in the local community. The Lucas Heights nuclear reactor has recorded 13 safety breaches in the past 18 months. It is in that context that I want to talk about what ANSTO’s response is to that.

The head of safety at Lucas Heights spoke to 2SM on 20 June this year and responded to the fact that Labor had raised questions on the floor of this parliament which the science minister had no idea about and no capacity to answer. The response was this:

... the fact they get into the press worries us because our local community starts to get concerned for no good reason.

I actually think that, if there is a problem at the Lucas Heights reactor, the community around it has an absolute right to know what is going on in their local community, just as it is an absolute right of this parliament to be told about these occurrences. The Howard government is seeking to expand ANSTO’s role. I think it needs to have a good hard look at how ANSTO is operating because the culture of incompetence and secrecy must end and it must end now.

The arrogance of the Howard government is also seen in its contemptuous approach to the establishment of a nuclear waste dump in the Northern Territory, and this bill reinforces that arrogance. This bill reinforces ANSTO’s ability to operate the Commonwealth nuclear waste dump should the government decide to transfer overall responsibility to ANSTO. This essentially fast-tracks the imposition of the nuclear waste dump. It is worth recalling the extreme approach the Howard government took towards the establishment of this dump. The Commonwealth Radioactive Waste Management Act is an extreme piece of legislation which was rammed through this parliament in March 2006. State and territory laws prohibiting nuclear waste dumps were overridden. Environmental protection and Indigenous heritage bills were overridden. The Native Title Act was overridden. The Lands Acquisition Act was overridden. Procedural fairness was removed.

It is an extreme act built on broken promises. Just before the last federal election, the Minister for the Environment and Heritage stated:

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.

In June 2005 the member for Solomon also ruled out a nuclear waste dump in the Northern Territory. The member for Solomon said:

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 ...

We know that the Howard government’s promises, when it comes to all issues relating to the nuclear fuel cycle, are not worth the paper they are written on. The government simply breaks promise after promise.

As the minister’s second reading speech acknowledges, this bill allows ANSTO to:

… condition, manage and store radioactive waste produced by other Commonwealth agencies and to fully participate in the establishment and operation of the—

nuclear waste dump—

in the Northern Territory.

Under this bill, ANSTO will be given responsibility for storing all Commonwealth radioactive waste, not just its own. Two facts are important to note here. Firstly, the Northern Territory nuclear waste dump will not be operational until at least 2011, if it operates at all. Secondly, the environmental impact statement for the nuclear waste dump states the disposal of nuclear waste ‘would occur at intervals of between two and five years’.

Given these two facts, the inevitable conclusion must surely be that Lucas Heights will operate, at best, as an interim store for all Commonwealth nuclear waste. Under this bill, Lucas Heights will also be the interim storage site for the spent fuel rods which are currently sent to France for reprocessing. Further, the bill provides for nuclear waste from Commonwealth sites around the country to be transported to Lucas Heights—that means the regular transport of nuclear waste through Sydney.

The science minister, in her second reading speech, stated:

… the Commonwealth has absolutely no intention of establishing the ANSTO Lucas Heights premises as the main radioactive waste storage or disposal facility for the Commonwealth.

Given the Howard government’s appalling record in breaking promises relating to nuclear waste, it is hard to take this commitment seriously. Because, while this bill does contain some practical measures which are worthy of support, Australians are right to remain extremely concerned about the Howard government’s extreme approach to nuclear issues.

This is a government that is determined to involve Australia further in the nuclear fuel cycle. This is a government that is determined to promote uranium enrichment here in Australia and to impose nuclear reactors on the community. It is ironic that, at the same time as it does that, it has knocked off the member for Tangney for being honest. The member for Tangney, a nuclear advocate, had the honesty to say a nuclear reactor has to go somewhere, and he would welcome it in his electorate. So what has it done? It knocked him off in a preselection, because he at least had the decency to acknowledge you cannot have a nuclear energy industry without having nuclear reactors, and you cannot have nuclear reactors without having high-level nuclear waste. For his sins, an honest man has been rubbed out after just two years in this parliament. The member for Tangney is the first victim of nuclear fallout from the Howard government. (Time expired)

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

This bill, the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation Amendment Bill 2006, is vital to ensure the continued security of Australia. This amendment will enable ANSTO to provide greater assistance to government in managing the Commonwealth’s radioactive material and to assist in the event of a radiological incident in Australia, including the possibility of a terrorist radiological incident—known as a ‘dirty bomb’. Such was ably described by journalist Jim Dickins in an article in the Sunday Telegraph on 13 August 2006 entitled ‘Australia prepares for dirty bomb’, in which he reported:

Authorities have a plan to cope with one of the worst terrorist threats imaginable: a ‘dirty bomb’ attack on Australian soil.

Sydney’s Lucas Heights nuclear facility would play a crucial role in the emergency response. It would provide a safe location to stabilise and house volatile radioactive waste from the bomb site.

Under legislation before Federal Parliament, the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) will be given power to take charge of such hazardous material.

At present, it is restricted by law from processing anything other than its own waste.

This legislation will address that restriction.

ANSTO is Australia’s national nuclear research and development organisation and the centre of Australian nuclear expertise. It is the largest corporate employer in my electorate, employing around 800 local residents and providing income for several hundred local tradespeople and industry suppliers. As a matter of fact, ANSTO contributes over $40 million to our local electorate economy. ANSTO is responsible for delivering specialised advice, scientific services and products to government, industry, academia and other research organisations.

ANSTO’s nuclear infrastructure includes the research reactor, HIFAR, particle accelerators, radiopharmaceutical production facilities and a range of other unique research establishments. HIFAR is Australia’s only nuclear research reactor. It is used to produce radioactive products for use in medicine and industry, as a source of neutron beams for scientific research and to irradiate silicon for semiconductor applications. A replacement for HIFAR, the OPAL reactor—the open pool Australian light-water reactor—is in its final stages of construction on the same site at Lucas Heights in my electorate. This is one of the areas of the so-called secret report that was cited by the member for Grayndler for Australia’s new reactor. Indeed, it was the search for Australia’s new research reactor. The site has already been chosen; the site is Lucas Heights.

The new OPAL reactor is of profound significance for those at the leading edge of science and research. The new reactor will be a world-class neutron source, capable of supporting up to 17 neutron beam instruments. The scope of research that these instruments will allow is tremendous, from research on advanced materials through to molecular biology.

David Hawker (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! It being 2.00 pm, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 97. The debate may be resumed at a later hour and the member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.