Stuart Robert (Fadden, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, I present the committee's report, incorporating a dissenting report, entitled Report 179: reprocessing nuclear fuelFrance; PACER Plus agreement.

Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).

by leave—Today I rise to make a statement concerning the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties' Report 179.

The report deals with two treaty actions:

The agreement to reprocess Australia's spent nuclear fuel from the OPAL research reactor in France is necessary to satisfy French domestic law. That law requires that radioactive waste from reprocessing not be stored in France past any agreed date. The agreement meets these requirements.

The committee considered several issues of broader concern outside the remit of this agreement. Those included the merits of reprocessing spent nuclear fuel and the long-term storage of nuclear waste in Australia. The committee acknowledges the important work being undertaken at the OPAL reactor. In our view the ongoing operation of the reactor is essential. We accept that reprocessing the spent fuel 2from the OPAL reactor is the best option currently available. The arrangement with France will provide certainty in the foreseeable future. The committee therefore recommends that binding treaty action be taken.

On the subject of the storage of nuclear waste in Australia, we are satisfied with the safety of the current arrangements for the interim storage of intermediate-level waste, or ILW, held at Lucas Heights. However, we urge the government to expedite the establishment of the proposed National Radioactive Waste Management Facility (NRWMF) to alleviate the uncertainty over a final pathway for disposal of nuclear waste in this country. The committee is aware of the growing stockpile of radioactive waste across the country, not only from the ANSTO facility but from other sources. Although the need for the national waste facility may not appear pressing at the moment, there is some urgency, considering the past difficulties this project has encountered and possible future delays.

Turning to PACER Plus, this agreement principally concerns free trade between Australia and New Zealand and Pacific Island countries. The committee considers that the absence of Papua New Guinea and Fiji from the agreement significantly diminishes its utility for Australian businesses. However, we accept that every effort is being made to encourage both countries to join the agreement.

The committee acknowledge the development assistance aspects of PACER Plus, but we note that this assistance is coming from the existing aid budget. This suggests that it may have been expended as aid to Pacific Island countries anyway. It is not clear how tying this3 expenditure to PACER Plus implementation is likely to provide a greater benefit to Pacific Island countries than it otherwise would have had.

The committee is concerned about the impact of PACER Plus on the already limited resources of Pacific Island governments. The combination of the impact of reduced revenue on public health capacity and access to tariff-free products that cause harm has been a significant issue in the inquiry. Whilst the committee supports ratification of the agreement, it also recommends that part of the development assistance allocated to implementing PACER Plus be specifically used to monitor the revenue of Pacific Island governments, the public health and gender equality impact of the agreement, and, where necessary, provide funds to Pacific Island countries to assist relevant development outcomes.

The report also contains the committee's review of a number of minor treaty actions.

On behalf of the committee, I commend the report to the House.