Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I have to say that I was absolutely delighted to hear at the end of the previous contribution, from Senator Forshaw, that those opposite will in fact be supporting what I would have thought is a highly commendable piece of legislation, despite the considerable add-ons from the other side that I think do not really inform the Australian public—in fact, in a number of cases, misinforms them. So I will talk primarily to the bill, but I would like to correct some errors from the other side.

The Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation Amendment Bill 2006 effectively clarifies the role that ANSTO can play in the management of radioactive materials and waste on behalf of the Commonwealth. I think we are all agreed that is a pretty basic premise and one that would be supported. It also provides ANSTO with the clear authority to manage the reprocessed spent fuel returning to Australia from the overseas reprocessing facilities, as per a contractual arrangement between Australia and those countries and a contractual arrangement that is reflected between Australia and the International Atomic Energy Agency.

The bill also ensures that the Commonwealth can provide any assistance necessary to the states and territories, and obviously the enforcement sections of those jurisdictions, in the event of a hopefully unlikely catastrophe and in the event of a radiological terrorist incident; and it removes any legal impediment to ratification of the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism. It is pretty basic, I would have thought. But, instead of simple support for these very good notions, we have had quite a bit of dissent from the other side that I think is unhelpful in view of the Senate’s very important role of informing the public on a whole range of matters.

Those on the other side, and quite a number of people who have not supported the legislation—disappointingly, some of those individuals are from the crossbenches—have asserted that this bill effectively opens the door to import and treat foreign waste. In other words, the notion is given that somehow waste from other countries that has nothing to do with Australia may come to Australia to be treated—which is of course absolute rubbish. There is no part of this amendment bill that does that. In fact, it clarifies ANSTO’s role in this matter: that they may manage waste arising from the conditioning of ANSTO spent fuel. It is very clear: ANSTO spent fuel. If you look at that through a definitional sort of process, that is fuel that has been irradiated by ANSTO at Lucas Heights. Nothing is unclear about that to me. I would have thought it beyond belief that one would somehow find that confusing.

I think that there are those also on the other side who live in this fool’s paradise—perhaps not only from the other side; I think some of these comments came from the Democrats, to be fair to those who are glancing at me oddly on the other side. There are those who have spoken against this bill, and I think they have been disturbingly misled that we should somehow rely on other countries to provide for radiopharmaceuticals. There is always mention of cyclotrons and other alternatives. The fact of the matter is that there are no alternatives available to producing some radioactive isotopes in a timely fashion, because of the short half-life, to be available to the Australian health system.

Somebody who I think is fairly reputable in this area, Dr ElBaradei, who heads up the International Atomic Energy Agency, said in a media statement late last year—I do not have the exact quote in my head—in effect that the biggest threat to the procurement of radiopharmaceuticals in an international sense was a growing reluctance from the airlines to carry radiopharmaceuticals. So anybody who is deciding to put the future of the health system of their country in the hands of others I think has made a very poor decision indeed. Conversely, Australia, which has decided to have some independence with regard to the provision of radiopharmaceuticals, and the very important aspect of our health system that deals with that, has made a very good decision indeed.

When I am talking about people being disturbingly misled, we have a serial offender in Senator Trish Crossin. I read with some dismay her contribution to this place during the last sittings. It is those little things that tend to grate with me personally—this almost childish referral to these things as ‘dumps’. It is very cool; the media will pick that up. But we are well and truly over that. In terms of trying to inform people, a ‘dump’ in a lot of people’s minds is a radioactive drum that is leaking and there is a big hole in the ground and we are sort of pouring stuff into the ground. What does that do? Does that seek to inform the Australian people? Or does it seek to misinform the Australian public about the intention of the Commonwealth in looking after their best interests?

I read with great interest Paul Toohey’s article in the most recent Bulletin, where he talks about some traditional owners being very concerned. The traditional owners were talking about a DVD or some photographs they were shown by an ‘environmentalist’ of children born without a face and without arms. Those sorts of scare tactics, whether they are absolute horror stories by some so-called environmentalists at the really rough end or the same disingenuous approach taken to this whole issue by people in this place like Senator Crossin, who continually refers to this process as ‘a dump’, are grubby tactics. It does her no good and, I have to say, it does not do this place any good.

Senator Crossin, in trying to inform the public, is saying, when the returning fuel comes from another country, ‘Of course, it’s not all our fuel.’ This is all about equivalence and proportionalities. There is nothing particularly difficult to understand. Perhaps I should refer Senator Crossin to economics 1 when she takes her dollar and puts it in the bank. When she goes to get her dollar back out of the bank will she look at it and say, ‘Oh, sir, this isn’t the same dollar; I want exactly the same dollar that I put in’? It is a complete nonsense. It misleads people about the fact that ANSTO’s material gets reprocessed overseas. We get back a proportional equivalent in this country as per a very carefully negotiated agreement that comes under the auspices of the International Atomic Energy Agency and is used as current world’s best practice around the globe. Again, she seeks to mislead and misinform individuals about this and, as I said, it brings her no credit.

Interestingly, in her contribution in the last sittings, Senator Crossin continued to say, ‘How dare the Commonwealth try to close loopholes!’ We found loopholes and we are deeming to close them; how dare we! It is sad that I have not heard Senator Crossin talk about the importance of the provision of radiopharmaceuticals, which is a fundamental part of our health system. I visited a hospital in Sydney recently, and they were going through the importance of products like technetium and the difference it has made to women, particularly women with breast cancer. In the dark old days a full mastectomy was required simply because it was very difficult to identify the exact location of lymph nodes under which a tumour may be draining. With the provision of technetium there is at least a good chance of finding out at the right time exactly which lymph nodes the tumour is draining into and therefore allowing far more forensic surgery. That is what we take for granted nowadays.

Those people who are misinforming us about the importance of the provision of radiopharmaceuticals to this country are simply running down the whole process of responsibility. We say that we have a right to a good system, but every right comes with a responsibility. The responsibility is to meet our requirements as Australians, as a nation and as individuals to ensure that we meet our agreement. We said that we are going to have the benefit of radiopharmaceuticals. Therefore, we need to take back the reprocessed fuel rods that are the waste for a reactor that does not produce power; it simply produces medicine. It is absolutely safe. There is no question about that and yet there are those on the other side who always like to say, ‘We’re a bit funny about this; we’re not sure how safe this really is.’

Senator Crossin goes on to say, ‘France has only high-level waste; obviously Senator Scullion is misleading you, as this intermediate-level waste is a bit of a furphy.’ If she has even a perfunctory glance at the legislation we are amending she will see in a series of definitions that it is very easy: high-level waste is waste that develops more than two kilowatts of energy. It is very simple: above that, it is high-level waste; below that, it is intermediate-level waste. Low-level waste is measured on a completely different continuum because it is so low. It is not the sort of stuff we make up. If you continue to look to the ARPANSA or the International Atomic Energy Agency, headed up by Dr ElBaradei, they give us guidance on those things. To say that we are misleading the public and that this is high-level waste is another furphy designed to confuse and frighten rather than to inform.

Parts of the contribution the other day absolutely stunned me. Senator Crossin told us that we need to be really careful because she read in a newspaper somewhere—an absolute tome of truth—that there was no security at ANSTO. She referred to an article about the nuclear reactor at Lucas Heights not being well looked after and ‘protected by a cheap padlock and a stern warning against trespassing or blocking the driveway’. She said:

This level of security may have been deemed as broadly adequate by the then Acting Prime Minister, John Anderson; however, this standard of security is deemed simply unacceptable by just about everyone else.

Maybe Senator Crossin forgets—maybe that is what it is. But, interestingly, she made that contribution during the last set of sittings. I am sure there is no mischief in it; I am sure that she just does not bother to follow the issues. But, perhaps, just for her information I could draw her attention to a media ethics committee that actually considered, surprisingly, this journalist’s report. I think it is very important. I will read the letter of complaint to ANSTO. It deals with the exact quote that Senator Crossin made when she said:

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.

Had someone wrapped themselves in the truth of this particular statement—it is a couple of weeks ago—one would have thought that they would have informed themselves that back in June this is what ANSTO had to say about the issue:

As you will note from the attached media clip, Jonathan Porter, the journalist who wrote the article, reported that 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 a lie. Mr Porter is very well aware of various levels of protection around the ANSTO research reactor, as only three days before he was personally escorted into the high security area where the reactor is housed, which is surrounded by double fencing and razor wire, as well as having 24-hour, seven-day a week video surveillance and armed guard protection.

That is right; this is the same description: it has 24/7 video surveillance and armed guard protection. It has a multitiered electronic pass system, so assessing the reactor is certainly not as simple as snapping the padlock and driving the 800 metres or so to the reactor, as the article states. Mr Porter chose to ignore the facts and present incorrect information of outrageous proportions, presumably in pursuit of a front-page article. These are the materials that were used by Senator Crossin in this place to try to besmirch the very good security and officers of ANSTO.

Mr Porter’s article also made incorrect statements regarding the consequences of an attack on the reactor’s cooling towers. When he visited the ANSTO site and its reactor, Mr Porter was accompanied by executive director Dr Ian Smith and media advisor Sharon Kelly. Mr Porter asked Dr Smith about the towers and Dr Smith clearly explained the failsafe systems that exist, stating that the reactor would close down immediately should anything happen to the cooling towers. This expert information was not put forward and more fiction was set into play to paint a dismal picture of the reactor’s security. In addition, Adam Cobb, to whom he refers, has never visited the ANSTO site and is not familiar with the security arrangements.

The letter goes on to say that the article also stated that the Weekend Australian journalist and photographers parked a one-tonne van outside the back gate for more than half an hour. This misleading term ‘back gate’—repeated in this place, I might add, by one Senator Crossin—used in the article is a totally misrepresentative description of a gate on a fire trail on the outer perimeter surrounding bushland, which does not form part of ANSTO’s secure grounds. In addition, when the journalist and his photographers did leave the main road and came close to ANSTO’s perimeter, they were quickly approached by the Australian Federal Police officers who were there to in fact ensure the protection of the site and to prevent anyone setting foot on ANSTO’s soil.

The panel concluded that the ANSTO complaint has been made out. They went on to say that they could have recommended a range of penalties but declined to do so in this case, believing that the finding, which upholds the complaint, is sufficient vindication for the complainant. So much for Senator Crossin informing this place. It was not for me to make the case, but for an ethics committee to make the case. Talking about being ethical in the place, senators should inform themselves about the sort of information that they bring to this place when they stand up and put their hands on their hearts and say, ‘I’m informing Australians.’ Senator Crossin’s recent contribution was hardly informing Australians.