Trish Crossin (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to provide a contribution to the debate on the Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change (Kyoto Protocol Ratification) Bill 2006 [No. 2]. Coming from the Northern Territory, I am only too well aware of the debate we have had in the House of Representatives, and of the Senate committee report tabled today on the Commonwealth waste management strategy that has highlighted much of the angst for people in the Northern Territory when it comes to what we do with the offshoot and the waste product emanating from nuclear power.

Before I get to that, let me provide some introductory remarks about where we are in this country in respect of dealing with climate change and the impact of that. We have had over 10 very long years of the Howard government and we now know that they have spent their time totally ignoring scientists and the warning bells when it comes to climate change. They have ignored economists who have repeatedly warned this government and the Australian community about what economic impacts it will have for this country if we do not take action not tomorrow, not now, but even yesterday—and it is too late for yesterday, of course. Climate change is a very serious threat, and I wonder to what extent it has to become such a threat that this government will finally decide to take action and do something about it.

This year we had the Stern report provided to this government in early November. That highlights the potential impact of climate change on our economy—another signpost, another warning for this government that it needs to take action now before it will cost much more money to deal with in future years. Back in June 2005 this government also received a report: Climate change: risk and vulnerability. That report back then outlined the consequences for Australia if we do not do anything to take appropriate action in tackling climate change. We know that during this time there has been a 30 per cent drop in rainfall and, while we are certainly not experiencing that so much in the Northern Territory and in the Top End, other parts of this country are seriously affected. It saddens me to see photos and pictures on the television of communities struggling with serious drought and the lack of water. Finally, at some stage, the penny must drop that this is related in some way to this 30 per cent drop in rainfall—that it is due to our inability to take action on climate change.

We know there are more extreme weather events happening in northern Australia. Even this year in April, when I was out in north-east Arnhem Land—in fact, I got stuck in the floods in Katherine—people were saying to us: ‘How can this be? We had a massive flood in Katherine in 1998 that people said was a one-in-a-hundred-year tragedy. But here we are again in 2006, only eight years later, with the Katherine River at its maximum height.’ The day I was there I would say that another half a metre of water in the Katherine River would have seen it flood the main part of the Katherine community, and that would have emulated the massive floods we had back in 1998. So there are people in parts of this country who are experiencing this sort of thing now—from droughts in the eastern areas to floods in the north: we have had severe flooding twice in eight years.

This year we also experienced, the day before Anzac Day, Cyclone Monica. That threatened to pass over Darwin. Unfortunately, the eye of that cyclone went over Maningrida and there was serious damage there. But, I tell you, if the eye of that cyclone had gone through Darwin, I am not entirely sure how that city would have withstood a cyclone of that capacity. I have to say to you, at three o’clock on that Monday afternoon, Darwin was as black as it gets at midnight anywhere else in this world and it was pretty scary and eerie. Again, what we are noticing more and more is the threat of not only more cyclones but also increased severity of cyclones in the Top End—and of course the disappearance of iconic areas of our country, like the Great Barrier Reef, and massive changes at Kakadu National Park.

So the signs are there. This government that is in power should be recognising that and taking some action. But what we have seen is that the government will not sign up to the Kyoto protocol. I listened to Senator Lyn Allison’s contribution to this debate and I think she is right on the money when she says that the government’s inaction on climate change, in not signing the Kyoto protocol, is about nothing other than the politics of supporting the United States. It is about trying to back up their mate, President Bush. It is about John Howard making sure that his best friend is not out there on an island by himself, and that is not the way to manage climate change in this country.

We have not signed up for the protocol’s first commitment period, which is to operate between 2008 and 2012. That period has the commitment of the whole world, I might add, including China and India. Fancy that—China and India but not us. It is hard to believe, really. Those countries are putting in place practical measures for clean energy development, implementing systems and looking at opportunities to expand industries in areas that would address all of these climate change issues.

The Prime Minister was talking about some kind of new Kyoto protocol. I think he referred to it as ‘new Kyoto’ some weeks ago. Well, it is not in fact a new protocol that is going to be out and about; it is actually the second commitment period of the current and original Kyoto protocol. Perhaps that shows just how off course the Prime Minister is if he cannot even get the words right. The second commitment period of the Kyoto protocol is post 2012, from 2013 onwards. Of course, we heard Senator Milne’s contribution on the activities in Nairobi, where we could not even vote. As I said, there are countries like China and India sitting at the table because they have signed on the dotted line. At least they are going to try to do what they can in this period. We can go to the talkfest but we do not have any power or influence because our signature is not on the bottom of the page.

Quite frankly, it is a joke, when over 10 years ago Australia used to move around the world stage as a leader in a range of areas, not just in the United Nations and signing protocols but also in a whole range of other activities. It is surely an international embarrassment to us now. Just this week we had a New Zealand delegation come to this parliament—their local government and environment committee—and the chair of that committee was saying to me over a luncheon: ‘I can’t believe your country hasn’t signed the Kyoto protocol. You’re one of only two countries in the world that hasn’t and it’s still not happening.’ Yet this week, while they have been in the country, all they have heard on the television and in newspaper articles, she was saying, are comments about the drought, about the climate and about how we need to take action.

But this government has not stepped up to the plate. So other countries are talking about us, but not in a positive way—in very critical and damning way, and in a very embarrassing way, I have to say. As a member of the federal parliament, to sit with a New Zealand delegation and try to defend—well, I was not going to defend this government’s lack of action, but it was embarrassing. So countries around the world are watching and they are taking notice, and what they notice is that we are on a go-slow here. In fact, my House of Representatives colleague Anthony Albanese said that we have the handbrake on for climate change. So we have not even decided to put it into first gear.

Figures released by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change show that Australian greenhouse gas emissions rose between 1990 and 2004 by 25.1 per cent. Energy emissions increased by 34.7 per cent over the same period, 1990 to 2004. Australian emissions, according to the Australian Greenhouse Office report that was released last year in November, are projected to rise by 22 per cent by 2020. So our emissions are on the increase; they are not on the decline. You have to ask yourself why that is. It is because the Howard government are doing nothing to try to turn these figures around. They are simply not with the program and they do not want to be with the program. They are too busy supporting their best mate across the Pacific Ocean.

Despite the warnings for years and years, we have a government in charge of this country that is only just coming to recognise climate change. Today’s latest warning in the media, I notice, is on Antarctica’s Ross Ice Shelf. We have all seen the pictures of the icebergs floating up past the New Zealand coast. The Ross Ice Shelf in Antarctica—which is about the size of France, I have to say—could break off without warning. Surely those sorts of things do not happen without a reason. We could see a rapid rise in sea levels if that occurs, bringing climate change home to every coastline around the world.

What is the government’s quick fix for climate change, having ducked and weaved about Kyoto and now Kyoto 2, as Mr Howard might want to call it—but, in fact, it is the second commitment? Their answer now is to actually divert everyone’s attention to a possible nuclear power industry in the country—a nuclear power plant for everybody’s local community. Not only will you be able to go down to your local swimming pool, gym and high school but also you might be able to skip off and do your five-kilometre walk in the morning around your local power plant if this government has its way—and every one financed by a whopping government subsidy. As we have seen, we are no longer going to be able to have a nuclear power industry in this country—it will be massively expensive—and it will not be able to operate unless it is highly subsidised. Where is that going to come from? That is going to come out of my and your taxpayer funds, no doubt.

On the government’s current strategy, nuclear power will also need the government to be able to bully the Northern Territory—once again. And even Aboriginal traditional owners, under the latest radioactive waste dump bill, are to take the industry’s waste. If we are going to move down the path of having a nuclear power industry then, as I think I said in this place earlier this week, tell us where the reactors are going to go. Tell the people in the Northern Territory where the waste is going to go. Australia has had 50 years to sort out storage of radioactive waste, yet even the government’s latest plan for the intermediate waste we have been generating for years is still not a permanent solution.

When I talk about the dump that is going to be put in the Northern Territory, it gives me a great opportunity to refer to the outburst on Monday evening from my Senate colleague from the Northern Territory. He is getting a bit touchy, isn’t he, about the use of the word ‘dump’! But people in the Territory, and certainly I, will continue to use that word. We do not see this as a facility; we do see it as a dump. When the country railroads legislation in the Northern Territory, when a government refuses to consult with the communities that are affected, and when a government seeks to overturn and disregard the outcomes and legislation passed by a democratically elected government in the Northern Territory and picks three sites that are actually disused defence sites in order to house nuclear waste from this country, we have every right to call that a dump—absolutely, we do! You are simply taking your waste from Lucas Heights and plopping it down somewhere in the Northern Territory without due process or due consultation. So, if my colleague Senator Scullion wants to get a little bit upset and emotional about the word ‘dump’, he had better get used to it because we will continue to use that word. We are not convinced that this will be a ‘facility’. This is anything other than a facility. This will be a nuclear waste dump.

That brings me to a report that I have been reading which was commissioned by the parliament in the United Kingdom. They are, in fact, so much on the program in the UK that they actually have a Committee on Radioactive Waste Management. That would probably be a little bit too transparent, open and honest for this government. The UK parliament actually commissioned this independent committee. It is headed up by Professor Gordon Mackerron. Recommendation 10 of this committee’s report says this:

Community involvement in any proposals for the siting of long-term radioactive waste facilities should be based on the principle of volunteerism—

that is a novel idea!—

that is, an expressed willingness to participate.

He goes on to say, in recommendation 12:

Community involvement should be achieved through the development of a partnership approach—

now we are getting fairly unique, are we not!—

based on an open—

oh my goodness!—

and equal relationship between potential host communities and those responsible for implementation.

What a novel idea that would be! And it is not only that. As I read further in this report, I want to also make reference to something else my colleague happened to say on Monday night. He tried in explicit detail to explain to us exactly what was high-level waste and what was not high-level waste. In fact, he seems so eminently attuned to these definitions that one would have thought that perhaps he had some kind of postgraduate degree in nuclear physics. But, in fact, if you read all of the literature that is around from countries that have been dealing with this stuff for 50 years or more, you will find that, in fact, there is no internationally agreed definition of nuclear waste.

Lo and behold—what do I find on page 14 of this report from the UK committee? At dot point 5 on page 14 of the report—and I might say that this report is entitled Managing our radioactive waste safelyit says:

There is no internationally agreed method of classifying radioactive wastes.

Let me just read that again. I must have got it wrong if Senator Scullion is the expert in this all of a sudden. It says:

There is no internationally agreed method of classifying radioactive wastes. Historically, in the UK they have been categorised in terms of their nature and activity and this has generally been used to determine the approach to waste management.

It goes on to say:

The classification has taken account of quantity of radioactivity the wastes contain and their heat generating capacity and has resulted in four basic categories ...

We have asked ANSTO and DEST officials time and time again what the waste is that is going to be dumped in the Territory. But, of course, we keep getting told that it is only low-level and intermediate-level waste; that it is not high-level waste. How do we know that? If there is no internationally agreed definition on what waste can be classified as, how do we know that we are not getting high-level waste?

Minister Marion Scrymgour from the Northern Territory went off to France in June or July of this year, and what did she find? The French told her that we are not going to get back anything other than high-level waste, that there is no waste that has been generated in France and Scotland going back to Australia on ships other than high-level waste. The French are absolutely convinced that we will be getting back high-level waste. We had better have a damn good place to dump it because it is going to be there for at least 200,000 years.

I also want to say that, when I raised this report in estimates, DEST officials informed me that it does not apply to Australia because the UK has mainly high-level waste. I see. They are saying: ‘If we were going to get back high-level waste, we would consult with the community where we are going to dump it. But, because this is not high-level waste, we do not have to consult anyone.’ That is logical. But the UK, Scotland and France are telling us that it is high-level waste we are going to get back. In the last few preceding weeks when I had a chance to read this report from cover to cover, what did I find? Most of the waste that the UK wants stored for a period of many long years is intermediate-level waste. How about that? The dump in the Territory is going to have low- and intermediate-level waste. If it was good enough for the UK to consult communities and have a specific committee on radioactive waste management, why can we not do that in this country?

What I am coming to in talking about the bill is this: if this government is going to do nothing about climate change and is going to take us down the path of nuclear energy, it should tell us where the waste is going to go. If the waste is going to be dumped in the Territory, the government should scrap the current plan, start again and start consulting the community. If the government wants to use international best practice, it should start with waste management 101, consult and have volunteer communities that are well-informed and would welcome the waste rather than dumping it on a community that does not want it. (Time expired)