Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

I just put on the record now that the Greens will not oppose 20,000- or 50,000-year conditions if what has been set aside for Ranger is later found to be inadequate. I would put to you that the particular elements that are of greatest concern, with the longest half-lives in this case, uranium 238 and its daughter isotopes, are relatively common. There are some differences, obviously, in mine geology and chemistry at each deposit, but the key elements that we are concerned about here—and I would not have jumped up to have this debate about nickel or gold mining—are common right across all sites, so it is not quite good enough to say that one size does not fit all. Certainly 10,000 years may be found to be grossly inadequate. I will put the question to you again: in the case that we are dealing with elements that have the same characteristics no matter where uranium is mined in Australia or in the world, will the Commonwealth will be insisting on these sorts of provisions—very, very long term care and maintenance of these waste streams—which would justify a separate remediation fund as we are proposing here?