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

by leave—I thank the chamber. I indicate at the outset that I do intend to call a division on this motion. I thank the minister for taking the time to work through some of the clauses. That is somewhat rare, and I appreciate that it was at least read and considered. Twenty-nine September—you are quite right, Minister—has no official status in the United Nations calendar of days of various activities, causes or issues. That is true. Perhaps by this time next year it will, in which case we can take that argument off the table. But I will point out that there are activities today around the world—in Australia, many states of the United States, Canada and a number of places in Western Europe—where people on the ground or in various institutions or community groups are contesting the imprint and the impact of the nuclear industry and the consequences of producing radioactive waste in the first place.

In Australia we have a terrible reputation for trying to manage, characterise and look after even the relatively small, by international standards, volumes of radioactive waste that we have—and we have still managed to make a complete hash of it. For any senators who heard, I did spend 15 minutes addressing this issue in the MPI earlier in the day. This motion goes directly to the issues that I raised in that brief speech. We have made a real mess of this process, but this parliament is an opportunity for us to do it well and to do it better. I recognise Senator Xenophon’s concerns and acknowledge, perhaps, the wording to clear the ambiguity. Very much the intention here is not to see high-level spent fuel that has been burnt in power stations overseas return, for example, to the site of origin or the site of mining at Roxby Downs, Ranger or, indeed, Beverley. That is clearly not the intention. I suppose I should apologise for that ambiguity in the wording of the motion. It recognises the principle that we should not move this material any more than we absolutely have to.

Question put:

That the motion (Senator Ludlam’s) be agreed to.