Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

There were a fair number of issues raised by Senator Ludlam in that contribution. The first thing to say is that the accusation of us being cynical in the timing of us bringing on this debate is a bit of a low blow. The senator is well aware that we started this debate in the last parliamentary week and we were not able to complete it. It was always listed to come on today. Unfortunately it started a couple of hours later than I would have liked as the result of us delaying the start of parliament.

I have made it clear to Senator Ludlam—and the Greens, more generally—that the government's priority was to try to get this bill carried; it has been hanging around for a long time. The fact that it came on today at the same time as a leadership ballot inside the Labor Party is just coincidence. We always intended to bring this bill on long before I was aware there was going to be a leadership ballot in the Labor Party today. So that is an unfair accusation.

The assertion that we accept or have argued that the current waste has been stored unsafely is not right. That is not a claim we make. We do make the claim that we will need a proper waste management facility because of the current inventory around the country and the waste that will be returned in a couple of years time from France and the UK. We think there is a case for a proper waste management facility and we are also confident that the current waste is being managed in accordance with the existing safety regulations.

It is also the case that the inventory is growing. We have the prospects of more being returned to Australia in a proper, dedicated facility and it makes a huge amount of sense. It is also the case that there is a lot of activity at Lucas Heights, as I understand it. I have not been able to get down there since being made minister for science. I understand there is quite a strong building program going on at Lucas Heights and quite a bit of development. All of this supports the proposition that we ought to move to a dedicated facility.

I understand that it is international best practice that waste should be stored in centralised facilities and that best practice is for it be in one location. The more remote locations are regarded as being consistent with best practice. In terms of volunteerism, Senator Ludlam answered his own question. He said that you can do it voluntarily or you can do it compulsorily. The point is, we are trying to do it in a way that provides for people to volunteer a site. One can be critical about that and see it as coercive or one can go for the coercive option, which says that we are just doing it compulsorily. That criticism also is not fair.

Senator Ludlam, you do not like the proposition. I accept that. But some of the criticisms, quite frankly, are not well based and some of the arguments you are seeking to use are not fair. You do not like the central proposition—I accept that—but you cannot argue against volunteerism and also argue against compulsory acquisition. It has to be one or the other. Then you find fault in calling for people to volunteer. That proposition is not consistent.

We think the volunteerism approach is the better approach. It leaves us with more chance of success in getting this proposition up and running, given how long it has taken and how difficult the debate has been about establishing a proper radioactive waste management facility. As I said, there are a range of reasons we think establishing the facility is consistent with best practice for storage of radioactive waste. It allows us to deal with a growing problem. It is not a problem that currently sees us having unsafe practice but it is a growing inventory, with a prospect of more returning. We will have a better waste management regime in Australia by going down this path.