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

Again there is a lot in Senator Di Natale's contribution. Much of it goes to his arguments for why he opposes the bill. When I responded earlier I should have suggested that, in terms of protection for sustainable population, he should be careful in case his numbers are further affected. As I understand it, it is the waste from production of nuclear medicines that requires careful management. We have asserted that production of medical isotopes produces radioactive waste which requires suitable long-term management arrangements. We continue to assert that and we consider that the changes we are making are to implement best practice and to allow us to store the increasing amount of waste, including in our considerations the prospect of the waste being returned from France and the UK, which is a Commonwealth responsibility.

In an answer to an earlier question from Senator Ludlam—the answer was one of the written answers I gave him—I said that we cannot be definitive about which of the current sites will transfer their waste to the new facility. Obviously the Commonwealth will be looking to do that, but the states have responsibilities for their own waste and who takes advantage of it. From where and how much will be decisions for those responsible, but we do think that legacy waste inventories will be relocated.

I know that the Greens are opposed to this bill and are continuing to argue their case. That is fine, but fundamentally we disagree. We think the waste management facility is needed. We do think there are strong arguments for it to be established. The issue has remained unresolved for many years. I know that you argue that it is safer and better to continue to store the waste in a range of more than 100 facilities around Australia. That is your position; I fundamentally disagree. We think that the increasing inventory of waste to be returned from France and the UK builds the case for having a dedicated radioactive waste management facility built in and supervised in accordance with world's best practice. That is a fundamental disagreement we have, and I am not sure I can address that any further in the sense that you have your view about that and we have our view about that, and it seems we are not changing your opinion. I do not know whether the Greens' tactics are to continually delay the bill or not, but I think it would be useful if we moved on to debating the Greens amendments. That would give some structure to the debate. I am happy to answer any questions you have in the best way I can, but fundamentally my answer does not change in terms of our view about the need for that waste management facility.