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

I do, Mr Chairman—a great many. As the minister has observed, the debate has been pretty wide-ranging so far. I have focused not just on the detail of the bill but on some matters of great principle, including whether or not this dump will eventually host radioactive waste from overseas. It appears that we have just voted to leave the door open to that eventuality, which I think is a great shame.

I would like to turn now to some of the specifics. In my speech in the second reading debate some time ago, I focused on three groups of amendments. The first group, which we have spent a bit of time debating, are around the principles of the bill, the flawed thinking that underlies it, and some of the reasons why we think this bill cannot be fixed and should be opposed.

The second group of amendments go to some of the detailed procedural issues in the bill, the way that it handles ministerial decision making and the way it handles ministerial discretion. We have made what I think are some fairly sensible proposals to simply return the normal safeguards that apply for siting decisions for any other kind of infrastructure—whether it be a freeway, a car park, a post office or whatever—to siting a facility of this nature.

The third set of amendments go to what the Australian Greens would like to see instead. Because of the nature of this bill, I am 90 per cent opposed to it; most of what is in this bill should just go in the bin. But there is an obligation to the Australian Greens and anyone else who steps up and says, 'We don't think this should happen on the Kunga's land in South Australia, we don't think it should happen at Muckaty and we don't think it should happen at Laverton'—