Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

I take that interjection from the opposition. There seems to be very little clear relationship between the medical research that ANSTO does and this proposed new responsibility of keeping Australia safe. What is the rationale, exactly, for that? This is a very serious question that hasn't been answered. So, if the minister would like to give us an explanation to that, we'll be looking forward to hearing it. Australia waging deeper intergeneration for nuclear research is a deep, serious question that cannot be answered from only hearing one side of the debate and that's all we've had to date. The generation is for those reactors that still do not exist; yet, supposedly, they are going to lead us to a place where nuclear products will be the saviour of the world, without the dangerous waste and practices. Well, we're yet to see any of that happen at all. We know this has been talked about for decades, and very little has come of it but, while it goes nowhere, the costs keep climbing. We do not want to be pursuing this course when we could be spending public money on more productive areas of research. This is an expensive white elephant without any justification, and here we see the government simply sinking more and more money into this black hole.

It is a very legitimate public policy question but the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties did very little evidence gathering in relation to this. It only heard from ANSTO in a one-day hearing on the future generation programs. We didn't even hear from the Australian Conservation Foundation or the Friends of the Earth—those other voices that often are used to help balance the rationale, the concerns and to point out the dangerous risks in these things. It was a done-and-dusted inquiry, pushed as quickly through this place as possible. Of course, there is a reason that the government doesn't want these experts to be heard; it is because they don't want the questions to be asked and they don't want the evidence to be borne out.

We should, to be absolutely frank with you, Mr Acting Deputy President Williams, start this process again so that we can hear from all voices in relation to this debate—so we can hear whether Australians actually want to be expanding this type of research on this expensive path. When you think about all of the other areas of research that people are crying out for, here we have more public money and more demand on the public purse coming from a small in number but loud minority voice. It's simply something that the Greens cannot support.

All of these measures are pushing Australia closer to nuclear power. We know that it's expensive, it's not safe and that there's no place to deal with the waste in a reasonable way, though of course I guess that people in this place say, 'Oh, well, just dump it in South Australia!' I can tell you, as a South Australian, Mr Acting Deputy President, that we're not particularly happy about that either.

There is no hint of us changing our two sets of laws preventing this. Nuclear power the world over has been beset with cost overruns, delays and the inability to complete. And here we are seeing more money sunk into a white elephant, with the bipartisan support of both the Labor Party and the Liberals. So until some of these deeper questions can be answered and until it is put forward fully why this is needed, the Greens are not convinced at all and we will not be supporting this legislation.