Rex Patrick (SA, Centre Alliance) Share this | Hansard source

by leave—I take note of the report into the National Radioactive Waste Management Facility. I'd like to thank the committee for the work it did in relation to this particular inquiry. I'd also like to thank the secretariat, who did a fantastic job behind the scenes. In general, I support the findings of the committee. However, I don't feel that they go far enough. Out of my responsibility to the communities of Kimba and Hawker, I now wish to add to some of the findings of the report.

Centre Alliance accepts that Australia has a responsibility to safely and securely manage radioactive waste from the production of nuclear medicine to a range of nuclear based scientific and industrial purposes. Inherent in that acceptance is the fact we need to have a facility. However, to have a facility we simply have to make sure that that facility comes by way of community consent—that's really, really important.

I think the process we've gone through is flawed for a number of reasons. The government commenced the site selection process with a commitment to obtain broad community support. The National Radioactive Waste Management Act 2012 does not require that, but the minister made a statement and made a commitment that that's what he would do. However, when they first tested the waters on this, they found that the broad community support was wanting, so they increased their persuasion efforts. They set out to inform the community. I have no problem with that, but they only sent experts that shared the government's perspective. Contrary views from very well respected academics and professionals were not presented. It was sort of a Soviet mode of, 'Please don't think your government will do that for you and then tell you what you need to know.' They then sought to inform by taking people across to ANSTO. I don't mind the fact they did that. That was quite generous of the government. However, they went beyond a reasonable brief when they extended state funded trips to include things like dinner cruises on Sydney Harbour. They sought to encourage the community through a multimillion-dollar community benefit program and then tripled the benefit when they sensed that their encouragement was failing. A fair process must not only be fair; it must be seen to be fair. On this count, it fails.

The minister in some sense also hedged his bet. The department made a submission to this inquiry and made a very strong point that it wasn't a requirement of the act to have broad community support. However, the minister did make that statement, and people repose confidence and trust in what ministers say. If they say something, we anticipate they will honour what they have said.

Unfortunately, we have ended up with a situation where we don't have broad community support in Kimba or in Hawker; we have a very divided community. The minister has sought to, in some sense, alleviate the concerns of the community by running an AEC vote. The AEC, a very reputable entity here in Australia, is in some sense being used to establish legitimacy of the pathway that the government's taking us on. I recall back in this chamber, in March last year, then Senator Xenophon asked the minister at question time what he thought that broad community support was and the minister basically said:

We had taken forward a proposal from the Hawker region—Senator Xenophon might be aware of that—where support was at 65 per cent. We have not put a definitive figure on broader community support, for the reason that it is not just about the overall figure; we would need a figure in the range of the support we received in Hawker.

But the minister appears to have walked away from that now. Broad community support will mean whatever the minister wants it to mean. To twist a phrase from Joseph Stalin, 'It is not the people who vote that count; it is the people who interpret the meaning of the count.' Having visited the communities of both Hawker and Kimba during the inquiry, they are bitterly divided. The process has polarised the community and there's likely to be ill feeling for many years to come. It's my view that, unless a 65 per cent vote in favour of the facility is achieved and all adjoining neighbours are in agreement and the Aboriginal community are on board, the government must look to alternative sites. The distinguishing mark of 'comrade minister' is the AEC vote, the instrument with which he does all his mischief.

The process of finding a permanent solution for storing and disposing of Australia's low-level radioactive waste began in the 1970s. It has taken at least four decades to get to the point where we are now. If one of the Hawker or Kimba sites is selected, the government intends to move intermediate-level waste to any newly-built facility as a temporary measure until an intermediate-level waste disposal facility is built. It is anticipated a similar process will be undertaken to identify and select a site for an intermediate-level waste disposal facility. In reality, that means intermediate-level waste will be at the low-level facility for decades. It's probably reasonable for nuclear scientists, who think in radioactive half-lives, to think 40 years is temporary, but that's not what the community thinks. Intermediate waste can and is being stored at Lucas Heights. ARPANSA's Chief Regulatory Officer, Mr Jim Scott, told the committee that they can't put the waste there because the ANSTO Act doesn't allow that to occur. But he didn't elaborate the fact that the act could be changed. Why do we need to do a double movement here? We have a facility right next to a reactor that could take that waste and store it safely until such time as a facility is available.

In some sense, I think we need to be very honest about what's happening here. We've got a facility that the minister would like to resolve—he said in the media that he'd like to have this whole thing resolved prior to the next election. That indicates there's a political taint to all of this. There is no point in having this facility as a site that will cause so much angst. There are alternatives. There is Crown land, for example. There are a number of places where this facility could go. There's also a proposal before the minister for a site in Western Australia, where the community may well be much happier to take this, and broad community support could be achieved.

The committee have done a very good job with this report. They've laid out all of the facts. They've made some very solid recommendations. But I think we need to be very careful. In my view this process, particularly because the minister simply will not give the criteria by which he will make his decision, has become a sham. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted.