Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I was fortunate enough to be the coalition senator participating on this particular inquiry. It was interesting to listen to Senator Hanson-Young's contribution, because you could think we were in two different places. I did travel to Kimba and I did travel to Hawker, and let me put on record the very warm reception that the committee got. That's not to deny that there were differences of opinion in those particular communities but, can I say, I was particularly surprised by, in some places, the strength of the community support to want to act responsibly in dealing with what is a very, very significant and national issue. So I extend my thanks for the warmth and hospitality that the communities and residents of both Hawker and Kimba showed me and the committee.

For those people who want to know, in a relatively short period of time, why this is absolutely critical, they only have to go to paragraphs 1.10, 1.12 and 1.13 of the committee report. From the coalition's perspective, we have put some additional comments on the record but don't oppose the final view that the committee has come to, as demonstrated in the report. Our additional comments go to the issues of community sentiment, Indigenous support and financial compensation, as well as some general comments around the site selection process.

In response to Senator Hanson-Young's very colourful contributions, it is worth noting that radioactive waste is already spread among more than 100 sites across Australia, including five sites within 200 kilometres of the township of Kimba and eight sites within 200 kilometres of Wallerberdina Station. As was put on the record, and as is demonstrated in the variety of information that was made available to local residents, that has resulted in no impact on local or regional farming products and no impact on local or regional farming pricing or reputation. That, I think, is a very, very critical point.

I totally appreciate—and those of us who have been around Australian politics long enough know—that this is exactly the sort of issue that the Australian Greens like to get colourful about and like to create adverse and cataclysmic environments around. But, can I say, this is a very responsible way to address an issue that is with us already and that is not going away: the two major parties of government, whether the Labor Party or the coalition, are committed to dealing with this issue responsibly. I think this report is an important first step in coming to a resolution on what a final site will look like.

For the record, I will read into the Hansard what paragraphs 1.10, 1.12 and, most particularly, 1.13 say. Paragraph 1.10 states:

While the Australian community benefits from the production—

Already benefits—

of nuclear medicine and nuclear research activities, there is also a responsibility to safely and securely manage the associated radioactive waste products from its generation, through interim storage solutions and ultimately to permanent disposal. The process for finding a permanent solution for storing and disposing of Australia's radioactive waste began in the 1970s and is ongoing.

The question for Senator Hanson-Young is whether or not the Australian Greens want to be involved actively, responsibly, in finding a solution or whether they want to harp from the sidelines. Paragraph 1.12 says:

Presently, there is no disposal pathway for stored Australian radioactive waste, including the waste stored at Lucas Heights. The approach favoured by the Australian Government is to establish a dedicated National Radioactive Waste Management Facility …

The paragraph goes on to quote the department of industry that says:

Successive Australian Governments have recognised the efficiency, safety and security benefits that are derived from the centralised management of our radioactive waste holdings in a state-of-the-art special purpose facility.

Finally, and this is particularly important to put to bed some of the scaremongering that we recently heard from Senator Hanson-Young, paragraph 1.13 says:

A central NRWMF would permanently house the government's legacy and future streams of low-level radioactive waste along with holdings of other entities where these meet strict acceptance criteria. The NRWMF would also store, on an interim basis, Australia's relatively modest holdings of intermediate-level waste. Australia does not produce or store any high-level radioactive waste, and any such waste would not be accepted at the NRWMF. Further, no foreign waste will be accepted at the NRWMF.

This has all the ingredients of an issue that the Greens would love to scaremonger on, create disunity and divide communities over, but the choice is a simple one. They can either engage in a national conversation, a responsible dialogue, to find a suitable answer to this issue that is not going away—it will beset future governments—or they can continue to harp from the sidelines. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.