Lyn Allison (Victoria, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I said last night, it has been very hypocritical of this government to have insisted on a national code for the siting and development of wind farms, to make sure that community concerns were taken into consideration, but then to have overridden that with the Commonwealth Radioactive Waste Management Bill last year, which imposes on the Northern Territory a nuclear waste dump, despite government opposition there and huge community objection to the dump.

In fact, rather than consulting, the government did quite the opposite. The Northern Territory Chief Minister first heard about the decision in a press release from the minister. The Alice Springs council first heard of the proposal on local radio and a property owner right next door to one of the sites found out through a friend.

We continue to hold the view that low-level waste should be stored as close as possible to its production and that state-of-the-art above-ground repositories should be established in each state and territory for this purpose, and we continue our long opposition to the construction of the unnecessary new nuclear reactor at Lucas Heights. The Democrats argue that it is imperative to manage Australia’s radioactive waste in a responsible, scientific, robust and transparent manner. To date, the federal government has failed to do that.

The Democrats recognise that radioactive material is a reality and a serious issue, but it is here that our strategy differs from that of the government. We support the strategy advocated by the Medical Association for the Prevention of War, the Australian Conservation Foundation and Friends of the Earth. First and foremost, the government must seek to minimise waste generation rather than make plans to expand our nuclear industry. Secondly, the government should aim to minimise transportation. Waste management is preferably done on site in a retrievable and secure fashion. Thirdly, the government should focus on establishing secure, monitored, above-ground storage which responsibly addresses the need to maximise long-term safety and does not preclude any improved storage options which might become available in the future. Fourthly, the government should gain community acceptance of the management system based on the principles promoted by the International Atomic Energy Agency. That does not simply mean consultation; the community must give informed consent to the facility.

On the issue of nuclear stewardship and an expanding nuclear industry in Australia, we believe that the stewardship approach being foreshadowed for Australia flies in the face of global security and is not environmentally or economically sound. A uranium enrichment industry in Australia is also bad news. It is highly energy intensive, contributing further to Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions, and leaves a massive amount of toxic radioactive and chemical waste. Uranium enrichment in the United States alone releases 14 million tonnes of CO per annum and, for every tonne of natural uranium mined and enriched for use in a nuclear facility, the majority—that is, 87 per cent—is left as waste. The bulk of the by-product is depleted uranium. Despite putting tonnes of DU into weapons used in Afghanistan and Iraq—polluting those countries with dangerous DU dust—the United States still has 470,000 tonnes in store and 1.2 million tonnes are stored around the world.

Expanding uranium mining and enriching uranium in Australia, even with a leasing arrangement, will do absolutely nothing to get rid of the world’s nuclear weapons and will only exacerbate the situation, in our view. Expansion of uranium mining could lead to an increase in the number of nuclear weapons states and the material available for dirty bombs used by terrorist groups. The report Nuclear power: no solution to climate change notes that, of the 60 countries that have built nuclear reactors or nuclear power plants, over 20 are known to have used their so-called peaceful facilities for covert weapons research and/or production. In some cases, nation states have succeeded in producing nuclear weapons under cover of a peaceful nuclear program. They are India, Pakistan, Israel, South Africa and possibly North Korea. The report also notes that the International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards system still suffers from flaws and limitations, despite improvements in the past decades. At least eight nuclear non-proliferation treaty member states have carried out weapons related projects in violation of their NPT agreements or have carried out permissible weapons related activities but failed to meet their reporting requirements to the IAEA. Egypt, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Romania, South Korea, Taiwan and Yugoslavia are in this situation.

The Democrats are very concerned about the decision to sell uranium to China because, despite the agreed safeguards, there are no guarantees that China will not use our uranium for weapons or even displace other uranium to do so. We are also concerned about the ongoing talks on the possibility of selling Australian uranium to India, which is not a signatory of the NPT. The provocative move by Korea yesterday in testing a nuclear bomb suggests a very real risk of a nuclear arms race in the region. As has already been noted, the non-proliferation treaty has failed to some extent. There are still 27,000 nuclear weapons worldwide, and the nuclear weapons states have not agreed to disarm, as was expected at the time of signing that treaty. We also have the comprehensive test ban treaty, which is yet to be ratified for want of signatories. This lack of progress on disarmament and on banning testing has no doubt been a factor in North Korea taking up this disastrous testing option.

Australia could and should play a part in not contributing to further regional instability. It should refuse to sell our uranium to nations such as India and China; indeed, we should be using our uranium as leverage over progress on disarmament for the nuclear weapon states. Even our close allies like the United States need to hear the message from Australia that it is not acceptable to go on having so many nuclear weapons and that we must go to total disarmament of nuclear weapons worldwide at some stage. When it comes to nuclear capability in a region already fraught with political tension, it is essential that the government continues to press its concerns peacefully and through all the diplomatic means at its disposal. Most of all, however, the government must abandon its plans to sell uranium to a publicly unstable region.

The Democrats support the second reading amendment by the ALP. The government should be condemned for putting short-term economic gain ahead of national, global, environmental and health security. The government should be investing in renewable energy for export. Innovation in renewable energy products is going overseas—the latest is the Sliver solar cell technology produced by the Australian National University and Origin Energy. It is outrageous and a national shame that this government has failed to support and foster the renewable energy sector. There was a time when we were world leaders. We still are world leaders in innovation, but no longer in commercialisation or development.

The government should abandon its plans to expand the nuclear industry in Australia. Just because we have 40 per cent of the world’s known uranium deposits, it does not mean it is safe or smart to dig it up, enrich it or send it off to become an uncertain and possibly destructive end product, damaging the environment in the process.

Ross Lightfoot (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Senate is considering the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation Amendment Bill 2006. Only 20 million people reside in Australia, a country which is the same size as the mainland of the United States of America, where there are 260 million people. The coast of Australia has one of the most centralised populations of any coast in the world. Nearly 90 per cent of the people in Australia live around the coast, particularly in the capital cities of Perth, Adelaide, Melbourne, Sydney, Brisbane, Darwin and Hobart. Australia is made up mostly of old and stable geological rocks. Electricity in Australia is predominantly produced from coal, gas and diesel—all fossil fuels. Some renewables operate in Australia—solar, hydro, wind and biofuels. Nuclear power is the only possible alternative to the power generators that emit CO and other greenhouse gases. Why? Nuclear is green; nuclear is clean. Nuclear power is the only economical alternative that can produce enough electricity to satisfy the great demand in Australia, which is expected to double in 25 years.

As someone who has been involved in the search for uranium over many years, I do not believe that uranium in its natural state as an ore, uranium as upgraded and value-added UO or spent uranium from nuclear power stations is at all dangerous. If it is handled in the right way it is no more dangerous than coal, no more dangerous than nickel, no more dangerous than lead and no more dangerous than beach sands from which radioactive monazite is mined.

This bill will give ANSTO an effective role in managing mid-level and high-level nuclear waste. Currently, there is no such facility. Would my colleagues opposite recommend, say, Indonesia? Indonesia, which is led by President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, one of the greatest leaders Indonesia has ever had, is geologically unstable. Do the other side want to put our waste and the world’s waste in Papua New Guinea? Papua New Guinea is not only geologically unstable but, at times, perhaps through no fault of its own, it has also been politically unstable. Should nuclear waste go to Solomon Islands? The answer is, of course, a deafening no. Should it go a little closer to the eastern states of Australia, in Vanuatu? The answer, of course, is no.

Nuclear waste should in fact go to a place that is geologically stable, that has some of the world’s oldest rocks and that has no subterranean water movement—a country that is one of the five oldest continuous democracies in the world. We understand through our tertiary institutes, and through training in those institutes, that nuclear waste can be stored only in a country that is geologically stable, that has old rocks, that has no water movement and that has been led by stable governments for the last 105 years—and that country, of course, is Australia.

There is one other thing that adds to the proposition and the attractiveness of Australia for a nuclear or high-level waste repository and that is, of course, that we have wide open spaces. In one million square miles in Western Australia we have just over two million people living. Of those two million people, 75 per cent live in the Perth metropolitan area, in that narrow strip between Yanchep-Two Rocks in the north and down to Bunbury in the south—1.5 million people, three-quarters of the whole population of that million square miles, live there.

The current act, inadvertently, restricts ANSTO and its redoubtable expertise in assisting other Commonwealth agencies which produce radioactive waste—hospitals, some universities, and of course Lucas Heights. With the establishment of the repository facility in the Northern Territory, a state-of-the-art repository, it will be important for ANSTO to be able to condition and make safe waste from the other Commonwealth agencies before it is transported to the proposed repository in the Northern Territory.

The Northern Territory has around 100,000 people in it. It is a lot better place to put uranium waste—or partly-spent uranium, as most of it will be—than leaving it at Lucas Heights. Lucas Heights now is a suburb that one might call an inner Sydney suburb. I have been to several nuclear facilities around the world, not just Lucas Heights. How many people in here have been to inspect Lucas Heights? I certainly have. I have been to Calvert Cliffs, a 2,000-megawatt plant, sitting on the very edge of Chesapeake Bay, arguably the most environmentally sensitive area in the United States. Two thousand megawatts of electricity is produced there. It is put into the Baltimore gas and electric grid at US3.5c a kilowatt-hour. What an achievement that is: US3.5c a kilowatt-hour from a nuclear power plant. I have also been to one near Bristol in the United Kingdom. I have not just been and had a look at it; I have been inside, into the reactor chambers, peered down through that hazy, mesmeric blue colour of the heavy water in which the uranium rods are. I have also been to one in southern Taiwan and had a look at that facility, which is run in an exemplary fashion.

I have also been to Argentina, to a place called Bariloche. It is the most beautiful place on earth. Sitting there is a nuclear facility from which we bought our new INVAP reactors that replaced the old HIFAR reactors at Lucas Heights. It is a beautiful place, Bariloche, at the foot of the alps in Patagonia. No problems with these people with storing radioactive waste. No problem with making money out of these facilities. The one that we bought from INVAP in Bariloche in Argentina is state of the art, sourced from the best possible materials and the most up-to-date, state-of-the-art nuclear facilities around the world.

Waste is currently treated safely, and has been for generations, in the United States, the United Kingdom and the European Union, in Russia, China and Japan. China incidentally is planning 36 more nuclear power plants. What is going to happen to us in Australia if we are the only developed country in the world that does not have a nuclear power plant? What is going to happen to us if we become the biggest exporters of uranium in the world, the biggest exporter of UO? That is not where the money is, incidentally; the money is in converting that UO into fuel rods or fuel balls, or some type of uranium that can be immediately used in reactors. What is going to happen to us if Canada gets the jump? What is going to happen to us if—because the world price becomes so high and we become so restrictive because of the patently and obviously stupid three-mines policy of the Labor Party—other countries are forced to source their material from, say, Africa or other unstable parts of the world?

France gets 79 per cent of its power from nuclear energy. No-one stops drinking French champagne—when they can afford it; I cannot, not on a backbencher’s salary; if I had a minister’s salary, yes, I could afford to drink it—or eating any of the food products from France, which are amongst the best in the world, because of that. I happen to believe that the south-west of Western Australia and Tasmania have magnificent food, but France does too. No-one says they are not going to drink French champagne or eat French food because 79 per cent of France’s electricity is nuclear powered. Sweden—a country that the successive Labor parties in state parliament in Western Australia and in the federal parliament have admired so much—derives 50 per cent of its power from nuclear. About six or seven years ago in Sweden, , the Labor Party said that if they got into power they were going to do away with nuclear. Not only did they not do away with it, they increased the production of nuclear power from 48 per cent to 51 per cent. That is how reliant on nuclear power is one of the most innovative and clever countries in the world and how much it believes in nuclear power.

It is imperative that ANSTO, with its highly experienced and professional staff, handle and make safe all our radioactive material sourced in Australia, whether it be from the universities, from hospitals or whether it be material that may be intercepted from points of entry into Australia, such as potential terrorists bringing radioactive material into Australia for nefarious reasons.

We will also meet our obligations under the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism in Australia with a responsible, state-of-the-art Northern Territory nuclear waste repository. Consideration had to be given to ensuring that the public of Australia was reliably informed that waste or spent fuel from Lucas Heights was not stored indefinitely in what is now an inner Sydney suburb and that residents feel that radioactive waste is transported in a proper fashion to the proposed repository in the Northern Territory when and if that takes place. The main waste, however, from the Lucas Heights facility will be returned to INVAP in Argentina from where it will then go to Canada, and the supplies of the research reactor, for further processing.

The radioactive waste currently at ANSTO, including old waste from ANSTO—some of which has been there since the early 1960s, nearly 50 years ago—is to be transported in special accident-proof containers to the proposed repository in the Northern Territory and out of the inappropriate temporary storage at Lucas Heights. Passage of the bill into law is absolutely essential if we are to set an example to other countries in our region and to secure the support of Australians, who reap immense benefits from radioactive isotopes used in medicine and other radioactive activities.

Power demand is expected to increase by three per cent per annum by 2020. Fossil fuels contribute to 80 per cent of the world’s energy production—84 per cent from coal in Australia alone. Australia has the largest known reserves of uranium. Australia is one of the largest producers of uranium, behind Canada. We have the biggest uranium reserves in the world bar none. Uranium contributes to 40 per cent of our energy exports. The major importers are the United States, the UK, the European Union and Asia. Japan and South Korea are becoming major buyers. Australia is about the only developed nation not moving towards electricity generated from nuclear power. I am a global warming sceptic, but I do know one thing—billions of tonnes of carbon dioxide, or CO, emissions go into the Pacific, Indian and Atlantic oceans. The pH of those oceans ranges from between 8.2 and 8.3—with 7, as everyone knows, being a neutral pH. Those three oceans sequester fully one-third of all the CO emissions in the world. Those CO emissions change the pH factor and produce a more acidic environment—but not much more. Over the past 10 years the pH factor has become 0.1 per cent more acidic. If anything is going to cause coral bleaching, it is going to be the production of carbonic acid as a result of the sequestration of carbon out of the air by our oceans. That would be disastrous for Australia.

If the Greens, or those in the Labor Party who have sentiments similar to the Greens, want to stop global warming or the alteration of our oceans and our coral, they should firstly get behind this ANSTO repository plan for the Northern Territory. It will be state of the art; it will be the best in the world. Secondly, they should get behind the Prime Minister, who wants to move to the cleanest, greenest and most economically viable method of producing electricity outside the so-called ‘dirty energy’ from which we produce our electricity now. Let’s switch to nuclear. Nuclear is a worry to a lot of people, but I am sure that, once they find out how good, how clean, and how economic it can be and how it can advance the status of living of this wonderful country, those who have some apprehension will also support the Prime Minister in his drive to nuclear. I thank the Senate.

Trish Crossin (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation Amendment Bill 2006. Senator Lightfoot, there is a problem when you get up and read a brief and you do not understand what you are talking about. The last time I looked, there were more than 100,000 people in the Northern Territory. The fact that you are not sure how many people live there might be an indication of your lack of care about the nuclear dump we are about to have imposed on us up there, thanks to your government.

The purpose of this bill is to allow ANSTO to handle, manage or store radioactive materials from a broad range of sources and circumstances than is currently allowed under the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation Act of 1987. Predominantly this bill outlines three powers that will be extended to ANSTO in three broad circumstances. ANSTO will have the power to look at radioactive material and waste that might arise from incidents including terrorist or criminal acts. The bill allows ANSTO to manage or control waste that is currently not generated by ANSTO. The current act limits ANSTO’s capacity to deal with waste that is not theirs. Finally, the bill allows ANSTO to deal with the reprocessed spent fuel rods which are going to return to Australia and which we know will contain fuel that is reprocessed from the waste of other countries, not just Australia.

Let me go into the background of those three broad categories. ANSTO and New South Wales Emergency Waste Management presented submissions to the Senate inquiry into this bill. In 2005 the New South Wales State Emergency Management Committee sought ANSTO’s advice on the handling, storage and disposal of radioactive material that the Commonwealth may require in the event of an emergency or malicious situation. The Commonwealth noted that the New South Wales Police forensic services may need to take custody of radioactive material as part of investigations. However, they have no facilities to hold such material. The Australian Federal Police and the Victoria Police, in their submissions, raised similar issues with ANSTO.

It would make sense, with ANSTO being the pre-eminent body that would know the most about these materials, that their involvement in emergency situations such as dirty bombs was not envisaged during the drafting and the amendments of the original ANSTO Act. As I said, it would make common sense these days to extend ANSTO’s powers to enable it to become involved in these situations. Given their nuclear research and management expertise, it is appropriate that law enforcement or emergency and disaster agencies should be able to access ANSTO’s capabilities and facilities, including for terrorist events that may use radioactive materials. In its current form, the ANSTO Act limits the initial assistance ANSTO could provide in an emergency to little more than the provision of advice. ANSTO cannot take possession of any nuclear materials in the event of an incident. However, this bill will facilitate ANSTO’s involvement in emergencies.

It will also bring Australia into line with standards set out in the United Nations Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism. Australia has not ratified that convention, but these changes are intended to assist Australia’s consideration of its position in relation to ratification of the convention. In that sense, the Labor Party gives that section of the bill a tick. We think it is eminently sensible to provide ANSTO with its ability to take part and participate in any emergency waste management that might arise under those situations.

ANSTO and the management of Commonwealth nuclear waste is now directly linked to the situation in which we find ourselves in the Northern Territory. This government lied to the people of the Northern Territory prior to the last election and a nuclear waste dump is now to be imposed upon us without consultation, without agreement and without any recognition of the needs or concerns of the three communities which are to be involved. ANSTO is currently constrained to management and processing of its own waste alone. It does not have the power to process waste from other Commonwealth sources—defence forces or the CSIRO. ANSTO is licensed to operate a store for research reactor spent fuel prior to it being sent overseas for reprocessing. It is also licensed to operate a separate facility to condition—that is, handle and process waste for safe and secure disposal—and store other radioactive waste generated by the organisation.

Radioactive waste held at a variety of premises will require conditioning before it can be sent for long-term storage or disposal. The Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency, ARPANSA, is developing a code of practice and safety guide for the conditioning and management of radioactive waste prior to its disposal. Once developed, ARPANSA intends to apply these national requirements for predisposal management to all Commonwealth entities. ANSTO’s experience in managing its own waste makes it the only body suitable for and capable of conditioning Commonwealth waste to meet ARPANSA’s requirements.

As a consequence of this bill, ANSTO will be able to lend its expertise to waste management of all radioactive materials held by the Commonwealth. However, much larger quantities of waste will be transported to Lucas Heights for conditioning and held there during processing before eventual storage at the waste dump. In addition, ANSTO has the expertise and capability for the management of waste in Australia. As such, ANSTO should be able to lend its facilities and expertise to the conditioning and processing of nuclear waste.

The bill explicitly provides that materials and waste generated, possessed or controlled by a Commonwealth contractor are taken to be de facto generated, possessed or controlled by the Commonwealth itself, and as such contractors are covered by the same responsibilities and immunities as the Commonwealth. In a sense, this closes another loophole that was obviously missed when the Commonwealth Radioactive Waste Management Act was rammed through this parliament last year. We know that the passage of that act had extensive immunities and meant that there is currently very little, if any, chance of a successful state or territory challenge to the siting or operation of the waste dump on the grounds of the ANSTO Act or the bill. However, the department has identified this provision in its submission to the Senate legislation committee inquiry into this bill as limiting potential legal action against Commonwealth contractors by jurisdictions opposed to the Commonwealth’s radioactive waste management strategy.

As this government’s agenda for dumping nuclear waste in the Northern Territory unfolds, we see another tiny loophole where in fact legal action may well have been taken with respect to contractors transporting and generating or possessing waste generated by the Commonwealth itself. This, of course, is another mean and tricky way in which this government will ensure that there can be no legal challenge to what is transported, stored, held or maintained in the waste dump in the Northern Territory.

Despite the Commonwealth’s intention to use this bill to limit any residual capacity for legal challenges to the nuclear waste dump, it is generally preferable for ANSTO to be able to lend its expertise, facilities and qualified staff to waste processing and management. Although ANSTO will in a sense be responsible for waste generated by a contractor, this bill ensures one further step, that any loophole for legal challenge will be closed to ensure that the waste dump proceeds.

The final area that this bill covers is to ensure that ANSTO has the responsibility for all spent nuclear fuel that is coming back to this country. We know that at present spent fuel from the research reactor at Lucas Heights has been sent to France and Scotland for reprocessing. Reprocessing involves the spent fuel waste being held in storage for a considerable period in order to reduce its radioactivity. The reprocessed spent fuel is due to return some time between 2011 and 2015. Hence the need for this government to move fairly quickly to establish a national nuclear waste dump. Without consultation, it will impose that nuclear waste dump on the Territory.

We know that ANSTO has entered into contractual arrangements for the reprocessing and eventual return of the waste. The intermediate-level waste will return first to Lucas Heights before it is taken to the proposed dump in the Northern Territory. This bill ensures that the waste that is coming back to Australia will cover not only Australia’s waste but waste from other countries, because, when we send spent fuel over to France or Scotland, they do not just process our waste into any spent fuel rods; it is mixed with the fuel from right around the world, and the spent fuel rod that comes back to us will be a mixture of whatever it is from other countries that has been put together, if I can say it as simply as that. So there is no guarantee that a spent fuel rod coming back to Australia will solely contain material that was generated from Australia. So it is not ‘probable’; we know that waste returning to Australia will contain wastes not generated by the Australian research reactor, and this government believes it is not clear that a court would regard such wastes as wastes arriving from ANSTO’s activity. Therefore this is another loophole for a legal challenge that anyone may want to undertake in taking on this government about what could or could not be stored at the waste dump or what could or could not be handled by ANSTO.

The proposed amendments in this bill would ensure that ANSTO has the necessary powers to accept all waste, any waste, from any of the countries under its contractual agreement and manage and store such wastes. There is, I think, some question over whether it is intermediate-level waste. ANSTO and ARPANSA have told me at estimates that there is no way that it is high-level waste. Material I have read through any French website, their nuclear atomic energy agencies or similar agencies to ANSTO assures me that in fact there is only high-level or low-level waste in France. One would have to believe that perhaps they are right and our people are pulling the wool over our eyes. I am certainly now of the view, after the extensive reading I have done, that in fact what we will be getting back from France is nothing but high-level waste.

That leads me to make some final comments in the remaining minutes about this whole sorry saga of where we are going with the storage of this nuclear waste. We know, of course, that this government has tried to tell Territorians, who have to face the threat of the imposition of a nuclear waste dump in the Northern Territory, that the nuclear waste dump will be safe. But in fact this bill is an acknowledgment of the grave security risks involved in handling, holding and transporting radioactive materials. The bill contains provisions that recognise the potential for terrorists to use nuclear wastes in a dirty bomb.

The Australian Labor Party concede that the storage of nuclear radioactive waste is important, but we do not believe that the way in which this government has gone about it is the way to go. There are still grave concerns for Territorians over the risks of having the waste in their backyard, and for the coalition government to pass legislation to establish a waste dump and then pass legislation some months later about the safety and security of that waste clearly shows that this government really thinks that security on this issue is only a secondary concern.

While this government likes to talk tough on security issues, it has been sadly lacking in substance. You only need to look at the report in the Weekend Australian on 19 November last year which said:

The back door to one of the nation’s prime terrorist targets—

that is, the Lucas Heights nuclear reactor—

is protected by a cheap padlock and a stern warning against trespassing or blocking the driveway.

This level of security may have been deemed as broadly adequate by the then Acting Prime Minister, John Anderson; however, this standard of security is deemed simply unacceptable by just about everyone else. But we know that this government is still playing catch-up in terms of security and safe handling of radioactive materials. It is only now, with this bill, that the federal government will give ANSTO the power to deal with radioactive material and waste arising from a relevant incident, including a terrorist or a criminal act.

I listened with interest, of course, to Mr Tollner’s speech in the other place on this legislation. I notice that my Senate colleague Senator Scullion is not down to defend his actions or record in relation to dumping nuclear waste in the Territory, but Mr Tollner went to some pains to ‘clarify the record’, he said, in relation to how the whole sorry saga about the proposed nuclear waste dump in the Territory unfolded. I have to say that I think Territorians have already made up their minds on this issue, and they know that the member for Solomon misled them. He said:

There’s not going to be a national nuclear waste dump in the Northern Territory ...

We have heard that many times echoed in the House of Representatives and in the Senate chamber in the last year. That is the promise that Mr Tollner gave to Territorians prior to the last federal election. Again, trying to convince Territorians otherwise is merely wasted breath, but Mr Tollner has demonstrated that he is still back-pedalling following his broken promise during his contribution to parliament on this bill. I just want to read into Hansard the comments he made during his speech only a couple of weeks ago. He actually said:

Our environment minister, Senator Ian Campbell, I believe, shot off his mouth a bit early and said that there would be no waste facility located on mainland Australia.

I probably would have to agree with David Tollner—there probably are instances where Senator Ian Campbell has shot off his mouth a bit—but I am a bit surprised that Dave has only just realised what the minister is really like. I think the minister should have listened to Mr Tollner. After all, Dave would probably have to be the absolute authority on shooting off his mouth. Just have a look at the next sentence in Mr Tollner’s contribution to that speech.

Gary Humphries (ACT, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order. I think that the senator should refer to the member of the other place by his proper title.

Andrew Murray (WA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Quite right. Could you observe that propriety, Senate Crossin.

Trish Crossin (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think the minister should listen to Mr Tollner. After all, Mr Tollner is an authority on shooting off his mouth. Just look at the next sentence of Mr Tollner’s speech, when he admitted that he naively believed the minister. If I remember correctly, on Darwin radio just last week, David Tollner referred to Senator Ian Campbell as an ‘itinerant drunk full of Dutch courage’ in reference to his minister on the issue of the culling of crocodiles.

The member for Solomon and Senator Nigel Scullion were sucked into the misleading statements of the minister and passed on this misleading information to the people of the Northern Territory in the lead-up to the Northern Territory election. The message that comes out of this whole sorry saga about the nuclear waste dump in the Northern Territory is very clear: no-one can trust the federal cabinet of this Howard government. If government members cannot trust their own cabinet, why should Territorians? Mr Tollner might plead ignorance in this debate, but ignorance is not an excuse for incompetence for the boys from the CLP, who have consistently failed to stand up for the rights of Territorians.

Mr Tollner goes on a bit further. At the Central Council meeting of the CLP a few weeks ago, Mr Tollner pushed for and got up a motion on uranium enrichment. The Country Liberal Party put out a press release on 27 September calling for submissions on uranium enrichment. Mr Tollner was quite excited about this. ‘Let’s look at uranium enrichment,’ he said. I would have to say that the CLP has moved from ignorance to lunacy now. Where has Mr Tollner come up with this idea? Before the last election he stated that he did not want a low-level nuclear waste dump in the Northern Territory. He has now had a major shift in his beliefs and he wants to have a look at an enrichment facility. But not in his own electorate, though; he probably has in mind the electorate of Lingiari, which is the only place it would fit.

BHP Billiton, this week, have come out and said that the local uranium enrichment industry is not viable. They said:

... enriching uranium has been dealt a blow by BHP Billiton’s declaration that the industry is unviable.

Although the CLP might be calling for submissions on uranium enrichment, there is no notice of that on their website. Their website is devoid of any closing date for submissions. You would have no idea where to send submissions to the CLP. It is just another opportunity for Mr Tollner to grandstand—to not represent Territorians as he was elected to do—on this issue. (Time expired)

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak to the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation Amendment Bill 2006. In particular, I would like to speak in support of the Labor Party’s second reading amendments to the bill. These amendments call on the Senate to condemn the Howard government for its arrogance in breaking a promise not to locate a waste dump in the Northern Territory and for keeping secret all plans for the siting of nuclear power stations and related nuclear waste dumps.

The bill extends the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation’s ability to handle, manage or store radioactive materials from a wider range of sources and circumstances than it is able to at present. As such, the bill might be better called the ‘Increasing Nuclear Waste Bill’, because that is what it is effectively about. As a result of this bill, larger quantities of radioactive waste will be transported to Lucas Heights prior to eventually being stored at the Commonwealth’s planned nuclear waste dump.

The bill explicitly provides that materials and waste generated, processed or controlled by a Commonwealth contractor are taken to be generated, processed or controlled by the Commonwealth itself. As such, contractors are covered by the same responsibilities and immunities as the Commonwealth. Senators will note that this approach to contractors is very different from the approach the government is taking with its so-called Independent Contractors Bill 2006. It is instead a clear attempt to prevent any residual capacity for a legal challenge to a nuclear waste dump in the Northern Territory by removing the avenue to challenge ANSTO’s authority to manage waste generated by non-ANSTO sources. The Howard government, as we all know, is determined to dump radioactive waste in the Northern Territory.

Before the last election, the people of the Northern Territory were given an undertaking—a promise, in fact—by this government that there would not be a dump in the Northern Territory. When this government needed to be re-elected, it could not wait to reassure Territorians that there would be no nuclear waste dump in the Territory. However, once the Howard government was safely back in office, it seems that it could not break that commitment fast enough. Just last year, Mr Tollner, the member for Solomon, claimed not to support the nuclear waste dump in the Territory. At that time he said:

There’s not going to be a national nuclear waste dump in the Northern Territory. That was the commitment undertaken in the lead-up to the federal election, and I have not heard anything apart from that view expressed since that election.

It seems Mr Tollner was either asleep in the party room or no-one in the cabinet saw fit to tell him the truth.

But Mr Tollner should not feel left out, because he is not alone. The member for Solomon might wish to consider forming a faction with the member for Hasluck and the member for Kalgoorlie for backbench Liberals whose voices carry absolutely no weight with the Howard government ministers. They could even call it the ‘left right out’ faction, because that is what they are. Just ask them: they cannot wait to tell you. They will sob on your shoulder about how they are left right out of the decision-making processes of the Howard government they are supposed to be a part of. Despite their public pleading over issues in their electorates, they are all ignored and rolled in spectacular fashion by the Howard government.

Just ask the member for Hasluck. For nearly a year, Mr Stuart Henry, the member for Hasluck, called on the Howard government’s Minister for Transport and Regional Services to reject BGC’s proposal for a brickworks on Commonwealth land at Perth airport, in his electorate. He pleaded in parliament a number of times for the minister to reject the proposal. And a fat lot of good it did. It seems that Len Buckeridge’s millions carried a lot more weight with the Howard government than Mr Henry’s feeble pleas.

The Howard government granted the approval, and BGC’s bulldozers have already cleared the bushland in preparation for the smokestack. And Mr Henry must be hurting over being knifed so viciously by his own government. There is blood in the water. In today’s West Australian newspaper someone from the Liberal Party, who will remain nameless, has even leaked details of Crosby Textor polling to Andrew Probyn of the West Australian which shows that Mr Henry is looking pretty crook.

I reckon the polling must be accurate because not only is Mr Henry pumping propaganda into the electorate of Hasluck as fast as he can but honourable Senators Lightfoot and Adams have been enlisted to help. Senator Lightfoot and Senator Adams are using their postage entitlement to send newsletters and letters to the good people of Hasluck, claiming that somehow, because a Howard government minister for transport approved the building of brickworks against Mr Henry’s express wishes, it is the Western Australian state government’s fault.

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What’s this got to do with it?

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is relevant. In his letter of 22 September 2006, Senator Lightfoot wrote:

... the outcome of this issue could have been vastly different had it not been for the overwhelming silence of your local state members of the Carpenter government.

Apparently, according to Senator Lightfoot, even Labor members of the Western Australian state parliament stood a better chance of being listened to by the Howard government than poor old Mr Henry. But do not get me wrong. I am happy for Senator Lightfoot to waste his postage entitlement on long, rambling and defensive letters that make ridiculous claims this far out from an election. It reeks of desperation, and the people of Hasluck know it.

Just like the member for Solomon and the member for Hasluck, Mr Barry Haase, the member for Kalgoorlie, could be a co-convenor of the ‘left right out’ faction. For years, Mr Haase has been banging on about his one and only idea—changes to the zone tax rebate. As we all know, the Howard government last week again rejected Mr Haase’s proposal to increase the zone tax rebate. In a recent article in the Kalgoorlie Miner, reporting on Mr Haase’s most recent failure, I made the comment that he was a tiger in his electorate but that when he got to Canberra he was a kitten, because he did not have the guts to put up a private member’s bill on the matter. I was astounded by Mr Haase’s response. He was quoted in that article as saying:

It would be an absolutely time-wasting effort, less than futile ...

He went on to say—and this is my favourite part:

When you go to a capital city, the party room or the parliament your voice is just one more among the chatter.

What a shocking admission of failure. If the member for Kalgoorlie joined forces with the member for Hasluck and the member for Solomon to form the ‘left right out’ faction, their chances of being heard in the government party room chatter might just increase—but I doubt it.

Like the people of Solomon, Hasluck and Kalgoorlie, I know that the only way they stand a chance of having their voice carried with the weight it deserves is if they were to elect Labor members in a Beazley Labor government at the next election. However, there seems to be one Liberal backbencher who does not have any trouble getting his voice heard in the party room. I refer here to the member for Tangney. I congratulate Dr Dennis Jensen, the member for Tangney, on successfully overturning the decision of the WA branch of the Liberal Party to dump him from his safe seat after only one term.

The wishes of the Liberal Party preselectors were recently overturned after an intervention by none other than the Prime Minister. Not only does the Prime Minister listen to Dr Jensen; he runs to his rescue! We can only speculate why it is that the Prime Minister intervened to get the decision to dump Dr Jensen overturned. It could have something to do with Dr Jensen’s stated desire to have a nuclear power plant in his own electorate. Dr Jensen has been the biggest supporter of nuclear energy in the Howard government, and he is the only Liberal backbencher to put up his hand and volunteer his constituents as human shields for Australia’s first nuclear power station.

But there is a hitch. In my home state of Western Australia, the former Liberal Court government, with the Labor opposition’s active support, enacted legislation preventing the establishment of a nuclear facility. In spite of this, under the Australian Constitution this legislation is not binding on the decisions of the Howard government on Commonwealth land. Unfortunately, once again for Mr Stuart Henry, the closest piece of Commonwealth land to the electorate of Tangney is the Perth airport site where the BGC Brickworks are currently being built.

If the Howard government minister for transport can see clear to have a brickworks with a massive smokestack built near the flight path of Perth airport against the express wishes of the local member from his own government party room, it is easy to imagine that he would also grant approval for the member for Tangney’s nuclear facility on airport land. The minister and the Howard government certainly have not ruled it out. Given the Howard government’s form—backflips and betrayal over the Northern Territory nuclear waste dump—who would believe them if they ruled it out anyway? The Howard government have shown time and again that they cannot be trusted on such issues.

Why would anybody trust the Prime Minister when he breaks his promise to keep interest rates at record lows, when he smashes his promise that no worker will be worse off under the Howard government and when he dumps his promise to keep nuclear waste out of the Northern Territory? We can only say that broken promises are the debris left after 10 long years of the Prime Minister taking a wrecking ball to the foundations of our fair and decent society.

The waste dump legislation gave the government total power to site, construct and operate a Commonwealth radioactive waste dump at one of three sites in the Northern Territory. The government overrode all existing and future state and territory law and regulation that got in the way. In addition, many federal laws have been overridden, including the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act, and the Native Title Act. Given this form, it is easy to imagine the Howard government setting up a nuclear facility on the land next to the BGC brickworks.

The Prime Minister has consistently refused to rule out any part of Australia for a nuclear power station. Local communities have a right to know what the government’s intentions are and what to expect from it on both nuclear power sites and the siting of future nuclear waste dumps. Make no mistake about it: this government is determined to bring nuclear power to Australia.

The Howard government knows that local communities will not cop it, which is why it is refusing to talk about the most important thing: where the power plants and the resulting high-level waste dumps will be. At a Senate estimates hearing this year, ANSTO told Labor and later ABC radio that at least three to five nuclear power plants would be needed for a viable Australian nuclear power industry. If the Prime Minister is serious about nuclear power, he should come clean and tell us where these three to five sites might be.

We also know that the coalition has form when it comes to the location of nuclear facilities. It certainly knows how to keep them secret. In 1997 the government considered a short list of 14 possible sites for nuclear research reactors but kept the list secret from the public. The confidential briefing—signed with ‘good work’ by the former science minister, Mr Peter McGauran—said that the short list should be kept secret because:

... release of information about alternate sites may unnecessarily alarm communities in the broad areas under consideration.

If the government are in fact planning to introduce nuclear power—and it seems that they are—or uranium enrichment plants, they must answer some questions that the Australian people want to ask. Which suburbs or towns will be home to the new nuclear reactors and enrichment plants? What will the government do to make sure that local residents and schools are safe? Where will we see nuclear reactors in our major cities? Will they be in any cities other than Sydney? What will be done with the nuclear waste? Will there be nuclear waste dumps other than in the Northern Territory?

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Bernardi interjecting—

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will take that interjection, Senator Bernardi. You are an advocate for one in South Australia. It will be interesting to hear your response when your turn comes. The member for O’Connor certainly has big plans. In his speech on the second reading he talked about his desire to set off nuclear explosions in and around rivers of Western Australia. Liberal senators from Western Australia have not repudiated Mr Wilson Tuckey’s ideas, so I can only assume that he has broad support.

Michael Forshaw (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They ought to call him ‘dear leader’.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He has been called a lot of things, but that is not one of them. For those of you who do not believe that anyone could think that setting off nuclear bombs was a good idea, this is what he had to say:

A couple of Australian engineers wrote a paper on it, which came into my possession. They argued that you could dig a mineshaft 1,500 feet deep, half-fill it with TNT and blow a hole 600 feet deep to store water.

They went on to say that you could also drill a hole eight inches in diameter and put the appropriate nuclear device at the bottom of that hole, 1,500 feet below the ground, and also get a 600 feet deep water storage. I thought that was a pretty good idea.

               …            …            …

... when will Australians have the courage to ask themselves: might this be a solution to our water storage issues?

The newly reprieved member for Tangney also made a contribution that is worthy of further comment. In his speech in the second reading debate on this bill he said:

Having evolved in the surrounding radiation, our bodies not only adapted to radiation but, indeed, need radiation to survive. Studies have been conducted and conclusively show this. Tests were conducted on lab rats where the level of surrounding radiation was reduced to the greatest extent possible. It was found that these rats became ill to a far greater extent than a group of control rats.

That might have other meanings on the other side of the chamber, but I will move on. According to Dr Jensen, radiation is good for us. Maybe when we have a drink or take a shower under water from Mr Tuckey’s nuclear dam, we will get all the beneficial radiation the member for Tangney would have us exposed to.

While there is a substantial debate in the Labor Party about the mining of uranium—and for many years there has been a variety of views in the Labor Party about the mining of uranium—there is one thing that we are absolutely 100 per cent clearly agreed on, and that is that we oppose a nuclear power industry in this country. The Howard government should be open and transparent about the way in which it chooses to make decisions on issues that involve nuclear waste. The people of Australia deserve nothing less.

Michael Forshaw (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have to say that the speech by Senator Sterle is a tough act to follow. I note that I have about three or four minutes to speak on the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation Amendment Bill 2006 before we move to question time. That is a heck of a lot less than even the half-life of technetium 99, which is about 30 minutes. I will commence my remarks now and will no doubt return to them at a later time.

I think I am destined to make speeches in this chamber on nuclear issues until I leave. There might be some people who think, ‘Hopefully, that is not too far away.’ It is an issue that I have spoken on on many occasions in the Senate or at Senate committee hearings. Indeed, I have participated in a number of committee inquiries, in particular into issues surrounding the decision to build a new reactor at Lucas Heights. I will not bore everybody or drive everybody mad by going back over all of that history, but I mention it because I find it interesting that some participants in the debate on this bill—both here and in the other place—have only recently discovered the importance of the issue about what we do about disposing of nuclear waste—how we handle it and what is the appropriate role for ANSTO in that process.

I remind the Senate that, back in 1993, when Labor was in power, the government commissioned a report that became known as the McKinnon report. It was the report of the research reactor review. Two important recommendations came out of that report. The first was that, before any final decision was made about whether or not we should build a new reactor to replace the HIFAR reactor at Lucas Heights, there should be a proper, detailed consideration of alternative sites to Lucas Heights. The second clear recommendation was that there should be evidence that the issue of treating, storing and disposing of nuclear waste had been advanced to a point where there was clearly evidence of a system that could be introduced to deal with that issue.

At a later time in the debate, I will return to expand on my comments in regard to this bill.

Debate interrupted.