John Hogg (Queensland, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The committee is considering the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation Amendment Bill 2006 and the amendment on sheet 5081 revised, moved by Senator Allison. The question is that the amendment be agreed to.

Amanda Vanstone (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Allison seeks to prevent something happening in the future under this government. With respect, in her speech the senator made a number of statements like, ‘If the government did not do this, you could assume that they wanted to do something else’—and I do not know that you can assume those things. Actually, I am being a bit more polite than I should be; I know you cannot. But that might be just a part of the polemics of this matter, and I will leave it be.

Senator Allison, what you seek to do is prevent something happening. What I would say to you, firstly, is that that is against the law at this point. There is already a limitation on importation—although you say ‘by government’, and it is true that, with a sign-off from the Minister for Health and Ageing, that can happen. That is necessary because, while there is a law against importation at this point, that does not mean that someone will not try it or that there will not be some accident at sea and we may need to have that facility available. Consequently, we see it as appropriate for that opportunity to be there.

As I said, it is against the law at the moment. It is an offence under the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations, unless authorised by the health minister. It has been the consistent position of successive governments since the resumption of uranium mining that those countries enjoying the benefits are responsible for managing the wastes. Nothing in the bill changes either the legal status of radioactive material imports or the policy of the Australian government. Nothing in the bill changes those things. If passed, the bill will not authorise ANSTO to import any radioactive waste. It will authorise ANSTO to manage, once returned to Australia, the waste arising from overseas reprocessing of ANSTO spent fuel—and ANSTO will, nonetheless, still need to apply for authorisation to import that waste.

The proposed amendment moved by Senator Allison could undermine a key purpose of the bill, namely, to ensure that ANSTO can assist the Commonwealth, state and territory emergency services in the event of a radiological incident or accident. No activities in Australia generate high-level radioactive waste, so it is not expected that ANSTO’s assistance would ever be required to manage such material; however, we do take very seriously the responsibility to ensure that Australia is prepared for radiological emergencies, no matter how unlikely.

The premise of the proposed amendment is somewhat fanciful, given that the Commonwealth Radioactive Waste Management Act prohibits the storage of high-level waste at the Commonwealth radioactive waste management facility. The question to ask is whether the Democrats seriously believe that the government or ANSTO intends to import large quantities of high-level radioactive material for indefinite storage at Lucas Heights. Is that really what you believe? It is certainly not the government’s policy. Frankly, to misconstrue the purpose of the bill—which is in fact to ensure that ANSTO has the necessary legal authority to safely and securely manage the waste—is, I think, more properly described as grandstanding. That is why we do not support the amendment.

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

I point out to the minister that this is not only about importing waste; this is about any high-level waste, including the high-level waste that might come from the 25 nuclear power reactors the government’s report has canvassed. This is not about grandstanding. It is not even fanciful, Minister, given that this has been very much a hot debate that has been underway for the last few weeks. It is not unreasonable for us—or, particularly, for Northern Territorians—to be interested in whether high-level radioactive waste material might be on its way to the Northern Territory and to the dump there.

I am aware that it is not legal at this point in time for Australia to import high-level radioactive waste, but it may well generate some itself. As the minister knows, it is perfectly appropriate for us to ban some future event. The minister well knows that governments can change such bans and commonly do. So, to suggest that we must not pass a law or an amendment to a law which would oblige future governments to a particular course of action is, I would say, really quite fanciful. Minister, I think you are the one who is grandstanding on this issue. We just want to know where the government stands on high-level radioactive waste material.

We understand and support the purpose of this amendment bill—that is, to charge ANSTO with the task of managing the waste which is headed for this dump—but I think it would be reassuring for Australians to know that your intention is not for ANSTO to also manage high-level waste that comes from facilities other than Lucas Heights or health or medical facilities that currently operate in Australia. The amendment the Democrats have moved makes sure that there is no hidden agenda and no intention that high-level waste from anywhere else, including those 25 reactors that might or might not be coming, ends up in the Northern Territory.

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I support the amendment that Senator Allison has moved. Far from being grandstanding, it is exactly what the Australian people want to hear. If anybody is grandstanding on nuclear power at the moment, it is the government. We have a really serious situation where we have the government saying that they want to extend ANSTO’s functions to handle radioactive materials and, particularly in relation to this matter, returned waste not exclusively from ANSTO’s reactors.

At the same time, we are looking at other legislation which says that an application for a site for a nuclear dump in the Northern Territory can be approved by the minister even if it does not comply with the current law in relation to informed consent from traditional owners. We have a situation where, an application for a waste dump having been approved, there can be no judicial review and no question if there is inappropriate process. The government is running roughshod over the Northern Territory and over communities, and it is even abolishing procedural fairness. It is intent on imposing a nuclear waste dump on the Northern Territory and on Indigenous communities. That is what we are hearing about in one committee, and now we hear this minister say that it is fanciful to suggest that the government is interested in taking back high-level waste from overseas.

We know that Prime Minister Howard went to the United States in May and met with President George Bush, who has a grand nuclear plan. His plan is to identify nuclear fuel suppliers around the world. Those suppliers would enrich uranium, send it overseas on a lease basis and then take back the high-level waste. That is the George Bush nuclear suppliers deal. That is what the Prime Minister’s task force was asked to look at, and they came back and said that enrichment is a possibility. It is not economically viable. It will be of no benefit to Australian companies because the entry levels are so high that the only ones that can benefit are—surprise, surprise—the American or British companies who are already involved in processing and enriching high-level waste.

The key factor is: in spite of the rhetoric from Mr Switkowski, the chair of the Prime Minister’s task force, the Americans are not happy with their Yucca Mountain Facility. They do not have a high-level waste dump. Former Prime Minister Bob Hawke would love for Australia to provide a global facility to take the world’s high-level waste. That is his vision for Australia. It is not the Greens’ vision and it is certainly not the Democrats’ vision. We have got a very active debate in the nuclear community around the world, and they would love for Australia to become a major supplier of uranium and a waste dump. That is their vision.

Here in front of this chamber we have got a piece of legislation which is extending ANSTO’s powers to, first of all, manage the radioactive waste and then take back into Australia waste not generated in Australia. You ask us why we are cynical. It is because we are watching what is going on with the Prime Minister and what is going on with the nuclear debate. We have seen a significant shift in government policy. The government is suddenly excited about 25 nuclear reactors around the coast of Australia, within 100 kilometres of major population centres. When asked where the dumps would be, the chair of the Prime Minister’s task force said, ‘Take your pick. The geological structure of Australia is such that you could have waste dumps anywhere.’ But we know that the government’s preference is to impose them on Aboriginal communities in a remote location, because the government does not want to have the political fallout of dumping radioactive waste within 100 kilometres of major population centres. It is prepared to give some financial compensation to Aboriginal communities.

I am not prepared to take this ANSTO bill at face value, because behind it we have got the uranium industry framework. We have got the uranium task force, we have got a proposal for 25 reactors and now—surprise, surprise—we have got a provision in legislation which would provide for Australia to take back waste not generated in Australia. This is waste not generated at Lucas Heights and not generated as a result of medical technology. I think it would be entirely sensible for the Senate to support the Democrats’ amendment so that it is very clear to everybody that the Prime Minister’s proposal to lease and take back high-level waste is not on the government’s agenda. If you do not pass this amendment, you are setting us up precisely for that.

Ursula Stephens (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Science and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to say briefly that Labor is supporting the Democrats’ amendment and shares the concerns that we have heard in the chamber today about the absolute policy incoherence that is occurring in the area of nuclear debates. We share the concerns about where nuclear waste facilities might be proposed. This is an important amendment that helps to secure a clear policy position about the conditions under which ANSTO will manage or store high-level radioactive materials. On that basis, Labor is supporting the amendment.

Amanda Vanstone (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is clear that this amendment is going to pass, but I want to make a couple of things clear. Firstly, the passing of this amendment does mean that, should there be a desperate need for the storage of some sort of material that later cannot be stored in a safe place like ANSTO, we will be coming back for the names of the people who voted against the capacity to have that storage. I do not look forward to that day, because no-one wants us to be in a hazardous situation and to have no capacity to deal with it. I am absolutely certain that people in the future, if we are in that position, will look back and ask if federal parliament ever considered the need for that. They will look back at these debates and wonder why people opposite supported this amendment. If that does happen, I only hope that all of you are alive to answer for it.

Question put:

That the amendment (Senator Allison’s) be agreed to.