Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Northern Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to support the government's amendments to the National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment (Site Specification, Community Fund and Other Measures) Bill 2020. Labor will still be supporting passage of this legislation to ensure that all traditional owners have certainty and access to legal recourse through judicial review. Labor acknowledges that radioactive waste management is a complex policy challenge that requires the highest levels of transparency and evidence while balancing the need of the community to benefit from treatments for diseases like cancer. Accordingly, Labor will act in accordance with scientific evidence and with full transparency, broad public input and best-practice technical and consultative standards, taking into account the views of traditional owners, to progress responsible radioactive waste management.

The Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources is responsible for establishing a National Radioactive Waste Management Facility, which I'll refer to as the facility, under the Gillard government's National Radioactive Waste Management Act 2012. Under the existing National Radioactive Waste Management Act, the minister has the power to nominate a site that has been volunteered by a landowner, and the process is subject to judicial review. The government is proposing amendments that reinstate the ministerial site declaration process in the current act, as proposed by the opposition and as originally contemplated in the 2012 legislation; to deem certain land taken to have been nominated and approved under the act, being the three short-listed sites of Lyndhurst, Napandee and Wallerberdina; and to allow for judicial review of the ministerial site declaration aspect of the process. The amendments include compensation provisions to ensure beyond doubt that existing rights to compensation are maintained.

The current government amendments, if passed, will mean the minister will make a site declaration regarding one of the three presently short-listed sites which have been nominated and approved or any other site which is subsequently short-listed. The traditional owners, the Barngarla Determination Aboriginal Corporation, and the Adnyamathanha native title holders and all stakeholders will then have the ability to undertake a judicial review of the ministerial site declaration. The community fund of $31 million will remain as part of the legislation. Labor's primary concern with the original bill which was presented by this government, which compelled parliament to make a site selection for the National Radioactive Waste Management Facility, was that it removed judicial review. This was also the primary concern of the Barngarla Determination Aboriginal Corporation. Labor has been consistent on this. We wouldn't support passage of this legislation unless the traditional owners were comfortable with it. Finally the government has come to the table on this. Labor insisted over many months that the BDAC be consulted in relation to the current government amendments before they go before the parliament. This happened last week.

These amendments are a good compromise which maintains the ability for judicial review, at the same time acknowledging the work that has already been done in short-listing the three sites to get the process moving ahead in the interests of all Australians. Concerns had been raised by the BDAC regarding the deeming of the three sites and whether this would restrict the government in future from nominating other sites outside the three listed. Labor clarified this with the government, who have since confirmed, in the explanatory memorandum, that recognition of the three short-listed sites confirms the sites as being nominated and approved under the act but does not limit the minister from approving new nominations. The minister may declare any approved nomination as a site and is not bound to declare one of the three short-listed sites. Given this commitment in the explanatory memorandum, the Barngarla people do not oppose the amendments, as they are confident that the revised bill provides the legal recourse they need to ensure their voices are heard. Labor has also consulted with the Adnyamathanha, who have been assured that Labor would never allow the government to declare Wallerberdina against the wishes of the community. That is why Labor is supporting these amendments.

Labor supports the community development package of up to $31 million, which will be available for the host community to contribute to its economic and social sustainability. This package includes a $20 million community fund to provide long-term support for the region, $8 million in grants for four years from 2019-20 to strengthen the economic and skills base of the host community and $3 million from the government's Indigenous Advancement Strategy, which will support the delivery of an Aboriginal economic heritage participation plan.

The question of a permanent storage facility for low-level radioactive waste has been an ongoing issue for 30 years, with decades of reports, studies and tests. The scientific and technical advice is that a national facility is required for Australia to meet its international obligations to manage our own nuclear waste. The national regulator, the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency, has made it clear that permanently leaving the waste at Lucas Heights is unsustainable.

National radioactive waste is predominantly the by-product of nuclear medicine. Australians depend on nuclear technology for medicines used in the diagnosis of heart disease and skeletal injuries, as well as a range of cancers. One in two Australians will use nuclear medicine in their lifetime. ANSTO can deliver over 10,000 patient-doses of nuclear medicines to more than 250 Australian and New Zealand hospitals and medical centres every week. So it's no surprise that Australia's radioactive waste has built up over 60 years.

Currently, Australia's radioactive waste is stored at more than 100 locations around the country. There will come a time when the main storage space at Lucas Heights will run out of room. There is a capacity to extend the storage capacity at Lucas Heights, but ANSTO have made it clear that they would rather use that space for scientific endeavours than as a waste facility. In their submission, the department claim that the ANSTO facility would be completely full by 2030.

The proposed national facility is expected to be in operation for 100 years and will permanently dispose of low-level radioactive waste and temporarily store intermediate-level waste. Low-level waste is made up of paper, plastic, gloves, cloths and filters, which contain small amounts of radioactivity and require minimal shielding during handling, transport and storage.

Labor is concerned that, to date, the government has been unable to provide any assurances on progress towards establishing a permanent facility for intermediate-level waste. We note that the community will expect a clear plan for a permanent facility to safely secure intermediate waste. It is hard to understand why, to date, so few resources have been allocated to the creation of a permanent, intermediate-level waste storage facility. In the absence of such resources or planning, the government should explain why the existing intermediate-level waste should be moved from one temporary storage facility to another. Labor will continue to hold the government to account and press for the department to explain how it plans to establish a permanent underground repository for waste of this nature.

It's important that this legislation pass to progress this important issue—which has been treated like a political football up until now—as nuclear medicine is part of modern health care and a storage site is necessary. Opponents of specific site selection will rightly have the opportunity to have their day in court. Labor is supporting this bill to provide certainty to traditional owners and to break the stalemate on this critical issue for Australia's security going forward.

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

I rise today to speak on the National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment (Site Specification, Community Fund and Other Measures) Bill 2020 on behalf of the Australian Greens and my constituents in South Australia, who, of course, are outraged that once again we see the two big parties working together to dump on our state. This is an example of what happens when Labor and Liberal get together: they've got more votes on the eastern seaboard than they do in South Australia, so they dump on SA. That's what they're doing here today.

South Australians are frustrated at this debate. It's gone on for so long. They're frustrated that, every time, rather than putting in the work and coming up with permanent solutions, Labor and Liberal gang up together to decide: 'We don't want the nuclear waste in our backyards, so we'll stick it in South Australia. We'll stick it in communities that don't want it.'

This process has been a shambles from the beginning. The consultation process in relation to these three listed sites has been a debacle, mishandled over and over again. There have been different ministers in charge over time, and, every time you get a new minister, you get new promises, only for them to be broken, and consultations that are rubbish, and the locals in South Australia get ignored once more. And what are we seeing today? Right now, as we're debating and voting on this legislation, we are seeing another rolling of leaders in the National Party. First of all, when Senator Canavan was in charge of this portfolio, he didn't care about where the waste went as long as it wasn't in his backyard in Queensland. 'Let's just dump on SA.' Then we had Mr Pitt. What did he do? 'Just dump on SA.' And you can bet your bottom dollar Mr Barnaby Joyce will do the exact same thing. Just like he wants to take all of South Australia's water, he thinks that we should have all the country's nuclear waste as well—not our Deputy Prime Minister, I'll have you know.

This bill is a disgrace. It is an affront to community consultation, it is an affront to the best available science and it is an affront to the promise, the long-held promise, that this country would get serious about a long-term permanent solution to dealing with the waste that we have. Of course we have a responsibility. We create nuclear waste; we need to store it properly. It is of course incredibly toxic. That's why it is difficult to do. It is also why you don't see the Prime Minister advocating that they build a nuclear waste dump in his electorate, where Lucas Heights actually is. Oh no, you couldn't have it in the Prime Minister's backyard! You've got to dump it in South Australia instead. Actually, the safest place to keep it, as the scientists have told us over and over again in the various inquiries that have been undertaken, is to leave it where it is, and, for the intermediate waste, that would be in the Prime Minister's backyard—in the shire, at Lucas Heights. But, of course, that's not what we're debating today, because the big parties and the big states think it's all very cute and easy to dump on little ol' South Australia.

As I mentioned at the outset, the consultation process that led up to this piece of legislation has been a debacle, an insult. If you want to run a community consultation, this is not the way to do it. The First Nations communities in all three of these selected sites have been treated appallingly. Thankfully, one of the amendments that is going to be moved is to at least restore some type of judicial review, because the process has been so bad. In their incompetence, the ministers under the National Party that have been managing this for a number of years now have treated the local South Australian First Nations communities terribly.

We were first told, in relation to the proposals to build a national nuclear waste dump, that this would be just for low-level waste. 'Don't worry, we'll put this facility in the outback where no-one will really notice. It'll be low level. It doesn't matter. Let's run a process to consult. It doesn't really matter what the response is; we'll still do it. We'll pay you off, too—millions of dollars.' Of course, as this process has gone on, it's now been acknowledged that it's not going to store just low-level nuclear waste. This is actually going to be storing—for a temporary period of 100 years!—intermediate-level waste, above ground.

To anyone who wants to stand in this place today and argue that it doesn't matter, that this is all about low-level waste—the type you find in basements in hospitals—I would say, that is just not true, because part of this proposal has now morphed into storing intermediate-level waste. And the best available science—world practice, international standards—says that this should not be happening, that you shouldn't be double-handling this level of waste in this manner. This is all because the government has been dragging its feet on establishing a properly independent and expert inquiry about the whole nuclear cycle in Australia that would give proper advice as to what to do with the more toxic and dangerous intermediate-level waste. But of course that hasn't happened, so now we have intermediate-level waste tacked onto this proposal—not permanently stored; it will be above ground—and no-one knows what will happen next.

International experts have warned Australia that this is not okay. International bodies have said that this is not best practice. Yet there is no plan from this government as to what to do with it. We all know what happens in these situations. You get approval for the project as it is now, you don't consult properly and you pay off the communities, hoping they'll forget and hoping everyone else will forget, too. Well, we won't forget. South Australians are sick and tired of being dumped on like this by the Labor Party, the Liberal Party, the Nationals and the big states on the eastern seaboard.

If you wanted to do best practice, if you wanted to follow the science in relation to this, you'd put in place a proper plan for dealing with this intermediate waste. Yet that is just not happening. The other issue in relation to all this is: how is this dangerous toxic stuff going to get to South Australia in the first place? It's going to be driven on our roads, in big trucks, and shipped from Lucas Heights, in the Prime Minister's backyard, all the way around and into South Australia. And we're going to be doing that on boats. It's going to be loaded on and off in South Australia's port towns. But of course no-one in Whyalla, no-one in Port Augusta and no-one in Port Pirie has been consulted about having this toxic stuff arrive on their front doorstep. There's been no proper community consultation. No safety plan has been discussed as to how this toxic and dangerous waste is going to be transported to any of these three sites.

This has been a disgraceful process, and still the South Australian community are left in the dark. How is this going to be transported? How often are we going to have trucks and ships full of nuclear waste coming into our state, coming into our towns? What are the people of Whyalla meant to do—not to mention the towns and communities where this dump is built? One of the sites listed by the government in this piece of legislation, in their amendment, is in the heart of the Flinders Ranges—a jewel in the crown of our state. The Flinders Ranges are spectacular. They are beautiful—nature at its very finest. They are loved by South Australians. They are loved by the local First Nations people. They are loved by people right around the world, because of their special and unique characteristics. And today we're voting on a piece of legislation that suggests that this government could build a waste dump in the heart of the Flinders Ranges. And what do we see? Labor voting with the government. It's just a disgrace.

If it doesn't go to the Flinders Ranges, the other site is close to Kimba, in some of South Australia's best, finest, prime agricultural land. What happens with the product that's created and grown out there? It's shipped overseas, exported, with a superb reputation of being clean and green. Senators and members of parliament from Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria don't give two hoots about the reputation of South Australia's grain industry, our clean food and wine industry and our pristine environment. No, they don't want a dump in their backyard. Well, South Australians don't want it either, especially when you haven't even bothered to put in the legwork to run a proper process, to follow best available science, to do world's best practice. You just want a tick and flick, done, done, done—like the revolving door of the leadership of the National Party.

It's no surprise that the ministers—minister after minister after minister—responsible for this debacle have all been ministers of the National Party. They're far more interested in their own jobs, far more interested in being at the top of their party's ticket, far more interested in being Deputy Prime Minister than they are about making sure we handle this toxic and dangerous waste properly. Mr Joyce doesn't give two hoots about what happens to this waste, as long as it's not in his backyard. The Prime Minister, whose electorate is right where this nuclear waste is created, doesn't want it there—surprise, surprise!—so dump it in South Australia and everyone will forget about it.

We're not going to. We're going to fight this. We want a proper process. We want independent expert advice, not special favours from national ministers, and we want our state's reputation for having a clean, green, food, wine and tourism industry protected. It's only the Greens who are standing up for this in our state of South Australia.

Slade Brockman (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm not going to address the nonsense that we've just heard from Senator Hanson-Young. It really does reveal why this country has spent 40 years discussing this issue, something that has proved to be terribly intractable. That contribution from the Greens has just revealed why, when you sink to the base politics of these issues, they do become difficult. You need to discuss the science. You need to work with communities. You need to consider the best interests of the Australian people and the need, particularly, to dispose of medical radioactive waste. That is what this very long and extensive scientific community-oriented process has done.

I want to be positive about this. I want to pay tribute to Mr Rowan Ramsey, the member for Grey in the other place, who happens to be in the gallery today. Mr Ramsey has been a staunch advocate of this process, of the community in his electorate that bravely put their hand up to be part of this process in the face of this extraordinary negativity from other places. It is extraordinarily brave, both what you have done, Rowan, and what the Kimba community has done in the face of opposition from those who don't want to engage and don't want to be productive in this area. I'll pay tribute to those opposite. It's good to see that we have support across the chamber for this proposal. It's an extraordinarily positive step forward that we can finally move this process forward. This is an absolutely vital piece of national infrastructure. It plays an absolutely crucial role in the nuclear medicine industry and in our capacity to drive innovation in this area into the future.

I don't want to speak too long on this bill, but I do want to note that I was chair of the Senate Economics Legislation Committee, which held an inquiry into this bill. It was an opportunity to look at these issues in detail—

Honourable Senator:

An honourable senator interjecting—

Slade Brockman (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is an absolute nonsense. In fact, the committee heard from traditional owners. I will take that interjection. We looked at safety, we looked at security concerns, we looked at alternative site proposals, we looked at native title rights and interests, we looked at local community views and we looked at agricultural considerations. It was an extraordinarily thorough process. It has been going on for many, many years, and the Senate economics committee was just a very small part of it. We received 105 submissions and many more form submissions.

I wish to note—this will be reflected, hopefully, in the chamber's decision in a very short period of time—that there is actually a broad, bipartisan consensus that we must manage our own radioactive waste. It has been accumulating now for over 70 years, largely as a by-product of essential nuclear medicine and research. We need to provide an appropriately effective solution for the management of radioactive waste for future generations. This bill gives effect to the commitment made by successive governments and ministers, including Senator the Hon. Kim Carr, who is in the chamber, and Senator Matt Canavan, to the Australian community to establish a purpose-built national radioactive waste management facility. This will dispose of Australia's domestically produced low-level waste and store Australia's intermediate-level waste for a period of time sufficient for the government to establish a permanent intermediate-level waste disposal facility.

What is this facility actually for? It's critical to our country's medical, scientific and technological advancement, in particular to the continued production and supply of nuclear medicine that, on average, two in three of us will need at some point in our lifetime. Most of us will need nuclear medicine for things such as heart, lung, liver or brain scans or for the treatment of cancer. Some 80 per cent of Australia's radioactive waste stream is derived from the production of nuclear medicine, which is currently stored in something like 100 locations around Australia. As I've said, this has been going on for around 40 years. It's been a very difficult process. It's caused the undertaking of numerous inquiries and numerous processes. It's good to finally see some real progress in the right direction.

Finally, it's really important that, as part of the inquiry process we heard from the community of Kimba. On a personal note, I know that Senator Gallacher, who was deputy chair of the economics committee at that point, was truly grateful for the input we received from a wide variety of stakeholders to that committee. It was a very productive process. I want particularly to thank those from the community of Kimba who put their hand up and stuck their neck out, who will, hopefully, finally get some sort of conclusion.

Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will make a couple of comments about this bill, the National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment (Site Specification, Community Fund and Other Measures) Bill 2020. Labor will support this bill, subject to the adoption by this chamber of a series of amendments. We're here at this time, because this process has been entirely mismanaged by a succession of National Party ministers. The government should not be afraid of judicial review, of proper scrutiny or of proper community engagement over this issue.

As has been commented on by a number of the other speakers, this facility will principally be to deal with waste produced at Lucas Heights by ANSTO, the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation. That facility is a core part of Australia's technological, science, research and medical infrastructure, but it's also a core part of what should be our growing industrial capability. The facility at Lucas Heights can deliver over 10,000 patient doses a week of nuclear medicine, to more than 250 medical centres right around Australia. Australians rely upon nuclear medicine for all sorts of conditions. It is instrumental for diagnosing heart disease, for skeletal injuries and for a range of cancers. It's estimated there are about 650,000 of these procedures every year. One in two Australians will benefit from nuclear medicine produced at ANSTO in Lucas Heights. As an official of the AMWU, I saw this important and skilled work up very close, through members of the AMWU and a series of other unions—over 1,000 people from tradespeople to skilled technicians, scientists and administrative workers operate that facility. I was actually appointed by Senator Carr, the former minister, to a panel that reviewed the safety of that facility and saw up close just how vital that facility is to Australia's future not just in a medical sense but also for the build capability in this country for our science, our technology and the future of our industries. That is a vital facility, and its safety, security and future viability are critical.

The waste from that facility has been building up for the past 60 years. At the moment, that waste is stored in more than 100 facilities around the country, with most of it stored in drums at the ANSTO facility in Lucas Heights. That is not a sustainable position. ANSTO believes the storage capacity will be filled by 2030. They have an arrangement until much later than that. There are certainly more productive uses of space at that nuclear facility than creating further storage capacity. A permanent and specific nuclear waste facility is a core recommendation from ARPANSA, the nuclear safety regulator. It's consistent with our international obligations under the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management. It is clearly the most sensible approach. However, the establishment of a world-class nuclear waste facility is obviously difficult and complicated. It requires leadership, deft management, a commitment to transparency, to community engagement and to technical assessment, but, more than that, it requires trust, competence and a capacity to follow through on the promises that are made to particular communities. That's why it was Labor that legislated the National Radioactive Waste Management Facility Act 2012. It was to outline a process for the establishment and operation of the Australian National Radioactive Waste Management Facility. The existing act gives the resources minister the power to nominate a site that has been volunteered by a land owner through a process subject to judicial review. This bill, as originally drafted, would have obviated judicial review. It would change the mechanism of selection from a ministerial declaration to being specified through legislation, and that of itself excludes judicial review. We don't support the removal of judicial review from this process. It's critical to building community support. It's critical to legitimacy. A decision as permanent and controversial as the establishment of a nuclear waste facility has to be properly scrutinised. So the amendments will reinstate judicial review, and they will strengthen existing rights to compensation.

We on this side have been consistent. We've said that we won't support the passage of legislation unless the traditional owners are confident that those rights in terms of judicial review are restored. Those amendments are the product of consultation with the Barngarla Determination Aboriginal Corporation, who are confident that the revised bill gives them the legal recourse they need to ensure their voices are heard. That is what has developed the position within the Labor Party that we ought to support this legislation.

The fact that this bill has been presented in the way that it has, with the sort of shambolic approach that there has been, is entirely a product of the mismanagement of this portfolio by the National Party. They are entirely focused on themselves—and we've seen more evidence of that today—and unable to distinguish between the national interest and the interests of the National Party. How we manage our natural resources and how we ensure that their benefits are felt by the entire Australian community requires careful judgement and effective policymaking, and that is beyond the succession of National Party ministers that we've had from this place and from over in the other chamber. The National Party has delivered a series of resources ministers who simply aren't up to the challenges of their portfolio and are unable to balance the competing interests that go with the resources portfolio and with the agriculture portfolio. They are interested only in posing in interviews with 'Sky after dark', going for the most reactionary audience that they can find, rather than in the complex challenges of running a government that makes decisions in the interests of all Australians, including South Australians.

In 2015 there was a call for nominations of potential sites, with 28 applications received and six sites short-listed. A revised process was established in late 2016, and a suitable site was volunteered, near Kimba. It fell to Senator Canavan, a sort of cosplay coalminer, Mr Maybelline himself, to oversee the delicate process of nominating a repository under the provisions of the act. The Barngarla Determination Aboriginal Corporation, which holds native title over the adjacent Pinkawillinie national park—

Senator Ruston interjecting—

claims that it was unable to perform an adequate heritage assessment ahead of Napandee being nominated. And I'm very grateful to Senator Ruston for her correction of my very poor South Australian pronunciation. They claim that Minister Canavan assured traditional owners that land neighbouring the site would not be excluded from a ballot of the local government area to determine whether the proposal had community support. But, when the ballot came, it effectively did exclude native title holders on the basis that they weren't residents of the local government area. Strangely, somehow it did include 36 nonresidents who had property interests that were in the local government area. The Barngarla Determination Aboriginal Corporation challenged the ballot right through to the Federal Court, but ultimately they were unsuccessful. They held their own ballot: 100 per cent against the proposal.

So, when the government claims that this proposition has broad community support, it's worth considering who the government means by such a term. It is a stretch to call a 62 per cent 'yes' vote 'broad community support'. The facility now has unanimous opposition from traditional owners in the region. It's not hard to see why an Aboriginal community in South Australia would be sceptical about a nuclear facility.

Managing these concerns requires careful judgement, thoughtful consideration and a commitment to engaging with the community, at the very least a process that doesn't exclude sections of the community. But, then, in Minister Canavan's final act in his portfolio, on his last day before resigning from cabinet because of his baffling support for the member for New England in the last National Party leadership spill, which occurred on the day that the parliament convened to commemorate the victims of the 2019-20 bushfires—remember the National Party spent that day focused on themselves in a leadership spill that was ultimately fruitless; they've done it again today—he formally chose the Napandee site. In a reshuffle his job was handed to Minister Pitt, whose views about nuclear energy have been consistently out of step with the broader Australian community. He is one of those guys who is so reactionary on energy policy, so opposed to advances in renewable energy, so opposed to lower power prices, to lower emissions and to more jobs that would flow from investment in renewable energy, that he's committed to taxpayer funding for coal-fired power. He's a bloke who's so reactionary that, when he's challenged about renewable energy, he goes to the comfortable recourse of the old Australian reactionary, which is to start talking about nuclear power, which would make our electricity more expensive; more waste challenges. So this portfolio's been left in Minister Pitt's hands.

I welcome the decision by the government to support new amendments to the bill that will restore judicial review. The intended outcome of the government's original legislation would have removed procedural fairness for the government's critics. Those on the other side who drafted this bill should reflect on how removing those basic rights correlates with a long history of dispossession and exclusion. In their own report, government senators recommended that the government repair their relationship with the Barngarla with the assistance of a mediator. That's a sensible recommendation. It should have occurred in 2016.

The bill before us really is a sum of the government's mistakes over the long eight years it's had the capacity to fix this set of issues. The original legislation put the country on a path to resolving it. The government has bungled this every step of the way, all because Senator Canavan was too busy getting measured up for his monogramed hi-vis, performing to the Sky NewsAfter Dark audience, than actually taking the job of ministerial responsibility seriously and building the broad community support that he promised. When it comes to the resources portfolio in this country, it is clear whose interests are being served, who gets listened to and who doesn't, whose concerns are considered and whose are ignored.

Finally, the decision by the government to adopt the amendments recommended by the Labor Party is a welcome development. Australia clearly needs this facility to be built. It needs to be built in an environment where there is proper judicial review, consultation, transparency and commitment to the national interest that is served by maintaining our capacity, particularly at ANSTO, and trying to return to a proper, orderly process of ministerial responsibility.

Lidia Thorpe (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I must stand and contribute to the debate on this very important National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment (Site Specification, Community Fund and Other Measures) Bill 2020. Before I continue, I want to pay my respects to the Barngarla and Adnyamathanha elders and say thank you to their people, who are the traditional owners of the lands affected by this bill. Thank you for raising your voice so clearly throughout the campaign against the radioactive waste dump on your country. I hear you. The Greens hear you. And this place must hear you. I know that the voices of community have been sidelined many times in this process and I thank you all for staying strong, staunch and proud.

The Greens oppose this bill and we call on our fellow senators today to oppose this bill. The government has, for many years now, been trying to push a permanent waste dump for low-level radioactive material and a site for long-lived intermediate-level waste on the traditional lands of either the Adnyamathanha or the Barngarla people against their clearly expressed opposition. It is disgraceful. The originally proposed Wallerberdina site in the Flinders Ranges on a sacred women's site has been opposed by the Adnyamathanha community, led by staunch elders determined to protect country and culture. Labor support this, mind you. The community fought a long, exhausting fight to protect their country in December 2018. The then responsible minister, Senator Canavan, ruled out the site for the dump, and the community could finally take a breath again.

The proposed amendment in front of you today paves the way for this sacred site to be again considered for a radioactive waste dump—a sacred site turned into a radioactive waste dump! That's the colonial project right there. The oppressors are at their dirty game again. The proposed amendment paves the way for absolute destruction of country, people and sites that have been there for thousands of generations. You fellas have only rocked up over the last 200 years. My heart is heavy today thinking of the pain this must cause the Adnyamathanha community, how betrayed and disillusioned they must feel. Shame! Time and time again this Liberal government have changed their approach on this important matter because they know it does not have community approval. Again, Labor talk about consultation with blackfellas. They think that that means consent. It's not consent. You can run around saying you consulted with blackfellas anywhere you like, but that does not mean consent.

Now they are backtracking on their promises again. How can we or anyone believe in the word of this government? The amendment, in fact, puts all three short-listed sites back on the table, including the Lyndhurst and Napandee sites, both in Kimba. The Napandee site was one Minister Pitt wanted to specify in the original bill amendment. None of these sites have the consent of the traditional owners. Seriously? You all talk about having mates that are black and you say that you can get advice from them and everything's okay. But I can guarantee you now that none of these traditional owners want their sacred sites desecrated—none of them. That's the part you obviously don't hear, Labor and the government.

Although this Liberal government has always stressed that it won't impose a nuclear waste dump on any community, that is exactly what is happening. They say one thing and stab you in the back the next. It makes me so angry that the so-called community consultation—not consent—via the Kimba community ballot did not even include the Barngarla people, despite their explicit request. This ballot went ahead without including the Barngarla native title holders on the basis that the Barngarla do not pay council rates. Only ratepayers, considered worthy members of the community, were allowed to vote. Does that mean Aboriginal people weren't in that community? What were they considered?

The Barngarla people weren't even contacted as part of this so-called consultation and had to reach out themselves, again and again, to make sure they were heard. If that's not discrimination, then what is? The Barngarla Determination Aboriginal Corporation engaged a private, independent electoral company to conduct its own ballot to determine the Barngarla community's support for the waste facility at Kimba. What happened with that ballot? The vote was a unanimous no. All of those traditional owners got together and said no to the waste dump. Does anyone want to hear that? Or do they want to pretend that they consulted?

This was the result the corporation took to the minister for consideration and inclusion in the process to assess community sentiment. But it would appear that this has not been heeded by the former minister, Minister Canavan, or by Minister Pitt, who is putting forward the bill we have before us today. Is it that you just don't care? How do you feel walking into all of your offices with your big, deadly, thousand-dollar dot paintings? Does it make you feel good? Do you have your hand on your heart while you're stabbing us in the back and digging our graves? How does that feel? Maybe you should think about that next time you look at your dot paintings. You certainly don't care. You're not genuine people, senators or people representing the people. How can anyone say the community is being consulted and considered under these circumstances? This is shameful. It's outrageous, and it's disrespectful to traditional owners not just on that country but everywhere. It just shows your colours, both of you, Labor and Liberal.

Now they are putting before us a bill which proposes three potential sites for the dump. We know where those sites are, and we know how significant those sites are to traditional owners, the people who've been here since time began. Remember: you fellas rocked up only 200 years ago. You've been working out how much you can destroy since you got here. It's take, take, take—all for money and power. This is a sneaky way to avoid further debate about this controversial issue. You're putting forward an amendment that says, 'Oh, the traditional owners can go to court.' What supports do they have to go to court, Labor? Are you going to get dollars out of your pocket or hand over some of your corporate donors' money to support those traditional owners to fight the system in court? You know what the hopes are of that happening. How dare you pretend you support us!

The Liberal government, we know, will just push through with their agenda anyway. I say no. The Barngarla people say no. The Adnyamathanha people say no. I call for all those senators who want to keep their dot paintings to also say no. If you want to stand for an acknowledgement of country in this place, say no. Otherwise, sit down and stop pretending that you're here for the First Peoples of this country, because you're not. You have your own interests in this place, which are to continue the colonial project that has committed genocide and ecocide against the First Peoples of this country. We say no. We say no today and we will say no tomorrow. We'll continue to say no and we'll continue to fight against the destruction of our country, our water and our people.

Radioactive waste is an intergenerational issue. It's not something where you just put it in the bin and walk away, and everything's lovely. It's something that lasts longer than any of you here, in any parliament; it lasts forever. It's something you never take out of the ground. If you know blackfellas and you know our story, you know not to even take that stuff out of the ground in the first place.

We need to change a lot of the ways we do business in our nation and in this place. We need to start with respect for those who have been here the longest and with the deepest understanding that we are inheritors of the past and shapers of the future. This new approach should start today—if you've got any go in you, and if you want to keep your dot paintings up. It should start today, it should be clear and it should be unequivocal rejection of this fundamentally flawed and deeply disrespectful government bill.

Finally, how can the government and Labor—waving their little Aboriginal flag around and saying that they're First Nations friendly—acknowledge the traditional owners' country that you're on when you destroy country, when you support a bill that will destroy sacred women's sites? You up there in the gallery can laugh. That's what I expect from the patriarchy. Colonisation of this country brought the patriarchy: the old whitefellas who are laughing and heckling me in the background. They're the problem with this country. Patriarchy is violence and colonialism is violence. That is what we're dealing with in this bill. Labor, if you want to be friends with us, then you should stand up and vote against this bill as well, because the traditional owners collectively have said no. That's where I'll leave it. We'll continue to fight. And Labor, stand in front of the picket line and fight beside the blackfellas you say you support.

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Steele-John?

Jordon Steele-John (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to seek your guidance. We had some interjections during Senator Thorpe's speech. Her commentary was referred to by the individual in the gallery as 'bullshit'. I want your direction as to how appropriate an interjection such as that is from a person in the gallery.

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I didn't hear it, so I can't rule upon it from where I was sitting.

Jordon Steele-John (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, I did hear it.

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

Perhaps a reminder that people in the gallery are not members of the chamber—

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm happy to remind people in the gallery that they're not able to contribute, but I didn't hear it. Senator Thorpe, a point of order?

Lidia Thorpe (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My point of order is that I did hear that comment. If there were a bunch of blackfellas up there who said that, they'd be thrown out the door by security. I would like the patriarchy sitting up there reminded that they cannot do that in this place. It's my workplace.

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is not a point of order. I've reminded the gallery, in accordance with Senator Steele-John's and Senator Hanson-Young's suggestion. I disagree with your imputation of what I would or would not have done in those circumstances. I find that personally offensive. Senator Fierravanti-Wells.

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment (Site Specification, Community Fund and Other Measures) Bill 2020. This important piece of legislation has been years in the making.

Can I say at the outset that I support nuclear power. However, before embarking on any future policy of nuclear power, we must first sort out the disposal of our nuclear waste. This is the vital first step of that process. Every hospital is a radioactive-waste disposal site. Nuclear medicine is vital to the wellbeing of so many in the community and it will continue to save many lives into the future. We all know someone who has benefited from nuclear medicine. Eighty-five per cent of Australia's radioactive waste results from nuclear medicine, which, on average, one in two Australians will need in their lifetime for the diagnosis or treatment of heart, lung, musculoskeletal conditions and certain types of cancer.

But radioactive waste is produced not just in medicine but from a variety of other practices, such as industry and research, including in facilities such as ANSTO, CSIRO, the Department of Defence, hospitals and universities. The radioactive waste is currently spread across more than 100 facilities throughout Australia, including at five sites within 200 kilometres of Kimba, the site of the proposed waste storage facility. Storage in a national facility will mean the waste will be consolidated into a single, safe, purpose-built radioactive waste facility, consistent with government policy and international best practice. The National Radioactive Waste Management Facility program is at a critical juncture in what has been a 40-year effort to identify a community to host a facility. Importantly, it provides parliament with a say in this important national infrastructure rather than the decision about the site location resting with a single minister.

The bill also contains an amended definition of 'controlled material' to provide clarity as to the type of waste which may be stored at the facility. Thus, it aligns with other domestic legislation and international obligations. The new definition does not expand the types of material that can be stored at the facility. Rather, it covers all types of waste that will be held at the facility but, at this point, expressly excludes high-level waste and spent nuclear fuel. This is designed for Australian waste only—namely, waste that is used in Australia, generated by activities in Australia or sent to Australia under contractual arrangements relating to the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel. The facility will only be designated for and large enough to store Australian waste for approximately 100 years. It will then be monitored for 200 to 300 years afterwards. Near-surface disposal at ground level is a commonly adopted and safe solution for low-level waste, and such repositories are standard in many countries, including the United Kingdom, Spain, France, Japan and the United States. All waste will be fully immobilised and then placed within multiple layers of protection to ensure safety for workers, visitors to the site and the surrounding community. The facility will be designed and engineered to the highest of standards, with multiple safety barriers ensuring it is prepared for and resilient to all credible scenarios.

The government has established the Australian Radioactive Waste Agency, which will lead the process to deliver the facility at Kimba. The agency will be independent of but will work closely with existing waste holders such as ANSTO, CSIRO or the Department of Defence. It is important that a dedicated agency does this work to build radioactive waste management practice and capability in Australia but is independent of existing waste producers.

Questions have arisen as to why an existing Commonwealth site was not chosen to store the waste. In 2017, 42 Commonwealth-owned sites were assessed, but the department did not identify any sites suitable for hosting the facility. In relation to ANSTO, in my home state of New South Wales, its functions relate to science and medicine production and the Lucas Heights campus was never intended to be, or licensed as, a long-term waste management facility. ANSTO has advised ARPANSA that it plans to move its radioactive waste holding to the national facility once it is developed, and ARPANSA has accepted those plans in principle. Australia's facility will be a world-class, purpose-built, state-of-the-art facility, operated in an open and transparent way, in line with international best practice. All radioactive waste at the facility will be safely shielded so radiation levels, even close to stored or handled materials, will be well below regulated safety levels. As is the case at Lucas Heights, workers and visitors will not require protective clothing.

Australia has a uniform national radioactive waste classification system which is based on the International Atomic Energy Agency guidelines and adapted for the Australian situation. Low-level waste emits radiation at levels which generally require minimal shielding during handling, transport and storage. Ninety-two per cent of the radioactive waste produced by ANSTO is low-level waste made up of paper, plastic, gloves, cloths and filters that contain a low level of radioactive activity. Intermediate-level waste is largely associated with the by-products of nuclear medicine and emits higher levels of radiation that require additional shielding during handling, transport and storage.

Australia does not produce high-level radioactive waste. A high-level-waste facility would require a separate investigation to determine technical requirements and other needs. This remains an issue for the future, but it must be tackled, because it behoves Australia to manage its own waste. Shipping our plastics overseas was a case in point. The move away from multiple storage sites for the same class of waste is aligned with international best practice for the long-term management of radioactive waste as recognised by the Commonwealth regulator, the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency, ARPANSA. The government has committed to intermediate-level waste being temporarily stored at the facility while a permanent disposal pathway is developed—an absolute must. It is anticipated that it will take several decades to site and develop an intermediate-level disposal facility.

The role of the waste management function is to coordinate with waste holders, producers, regulators, international counterparts and policymakers to develop agreed pathways, strategies and management practices for Australia's radioactive waste from its production through to its disposal. This function will lead the development of a permanent disposal pathway for intermediate-level waste. This involves a major program of research and development activities, and while no deadline has been set, this process is expected to take years.

Regrettably, there are those who are simply opposed to anything nuclear. They forget that, on average, one in two Australians will need nuclear medicine in their lifetime. Cessation of all activities that produce radioactive waste would be counterproductive and damaging to our society and the economy. Even if it were viable for Australia to cease producing nuclear medicine, doing so would not provide a solution for our legacy waste, which has been accumulating for over 70 years and still requires a permanent facility. Defence is not a significant producer of radioactive material. Therefore, activities relating to the defence of Australia will result in very small amounts of radioactive waste being sent to the facility. Australia has no nuclear weapons capability.

Before I conclude, I would like to make some comments regarding nuclear power. The time has come to consider nuclear power. If we are to be ecumenical on all power sources, then nuclear needs to be in the mix. There is a certain hypocrisy about those who are opposed to even contemplating consideration of this issue. They are happy to go to Europe, including the UK, and have no qualms about benefiting from nuclear power supply on tour. They will happily sip champagne or good Italian red wine whilst adopting the NIMBY principle—'not in my backyard'—for Australia.

In summary, nuclear power generation creates different levels of waste. However, before we contemplate storage of high-level waste, it behoves Australia to successfully deal with low- and intermediate-level waste to demonstrate that in future we would be fully able to safely store any waste resulting from a nuclear energy cycle.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm very pleased to be able to support the National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment (Site Specification, Community Fund and Other Measures) Bill 2020 and I acknowledge the work of the Senate Economics Committee, which Senator Brockman has referred to. I also want to particularly thank the deputy chair, Senator Gallagher, for the work that has been undertaken in examining this bill and the detailed studies related to it. I also thank the department. Prior to the last election, the caretaker convention allowed me the opportunity to consult with the department about the matters that relate to the community fund and other matters. While I may not agree with every aspect of the draft bill as it was then, I do want to acknowledge that the department treated me, as the shadow minister, very well and I think answered every inquiry I made in regard to the policy issues related to the fund and the site selection processes that had been undertaken up to that date, including the community consultation processes that have been undertaken. I just wanted to acknowledge that.

This is a bill that has taken 40-odd years. The process began with the 1978—I emphasise that: 1978—meeting of Commonwealth, state and territory health ministers that asked for the Commonwealth to coordinate a national approach to the management of radioactive waste and the development of relevant codes of practice. What concerned me in the consultations that I undertook in these matters, as a former science minister, was the failure of the previous attempts to develop an effective strategy here. It is something that I felt very deeply. There are times when we have genuine national interest projects that go to the welfare of the entire nation, and this issue is one of those. We simply cannot understand the importance of the nuclear technologies that this country uses, with their enormous benefits, without understanding the need to deal with the safe disposal of the by-products of those technologies. Frankly, since the 1970s this country has failed to face up to its responsibilities. Despite our international obligations, despite the extraordinary advances in those technologies and despite the ubiquitous uses of those technologies, we as a nation have failed to deal with the consequences of the use of those technologies. This bill provides us with an opportunity to begin, hopefully, the next phase of meeting those international and national interest responsibilities.

For decades, ARPANSA has warned us that it's simply not tenable to keep storing waste at ANSTO's facility at Lucas Heights and at the various other sites around the country. It's simply not tenable to have nuclear waste left in filing cabinets. It's simply not tenable to use nuclear technologies throughout industry and to have a situation where one in two of us is relying upon the benefits of radiopharmaceuticals for health purposes, where one-third of all procedures used in modern hospitals involve radiation and radioactivity and where 500,000 doses a year are produced by ANSTO and not deal with the consequences of that. We have something just short of 10,000 cubic metres of low-level waste in the country at the moment, dating back to CSIRO sites in Port Melbourne—soil, gloves, plastics, filters and other industrial equipment. And we have some 3,700 cubic metres of intermediate-level waste from radiopharmaceutical production.

We have been told for far too long that the facilities at ANSTO simply are not able to cope with it and that sooner or later they'll be exhausted. We can't have a situation where we are faced with one proposal after another being defeated because it can't meet the various requirements of both the science and the politics of the development of such a facility. It struck me that the idea of a reverse auction was the appropriate way to go; that is, for the 22 sites that were proposed that meet the scientific criteria—that's why the Academy of Science strongly supports these particular sites—provide the communities with the opportunity to engage in a proper process of consultation and provide the necessary social infrastructure to support community development at those sites. The $31 million that's provided here certainly helps that proposal. The capacity, however, to understand the reach of nuclear technology means that these methods can't be held up all the time or forever, as they have been throughout the various measures. At the back of the Senate report, there's a list of various activities undertaken, throughout the period of the last 43 years, in an attempt to find a solution to this fundamental national problem of dealing with the by-products of the nuclear manufacturing capabilities in this country, whether it be the use of technologies for measurement in mines—even in this parliament we use nuclear technologies, in this chamber and in the security at the front desk. We use it in civil construction and in so many other ways.

The amendments the government has proposed, removing the most contentious elements of the bill when it was first released, go some way to dealing with the questions that remain outstanding, and I trust that the judicial processes don't lead to further delays. With regard to the consultation with Indigenous communities, the Barngarla people, I note that there are no native title issues with regard to the specific sites in this bill. As the Senate report makes clear:

Native Title rights have been extinguished at the specified site; however, the Aboriginal heritage, either tangible or intangible, may still be present. The land was voluntarily nominated by its owners for selection as the site for the Facility. Additionally, the process for acquiring any additional land to extend the site for the purposes of establishing and operating the Facility or for allweather road access includes a consultation period.

In terms of the electoral system, they are matters that went through a judicial process, to the point of the Federal Court full bench. That's a point worth emphasising. There has already been a judicial review of the balloting process.

The determination that others have to have further legal challenge for this is entirely consistent with the amendments that the government is moving. The Labor Party are not pressing our amendments on that matter. We will allow the passage of this legislation, which provides for a further level of judicial review. The $31 million in the community fund is still part of the legislation. That provides for $20 million in community support, $8 million over four years to improve the skills base, $3 million for a further Aboriginal economic heritage plan and a total of 45 jobs for the site. On top of that, there are 35 jobs at the Australian Radioactive Waste Agency, so there's an extraordinary economic opportunity, as well, that comes through this process. They might seem small steps, but they're important ones. While I know that those who have a hostility to nuclear energy and the nuclear fuel cycle will be unhappy about any aspect of this, there are rigorous safety precautions built into this proposal. As far as I can tell, that's why the Academy of Science is so strongly supportive of it. All the rigorous scientific requirements for site selection and processes have been satisfied.

This is a matter of genuine national interest. The 40-year search for a permanent site may finally be able to be dealt with properly. The safety standards laid down by the International Atomic Energy Agency are being met and monitored by ARPANSA. ARPANSA is supposed to keep the national inventory of our waste, but it is not doing a very good job of it. It is not providing proper scrutiny of what's happening in private industry, in our universities and at the state level. ARPANSA itself has 140 barrels left over from its days as the Commonwealth radium laboratory. That will presumably move to this site, but ARPANSA has to do a better job in its monitoring of our inventory. If it wants to act as the world-class regulator, it has to actually make sure it regulates the entire industry, including in the state and private sectors. The endeavour will only succeed if all parts of the government—the department, the agencies and the regulator—work together in a common interest and handle this matter properly and in a manner that's able to maintain our global reputation in nuclear research and our capacity in the manufacturing of radiopharmaceuticals, where we ought to be world leaders.

ANSTO is one of the great gems of the Australian research community. I have long been a strong supporter of ANSTO. You cannot rely on a storage site in tin sheds on wooden stilts, using drums for the storage of waste. ARPANSA in the past has made it clear that that licensing requirement will come to an end. ANSTO itself also made it clear it simply cannot provide the room in the future as a storage facility. It is totally inadequate as a site for the storage of waste materials. On scientific grounds alone, it should be rejected. So those who say, 'Just leave it where it is,' are ignoring the fundamental principles that are required in our national and international obligations for the proper storage of waste materials. We as a parliament have an obligation to act now, to decide now, and to be guided in making this decision in what is genuinely a national interest concern. It is a matter that is long overdue and, given that it's now 40-odd years since we started on this journey, it is surely timely that we do so.

Jordon Steele-John (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

To talk about the history and management of radioactive and nuclear materials in Australia, we must talk about race, we must talk about racism and we must talk about the reality of colonisation, of stolen land and of the systemic and purposeful exclusion of First Nations people from decision-making processes from the very beginning of the existence of the country now known as Australia upon this ancient continent. I had the opportunity a couple years back to visit the Songlines exhibition when it was hosted by the National Museum here in the ACT. As part of that exhibition, there was an incredibly powerful co-located piece of digital immersive art which took you into the first-person experience of a traditional owner who was affected by the Maralinga nuclear testing. Many First Nations people were not informed that the tests were going ahead, and this art exhibition took you through their perspective and lived experience as the mushroom cloud rose high into the sky. It then took you on a journey to hear directly the voices of survivors speaking about what it was like to hear the noises and see the smoke and the mist move through the towns, and then to watch old people lose their sight. It had an incredible impact on me.

I'm from WA, and our state has a long history with these debates around the storage of nuclear waste. It has in the past been proposed many times that such a facility be hosted in Western Australia. Every single time, just like every single time this proposal is put anywhere in the country, there's a common thread, there's a common dynamic, and that dynamic is white people rocking up to a community and saying, 'Guess what, everybody? We've got the most toxic and deadly substance known to humanity. It's currently being stored a bit close to where nice, rich, white people live, and that's a bit worrying for the nice, rich, white people who vote for us at elections. Would you mind if we took this awful, toxic substance which we dug up and developed—despite the fact that you shared with us stories going back tens of thousands of years about the urgent need to keep it in the ground—and dumped it on your lands? And, while we're at it, would you mind if it also served as a global nuclear dumping ground? Surely that'd be okay with you because we've said there are going to be all these protections, and all these things we're going to do to make things safe for you. And you know that every time in the past when we've come to you and said, "Hey, we've got this idea; there'll be all these protections in place," we've always lived up to our promises, haven't we?'

That is the common thread: we've got some stuff that we don't want in our backyard; let us put it in yours. And this time is a real kicker, because this time what is proposed is to take the material stored at the Lucas Heights reactor, in Scott Morrison's electorate, in his backyard, and put it in South Australia and put it on traditional lands after a process which has excluded traditional owners. These are conversations that can be had in this country only because of the continuing existence of systemic racism and the differential power that exists in this nation between white people with money and black First Nations people without.

Another common thread of these stories is black people, First Nations people, pushing back, banding together, calling for support from allies in the broader community and shooting down these proposals, despite the fact that in this country it is reflexively expected that you as a black person will defer, that you as a First Nations person will be quiet and sit down—and maybe, if you're lucky, produce a bit of art that we can put on our walls: 'Oh, isn't that pretty!' We are hosting the longest continuing culture in the history of humanity: 'Yes, let's roll that out, particularly in the international space.' But, when the rubber hits the road and it's decision-making time, you as a First Nations person in this country are meant to shut up, sit down and let the process go ahead. And, if you're consulted, you're lucky, and that consultation is considered consent, and any demurral from that is responded to with derision and dismissal.

We have had this afternoon in this very chamber an example of that. I sat here as Senator Thorpe, a duly elected senator for Victoria, my honoured colleague, gave her perspective, her contribution to this debate, as the Greens representative on First Nations issues, and she spoke about the views of First Nations owners and she spoke about the nature of the injustice and she spoke about the risk to sacred sites, and she spoke the truth of the history. And, from the gallery, what did we hear? We heard an old white male voice utter the word 'bullshit'. I looked to my right and I wondered who it might be. I'd never seen the guy in my life. Ladies and gentlemen: who was it? It was no other than Owen Ramsey, the member for Grey, in whose electorate these dumps are being proposed.

Slade Brockman (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A point of order, Chair: it's a reflection on someone else, even though he got the name wrong.

Senator Steele-John interjecting—

It was not a statement of fact. Acting Deputy President McLachlan, you've actually already ruled on an earlier point of order.

Senator Steele-John interjecting—

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Steele-John, I've already ruled on it. I did not hear it. You're impugning a member of the other house.

Jordon Steele-John (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will not withdraw that. That is what he said, standing up there. Standing up there, he ruled my colleague's contribution as 'bullshit', because he forgot that he is not in the House of Representatives. While that might pass over there, this is the Senate, the federal Senate of Australia. You have no right as a member of the House of Representatives to come into this chamber and heckle my colleague from the gallery and rule her contribution to be 'bullshit'. This is her workplace, and it is completely unacceptable behaviour.

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Steele-John, I have dealt with the matter. I ask you to move on.

Jordon Steele-John (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is an example of exactly the point that I am making, that structural racism exists in this country, that, when First Nations' people's sovereignty is violated, their country is trashed and this awful substance that white people don't want in their backyard is shipped off to their lands, there is an expectation that First Nations people defer, sit down and shut up. And, when a colleague of mine refuses to do that, she gets heckled from the gallery. That's what it looks like.

In her contribution to the debate on this bill, Senator Hanson-Young—I must acknowledge the work that she and her team have done in opposing this legislation—made the observation that it seems to have been, I think, South Australia's bad luck to have been identified as the site of this unnecessary waste dump. South Australia and Western Australia share a certain history of being selected by the other states of the federation to host these sorts of facilities. The Greens of Western Australia also share a history of opposing such developments. I pay tribute here also to Giz Watson, Robin Chapple, Scott Ludlam and Rachel Siewert, who all in their time have contributed greatly to the anti-nuclear movement in WA and made sure that it had a voice in state and federal parliament, whether it be against the Pangaea Resources venture or many of the other forms that that project took. The Greens have been on the front lines of those campaigns and have opposed them every step of the way. It also needs to be noted, as was noted by my colleague, that the process that has identified Kimba, particularly, is one that has excluded traditional owners.

The real kicker, of course, is that our national peak body, the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency, has ruled that the intermediate-level waste facility at Lucas Heights is secure and in line with best practice for the storage of nuclear waste. So our own body says that where it is now is where it should be. We know that international best practice tells us that the No. 1 thing you should not do with radioactive waste is double-handle it, yet that is what this project would entail.

The reality is that nuclear waste is one of the most toxic and dangerous materials in existence. That is why the safest place for uranium and nuclear by-products is in the ground, having not been taken out in the first place. Yet it is the wont of both sides of this chamber, over many decades, to bow to the pressure of the minerals councils to dig this stuff out of the dirt—at this particular moment, at the assistance of the National Party, who seem to live in an alternative universe where there is a need for nuclear power in this country and where the member for New England is a fit and proper person to be Deputy Prime Minister.

In conclusion, let me say that the continuing reality of the way in which First Nations people are treated in these discussions is an ongoing national shame to this nation. What we are seeing here is a can being kicked down the road through First Nations communities. We are seeing the Prime Minister get this stuff out of his electorate and into the backyards of all South Australians, particularly traditional owners. It is a proposal that we in the Greens oppose, and proudly so. We will continue to work with traditional owners. We will continue to listen to First Nations voices and support folks to oppose this proposal at every step of the way. I thank the chamber for its time.

Ben Small (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

At the outset, let me say that like most of my colleagues on the government benches I don't come to this place to stereotype and to divide, by any means, let alone by how someone looks. Yet the arguments in this very important national conversation, as Senator Carr rightly pointed out, are approaching some four decades in the making. Today we've heard people described as white and as black and therefore it follows they hold particular views. I think that's an outrageous affront to the rights of Australians to determine their own world views, to exercise the liberties and choices that we would consider to be in accordance with fundamental values.

Let's talk about what we're actually doing with this important national conversation. What we're actually doing is bringing legislation before the parliament to allow a site to be specified, for a national facility, to enable some $20 million to flow through a community fund and provide support around the local community, where this facility eventually becomes constructed, and provide clear links between the operation of the act and the relevant constitutional heads of power. These are important steps in what I consider to be an essential step for our nation as we seek to develop a nuclear industry. I'm a big supporter of a nuclear industry not only for its potential in power and generation in time but also for the benefits of nuclear medicine and a sovereign capability that, frankly, allows us to participate on the world stage in this way.

The need for a national radioactive waste management facility has been recognised for decades and, finally, this government is getting on with the job of getting it done. The operation of this facility will greatly improve the safety and security of radioactive waste management in Australia. In addition, it will bring science and technology together to allow Australia to join some of its key international partners at the forefront of the nuclear industry. There have been unsuccessful efforts to identify a suitable site in the past, but this proposal allows for the permanent disposal of low-level waste and, temporarily, to store intermediate-level waste until a suitable permanent disposal facility can be constructed. That's expected to take several decades, in part due to the intransigence of the parties like the Greens, who won't engage in a reasoned and rational discussion on matters of national importance.

This is a project that can be used as an important precedent for supporting the creation of a nuclear industry here in Australia, where we are well suited to deal with the challenges and the complexities of handling nuclear substances due to our impeccable track record of high safety standards in this space. It's not well known, for instance, that we've had three nuclear reactors operating in Australia, on and off, for some decades. That is a track record that speaks to our capacity to lead the way in the development of a nuclear industry—

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Small, you will be in continuation when debate resumes. It being 2 pm, we will go to questions without notice.