Barbara Pocock (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is directed to Senator Farrell in his capacity representing the Minister for Resources. Nuclear submarines mean weapons grade nuclear waste. Five Australian governments over 70 years have tried and failed to find a suitable place for the permanent storage of our existing low- and intermediate-level waste from medical and research activities. Even finding a site for low-level waste in our state of South Australia has met with very strong opposition from local communities and First Nations people. The AUKUS deal locks Australia into managing large quantities of weapons-grade waste, requiring military protection for more than 100,000 years. Neither the US nor the UK have moved beyond temporary storage of this material. Given that no-one on the planet has found a permanent solution, isn't it true that your government will also be unable to dispose of this dangerous waste and will simply kick the problem down the road to our kids decades ahead.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Pocock for her question and for her interest in this particular topic. I guess the short answer to your direct question is that no decision has yet been made on the location for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel.

Opposition Senator:

An opposition senator interjecting—

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Let's look at South Australia. There was a proposal by the former government, in respect of Kimba, to deal with low-level nuclear waste, the sort of thing—

An opposition senator interjecting—

I'm trying to answer your question, Senator Pocock, in the most honest way I can. You could at least give me the opportunity to complete the answer. I sat in silence while you asked your question. I would appreciate the same courtesy while I'm giving you the answer. I'm pointing out that there is the issue of low-level nuclear waste. The previous government attempted to resolve that issue in respect of a site in Kimba in South Australia. By the end of this year, Defence, in consultation with the Australian Radioactive Waste Agency, will complete a review to identify sites within the Defence estate that could be technically suitable for the storage and disposal of radioactive waste, including spent nuclear fuel. The process to identify—

Barbara Pocock (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Weapons grade!

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

With respect, you've asked me the question and I am directly answering your question. You might not like the answer, but please— (Time expired)

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Pocock, first supplementary?

Barbara Pocock (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We're yet to hear an answer on how large quantities of weapons-grade material are going to be stored. The South Australian Premier has called for the Barngarla people to have a right to veto the low- and intermediate-level radioactive waste dump proposed on their country near Kimba in South Australia, a proposal that the current Labor government has pursued, having had it suggested by the previous government. Any site for AUKUS nuclear waste would be on the lands of traditional owners. Will you commit now to giving traditional owners the right to veto? (Time expired)

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Pocock for her first supplementary question. I'm not entirely sure that you've correctly characterised the statements by the South Australian Premier, but I'll look closely at what you claim he has said and find out exactly what it was that he did say in respect of that particular site. But the process to identify a suitable location for storage of high—

Hon. Senators:

Honourable senators interjecting—

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Now, now, now, now. Now, now, now. Now, now, now. The process to identify suitable locations for storage— (Time expired)

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Pocock, second supplementary?

Barbara Pocock (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So no promise of a veto for First Nations people—no voice. The AUKUS deal creates whole new challenges around nuclear waste, and the Barngarla people, local Kimba farmers and many other South Australians continue to unequivocally oppose a nuclear waste dump at Kimba, a site that is unsuitable for permanent storage of even intermediate-level waste. In this light, will you commit to immediately suspend all preliminary works at Kimba and end your David and Goliath legal fights against the Barngarla people? (Time expired)

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Pocock for her second supplementary question. I can certainly give you this assurance, Senator Pocock: any spent fuel from the nuclear submarines will not be stored or disposed of at the National Radioactive Waste Management Facility at Kimba. There are legal proceedings underway in respect of a dispute about the site at Kimba. I think that, in the circumstances that there are legal proceedings underway, generally speaking we don't comment on those particular proceedings and we allow those proceedings to take their course and, of course, abide by any decisions that might come out of those proceedings. (Time expired)