David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, Minister Wong. The Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Bill being pushed by your government will make areas next to Perth and Adelaide nuclear waste dumping sites without any consultation with the local community or First Nations groups. If that's not bad enough, it will also allow the government to establish nuclear dump sites anywhere in Australia with no requirement to ever consult with the local community or First Nations groups. Your government is rightly opposed to the coalition's uncosted, unachievable and dangerous nuclear power plants. But how can you seriously take this position while also pushing $368 billion worth of nuclear submarines and their associated toxic nuclear waste dumps across Australia?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

First, in relation to the bill, I don't agree with the language that Senator Shoebridge has utilised for that bill. In relation to the submarines, I would make a few points. The first is that we have been clear that the submarines that we seek to acquire through AUKUS, including those to be constructed here in years to come, are nuclear powered, not nuclear armed. We have been very clear with the Australian people and also with our like-minded partners and our partners in the Pacific family. We have also said that we understand and recognise our obligations under international law, including the Non-Proliferation Treaty and the Treaty of Rarotonga. Whilst we're not party to it, we'll continue to act consistent with the basic principles of the Bangkok treaty, which is related to South-East Asia. My point is: there is a distinction between a nuclear powered submarine and a nuclear armed submarine. In relation to domestic power—

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

Senator Shoebridge?

David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's a question of relevance. My question was about toxic waste, not nuclear arms. The minister's deliberately not addressing the toxic waste and the association with the coalition's policy.

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

Thank you, Senator Shoebridge. The minister is being relevant to your question. Minister, please continue.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You also made comments about the submarines, Senator Shoebridge, and I was responding to that because I'm conscious of the importance of there not being misinformation about the submarines in the public realm. We believe AUKUS is a core pillar of our national security policy to protect the nation. I think the bill to which you are referring is about the establishment of a new regulatory, including an independent regulator, to ensure nuclear safety within the nuclear powered submarine enterprise and over the life cycle of our submarines.

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

Senator Shoebridge, a first supplementary?

David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Your government's Australian Naval Nuclear Powered Safety Bill also permits nuclear waste to be dumped in Australia from AUKUS submarines, including UK and US nuclear submarines. How is it possible for your government to propose a law that will allow foreign nations to dump high-level nuclear waste in Australia while pretending to be outraged by the coalition's nuclear power plants?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Again, the hyperbole is not fact. We have said that Australia will not be responsible for accepting and disposing of intermediate or high-level radioactive waste from other countries. The Deputy Prime Minister has made clear we will manage low-level radioactive waste responsibly and consistently with nuclear safety standards, as we do with other low-level radioactive waste generated across the country for medical or research purposes. Low-level radioactive waste generated from the routine maintenance of submarines, including through rotational force-west activities, will be managed at HMAS Stirling. The management of spent fuel from our own conventionally nuclear powered submarines is not expected to be required until the 2050s. Obviously governments will go through the process of dealing with that issue.

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

Senator Shoebridge, a second supplementary?

David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Keeping in mind that the nuclear waste from nuclear submarines is vastly more dangerous and toxic than civilian nuclear waste, can you explain why the Albanese Labor government rejects nuclear power and waste except for when it's in a submarine floating off the coast or is being dumped on shore from one of those floating reactors? How do you square that circle?

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

Order, Senator McKenzie! You were not invited to answer this question. I would ask you to listen in silence. If you wish to make a contribution, find another time during the Senate sitting to do so.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am interested to see Senator Shoebridge effectively parroting the same attack that the coalition made about this. The Greens-coalition alliance is going well. There are two things I would say to you. One is that we care about the safety of the nation, Senator Shoebridge. Would you like—

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

Order! Senator Shoebridge, you are out of order.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We've made the decision in relation to nuclear powered submarines because of circumstances Australia faces and because national security comes first. Secondly, in relation to nuclear power, as you know, the coalition's plan would deliver the most expensive power in the world in a number of decades time. It does not make economic sense even before we get to the waste issue.