TORO ENERGY

The Hon. M. PARNELL (17:34): I move:

That this council—

1. Notes:

(a) that demonstrations will be held in Adelaide, Perth and Darwin to mark the Adelaide-based Toro Energy Ltd annual general meeting on Wednesday, 28 November 2012;

(b) the Toro Energy Ltd uranium project near Wiluna, Western Australia, is located within a lake bed that floods periodically and poses potential risk of extinction or other adverse impacts on various species of flora and stygofauna;

(c) that if the project is approved, Toro Energy intends to export uranium export oxide via South Australia; and

(d) radioactive materials from all future uranium projects in Western Australia will be headed through South Australia on their way to either Darwin or Adelaide for export without consideration, public debate, planning or assessment in this state of the adequacy of current or proposed transport systems.

2. Calls on the government to reject the transfer of radioactive materials from Western Australia into South Australia.

This morning I attended a rally in Hindmarsh Square to coincide with the annual general meeting in Adelaide of Toro Energy. Toro Energy is a small company that has been exploring for uranium in a number of locations. It has never, in fact, ever conducted a uranium mine, but it now looks to have some but not all of the approvals it needs from the Western Australian government.

At the rally this morning, the representatives of the Australian Conservation Foundation and other groups which are opposed to the uranium industry handed out an alternative annual report, which I must say is a most impressive document and far more edifying than the official annual report, which glosses over all of the manifold problems with this particular company and its operations. In fact, I should point out that one of the prime authors of this report is the Conservation Council of Western Australia.

The report outlines the decline of the nuclear industry globally and the risks, the costs and the failures of the industry, which are currently the main barriers to any growth, and they do present a significant risk to shareholders and the company. So, it is an alternative annual report that is not all froth and spin and points out to shareholders the risks they may take to their hit pocket as well as the risks to which their company is subjecting the planet.

Toro Energy is a publicly listed mining company and, as I have said, it is proposing to establish its first uranium mine in Western Australia at Lake Way, which is near Wiluna, north of Kalgoorlie. This Wiluna project incorporates the Lake Way and the Centipede uranium deposits and a number of surrounding low-grade calcrete uranium deposits. There are no calcrete uranium mines in Australia, and there is only one active calcrete uranium mine in the world, and that is the Langer Heinrich mine in Namibia. That mine is owned by the Perth-based Paladin Energy, and it has had ongoing problems with its mineral processing.

Toro has uranium exploration projects in Western Australia, South Australia, the Northern Territory and Namibia but, as I have said, it has no operating uranium mines and no experience in mining at all as a company. Toro Energy submitted its environmental review management plan (or ERMP) for the proposed Wiluna uranium mine to the WA Environment Protection Agency in early 2011. There were 2,196 public submissions made to the EPA regarding Toro's Wiluna uranium proposal, and the overwhelming majority of those (more than 2,000) expressed opposition to the project.

The ERMP that Toro submitted to the EPA for assessment was at best a preliminary document, with key studies, data and management plans all missing. Much of that information has apparently been provided incrementally to the EPA but it is not in the public domain. The EPA made a recommendation to approve the mine, without any significant environmental conditions, without a number of essential management plans and citing economic incentives for an early approval.

You have to wonder at the mandate of the EPA and those who comprise the decision-making bodies when the environment plays second fiddle to economic imperatives in relation to such a risky activity. Certainly, the process followed in Western Australia is very different from that which would be required here. Due to the high level of support from the current pro-uranium mining government in Western Australia, Toro Energy has been walked through the assessment process and has achieved state environmental approval but not yet the full set of required WA approvals.

The project continues to face strong public and political opposition in Western Australia. There are specific concerns with the Wiluna mine project, which include the following: firstly, as I said, it has no proven corporate experience in mining; secondly, the company has found new and possibly endemic samphire species on the site (Tecticornia), but it has not done any impact assessment on the plant and therefore still has not properly identified the species. I think it is a case of the less they know, the safer they think they will be.

The Department of Environment and Conservation in Western Australia has warned that the project should not be approved without proper and complete studies on the species. Lake Way is also home to a unique population of stygofauna, which is a newly-discovered species of subterranean crustaceans. The mine rehabilitation plans are incomplete, and Toro's preliminary costings for rehabilitation remain unclear and unpublished, and this is clearly inconsistent with industry best practice and community expectation.

Uranium mining and tailings disposal in this region would occur below the watertable and be connected to aquatic ecosystems, and that means that there is a risk of contaminating the aquatic ecosystems with changes in water chemistry, including the mobilisation of radioactive compounds. Toro Energy plans to line the sides of the tailings pits—which are shallow, open pits—but it is not proposing to line the base of the pit, and such an approach would lead to an increased movement and leakage of radioactive mine tailings.

In early 2012, a Western Australian government report into uranium mine regulations found that state tailings guidelines were outdated and flawed, yet they have been allowed to apply in this case. The legal requirements for tailings management at the Ranger Uranium Mine in the Northern Territory by contrast is effective isolation for a period of not less than 10,000 years. This requirement was also passed as a motion in the Legislative Council in the Western Australian parliament in March 2012.

This requirement should be a minimum standard for any proposed uranium mine in Western Australia, including at Wiluna. As I mentioned, no calcrete uranium deposit has been mined in Australia before, and the only deposit in Namibia has been plagued with problems. There is a lack of expertise and experience in engineering and mine design for these deposits, and they require complex and costly mineral processing techniques.

Toro has not factored in recent advice from the International Commission on Radiological Protection that radon is twice as carcinogenic as previously thought. Toro has irresponsibly promoted the fringe scientific view that low-level radiation is harmless or beneficial. Conversely, the company has done nothing to promote mainstream scientific understanding that even low doses of ionising radiation can increase the incidence of severe and adverse health impacts, including fatal cancers and other diseases. It appears to be a variation on the well-worn theme that toxic sludge is good for you; and there was a book of that title published some years ago.

Toro has not demonstrated a comprehensive understanding or analysis of the cumulative impacts of water extraction on the proposed mine. Toro has only identified and done impact assessment on water for the first seven years of a project with a planned life of 14 years. Toro has made the false assumption that the Wiluna region has naturally elevated radiation levels, and it has failed to submit accurate and complete evidence on the radiological environment at Lake Way and its surrounds.

Toro acknowledges the need for a formal risk assessment in relation to security risks; however, this has not been carried out. A mining agreement with the traditional owners has not yet been negotiated, and the heritage mapping survey which will inform negotiations has not yet been completed. There are local and community concerns and complaints about the way in which Toro has scheduled and conducted its public meetings and consultation processes.

During the project's public consultation period, Toro organised one community meeting in Wiluna. This coincided with a funeral. The funeral date was made before the Toro public consultation date was set. However, Toro declined to change its meeting date. This shows either a very poor understanding of the local community and a disturbing lack of sensitivity, or it was an attempt to limit genuine public engagement in Wiluna. Toro refused to hold another meeting, instead choosing to organise a closed meeting with a few people the company has been negotiating with.

The final serious concern that directly impacts on us here in South Australia is not just that this is a company headquartered here in South Australia, but it is also the fact that it is proposing to use our state as a transport corridor. Wiluna is in a remote area. There is very little infrastructure and to get uranium from Wiluna to a port licensed to ship uranium is a journey through South Australia of 2,698 kilometres to Adelaide or 5,148 kilometres to Darwin. There is currently no port licensed to export uranium in Western Australia and unlikely to be one, as Fremantle is a progressive place that vehemently opposes the nuclear industry.

Despite these enormous distances, Toro has not submitted a complete transport management plan. The plans have been presented as a preliminary draft only. This toxic and radioactive product will travel many thousands of kilometres from Wiluna to Adelaide and/or to Darwin, and this is an enormous distance with significant risks, involving unwilling communities.

Similar to our concern over the transport of nuclear materials from Lucas Heights, we are concerned about this material coming through our state. Members would recall that I asked in question time earlier this year about the plan to take radioactive waste from the Lucas Heights reactor through South Australia. The best that minister Gago could offer at the time was to say:

It is anticipated that the commonwealth would enter into discussions and keep the state fully informed of any future transport of significant quantities of radioactive waste through South Australia.

We have not seen any such plan or any such announcement in relation to this proposed transfer of radioactive material. The contrast with the attitude taken by former premier Mike Rann is rather incredible. Back in 2003, the state government was launching High Court challenges to prevent the transport and storage of radioactive waste through South Australia. Following that High Court victory, former premier Rann said:

Eighty per cent of South Australians were opposed to the radioactive waste dump and particularly opposed to radioactive waste from Lucas Heights nuclear reactors in Sydney being brought across our borders and along our roads.

Back then former premier Mike Rann fought tooth and nail to stop the Howard government's plan to send nuclear waste from Lucas Heights along South Australian roads to a waste facility, yet we hear nothing now of interstate radioactive material coming across our border and through our ports. Times have certainly changed.

From the Greens' perspective, just as we were opposed to the Lucas Heights material coming through South Australia, we do not want to see this uranium coming through our state as well. It is bad enough that we are part of the nuclear cycle in our own right. As members do not like to be reminded—but I will remind them anyway—South Australian uranium was in the Fukushima reactors that have made parts of Japan uninhabitable and polluted the sea, and radioactive fish are being caught off the coast of California containing radiation that originated from uranium from South Australia.

That is sharing the love. That is what we do in this state. People who think that we are at some distant end of the nuclear cycle and we are not involved in the bit that is dangerous need to think again. This mine I think is something that we are going to hear more about. For now, it is important that South Australians know that our involvement in the nuclear cycle is about to become even deeper.

Debate adjourned on motion of the Hon. T.J. Stephens.