Motions

Nuclear Waste

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL (19:45): I move:

That this council—

1. Notes that three of the six sites shortlisted by the commonwealth government for a national nuclear waste dump are in South Australia;

2. Recalls the vigorous campaign fought by the Rann state Labor government over many years against a nuclear waste dump being imposed on the people of South Australia; and

3. Calls on the state government to again stand up for the people of South Australia by opposing the establishment of a national nuclear waste dump in this state.

On 13 November of this year, the federal government announced the shortlist of six sites nominated to store low and intermediate level nuclear waste. These six sites were among 28 who volunteered to host the so-called national radioactive waste management facility. The federal government is planning to select a single location by the end of next year. Federal government designs, commissioned in 2013, show 100 hectares of land will be required to house the national repository, which would involve about 40 hectares of buildings and other structures.

Landowners were asked to volunteer their land, with the government offering to buy it at four times the market value. Local communities are being offered $10 million for local projects. Three of the six shortlisted sites are located in South Australia: Cortlinye, Pinkawillinie and Barndioota, while the other options are at Hale in the Northern Territory, Sallys Flat in New South Wales and Oman Ama in Queensland. The three sites in SA are in the electorate of federal Liberal government MP Rowan Ramsey, who is so supportive of the dump that he offered to build it on part of his own 2,400 hectare property at Pinkawillinie (near Kimba), but that was knocked back as a perceived conflict of interest.

This is not the first attempt by a federal government to create a national nuclear waste dump. Their previous attempts to dictate where they would build their dump were unsuccessful. Just last year, on 19 June, the government announced that it would not be proceeding with the nomination of Muckaty Station (120 kilometres north of Tennant Creek in the Northern Territory) as a site for a nuclear waste dump.

Under the 2012 act, the National Radioactive Waste Management Act, any proposed site must be voluntarily nominated and agreed to by people or groups with relevant rights and interests. However, this site had been nominated in 2007 and what followed was a vigorous campaign to oppose the building of a dump at Muckaty for the next seven years by the traditional owners, with support from national health and environment groups and trade unions. The traditional owners said that they were not consulted before the site was nominated in 2007 and that the process had bypassed legal requirements set out in the Aboriginal Land Rights Act.

The legal battle reached the Federal Court in June 2014, before a settlement was reached and the federal government's plans were dropped. Even though the traditional owners were overjoyed at the outcome, it was not without huge cost; in particular, the creation of conflict and divisions within the community. Chief executive of the Northern Land Council, Joe Morrison, stated that:

The most concerning thing for the Northern Land Council was the divisions created through the litigation within the families of Muckaty Station, and it's on that basis that the offer of settlement was accepted.

There is great division that have been created through this.

The most pressing matter for the Northern Land Council is that we would focus on reconciling the families at Muckaty.

Traditional owner, Lorna Fejo, said that she had fought hard to protect the land for her children and grandchildren. She said:

I feel ecstatic. I feel free because it was a long struggle to protect my land. 'My grandmother gave me that land in perfect condition and other lands to my two brothers, who are now deceased', she said in a statement. 'It was our duty to protect that land and water because it was a gift from my grandmother to me.'

The Australian Conservation Foundation's Dave Sweeney said that the settlement was a tribute to the traditional landowners. He said:

For 'seven years' the Muckaty people have been under the pump, have said 'no', and that has been heard.

The Northern Territory dump land followed an abandoned proposal to dump radioactive waste in South Australia. In 1998 the Howard Liberal government announced its intention to establish a national nuclear waste dump in South Australia, and in May 2003 it announced its intention to build the dump on Arcoona Station north of Woomera. Mr Howard abandoned the plan in 2004, following strong opposition to the dump.

The Irati Wanti, which means 'the poison, leave it' campaign, was led by the Kupa Piti Kungka Tjuta, the senior Aboriginal women of Cooper Pedy, with fierce support from the state government, led by then Labor premier Mike Rann, as well as support from environmental groups, antinuclear groups and trade unionists, including the CFMEU, the Maritime Union of Australia, the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the South Australian United Trades and Labour Council. On that very day that the federal government announced the site for their national dump, 9 May 2003, Premier Mike Rann said on ABC radio:

We're going to fight them every step along the way because I don't believe this is in the interests of South Australians and neither do—

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Can the Hon. Mr Parnell keep it down a bit, I'm having difficulty hearing their conversation.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: Fair enough. The Premier said:

We're going to fight them every step along the way because I don't believe this is in the interests of South Australians, and neither do South Australians. All of the opinion polls show a massive majority of South Australians don't want us to be the nuclear waste dump site. We played our part for the nation during the Maralinga test series, and that's why I am going to fight it.

The South Australian parliament also passed legislation in 2003 banning the establishment of the national dump in this state and the transport of radioactive waste from interstate.

Even the ALP national conference, at its January 2004 meeting, committed a future federal Labor government to abandon plans for a new nuclear waste dump in South Australia. At that meeting Mike Rann successfully moved an amendment to the ALP's environment policy, condemning federal government attempts to compulsorily acquire land in the state for a nuclear waste dump. He said:

The South Australian government will continue to fight the imposition of a national radioactive waste dump. In the final analysis, at the end of the legal and the political struggle, I hope the will of the people will prevail.

In that case it did. The federal government abandoned its plans to build a single national radioactive waste dump in South Australia after a Federal Court ruling in June 2004 that the commonwealth's compulsory acquisition of land for a site in South Australia was unlawful. They then announced that they expected each state and territory to build its own waste storage site instead.

But, that did not happen, and now we see the federal Liberal government has changed tack again and gone down the path of seeking volunteers. In February this year the former chairman of the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, Mr Ziggy Switkowski, said:

A nuclear waste dump in South Australia can earn the state billions of dollars in revenue if we accept not just domestic but international nuclear waste also.

He also said:

There is an awful lot of toxic radioactive material from civilian and nuclear programs that is being stored, probably imperfectly, around the world.

The following week saw South Australian Premier, Jay Weatherill, make a surprise announcement that a royal commission will be set up to examine the future role the states should play in the nuclear industry. Just three weeks later the federal government called for site nominations, giving landowners the chance to nominate their property to become Australia's first nuclear waste dump. Under their process, state and territories are not able to veto the decision, and that brings us to where we are now with three sites in South Australia being shortlisted.

Two weeks ago, I met with 30 of the local residents who have properties adjacent to or near the two sites at Cortlinye and Pinkawillinie, near Kimba. It will not be any surprise to anyone here when I tell you that they are not happy. They are strongly opposed to having their local area becoming the country's or possibly the world's nuclear waste dump. Grain farmer, Cameron Scott, whose property is adjacent to the land nominated at Pinkawillinie, and who, with his wife Toni, hosted our meeting at their home, said last month that:

The first thing that hit me was safety—we've got kids, we've been here for three generations and we want to look after their future. What will this do for our price of land, who wants to buy land next to a radioactive waste dump and what will happen to the price of our grain?

Toni Scott said:

We need to get our community to understand that this is for thousands of years, that once it's here it's forever.

The Government keeps saying it's a low-level waste facility yet it's not, it's low to intermediate. These fuel rods coming back from France, it's dangerous. It's frightening for the health of my children. I don't know that I'll feel safe living next to it. We are worried about farming next to it and what that could do to our industry.

Kimba council mayor, Dean Johnson, whom I had the privilege of meeting here in Parliament House just a few weeks ago, has acknowledged that farm owners closest to the proposed sites were worried about the potential impact. He said:

Our community and its well-being is our first priority…There's absolutely concern but nobody has been able to answer any questions for us yet.

The other site is at Barndioota in the Flinders Ranges, and that is a cattle station part owned, I think, by former Liberal senator, Grant Chapman, who nominated the site. Although no native title claim can be lodged over the area as the property is governed by a perpetual crown lease, Aboriginal heritage legislation does apply, and the Adnyamathanha Camp Law Mob have questioned which traditional owners have been consulted, saying they wanted no further expansion of the nuclear industry. Spokesperson Jillian Marsh, in a media release on 16 November, said:

Our involvement in this industry is nothing new. We were concerned by the government agreeing to uranium mining activities that have now permanently contaminated our land and our groundwater. We want no further expansion of the nuclear industry and we will continue to fight for our rights as Traditional Owners in respect of the wisdom of our old people that came before us.

That's what Traditional Owners do. We care for our country. We only wish governments and industries would do the same. Stop playing with our future and care for our country.

The Conservation Council South Australia chief executive, Craig Wilkins, said that the organisation was concerned that a national waste dump could open the door to high-level nuclear waste from power reactors around the world. He said:

Just because a landowner has offered their property doesn't mean the wider region, including those places along transport routes, are in favour.

The hosting of a national nuclear waste dump raises serious risks well beyond the dump-site. There are huge reputational risks for our state.

The government's claim that a national nuclear waste dump is needed for continuation of nuclear medicine in Australia has been publicly contested by medical specialists and experts, and it is this topic to which I wish to devote most of the remainder of my remarks. Radiologist Dr Peter Karamoskos has said:

It is at best misleading and at worst a lie to claim that a large-scale nuclear waste repository such as what is being proposed would be solely justified to handle the minuscule amounts of nuclear medicine waste generated in Australia.

Margaret Beavis, a GP and the national president of the Medical Association for Prevention of War, had a short opinion piece published in TheSydney Morning Herald last Wednesday on 2 December, and I want to refer to that article. I was pleased to host Margaret and a number of her colleagues in Parliament House several months ago at a round table in the Old Chamber, discussing amongst other things South Australia's future role in the nuclear industry. The article by Dr Margaret Beavis in TheSydney Morning Herald is headed 'Is Australia becoming the world's nuclear waste dump by stealth?' and states:

When it comes to justifying new nuclear waste storage, a lot has been said about it being essential for medical diagnostics and cancer treatment. This is misleading. It blurs two distinct components of nuclear medicine—the production of isotopes and the use of isotopes.

Australia's medical use of isotopes creates very little waste. In contrast, reactor production of isotopes generates considerable amounts, and ANSTO (the Australian national nuclear research and development organisation) is very quietly proposing to dramatically increase production to supply 30 per cent of the world market. This will significantly increase Australia's nuclear waste problems.

On the 'use' side, the vast majority of isotopes used for medical tests are very short-lived. They decay on the medical facilities' premises until their radioactivity is negligible. They can then be disposed of in the normal waste stream (sewers, landfill etc.) according to set standards. There is no need for a new nuclear waste facility for these isotopes. Most cancer radiotherapy uses X-rays which do not produce any waste at all. A very small proportion of cancer treatments need radioactive materials, which are also too short-lived to require a remote repository, or are legally required to be sent back to the (overseas) supplier once used up. There is a very small amount of legacy radium relating to cancer therapy in the past, however, this has not been used in Australia since 1975.

On the other hand, using a nuclear reactor to manufacture radio isotopes creates a significant amount of intermediate and low-level waste. ANSTO has recently unilaterally decided it will dramatically increase its production of medical isotopes at the Lucas Heights reactor to supply 30 per cent of the world's needs. This business decision assumes that it will not have to pay for the disposal of the waste produced, even though it will need securing for many thousands of years.

This decision ignores the reality of technology that enables isotopes to now be produced using accelerators and cyclotrons; i.e. without using a reactor and without generating large quantities of radioactive waste. This is fast approaching commercial scale and economic viability. ANSTO's decision contrasts with that of the Canadian nuclear authorities, who have for some years been actively phasing out reactor production, and pouring money into developing non-reactor technologies.

Canada, the world's single largest producer of medical isotopes, independently reviewed its nuclear industry in 2009 and decided not to build a new reactor. Several reasons stood out: investment in reactor production of medical isotopes would crowd out investment in innovative alternative production technologies both domestically and internationally, Canada did not want to continue being the radioactive waste site for other countries' nuclear medicine industries, it created supply vulnerabilities, and at no stage was it commercially viable without massive taxpayer subsidies.

The ANSTO decision represents vested interests entrenching a reactor-based model and crowding out development of other options. In many ways it is like the coal industry boosting production to stop wind and solar development. Like coal, the business model relies on not being responsible (financially or socially) for the waste it leaves behind.

We urgently need an open conversation about whether we want to pick up the world's waste tab when it comes to producing medical isotopes. This is a policy choice that will leave Australia storing waste from isotopes produced for international markets. The market price for these isotopes does not factor in the price of storing this waste, which falls to the taxpayer and the community unlucky enough to be landed with it. It is taking Australia down a path that Canada has rejected.

The bottom line is that storage of nuclear waste from reactors is difficult, requiring long-term isolation and security.

We need transparent, informed and clear discussion of what our choices are. We have an obligation to future generations to minimise the waste we produce. There needs to be a considered and open debate about where existing waste is most safely stored in Australia. And it needs to be absolutely clear to ANSTO that we do not want to be left holding the world's radioactive waste by default.

The Australian community is far from convinced about taking on more radioactive material on behalf of the international community. ANSTO needs to be much more explicit about what it is planning. As a government-owned entity it has a responsibility to be upfront and consult with the community.

When it comes to such long-term decisions about radioactive materials, sleight of hand is not good enough.

That is the opinion piece in The Sydney Morning Herald from Margaret Beavis, GP, and national president of the Medical Association for Prevention of War. Most of Australia's existing nuclear waste is kept at Lucas Heights in New South Wales and another historic facility at Woomera in South Australia. Friends of the Earth national nuclear campaigner, Dr Jim Green, has said that nuclear waste dumps pose serious risks to the environment and the health of those living nearby. Dr Green stated:

There's no obvious reason to be moving that vast bulk of radioactive waste and, in particular, Lucas Heights has the facilities, the storage capacity, the expertise and it simply does not make any sense to be moving the waste out of Lucas Heights.

I created an online petition a little while ago under the heading 'No nukes for SA' and I am pleased to say that 1,111 people have signed it so far. An additional new petition that I have put out called 'No nuclear waste dump for South Australia' has at present 41 signatures, more than half of those in the last eight hours. My expectation is that the number of South Australians who sign both those petitions in coming weeks and months will certainly exceed the 1,100 or so that we have obtained so far.

With those words, the Greens call on the South Australian government to again stand up for the people of South Australia, as former premier Rann did, by opposing the establishment of a national nuclear waste dump in this state.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. A.L. McLachlan.