Nuclear Waste

Adjourned debate on motion of Hon. M.C. Parnell:

That this council—

1. Notes that three of the six sites short-listed 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.

(Continued from 9 December 2015.)

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS (Minister for Police, Minister for Correctional Services, Minister for Emergency Services, Minister for Road Safety) (20:01): I move to amend the motion, as follows:

Delete paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 and insert new paragraphs as follows:

1. Notes that three of the six sites short-listed by the commonwealth government for a nuclear waste management facility are in South Australia;

2. Notes that the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission is due to hand down its final recommendations on Friday 6 May 2016;

3. Notes that broad public consultation will take place once those recommendations have been handed down; and

4. Calls on the parliament to await this decision before taking a position on the issues dealt with by the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission.

Twelve months ago, the state government announced its intention to establish the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission, the first of its kind in this nation. The commission was established to undertake an independent and comprehensive investigation of South Australia's participation in four areas of activity that form part of a nuclear fuel cycle: mining, enrichment, energy and storage.

The Hon. Mr Parnell's motion is seeking the parliament to take a position on South Australia's further involvement in the nuclear fuel cycle before it has had the benefit of seeing the final findings of the royal commission. While it is true that the commonwealth process to select a site for a nuclear radioactive waste management facility is not related to the royal commission, it would be utterly foolish for the parliament to take a position on this process without taking into account the work undertaken by the commission once it is complete.

At the time of its establishment, the Premier said that South Australians should be given the opportunity to explore the practical, financial and ethical issues raised by a deeper involvement in the nuclear industries. On 15 February this year, the royal commission released its tentative findings. In total, the commission has received over 250 submissions and heard from 128 witnesses over 34 sitting days, including hearing from 37 international experts.

I encourage every South Australian who has not yet had their say on these issues to consider the evidence presented in the tentative findings and engage in this very important debate. The consultation on the tentative findings is a further step to ensure the community has access to key facts and findings to make an informed judgement, and an opportunity to engage with the commission about the evidence they have gathered.

On 6 May this year, the commission will provide its final report. At that time, the government will decide on the next steps and embark on the next stage of the conversation with the South Australian community. The evidence gathered by the royal commission will enable the South Australian community to discuss and deliberate on the risks and opportunities of further participation in all aspects of the nuclear fuel cycle. This will be followed by a period of decision-making where government will need to assess the evidence gathered by the commission and the feedback from the community before outlining its full response to the royal commission.

The government has made it clear that ensuring safety is a key threshold question to be satisfied by government, community and industry in all the deliberations. I urge the parliament to support the amended motion, which will allow the community to engage thoroughly with the royal commission and its findings before getting locked into the Greens fixed, predetermined position on all things relating to the nuclear fuel cycle. The government awaits the commission's recommendations, and I encourage all South Australians to engage with the commission over the next couple of months and then with the government throughout the course of this year, as we consider the most appropriate response to recommendations that come down from the commission.

This government has been very deliberate, very considered, about making sure that any consideration that is applied to engaging further in the nuclear fuel cycle is done in a methodical, consultative way that engages all elements of the community. I think there is every chance that the findings of the royal commission will present this state with extraordinary opportunities, and we should not be playing politics with the advent of such opportunities should they present themselves. This is an opportunity for this state, collectively, in a bipartisan or multiparty approach, to actively consider the opportunities and the potential risks that lie with further engaging in the nuclear fuel cycle.

However, we should do this in an appropriate, considered and measured way. We should not be bolting ahead, putting the cart before the horse. We should listen to the findings of the royal commission and seek to avoid locking ourselves into a position beforehand. I think it would be incredibly unwise if this house of the parliament were to do that by supporting this motion in an unamended form, so I urge the council to support the government's amendments to this motion on this incredibly important subject.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (20:07): I love it when I hear former union heavies and right faction powerbrokers, like the Hon. Mr Malinauskas, stand up in this place and, on the uranium issue, say, 'We urge people not to play politics on this particular issue, we urge you to adopt a bipartisan or a multipartisan approach to this particular issue. This is too important an issue for the future of the state to play politics.'

The Hon. P. Malinauskas: I think it is entirely consistent.

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: As I said, Mr President, I just love it. The wonderful part of it is that the Hon. Mr Malinauskas even keeps a straight face when he says that, and urges members not to play politics with the important issue of the uranium cycle and managing radioactive waste and nuclear waste dumps.

Mr President, you know, the Hon. Mr Malinauskas knows, and everybody in this chamber knows that in essence we are mightily attracted to paragraph 2 of the Hon. Mr Parnell's motion because that particular section of the motion is so close to the truth of the matter it is self-evident to everybody, no matter what your politics are. We all remember the 2006 election campaign when the state Labor government, of which now Premier Weatherill was a key factional power player at the time and a minister, played merry hell with the politics of a low-level radioactive waste dump, the sort of waste that sits, as we speak, in the Royal Adelaide Hospital in rooms and in basements and underneath stairwells. Radioactive waste gloves and that sort of material that is used over—

The Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins: Roseworthy campus.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Roseworthy campus, my colleague the Hon. Mr Dawkins says. Indeed, there are 20 or so dumps (if you want to use that word) for low-level radioactive waste, and there are many more nationally as well.

The then federal Liberal government came up with a proposition for a low-level radioactive waste dump for South Australia. This was an issue of tremendous importance politically in South Australia for the state Liberal Party because we had an election campaign coming up. We did take the position to support our federal Liberal colleagues and the member for Davenport, Iain Evans, took up the battle. I well remember during that campaign the Labor Party campaigning on radio and electronic media advertising, or warning in essence, the people of South Australia about the perils of having a radioactive or a nuclear waste dump here, as the Liberals wanted.

That particular election victory for the Labor Party was not, of course, solely due to that particular issue, but it was again an election victory at least partly based on a lie because the Labor Party, having campaigned on the terrors and perils of a low-level radioactive waste dump, not too many years later now is asking us, in a mature way, to canvass the much more potentially toxic future of a high-level and intermediate-level radioactive or nuclear waste dump.

To the chagrin of state Liberals, having seen the damage it did to the state Liberal prospects at the 2006 state election, our federal Liberal colleagues soon afterwards, in preparation for their own federal campaign, backed off from the issue and dropped it like a hot potato cake—or a hot yellowcake—and they left us high and dry because we had already been to the election and lost the election. We fought the battle and our federal Liberal colleagues backed away from the battle.

That is the history of this, and I do not intend to traverse the long and sordid history of the state Labor Party going back even to the Roxby Downs debate in 1979 to 1982—that will be for another occasion. However, in relation to this particular motion, whilst we are mightily attracted to paragraph 2 of the motion, we cannot and do not support, at this stage, locking ourselves into a position, or indeed calling on others to lock themselves into a position, about a national nuclear waste dump.

I note the very clever wording of the Hon. Mr Parnell in relation to paragraph 3. In my discussions with him, he said that he was talking about a low-level nuclear waste dump—which is what he was talking about, low and intermediate level, in paragraph 1—but I pointed out that his very clever wording in paragraph 3 makes no reference to low level or intermediate; it just says, 'Let's form a position on a national nuclear waste dump,' which of course would include a high-level waste dump as well.

We are not minded to that position at the moment. State Liberal leader, Steven Marshall, has put down our position: we are prepared—as the Hon. Mr Malinauskas has indicated the government is prepared to do—to await the final recommendations of the royal commission, and then we and, indeed, all of us can go through our own personal process of forming a position on this particular issue.

As I said, whilst attracted to paragraph 2, we are certainly not supportive of paragraph 3. For those reasons we cannot support the Hon. Parnell's motion and we will support the amended motion being moved by the Hon. Mr Malinauskas on behalf of the government.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY (20:14): Whilst in principle I am supportive of a nuclear waste facility being established in South Australia, I am yet to be convinced that there are adequate proven sufficient safeguards in place for this to go ahead. This is as true for low to intermediate-level waste as it is for high-level nuclear waste. I have concerns about the storage of nuclear waste and also about the transportation of the material to the site. I would particularly want assurances that any storage facility will not leak and contaminate the surrounding environment, particularly groundwater and aquifers.

I am also concerned that the rights of Aboriginal people, especially in relation to sacred sites, may be eroded for the purposes of this exercise. In The Advertiser today the traditional owners of one of the proposed sites have already expressed concern that the land will be poisoned and destroy the heritage held within the land. If this proposal goes ahead, I would want these issues to be at the forefront of the decision-making.

Undoubtedly, we cannot continue down the path of taxing our way to prosperity and we should explore other revenue streams. However, I am fundamentally opposed to sacrificing public health and safety for the sake of money. Some things cannot be bought and are simply more important than money. Having said that, I am not attracted to the amendment of the Hon. Peter Malinauskas and I will not be supporting the Hon. Mark Parnell's motion.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT (20:15): I would like to make a brief contribution at this point to this motion and in particular would like to discuss the potential impacts nuclear could have on our food and tourism industry which I feel has not really been discussed enough in the nuclear debate. Like the Hon. Mr Darley said, it is more like a feeling implied. It is difficult to deal with these things in absolutes but at this juncture we can say that there are some concerns that need serious consideration before we proceed.

South Australia's food and wine industry makes a significant contribution, as we all know, to our state and we rely on our reputation for green, clean food. In 2010-11, the food industry contributed some $14.24 billion in revenue and around 45 per cent of total merchandise exports. One in five workers in South Australia is employed in the food and wine sector. I am concerned that by creating a nuclear waste dump in our state this reputation could potentially be spoiled.

Nuclear energy is known to be a risky and controversial form of energy due to its radiation. In particular, if there was an accident at a dump site or when the waste material is being transported, this could have massive repercussions for our food sector and state's reputation as a food producer and exporter. We also need to address the impact that nuclear waste storage could have on our tourism industry, as I said, which is itself linked to our food and wine sector.

A nuclear waste dump could discourage visitors from coming here. The tourism industry would face similar risks to our green food industry where, should anything go wrong, this would result in very negative publicity and a downturn in the number of tourists to South Australia. It is disheartening that again I have already heard the potential slogan, 'SA, the nuclear state' being discussed.

This is particularly disappointing given that, as the Hon. Mr Malinauskas says, we are only discussing an interim report and should try, as I think he was trying to say, to be as neutral and impartial as possible, and yet in our corridors and our discussions out in the community we already hear potential slogans like 'SA , the nuclear state'. Whether or not we are truly being impartial, I am not entirely sure.

I am very proud, as I think we all should be, of South Australia's investment in renewable energy. Like many South Australians, I would much prefer this to be our reputation, rather than our state being used as the world's dump site. Considering the potential impacts nuclear could have on our food and tourism industries, I find it very concerning that this was barely mentioned in the royal commission's tentative findings report released last week.

It also makes me wonder how much consultation has occurred with these particular industries thus far. If the minister would like to provide some clarification on that I would be very glad to receive it. I understand that the commission is continuing to seek comment on their tentative findings before it makes any recommendations; however, it seems that there is still a lot of consultation and consideration that needs to be done in the community before any type of formal consideration can be made.

In the year 2000, there was a grassroots people's movement called the People's Conference 2000 to discuss the pros and cons of nuclear waste storage, creating a lively forum to examine the issues. Dignity for Disability certainly hopes, as I am sure many others would, that the commissioner will continue to actively seek a range of evidence and opinions and visit the current low-level nuclear waste storage facility near Woomera to take an inventory of how successful the current arrangements are. There were incidents in transporting the 44-gallon drums, now housed at Woomera, from other states to SA and the waste stored there is, on average, as I understand it, low to medium level waste.

I would also like to note that the commission's public meetings were not broadly publicised—at least, from my impression they were not broadly publicised—and I believe there is still unrest in the community that needs to be addressed. Particularly, we need to ensure that the Aboriginal community, as Mr Darley alluded to, whose land the dump site will be built on, are properly, respectfully and meaningfully consulted. Understandably, this is a very controversial topic and, as a result, the commission should take time to ensure that all members of the community have had an opportunity to contribute their views.

We are talking about a decision that will last for hundreds of thousands of years, not just for one electoral cycle. I would like to think that we could take some time over this, particularly given, as I said, that it is difficult to deal with it in absolutes and there are many different nuanced pros and cons and views.

At this stage, I believe a waste dump could present too great a risk for South Australia, particularly without these factors that I have just outlined being properly considered and discussed; and this is, of course, despite the touted financial benefits that it would bring, and a lot more work needs to be done. Therefore, Dignity for Disability will support the Hon. Mark Parnell's motion so that this very important and nuanced discussion can continue to occur.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL (20:22): To conclude the debate, I rise to thank the Hon. Kelly Vincent for her support for my motion and I would like to thank the Hon. John Darley for his contribution. I know he is not supporting the motion, but I thank him for at least honouring the motion that I have put forward. I have more trouble thanking the Hon. Mr Peter Malinauskas and the Hon. Rob Lucas. I will acknowledge their contributions—I think that is appropriate—but I will not thank them, and I will tell you why I will not thank them.

I think what the government has done in this place, and what the opposition is supporting, is a betrayal of some of the highest standards that we have observed in this place. I know the game as it is played in relation to motions. It normally goes like this. The opposition moves a motion saying 'that this house condemns the government for its poor performance on [insert topic here]' and the government will then duly produce an amendment which deletes all words after 'that' and says 'the government congratulates the government on its excellent performance [insert subject matter here]'.

But what I have not seen before, and what distresses me, is that such is the nervousness of the government and the opposition not to discuss the item on the agenda that they have moved an amendment which is an entirely different topic. It is not the same topic as the topic of my motion. If you cast your minds back, this motion was put on the Notice Paper back in December. There were no royal commission tentative findings.

What was on the agenda back then was that the commonwealth government searched for a site for the low and intermediate level waste, largely from Lucas Heights. They short-listed six locations. Three of them were in South Australia. That was the same project that former premier Mike Rann opposed. Therefore, that is why I have referenced his fight on behalf of the people of South Australia and that is why the 'action component', if I can call it that, of my motion is for the current government to have the same ticker that Mike Rann had and to equally stand up for the people of South Australia.

What the government's amendment to my motion does now is it tries to confuse the situation by saying we have now got a royal commission that has handed down tentative findings on another matter altogether—the high-level international waste dump that they suggest is going to be the path to riches for the people of South Australia—and, because that process is still underway, it is therefore inappropriate for this chamber to talk about the low and intermediate-level waste dump that the commonwealth is seeking to impose on us and for which it has shortlisted three South Australian sites. I think that is an outrageous course of action.

I point out to members that earlier today I seconded a motion which I have no intention of supporting. The reason I seconded the motion is that the principle in this place is that, if you put something on the agenda, you are entitled to have it agitated and debated. In my 10 years here, I have never seen anyone denied the right to talk about the topic of their choice for want of a seconder, and I think that same principle should apply for motions.

I used the example before where the opposition condemns and then the government amends to congratulate, but at least they are talking about the same topic—the one topic. This is I think a sleight of hand that seeks to avoid discussion on the matter that I have put before the chamber and replace it with something that I have not put on. If the government wants to talk about the royal commission, let's have another motion to talk about that, but hijacking my motion with this amendment, I think, is quite outrageous.

The question that I would ask the government is: has the Prime Minister said that this commonwealth search for a low and intermediate-level waste dump is going to be postponed so that little old South Australia's royal commission can complete its process? Not at all. The royal commission did not even look at this issue. The royal commission has nothing to do with the commonwealth process for seeking a national waste dump site for low and intermediate-level waste—nothing to do with it. The idea that my motion would be derailed by suggesting that we should wait for the outcome of a process that is not dealing at all with the topic that I have put on the agenda, I think, is absolutely outrageous, and I am very disappointed at how this is going.

Of course, I have the right to put further motions on and I will. I will be putting further motions on about South Australia's involvement in the nuclear industry. I will say now that I refuse to call it a 'nuclear cycle'. 'Nuclear cycle' implies something that is nice and cosy and round and meets itself up again. A dump is no part of a cycle. A dump is part of a linear process. You start at one end, and you end up with waste that you cannot do anything with, so you have to dump it—no way is that a cycle.

I know Kevin Scarce, the royal commissioner, hates people talking about the dump. I hate people talking about the cycle. There are two issues on the table for South Australia: there is the issue the commonwealth has put on about a dump for low and intermediate-level waste, and there is the issue that Kevin Scarce has put on the table, which is a dump for the world's high-level waste. There is no part of a cycle in either of the live issues before the people of South Australia.

The Hon. Kelly Vincent and I think the Hon. John Darley both referred to the Adnyamathanha people, who have recently been in the media. I have spent a lot of time with those people over the years. They are very concerned about what it might mean for their country to have either the commonwealth's low and intermediate-level waste dump or the royal commission's suggested high-level waste dump on their land. I think they are absolutely key stakeholders, and we cannot ignore their interest in this debate.

I know that the government is hopelessly divided on this issue. Many of them do date back to the days of premier Mike Rann. The Hon. Rob Lucas has referred at some length to the various debates. They are hopelessly divided on this. They do not like being reminded of the position they have taken not that long ago on these issues. They hate the thought that the public record of parliament might expose their backflip, but it is certainly not my intention to give up on this, so I am not going to delay the chamber any longer.

I will be opposing the government's amendment to my motion. If the voices happen to be against me, as I suggest they might given the opposition's indication, I will be dividing on it, and then I will be opposing the resulting motion because it will bear so little resemblance to what I put on the agenda that I cannot support it. It is a different question altogether.

The council divided on the amendment:

Ayes 15

Noes 4

Majority 11

Amendment thus carried; motion as amended carried.