Motions

Nuclear Waste

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (10:45): I move:

That this council—

1. Notes the unanimous opposition of Barngarla traditional owners to the federal government's planned imposition of a national nuclear waste dump (repository and store) on farming land near Kimba on SA's Eyre Peninsula;

2. Notes that Barngarla traditional owners were excluded from the federal government's 'community ballot', that federal parliament's Human Rights Committee found that the nuclear dump proposal is a violation of the Barngarla people's human rights, and that the Barngarla Determination Aboriginal Corporation has initiated a legal challenge against the declaration of the Kimba;

3. Notes that the National Health and Medical Research Council's 'Code of practice for near-surface disposal of radioactive waste' states that agricultural land should not be used for a radioactive waste repository;

4. Notes that an overwhelming majority of waste destined for the SA dump (measured by radioactivity) is long-lived intermediate level waste (including reactor fuel reprocessing waste) that will be stored above ground indefinitely;

5. Notes that the SA Nuclear Waste Storage (Prohibition) Act 2000 bans the import, transport, storage and disposal of nuclear wastes in SA; and

6. Calls on the SA government to oppose the federal government's attempt to impose a national nuclear waste dump in SA and condemns the SA government for its failure to do so to date.

It is good to have the opportunity to talk about this issue, which is very important for the people of South Australia. The decision of the federal government late last year to dump nuclear waste in Kimba is a decision with profound implications for our state. South Australians could not have been clearer. We do not want a dangerous radioactive nuclear waste dump in our farming country and one that is imposed against the wishes of the Barngarla, the area's traditional owners.

From the get-go, the Greens have been steadfast in our opposition to SA becoming a dumping ground for nuclear waste. There needs to be appropriate scrutiny of this decision, including at the very least a wideranging parliamentary inquiry to consider the implications of this decision not only for the community but for our pristine agricultural land.

What this decision will result in is the passage of radioactive waste through South Australia's regional roads, our streets and our waters for decades to come. A radioactive waste dump in the heart of our food bowl would put at risk our clean, green reputation and our state's key grain export industries.

According to the SA Conservation Council, the current plan would mean that Australia's highest rated radioactive waste, which needs to be kept isolated from human contact for 10,000 years, will be temporarily parked in above-ground shedding while the authorities work out where to build a permanent below-ground repository. So it is just going to be dumped there. The government says it will take decades, while the federal nuclear regulator says it could take a century.

One of the direct concerns that has been raised with Kimba relating to the site is the lack of Barngarla consent. The traditional owners do not want this. There has been a tightly managed consultation process—and I say 'consultation' because it has been a sham because it has excluded the wider Eyre Peninsula and the wider SA community. It is also unlawful. The federal plan is in direct contradiction with longstanding SA law. It is unnecessary.

The recent allocation of $60 million to extend secure waste storage at ANSTO in New South Wales means that there is simply no pressing need for this facility. However, there is also a lot of uncertainty around this. Key project details are missing, including what it means for the transport routes, emergency service capacity and the impact on the reputation of sensitive industries, including, of course, our agriculture and our tourism industries.

We have talked a lot over the last few days about the terrible impact the poor planning of the Liberal Party in relation to COVID and opening up the borders has had on our economy. Why on earth would we be risking more uncertainty for our economy in the middle of this crisis? Why would we be putting farmland at risk? We know that radioactive waste is extremely hazardous to people and to our environment. It can pollute water. It can kill wildlife. It can cause a number of deadly human health issues such as cancer.

The proposed double handling of intermediate level radioactive waste is inconsistent with international best practice. Alternatives should be canvassed here, especially given the Barngarla traditional owners were not only excluded from the federal government's community ballot but that the federal parliament's human rights committee found that the declaration of Kimba as the chosen site is in direct violation of the Barngarla people's human rights. It is a complete slap in the face to the traditional owners and it is a complete slap in the face to the people of South Australia who have consistently said they do not want SA to be the nation's nuclear waste dumping ground.

I think all South Australians would be interested to know whether or not the Marshall government has sought advice from the Crown Solicitor on the impacts of Kimba being selected as the nation's radioactive site—something that is in direct contradiction of the Nuclear Waste Storage Facility (Prohibition) Act of 2000, an act that was passed under the then Liberal Olsen government.

I think the honourable Treasurer would have been the only member of this place who was there at that time. Perhaps he would like to shed some light on whether he has sought advice on the implications of what the federal government is doing and what it means for that act. Perhaps he will shed some light on that when he comes to provide a contribution on behalf of the government during this debate. While the Greens recognise that responsible management of radioactive waste is of course needed, we do not support the current deeply flawed, unnecessary and divisive Kimba plan.

I had an opportunity to travel to Kimba during my time in the federal parliament. I travelled there with my then state parliamentary colleague, my predecessor in this place, the Hon. Mark Parnell, and Senator Scott Ludlam, who was the Greens' nuclear spokesperson. We met with traditional owners, we met with people in the local community. It is very clear to me from those interactions that there is not strong community support for this, that it was incredibly divisive in the community, and that people do not want to see their local community becoming the state's nuclear waste dumping ground. That is not what they want for their local community, and who could blame them?

Given that Barngarla traditional owners have launched a legal campaign to block the federal government's plans to build this nuclear waste dump, I want to assure the voters of South Australia that the Greens will continue to do what we can in this place to ensure that parliamentary scrutiny occurs and that the concerns of the Barngarla people are heard.

I want to put members on notice that I will be calling a division on this matter because I want to ensure that the views of the members of this place are put on the public record, so that as the voters of South Australia head to the polls in a few weeks' time they know who is in favour of the Liberal Party's radioactive agenda and who is against it and so that they know who in the crossbench will stand firm in support of environmental protection and who will roll over and acquiesce to the Liberal Party and their radioactive vision. It is an important test and I will be calling a division.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Hon. J.E. Hanson): The Hon. Mr Maher, I understand you have an amendment you are putting up.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Leader of the Opposition) (10:53): I move:

Insert the words 'Given the opposition of the Barngarla traditional owners' at the start of paragraph 6.

I rise to indicate that we will be supporting this motion but with this very slight amendment. I will foreshadow that now to give members the benefit of understanding what I am talking about with the amendment. At paragraph 6, the last point of the motion, at the very start of that I am proposing to insert the words 'Given the opposition of the Barngarla traditional owners,' so paragraph 6 would then read, 'Given the opposition of the Barngarla traditional owners, calls on the SA government to oppose' and then the rest of it remains the same.

That slight amendment reflects why the Labor opposition will be supporting this motion. We have had since before the last election, and maintained the view since the election, that for a nuclear radioactive storage facility it is fundamental that traditional owners' views are taken into account. Since Jay Weatherill was Premier we have taken the view—and that has continued in this term while we are in opposition—that for a nuclear radioactive dump or storage facility the traditional owners should have a right of veto, a right of refusal of such a thing on their land. That has not changed and that is why we support this motion, from that one very simple principle which we have had and which remains unchanged.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO (10:55): I am not on the list, but I am quite happy to speak off the cuff on this issue and indicate that SA-Best will not be supporting this motion, and for many reasons. Like the Hon. Robert Simms, I acknowledge that is the policy of his party and they will continue to follow that. I am sure they will continue to follow it long after we are gone and those first nuclear subs steam their way into Port Adelaide.

Like him, I took an interest in this and visited Kimba a couple of years ago and met with many stakeholders and families. He is right: it was very divisive in the community. Families were pitted against family members, unsure why they were at 10 paces and claws were coming out, but it certainly was a divisive issue. I also spoke to the mayor, Dean Johnson, a civic figure I quite admire for the work he does and the passionate way he represents his community and the region there, and I spoke with members of the council and others in Kimba just to gauge what this facility would do to their community.

Quite clearly, it will be beneficial to the community. It will create jobs, particularly at a time, when we went there, when there was drought and there was uncertainty. Now even more so in this COVID era there needs to be some certainty in a regional town like that for future employment and future generations.

Talk about this facility becomes quite inflammatory when they talk about nuclear, high level, all this sort of stuff. It is not. It is actually all the low level waste that is currently sitting who knows where around the country, and here in Adelaide. In fact, I asked a question of Dr Chris McGowan at Budget and Finance, I think it was probably two years ago, and I still have not received a response. I actually asked, 'Where are you storing all this low level radioactive waste?' waste that is piling up in this state and also in the other states. We have to get rid of it in some way.

It is great to see that there has been a change in the perception about the security of storage of this material. We know it can be dangerous. In fact, I can recall, as a child growing up in Thebarton, with friends of mine we went to the Amdel facility that was in Phillip Street. It was just behind the West Thebarton Hotel. As kids and wags, we went in, having a look around. We climbed in under the fence. We were only little kids at the time. I remember seeing about three drums with skull and crossbones on them. I was not sure what they were. I said to my mates, 'Hey, have a look at this! Pirates! Let's go and play pirates!' so we were clambering all over these drums. Fortunately, we did not open them because we could not open them, but I later learned what was in them.

It was radioactive material that had been brought down from Maralinga and those parts, and there they were, just stored out in the open in Thebarton. In later years, I learned that a lot of that stuff was buried in what we knew as the pug hole, which was behind Thebarton Oval—the pug hole. That is where people used to just dump anything. That is now the Thebarton Brickworks. I do not see it glow at night these days, but I am sure a lot of that stuff went there.

To get back to what I was saying, this stuff needs to go somewhere. We cannot just let it sit in some unknown storage facility somewhere hoping that one day we are going to find a solution for it. I find it ironic that the honourable Leader of the Opposition would also mention the previous Premier. Let's remember what the previous Premier did. He actually had the vision to establish a royal commission into nuclear energy.

The Hon. R.A. Simms: Shame! A shameful day that was.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: What?

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: High level toxic waste he wanted buried. Not the low level stuff.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: So the previous Premier was actually a bit of a visionary, and I will give him some credit, not only for that but also for green energy in this state. The current government can now boast and beat its chest about renewable energy in South Australia, but in actual fact it was the previous Labor government that kickstarted it after the big statewide blackout, so that is probably why we are in a good position now and power bills have gone down, because Jay Weatherill was a visionary in his time.

He also envisaged that there could be the potential for nuclear energy and a need for that perhaps in future generations. There was a royal commission that was conducted, and interestingly enough it came out that we should pursue the options for a storage facility, probably on commonwealth land somewhere. They were looking at all of these options for a high level nuclear facility storage area, perhaps based on one that I think the commissioner at the time, Kevin Scarce, had seen in Sweden or somewhere—I do not think it had been developed—but the indications were that something needed to be done and was required.

Now here we are, fast forward to 2022, and we are seeing those who were previously opponents of nuclear energy come out and say, 'Hang on, we want to get rid of fossil fuels to save the planet. Perhaps we need to start reconsidering using nuclear energy, having some kind of a power station that is powered by nuclear energy.' We are talking about bringing in nuclear submarines. So slowly but surely the debate and the attitude towards nuclear energy is starting to switch.

Quite clearly, for the people of Kimba, they are just a small piece in a puzzle that needs to be addressed. For the Hon. Robert Simms to say that he went there and there was not widespread community support, that was also the subject of—I know that my colleague the Hon. Senator Patrick, who actually opposes it, has been up there several times. My former colleague Nick Xenophon, when he was a senator, was also trying to ascertain from then Senator Canavan just what is the definition of acceptable community support. We could not get that, but we do know that it has been put to a vote many times in that community and 62 per cent, I believe, is the figure—maybe it could be higher now—of that community were in favour of having that facility there.

Seeing that facility there, I have been told by experts that there is no chance or very little risk that the community will be endangered by it. We know that there is waste all around Adelaide at the moment. I do not know if we have been endangered by that. I know that at one point it was stored at Adelaide University somewhere.

I recall a situation many years ago, trying to get to the bottom of a story, when I was approached by a whistleblower who called me to tell me about the way the state government in the 1950s tried to cover up storage problems with radioactivity. Particularly, there was still activity at Maralinga. The whistleblower, who worked in the laboratory at Adelaide University, said to me that there was this massive cover-up after there had been an atomic bomb test at Maralinga.

Strong winds blew radioactive dust into the metropolitan area of Adelaide, which gathered on the roofs of homes. It rained, and who knows what happened? All that was covered up, and of course you would never find those records anymore. But times have changed—that was in the 1950s. We are now in 2022 and there are ways now of managing waste like that.

As far as this facility at Kimba is concerned, I was told that if you took a Geiger counter to the granite rocks that are actually there you would get a higher reading just from the granite than you would from the facility itself. It is around us, but we need to manage it and manage it properly. I am sure this facility will be properly managed—it has to be.

In relation to the Barngarla community, while I appreciate and respect that native title holders have some rights and some say over things, we have to remember that the Barngarla community did make a legal challenge in regard to this, and I understand that it failed, so they exercised that right.

The Hon. T.A. Franks: Isn't the judicial review ongoing? Yes, there's an ongoing judicial review.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Is it still going?

The Hon. T.A. Franks: Yes.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: My belief was that they tried and it failed and—

The Hon. T.A. Franks interjecting:

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Well, it has continued because the commonwealth government has made an announcement of where it will go.

In closing, we will be supporting it simply because we need to get rid of this stuff and stop storing it in our cities. We need to start having an enlightened look at what we do with this stuff. To just say, 'We don't want it there,' and then with the next spot that pops up, 'We don't want it there either,' the debate of, 'What are you going to do with it?' will go on for decades. A decision has to be made. They are hard decisions and we have to make them now. They have to be informed, educated decisions based on the best scientific evidence out there, and I am sure this is going to occur. With that, as I indicated, we will not be supporting the motion or the amendment to the motion.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Hon. J.E. Hanson): Thank you, the Hon. Mr Pangallo, for those unusually brief, off the cuff comments.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (11:09): I rise to speak in firm support of the motion put by my colleague the Hon. Robert Simms. It is very similar to motions put by the Hon. Mark Parnell when he was in this place, and it will come as no surprise that the Greens stand in firm opposition to what is going on and this federal government's attempt to ignore the voices of the Barngarla.

I note that many of the issues have been covered already for the proposition for South Australia to store nuclear waste near Kimba, and I am glad that today we focus on the Barngarla people because their voices have been silenced in this process—the lack of consultation, the lack of their acknowledgement.

I note the contribution just then of the Hon. Frank Pangallo, who I think cited a figure of 62 per cent, which is about the amount that has been cited as 'strong community support'. If you take the vote of the Barngarla people, which was not included in the numbers, you actually get 43 per cent, and that by any standard is not enough to say that the majority of the community support it—43 per cent.

A report by the Joint Committee on Human Rights found that there was a significant risk that local Indigenous groups were not consulted about this proposed nuclear waste facility. I note that the process did rest heavily on the local council ballot, from which native title holders were excluded, yet the then minister and the current minister continue to use that as evidence of supposed local community support.

I think we can all agree that this has been a divisive issue for the Kimba community. Surely, on the face of it, we can now accept that due to the lack of proper process—when the native title owners, the traditional owners, voted 100 per cent to say no to this dump and their votes were not included in those numbers—surely there is not strong community support.

But I will go further. Not only were those votes not included in those numbers but at a federal level the federal government attempted even to deny them judicial review. The Hon. Frank Pangallo just noted that the Barngarla people had made some sort of challenge, and they have made previous legal challenges, but they have an ongoing challenge.

I want to say that they currently have a GoFundMe. They are attempting to exercise their judicial review rights. I note that the Labor Party, with the Greens and others on the crossbench, ensured that judicial review right when this legislation passed the federal parliament. They are deserving of that judicial review right. Beyond that, I find it extraordinary that ratepayers are given more rights than traditional owners. If it was ever time to pay the rent, now is it. You know what? There may well be only two Greens here.

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: Hear, hear!

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: After the election, I hope there will be three Greens here. I note the 'hear, hears' from the Hon. Rob Lucas, and I welcome the fact that he will not be here. I know what will be here and what will stand—that is the state legislation that will need to be abided by and that is the committee processes that will give power and force to ensuring that not just the Barngarla people but the opposition in South Australia will be heard loud and clear in the new parliament.

This is a flashpoint. This is a vote changer for many South Australians. We have a long tradition—indeed, former Premier Mike Rann ensured this—of when the feds want to dump nuclear waste in South Australia we listen to the community. We empower those workers, who will be the ones who will be required to build, to move, to transport this nuclear waste. We say no to doing this in a way that does not listen to that community voice and does not abide by those long-held statutes.

We also heard a lot about how this nuclear waste is all over the place, and we heard a little bit of a history of Maralinga. There are a few things I want to share there. I grew up near Lucas Heights. I grew up knowing that we stored nuclear waste there, and we store nuclear waste through hospitals, through other enterprise, right across this country. That does not mean that we need to transport it to South Australia to a place where the traditional owners have said no to its not just long-term storage but significantly long-term storage.

I remember Stan Zemanek on talkback radio—not the most likely proponent of being antinuke—raising, quite rightly, the concerns of the local residents around Lucas Heights who could not get insurance for their homes. These are the sorts of issues that have not been discussed so far. Why the Eastern States continually look to South Australia and WA for the storage of this waste is beyond me, but it is probably because there is such weak opposition from the conservative parties to their federal counterparts on these issues.

I urge the Labor Party to continue their work and to continue to listen to the traditional owners. I know that the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission was mentioned and, yes, Jay Weatherill as Premier did initiate that process, but remember that there was a process there that said that if the native title owners and the Aboriginal people said no, they had the right of veto. And guess what? Every single nation, every single Aboriginal First Nations group in this state, turned up as part of that royal commission process, and every single South Australian First Nations group said no. The Labor government, to their credit, respected that promise, that pledge they had made that they would have right of veto.

What we have seen here at a federal level is not only a disrespect for the right of veto for traditional owners but indeed a silencing of them in the process, a fight against even their right to appeal this through judicial review and not even counting their numbers in the ballot. Goodness! Did we not have a referendum in 1967? Did we not actually start recognising First Nations people as having the right to vote and being recognised as full human beings at that point? Do we not now have native title and should that not be respected?

In this process, when you have the traditional owners saying no, every single traditional owner group in this state having already said no, why on earth are you looking to South Australia? I will tell you why: because the Liberals here are too gutless to stand up to their federal counterparts. Yet, this is the very state that actually has legislation put in place by a previous Labor government but supported by this parliament time and time again—suspended for a while to have the conversation through the royal commission process, but then put in place again by this parliament.

I will note that it was the Marshall opposition who actually were the first to respect some of those voices and come out and say that the royal commission process had to be suspended and that they would not support it once it was quite clear that the South Australian community did not support this. At the time, the Labor Party seemed a little disappointed, but they kept their commitment and they respected the right of veto of First Nations people. They also then reinstated that legislation. I commend my former colleague the Hon. Mark Parnell for his work to ensure that.

Do you know what we are going to ensure here today with this motion? We are going to ensure that you are actually aware of the processes here, that the Aboriginal people were silenced in the first round. They are currently taking this to the courts. We have a committee process of this parliament that will be enacted in the new parliament. My gosh, I hope there is a Greens member on that committee, but I also hope there are three Greens on this committee to stand firm to protect the legislation that we have long held to protect against the federal forces of the conservative part of politics using our state as a nuclear dumping ground.

We have a very sad history here, and Maralinga was mentioned. I tell you what: we did in fact have those things that the Hon. Frank Pangallo mentioned. We did have a real lack of care shown about the storage and disposal of something that should be treated with the utmost respect for human safety and the planet. We had people in the military who died and suffered from illnesses. I used to live in the northern suburbs, and it is well known around the Edinburgh community that the wives would wash the uniforms of their husbands and those uniforms would glow in the dark. Those women and men who worked in our military, and their wives, died earlier, got sicker and suffered due to the negligence, mismanagement and silencing of the voices attempting to expose what was really going on.

It is extraordinary, in a state where we have paid tribute to the work of Yami Lester—of course, he was blinded by those tests the Hon. Frank Pangallo remarked upon in Maralinga—where we have seen Aboriginal people suffer, where we have seen them, in fact, removed from their traditional land, desert people forced closer to the sea, that we are even contemplating this when the Barngarla people say no. Certainly, the Greens will stand firm to protect that state legislation to continue. We will use our voices and we will support the Barngarla people and the residents of Kimba who were not listened to, who were not given due process and who are now seeking that legal recourse.

I will tell you that the parliament can also give you that recourse, and after 19 March I hope the people of South Australia will also have their voice in this debate because they have not yet had their voice in this particular debate. It has been a process that has been skewed from the start to get the result that the Liberal National Coalition wanted, and that is simply to use South Australia as a place where they can dump this waste. Well, we say no, and we will be supporting this motion.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (Treasurer) (11:20): The government, not unsurprisingly I am sure, will oppose this motion. I want to follow up comments in earlier contributions. The Hon. Mr Pangallo rightly pointed out that this low level waste is everywhere in South Australia at the moment. At the time of this original debate back in the 1990s and the early 2000s, in the old Royal Adelaide Hospital it was stored underneath the stairwells. It was being stored not in highly secured, protected locations, it was stored in stairwells, in cupboards and wherever else they could find.

I think at the time there were about 20 locations across suburban Adelaide where low level waste was being stored—in the suburbs of Adelaide, not just in bigger locations like the old Royal Adelaide Hospital site. So this issue has been around for a long period of time, as the Hon. Mr Pangallo has indicated.

At some stage someone has to bite the bullet and make a decision, because the nimby principle will always operate. No-one will ever agree—the Greens will never agree anywhere. There will always be somebody, for some reason, who will oppose a proposed site. If the Greens cannot find one—I am sure they will find one. Wherever it is, there will be some reason. It will be a yellow-bellied sapsucker or something, or an ancient frog, or whatever it might be in terms of opposing it. This has to be resolved, and credit to the federal government that they have at least had the courage to follow through this particular process.

I also make a brief comment about the hypocrisy of the Hon. Mr Maher and the Australian Labor Party on the issue of nuclear waste. The Hon. Mr Maher was a member of a government—and we are not talking about low level waste—that wanted the worst of the worst: toxic waste from around the world to be dumped in the northern parts of South Australia, because it was going to earn the state of South Australia billions of dollars, according to the government of which the Hon. Mr Maher was a key mover and player. That was the proposal of the former Labor government.

I disagree with the Hon. Ms Franks, because I was on that committee and she was not. The reason the Labor government then backed off was because, as the opposition, we indicated that we were not prepared to support it, having participated in the investigation and having indicated a willingness to consider the proposition.

I publicly indicated that I went into that debate with an open mind in relation to the economic and financial arguments that the former Labor government were putting as to why we should support it, but when I looked at the evidence, in particular the economic and financial aspects of the deal, it was not a good deal from that viewpoint for the people of South Australia, putting aside the concerns you might have of taking toxic waste from around the world. We are not talking about low level or medium level waste in South Australia from other parts of Australia, we are talking about the worst of the worst, toxic waste from around the world being dumped in South Australia.

As I said, it was not because the traditional owners opposed it, it was because the alternative government, the Liberal opposition, had indicated a willingness to at least consider the proposition. The only way something like this was going to get through the many vexed issues that would need to be contemplated would have been if there was bipartisan support between the two major parties for it to proceed. As I said, the Hon. Mr Maher was a willing participant in all of that. He was a signed-up member of that particular policy, a supporter of that particular policy, and a member of the government at the time.

The government opposes this motion. The site selection process for the National Radioactive Waste Management Facility has involved voluntary nomination and community consultation and technical assessments over six years. More than 40 sites across Australia were volunteered. On 29 November 2021, after assessing site characteristics, Napandee, near Kimba on the Eyre Peninsula, South Australia was declared as the site to host the facility.

The facility would permanently dispose of low level radioactive waste and temporarily store intermediate level radioactive waste. The vast majority of our radioactive waste stream is from nuclear medicine and includes items such as gloves, gowns, imagery, cancer treatments and flasks. Most Australians would benefit from nuclear medicine during their lifetime for a range of health services, including medical diagnoses, cancer treatment and medical research.

With these benefits comes a responsibility to safely manage radioactive waste. The nuclear industry is one of the most regulated in Australia. The construction and operation of the facility would follow strict safety and security policies. The process to establish and operate a national radioactive waste management facility is the responsibility of the commonwealth government.

The National Radioactive Waste Management Act 2012 enables the commonwealth government to progress and develop the facility, despite the existence of the Nuclear Waste Storage Facility (Prohibition) Act 2000 (prohibition act). I understand the project is an important issue for many, including the traditional custodians of the Napandee site, the Barngarla people, represented by the Barngarla Determination Aboriginal Corporation (BDAC).

The Napandee site has been freehold land since 19 May 2004 and was subject to a pastoral lease over Crown land prior to that. Native title is not held on the Napandee site but is held in some areas within the Kimba LGA, and the Napandee site is within the BDAC determination area. The commonwealth commissioned a desktop cultural heritage assessment and the BDAC have made submissions, including the Gorring report in 2018 and Taylor Statutory Declaration in 2021.

Now that Napandee has been declared as a site for the facility, the commonwealth will work with the traditional owners to develop an Aboriginal cultural heritage management plan to protect Aboriginal culture and heritage and meet the requirements of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. The consultation processes for site selection included surveys and ballots with certain eligibility criteria, as well as a national and open public submissions process.

The Australian Electoral Commission conducted the council ballot in October 2019, which resulted in 61.58 per cent (452 participants) support for the facility, with a participation rate of 90.41 per cent (824 eligible voters). The Federal Court held that the Barngarla people were not excluded from the council ballot and could be eligible if they met the franchise as ratepayers or residents.

The council ballot was not the exclusive means of consultation. On many occasions, the Barngarla people were consulted on an individual basis and as a group represented by the BDAC. The BDAC also made several submissions on Napandee through the national open submission process. The outcomes of all consultation processes were considered in selecting a site without any survey, ballot, public submission process, or particular submission being taken to be representative of the views of all persons with a right, interest or concern about Napandee.

The South Australian government has consistently said that one best practice national facility is appropriate for the storage of medical and research waste, subject to the existence of a willing host community. It is for those reasons that we strongly oppose the motion.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY (11:29): I did not intend to speak on this issue but can I say very briefly that I agree entirely with the comments made by the Hon. Frank Pangallo. I can say that for 20 years I was a commissioner for charitable funds based at the Royal Adelaide Hospital and it was common knowledge that there were buildings there that contained low level nuclear waste. We have to get rid of this stuff in the metropolitan area and South Australia, and for that reason I will not be supporting the motion.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (11:30): I want to respond to some of the quite extraordinary statements that have been made here today. Firstly, I would like to thank all the members for their contributions. I thank, of course, the Leader of the Opposition, the Hon. Kyam Maher, and the Labor Party for their support of this motion. I indicate that the Greens are supportive of the amendment that the Labor Party is moving. While I disagree with their views, I do thank the Hon. Frank Pangallo, the Hon. John Darley and the Hon. Rob Lucas for their contributions.

I firstly want to turn my attention to some of the statements made by the Hon. Rob Lucas. I must say I am disappointed to hear him refer to the concerns of the traditional owners in such a cavalier and dismissive way. I think it is quite contemptuous to simply dismiss that as 'Oh well, just some stakeholder might have a view and it's nimbyism.' I actually think that is a very insulting framing of the concerns of the traditional owners of that land.

I also find it quite baffling that all the speakers against this motion have talked about the fact that we do not want this radioactive waste in the city. We do not want it in the city, so what is the solution? Go and dump it over in the bush. We do not want it in the city; let's go and put it in regional areas. Let's dump it on the land of the traditional owners. Let's ride roughshod over the views of those communities and dump it over there. How insulting and disrespectful is that to those communities?

I have heard the Hon. Rob Lucas talk on many occasions about the Liberal Party's track record of standing up for regional South Australia, and they often profess to be the party that stands up for the regions. Well, talk about selling out the regions. With friends like the Liberals, who needs enemies? If you are living in regional South Australia, they are spineless and incompetent for not standing up to their federal colleagues in Canberra, for not showing leadership and saying, 'We don't want to see SA turned into a giant nuclear waste dump. We don't want to see this waste being put in South Australia.' It is pretty embarrassing that the state Liberal government would not have the fortitude, would not have the gumption or the guts to stand up for our state's interests and to advocate for our interests in Canberra.

I must say, this is also a very important test of the crossbench, a very important test of the balance of power parties. South Australians will be heading to the polls in a few weeks' time and they will face a very important choice. They will form a view on who should be the next government, but they also need to turn their attention to who they would like holding the balance of power in the state's upper house, and I would urge them to consider the track record of the parties on the environment.

Do they want the balance of power held by the Greens, who will always stand firm to protect our environment and fight against the radioactive vision of the Liberal Party, or do they want the balance of power held by crossbenchers who will fold in support of the Liberal Party's radioactive agenda? This motion is an important test, and I urge crossbenchers to think very carefully about what they do before they exercise their vote.

Amendment carried.

The council divided on the motion as amended:

Ayes 9

Noes 9

Majority 0

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Order! There being nine ayes and nine noes, I cast in the negative.

Motion as amended thus negatived.