HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Second Session (51-2)
2007-11-14 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

NUCLEAR WASTE STORAGE FACILITY (PROHIBITION) (PROHIBITION OF OTHER NUCLEAR FACILITIES) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 24 October 2007. Page 1131.)

The Hon. M. PARNELL (19:53): I sought leave to conclude my wrapping up of the second reading on this bill because I wanted to have an amendment prepared that substantially dealt with the government's opposition to the measure. In his speech last Wednesday, the Hon. Bernard Finnigan pointed out that the term 'radioisotope production facility' could apply to cyclotrons, as well as to nuclear facilities that produce radioisotopes. He pointed out that cyclotrons are very important for the production of short half-life radioisotopes, which are used in hospital nuclear medicine facilities for diagnostic purposes—including the use of tracers such as fluorine-18 in positron emission tomography, or PET, scanners. The honourable member pointed out the usefulness of these PET scanners as a tool for diagnosis and treatment planning in relation to a range of cancers, and also that there are only a few of these cyclotrons in Australia (we do not have one in South Australia but use the cyclotron in Melbourne).

The honourable member pointed out that it may be the plan of a hospital in Adelaide to acquire such a cyclotron in future and he was therefore uncomfortable in supporting my bill, which could potentially prohibit that from occurring. He concluded his contribution by saying that the state government does not want to jeopardise any future research into the diagnosis of cancers or other illnesses by prohibiting the use of cyclotrons. He explained that the government opposed the bill, and pointed out what he saw as the government's good record on nuclear issues.

As I indicated when I commenced my summing up of the second reading debate, I was prepared to go away and draft an amendment which removed paragraph (f), a radioisotope production facility, from the definition of nuclear facility. I have done that and have tabled that amendment. If this bill passes the second reading stage and goes into committee then I undertake to move that amendment to my bill. So, it seems to me that I have dealt with the major objection the government has to this legislation.

When I brought this on for debate last week I advised honourable members that it was my intention to put it to a vote last Wednesday. I thank all honourable members who honoured that call and who spoke either last Wednesday or previously. As I explained to members, I delayed the vote on this bill to today because I wanted the opportunity to prepare that amendment to deal with the government's primary objection. That was my purpose in seeking to continue my remarks. That is all I want to say on the bill, other than commending it to the council. I urge all honourable members to support it.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Having said that we would not support this bill, I will indicate why we supported the second reading. I think that the mover of the bill has discovered the flaw in the government's argument for opposing it—that it is something to do with cyclotrons. Certainly, listening to the second reading contribution from the government, I got the distinct impression that it was having a bet each way. In the interests of debate, the government should really clarify where it stands on all these issues. I think that all other parties in this chamber have been very upfront and explained their position. Therefore, I believe that the debate is important and should be held, but we will not be supporting the bill at the third reading.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: The government has made it clear that it does not support the bill. It does not support stunts. There are also some problems technically with the bill, in that some elements accord with Australian Labor Party policy and others do not. It has been made quite clear that we do not support the bill, even though there are elements of the sentiment that we do agree with. However, passing legislation is not always the best way of achieving the objective.

Clause passed.

Clauses 2 to 6 passed.

Clause 7.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I move:

Page 3, line 27—Delete paragraph (f)

I move this amendment for the reasons I have previously given, and I will not speak further to it.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Remaining clauses (8 to 12), schedule and title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. M. PARNELL (20:04): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

The council divided on the third reading:

AYES (2)

Kanck, S.M. Parnell, M. (teller)

NOES (17)

Bressington, A. Dawkins, J.S.L. Evans, A.L.
Finnigan, B.V. Gago, G.E. Gazzola, J.M.
Holloway, P. (teller) Hood, D.G.E. Hunter, I.K.
Lawson, R.D. Lensink, J.M.A. Lucas, R.I.
Schaefer, C.V. Stephens, T.J. Wade, S.G.
Wortley, R.P. Zollo, C.


Majority of 15 for the noes.

Third reading thus negatived.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT