HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)
2012-03-14 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

NUCLEAR WASTE

The Hon. M. PARNELL (15:08): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking questions of the Leader of Government Business, representing the Premier and also in her own capacity as Minister for Regional Development and Tourism, about the transport of nuclear waste through South Australia.

Leave granted.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: This morning the National Radioactive Waste Management Bill 2010 passed the federal parliament. This bill will impose a nuclear waste dump on the Northern Territory by overriding territory and state laws. This has huge implications for South Australia as it appears very likely that the radioactive waste will be transported through our state, not because it is the most direct route but, according to a federal government commissioned report assessing transport options from 2009, because transporting the waste via South Australia would 'avoid the emotive movement of waste through the Blue Mountains'. As a result, hundreds of trucks of radioactive waste will instead be unnecessarily sent through our Riverland food bowl and along the River Murray.

When this issue was first raised at the end of last year, the South Australian Murray Irrigators chairperson, Caren Martin, said that despite the waste being classed as low level, any leak or spill could devastate the Riverland. She said, 'It is definitely a risk for food growers but a bigger risk for the whole of South Australia.' Berri Barmera Council chief executive officer David Beaton said:

If we're a food bowl area, why would you do something that jeopardises it and if it's supposed to be low risk with the waste not very toxic, then why don't they take it to the Blue Mountains, why don't they take it the most direct routes?

To make it worse, this federal bill has an extraordinary clause in it that overrides any state laws that would attempt to regulate, hinder or prevent the transport of waste. Therefore, all the protections that our state has put in place that would normally cover the safe transportation of the this dangerous material will no longer apply.

In submissions on the federal legislation, legal experts have pointed out the absurdity of suspending any regulation of the transport of radioactive waste. This approach fails to take into consideration the fact that South Australian emergency service personnel and infrastructure will be needed should an accident or incident arise and that nuclear waste will be transported past the doors of many South Australian homes, often on roads prone to accidents and extreme weather conditions such as flooding.

Members will well remember that in 2002 and 2003 the SA Labor government fought vigorously to stop the transportation of nuclear waste into our state, as part of the campaign to prevent a nuclear waste dump being located here. At the time they argued that this campaign had the overwhelming support of South Australians, who didn't want this waste travelling into our state. My questions to the Premier are:

1. What negotiations, if any, have taken place with the federal government about the transport through South Australia of nuclear waste destined for the proposed nuclear waste facility in the Northern Territory?

2. Considering the government's previous vehement stand against the transportation of nuclear waste from New South Wales and the overriding of all state laws governing the safe transport of radioactive material, what will the Weatherill government do to ensure that hundreds of trucks containing radioactive waste are not transported through our state?

In her capacity as Minister for Regional Development and Minister for Tourism, I ask the minister: what will you do to ensure that this radioactive waste is not transported through our iconic 'clean and green' food bowl and tourist precincts along the River Murray?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO (Minister for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, Minister for Forests, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Tourism, Minister for the Status of Women) (15:12): I will refer those questions to the relevant ministers in another place and will be happy to bring back a response. I think that the minister who has the most responsibility for the matters which you raise is in fact the environment minister, who is involved in ensuring that standards are maintained when the transport of radioactive material is in place. I believe it is the environment minister, but as I said I am happy to refer those questions to the relevant ministers in another place, including the Premier, and bring back a response.

As I said, this is not an area that I have responsibility for. It is outside my portfolio responsibilities. Nevertheless, I have a clean and keen interest in what goes on in our regions. The transport of commonwealth radioactive waste is regulated under the commonwealth Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Act of 1998, which is administered by the Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency. I am advised the commonwealth does not require the EPA's approval to transport radioactive waste in South Australia, and I am advised that the federal agency ensures that the transport of commonwealth radioactive waste is carried out safely through compliance with a national code of practice for safe transport of radioactive material.

It is the EPA's view that the potential risk to people and the environment is in fact very small, as the honourable member mentioned. It is very low-level waste that is involved in these transportations. I am further advised that when the commonwealth has transported significant quantities of radioactive waste throughout South Australia in the past it has kept the state government fully informed of transport logistics and safety arrangements, and the EPA has requested the Department of the Premier and Cabinet to distribute a notice to emergency response agencies (similar to notices of shipments of uranium oxide that relate to the Olympic Dam and Beverley uranium projects) to inform them of that transport.

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. State government departments regularly involved in these discussions include the EPA; the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure; and the Department of the Premier and Cabinet.

I am advised—and the last advice I received was that there had not been any final decision about routes so that matter was still being considered—that whatever route is chosen to transport radioactive waste it will be under very strict controls and will present, as I said, a minimal risk. As we know, many hazardous materials are routinely and very safely transported through our regions, including the Riverland, under state and commonwealth control. In relation to my response, I have written to the federal minister. I cannot for the life of me remember which one it was, because I write to so many of them regularly, but I have a feeling it was minister Ferguson.

I have written to minister Ferguson and he has responded to me, if I recall correctly. He advised me in that correspondence that no final decision had been made but, clearly, anything they would do would be in accordance with the requirements that have been established. He assured me that there would be minimal risk in relation to transportation but that no final decision had been made. I believe that was the response to my correspondence. If that is not quite right I will bring back a response.

The PRESIDENT: Mr Parnell has a supplementary.

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