CHAIR —Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I declare open this public meeting of the Senate Select Committee for an Inquiry into the Contract for a New Reactor at Lucas Heights. On 15 August last year the Senate resolved to establish a select committee to conduct this inquiry into the contract for a new reactor at Lucas Heights. To date, the committee has received 178 submissions and we have held public hearings both in Canberra and Sydney. We are due to present our report to the Senate early in April. This morning I would like to particularly welcome the Hon. Iain Evans, Minister for Environment and Heritage in the South Australian government. Thank you for making the time available, Minister, to come along this morning.

We prefer that all the evidence be given in public, but if at any stage you wish to give part of your evidence in private, you may ask to do so, and the committee will consider any such request. I now invite you to make a brief opening statement, following which senators will ask some questions. Thank you very much.

Mr Evans —Thank you, Mr Chairman. Certainly we welcome the committee to South Australia and I thank you for the opportunity to address the inquiry on behalf of the South Australian government. I will not hold the committee long. I do have a brief opening statement. However, we think it important as a government that we take the opportunity to put before the committee the view of the South Australian government. I appreciate that the terms of reference of the inquiry are specific to the contract for the building of the new reactor at Lucas Heights. However, the government is of the view that the issue of a new reactor cannot be considered in isolation from the issue of the disposal of the radioactive waste material.

It would be a reasonable assumption that the committee should be aware of the South Australian position on the nuclear waste issue through our many public statements. However, the government wants to take the opportunity today to ensure that the committee is aware of the government's views and to reinforce those views today.

The South Australian government acknowledges that all Australians can benefit from the use of the materials produced at Lucas Heights. I understand from media reports that around 20,000 South Australians per year receive medical treatment based on products from Lucas Heights and, no doubt, there are many thousands more Australia-wide who would receive a similar benefit. The South Australian government believes that South Australia has carried its share of the responsibility for nuclear activities in this country, with its history of Maralinga and the likely siting of a nuclear waste repository for low-level waste in this state, but the people of South Australia believe it is unfair to us South Australians to shoulder the whole responsibility on behalf of all Australians.

The South Australian government is very clear that this state should not be used to store long-lived intermediate-level radioactive waste which arises from the operation of the reactor at Lucas Heights. The South Australian government, reflecting the wishes of the South Australian people—and I think that is an important point the committee needs to note—last year introduced legislation to prohibit the establishment of a store for the storage of long-lived intermediate-level radioactive waste in South Australia. The Nuclear Waste Storage Prohibition Bill 2000 was passed with all parties' support within the South Australian parliament on 15 November 2000. It was assented to in November and proclaimed in January of this year.

Mr Chairman, the second reading speech clearly articulates the state government's position on this issue and I do not intend to go right through the second reading speech and the legislation. Rather than hold the committee, I will table a copy of the act and a copy of the second reading speech for the information and future reference of the inquiry.

In conclusion, can I thank the inquiry for the opportunity to reinforce not only the government's view but, importantly, the parliament's view and therefore the people of South Australia's view, and I think the position is very clear on this particular matter.

CHAIR —Thank you, Minister. I might commence with a couple of questions. As you indicated at the outset of your remarks, this committee is focusing on the decision of the federal government to build a new reactor at Lucas Heights, particularly issues relating to the awarding of the contract, but also the related issues of the long-term storage of the waste products from Lucas Heights. I would like to come to the waste issue in a moment, but does the South Australian government have a view about, firstly, whether or not there should be a new reactor and, secondly, where it should be located?

Mr Evans —The government has not gone down a path in relation to that particular issue. We have purely concentrated on the waste side of the agenda, recognising that other governments have the capacity to make that decision, not our government. We are concerned about the waste issue. We have taken a very public position on that, put it to the parliament, and the brief today is to reinforce our public position to the committee.

CHAIR —I appreciate that. Are you aware as to whether or not the current South Australian government or, indeed, any previous government in the last five to six years, was consulted or approached about potential siting of a new reactor in South Australia? Can I just explain. We have been advised that, prior to the final decision being made by cabinet to locate the new reactor at Lucas Heights, a range of other sites was considered by the government. We have not been given much more information about what other sites but, to your knowledge, was any consideration even given to any siting in South Australia?

Mr Evans —Not to my knowledge. I have only been Minister for Environment and Heritage for the last year and I do not recall anything coming across my desk that would indicate that any government in the last five to six years had been involved in that. Whether previous governments were I am not sure. We all know that it was previous Labor governments, both state and federal, that set up the process as regards the low-level waste repository. Whether there were discussions at that time I am not sure, but you might ask that question of other witnesses coming before you today.

CHAIR —The federal government has just recently announced that the low-level waste facility will be located in South Australia. What is the position of the South Australian government with respect to that?

Mr Evans —Our legislation allows for low-level waste but not long-lived intermediate. That is the position of the government and the parliament.

Senator CHAPMAN —We have been informed by the federal Department of Industry, Science and Resources that radioactive waste is stored in about 50 locations in various places around Australia, including universities, hospitals, industry stores and so on, and this is waste that has arisen from the beneficial use of radioactive material, medical isotopes and scientific research and so on. Can you tell me how many different locations that sort of waste is stored in in South Australia and what those individual locations are?

Mr Evans —I do not have the exact number, but I know it is many, and it is not just in universities and hospitals along North Terrace. There are many suburban locations throughout metropolitan Adelaide. I am happy to get the detail of those locations and provide it to the committee. I do not have an issue with that.

Senator CHAPMAN —Would you agree that it is better to have that waste stored in one central location rather than multiple locations around Australia?

Mr Evans —The South Australian government's public position is that we have worked cooperatively with the federal government in relation to a low-level facility but we make it absolutely clear that we do not want a storage facility for long-lived intermediate-level radioactive waste in South Australia. We recognise, after eight years of process, that the three sites deemed to be the safest in Australia happen to be in South Australia for the low-level facility. The South Australian government's position has been made public a number of times on that and it is clear in the second reading speech and the legislation before you.

Senator CHAPMAN —Given your comment that the view of the state government, and indeed the legislation, is that intermediate waste should not be stored in South Australia, would you still accept that, should that waste be generated, it is better to have it stored in one location than in multiple locations?

Mr Evans —That is the view we have taken on low level. We have an officer, a public servant, on the committee working through the process in relation to the intermediate-level facility. We have made it clear that we have put that person on the committee so that we are aware of what is happening, rather than be seen to be succumbing to the Commonwealth's wishes. All those sorts of issues will be brought out, however long it takes. The low-level facility will take years, I do not know how long. It would be difficult to judge how long the intermediate facility will take.

Senator CHAPMAN —The code of practice for the near-surface disposal of radioactive waste in Australia, which was established in 1992, has as its purpose to ensure that there is no unacceptable risk of detriment to humans, other biota or the environment, at present and in the future, as a result of the disposal of radioactive waste. The criteria for the selection of disposal sites are explicitly designed to be in accordance with the clearly defined requirements of that code. Do you have a view as to the adequacy of the safety standards of that code?

Mr Evans —I have not sought advice on that from my officers. Certainly there has been nothing brought to my attention that the code is deficient in any way, but I have not deliberately sought that advice either.

Senator CHAPMAN —The three potential sites in South Australia selected for near-surface repository for short-lived intermediate and low-level waste were chosen after a nationwide search, as you have mentioned. The selection criteria for those sites were based on international guidelines, which included issues such as physical, ecological and sociological suitability, and then there was a three-phrase process in the selection process itself encompassing Commonwealth, state and community consultation. Do you have any concerns about the methodology that was used to select those three potential sites for the low-level waste?

Mr Evans —I came into the process in the last year as environment minister. I have been comfortable with the process during my time as minister and I have had nothing brought to my attention for the seven to eight years prior to that that there were any issues. As I say, in the last year in my time as minister I have had no issue with the process.

Senator CHAPMAN —It is proposed that the selection process for the long-lived intermediate-level waste be similar to that process for the near-surface storage of low-level waste and, again, to identify what is objectively the most suitable site in Australia for that store. Do you have any concerns about the methodology proposed for the selection of that site?

Mr Evans —No. We have an officer involved in that, who will no doubt keep abreast of the issues. It is early days, of course, but at this stage there has been nothing raised that I need be concerned about.

Senator CHAPMAN —What would be the basis of objection to that site being in South Australia if those objective criteria determined that a site in South Australia was the best location?

Mr Evans —As I said in my opening statement, we think we have done our bit in regard to nuclear issues. Maralinga is still in the forefront of a lot of people's minds, and an issue, and then the likely siting of the low-level waste repository here. We think we have done our bit.

There are more states than just South Australia and, given the volume of the waste, there should be other sites available in Australia, not South Australia. That is the clear view of the people and it is the clear view of the parliament. My sole purpose in being here today is to make sure the committee is absolutely clear on that view.

Senator CHAPMAN —The Director-General of the International Atomic Agency has said in regard to the nuclear industry:

Public understanding is a prerequisite for public acceptance. The role of industry in civil society in promoting public understanding cannot be overemphasised. Key in this process are objectivity, openness and transparency.

Would you like to comment about the degree of understanding amongst the general public about the benefits derived from nuclear technology, as well as the hazards, and would you agree that, given the technical nature of this industry, it is much easier to promote ill-informed propaganda about the industry than to deal with the facts in a logical way?

Mr Evans —I think the whole public debate about the low-level waste storage facility has actually promoted a far better understanding in the general public than there was, say, five years ago. If the industry has any concerns that it is being misunderstood, then the industry has cash flow, the industry has income, it should therefore run a marketing campaign to educate the masses that what the industry is doing is delivering long-term benefits to the community, no different from any other industry. I think the debate has moved. There is a lot more community understanding of what Lucas Heights does and the benefits that it provides. The public debate has delivered that to the community but, at the end of the day, the clear mood of the South Australian public is that we do not want the intermediate long-lived waste in South Australia. That is the message to the committee.

Senator CHAPMAN —The committee has a submission from Dr John Patterson, who will be appearing before the committee later in the day, who is the associate professor in the department of physics and mathematical physics at the University of Adelaide, in which he argues that there is no scientific basis for the opposition from either the state government or the state opposition to the establishment of a nuclear waste repository in South Australia, for either low-level or intermediate-level waste. He suggests that the political consensus in opposition to the establishment of a storage facility for long-lived intermediate-level waste is driven by a desire to neutralise the issue in state politics on both sides rather than by reasoned argument. Do you have a response to that evidence from Dr Patterson?

Mr Evans —That may well be his view.

Senator CHAPMAN —Would you accept that it is a scientifically based view?

Mr Evans —He is a scientist, therefore it is scientifically based, one would assume. I am a politician; I am here to represent the people. The job of a politician is to represent those people who go to the ballot box and put a tick next to your name. The people that I represent are saying to me and, indeed, to the parliament that as far as the South Australia community is concerned, the message to this committee is no intermediate long-lived nuclear waste.

Senator CHAPMAN —Isn't it also the role of politicians to educate the public as to the facts?

Mr Evans —Yes.

Senator STOTT DESPOJA —Minister, you have made repeated reference in press releases and in your submission today to the fact that the South Australian community is steadfastly opposed to the dump. That is your word from your release of 15 November. I am curious as to what makes you form that opinion and whether or not your government or your political party has done any polling on this particular issue.

Mr Evans —The polling done by local media outlets clearly indicates, from memory, well over 90 per cent, certainly over 80 per cent, if my memory is right. I can dig the poll out of the Advertiser and send that through to you. There has been monitoring of talkback radio, monitoring of correspondence, et cetera, that comes through the minister's office. There have been petitions to parliament. I think from one memory there was one petition of 145,000 signatures. In a state of 1[half ] million people, that is not insignificant. All those sorts of measures I think give a very strong indication.

The fact that the government went to the parliament and had all-party support for the legislation I think is a fair indication that across the board the general community view supports the government's position in relation to the long-lived intermediate waste. My department has done no polling that I am aware of. Certainly I have requested no polling from my department, and I am not here to answer whether my political party has done any polling but, to my knowledge, my political party has done no polling.

Senator STOTT DESPOJA —Do you have a view as to the adequacy of the consultation between the federal government and the state government on this issue. I am wondering if you personally have dealt with the responsible minister, Senator Nick Minchin, on this issue.

Mr Evans —Sorry, on which issue? On Lucas Heights or purely on waste?

Senator STOTT DESPOJA —I am sorry, on the waste dump.

Mr Evans —My office has spoken to Senator Minchin probably fewer than 10 times in the last year, but that is virtually once a month. We have a fairly good working relationship. If there is going to be an announcement, or an issue, we try and give each other some courtesy, obviously, so that we are aware of what the announcement might be that morning, but you only get the morning's notice, not weeks. So we have had a reasonable working relationship. I would not criticise Senator Minchin's office for the way that he has communicated with my office on the issue. I think it is fair to say that Senator Minchin's office recognises that the state government has a different view, and we recognise that they have a different view, but that does not mean that we do not have a professional working relationship.

Senator STOTT DESPOJA —I am just curious as to how the decision by the state government, in particular the vote on the legislation, has been formally submitted to the federal government and what their formal response has been, if any—whether it is the minister for the environment or the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources.

Mr Evans —Minister Minchin has been the lead minister commenting publicly on our legislation. You will have to ask Senator Minchin what his view of the legislation is.

Senator STOTT DESPOJA —He has not provided in writing a formal response from the federal government to the South Australian government?

Mr Evans —I am happy to check that for you and advise the committee if there has been a formal response.

Senator STOTT DESPOJA —Thank you for that. Just in relation to the new reactor at Lucas Heights, I just want to clarify a statement you made in your opening remarks—I think it was in regard to a question from Senator Forshaw—about the fact that that decision should not be made or should not be decided on until waste disposal issues were dealt with. Were you talking in relation to Lucas Heights or whether or not a waste dump site should not be determined until—

Mr Evans —No, I was simply trying to make the point that in relation to Lucas Heights, the SA government is concerned about the waste issue that results from that, assuming the contract proceeds, and the committee should be aware of the state government's view about the waste. That was simply the point I was making.

Senator STOTT DESPOJA —Do you have a view as to whether or not a new reactor should be not only decided upon but built, when the issue of waste and waste management, storage and disposal is outstanding? Is there an argument for waiting on that particular decision or actually building a new reactor until waste disposal issues have been formally dealt with?

Mr Evans —That is ultimately a matter for the federal government. We are just bringing to the attention of the federal government, through this committee, our view that in their considerations they need to be absolutely crystal clear, as far as the state government is concerned, that we do not want long-lived intermediate waste.

Senator STOTT DESPOJA —Does the state government have a view in relation to alternative technologies or alternative medical approaches to the use of radioisotopes? Is that something that should be fostered or encouraged or at least researched?

Mr Evans —We are always supportive of innovation, as are all governments, so if there are innovative ways of achieving the same result long term, then obviously the state government would be supportive of that.

Senator STOTT DESPOJA —Do you have a view as to not simply the consultation between federal and state government on this issue but, more generally, the adequacy of public consultation on this issue, specifically in relation to examining possible sites in South Australia for a waste dump? How do you think the federal government has conducted that process? Has it been adequate?

Mr Evans —During the last year there have been very few criticisms of that process, but there has been some media comment by some groups. You would have to make a judgment about the accuracy of the criticisms, and the only way you can do that is by seeking comment from those groups. I think it would be unfair of me to try and represent other people's views when I have not actually spoken to them, but there has been the occasional media report that some groups have not been happy with the consultation process, and you could easily get those comments out of the media and seek comment from those groups if the committee wished. But I have not spoken to any group who has been critical of the process, so it would be unfair of me to comment.

Senator STOTT DESPOJA —So the government does not have an opinion as to whether or not there has been adequate public consultation in relation to the determination of a site or the investigation of alternative sites for a waste dump in this state?

Mr Evans —The government recognises that it has been at least an eight-year process, nearly nine, and it is a difficult issue for any government. The federal government have worked through a long process without reaching a conclusion, and I think it is pointless going back in hindsight saying whether there are issues, but in my year as minister I have no criticism of the process.

Senator McLUCAS —You said it has been a nine-year process that has been undertaken. I understand that some three years ago the issue of co-location was added to that discussion. What is the difference between the criteria for a short-lived repository as compared to a long-lived repository? What are the different criteria that are required?

Mr Evans —You can get that from Senator Minchin's office; I understand that is a public document. There are different construction techniques, above ground, below ground, et cetera, different size and all those sorts of things. I can contact Senator Minchin's office and have him forward that to you if you want, but I am surprised that you are unaware of that. Are you not aware of it?

Senator McLUCAS —No, the point I am getting to is: if the best site for a low-level waste repository is identified, what is different from that site to a long-lived repository site?

Mr Evans —I have made that point. The South Australian community are of the view that they have done their bit for the nuclear industry in relation to waste issues. Are you saying to me that if the best site is in Canberra, you will support that?

Senator McLUCAS —I do not live in Canberra.

Mr Evans —That is fine, but you work there. We can return the question. Are you saying that if the best site is in Hobart, you will support that, or your home town? I am not sure of your home town, but are you saying to me that you will come out publicly and say that if the best site happens to be in your home town, you will back it in? I think community opinion will tell you they do not want it.

Senator McLUCAS —Yes, I am quite sure they will.

Mr Evans —So, being a politician representing the people, the message to this committee is really clear: as far as the South Australian community is concerned, we do not want the long-lived intermediate waste from Lucas Heights.

CHAIR —We understand perfectly the position of the South Australian government and of the parliament.

Mr Evans —Good. Then I have achieved my aim, Mr Chairman.

CHAIR —You have, in that respect. But to follow on from Senator McLucas's question, the understanding that we have from what we have been told is that the selection criteria for the intermediate-level and high-level waste are essentially the same as for a low-level facility. It might be a different type of facility in respect of one being above ground and near surface and so on but, in terms of finding a location, the criteria are essentially the same. It would seem as a matter of logic—and there is no doubt that this is a concern, as I understand it, of the parliament and the people of South Australia—that, having made a decision to locate the low-level waste facility in South Australia, it could logically follow that that would also become the site for any other facility to deal with higher-level waste.

Mr Evans —Are you saying to me, Mr Chairman, that you are supporting—

CHAIR —No, do not misunderstand the role I have.

Mr Evans —I am just trying to clarify what your position is.

CHAIR —Our position is to inquire into this and to ascertain—

Mr Evans —But if it comes out that the safest position happens to be in South Australia, is it your position as chairman that it should go here?

CHAIR —I am not indicating any position as chairman of this committee or personally. Let us not try and turn the terms of reference of this inquiry into—

Mr Evans —No, in fairness, I think I have made it clear—

CHAIR —No, let me finish. The point I wanted to get to is this: that the concern, as I understand it, is about co-location and, the government having made a decision about the low-level facility, one can understand that there would be pressures and there would be a whole lot of other things brought to bear to say, `Well, they've already got the low-level waste facility. That was demonstrated to be the best site in Australia.' People would then argue that that is where this facility should also go, in the same way as it has been argued that that is the best place to put another reactor at Lucas Heights, because they already have one, and the people in that area put up with it, so they can put up with another one.

Mr Evans —That is why we went to the parliament and moved legislation, to make it absolutely crystal clear that as far as the parliament of South Australia is concerned, as far as the community of South Australia is concerned, we are not going to support co-location.

CHAIR —The point I wanted to then get to is this: would it not have been better as a matter of process for the federal government to have made a decision about both facilities and announced them simultaneously?

Mr Evans —Not necessarily.

CHAIR —Are you not concerned that getting the low-level facility puts you on the map and narrows the range of potential sites for the other facility?

Mr Evans —With all due respect, in an Australia-wide search, every state is on the map. There is an Australia-wide search today as to where they are going to put intermediate long-lived waste. There is an Australia-wide search for the best site, so every state is on the map, and what we are saying through legislation, crystal clear, is that the South Australian community are not interested in long-lived intermediate waste.

CHAIR —I understand that. Let us move to this, then. Let us assume that the current federal government decided that it wanted to put the high-level or medium-level waste facility in South Australia as well and co-locate it, or at some other site in South Australia. What options are then open to the South Australian government or the South Australian parliament in that situation? What impact does your legislation have if the federal government—

Mr Evans —That depends on where they put it. If they put it on non-government land, it is prohibited.

CHAIR —So we would then have a significant dispute, one would assume, between the South Australian—

Mr Evans —There would be a very significant dispute between the South Australian government and the federal government.

CHAIR —Yes. Can your legislation ultimately prevent the federal government from locating a facility anywhere in South Australia, whether it be on Commonwealth land or not?

Mr Evans —You would be aware, Mr Chairman, that under the Constitution we cannot control Commonwealth land.

CHAIR —Sure, I appreciate that.

Mr Evans —So if any federal government, whether it be Labor, Liberal or whatever mix, chose to put it on Commonwealth land, that presents a difficulty for the South Australian community, and we will take that up at the highest political levels if that occurs at that time.

CHAIR —Yes.

Mr Evans —But we have made it clear that, on all the land that we control and have any influence over, it is prohibited.

CHAIR —Yes, but that was not quite my question. The South Australian parliament has gone to the—

Mr Evans —Taken every step it possibly can.

CHAIR —Yes, that is right, exactly. It is not for me to indicate my view about this, but I understand precisely what your parliament has done. But I think what we need to know is what the ultimate strength of that legislation is if there were a decision by the federal government to put the facility on, say, private land or state government land.

Mr Evans —You might recall that the Keating government trucked in 10,000 drums of nuclear waste late one night without notice, using its Commonwealth powers. That process is still open. But all that the state government can do is use every power it has available to it, and we have done that through our legislation. If a federal government goes down the path of wishing to put the intermediate-level waste facility here, then the South Australian government of the day, I am sure, will use every available political opportunity to fight that particular issue with the Commonwealth government of the day. That is the view of the South Australian parliament.

Senator STOTT DESPOJA —I just want to chase up that point because under your act you give a public authority the power to remove a nuclear waste storage or reactor if it is built and it is prohibited. Would the South Australian government give us an undertaking, perhaps, that it would be prepared to remove such a storage facility if it were built without its consultation or permission? Or, failing that, you also have a clause in the act that allows you to imprison or penalise an individual or a body corporate for $500,000 in the first case and $5 million in the second case. Would you consider utilising those powers against the federal government?

Mr Evans —We would certainly consider utilising those powers if someone has taken action to create a storage facility that is in conflict with the act. We would then, like any government, enforce the act.

Senator STOTT DESPOJA —Even against a federal government?

Mr Evans —The federal government I do not think will go down that path. Governments do not often need to go down the path of seeking to break laws. That would be highly unusual. That is a matter for the state government of the day, but I would be surprised if a state government of the day simply did not enforce the act. I think the state government of the day would come under considerable pressure, given that every party in the parliament voted for the act.

CHAIR —Thank you, once again, Minister, for your attendance here this morning.

Mr Evans —Thank you.

[9.56 a.m.]