Save Search

Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
 Download Current HansardDownload Current Hansard    View Or Save XMLView/Save XML

Previous Fragment    Next Fragment
Monday, 1 March 2004
Page: 25442


Mr WAKELIN (5:19 PM) —Over the last 10 years in South Australia there has been an issue regarding the placement of radioactive waste, particularly low-level radioactive waste. This issue goes back many years—at least three or four years prior to the beginning of the last decade. A fair amount of this material ended up at Woomera in South Australia, and there was an agreement that that should be where now, some 10 years on, this low-level radioactive waste should be placed.

The current South Australian Labor government has chosen to run a very active campaign against it. Premier Rann, when he was a minister in the previous Labor state government, supported the seeking of a national radioactive waste repository. As Premier, he has found it convenient to attack the federal government at every opportunity, even though it was a federal Labor government that put the material at Woomera in the first place.

This last week saw Professor John Patterson—a retired nuclear medicine and radiation physicist—pressing for the establishment of a low-level and short-lived intermediate level nuclear waste repository in South Australia. With thanks to Rex Jory of the Adelaide Advertiser, I will read Professor Patterson's statement into the Hansard. Professor Patterson is quoted as saying:

“Rarely in this state's history has there been so much controversy about an issue as the need for a nuclear waste repository.

“Few understand the part that radiation plays in our lives. There is a need for a public education program by the Federal Government and in our schools to help overcome the widely held fear of it.

“We are exposed every second of our lives to cosmic rays, to small amounts of uranium and thorium in masonry and concrete, radon in our homes, as well as to medical and dental X-rays. The human body has evolved effective repair mechanisms to deal with it.

“Artificial radioactive isotopes are used in medicine for diagnosis and treatment, in agriculture for soil moisture gauges in our wine-growing districts, industrially to measure the thickness of materials on conveyer belts and in rolling mills, to X-ray welds in gas pipelines for flaws, and shipping containers for illicit or terrorist shipments and environmentally to control fruit fly.

“Every time we have a medical or dental X-ray, go to the hospital for a nuclear medicine diagnostic procedure or have radiation treatment for cancer, we are experiencing the benefits of the discovery of X-rays.

“New medical developments are appearing all the time. One example is lymphoscintigraphy, in part developed at the Royal Adelaide Hospital, which reduces the trauma of malignant melanoma and some breast cancer cases.

“In Australia, most of the radioactive isotopes are produced by the Lucas Heights reactor. Without the modern and economic new reactor presently under construction at Lucas Heights, this would not be possible and we would have to use expensive imports.

“Hospitals or industrial users of nuclear isotopes will continue to use them, even if they must be imported at high cost. Therefore there will still be a need to dispose of radioactive waste. Our modern society would be disadvantaged if these nuclear techniques were unavailable.

“In South Australia, radioactive wastes are scattered in hospitals, universities and various laboratories where they are a hazard to our emergency services in the event of fire.

“If a high activity source such as used in hospitals was maliciously spread, for example, in the city centre, there would be widespread panic and any cleanup would be difficult. These risks can be minimised with best security and minimum cost by coordination between the state and Commonwealth to establish a low-level nuclear waste repository. The agenda of the anti-nuclear lobby is to create a nuclear-free society and stop the new replacement research reactor at Lucas Heights from operating.

“They are seeking to do this by overemphasising the risks, minimising the benefits and concentrating unrelentingly on the fear factor. In particular, they are focusing on the nuclear waste repository which is necessary for the reactor as well as the safe and secure disposal of all Australia's artificial radioactive wastes.

“If they succeed, Australia's scientific and medical advancement will be thwarted.”

In South Australia they want to play politics with people's lives, apparently. That is what Premier Rann and Minister Hill have been doing for many years now. It is a highly regrettable state of affairs.

I will move on to the state of politics and offer a view about the public perception of politicians. Another article stated:

I believe that politics is the most important and responsible civil activity to which a man may devote his character, his talents, and his energy. We must, in our own interests, elevate politics into statesmanship and statecraft. We must aim at a condition of affairs in which we shall no longer reserve the dignified name of statesman for a Churchill or a Roosevelt but extend it to lesser men who give honourable and patriotic service in public affairs. It is true that most men of ability prefer objective work of science, the law, literature, scholarship, or the immediately stimulating and profitable work of manufacturing, commerce or finance.

The result is that our legislative assemblies are a fair popular cross-section not a corps d'elite. The first class mind is comparatively rare. We disadvantage young men of parts by confronting them with poor material benefits, precariousness of tenure, an open public cynicism about their motives, and cheap sneers about their real or supposed search for publicity. The reason for this wrong-headedness, so damaging to ourselves, is that we have treated democracy as an end and not a means. It is almost as if we had said, when legislatures, freely elected by the votes of all adult citizens, come into being, “Well thank heaven we have achieved democracy. Let us now devote our attention to something new.” Yet the true last of the democrat only begins when he is put in possession of the instruments by which the popular will may be translated into authoritative action. In brief we cannot sensibly devote only one percent of our time to something which affects ninety-nine percent of our living.

I wonder who wrote that. It was none other than the Rt Hon. R.G. Menzies, in the New York Times Magazine of 28 November 1948. That leads me to the debate about superannuation, particularly for MPs. It is quite interesting to me that the current member for Werriwa, in triggering, you could say, the abolition of the old scheme, actually triggered the abolition of a scheme which his mentor—a former member for Werriwa—introduced in 1973. Much has been said, and the media have been quite vocal, about the generosity or otherwise of members' benefits. I am sure the irony would not be lost on the Leader of the Opposition, who had a strong association with a former member for Werriwa, former Prime Minister Gough Whitlam.

In endeavouring to relate that back to the statements of R.G. Menzies, whatever the new scheme is, I for one am happy to put it on the record that I prefer the market approach. I do not know whether that will get up in the current debate. But when I consider that the ABC, particularly the ABC in Adelaide, and one Dean Jaensch in Adelaide have been very vocal about this, I hope that the generosity of superannuation packages—particularly within the Public Service, the ABC and other corporate bodies—will receive the same scrutiny. Those of us in this place who have responsibility for coming up with a fair package that is in the best interests of the nation should remember the words of R.G. Menzies and remember that Ben Chifley introduced the superannuation scheme in 1948, that Gough Whitlam reformed it in 1973 and that the member for Werriwa, Mr Latham, triggered the events which saw the end of it here in recent weeks. (Time expired)