Senator MARGETTS (11:20 AM) —Before I begin debate on the specific provisions contained in this bill, I do feel it is important to restate the Green's total opposition to the nuclear fuel cycle. Despite all the claims to the contrary, the reality is that nuclear material is inherently dangerous and remains so for many years—hundreds of thousands of years in some cases.

I have just returned from Melbourne where two important conferences took place on the weekend. The first one, which I attended, was the international congress of the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War. The second was a national meeting to establish a coalition of antinuclear groups to campaign against uranium mining, a nuclear reactor and a national radioactive waste dump.

In an international context, recent events, such as the nuclear tests by India and Pakistan, have confirmed that the existing nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation regime has failed. One of the key problems in that regard is the total failure by the five nuclear weapons states to commit to a timetable for nuclear weapons disarmament. That failure contributed directly to the recent tests in India and Pakistan and remains a stumbling block to real nuclear disarmament.

It is also important to note that the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is based on a fundamentally flawed premise: that it is possible to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons by providing non-nuclear weapon states with so-called `peaceful' nuclear technology. This flawed argument has been highlighted by people such as Elizabeth Clegg from the Centre of Defence Studies at the University of Aberdeen. In an article entitled `Building the bomb: how states go nuclear', to which I have referred previously in this place, she stated:

In conclusion, then, it can be seen that the infrastructure required for the development of a nuclear weapons potential is best created under cover of a well established civilian nuclear industry; in all of the above cases the military option was made possible by the existence of a civilian programme.

Whilst opposing the involvement of the Australian government in the nuclear fuel cycle, the unfortunate reality is that we do have a nuclear reactor and nuclear waste in this country, and proper independent regulation is required.

The introduction of this legislation which provides for the protection of the Australian community from the adverse effects of radiation and for the safety of Australians who deal with radioactive materials is, therefore, extremely important. We know that a number of people have been asking for it for some time. It is too important to be allowed to go through parliament without the Australian community having had the opportunity to register its concerns about the regulatory regime on which we will have to rely to protect us from hazards which have the potential to remain with us for an indefinite period of time.

It was for that reason I pushed for a committee hearing on these bills. As predicted, a range of concerns were expressed by community representatives. Many of these concerns had the potential to be addressed by way of amendment to the legislation. And the hearing has clarified the issues, providing a way forward to strengthen the protection provided by the bill.

A number of community groups expressed concern about how much of the framework of these nuclear regulations is to be contained in regulation rather than in the legislation itself. The government, however, is to be commended for going some way towards meeting those concerns, and particularly for allowing a period of open public consultation on the regulations which are so important to the effective functioning of ARPANSA as a regulating body.

One of the key concerns raised by several parties to the hearing and others who made written submissions is the fundamental issue of whether there is such a thing as a `safe' level of exposure to radiation. It is my view and the view shared by many that there is no safe level of exposure, and to legislate to allow any increase in the radiation to which Australians are exposed is fundamentally flawed.

Even following the presentations by ARPANSA and ANSTO, concern remains about the `allowable' exposure to radiation. A particular concern is the power of the CEO to grant exemptions which could see workers exposed to higher doses of radiation than otherwise allowed. The aim should be to have exposure as close to zero as is technically possible, and there should not be power to grant exemptions over people's lives.

The standard in the legislation purports to be world's best practice. While this should mean `as low as technically achievable'—that is the ALATA principle—the standard in this legislation is set at `as low as reasonably achievable', and that takes in the dollars and cents. If this is world's best practice, it is not good enough, especially when we know that better standards are achievable elsewhere. `World's best practice' does not mean the best practice in the world; it obviously means something quite different by way of compromise.

We believe that world's best practice does not and should not equate to international atomic energy acceptable levels, the International Atomic Energy Agency in many ways being both a regulator and a proponent of nuclear technology. Standards are constantly under review and technological developments are taking place. But best practice in the nuclear industry is constrained by economic forces, which should not be the primary concern in a bill to protect Australians from radiation and provide for nuclear safety.

The precautionary principle must be the most important consideration where nuclear health and safety issues are concerned. For this reason we will seek to delete the threat of imprisonment for ARPANSA inspectors making a false or misleading statement or warrant. Criminal law should quite adequately deal with criminal fraud, should that be a problem. Threats of imprisonment—and we are talking about a maximum of two years imprisonment—in this way in this legislation could be seen as intimidatory and not necessarily in the best interests of the community and, could I say, quite out of proportion to the kind of real, enforceable legislation and regulations on the industry itself. Despite our stated problems with the use of the term `world's best practice', the inclusion of a requirement for the CEO to have regard to world's best practice when issuing licences is an improvement in the current bill.

For the regulatory authority set up under this legislation to have the confidence of the Australian community, it must clearly be independent of the government of the day and be responsible to parliament. The regulatory authority, the Chief Executive Officer of the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency, falls some way short of this standard because it is not an independent statutory authority. We are pleased, however, to see that the government has now agreed that the CEO have direct power over the staffing of ARPANSA—but still it falls a long way short of being an independent statutory authority.

The recommendation to exclude nuclear power reactors from the legislation is an improvement in accountability. The Greens, however, are concerned that licences for a nuclear fuel fabrication plant, an enrichment facility, a fuel storage facility and a reprocessing facility remain possible under this legislation, albeit with the approval of the CEO. These activities should either be specifically prohibited under this legislation or, at the least, should not be able to take place without full and separate parliamentary scrutiny.

Over the last couple of weeks, we have heard some quite extraordinary information from the United States about other countries wanting Australia to take their nuclear waste, their nuclear junk. We have to be very, very aware, when launching into a bill like this, of exactly what it is that we as a parliament are giving the tick to, albeit perhaps with the authority of the licensing authority of the chief executive officer of a body which is not quite independent of the government.

When there are financial pressures and the pressure of international scrutiny, we know that in the end arguments such as, `Australia would be very responsible in this current disarmament regime to take other people's core waste from nuclear reactors' and `You've got the best conditions, a nice stable economy and you're going to make a lot of money out it,' will be convincing to a growing number of people, perhaps particularly those on the more conservative side of politics.

We believe separate approval should be obtained for any other new facility, such as a spent fuel conditioning plant, a nuclear waste disposal facility, a waste storage facility or an isotope production facility. It should be noted, however, that any proposal for such a facility would itself be of great concern to the Greens. If our concerns regarding scrutiny of any proposal for any new nuclear facility are not satisfactorily addressed, we will seek to amend the definition of nuclear installation by deleting reference to any nuclear installation which does not currently exist.

Major nuclear installations require much greater prior scrutiny than is envisaged in the bill. In particular, there must be a comprehensive public inquiry into, and parliamentary scrutiny of, the question of whether there is a need for the installation before the process even gets to the stage of an impact statement or an inquiry into the proposal itself. No licence proposal should be considered until a public, open inquiry into the need for the installation and an impact assessment process have been completed. An amendment to achieve that end will be moved in the committee stage of this bill.

Those people who think that these things are done as a matter of course should speak to the people living around Australia's only current research reactor at Lucas Heights. They will tell you what the culture of secrecy is in relation to the nuclear industry in Australia. There were a number of delegates from the former Soviet Union at the IPPNW conference at the weekend. There has been so much secrecy involved in the nuclear issues in the Soviet Union—as we knew—that, ironically, we now seem to have more information from the former Soviet Union about the issues of nuclear proliferation, nuclear materials and the problems of dealing with those than we do from the United States, the UK and, indeed, from Australia.

The proposed government amendment to give public notice of the licensing of a nuclear installation is grossly inadequate. The whole process must be open to public participation, and this should be reflected in the regulations. There is no reference in this bill to the regulation or setting of standards in the uranium mining industry, yet codes of practice in the industry were covered by the Environment Protection (Nuclear Codes) Act, which is repealed by a consequential amendments bill. It is desirable for the Commonwealth to have oversight of such standards and for there to be an open, public process for the ongoing development and improvement of the codes, and this bill is silent on this question. Even the Senate Select Committee on Uranium Mining and Milling looked at the lack of oversight in relation to this industry. We commend the government for clarifying the situation regarding existing codes and development of improved codes by agreeing to have the current requirements of the Environment Protection (Nuclear Codes) Act included in the regulations.

The only role for the community in this bill is a purely advisory one and, even there, it is a role severely constrained by the legislation. A further amendment is required for protection from prosecution for committee or council members who make public any information or concerns that they may have about radiation protection or nuclear safety. There is no point in us moving towards some kind of whistleblower legislation if we put a gagging mechanism in legislation that prevents responsible members of the community being able to canvass with their community some of the issues of health and safety that they are asked to deal with. Otherwise, these advisory committees merely pick out the best and most able people within the community and disarm them—if you can excuse the pun. They literally gag them by taking them out of the process, keeping them busy running around in circles and making them unable to communicate with their own representative constituency.

The Greens (WA) commend the introduction of the conflict of interest provisions for committee and council members in the regulations, and we would like to see that extended to include a register of financial interests. There is a clear need for the strengthening of reporting requirements throughout the bill. We are particularly concerned that the CEO's functions include the monitoring and reporting on the operations of the agency and its advisory bodies, and it is pleasing to see that the government will be moving appropriate amendments in this regard.

There has been a lot of work, a lot concern about the community and some movement on this bill. If this bill had been shoved through at the end of the June sittings, as the govern ment proposed to do, we would have had none of these changes. It was proposed that the bill be coughed through at a lunchtime without debate and divisions, and that of course meant without time for amendments and consultation. We were advised at the time that the community had plenty of time. We, in fact, were told by the community that that was simply not true. The Greens (WA) had a great deal of pressure put on them at that time because we were told by the government that we were the only ones holding back this fabulous piece of legislation. Quite frankly, the legislation has been shown to be less than fabulous.

Although, as I have conceded, the concept of ARPANSA has been asked for by a number of groups over quite a deal of time, it was not a case of `any regulations at all you are prepared to throw at us.' The community were tired of being treated badly, of being kept in the dark and of not having some kind of independent authority as an oversight of the industry. That certainly did not mean that they wanted to go backwards. It certainly did not mean that they wanted commercial pressures in the end to come through and override them—steamroller them—by way of this legislation.

Our concern—and there are still some concerns remaining which we will deal with in the committee stage—is that this bill will end up being a Trojan Horse: something that looked attractive; something that was in the guise of a proposal that the community wanted, but something that contained elements much more problematical; something that could lead to other areas of concern where the parliament would then have no scrutiny or no redress. We had a situation where, in the hands of a CEO who would be responsible to the minister and whose staff at that stage would have been selected from ministerial staff, ticks could be given to activities which in no way the community would be happy to have outside parliamentary and public scrutiny.

So this bill has been problematical. I don't think it is perfect and I don't think it is going to get anywhere near perfect, but I am happy that we have had at least some chance in the last few months to move somewhat closer to some level of public health and safety. There is still a long way to go.

In summary, whilst the Greens (WA) are pleased that the government has made some concessions to acknowledge community concerns about this bill, we feel that further amendments are required to ensure adequate protection for the community from the dangers of radiation and of nuclear activities.