Senator MARGETTS (12:21 PM) —It is obvious that the Greens (WA) also have amendments Nos 1 and 2 in relation to the definition of nuclear installation. It is an issue that is of major concern to the groups that have been dealing with this bill. I will explain what we are trying to do with our amendment. We can then deal with the whole lot consequently.

What we would be trying to achieve is to effectively ban a whole range of nuclear installations which we do not currently have in Australia and which we do not want to have. I would like to ask each of the honourable senators in this place to consider whether they would want any one of the facilities on their list in their state or near their home town and then ask themselves why they would want to be able to go ahead under a regulated regime like this one where all the authority for licensing is in the hands of one person—that is, the CEO of ARPANSA. I suspect that if you were totally honest with yourselves you would acknowledge that these are facilities so objectionable to the vast majority of Australians that you would have to answer `no' to those questions.

I would like to argue that our amendment seeks to ban such facilities from definition. The opposition's amendment is to change the definitions and, whilst I will give my argument, I will ask whether or not we could change the order in which the amendments are dealt with, because ours is, I guess, the stronger approach. The opposition's proposal has also been discussed with us and is considered to be a better approach than exists in the bill. I will continue with my argument but perhaps we can think in the meantime whether we could change the order in which the amendments are dealt with and go from the strongest approach down to the next acceptable approach and so on.

Let us look at each of the proposals in turn, starting with a nuclear fuel fabrication plant. As if it is not bad enough that Australia has let itself be drawn into the nuclear war cycle by mining uranium, we have here a facility which would see Australia turn uranium into fuel. Clearly, with Australia's use of nuclear fuel being entirely focused on Lucas Heights, there is no need for us to produce our own. The quantity required would not justify it. Then there is the problem of what we would do to it once it was used. As long as we are getting our fuel from elsewhere, we can insist on its return. That is what the government wants us to do, and there is no need for us to have a nuclear fuel fabrication plant.

Next, let us look at a nuclear power plant. I am pleased to see the government proposes taking nuclear power plants out of the definition of nuclear installations in this bill. This amendment strengthens the position by explicitly prohibiting nuclear power stations from being licensed by ARPANSA. There is virtual unanimity in Australia in opposing nuclear power. We hear the odd politician from the right side of politics—and perhaps we also hear the other odd person—who thinks there is money to be made, but in general the amendment recognises and specifically includes any possibility of nuclear power stations being licensed.

Let us look at an enrichment plant. What is an enrichment plant? Primarily, it is used for turning radioactive materials into even more radioactive materials for use in weapons. It is an appalling concept and one which we would have no part of and should have no part of. Whilst it can have civilian uses, it is one of those dual use facilities which is the key link between civilian and military uses. To anyone who stands up and says `No, there is not any swap between military and civilian uses'—as I guess the minister may, from time to time—you should go and speak to the substantial delegation from the former Soviet Union. There were about 12 of them, and they could give you chapter and verse of the free movement over time between civilian and military uses of nuclear material and enriched nuclear material in their country. It can be used either for the production of plutonium or for enriched uranium, both of which have potential uses in weapon development. If we are serious about nonproliferation, we should ban enrichment in Australia.

Let us look at a reprocessing facility. Reprocessing of nuclear fuel is one of the dirtiest stages of the nuclear fuel cycle, and it is the most radiologically damaging part of the cycle as far as worker health is concerned. It also has a role in separating weapons grade fuel. We should have no part in it.

Let us look at a nuclear waste storage or disposal facility. What a euphemism this word `disposal' is. One of the things that came out clearly in the No Time to Waste report is that we would not be disposing of waste, we would be storing it—because there is no way of disposing of it. It is still there—it is just somewhere else, and we are hoping that when we do choose facilities for storing waste we will choose ones we can see and monitor easily and clearly for the time that we alive and our children are alive.

Unfortunately, you cannot just dispose of nuclear waste and then it is gone. No safe permanent disposal of nuclear waste has been invented, and whatever attempts are made to do so will only incur intense and continuing problems for the management of that waste for thousands of years. We would hope that there are safer ways of dealing with that, but they do not exist yet. Even the synroc technology still has problems that are acknowledged.

It is a symptom of the desperation in the nuclear industry that they are floating this idea of the outback of Australia—a far-flung part of a far-flung land, the other part of the world, a desert; do not worry about it. We are all politically aware of the fact that the United States up to now has not wanted any other country to be involved with collecting, storing or reprocessing this material because of the security issues. We also know that they have got one heck of a problem convincing anybody in their community that they should take it. We have heard that in the contributions so far and in particular from Senator Allison. It is not the ideal dumping ground, as we know. We must not give the potential dumpers any comfort, and we must outlaw nuclear waste dumps. So I would like Senator Forshaw in particular, considering it is the ALP's amendment and if he would be happy to reverse the order of putting the amendments, to deal with the prohibition first and then the change of definition later.