Senator McLUCAS (4:34 PM) —I would also like to take note of the report of the Senate Select Committee for an Inquiry into the Contract for a New Reactor at Lucas Heights. I will confine my comments this afternoon to dealing with the very complex waste management issues that would arise should a replacement reactor be built at Lucas Heights.

This government has ducked the waste management issue through the whole process of both the contract and the discussions on the proposed nuclear reactor. The government has not openly and honestly dealt with the reality that we already have a nuclear waste management issue in this country that requires a response. The government is prepared, though, to proceed down the road of building a nuclear reactor without any plan at all for the disposal of nuclear waste.

The proposed reactor to be built by the Argentinian company INVAP is proposed to use uranium silicide, at least in the short term, as an interim fuel type. Eventually, INVAP proposes to use uranium molybdenum to operate the reactor. However, uranium molybdenum, or UMo, is a fuel that is still under development. There are a series of consequences that will follow this ill-thought-out course if it is pursued, as the government seems to want to do.

In my view and in the view of the committee, ANSTO did not convince the committee that there is a plan to manage the nuclear waste industry issue in this country. Currently, as we have heard, ANSTO has a contract with Cogema, a company in France, to reproduce waste from the current HIFAR reactor at Lucas Heights. This arrangement has recently been tested in the French courts, where Greenpeace was successful in seeking an injunction to prevent a shipment of spent fuel being unloaded in France. Whilst this injunction was subsequently overturned, Greenpeace has filed a fresh case in the French courts which hinges on the definition of the term `nuclear waste'. This court case will be worth watching.

The committee requested a copy of the contract between ANSTO and Cogema to reassure itself and the Australian community that current and proposed waste would be dealt with. As we have heard, it was not forthcoming and Senator Forshaw was compelled to request Senator Minchin to provide a copy of the contract to the Senate. Senator Minchin did not comply with that request, citing `commercial-in-confidence considerations'. So the Senate and the Australian community cannot be assured that there is a plan to deal with nuclear waste in this country, and the government and the minister should be condemned for their lack of response to real community concern. It is absurd in the extreme that the only way Australians can learn about the details of an agreement between ANSTO—an organisation of the Australian government—and Cogema is through French legal processes.

A further twist to this issue is that INVAP will have to deal with silicide fuel used in the start-up of the reactor. INVAP has advised that it proposes to treat the material in Argentina through an organisation called CNEA. Technicatome, one of the unsuccessful bidders for the contract, advised the committee that INVAP does not have facilities to reprocess the spent fuel rods. INVAP agreed, saying that reprocessing was not envisaged but that `conditioning' was. In my view, this could result in a potential legal challenge to the importation of the spent fuel rods into Argentina. The Argentinean constitution precludes the importation of nuclear waste. Given that the material proposed to be imported will not be reused—that is, it will not be reprocessed—it raises the real potential of legal challenge to the importation. This reality was also recognised by the Argentinean ambassador in his contribution to the committee.

This provides no certainty, no security and no clear direction to Australians about what might happen to the waste produced by a new reactor. It flies in the face of one of the strongest recommendations of Professor McKinnon in his 1993 report, when he said that the solution to the problem of waste was `essential and necessary well prior to any future decision about the new reactor'. It was good policy then, and it is good policy now. I also note the lack of leadership, honesty and openness shown by this government in dealing with the need for both a low level and an intermediate level waste repository. I think it is widely accepted both in this country and internationally that any nation producing nuclear waste has the responsibility of ultimately dealing with that waste in their own country in the long term.

This government has not been open with the community or with the states and has weaseled out of making a decision for the nation. It is important to note that the regulatory body, ARPANSA, has the ability to refuse approval of the reactor if waste issues have not been dealt with to its satisfaction. There has been no clarity provided by the government on the matter of waste management. The government has ducked the issue and stands condemned.

In conclusion, I join with our chair and other members of the committee and take this opportunity to place on record my thanks to Dr Kathleen Dermody, Dr Sarah Bachelard and Mr Peter Hallahan for their excellent work in the production of the report and for their rigour and commitment to producing a document that will stand the test of time. I commend the report to the chamber.