Senator BROWN (4:41 PM) —While not a member of the committee, my perusal of the committee's report indicates a major stumbling block for the government in proceeding with a nuclear reactor in Sydney, and the reactor should not proceed. We are in an open democracy where information is crucial to good decision making. The nuclear industry worldwide has hidden behind the commercial-in-confidence and secrecy provisions of the legislation of various countries to be covert in a full discussion of what it is doing and what the ramifications are for the human community, for the environment in the wider sense and for the economic future of the industry concerned. If you look at the summation at the front of the report, Mr Acting Deputy President Watson, on page xxxii you will see stated that:

It is extraordinary for a committee to say that a minister should be censured because the minister has refused to give information to that committee. If you turn over three pages, to page xxxiii, it says:

that is, the French authority—

This committee, which is involved in finding out for the public important matters like that, has been blocked from getting that information. When that happens, the balance of doubt goes against the government of the day. That information ought to be available to a parliamentary committee, but it is not. I have just pointed to two of the recommendations in this committee report, but there are more. And time and time again it is about obfuscation and blocking and keeping information secret by those who are proposing that the reactor at Lucas Heights be replaced by the Argentinean one that is now under contract.

Other speakers have brought to the debate the failure of the government to say in very clear and concise terms what it is going to do, the where and the when, with the nuclear waste. You cannot sensibly proceed with a facility which is going to produce and stockpile nuclear waste without saying what is going to happen with it. We have a responsibility not just to ourselves but to future generations and to Australia's reputation to make sure that the full stream of this industry is dealt with at the time a reactor is put in. It has not been dealt with, and that has been a big problem with the existing reactor at Lucas Heights.

One other thing that is worrying about this proposal is the failure of the New South Wales government to do its homework in light of earlier reports and to come up with the information that would reassure the citizens of Sydney and elsewhere—wherever may be targeted as a future nuclear waste dump—that everything is in order. One cannot help but suspect that the New South Wales government simply wanted this to be left to the federal government and that the federal government would like it left to the nuclear authorities. The difficult matters about what is going to happen with the waste, such as how safety is to be ensured and how to make sure that the plant is not misused, have been, to a degree, swept under the carpet at a time when nuclear safety is a matter of concern right around the world. If a Senate committee cannot get clarification, the government has only itself to blame. And if the government is not trusted or believed, and if its case is not accepted, it has only itself to blame. The community, particularly the community in the south-east suburbs of Sydney which has to have this reactor in its backyard, has a right above all to feel that the reactor should not proceed under those circumstances.

From what I have seen, I support the recommendations in this report and the contention by those who live in the region where this reactor would be built, and that is that it should not proceed. The government has not justified itself and has not been able to put a case that would convince people otherwise.

Question resolved in the affirmative.