Senator SCULLION (12:01 PM) —‘Dinna bwino,’ Mr Acting Deputy President Barnett—that is ‘good morning’ in Swahili! Whilst I am very pleased to speak to the Commonwealth Radioactive Waste Management Bill 2005 and the Commonwealth Radioactive Waste Management (Related Amendments) Bill 2005, I have to reflect my disappointment about the degradation of the currency in this debate since it started in 1992. The last six months of this debate have been an absolute disgrace. It is a disgrace because those on the other side have decided to change the currency. It should be a currency of this place not only to debate and pass legislation but also to inform Australians. It has gone from informed, factual, scientifically assessed and validated information for people to consume, to misinformation, untruths, complete lies and scaremongering. That is what the debate has come to on that side. I am very proud that we on this side have continued to be reasoned and clear and use scientific facts in regard to the debate on this matter—and it is not a new debate; it is not something that has never been done before.

The process that we are following in establishing a radioactive management facility has in fact been done in many countries around the world, where it is not even notable because this is simply a responsibility that those nations have taken on seriously. Ironically, the process started here in 1992 when Simon Crean, the member for Hotham—very responsibly at that time, I have to say—noted that you have to recognise the need to deal with an existing and potentially ongoing inventory of radioactive waste. That was what the Labor Party said in 1992. Labor are the people who throw around lines like ‘trust, credibility and inclusiveness’. They started the process and said: ‘There’s the process. Let’s move into the future. We’re going to have a scientific based process to establish exactly where this facility is going to go.’ It was a very long process, it was expensive and it was all very inclusive. In fact, it was inclusive to the extent that every state and territory agreed that that would be the process—every state and territory, which represented every person who lived in that state and territory—which obviously includes, for your benefit, Senator Stephens, every Australian. So one would have thought that your process was inclusive.

It is extremely disappointing to hear that, after that process has been gone through—and it was a reasonable process; good on you, member for Hotham: it was reasonable stuff, and the Howard government supported it and then implemented it—it now gets shafted by those on the other side of this place and by Mike Rann and the South Australian branch of the Labor Party. So I take umbrage at your use of words like ‘trust’ and ‘credibility’. Do not come to this place with that sort of garbage unless you have something to back it up. This was a process—a responsible process—started by your side of government, but suddenly you want to politicise it because it is not handy to support the government at the moment. So it is just another rant in this place that has absolutely no basis in science or any argument at all. You should be supporting this legislation, and so should Clare Martin, the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory.

Some time ago, when you started talking about this process, saying that it has to be based on the best science, a lot of pundits around the place started commenting on it. I note that recently one of our rocket scientists on the other side, the member for Lingiari, said, ‘Why don’t we just leave it at Lucas Heights?’ I know those on the other side are a bit ashamed about their history in almost every aspect of politics, but I would very much commend them to look at the processes in 1995, when your government moved the entire repository to Woomera. I have some facts for the member for Lingiari. He said, ‘Why don’t we leave it at Lucas Heights?’ I am sorry, Mr Snowdon, we cannot because it is on the other side of the world. It is not at Lucas Heights. It is at Dounreay in Scotland and COGEMA in France. Just a cursory look at the facts of this matter would make Mr Snowdon informed, and then he could enter the debate as an informed individual instead of as someone who is just thrashing around the place trying to frighten people and skew the facts to show that somehow Labor have done the right thing when it is patently obvious to anybody who understands any history about this matter that that is not the fact.

A number of issues have been brought up today in this debate. One of them is about the timing. People have said: ‘What’s the rush? We can hang around forever. It’s okay. We’ll consult some more.’ In fact, some people have said: ‘I know what we’ll do. Let’s have some more science. That’s what we’ll do. We’ll have a rigorous process that looks at the science of this process.’ We have just had one of those. Unfortunately, you have to have some trust, credibility and inclusiveness in that—they were the words you used. After the Labor Party sit down this time, will they breach their word in 12 years time? Who would know? But I can tell you that this is a process that, because of history, this side of government do not have a lot of faith in.

In August 2000, the CEO of ARPANSA, Dr John Loy, stated:

That is the single reason that the Commonwealth Radioactive Waste Management Bill 2005 has been introduced. It has been introduced because the Northern Territory government have sought to put in place delays. They have sought to put in place impediments to this happening. And they have sought to put in place delays to ensure that it confuses government. While they are doing that, they have had very little thought for Australians, because they also know that by April the same Dr Loy and his organisation will make an assessment. Around April they will ask, ‘About how far have we got to go?’ It is going to take about six years to go through the whole process—a very short time to build a facility. Those six years are almost committed to because this is a very rigorous, scientific process.

Again, this government bases such decisions on facts and science—very rigorous. We have to convince the Minister for the Environment and Heritage—although we do not actually have to convince a person; we have to convince one of the largest omnibus bills ever brought into this place, the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. Those on the other side who have an interest in these things, and I know some do, will understand that the rigour of that act, as supported effectively by them, is not easy to get around. Then we have to convince ARPANSA that all the safety processes in terms of storage are met. We then have to go on to say that the Australian Safeguards and Non-Proliferation Office has been satisfied. That is going to take much time. If ARPANSA and Dr Loy are not convinced by April next year then it is unlikely that he is going to say that we have met our international obligations.

After having used radiopharmaceuticals for 48 years, we have the capacity in this country to make a decision in Australia’s interest and say, ‘We are going to do this,’ and that is what is happening here today. We have said we are introducing this bill to remove any doubt about the Commonwealth’s capacity to deliver something in the national interest. We need a single, purpose-built facility, and of course we look to science and good scientists. In September this year, Professor Snow Barlow, who was the President of the Federation of Australia Scientific and Technological Societies, said:

Good science? There are no problems about that. He is somebody of absolutely reliable reputation who continues to write papers in the area. We know we can trust this man. We know that we are doing the right thing, based not on rhetoric but on science.

Another issue is the reliability of supply. I have to say that there are some people with declared agendas—the Greens, effectively. I do not want to pre-empt what the Greens will say, but I know, by simply reading their web site, that they are not particularly keen on uranium after it is out of the ground. I can understand that and I respect that. The Democrats are of a similar ilk. Certainly, Senator Allison is, and I respect that, because that is her agenda. But there are those on the other side who say, ‘It is okay; we can mine and use uranium,’ but who all the same will not accept good science. If you look at the movement of these radiopharmaceuticals internationally you see some call: ‘It is okay; we will import it. Don’t worry; we do not need Lucas Heights. We can import it. There is no concern at all. We will make a fundamental part of our health system reliant on another country. It is okay; nothing will happen.’ But, again, we have to rely on some science. In September this year the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei, told the IAEA general conference:

There is a bit of a surprise—we could be importing from another country and suddenly find out that the transportation people say, ‘We do not really want to carry this material.’ What better scientific evidence is there that we need a reactor here, we need to continue to have the benefits of radiopharmaceuticals for our health system and we need to ensure that the processes to meet our international obligations are met? That is why it is essential to support the Commonwealth Radioactive Waste Management Bill.

The government needed to act and they have acted. They proposed three sites in the Northern Territory. They did not act by going to the Northern Territory because they thought they were the best places. Some in DEST and the minister will probably assert that there was a good scientific basis for it but I have always said that that is just rubbish. The level of amenity in the three places selected is (a) they are Commonwealth land and (b) they were not being used. That is all the choice they had. The choice was taken from them by the Labor Party. Mike Rann said, ‘I am breaching the agreement; it is not going in section 40a in Woomera,’ which is where the very best scientific process in Australia said it should go. He breached his word and so the Commonwealth had no choice. Territorians, believe me, none of us are putting us in this situation. The South Australian branch of the Labor Party did. And when I pleaded with the chief minister as recently as last night to pick up the phone and ring her mate she declined and she did not indicate whether she had done that previously. I had to write to Mr Rann last week and I am still waiting for a reply. But I think it is absolutely outrageous hypocrisy.

Senator Forshaw —What did that South Australian leader of the opposition say?

Senator SCULLION —Let me tell you about absolute hypocrisy. She does not want to ring him to say, ‘Will you put the site where it should go?’ but she is happy to say, ‘G’day, Mike, old mate—what about I do a deal taking your yellowcake through Alice Springs, Tennant Creek, Katherine and Darwin? That is okay.’ You should be careful about the interjections from the other side because you have no moral high road left on this issue. During the phone call would it not have been easier to say, ‘Mike, if you want to bring your yellowcake through the centre of this country, what about consulting with the Central Land Council?’ They were in my office the other day saying, ‘Nigel, we do not want this.’ I said, ‘But Clare is bringing yellowcake through your country,’ and they said, ‘We did not know that.’ Consultation, truth, transparency—they have to rub both ways.

The Labor Party have completely misrepresented the situation and have outrageously exaggerated the claims. Lyn Allison mentioned turning the land into a wasteland. I have spoken to Aboriginal people who are really upset. They have said: ‘All the wallabies are going to die, Nigel. It is going to poison our water.’ I am suspicious about who has provided those lies to those people. No-one on the other side has said, ‘No, that is not the case.’ I do not hear that. Yet they know in their hearts and they should know in their minds that that is wrong. It is particularly wrong to provide that sort of misinformation to naive communities that do not have the opportunities and sometimes the education to understand exactly what is going on with this issue.

They have a responsibility to ensure that the Northern Territory are well represented and informed, rather than spreading the absolutely outrageous claims we have had, including from Minister Vaskalis. He said that we are going to ruin the clean green image of the Northern Territory. Only the activities, the misinformation and the grubby lies spread by a number of people in the Northern Territory are going to impact on the clean green image of the Northern Territory. If you had a reasonable debate you would know that there would be no threat to any of those things.

I know that they are aware that French champagne and camembert are produced adjacent to some of the largest low-level and intermediate repositories in the world. Do I like champagne? I prefer Australian sparkling wine, but champagne is sold throughout the world. I do not mind a bit of camembert—though I prefer my Tasmanian cheeses—but I think that it is a pretty spurious claim to make. Again, it is scaremongering. Let’s frighten the people—an age-old ploy.

I did listen to the concerns of Territorians, as I said I would. I listened very carefully. I fronted a number of information sessions and opportunities to interact and I carefully guided and looked at what the concerns of Territorians were. The Country Liberal Party, David Tollner and I decided to reflect those concerns in a series of amendments in the other place. Those amendments that are now contained in this bill deal with ensuring that we have a prohibition on high-level waste and on international waste. We have indemnified the Northern Territory against any costs and damages associated with this process. We have ensured that it is legislated that the Northern Territory repository—currently in the basement of the hospital, but we do not want to talk about that too much—is stored for free in this new facility. We have another person put on the Radiation Health and Safety Advisory Council, a better level of amenity for Territorians with the Territory government.

Most importantly, instead of saying that they are the three sites, we have expanded the sites by ensuring that there are extensions to schedule 1 that allow the Northern Territory government, the Central Land Council and the Northern Land Council to be able to provide a nomination should they choose. I have had many pastoralists and landowners ringing me, saying: ‘Why did you have to make the Northern Territory government do this? Why couldn’t we have nominated ourselves? We think that we have got a great level of amenity.’ I said that I did not want to disempower the Territory government in this matter. Governments of that nature are responsible for land. It is up to them and it will be up to Clare Martin to deal with those issues. The Central Land Council have made their views clear, particularly the traditional owners from Mount Everard and Harts Range, and I have spoken to them at length. They have made it very clear that they are not happy with it going there and I respect those wishes. For those reasons we now have an opportunity to spread that right out.

The behaviour of the Northern Land Council in this matter shows integrity and leadership and it deals with the national interest. I commend John Daly and the secretariat, particularly Norm Fry and Ron Levy, on their work in this matter. It is very difficult to provide an entire council, go away to Bynoe Harbour with no-one else there, and then provide advice from independent scientists and from ANSTO and to go and ask any questions they liked. They did that and unanimously decided that they wanted to do something. Their press release said:

They went on to say:

Leadership! It is great to see that. They are tremendous Australians—good on you, John Daly. The press release made a couple of comments about the Chief Minister. It said:

She is silent on those things. Is it a balanced debate? Is it a balanced discussion? No. So when we are talking about those iconic processes of truth and integrity, Senator Stephens, I think your side in the Northern Territory leaves a lot lacking. John Daly went on to say:

He continued:

referring to the Chief Minister—

This government would have preferred to act in cooperation with the states and territories. You cannot go to sleep in the Commonwealth; it has to be a state or territory. Life saving benefits go to those people in the states and territories. We are not getting the cooperation of the states and territories because they are Labor states and territories. This is an act of bastardry against the Australian people. I am proud to be part of a government that will not shy away from our responsibilities and I commend the bills to the Senate.