Senator TROOD (Queensland) (12.33 p.m.)—It is a great pleasure to participate in this debate on the Commonwealth Radioactive Waste Management Bill 2005 and the Commonwealth Radioactive Waste Management (Related Amendments) Bill 2005. This is another example of the Howard government proceeding with matters on the nation’s agenda which are of considerable importance. This matter is certainly of that character. It is a matter that goes back a very long way. It is a matter that has been unresolved for a very long period of time, and it needs resolution.

The early stages of consultation between the Commonwealth, the states and the territories on this matter go back at least to the 1970s, when there was a process in place which was designed to resolve the problem of where Australia’s low- and medium-level waste would be stored. That process proceeded essentially on a bipartisan basis for a long period of time. By the time we got to about 1992, there was a paper which provided a set of criteria as to the requirements for a storage facility. It was a paper which was agreed amongst the Commonwealth, the states and territories. Various regions were identified in the context of this paper, and eventually a site in South Australia was identified as the most desirable site.

One could go through the full detail of this matter, but I do not think it serves any particular purpose, other than to say that by the time we got to 2004-05, when we had a site identified, the South Australian government, like all the other state governments, had decided that it was going to do everything in its power to prevent the establishment of this site in South Australia. Of course, this represents a problem. It represents a syndrome which is all too redolent around the country at the moment. It is a shameful syndrome because it reflects the fact that no state was prepared to take responsibility to cooperate with the Commonwealth to provide a facility in which to store this low- and medium-level waste. It is a ‘not in my backyard’ syndrome. No state or territory was prepared to take leadership on the issue and say, ‘This is a national responsibility, we all need to contribute to it, we all need to take some responsibility for the problem.’

So we found ourselves, at the end of 2004-05, with no facility. We also had at that time a statement by the Northern Territory government that, if any attempt was made to try and site material in the Northern Territory, it would be opposed by the Northern Territory government. So the outlines of this debate were clear from the very beginning: the Northern Territory government was opposed to it.

What was the Commonwealth to do in those circumstances? The opportunities for consultation with the Northern Territory government were very clearly foreclosed. There was no likelihood that the Northern Territory government was going to be rational, sensible, accommodating or in any way cooperative with the Commonwealth on this matter. So the Commonwealth did what it was essentially forced to do by the position taken up by the Northern Territory government. It said that the facility would be established in the Northern Territory.

There has been a charge made in this debate that the Commonwealth has acted in a very heavy-handed way and shown contempt for the processes of the Northern Territory government, overridden the legislative rights of the Northern Territory government, has essentially ignored all of the processes and will create a situation where all of the checks and balances which would normally be created and used to site a facility of this kind will be overridden. Of course, nothing of the kind was ever intended.

Once this decision had been announced by the Commonwealth, the Northern Territory government not only decided that it was going to oppose the decision but also that it would delay, prevent, obstruct and do every single thing in its power to preclude the siting of this facility on its territory. Not only did it make a rhetorical claim about this but it also produced a document headed, What you need to know about Canberra’s proposed nuclear dump. This document purported to provide Territorians with information about the dump. It is a document which— if one is being generous—at the very least contains a series of half-truths and misrepresentations about the nature of this dump. It asserts that Australia’s highest grade nuclear waste is to be stored in the facility. That was never the intention. It makes accusations about the fact that nuclear waste poses a serious danger to humans and the environment for many thousands of years. It may be toxic in certain senses but, of course, we all know that it can be stored safely. That was always the intention. It makes representations about a range of terminal and debilitating medical conditions that have been directly linked to exposure to nuclear waste. There was no evidence provided for that proposition and, indeed, in all the evidence that we received in the committee—on which I was privileged to sit—there was little of that kind as well. This document purported to inform Territorians about the new dump; what it did was whip up a great deal of sentiment against the siting of the facility in the Northern Territory.

When giving evidence before the committee, the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory sought to make the point that it was no business of hers, and no business of her government, to provide the case for the dump. I have sympathy for that proposition but I do think that the Northern Territory government has the responsibility to provide balanced information and, at the very least, not to represent the case as it was inclined to do in this particular document. It set out as best it could to prey on the fears that people have about nuclear facilities. Of course, those fears are widespread in the community. There are a large number of anxieties about nuclear waste, so a responsible government would have, perhaps, said: ‘This matter needs to be resolved; we ought to show some leadership and try to encourage people to recognise that there are some dangers, certainly, but that they can be overcome.’ That was never the position of the Northern Territory government.

What is more distressing is the hypocrisy of the Northern Territory government’s position about this particular matter, because the Northern Territory government, when it came to the committee, asserted the proposition that the politics be taken out of the issue and the focus be on the science. But evidence from the Northern Territory at the committee was that the Northern Territory government had not taken one step and had made absolutely no effort to try to inform itself of the science. Not only did it take no steps to try to inform itself of the science but it also made no attempt to try and inform Territorians of the science. The hypocrisy of this position was absolutely astounding. The Chief Minister was exhorting the committee to concentrate on the science at precisely the same time that she was determined to ignore the science and to play the politics of this matter. It was a disgraceful performance and I am not surprised that there are people in the Territory who are distressed about it.

Once this bill has passed, as I trust it will be during the course of the day, then we have to move on to the future. We have to confront the reality that a site has to be found for this waste. We heard evidence in relation to three sites. My sense is that the Fisher’s Ridge site will probably not prove to be suitable, but an exhaustive process of investigation will take place to determine whether or not any of the three sites will be suitable. There is an opportunity here for the Northern Territory government to redeem itself and to take a constructive view in relation to this matter, because the bill offers the Territory government an opportunity to nominate a site. I sincerely hope that the Northern Territory government avails itself of that opportunity. Having been unconstructive all along, I hope that it will take the opportunity to be cooperative in relation to this particular issue.

Before we get too troubled about the implications of the siting process, I would encourage Territorians to pay attention to the evidence and, in particular, to the evidence of Dr Loy, the chief executive officer of ARPANSA, to the inquiry. He made it very clear in his evidence that the process of authorising the site was a rigorous and exhaustive one and that there would be a great deal of investigation done in relation to buildings, ecology, transportation, the geology of the site, the storage relationship and the matter of Aboriginal land rights. All of these things would be taken into account when the investigation process was underway and the authorisation process was taking place. This will be a rigorous process, and I would encourage Territorians to pay attention to that. I have confidence that that process will deliver a site which will be safe to those people who happen to live nearby. (Time expired)