Adjourned debate on second reading.

The Hon. SANDRA KANCK: This is a welcome bill, and the fact that we have it before us is proof of the power of public lobbying. Some 12 months ago, the Democrats were the only parliamentary political party that had publicly come out against the proposed dump, and here we are now with all parties in this parliament agreeing that South Australia should not be the site for a national medium level nuclear waste dump. During the process of convincing politicians that this ought to be their position, environment groups have been very active, and I pay tribute to them.

The Australian Conservation Foundation has maintained a high profile on the issue, and last November it held a meeting at the Adelaide Town Hall with Peter Garrett as the key speaker, and the Adelaide Town Hall was filled to near capacity on that evening. The nuclear issues coalition from the Conservation Council of South Australia has kept us up-to-date with a regular newsletter about the nuclear industry and how all aspects of that industry link into the waste issue that we are considering in this bill.

A group called ENUFF (Everyone for a Nuclear Free Future) has at least on two occasions to my recollection-it may be more-had a banner slung across the front of Parliament House reminding the premier of his stated opposition to the dumps. Earlier this year, in March, a group of dedicated citizens from the township of Nairne led by one person, Greg Were, convened a two day conference at the University of Adelaide with people coming from all around Australia to discuss the issue. All these groups have played a vital role in putting pressure on the government.

Last year I introduced a private member's bill on high level internationally sourced nuclear waste and the opposition also introduced a bill in the House of Assembly regarding Lucas Heights waste. I believe both of these have played a part in convincing the government to introduce its own legislation.

The Liberal government at the federal level via Senator Nick Minchin-`Nuclear Nick', as we know him-has been aggressively pushing for this dump. However, I want to look at the Labor Party record, because it bears a great deal of responsibility for our now having to debate this issue.

In April 1988, the federal government granted $100 000 to the Northern Territory government for a nuclear waste feasibility study, which was undertaken by ANSTO (the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation) but in May 1991 the Northern Territory government announced that it was no longer interested in locating a dump in that territory.

In 1991 in a letter to the federal primary industries and resource minister, Simon Crean, South Australia's deputy premier, Don Hopgood-he might have been environment minister at the time-acknowledged the need for a national centralised repository for low and intermediate level radioactive waste-and I stress that the two were linked at the time.

The current site selection process was initiated in October 1992 by Simon Crean, who was then the resources minister in the Keating Labor government. The Keating government was responsible for moving 2 000 cubic metres of low level waste from Sydney to Woomera in 1994 with no public consultation whatsoever. Towards the end of 1998 Martyn Evans, the Labor Party's federal shadow resources minister and also the member for the South Australian seat of Bonython, came out in support of the dump being located in South Australia. His view was that, if the site met appropriate geological requirements and people were consulted-it does not matter if they did not want it just as long as they were consulted-South Australia should accept the dump here.

In the middle of this year, the federal Leader of the Opposition, Kim Beazley, was speaking on an Adelaide radio talk-back program and he would not rule out South Australia as a possible site for a national nuclear waste dump. He bluffed his way through the questioning by saying that we had to have such a dump and that it had to be clear that we had the right site.

I go back now to the role of the Liberal Party in this matter. On 28 February 1995, the then premier of this state, Dean Brown, wrote a most interesting letter to Prime Minister Keating about the transfer and storage of radioactive waste from St Marys in Sydney to Woomera in South Australia. He said:

My government does not accept the commonwealth's decision to store the waste at Woomera rangehead-

and this is really important-

until certain assurances are given and uncertainties clarified.

That to me indicates that, once those assurances were given and the uncertainties clarified, the Liberal government here in South Australia in February 1995 was saying it would ultimately be okay to remove that waste-or it had been removed but ultimately the state government would agree and not kick up any fuss about it. The next thing in that letter which is of great interest (and I am quoting again from Dean Brown) is as follows:

Finally, the South Australian Government believes a prerequisite to establishing radioactive waste storage sites or repositories in the Woomera region is that the adjacent Lake Eyre region should not be considered for World Heritage Listing. It therefore seeks an agreement from the Commonwealth that it will not proceed with World Heritage Listing of the Lake Eyre region on the grounds that such listing is inconsistent with the location of storage sites for radioactive waste on the edge of that region.

In other words, this state government brought in an entirely unrelated issue-that is, the listing of Lake Eyre as a World Heritage region-as a bargaining tool. Implicit in this was an understanding that ultimately this Liberal government would agree to a nuclear waste repository being located in South Australia. It is quite astounding. I am surprised that Dean Brown did not throw in six steak knives as well as part of the deal.

The Hon. T.G. Roberts: Or maybe some beans.

The Hon. SANDRA KANCK: Yes; it would be in keeping with the sort of dealing that was being done at that time. This trade-off set the pace for what has happened since then. We now know that a new nuclear reactor is to be built at Lucas Heights. Part of the licensing for that facility to go ahead includes a requirement for satisfactory solutions for waste disposal. The waste we are talking about is low and medium level waste at the present time. However, it will ultimately include high level waste, because such waste has been sent from Lucas Heights to Dounreay in Scotland for reprocessing. We will be getting the residue from that back in 17 years' time. So, it is very clear that we in Australia will have to deal not only with low and medium level waste but with high level waste.

That material from Lucas Heights was sent to Scotland last year. It will be come back at the same level of high radioactivity but it will have increased in volume by 85 times. The question is: where will it be put? If the proposed dump in the Billa- Kalina region of South Australia goes ahead, you can bet London to a brick that this is where they will want to put that waste. So the pressure is on to get a decision made so that the dump can be built. Senator Nick Minchin put out a media release on 18 May this year. In part it states:

All states and territories benefit from the use of radioactivity in medicine, industry and research. All states and territories should continue to cooperate in the search for a store for the resulting intermediate level waste. It is simply irresponsible to want all the benefits of radioisotopes but then to walk away from dealing with the waste.

That is a very flawed argument. The people who benefit from nuclear medicine come from all over Australia but, in particular, as the bulk of Australians live on the east coast, the bulk of the benefit accrues to those living on the east coast. Where is the logic in saying that South Australians should shoulder the burden for all Australians on this?

When the member for Bonython, Martyn Evans, came out in favour of the dump being located in South Australia, he accused the majority of South Australians of suffering from the NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) syndrome. That accusation should be more legitimately aimed at the majority of Australians who live on the east coast of Australia.

South Australia has already historically borne more than its fair share of nuclear activities, some of them leaving us with an unfortunate legacy. The British nuclear weapons tests at Maralinga left large tracts of radioactive land in this state, and despite the so-called clean-up which has occurred parts of it remain uninhabitable and will do so for thousands for years.

As noted before, we already have waste from Sydney now located at Woomera; a uranium mine at Myponga was never rehabilitated; some of the waste from the Radium Hill uranium mine was used as ballast around railway lines in this state; and a waste dump at Port Pirie is still unsafe. The Olympic Dam mine at Roxby Downs has already produced millions of tonnes of waste, and we saw the problem of the leaking tailings dam a few years ago.

The Beverley uranium mine is pumping 40 megalitres of highly acidic and radioactive water back into the ground each day, and that mine and the Honeymoon mine are getting closer to full production as each day goes by. I suggest to members that South Australia has taken the brunt of nuclear activities in this country for quite some time. For Martyn Evans and, for that matter, `Nuclear Nick' to dismiss the concerns of South Australians in terms of the NIMBY syndrome is being less than fair to the people of this state and shows a lack of historical knowledge.

When the site selection study in this current process, phase 3, was published, it drew attention to concerns about the poor storage of nuclear waste at Lucas Heights, hospitals and research institutions. There is no doubt about it: that stuff is not being looked after properly. What is the solution to not looking after it properly? Put it here in South Australia: out of sight, out of mind. And that is a dangerous course of action.

The Democrats acknowledge that the nuclear genie was let out of the bottle a century ago and we cannot put it back, but we also recognise that, just as in accounting there are profit and loss accounts, there is a downside for every technological gain. Our job as members of parliament is to find the most benign solution. Nuclear technology has provided some positive benefits in terms of medicine: the downside is the waste.

We must always be aware of it, and the continued visible presence of that waste in drums is a valuable reminder to us all that there is that downside. Another argument in support of having the waste left where it is made is that most of the scientists who have the knowledge and expertise to deal with nuclear incidents live on the east coast of Australia. The safest place for the waste is near to the people who know how to deal with any incidents that might arise with it. Burying the material is nowhere near as good an idea as keeping it visible.

It might be uncomfortable for people to see it every day but, as long as it can be seen, it means that the conditions of storage are able to be monitored without any need for high technology. If a drum starts to rust, it will be seen before anything dramatic happens. The biggest risks are in the handling and transport of this material. Keeping it as close as possible to where the waste is produced, even on site, is the safest method of storage.

Similarly, any South Australian- produced waste should stay here, even if a site for a national repository is determined to be located in another state. I was interviewed on radio about the position I hold on this, and someone said, `We can't accuse you of arguing the NIMBY argument: you're actually saying, "Let's keep it, and let's keep it on the front verandah".'

With the knowledge that the commonwealth is commencing formal land acquisition proceedings for the low level dump, there is an urgency about the passage of this bill. If and when we have this bill passed, the commonwealth could be forced into a position of having to override our legislation. It can do this under section 109 of the Constitution, which says that, where a state law is inconsistent with a commonwealth one, the state law is invalid, but first it has to have the commonwealth law that provides the basis for that comparison. Only then can section 109 be invoked.

The question then arises: when the federal government puts legislation to the federal parliament to validate its position, will the MPs in that parliament who represent South Australian electorates (such as the Labor member for Bonython, for instance, and any of the Liberal members of the House of Representatives and senators from South Australia) support it? Will they be prepared to stand up for the South Australians they are there to represent, or will those MPs be willing to put their political futures on the line ahead of party loyalty?

The answer to such questions is unknown, but the fact that it is unknown and unpredictable ought to cause the federal government to think twice about pursuing this approach, so it would act in South Australia's favour. Of course, I acknowledge that the federal government has other avenues open to it but, in taking the action of passing this legislation, we close off one of them. Therefore, I think it is important that we do so.

The other option that the federal government has is to locate the dump using powers under existing legislation. That could possibly be done by using the Defence Act, should the location chosen be on defence land, but I believe that that could be challenged in a court of law as it would be arguable, at least, that locating a dump for low to medium-level nuclear waste is not a defence activity. Should it reach that point, I would hope that state governments could be relied upon to take the necessary legal action.

One thing that the South Australian government can do is declare the land that is under consideration by the federal government to be a public park. That would force the federal government to bring the matter before the federal parliament where, with the combined vote of the opposition and the Democrats in the Senate, it could be defeated.

I have made three requests for access to the government's legal opinion, which the Premier used earlier this year as a basis for claiming that there was nothing South Australia could do to stop the dump. I tried by a simple request in a letter to the Premier, and it was denied. I tried through the Freedom of Information Act and was told that the FOI Act allows refusal to be given. So, when the government altered its position and said that it was introducing this legislation, I wrote again with the same request. The answer was, `We don't have to provide it, so we won't.' I knew that the government did not have to provide it, and actually pointed that out in a letter that I wrote to the Premier. The fact that they responded with that sort of answer is just stupid, childish and churlish. It is a great pity, because we are all in this together. A legal opinion is a legal opinion, that is all it is, and legal opinions differ. That is why we have courts-because there are differing opinions.

Access to the state government's legal opinion might have assisted this parliament in improving this legislation. We could have looked at those opinions, tested them for their strength and validity, and it would have allowed us to check possible flaws in any of our arguments, including mine. But the government's refusal to let anyone look at that opinion is acting against what we are all trying to achieve. It is, to put it mildly, petty.

I will be placing on file amendments to have this bill encompass a low-level national waste repository, and I indicate my concern that the state government is rolling over to the federal government in this regard. I previously noted the meeting that the Australian Conservation Foundation held last year in the Adelaide Town Hall, which was addressed by Peter Garrett. In an article in the Advertiser of 19 November last year, Peter Garrett was quoted as follows:

There will be low-level waste at one area and later on there will be long-term to high-level radioactive waste nearby. . . It's not fully appreciated by South Australians the flow-on this precedent could set.

Then the Advertiser , paraphrasing him, said that the only way for South Australia to ensure that it did not become a radioactive waste dump was for parliament to legislate against it. Unfortunately, the out of sight, out of mind attitude of the federal government almost guarantees that a low-level dump will lead to a high-level dump. Sadly, the state government is unwilling to address this issue.

The Democrats support the bill, but it will be on the Liberal Party's head at the next election if it does not deal with the issue of a national low level nuclear waste repository in South Australia. Among my proposed amendments is a proposal to hold a referendum on this issue at the next state election. We must pursue every course that is open to us-political, social and legal-to ensure that South Australia does not become Australia's and, by stealth, the world's nuclear dumping ground.