Ms ANDERSON - 2005-08-16
Is the Northern Territory government aware of any investigations carried out by the Commonwealth government into possible sites for a nuclear waste dump? If so, what are the recommendations of those investigations?
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Macdonnell for her question because it goes right to the heart of this process of site selection by the Commonwealth government over a preferred place for storage of nuclear waste. Once upon a time, it would have been the case that Canberra and the Commonwealth government took a scientific approach to the management of nuclear waste in this country.
Prior to last year’s federal election, when Senator Ian Campbell promised there would be no nuclear dump in the Northern Territory, the federal government did, indeed, conduct an exhaustive investigation into possible sites all around Australia. The federal government’s National Sites Advisory Committee, the NSAC, considered 23 sites before drawing up a short list. For each of the 23 sites, they made one of three recommendations: less suitable, suitable or most suitable.
I table the chart with the comments relating to each of the 23 sites around suitable, less suitable, most suitable.
Mr Wood: There are other sites too.
Mr STIRLING: The member for Nelson might find that interesting. He was asking about the veracity of such documentation this morning in debate. Well, there it is. He can have a look at it when it is tabled and copied.
It looked at Fisher’s Ridge near Katherine, one of the sites currently proposed, and the comment is ‘less suitable’, due to flooding.
The other sites now proposed in the Northern Territory, Harts Range and Mt Everard, were not even on that list - they never made that list in the first instance. However, there were a number of sites that were deemed suitable: Have a guess where Mount Reedy might be? Suitable site, according to this, but it is in the ACT.
We all know where Seymour is, it is in Victoria - most suitable - right near the Puckapunyal Army training camp. However, Seymour does not make the final cut. Denman, New South Wales - most suitable - does not make the final cut. Bogan Gate, New South Wales, I am not sure where Bogan Gate is. The residents of Bogan Gate must be pretty pleased, they were most suitable on this original list I am tabling; however, it does not make the final cut. Narrandera, New South Wales, Western Plains, we all know where Narrandera is - most suitable again. The residents of Narrandera are breathing a mighty sigh of relief; it did not make the final cut. Nowra, New South Wales, beautiful part of the country – suitable - not on the list. Wagga Wagga, New South Wales - most suitable - home to some of our most notable sports people this country has ever produced. They, again, would be relieved, having been found as a most suitable location for a nuclear waste dump in the whole of Australia, they do not make the list. Deniliquin, at the bottom of that - most suitable - but, again, does not make the list.
What this shows is that there is no scientific rationale or logic behind the selection of these three sites in the Northern Territory. In fact, one of them, as I said, was found less suitable but it is still on the list. Again, it proves there is no scientific or environmental logic to Canberra’s decision to select the Northern Territory for sites for this waste dump. It comes down to one point, and one point only, and it is crude politics.
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Macdonnell for her question because it goes right to the heart of this process of site selection by the Commonwealth government over a preferred place for storage of nuclear waste. Once upon a time, it would have been the case that Canberra and the Commonwealth government took a scientific approach to the management of nuclear waste in this country.
Prior to last year’s federal election, when Senator Ian Campbell promised there would be no nuclear dump in the Northern Territory, the federal government did, indeed, conduct an exhaustive investigation into possible sites all around Australia. The federal government’s National Sites Advisory Committee, the NSAC, considered 23 sites before drawing up a short list. For each of the 23 sites, they made one of three recommendations: less suitable, suitable or most suitable.
I table the chart with the comments relating to each of the 23 sites around suitable, less suitable, most suitable.
Mr Wood: There are other sites too.
Mr STIRLING: The member for Nelson might find that interesting. He was asking about the veracity of such documentation this morning in debate. Well, there it is. He can have a look at it when it is tabled and copied.
It looked at Fisher’s Ridge near Katherine, one of the sites currently proposed, and the comment is ‘less suitable’, due to flooding.
The other sites now proposed in the Northern Territory, Harts Range and Mt Everard, were not even on that list - they never made that list in the first instance. However, there were a number of sites that were deemed suitable: Have a guess where Mount Reedy might be? Suitable site, according to this, but it is in the ACT.
We all know where Seymour is, it is in Victoria - most suitable - right near the Puckapunyal Army training camp. However, Seymour does not make the final cut. Denman, New South Wales - most suitable - does not make the final cut. Bogan Gate, New South Wales, I am not sure where Bogan Gate is. The residents of Bogan Gate must be pretty pleased, they were most suitable on this original list I am tabling; however, it does not make the final cut. Narrandera, New South Wales, Western Plains, we all know where Narrandera is - most suitable again. The residents of Narrandera are breathing a mighty sigh of relief; it did not make the final cut. Nowra, New South Wales, beautiful part of the country – suitable - not on the list. Wagga Wagga, New South Wales - most suitable - home to some of our most notable sports people this country has ever produced. They, again, would be relieved, having been found as a most suitable location for a nuclear waste dump in the whole of Australia, they do not make the list. Deniliquin, at the bottom of that - most suitable - but, again, does not make the list.
What this shows is that there is no scientific rationale or logic behind the selection of these three sites in the Northern Territory. In fact, one of them, as I said, was found less suitable but it is still on the list. Again, it proves there is no scientific or environmental logic to Canberra’s decision to select the Northern Territory for sites for this waste dump. It comes down to one point, and one point only, and it is crude politics.
Last updated: 09 Aug 2016