I rise today to speak on the National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment (Site Specification, Community Fund and Other Measures) Bill 2020 and on the amendment moved by the shadow minister to the motion for the second reading. From the outset, I feel it's important to note my views on nuclear energy. I want to make it clear that I oppose nuclear power becoming part of our energy mix, and I will touch on this again later. I believe that this is important to note given the context of the legislation. I do acknowledge, however, the importance of establishing a National Radioactive Waste Management Facility. Nuclear technologies are a part of our life, particularly in health care and new emerging medicines, and it is vital that we have facilities such as those dealt with in this legislation.

Paediatricians, in particular, have used nuclear isotopes for a very long period of time for the diagnosis of certain childhood conditions such as bone abnormality, bone infections and some solid tumours. In areas such as the brain, where it is difficult to get proper imaging, nuclear medicine has been very important. So it is a vital industry in medicine and is becoming even more important as there are now some targeted treatments, particularly for certain cancers, where nuclear isotopes are attached to a particular protein that can then be targeted to a specific cancer cell so that radioisotope treatment can be undertaken with minimal damage to normal tissues. This is evolving technology and one that is rapidly increasing its use around the world.

I note and understand, however, that matters such as discussed in this bill are quite contentious. In fact, they're extremely contentious. It's all very well to say that we need a nuclear waste management facility, but where that is to be placed can be quite controversial, hence the long and many decades delay in developing such a site. It's therefore vitally important that there is, as the member for Fairfax has noted, transparency and widespread dissemination of knowledge about this facility. I think, therefore, further consideration should be undertaken, and that should be undertaken by referring this bill to a Senate committee to consider such important issues and also to inform the public about these issues.

I'd like to say that not far from the boundaries of my electorate is ANSTO's facility at Lucas Heights. I visited the facility and it is indeed very impressive, as is its team of dedicated and highly trained staff. I recently had the pleasure of touring the facility, visiting ANSTO's new reactor, OPAL, and meeting many professionals who are doing a great deal of work in the field of nuclear science and nuclear medicine and who are training some of our emerging nuclear scientists and nuclear medicine technologists. I'd like to extend my thanks to the staff from ANSTO for their hospitality and for the opportunity that they afforded me.

The reality is that the main storage facility for nuclear waste at Lucas Heights is very limited. Much of the waste that's stored there has been there for many, many years. There will come a time when—and pretty soon, I think—we'll run out of space at Lucas Heights to store this nuclear waste. Radioactive waste is presently stored in more than 100 locations across the continent, and our stockpiles of nuclear waste have built up over many decades. Discussions around the storage of nuclear by-products are important to have, because we cannot afford to ignore our responsibilities to find suitable and safe storage facilities. It's very important to understand that these storage facilities will need to be stable for hundreds and probably thousands of years. Many of the radioactive isotopes that are stored have half-lives measured not in seconds, minutes or days but in hundreds of years or even thousands of years. There is at present no effective way to destroy nuclear waste, so it all has to be stored. Unfortunately, that means that we need to maintain these facilities for many, many years—long past our lifetimes.

Australia's nuclear radioactive waste is predominantly the by-product of nuclear medicine. It is unavoidable that we do have to store it. I am concerned about some on the other side talking about nuclear energy being a part of our energy mix in the future. In particular, some in the New South Wales National Party and the National Party in other parts of the country talk about the growth of the nuclear energy industry in Australia. I am worried about this waste facility being used to store waste from nuclear energy reactors. This is a waste product that we will be committing to our children and our children's children for many, many generations to come. I think that is something that we should not be accepting.

However, we do need nuclear medicine. As I've already mentioned, it's used in many ways, particularly in paediatrics, but in adult medicine it's now used for things like heart disease—diagnosing coronary artery disease very effectively, diagnosing cardiac muscle abnormalities very effectively. It's used very effectively also for diagnosing skeletal injuries that are not apparent on other forms of imaging, such as X-rays. In particular, it's increasingly being used in cancer medicine both for diagnostic purposes and for treatment. Nuclear medicine is an expanding part of modern medicine, and the storage facility is very appropriate for this. It's estimated that one in two Australians will use nuclear medicines in their lifetime, and I suspect that the proportion will be even higher in the future. ANSTO can deliver 10,000 patient doses of nuclear medicines to more than 250 hospitals and medical centres across Australia and New Zealand every week and has plans to expand further.

There have been a number of issues with the OPAL reactor. At present, I believe, it is not at full capacity. Whilst there are a number of issues and concerns associated with the storage of nuclear waste, it is vital that we have an appropriate facility to store the nuclear waste and make sure that it's safe and is able to be used a long time into the future. I want to be quite clear again: my support for the ANSTO facility does not in any way indicate my support for nuclear power. Labor's support for such a facility does not extend to support of a nuclear power industry in Australia, nor does it mean that we support taking nuclear waste from other nations. That is very important. Don't forget our children and our children's children and many generations will be responsible for this waste in the future. It's not going to go away. A nuclear storage facility is necessary to deal with Australia's present radioactive waste, for the waste presently produced by ANSTO and through nuclear medicine and research, and not for anything else. I firmly believe that we need to expand our waste storage facilities, and having a one-site storage facility would be excellent.

The idea that we should use nuclear power in Australia, however, is a very lazy one. It's an ill-conceived notion that reeks of a lack of planning for the future. I'll not mince my words: the idea that we should consider nuclear power in Australia, to me, is abhorrent. Other countries that have a nuclear power industry are very rapidly reducing their exposure to nuclear energy. We consistently get thought bubbles, however, from those opposite that perhaps now is the time to consider nuclear power alternatives. The answer is: no, we must not. It's not clean energy. It provides waste products that will be around for thousands of years. It's a lazy option because people who suggest it assume that we have the skills, capacity and technology to deal with potential issues in the future. We don't, and there have certainly been nuclear accidents at other power stations around the world. It's a lazy option because it places unknown and incomprehensible burdens on future generations and on the environment. 'No matter; we'll just assume that in 200 years people will have flying cars and will invent something to prevent earthquakes, clean our water tables and clean our environment in the case of a radioactive leak.' I know that's not going to happen. Also, there will be no way to prevent another Chernobyl occurring in the future at some place in the world. We don't want that option in Australia. Australia is not the USSR. It's not Russia. We don't want that energy mix here.

We have members opposite who put out feelers for the nuclear power industry all the time. There should be no dissent. The Australian people, I believe, have made their views clear. Whilst we do need a nuclear waste storage facility, this is for nuclear medicine by-products only. We cannot afford to be complacent about this, and the referral to the Senate committee to examine our nuclear waste storage facility options is very appropriate, as the Australian people need to be informed. I'm not being an anti-scientist or a sensationalist. We do not need anything other than a nuclear-medicine industry in Australia. We do not need nuclear power and we certainly do not need to take nuclear waste from other countries. I'm very worried that the beginning of this nuclear storage facility debate is a trojan horse for that option. The half-life of radioactive material produced in a nuclear reactor will last thousands of years, and I'm not going to do that to my children and my children's children. We ought to have alternatives for our electricity, of course, other than fossil fuels, and we're rapidly developing them with alternative energy sources. Nuclear should not be part of the option.

There are huge benefits, I do admit, from the use of nuclear technologies in medicine, also now expanding into industry. Its use in things like pipelines, for a whole range of issues, particularly looking for leaks, has already been explained. It's now available for industry to look at minor fractures in industrial equipment. It is used in a whole range of industrial options. But, primarily, nuclear products are used in medicine in Australia and their use is expanding. It is important that the storage facility we're talking about in the legislation before the House is expected to store low- and medium-level waste, but not high-level waste. It is expected to operate for hundreds of years. We do need to make sure that we have other things in place, like appropriate transport mechanisms for this low- and intermediate-level waste.

It is envisaged that the sort of waste we have will be able to be stored in a safe environment, with no geological risks, for many, many years. However, it's very hard to guarantee that forever. Many unanswered questions remain on the permanent storage plans, particularly for intermediate-level radioactive waste. It is important that the general public understands the issues regarding this, and the risks involved. In contrast to the member for Fairfax's comments, there are always risks in storing nuclear material. It is very important that we protect the Australian public from these. Nuclear waste is unavoidable, given the role of nuclear medicine in our modern health care, and we need appropriate facilities to store such waste. However, the concerns and issues raised by members of the community need answers. A lot of communities are watching the government's approach with great interest here. Communities around the towns of Napandee and Hawker have a keen interest in what the government will do in relation to the storage facility. But, also, communities across Australia are concerned with the government's apparent laissez-faire attitude to the topic of nuclear energy. Our shadow minister has been right to point out recently that the communities of Jervis Bay, Townsville, Gladstone, Perth, Western Port in Victoria, and the New South Wales North Coast will be appropriately concerned with the minister's openness to exploring nuclear power. They, after all, are just a few of the more than 100 communities that had previously been touted as potential sites for nuclear reactors and nuclear dumps. In fact, at Jervis Bay people can still see an excavation that was supposedly for our first nuclear reactor for power. Many communities and many others deserve to know where the government will stand on the issue of nuclear power. I commend the shadow minister's amendment.