Liberal Leader continues to give comfort to nuclear waste plan

24/1/02
Opposition Leader Colin Barnett's vision of Western Australia as an exporter of uranium and importer of radioactive waste would be a disaster for the State, according to Premier Geoff Gallop.
Dr Gallop said he was shocked that Mr Barnett continued to support the proposition that WA could become an international nuclear waste dumping ground.
Mr Barnett told ABC Radio yesterday afternoon it was inevitable that WA would at some stage become a uranium exporter and would, consequently, be responsible for the storage of radioactive waste (transcript below).
The Premier said he was astonished that Mr Barnett would continue to promote such an idea when the company behind the proposal, Pangea Resources, had announced it was leaving WA.
"One of WA's greatest assets is its clean and green reputation and that is something we, as a Government, are keen to protect and promote," Dr Gallop said.
"The establishment of an international radioactive waste dump would destroy that reputation with disastrous results for our tourism and agricultural export industries.
"The majority of Western Australians understand this and that is why they do not want any part of Mr Barnett's vision of the future - a vision that sees our State as an exporter of uranium and an importer of nuclear waste."
The Premier said the Opposition Leader was also ignoring the fact that the WA Parliament had passed legislation introduced by Labor two years ago banning the importation and storage of radioactive waste.
"Mr Barnett has vowed to resume old growth logging if he ever wins government and now, it seems, is prepared to accept WA being turned into a radioactive waste dump as well," he said.
"So much for the modern, progressive Liberal Party he promised to deliver as leader."
Premier's office: 9222 9475

GOVERNMENT MEDIA MONITORING UNIT

DATE: JANUARY 23RD, 2002
TIME: 3.20PM
STATION: 720 ABC PERTH AFTERNOONS (MARTIN)
SUBJECT: BARNETT - PANGEA RESOURCES WITHDRAWAL

MARTIN
Joining me on the radio now, by the State Opposition leader, Mr Colin Barnett.
You'd have heard that Pangea Resources is to close its Australian operations, it's closing its Perth and Melbourne offices, and it's abandoned plans to build a commercially viable nuclear waste storage facility in either Western Australia or South Australia. (greetings not transcribed).
Now, as the alternative premier, I guess, the logical question for me to lead with is, what's your response to that announcement?
BARNETT
Well, I, and I think most people in Western Australia, didn't favour a large-scale facility here for taking the waste from uranium that was either mined or processed or used in a whole variety of countries around the world.
The fact that Pangea has, for the moment at least, given up its ambitions of building such a facility in Australia, doesn't, however, get rid of the problem, and the problem is, that we do have a significant uranium and nuclear power industry, and, indeed, nuclear medicine industry internationally. It will continue, it does provide a potentially very clean form of energy. Australia, also, is a significant supplier of uranium into the world market. Australia has about 30% of the world's uranium, but we currently supply about 10% of what is produced.
So I would that west . Australia, and, indeed, Western Australia, has a responsibility to be part of the debate as to how to we ultimately safely store nuclear waste material, particularly if that resulted from uranium mined in Australia.
MARTIN
Well, I'll try to be facile here, but anybody coming into WA is very aware that they can't bring fruit in, other states have a problem with things that damage their fruit, and Western Australia says, well, no, we don't care, we're not going to be part of that. Why is it necessarily WA's problem if another state wants to mine uranium?
BARNETT
Well, Western Australia doesn't, at the moment, produce uranium, but there are significant uranium reserves in Western Australia, and I think it's inevitable, at some stage, there will be uranium mining in Western Australia, and I think that as part of Australia, and, indeed, as part of the world community, any country which either produces or uses uranium in significant amounts, has a shared responsibility for the storage and ultimate disposal of the waste products. So, I don't think it's good enough for Australia or Australians simply to say, we don't want to know about this problem. It is a genuine international environmental problem, and it's not one that's going to go away simply.
Now, I would happen to think that if a country produces uranium, it does have a responsibility to help deal with the waste. That doesn't mean we take the waste from all around the world, as Pangea were proposing, but ultimately if we become a uranium producer, I think we're part of the issue and need to be part of the solution.
MARTIN
Did you say then that you saw it as being inevitable that Western Australia would be a producer of uranium?
BARNETT
I think it is inevitable. Western Australia has very significant reserves or uranium. Australia currently produces most of its uranium for Roxby Downs, in South Australia, but as the demand for uranium progressively increases internationally, as the amount of energy produced from nuclear power stations grows, then I think you will see uranium mining in Western Australia.
MARTIN
Mr Barnett, I know that you were quoted on ABC news, and about an hour after that we ran another news story that quoted Pangea as saying that, whilst they were withdrawing from the company, they did plan to continue promoting the concept of a shared repository for international nuclear material and waste. Are you aware of that?
BARNETT
Oh, absolutely, yes. I mean, the problem is there. The problem is, that there are large amounts of nuclear waste scattered around the globe that are not securely stored and . (inaudible) . world problem.
MARTIN
So, if they said they're going to . whilst they will close their offices, they do intend to continue promoting in WA, is your door open to them?
BARNETT
Well, I've never met with Pangea, and I don't intend to. As I say, Western Australia is not a producer of uranium, so I don't think we're in the issue at this stage. When we do become a producer of uranium, I think we need to think very carefully whether we undertake also to help with the storage of the waste material, only in proportion to what is produced here. So if Australia produces 10% of the world's uranium, maybe Australia has a corresponding responsibly to assist with the disposal or storage of that material. I don't think you can be half-way in the issue or not.
Now, Australian uranium is used only for peaceful purposes. We are a signatory to the non-proliferation treaties, but it is a problem, and there is no doubt that geologically, Australia, and particularly Western Australia and South Australia, are. stable areas. Now this material needs to be stored safely and securely.
I think one of the major problems with the Pangea proposal was that it was talking about a very large facility, probably too large, and I think that relates . creates risks in its own right. I think the material does need to be stored in a number of facilities throughout the world, and they need to be very secure, very safe facilities.
I know the waste products have very long half-lives, tens, if not hundreds-of-thousands of years, but I think it is very unlikely that in the space of the next 20 or perhaps 50 years, there won't be technical solutions to the ultimate complete disposal of this material. The immediate challenge the world faces is to make sure it cannot be obtained by terrorist groups, by people who might hold communities at threat by threatening to dump material in water systems and the like. And it is an unacceptable situation internationally that so much of the storage of this material is in relatively low secure environments.
MARTIN
I introduced you as the 'alternative premier'. If you were to become premier of Western Australia, you've said that you consider uranium mining inevitable in Western Australia, are you going to do anything about it?
BARNETT
Well, there are a number of uranium leases already that have been in existence for a long, long time in this state, probably going back 20 or 30 years. At the moment the international price and demand of uranium doesn't justify the development of those resources. They tend, in this state, to be, while there's a lot of it, they tend to be often relatively low-grade, and sometimes each individual deposit is quite small. But, as the demand grows, my position, I would support the responsible development of uranium mining in this state. I don't think it's going to happen within the next 10 years, but I think probably in the next 10 to 20 years you will see the world demand being such that it will occur.
Now I know people can get suddenly very alarmed, but there are some dilemmas here for, if you like, the environmental movement. There is a great deal of concern about greenhouse gas emissions, quite legitimately. The highest proportion of those come from the use of coal, in other words fossil fuels in power generation. The nuclear industry does provide for clean generation of power - no fossil fuel, no greenhouse gas emissions.
Now there have been . there's a great deal of concern amongst populations around the world about the safety of the nuclear industry, the industry needs to address that, they need to be better, they need to make technical advances and the like, but I think it is an absolute certainty, because of environmental concerns, reliability of power supplies, and the like, that you will see, as is happening already, increasing use of nuclear energy.
MARTIN
Colin Barnett, thanks for your time.
Ends..
dlr