HON GIZ WATSON (North Metropolitan) [ 10.39 am ] — in reply: I would like to respond to the contribution that we have heard this morning. Quite rightly, Hon George Cash has pointed out that the issue here is that the Labor Party has a contradictory position on uranium mining and is hopelessly compromised by having a bet each way when it comes to uranium mining. Clearly, the intention of this bill was to put squarely before the government that it has, in dismissing this bill, reneged on the commitment that was given in 2002. I have a lot of sympathy with the view put by Hon George Cash that what the government did at the time was all about making the right impression; it never intended to honour its commitment and formally follow through with legislation. It is interesting to go back to the debate that took place several years ago about the potential for a nuclear waste dump to be established in Western Australia . That debate was taken up by all sides of politics. Much of that debate was about whether legislation should be enacted to deal with that matter. In fact, when the former Premier, Geoff Gallop, was Leader of the Opposition during the time of the Court Liberal government, he championed adamantly that it was not enough just to accept the policy position of the Court government to oppose the establishment of a nuclear waste dump in Western Australia; we needed to enact legislation to put that policy into effect.
Hon Norman Moore : We actually brought in legislation.
Hon GIZ WATSON : I realise that, and I am not making a criticism of the member’s side of politics —
Hon Norman Moore : No, but the Labor Party amended that legislation.
Hon GIZ WATSON : That is right. The point I am making is that the then Leader of the Opposition was passionate in his view that it was not good enough just to take a policy position. I agree. Premiers change, and positions change. When the community feels strongly about an issue and we take a policy position on that issue, we need to enshrine that policy position in law. Therefore, while I thank the Premier for his firm position on and personal commitment to oppose uranium mining in Western Australia , I believe he is engaging in a very dangerous game of political brinkmanship. It is not wise leadership to simply say that uranium mining will not take place in this state as long as he is Premier. No Premier lasts forever. We often hear about the volatility of politics and political parties. As we all know, in politics people come and go very quickly. I am not suggesting for one moment that I think the Premier should come or go, or anything else. However, it verges on arrogance to suggest that an issue as significant as whether Western Australia should provide the capacity for uranium mining should rest merely on whether the Premier of the day supports it. We know that accidents happen. We know that Premiers change. We know that governments are voted out. Therefore, it is only a matter of time before this policy position will be changed. It is for that reason that we should take action to enshrine in legislation that any change to the state’s policy on uranium mining will require the concurrence of both houses of Parliament. It is a nonsense to suggest that this matter can be dealt with under the current provisions of the Mining Act. I acknowledge that to date no company has attempted to challenge the government’s position. However, there is also no reason that the commitment that was given by the then Minister for State Development should not be carried through and put into effect.
Hon George Cash raised the issue of compensation. This bill is very limited. It was drafted simply to implement a prohibition on the granting of uranium mining leases after June 2002. That means that no company can make a claim for compensation on the basis that it was unaware that the government would not give it a lease for uranium mining after June 2002, because that is clearly the policy position of the government,
Hon Jon Ford : I think the compensation argument that was raised by Hon George Cash related to the period prior to when we brought in this legislation.
Hon GIZ WATSON : Absolutely. However, the issue of compensation would need to be dealt with at a later date.
Hon George Cash : In the final paragraph of your second reading speech, you make it clear that once this bill has been passed, you will approach the government to discuss how the issue of pre-22 June 2002 mining leases can be best dealt with. That is obviously a live question for the Greens. It is also a live question for the government. We have always recognised that those people have a right to mine.
Hon GIZ WATSON : That is an issue that would need to be resolved outside of this legislation. We are not suggesting that compensation with regard to pre-existing leases is dealt with in this bill.
Hon George Cash : We do not need legislation to lift the current prohibition. The minister for mines can by the stroke of a pen lift that prohibition tomorrow.
Hon GIZ WATSON : Correct.
Hon George Cash : That is the danger that you face, because you now cannot trust the Labor Party in what it says and what it does.
Hon GIZ WATSON : I will respond to that, because in my nearly 11 years in this place, unfortunately that has been the case. I say that with respect, because I work well with the Labor Party on many issues. However, when it comes to being promised things that do not occur, those promises have all come from this side of the house. I say that with all sincerity. I may not like what the Liberal opposition says, or what the Liberal Party did when it was in government, but what it said it would do, it actually did do.
Hon George Cash : Hear, hear!
Hon Jon Ford : A ringing endorsement from the Greens!
Hon GIZ WATSON : I have talked about the changing political climate. It is very important that we acknowledge that since the introduction of this bill, there has been a change of policy within the Labor Party at the federal level. I understand that this issue was closely fought at the national level. Nevertheless, this adds to the increasing uncertainty about what the position of the state Labor Party will be when it comes to resisting pressure from its federal colleagues to open up Western Australia to uranium mining. For that reason in particular, it causes me even greater concern that the government is not willing to support this bill. It also causes concern to the numerous Western Australians who want the government to take a clear and unambiguous position on uranium mining. The government is leaving the door open. All those people who are passionate about the need to take firm measures to prohibit uranium mining in Western Australia have enormous concern that this government is not willing to hold true to its commitment and is trying to have a bet each way on this issue.
Hon George Cash : Tony Blair changed his position on nuclear power stations. I guess the current Labor government is reviewing its position right now on nuclear power stations. This government says one thing and does another.
Hon GIZ WATSON : Absolutely! However, I acknowledge that within the state Labor Party rank and file there is a strong commitment to maintain opposition to uranium mining in this state. I just wish that the Labor Party’s parliamentary representatives would consider this bill more thoroughly and realise that this bill is not in conflict with their policy or with what they have already promised they will do. I actually think this is just a tactic by the Premier to put his personal stamp on this matter by saying that so long as he is the Premier of this state, there will be no uranium mining in this state. Although that is an admirable personal statement, and we appreciate the Premier’s commitment, it is not wise politics. It is also not a position that will ensure that in the long-term future, and even in the medium-term future, there will be no uranium mining in Western Australia . It is a very high risk and dangerous tactic, because, as I have said, Premiers do not last forever. We need a commitment from the Premier that he will deal with this matter by enacting legislation. If the government does not believe that this legislation is the right legislation to deal with this matter, I challenge it to come up with legislation that does reflect its policy position. This significant matter should not be left to languish so that it can be altered, as Hon George Cash has said, by the mining minister at the stroke of a pen. Other significant policy matters are not left to languish at that low level; they are dealt with in legislation. I remind members again that this is the approach that was taken when legislation was enacted to deal with prohibiting the establishment of a nuclear waste dump in Western Australia . Uranium mining is the other end of that process. However, it is just as dangerous, because it also has a significant impact on the environment and on public health.
I want to give members some indication of what we will be looking at if uranium mining does take place in Western Australia . I have been reviewing some figures for Olympic Dam, which is the large uranium mine in South Australia . Olympic Dam is producing 10 million tonnes of radioactive waste annually. That equates to one tonne every four seconds. That mining process produces a phenomenal amount of waste material that remains radioactive and a risk to human health, animal health and environmental health for an unbelievable length of time—in fact, beyond a time that we can ever conceive of. That is the reason many people in Western Australia want this government to take the strongest possible measures to prevent uranium mining in this state. I think a lot of people would want the measures to go beyond legislation. They would like them to be enshrined in the state Constitution—whenever we get around to reviewing that rather messy piece of legislation that is the state Constitution. With those words, I seek the support of the house for this bill.
Question put and a division taken with the following result —
Ayes (2)
Hon Giz Watson Hon Paul Llewellyn (Teller)
Noes (26)
Hon Ken Baston Hon Sue Ellery Hon Nigel Hallett Hon Batong Pham
Hon George Cash Hon Brian Ellis Hon Ray Halligan Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich
Hon Vincent Catania Hon Donna Faragher Hon Barry House Hon Barbara Scott
Hon Peter Collier Hon Adele Farina Hon Sheila Mills Hon Sally Talbot
Hon Ed Dermer Hon Anthony Fels Hon Norman Moore Hon Matt Benson-Lidholm (Teller)
Hon Kate Doust Hon Jon Ford Hon Helen Morton
Hon Wendy Duncan Hon Graham Giffard Hon Simon O’Brien
Question thus negatived.
Bill defeated.