Senate debates

Tuesday, 10 October 2006

Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation Amendment Bill 2006

Second Reading

1:39 pm

Photo of Glenn SterleGlenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

He has been called a lot of things, but that is not one of them. For those of you who do not believe that anyone could think that setting off nuclear bombs was a good idea, this is what he had to say:

A couple of Australian engineers wrote a paper on it, which came into my possession. They argued that you could dig a mineshaft 1,500 feet deep, half-fill it with TNT and blow a hole 600 feet deep to store water.

They went on to say that you could also drill a hole eight inches in diameter and put the appropriate nuclear device at the bottom of that hole, 1,500 feet below the ground, and also get a 600 feet deep water storage. I thought that was a pretty good idea.

               …            …            …

... when will Australians have the courage to ask themselves: might this be a solution to our water storage issues?

The newly reprieved member for Tangney also made a contribution that is worthy of further comment. In his speech in the second reading debate on this bill he said:

Having evolved in the surrounding radiation, our bodies not only adapted to radiation but, indeed, need radiation to survive. Studies have been conducted and conclusively show this. Tests were conducted on lab rats where the level of surrounding radiation was reduced to the greatest extent possible. It was found that these rats became ill to a far greater extent than a group of control rats.

That might have other meanings on the other side of the chamber, but I will move on. According to Dr Jensen, radiation is good for us. Maybe when we have a drink or take a shower under water from Mr Tuckey’s nuclear dam, we will get all the beneficial radiation the member for Tangney would have us exposed to.

While there is a substantial debate in the Labor Party about the mining of uranium—and for many years there has been a variety of views in the Labor Party about the mining of uranium—there is one thing that we are absolutely 100 per cent clearly agreed on, and that is that we oppose a nuclear power industry in this country. The Howard government should be open and transparent about the way in which it chooses to make decisions on issues that involve nuclear waste. The people of Australia deserve nothing less.

Comments

No comments