❓ Question regarding the WA government's position on the US plan requiring uranium exporting countries to take back spent nuclear fuel. The Minister's response is largely a political attack on the federal government and the WA opposition.
AnsweredQoN 274Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
URANIUM EXPORTS - RESPONSIBILITY FOR SPENT FUEL RODS
I acknowledge the presence in the public gallery today of the Ethnic Youth Advisory Group. I refer to the United States’ plan by which countries that export uranium will be required to take back spent nuclear fuel rods. Does the minister support this plan? Mr M. McGOWAN
I acknowledge the presence in the public gallery today of the Ethnic Youth Advisory Group. I refer to the United States’ plan by which countries that export uranium will be required to take back spent nuclear fuel rods. Does the minister support this plan? Mr M. McGOWAN
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for Swan Hills for the question. I am aware of the US neo-con plan by which countries that export uranium will be expected to take back the spent nuclear waste. I note from an article in today’s national newspaper that the Prime Minister has indicated his support for nuclear power in Australia. I note also that yesterday the Premier said that one of the prominent federal members of Parliament from this state, Hon Wilson Tuckey, has said that he supports this proposal because he would rather the uranium came back in that form than as a rocket. I note also that the Prime Minister has not directly ruled out this proposal. He seems to be able to fool the people in the national press gallery. They seem to be so captivated by his wit and charm that they are in awe of what he has to say on any occasion. However, what he actually said on this proposal yesterday in Washington was - I think what can safely be said about this is that it is a proposal we want to follow. It is not something that we are proposing at this point. However, in any event, even if he were to rule it out, it would be ruled out by the commonwealth only until December - according to the latest intelligence we have on the Prime Minister’s intentions. Therefore, we do not really have any safe assurance from the commonwealth government on the proposal that we be required to take back spent nuclear waste. The WA opposition is not exactly reliable on this issue either. The member for Cottesloe - yet again - has been running a commentary over the years on this issue. I have with me a swag of newspaper clippings. One of those articles is headed “Would-be Premier” - this article could be very current - “won’t dump on N-waste”. The member for Cottesloe says consistently in these articles, and in Hansard , that any state that exports uranium should be part of the debate on the disposal of nuclear waste. He also said a few weeks ago in this chamber that the developing African nations should receive our uranium - irrespective of the Tuckey rocket that might be heading our way! He also said in Hansard that people talk about the half-life of nuclear waste; however, it loses its radioactivity remarkably quickly. Here we have an apologist for nuclear material and nuclear waste! What we can work out from this is that all this talk about the need for debate is simply code for the member for Cottesloe’s desire to soften up the public of Western Australia to the idea that if we are to sell uranium, we should be prepared to take it back. The people of this state can be assured that the Carpenter Labor government will not allow this. However, they do not know where the opposition stands on this matter.
I refer to the United States’ plan by which countries that export uranium will be required to take back spent nuclear fuel rods. Does the minister support this plan? Mr M. McGOWAN replied: I thank the member for Swan Hills for the question. I am aware of the US neo-con plan by which countries that export uranium will be expected to take back the spent nuclear waste. I note from an article in today’s national newspaper that the Prime Minister has indicated his support for nuclear power in Australia. I note also that yesterday the Premier said that one of the prominent federal members of Parliament from this state, Hon Wilson Tuckey, has said that he supports this proposal because he would rather the uranium came back in that form than as a rocket. I note also that the Prime Minister has not directly ruled out this proposal. He seems to be able to fool the people in the national press gallery. They seem to be so captivated by his wit and charm that they are in awe of what he has to say on any occasion. However, what he actually said on this proposal yesterday in Washington was - I think what can safely be said about this is that it is a proposal we want to follow. It is not something that we are proposing at this point. However, in any event, even if he were to rule it out, it would be ruled out by the commonwealth only until December - according to the latest intelligence we have on the Prime Minister’s intentions. Therefore, we do not really have any safe assurance from the commonwealth government on the proposal that we be required to take back spent nuclear waste. The WA opposition is not exactly reliable on this issue either. The member for Cottesloe - yet again - has been running a commentary over the years on this issue. I have with me a swag of newspaper clippings. One of those articles is headed “Would-be Premier” - this article could be very current - “won’t dump on N-waste”. The member for Cottesloe says consistently in these articles, and in Hansard , that any state that exports uranium should be part of the debate on the disposal of nuclear waste. He also said a few weeks ago in this chamber that the developing African nations should receive our uranium - irrespective of the Tuckey rocket that might be heading our way! He also said in Hansard that people talk about the half-life of nuclear waste; however, it loses its radioactivity remarkably quickly. Here we have an apologist for nuclear material and nuclear waste! What we can work out from this is that all this talk about the need for debate is simply code for the member for Cottesloe’s desire to soften up the public of Western Australia to the idea that if we are to sell uranium, we should be prepared to take it back. The people of this state can be assured that the Carpenter Labor government will not allow this. However, they do not know where the opposition stands on this matter.
Mr M. McGOWAN replied: I thank the member for Swan Hills for the question. I am aware of the US neo-con plan by which countries that export uranium will be expected to take back the spent nuclear waste. I note from an article in today’s national newspaper that the Prime Minister has indicated his support for nuclear power in Australia. I note also that yesterday the Premier said that one of the prominent federal members of Parliament from this state, Hon Wilson Tuckey, has said that he supports this proposal because he would rather the uranium came back in that form than as a rocket. I note also that the Prime Minister has not directly ruled out this proposal. He seems to be able to fool the people in the national press gallery. They seem to be so captivated by his wit and charm that they are in awe of what he has to say on any occasion. However, what he actually said on this proposal yesterday in Washington was - I think what can safely be said about this is that it is a proposal we want to follow. It is not something that we are proposing at this point. However, in any event, even if he were to rule it out, it would be ruled out by the commonwealth only until December - according to the latest intelligence we have on the Prime Minister’s intentions. Therefore, we do not really have any safe assurance from the commonwealth government on the proposal that we be required to take back spent nuclear waste. The WA opposition is not exactly reliable on this issue either. The member for Cottesloe - yet again - has been running a commentary over the years on this issue. I have with me a swag of newspaper clippings. One of those articles is headed “Would-be Premier” - this article could be very current - “won’t dump on N-waste”. The member for Cottesloe says consistently in these articles, and in Hansard , that any state that exports uranium should be part of the debate on the disposal of nuclear waste. He also said a few weeks ago in this chamber that the developing African nations should receive our uranium - irrespective of the Tuckey rocket that might be heading our way! He also said in Hansard that people talk about the half-life of nuclear waste; however, it loses its radioactivity remarkably quickly. Here we have an apologist for nuclear material and nuclear waste! What we can work out from this is that all this talk about the need for debate is simply code for the member for Cottesloe’s desire to soften up the public of Western Australia to the idea that if we are to sell uranium, we should be prepared to take it back. The people of this state can be assured that the Carpenter Labor government will not allow this. However, they do not know where the opposition stands on this matter.
I thank the member for Swan Hills for the question. I am aware of the US neo-con plan by which countries that export uranium will be expected to take back the spent nuclear waste. I note from an article in today’s national newspaper that the Prime Minister has indicated his support for nuclear power in Australia. I note also that yesterday the Premier said that one of the prominent federal members of Parliament from this state, Hon Wilson Tuckey, has said that he supports this proposal because he would rather the uranium came back in that form than as a rocket. I note also that the Prime Minister has not directly ruled out this proposal. He seems to be able to fool the people in the national press gallery. They seem to be so captivated by his wit and charm that they are in awe of what he has to say on any occasion. However, what he actually said on this proposal yesterday in Washington was - I think what can safely be said about this is that it is a proposal we want to follow. It is not something that we are proposing at this point. However, in any event, even if he were to rule it out, it would be ruled out by the commonwealth only until December - according to the latest intelligence we have on the Prime Minister’s intentions. Therefore, we do not really have any safe assurance from the commonwealth government on the proposal that we be required to take back spent nuclear waste. The WA opposition is not exactly reliable on this issue either. The member for Cottesloe - yet again - has been running a commentary over the years on this issue. I have with me a swag of newspaper clippings. One of those articles is headed “Would-be Premier” - this article could be very current - “won’t dump on N-waste”. The member for Cottesloe says consistently in these articles, and in Hansard , that any state that exports uranium should be part of the debate on the disposal of nuclear waste. He also said a few weeks ago in this chamber that the developing African nations should receive our uranium - irrespective of the Tuckey rocket that might be heading our way! He also said in Hansard that people talk about the half-life of nuclear waste; however, it loses its radioactivity remarkably quickly. Here we have an apologist for nuclear material and nuclear waste! What we can work out from this is that all this talk about the need for debate is simply code for the member for Cottesloe’s desire to soften up the public of Western Australia to the idea that if we are to sell uranium, we should be prepared to take it back. The people of this state can be assured that the Carpenter Labor government will not allow this. However, they do not know where the opposition stands on this matter.
The WA opposition is not exactly reliable on this issue either. The member for Cottesloe - yet again - has been running a commentary over the years on this issue. I have with me a swag of newspaper clippings. One of those articles is headed “Would-be Premier” - this article could be very current - “won’t dump on N-waste”. The member for Cottesloe says consistently in these articles, and in Hansard , that any state that exports uranium should be part of the debate on the disposal of nuclear waste. He also said a few weeks ago in this chamber that the developing African nations should receive our uranium - irrespective of the Tuckey rocket that might be heading our way! He also said in Hansard that people talk about the half-life of nuclear waste; however, it loses its radioactivity remarkably quickly. Here we have an apologist for nuclear material and nuclear waste! What we can work out from this is that all this talk about the need for debate is simply code for the member for Cottesloe’s desire to soften up the public of Western Australia to the idea that if we are to sell uranium, we should be prepared to take it back. The people of this state can be assured that the Carpenter Labor government will not allow this. However, they do not know where the opposition stands on this matter.
I refer to the United States’ plan by which countries that export uranium will be required to take back spent nuclear fuel rods. Does the minister support this plan? Mr M. McGOWAN replied: I thank the member for Swan Hills for the question. I am aware of the US neo-con plan by which countries that export uranium will be expected to take back the spent nuclear waste. I note from an article in today’s national newspaper that the Prime Minister has indicated his support for nuclear power in Australia. I note also that yesterday the Premier said that one of the prominent federal members of Parliament from this state, Hon Wilson Tuckey, has said that he supports this proposal because he would rather the uranium came back in that form than as a rocket. I note also that the Prime Minister has not directly ruled out this proposal. He seems to be able to fool the people in the national press gallery. They seem to be so captivated by his wit and charm that they are in awe of what he has to say on any occasion. However, what he actually said on this proposal yesterday in Washington was - I think what can safely be said about this is that it is a proposal we want to follow. It is not something that we are proposing at this point. However, in any event, even if he were to rule it out, it would be ruled out by the commonwealth only until December - according to the latest intelligence we have on the Prime Minister’s intentions. Therefore, we do not really have any safe assurance from the commonwealth government on the proposal that we be required to take back spent nuclear waste. The WA opposition is not exactly reliable on this issue either. The member for Cottesloe - yet again - has been running a commentary over the years on this issue. I have with me a swag of newspaper clippings. One of those articles is headed “Would-be Premier” - this article could be very current - “won’t dump on N-waste”. The member for Cottesloe says consistently in these articles, and in Hansard , that any state that exports uranium should be part of the debate on the disposal of nuclear waste. He also said a few weeks ago in this chamber that the developing African nations should receive our uranium - irrespective of the Tuckey rocket that might be heading our way! He also said in Hansard that people talk about the half-life of nuclear waste; however, it loses its radioactivity remarkably quickly. Here we have an apologist for nuclear material and nuclear waste! What we can work out from this is that all this talk about the need for debate is simply code for the member for Cottesloe’s desire to soften up the public of Western Australia to the idea that if we are to sell uranium, we should be prepared to take it back. The people of this state can be assured that the Carpenter Labor government will not allow this. However, they do not know where the opposition stands on this matter.
Mr M. McGOWAN replied: I thank the member for Swan Hills for the question. I am aware of the US neo-con plan by which countries that export uranium will be expected to take back the spent nuclear waste. I note from an article in today’s national newspaper that the Prime Minister has indicated his support for nuclear power in Australia. I note also that yesterday the Premier said that one of the prominent federal members of Parliament from this state, Hon Wilson Tuckey, has said that he supports this proposal because he would rather the uranium came back in that form than as a rocket. I note also that the Prime Minister has not directly ruled out this proposal. He seems to be able to fool the people in the national press gallery. They seem to be so captivated by his wit and charm that they are in awe of what he has to say on any occasion. However, what he actually said on this proposal yesterday in Washington was - I think what can safely be said about this is that it is a proposal we want to follow. It is not something that we are proposing at this point. However, in any event, even if he were to rule it out, it would be ruled out by the commonwealth only until December - according to the latest intelligence we have on the Prime Minister’s intentions. Therefore, we do not really have any safe assurance from the commonwealth government on the proposal that we be required to take back spent nuclear waste. The WA opposition is not exactly reliable on this issue either. The member for Cottesloe - yet again - has been running a commentary over the years on this issue. I have with me a swag of newspaper clippings. One of those articles is headed “Would-be Premier” - this article could be very current - “won’t dump on N-waste”. The member for Cottesloe says consistently in these articles, and in Hansard , that any state that exports uranium should be part of the debate on the disposal of nuclear waste. He also said a few weeks ago in this chamber that the developing African nations should receive our uranium - irrespective of the Tuckey rocket that might be heading our way! He also said in Hansard that people talk about the half-life of nuclear waste; however, it loses its radioactivity remarkably quickly. Here we have an apologist for nuclear material and nuclear waste! What we can work out from this is that all this talk about the need for debate is simply code for the member for Cottesloe’s desire to soften up the public of Western Australia to the idea that if we are to sell uranium, we should be prepared to take it back. The people of this state can be assured that the Carpenter Labor government will not allow this. However, they do not know where the opposition stands on this matter.
I thank the member for Swan Hills for the question. I am aware of the US neo-con plan by which countries that export uranium will be expected to take back the spent nuclear waste. I note from an article in today’s national newspaper that the Prime Minister has indicated his support for nuclear power in Australia. I note also that yesterday the Premier said that one of the prominent federal members of Parliament from this state, Hon Wilson Tuckey, has said that he supports this proposal because he would rather the uranium came back in that form than as a rocket. I note also that the Prime Minister has not directly ruled out this proposal. He seems to be able to fool the people in the national press gallery. They seem to be so captivated by his wit and charm that they are in awe of what he has to say on any occasion. However, what he actually said on this proposal yesterday in Washington was - I think what can safely be said about this is that it is a proposal we want to follow. It is not something that we are proposing at this point. However, in any event, even if he were to rule it out, it would be ruled out by the commonwealth only until December - according to the latest intelligence we have on the Prime Minister’s intentions. Therefore, we do not really have any safe assurance from the commonwealth government on the proposal that we be required to take back spent nuclear waste. The WA opposition is not exactly reliable on this issue either. The member for Cottesloe - yet again - has been running a commentary over the years on this issue. I have with me a swag of newspaper clippings. One of those articles is headed “Would-be Premier” - this article could be very current - “won’t dump on N-waste”. The member for Cottesloe says consistently in these articles, and in Hansard , that any state that exports uranium should be part of the debate on the disposal of nuclear waste. He also said a few weeks ago in this chamber that the developing African nations should receive our uranium - irrespective of the Tuckey rocket that might be heading our way! He also said in Hansard that people talk about the half-life of nuclear waste; however, it loses its radioactivity remarkably quickly. Here we have an apologist for nuclear material and nuclear waste! What we can work out from this is that all this talk about the need for debate is simply code for the member for Cottesloe’s desire to soften up the public of Western Australia to the idea that if we are to sell uranium, we should be prepared to take it back. The people of this state can be assured that the Carpenter Labor government will not allow this. However, they do not know where the opposition stands on this matter.
The WA opposition is not exactly reliable on this issue either. The member for Cottesloe - yet again - has been running a commentary over the years on this issue. I have with me a swag of newspaper clippings. One of those articles is headed “Would-be Premier” - this article could be very current - “won’t dump on N-waste”. The member for Cottesloe says consistently in these articles, and in Hansard , that any state that exports uranium should be part of the debate on the disposal of nuclear waste. He also said a few weeks ago in this chamber that the developing African nations should receive our uranium - irrespective of the Tuckey rocket that might be heading our way! He also said in Hansard that people talk about the half-life of nuclear waste; however, it loses its radioactivity remarkably quickly. Here we have an apologist for nuclear material and nuclear waste! What we can work out from this is that all this talk about the need for debate is simply code for the member for Cottesloe’s desire to soften up the public of Western Australia to the idea that if we are to sell uranium, we should be prepared to take it back. The people of this state can be assured that the Carpenter Labor government will not allow this. However, they do not know where the opposition stands on this matter.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.