❓ The Minister for Planning reports assisting the Shire of Chapman Valley in amending its town planning scheme to prohibit nuclear activities, addressing concerns stemming from a previous government's potential nuclear waste dumping plans.
AnsweredQoN 604Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
SHIRE OF CHAPMAN VALLEY, NUCLEAR ACTIVITY PROHIBITION
Has the minister been able to assist the Shire of Chapman Valley in its efforts to amend its town planning scheme to prohibit nuclear activity within its boundaries? Ms MacTIERNAN
Has the minister been able to assist the Shire of Chapman Valley in its efforts to amend its town planning scheme to prohibit nuclear activity within its boundaries? Ms MacTIERNAN
AnswerView source ↗
I am glad to report that we have been able to assist the Shire of Chapman Valley, and I thank the member for his assistance in this matter in organising a meeting between the Shire of Chapman Valley and me some months ago. Many members will recall the quite sorry history of this event. In 1999, the Shire of Chapman Valley became concerned when it appeared that members of the then coalition Government were talking to various companies, particularly Pangea Resources Australia, about the prospect of using Western Australia for the dumping of nuclear waste. The Shire of Chapman Valley quite rightly took the view that this sort of activity had the very real prospect of undermining the economic advantage it had in promoting its agricultural product as clean and green. It then attempted to proceed with an advertisement to amend its town planning scheme to prohibit nuclear activities within the confines of the shire. This met with a very hostile reaction from the then Minister for Planning. The then Minister for Planning even threatened to take legal action against the shire and then sought to change the regulations to remove from local authorities the power to advertise amendments to their own town planning schemes. We have taken comprehensive legal advice on this matter, and we have advised the Shire of Chapman Valley that provided it frames its proposed amendment carefully and it talks about banning nuclear-related activities when those activities have environmental significance such as causing the alteration - Mr Barnett: Are you going to support the Greens? Ms MacTIERNAN: What is the Leader of the Opposition’s position? Does he support the member behind him? Mr Barnett: Are you going to support the banning of nuclear ships? Ms MacTIERNAN: Does the Leader of the Opposition support the member behind him who represents the Shire of Chapman Valley? He is nodding his head; he does support him. What did he do when in Cabinet? It is quite clear that this Government is supporting the Shire of Chapman Valley and, importantly - Mr Barnett: Fremantle wanted to ban nuclear ships. The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition! Ms MacTIERNAN: There is one nuclear item in this House. It is quite clear that the Shire of Chapman Valley has very real economic concerns about the potential for nuclear activities of this type to undermine its credentials and its ability to export its product into the world market. We have advised the shire that this will enable it to carefully craft its amendment to exclude waste repositories or storage or transport facilities, but it will not extend to the use of radioactive materials in health or medical facilities or in accepted industrial, commercial or domestic applications. We have told the shire also that such a provision should not exclude incidental handling or production of radioactive material such as occurs with the mining of mineral sands. The shire can then feel confident of going forward with this process, advertising its amendment and, hopefully, protecting itself against any future conservative Government that may try to use its shire as a repository for nuclear waste.
Ms MacTIERNAN replied: I am glad to report that we have been able to assist the Shire of Chapman Valley, and I thank the member for his assistance in this matter in organising a meeting between the Shire of Chapman Valley and me some months ago. Many members will recall the quite sorry history of this event. In 1999, the Shire of Chapman Valley became concerned when it appeared that members of the then coalition Government were talking to various companies, particularly Pangea Resources Australia, about the prospect of using Western Australia for the dumping of nuclear waste. The Shire of Chapman Valley quite rightly took the view that this sort of activity had the very real prospect of undermining the economic advantage it had in promoting its agricultural product as clean and green. It then attempted to proceed with an advertisement to amend its town planning scheme to prohibit nuclear activities within the confines of the shire. This met with a very hostile reaction from the then Minister for Planning. The then Minister for Planning even threatened to take legal action against the shire and then sought to change the regulations to remove from local authorities the power to advertise amendments to their own town planning schemes. We have taken comprehensive legal advice on this matter, and we have advised the Shire of Chapman Valley that provided it frames its proposed amendment carefully and it talks about banning nuclear-related activities when those activities have environmental significance such as causing the alteration - Mr Barnett: Are you going to support the Greens? Ms MacTIERNAN: What is the Leader of the Opposition’s position? Does he support the member behind him? Mr Barnett: Are you going to support the banning of nuclear ships? Ms MacTIERNAN: Does the Leader of the Opposition support the member behind him who represents the Shire of Chapman Valley? He is nodding his head; he does support him. What did he do when in Cabinet? It is quite clear that this Government is supporting the Shire of Chapman Valley and, importantly - Mr Barnett: Fremantle wanted to ban nuclear ships. The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition! Ms MacTIERNAN: There is one nuclear item in this House. It is quite clear that the Shire of Chapman Valley has very real economic concerns about the potential for nuclear activities of this type to undermine its credentials and its ability to export its product into the world market. We have advised the shire that this will enable it to carefully craft its amendment to exclude waste repositories or storage or transport facilities, but it will not extend to the use of radioactive materials in health or medical facilities or in accepted industrial, commercial or domestic applications. We have told the shire also that such a provision should not exclude incidental handling or production of radioactive material such as occurs with the mining of mineral sands. The shire can then feel confident of going forward with this process, advertising its amendment and, hopefully, protecting itself against any future conservative Government that may try to use its shire as a repository for nuclear waste.
I am glad to report that we have been able to assist the Shire of Chapman Valley, and I thank the member for his assistance in this matter in organising a meeting between the Shire of Chapman Valley and me some months ago. Many members will recall the quite sorry history of this event. In 1999, the Shire of Chapman Valley became concerned when it appeared that members of the then coalition Government were talking to various companies, particularly Pangea Resources Australia, about the prospect of using Western Australia for the dumping of nuclear waste. The Shire of Chapman Valley quite rightly took the view that this sort of activity had the very real prospect of undermining the economic advantage it had in promoting its agricultural product as clean and green. It then attempted to proceed with an advertisement to amend its town planning scheme to prohibit nuclear activities within the confines of the shire. This met with a very hostile reaction from the then Minister for Planning. The then Minister for Planning even threatened to take legal action against the shire and then sought to change the regulations to remove from local authorities the power to advertise amendments to their own town planning schemes. We have taken comprehensive legal advice on this matter, and we have advised the Shire of Chapman Valley that provided it frames its proposed amendment carefully and it talks about banning nuclear-related activities when those activities have environmental significance such as causing the alteration - Mr Barnett: Are you going to support the Greens? Ms MacTIERNAN: What is the Leader of the Opposition’s position? Does he support the member behind him? Mr Barnett: Are you going to support the banning of nuclear ships? Ms MacTIERNAN: Does the Leader of the Opposition support the member behind him who represents the Shire of Chapman Valley? He is nodding his head; he does support him. What did he do when in Cabinet? It is quite clear that this Government is supporting the Shire of Chapman Valley and, importantly - Mr Barnett: Fremantle wanted to ban nuclear ships. The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition! Ms MacTIERNAN: There is one nuclear item in this House. It is quite clear that the Shire of Chapman Valley has very real economic concerns about the potential for nuclear activities of this type to undermine its credentials and its ability to export its product into the world market. We have advised the shire that this will enable it to carefully craft its amendment to exclude waste repositories or storage or transport facilities, but it will not extend to the use of radioactive materials in health or medical facilities or in accepted industrial, commercial or domestic applications. We have told the shire also that such a provision should not exclude incidental handling or production of radioactive material such as occurs with the mining of mineral sands. The shire can then feel confident of going forward with this process, advertising its amendment and, hopefully, protecting itself against any future conservative Government that may try to use its shire as a repository for nuclear waste.
We have taken comprehensive legal advice on this matter, and we have advised the Shire of Chapman Valley that provided it frames its proposed amendment carefully and it talks about banning nuclear-related activities when those activities have environmental significance such as causing the alteration - Mr Barnett: Are you going to support the Greens? Ms MacTIERNAN: What is the Leader of the Opposition’s position? Does he support the member behind him? Mr Barnett: Are you going to support the banning of nuclear ships? Ms MacTIERNAN: Does the Leader of the Opposition support the member behind him who represents the Shire of Chapman Valley? He is nodding his head; he does support him. What did he do when in Cabinet? It is quite clear that this Government is supporting the Shire of Chapman Valley and, importantly - Mr Barnett: Fremantle wanted to ban nuclear ships. The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition! Ms MacTIERNAN: There is one nuclear item in this House. It is quite clear that the Shire of Chapman Valley has very real economic concerns about the potential for nuclear activities of this type to undermine its credentials and its ability to export its product into the world market. We have advised the shire that this will enable it to carefully craft its amendment to exclude waste repositories or storage or transport facilities, but it will not extend to the use of radioactive materials in health or medical facilities or in accepted industrial, commercial or domestic applications. We have told the shire also that such a provision should not exclude incidental handling or production of radioactive material such as occurs with the mining of mineral sands. The shire can then feel confident of going forward with this process, advertising its amendment and, hopefully, protecting itself against any future conservative Government that may try to use its shire as a repository for nuclear waste.
Mr Barnett: Are you going to support the Greens? Ms MacTIERNAN: What is the Leader of the Opposition’s position? Does he support the member behind him? Mr Barnett: Are you going to support the banning of nuclear ships? Ms MacTIERNAN: Does the Leader of the Opposition support the member behind him who represents the Shire of Chapman Valley? He is nodding his head; he does support him. What did he do when in Cabinet? It is quite clear that this Government is supporting the Shire of Chapman Valley and, importantly - Mr Barnett: Fremantle wanted to ban nuclear ships. The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition! Ms MacTIERNAN: There is one nuclear item in this House. It is quite clear that the Shire of Chapman Valley has very real economic concerns about the potential for nuclear activities of this type to undermine its credentials and its ability to export its product into the world market. We have advised the shire that this will enable it to carefully craft its amendment to exclude waste repositories or storage or transport facilities, but it will not extend to the use of radioactive materials in health or medical facilities or in accepted industrial, commercial or domestic applications. We have told the shire also that such a provision should not exclude incidental handling or production of radioactive material such as occurs with the mining of mineral sands. The shire can then feel confident of going forward with this process, advertising its amendment and, hopefully, protecting itself against any future conservative Government that may try to use its shire as a repository for nuclear waste.
Ms MacTIERNAN: What is the Leader of the Opposition’s position? Does he support the member behind him? Mr Barnett: Are you going to support the banning of nuclear ships? Ms MacTIERNAN: Does the Leader of the Opposition support the member behind him who represents the Shire of Chapman Valley? He is nodding his head; he does support him. What did he do when in Cabinet? It is quite clear that this Government is supporting the Shire of Chapman Valley and, importantly - Mr Barnett: Fremantle wanted to ban nuclear ships. The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition! Ms MacTIERNAN: There is one nuclear item in this House. It is quite clear that the Shire of Chapman Valley has very real economic concerns about the potential for nuclear activities of this type to undermine its credentials and its ability to export its product into the world market. We have advised the shire that this will enable it to carefully craft its amendment to exclude waste repositories or storage or transport facilities, but it will not extend to the use of radioactive materials in health or medical facilities or in accepted industrial, commercial or domestic applications. We have told the shire also that such a provision should not exclude incidental handling or production of radioactive material such as occurs with the mining of mineral sands. The shire can then feel confident of going forward with this process, advertising its amendment and, hopefully, protecting itself against any future conservative Government that may try to use its shire as a repository for nuclear waste.
Mr Barnett: Are you going to support the banning of nuclear ships? Ms MacTIERNAN: Does the Leader of the Opposition support the member behind him who represents the Shire of Chapman Valley? He is nodding his head; he does support him. What did he do when in Cabinet? It is quite clear that this Government is supporting the Shire of Chapman Valley and, importantly - Mr Barnett: Fremantle wanted to ban nuclear ships. The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition! Ms MacTIERNAN: There is one nuclear item in this House. It is quite clear that the Shire of Chapman Valley has very real economic concerns about the potential for nuclear activities of this type to undermine its credentials and its ability to export its product into the world market. We have advised the shire that this will enable it to carefully craft its amendment to exclude waste repositories or storage or transport facilities, but it will not extend to the use of radioactive materials in health or medical facilities or in accepted industrial, commercial or domestic applications. We have told the shire also that such a provision should not exclude incidental handling or production of radioactive material such as occurs with the mining of mineral sands. The shire can then feel confident of going forward with this process, advertising its amendment and, hopefully, protecting itself against any future conservative Government that may try to use its shire as a repository for nuclear waste.
Ms MacTIERNAN: Does the Leader of the Opposition support the member behind him who represents the Shire of Chapman Valley? He is nodding his head; he does support him. What did he do when in Cabinet? It is quite clear that this Government is supporting the Shire of Chapman Valley and, importantly - Mr Barnett: Fremantle wanted to ban nuclear ships. The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition! Ms MacTIERNAN: There is one nuclear item in this House. It is quite clear that the Shire of Chapman Valley has very real economic concerns about the potential for nuclear activities of this type to undermine its credentials and its ability to export its product into the world market. We have advised the shire that this will enable it to carefully craft its amendment to exclude waste repositories or storage or transport facilities, but it will not extend to the use of radioactive materials in health or medical facilities or in accepted industrial, commercial or domestic applications. We have told the shire also that such a provision should not exclude incidental handling or production of radioactive material such as occurs with the mining of mineral sands. The shire can then feel confident of going forward with this process, advertising its amendment and, hopefully, protecting itself against any future conservative Government that may try to use its shire as a repository for nuclear waste.
Mr Barnett: Fremantle wanted to ban nuclear ships. The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition! Ms MacTIERNAN: There is one nuclear item in this House. It is quite clear that the Shire of Chapman Valley has very real economic concerns about the potential for nuclear activities of this type to undermine its credentials and its ability to export its product into the world market. We have advised the shire that this will enable it to carefully craft its amendment to exclude waste repositories or storage or transport facilities, but it will not extend to the use of radioactive materials in health or medical facilities or in accepted industrial, commercial or domestic applications. We have told the shire also that such a provision should not exclude incidental handling or production of radioactive material such as occurs with the mining of mineral sands. The shire can then feel confident of going forward with this process, advertising its amendment and, hopefully, protecting itself against any future conservative Government that may try to use its shire as a repository for nuclear waste.
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition! Ms MacTIERNAN: There is one nuclear item in this House. It is quite clear that the Shire of Chapman Valley has very real economic concerns about the potential for nuclear activities of this type to undermine its credentials and its ability to export its product into the world market. We have advised the shire that this will enable it to carefully craft its amendment to exclude waste repositories or storage or transport facilities, but it will not extend to the use of radioactive materials in health or medical facilities or in accepted industrial, commercial or domestic applications. We have told the shire also that such a provision should not exclude incidental handling or production of radioactive material such as occurs with the mining of mineral sands. The shire can then feel confident of going forward with this process, advertising its amendment and, hopefully, protecting itself against any future conservative Government that may try to use its shire as a repository for nuclear waste.
Ms MacTIERNAN: There is one nuclear item in this House. It is quite clear that the Shire of Chapman Valley has very real economic concerns about the potential for nuclear activities of this type to undermine its credentials and its ability to export its product into the world market. We have advised the shire that this will enable it to carefully craft its amendment to exclude waste repositories or storage or transport facilities, but it will not extend to the use of radioactive materials in health or medical facilities or in accepted industrial, commercial or domestic applications. We have told the shire also that such a provision should not exclude incidental handling or production of radioactive material such as occurs with the mining of mineral sands. The shire can then feel confident of going forward with this process, advertising its amendment and, hopefully, protecting itself against any future conservative Government that may try to use its shire as a repository for nuclear waste.
Ms MacTIERNAN replied: I am glad to report that we have been able to assist the Shire of Chapman Valley, and I thank the member for his assistance in this matter in organising a meeting between the Shire of Chapman Valley and me some months ago. Many members will recall the quite sorry history of this event. In 1999, the Shire of Chapman Valley became concerned when it appeared that members of the then coalition Government were talking to various companies, particularly Pangea Resources Australia, about the prospect of using Western Australia for the dumping of nuclear waste. The Shire of Chapman Valley quite rightly took the view that this sort of activity had the very real prospect of undermining the economic advantage it had in promoting its agricultural product as clean and green. It then attempted to proceed with an advertisement to amend its town planning scheme to prohibit nuclear activities within the confines of the shire. This met with a very hostile reaction from the then Minister for Planning. The then Minister for Planning even threatened to take legal action against the shire and then sought to change the regulations to remove from local authorities the power to advertise amendments to their own town planning schemes. We have taken comprehensive legal advice on this matter, and we have advised the Shire of Chapman Valley that provided it frames its proposed amendment carefully and it talks about banning nuclear-related activities when those activities have environmental significance such as causing the alteration - Mr Barnett: Are you going to support the Greens? Ms MacTIERNAN: What is the Leader of the Opposition’s position? Does he support the member behind him? Mr Barnett: Are you going to support the banning of nuclear ships? Ms MacTIERNAN: Does the Leader of the Opposition support the member behind him who represents the Shire of Chapman Valley? He is nodding his head; he does support him. What did he do when in Cabinet? It is quite clear that this Government is supporting the Shire of Chapman Valley and, importantly - Mr Barnett: Fremantle wanted to ban nuclear ships. The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition! Ms MacTIERNAN: There is one nuclear item in this House. It is quite clear that the Shire of Chapman Valley has very real economic concerns about the potential for nuclear activities of this type to undermine its credentials and its ability to export its product into the world market. We have advised the shire that this will enable it to carefully craft its amendment to exclude waste repositories or storage or transport facilities, but it will not extend to the use of radioactive materials in health or medical facilities or in accepted industrial, commercial or domestic applications. We have told the shire also that such a provision should not exclude incidental handling or production of radioactive material such as occurs with the mining of mineral sands. The shire can then feel confident of going forward with this process, advertising its amendment and, hopefully, protecting itself against any future conservative Government that may try to use its shire as a repository for nuclear waste.
I am glad to report that we have been able to assist the Shire of Chapman Valley, and I thank the member for his assistance in this matter in organising a meeting between the Shire of Chapman Valley and me some months ago. Many members will recall the quite sorry history of this event. In 1999, the Shire of Chapman Valley became concerned when it appeared that members of the then coalition Government were talking to various companies, particularly Pangea Resources Australia, about the prospect of using Western Australia for the dumping of nuclear waste. The Shire of Chapman Valley quite rightly took the view that this sort of activity had the very real prospect of undermining the economic advantage it had in promoting its agricultural product as clean and green. It then attempted to proceed with an advertisement to amend its town planning scheme to prohibit nuclear activities within the confines of the shire. This met with a very hostile reaction from the then Minister for Planning. The then Minister for Planning even threatened to take legal action against the shire and then sought to change the regulations to remove from local authorities the power to advertise amendments to their own town planning schemes. We have taken comprehensive legal advice on this matter, and we have advised the Shire of Chapman Valley that provided it frames its proposed amendment carefully and it talks about banning nuclear-related activities when those activities have environmental significance such as causing the alteration - Mr Barnett: Are you going to support the Greens? Ms MacTIERNAN: What is the Leader of the Opposition’s position? Does he support the member behind him? Mr Barnett: Are you going to support the banning of nuclear ships? Ms MacTIERNAN: Does the Leader of the Opposition support the member behind him who represents the Shire of Chapman Valley? He is nodding his head; he does support him. What did he do when in Cabinet? It is quite clear that this Government is supporting the Shire of Chapman Valley and, importantly - Mr Barnett: Fremantle wanted to ban nuclear ships. The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition! Ms MacTIERNAN: There is one nuclear item in this House. It is quite clear that the Shire of Chapman Valley has very real economic concerns about the potential for nuclear activities of this type to undermine its credentials and its ability to export its product into the world market. We have advised the shire that this will enable it to carefully craft its amendment to exclude waste repositories or storage or transport facilities, but it will not extend to the use of radioactive materials in health or medical facilities or in accepted industrial, commercial or domestic applications. We have told the shire also that such a provision should not exclude incidental handling or production of radioactive material such as occurs with the mining of mineral sands. The shire can then feel confident of going forward with this process, advertising its amendment and, hopefully, protecting itself against any future conservative Government that may try to use its shire as a repository for nuclear waste.
We have taken comprehensive legal advice on this matter, and we have advised the Shire of Chapman Valley that provided it frames its proposed amendment carefully and it talks about banning nuclear-related activities when those activities have environmental significance such as causing the alteration - Mr Barnett: Are you going to support the Greens? Ms MacTIERNAN: What is the Leader of the Opposition’s position? Does he support the member behind him? Mr Barnett: Are you going to support the banning of nuclear ships? Ms MacTIERNAN: Does the Leader of the Opposition support the member behind him who represents the Shire of Chapman Valley? He is nodding his head; he does support him. What did he do when in Cabinet? It is quite clear that this Government is supporting the Shire of Chapman Valley and, importantly - Mr Barnett: Fremantle wanted to ban nuclear ships. The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition! Ms MacTIERNAN: There is one nuclear item in this House. It is quite clear that the Shire of Chapman Valley has very real economic concerns about the potential for nuclear activities of this type to undermine its credentials and its ability to export its product into the world market. We have advised the shire that this will enable it to carefully craft its amendment to exclude waste repositories or storage or transport facilities, but it will not extend to the use of radioactive materials in health or medical facilities or in accepted industrial, commercial or domestic applications. We have told the shire also that such a provision should not exclude incidental handling or production of radioactive material such as occurs with the mining of mineral sands. The shire can then feel confident of going forward with this process, advertising its amendment and, hopefully, protecting itself against any future conservative Government that may try to use its shire as a repository for nuclear waste.
Mr Barnett: Are you going to support the Greens? Ms MacTIERNAN: What is the Leader of the Opposition’s position? Does he support the member behind him? Mr Barnett: Are you going to support the banning of nuclear ships? Ms MacTIERNAN: Does the Leader of the Opposition support the member behind him who represents the Shire of Chapman Valley? He is nodding his head; he does support him. What did he do when in Cabinet? It is quite clear that this Government is supporting the Shire of Chapman Valley and, importantly - Mr Barnett: Fremantle wanted to ban nuclear ships. The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition! Ms MacTIERNAN: There is one nuclear item in this House. It is quite clear that the Shire of Chapman Valley has very real economic concerns about the potential for nuclear activities of this type to undermine its credentials and its ability to export its product into the world market. We have advised the shire that this will enable it to carefully craft its amendment to exclude waste repositories or storage or transport facilities, but it will not extend to the use of radioactive materials in health or medical facilities or in accepted industrial, commercial or domestic applications. We have told the shire also that such a provision should not exclude incidental handling or production of radioactive material such as occurs with the mining of mineral sands. The shire can then feel confident of going forward with this process, advertising its amendment and, hopefully, protecting itself against any future conservative Government that may try to use its shire as a repository for nuclear waste.
Ms MacTIERNAN: What is the Leader of the Opposition’s position? Does he support the member behind him? Mr Barnett: Are you going to support the banning of nuclear ships? Ms MacTIERNAN: Does the Leader of the Opposition support the member behind him who represents the Shire of Chapman Valley? He is nodding his head; he does support him. What did he do when in Cabinet? It is quite clear that this Government is supporting the Shire of Chapman Valley and, importantly - Mr Barnett: Fremantle wanted to ban nuclear ships. The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition! Ms MacTIERNAN: There is one nuclear item in this House. It is quite clear that the Shire of Chapman Valley has very real economic concerns about the potential for nuclear activities of this type to undermine its credentials and its ability to export its product into the world market. We have advised the shire that this will enable it to carefully craft its amendment to exclude waste repositories or storage or transport facilities, but it will not extend to the use of radioactive materials in health or medical facilities or in accepted industrial, commercial or domestic applications. We have told the shire also that such a provision should not exclude incidental handling or production of radioactive material such as occurs with the mining of mineral sands. The shire can then feel confident of going forward with this process, advertising its amendment and, hopefully, protecting itself against any future conservative Government that may try to use its shire as a repository for nuclear waste.
Mr Barnett: Are you going to support the banning of nuclear ships? Ms MacTIERNAN: Does the Leader of the Opposition support the member behind him who represents the Shire of Chapman Valley? He is nodding his head; he does support him. What did he do when in Cabinet? It is quite clear that this Government is supporting the Shire of Chapman Valley and, importantly - Mr Barnett: Fremantle wanted to ban nuclear ships. The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition! Ms MacTIERNAN: There is one nuclear item in this House. It is quite clear that the Shire of Chapman Valley has very real economic concerns about the potential for nuclear activities of this type to undermine its credentials and its ability to export its product into the world market. We have advised the shire that this will enable it to carefully craft its amendment to exclude waste repositories or storage or transport facilities, but it will not extend to the use of radioactive materials in health or medical facilities or in accepted industrial, commercial or domestic applications. We have told the shire also that such a provision should not exclude incidental handling or production of radioactive material such as occurs with the mining of mineral sands. The shire can then feel confident of going forward with this process, advertising its amendment and, hopefully, protecting itself against any future conservative Government that may try to use its shire as a repository for nuclear waste.
Ms MacTIERNAN: Does the Leader of the Opposition support the member behind him who represents the Shire of Chapman Valley? He is nodding his head; he does support him. What did he do when in Cabinet? It is quite clear that this Government is supporting the Shire of Chapman Valley and, importantly - Mr Barnett: Fremantle wanted to ban nuclear ships. The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition! Ms MacTIERNAN: There is one nuclear item in this House. It is quite clear that the Shire of Chapman Valley has very real economic concerns about the potential for nuclear activities of this type to undermine its credentials and its ability to export its product into the world market. We have advised the shire that this will enable it to carefully craft its amendment to exclude waste repositories or storage or transport facilities, but it will not extend to the use of radioactive materials in health or medical facilities or in accepted industrial, commercial or domestic applications. We have told the shire also that such a provision should not exclude incidental handling or production of radioactive material such as occurs with the mining of mineral sands. The shire can then feel confident of going forward with this process, advertising its amendment and, hopefully, protecting itself against any future conservative Government that may try to use its shire as a repository for nuclear waste.
Mr Barnett: Fremantle wanted to ban nuclear ships. The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition! Ms MacTIERNAN: There is one nuclear item in this House. It is quite clear that the Shire of Chapman Valley has very real economic concerns about the potential for nuclear activities of this type to undermine its credentials and its ability to export its product into the world market. We have advised the shire that this will enable it to carefully craft its amendment to exclude waste repositories or storage or transport facilities, but it will not extend to the use of radioactive materials in health or medical facilities or in accepted industrial, commercial or domestic applications. We have told the shire also that such a provision should not exclude incidental handling or production of radioactive material such as occurs with the mining of mineral sands. The shire can then feel confident of going forward with this process, advertising its amendment and, hopefully, protecting itself against any future conservative Government that may try to use its shire as a repository for nuclear waste.
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition! Ms MacTIERNAN: There is one nuclear item in this House. It is quite clear that the Shire of Chapman Valley has very real economic concerns about the potential for nuclear activities of this type to undermine its credentials and its ability to export its product into the world market. We have advised the shire that this will enable it to carefully craft its amendment to exclude waste repositories or storage or transport facilities, but it will not extend to the use of radioactive materials in health or medical facilities or in accepted industrial, commercial or domestic applications. We have told the shire also that such a provision should not exclude incidental handling or production of radioactive material such as occurs with the mining of mineral sands. The shire can then feel confident of going forward with this process, advertising its amendment and, hopefully, protecting itself against any future conservative Government that may try to use its shire as a repository for nuclear waste.
Ms MacTIERNAN: There is one nuclear item in this House. It is quite clear that the Shire of Chapman Valley has very real economic concerns about the potential for nuclear activities of this type to undermine its credentials and its ability to export its product into the world market. We have advised the shire that this will enable it to carefully craft its amendment to exclude waste repositories or storage or transport facilities, but it will not extend to the use of radioactive materials in health or medical facilities or in accepted industrial, commercial or domestic applications. We have told the shire also that such a provision should not exclude incidental handling or production of radioactive material such as occurs with the mining of mineral sands. The shire can then feel confident of going forward with this process, advertising its amendment and, hopefully, protecting itself against any future conservative Government that may try to use its shire as a repository for nuclear waste.
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.