The following is what occurred in chronological order. Dates are hyperlinked to the offical Australian Parliament Hansard record. Hansard will have more detailed debate that is accessible in the menu on the left hand side of the linked webpage. The relevant menu section will automatically be expanded.



8th April 1998

The ARPANS Bill was read for a first and second time in the House of Representatives, a fairly procedural matter. An outline of the Bill was given indicating:

“This Bill introduces regulatory controls for all Commonwealth radiation and nuclear safety activities for the first time in Australia. It is designed to protect the health and safety of persons and the environment from the harmful effects of radiation practices undertaken under the auspices of the Commonwealth.” – Hon. Trish Worth

14th May 1998

The debate on the Bill continues with main focus residing around the Lucas Heights reactor and its future replacement. Debate is adjourned.

11th November 1998

After a federal election on the 3rd of October the debate is resumed, where members of parliament make their second reading speeches.

12th November 1998

The ARPANS Bill was read for a third time and passed onto the Senate for further consideration. It is important to note the House of Representatives is comprised of members from federal electorates over Australia, whereas Senators represent their respective States.

23rd November 1998

The Bill is read a first and second time in the Senate, under procedural matters. A brief overview of what the Bill entails was published in Hansard.

26th November 1998

The Bill is sent to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee to hear from witnesses with an interest in the Bill on the 30th November 1998.

30th November 1998

The Senate committee comprised of 7 Senators and heard from 12 witnesses: Two Liberal Party, two Labor Party, two Democrats, and one Greens Party Senators; five representatives from ARPANSA (interim body), Nuclear Safety Bureau, Australian Radiation Laboratory and ANSTO; four councillors from the Sutherland Shire council (location of Lucas Heights reactor); and three anti-nuclear advocates, Dr. Jim Green (FoE), Ms. Jean McSorley (Greenpeace), and Mr. Larry O’Loughlin (ACF).

The transcripts of their questioning can be read in the Hansard records.

2nd December 1998

The Committee’s final report was tabled in the Senate. In this report it recommends that:

Amend the definition of “nuclear installation” to delete the references to nuclear power reactors and to reprocessing facilities, and to add references to the following: a spent fuel conditioning plant a nuclear isotope production facility a nuclear waste storage facility a nuclear waste disposal facility.

This recommendation did not clarify for what reason, however paragraphs from the opposition (Labor Party) and minority parties (Democrats and Greens) are the first indication that there will be an amendment to the Bill prohibiting particular facilities, specifically from the Democrats and Greens:

“The recommendation to exclude nuclear power reactors from the legislation is an improvement in accountability. The Greens and Australian Democrats, however, are concerned that licenses for `a nuclear fuel fabrication plant’, `an enrichment facility’ `a fuel storage facility’ and `a reprocessing facility’ remain possible under this legislation, albeit with the approval of the CEO. These activities should either be specifically prohibited under this legislation, or at the least, should not be able to take place without full and separate Parliamentary scrutiny.”

Thus, the prohibition was decided at the Committee stage after three and a half hours of witness testimony. Parliamentary procedure is the amendment requires a vote in the Senate, and then passed back into the House of Representatives for a final vote before being declared an Act.

9th December 1998

The debate in Senate resumed on the ARPANS Bill, with the main focus being on the controversy surrounding the Pangea Resources leaked promotional video declaring Australia to be the best place in the world to host a high-level nuclear waste site. After this discussion it turned to the amendments, first one considered was Greens (WA) amendment No. 1, the prohibition section outlined above. The reasoning for this is outlined in Sen. Dee Margetts 2nd reading speech and comments in committee debate. Notably (emphasis added):

I suspect that if you were totally honest with yourselves you would acknowledge that these are facilities so objectionable to the vast majority of Australians that you would have to answer `no' to those questions. […] Next, let us look at a nuclear power plant. I am pleased to see the government proposes taking nuclear power plants out of the definition of nuclear installations in this bill. This amendment strengthens the position by explicitly prohibiting nuclear power stations from being licensed by ARPANSA. There is virtual unanimity in Australia in opposing nuclear power.

10th December 1998 (Session 1 & Session 2)

After two sessions discussing the Bill the Greens (WA) amendments were up for vote. The following is how it played out:

Sen. Margetts (Greens WA) restated and introduced her amendments where upon Sen. Forshaw (ALP) indicated that the opposition would support Greens amendment No. 1 (prohibition) as

“We understand that there is no either medium-term or long-term intention on the part of the government to proceed to construct such facilities”

There was a technicality brought up with respect to the Greens and Labor party amendments clashing on the definition of a “nuclear installation”, however this was resolved.

At 12.09pm on the 10th of December 1998 the Senate voted on Greens (WA) amendments No.1:

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Watson)—The question before the chair is that the Greens amendment which concerns clause 9A subclauses (1)(a), (b), (c), (d) and (2) be agreed to. Amendment agreed to.

That was that. Note that it was referred to clause 9A but was published as section 10 in the Act.

The party breakdown of the Senate on that day was; 31 Liberal Party, 29 Labor Party, 7 Democrats, 2 Greens, 5 Nationals, 1 Country Liberal Party, and 1 Independent. The federal election on the 3rd of October that year didn’t affect the Senate at this time as Senators who were retiring do so on the following year; Sen. Dee Margetts was one of those retiring.

The Labor Party, Greens and Democrats all have anti-nuclear policies in some form or another, that’s 38 anti-nuclear votes. The Country Liberal Party candidate indicated that he could “…accept the balance of the amendment” proposed by the Greens and ALP, hence 39 votes and at a minimum the amendments passed. Even if it had been decided in the following year the Democrats gained two more Senators, and thus the anti-nuclear majority would have been retained.

As no two senators opposed the voice vote a division was no possible under the rules of the Australian Parliament. To cause a division there has to be at least two voices to call out a ‘yes’ or ‘no’.

After a three-and-a-half hour committee meeting, a several-page report drafted over two days, one hour and 36 minutes of debate post-prohibition recommendation, and six minutes of considering the amendments it was decided that Australia should not go down the nuclear path.

As stated previously amended Bills from the Senate move back to the House of Representatives to be voted on again. Unfortunately due to the poison chalice perception, and the waste dump issues energising the anti-nuclear base the following occurred:

Dr WOOLDRIDGE (Health and Aged Care) (11:38 PM) —I move: That the amendments be agreed to.

And they were, no division. Australia prohibited the construction of nuclear power.