Ian Macfarlane (Groom, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Energy and Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Today is Groundhog Day with the National Radioactive Waste Management Bill 2010. For me in particular a lot of time has been wasted to get us to where we are today. This bill moves to establish a national radioactive waste management facility for low-level and short-lived intermediate-level waste. While the bill seeks to repeal the coalition’s original act of 2005, it still maintains the basic crux of that legislation. I indicate to the House that the coalition will support this bill. This is one of the few good pieces of legislation we have seen come into this House in recent times and, unlike the Labor Party when they were in opposition and we moved a bill on this matter, we will ensure a responsible approach is taken.

This bill is well overdue; this facility is well overdue. We need to ensure that a repository is built as soon as possible, bearing in mind two basic facts. The first is that there is radioactive waste currently being treated overseas that has come from our Lucas Heights reactor, and which has to be accepted back into Australia in 2015. It is simply ridiculous to suggest that we will not take that waste, bearing in mind the commitments and contractual obligations that we have made.

But probably more important is the fact that around Australia, in highly unsuitable—yet so far safe—places, low-level nuclear waste is currently being stored. Where might that be? In shipping containers in car parks of hospitals, in basements of buildings in central CBDs and in hospitals, where state governments, who have abdicated their responsibility in this area, have no option but to maintain the waste in its current position.

For the 11½ years of the Howard government, the coalition sought to act in the national interest and construct this repository in a suitable location based on the highest level of scientific assessment and suitability. At every single opportunity the federal Labor Party and the state Labor governments opposed and hampered this process—every step of the way. They worked against establishing a waste repository. It gives me no pleasure to see the hypocrisy that is on show here today by those who sit opposite, who now realise that they could have saved 10 years of time by supporting the government of the day when we first put this forward.

In fact, the Labor Party attempted to hamper the process despite the fact that they themselves had begun this process. They themselves, under the then Prime Minister Paul Keating—by comparison a leader to what we have now—actually realised that something had to be done and trucked the first federal radioactive waste to Woomera. The Minister for Resources and Energy argues that this bill implements an ALP election commitment to repeal the Commonwealth Radioactive Waste Management Bill 2005. Whilst this bill does repeal that act, it does so merely by replicating the many clauses of the existing act in this current bill. Labor is simply trying to save face. All of this is a waste of time; we need to get on with it.

For all their bluster about the coalition currently being obstructionist, we are not as hypocritical—by any measure—as this current government were when they were in opposition and had to deal with this issue. In fact, we have always supported good policy, both previously when we were in opposition under the Hawke and Keating governments and now on those rare occasions when this government brings forward reasonable, well researched and well thought through legislation.

The coalition is supporting this bill, as it is really coalition policy in the first place, and always has been. But, of course, in supporting this bill we acknowledge that the Labor Party has had a conversion on the road to Damascus. If you look back at what was said in 2005 you realise just how big the hypocrisy is today when they put forward this legislation and ask us to support a bill which we have always supported; to support a principal which we have always supported and to support a principle which we have never politicked on, unlike those who sit opposite.

The coalition appreciates that most Australians benefit either directly or indirectly from the medical, scientific and industrial use of radioactive materials. I am but one of them, and without the benefit of radiation would not be here talking to you today. Some might see that as a blessing, but I am forever grateful.

While safe, the current storage of radioactive waste in this country is not ideal; in fact, to say anything of the kind would be an incredibly optimistic view. When I was the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources I remember the campaigns run by those who sit opposite when we tried to progress the issue in relation to the storage of nuclear waste and the proposals to give consideration to including nuclear energy in our future energy mix. I remember vividly the rubbish that was talked by those opposite, who were only interested in trying to scare people—they were not interested in finding solutions. They tried to twist and turn an argument for their own benefit when they knew, and certainly the health ministers, the resource ministers and premiers of those Labor states knew, that this waste was being stored right in the middle of cities. It is refreshing to see the honesty that those who sit opposite now have. It is refreshing to see they have capitulated and come to their senses.

We are also hearing some refreshing thoughts from the Minister for Resources and Energy, at last emboldened enough to out himself. We always knew he was a supporter of nuclear energy, and I do not in any way deride him for that. I congratulate him for his foresight, for his vision and for his understanding that if Australia wants to have clean baseload energy in the future, nuclear energy is an option we need to consider. Will the Labor Party have the courage to have the same debate on nuclear energy that they are now promoting on the storage of nuclear waste? Will the Labor Party have the courage to admit that if we do not have that debate in a honest, open and factual manner then we may leave Australia exposed in the future to a lack of clean energy, something none of us want?

We have seen an acknowledgement in their rush to impose a flood levy that the Labor Party are doing what the coalition had already decided to do, and lower their commitment to zero-emission coal. I suspect there are a number of reasons for that, and if they are the same reasons as ours then they are that that issue is progressing too slowly to be a viable alternative much before 2030. And the question remains: at what cost? Whilst the coalition still believe it is an area that needs to be pursued, we believe that the coal industry has more than ample capability to do the preliminary research and the building of the pilot stations themselves. I am sure, when we look at some of the record profits being turned in by the resource companies—which I welcome; I like to see companies making profits—that they could devote a little of those profits to the research and development area of clean coal.

With the Labor Party walking away from zero-emission coal, what is their alternative for low-emission electricity in a baseload sense? I suspect they do not have one. Apart from the minister for energy, they are still tied up in the same ideological debate that caused them to oppose this very bill when the coalition brought it forward in 2005. That same hypocrisy is still on show. There are people who sit on those front benches along with the minister for energy who, deep down inside, know that it is irresponsible not to consider nuclear energy, but they hide behind their political games. The day will come when people on that side of the chamber will have the courage of their own convictions and the courage that they should have as leaders of Australia to actually admit that nuclear power has fewer deaths per terawatt hour than any other form of baseload energy. May they come to that realisation as soon as possible. It is amazing that they could be so blinded in the 21st century.

Going back to the issue of the storage of nuclear waste, we have to make sure we have a long-term solution to this issue. Radioactive waste is a reality in Australia, for the reasons that I just outlined. It is because of radiotherapy, because of nuclear medicine and because we want to save the lives of fellow Australians. There is no point in delaying this. There is no point in putting up amendments to try and hold back the tide. The reality is that it is irresponsible not to proceed with this—with due caution but on the basis that it has to be built as soon as possible. The reason we are now jammed up against a deadline is, of course, because of those who sit opposite. They had their chance; they failed. They had a second chance, and the Prime Minister went to an early election. So here we are again, trying to debate legislation that was not needed in the first place and should have been acted upon earlier.

As we look at the requirements, Australia’s current radioactive waste totals around 4,020 cubic metres of low-level and short-lived intermediate waste, and about 600 cubic metres of long-lived intermediate waste, including 32 metres arising from the return of the reprocessing internationally of ANSTO’s spent research reactor fuel, which is due for return to Australia in 2015-16. That is four years from now. It is probably appropriate at this point that I also speak in relation to a foreshadowed amendment that I understand will be moved by the Greens. It is to delay this legislation further. I assure the House that the coalition will be voting with the government on this bill and against that amendment. There is simply no sense in delaying and no time to delay this any further. I say to those in the Greens who want to delay this: what is the alternative? Are you going to stop this research? Are you going to stop this nuclear waste building up? Are you going to tell Australians that they can die from cancer? Is that your solution? Or are you going to join the Labor Party in the end, who will eventually realise the error of their ways and say, ‘This is just nonsense. Let’s get on with it’?

It is sensible to find an appropriate site for the storage of this waste. There has certainly been a process which has been gone through. We did of course find a suitable site in 2002 in South Australia, where nuclear waste was already being stored in a suboptimum facility—an open-sided galvanised iron shed. It is still there, to the best of my knowledge, waiting for a proper site to be built. But guess what, Mr Deputy Speaker: another Labor premier showed that he is about politics and populism before pragmatism and reality. The Premier of South Australia, Mike Rann, decided to stop that dump going ahead. He is a South Australian premier who has uranium mining in his own state and whose own people are benefiting from that uranium. His own people are benefiting from the medical research done that created the nuclear waste. It was double hypocrisy by the Premier of South Australia, and that is why the process then moved on.

There were two preferred sites, and a site of 40 acres on a pastoral lease 20 kilometres west of Woomera was named as the preferred site. But, of course, we had to abandon that site and look elsewhere, thanks to the hypocrisy and the obstructionism of the state Labor government. Luckily, parliament passed the Commonwealth Radioactive Waste Management Act in late 2005. It was opposed at every step of the way by the Labor Party. That bill then facilitated a search in the Northern Territory. In 2007, the Howard government announced that the Northern Land Council’s nomination of Ngapa land as a potential site for the Commonwealth radioactive waste management facility had been accepted, and so the process began again. Between 2007 and now, we have reached a an agreement between the Commonwealth and traditional owners which also permits the nomination of other sites by the Northern Land Council. They have agreed with the Ngapa site. Labor have indicated that they will honour this deed and the current bill permits this.

I conclude by urging everyone to talk sensibly about this issue. Frightening people for political purposes is not something I have ever engaged in in this House and, on a matter as serious and important as this, politics should be put to one side. What is required is strong and decisive action to get this radioactive waste out of the car parks, out of the basements and out of the hospitals and into a site that is purpose built to store it in absolute safety. The coalition will support this bill. As I have said repeatedly, we will ensure that Australia gets what it needs in this regard. But, once this debate is over, I hope the Labor Party looks at the issues that the Minister for Resources and Energy has already outlined with regard to where we go with baseload electricity in Australia: clean energy that we need if we are going to lower our emissions. I hope that we will again, just by chance, see the Labor Party engage in a debate, as they have on this since they have been in government, that has a scientific, factual base to it, and that we consider where nuclear energy fits in Australia’s future. I do not mean to embarrass the Minister for Resources and Energy by raising this matter twice in this speech, but unfortunately there are too few people of his calibre who sit on the other side and Australia needs to have a debate if we are to secure our clean energy future, just as we need to pass this legislation if we are to provide a safe repository for the radioactive waste that has come about simply by saving Australians’ lives. I commend the bill to the House.

Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The National Radioactive Waste Management Bill 2010 is about Australia’s first nuclear waste dump. This nuclear dump is dangerous and unnecessary. This nuclear dump is in the wrong place. This nuclear dump is opposed by the traditional owners. This dump is being rammed through the parliament against the wishes of Territorians.

I spoke at length this morning about the process chosen by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Climate Change, Environment and the Arts for conducting its inquiry into this bill. The cynically short, non-consultative and closed process by which it ultimately recommended the bill be passed with no further delay was far from a useful use of House resources. It was a waste of time. The end result of the committee process is that members at this point have no more information before them with which to make a judgment on whether or not to give this bill a second reading than they did when the bill was referred to the committee in October.

However, the inquiry whitewash is nothing compared to the heavy-handed means adopted in facilitating the passage of this bill. Let me remind members what the Labor Party said about the Howard waste dump legislation when it first tried to dump nuclear waste in the Northern Territory. A joint release from the member for Kingsford-Smith, the member for Lingiari, Senator Carr and Senator Crossin stated that they were ‘profoundly disappointed’ by the legislation. They said:

The next chapter has opened in the Howard Government's nuclear waste dump fiasco, with the Government today accepting a highly controversial site nomination at the Northern Territory's Muckaty Station, before scientific testing of the area.

Labor called for consultation with the locals rather than bullying by the government and stated clearly that the traditional owners had been stripped of their rights and that they pledged to repeal the Howard laws. Now in government, Labor, under he tutelage of the Minister for Resources and Energy, has adopted the approach of the Howard government, as we have just heard so eloquently expressed by the member for Groom. The Labor-era waste dump legislation, like the Howard legislation, overrides state and territory laws, suspends the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984, excludes the Native Title Act 1993 and suspends the Judicial Review Act 1991.

The Labor legislation, like the Howard legislation, gives extraordinary discretionary power to the minister and allows him to operate with an absolute minimum of transparency. The Labor legislation, like the Howard legislation, ignores any commitment to procedural fairness and all avenues for judicial review. The Labor legislation, like the Howard legislation, ignores best science available in order to fast-track the supposedly volunteered dump location. Minister Martin Ferguson’s legislation, like the Howard legislation, completely fails to uphold international best practice, particularly in relation to securing community acceptance of the waste facilities. Article 29 part 2 of the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples states:

States shall take effective measures to ensure that no storage or disposal of hazardous materials shall take place in the lands or territories of indigenous peoples without their free, prior and informed consent.

Yet here is the minister mimicking the Howard government’s best efforts to dump nuclear waste facilities on a community of people who do not want it.

The last two governments didn’t listen to us—you must be different.

The locals wrote that to every member of this House late last year. They said:

We have been fighting for the last five years to say we don’t want the waste dump in the land.

…            …            …

Come and sit with us and hear the stories from the land.

All the while the minister is arguing that his consultations are complete. That is because he inherited the deal done between a select few individuals living in the area and the former government, enabling him to claim that his obligations are finished. As a result, the traditional owners are taking action in the Federal Court. The first hearings of this process are on Friday, which might explain the government’s desire to push this legislation through parliament so quickly.

How did we get to this appalling situation? How did we get from a situation where Labor in opposition claimed that the local community was effectively bribed into accepting the waste dump on their land to a situation where the minister in the Labor government is claiming that this bill is ready to pass while the traditional owners write heartfelt letters to all members of this place asking to have the minister come and meet with them? How is it that a Labor government is pointing to a few individuals with whom a deal has been struck, and using that to claim that the local communities have been consulted and are content with this proposal?

This parliament should be in no doubt as to the regard in which the minister holds its members. The Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee majority report of 7 May 2010 had as its first recommendation, that the minister:

… undertake consultations with all parties with an interest in, or who would be affected by, a decision to select the Muckaty Station site as the location for the national radioactive waste facility.

As recently as December, Senator Sherry, replying to a question on notice asked by my colleague Senator Ludlam in the October Senate estimates, reiterated what we already knew. He said:

The Minister has not met the Indigenous land owners who oppose the nomination …

I struggle to find a more brazen example of the disregard that a minister has for parliamentary process, consultative public policy and basic human rights. Labor, led by Minister Martin Ferguson, is putting a nuclear waste dump on the land of Territorians and Indigenous Australians, who do not want it. If we have any doubt as to what this bill is really about, we need only listen to the person who drafted it, the member for Groom, who spoke before and made the point very clearly that this is the first step in a debate about Australia having a nuclear powered future.

Given the disregard that this government through its spokesperson in the Minister for Resources and Energy has had for the parliament, evident in its stubbornly proceeding with the bill while simultaneously ignoring the recommendation of the Senate inquiry majority report, I move in the terms that have been circulated in this chamber:

That all the words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:“the House declines to give the bill a second reading until the Minister for Resources and Energy acts on recommendation one of the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee majority report of 7 May 2010, namely that the Minister ‘undertake consultations with all parties with an interest in, or who would be affected by, a decision to select the Muckaty Station site as the location for the national radioactive waste facility’.”

I ask all members, whether or not they support nuclear power, whether or not they support nuclear waste being dumped in Central Australia, to ask themselves how they can oppose an amendment that simply asks the minister to meet with the people in whose backyard this waste dump is going to be. I commend the amendment to the House.

Kelvin Thomson (Wills, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the amendment seconded?

Andrew Wilkie (Denison, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Melbourne has moved as an amendment that all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question now is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.

Don Randall (Canning, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to speak on the National Radioactive Waste Management Bill 2010. We know that this current bill seeks to repeal and replace the Commonwealth Radioactive Waste Management Act 2005 and subsequent Commonwealth Radioactive Waste Management Legislation Amendment Act 2006. The National Radioactive Waste Management Bill 2010 will enable a site that is volunteered for consideration for use as a national radioactive waste management facility.

I want to speak on this bill because I think we have to bring some common sense to this parliament and to this nation. That is what this bill does. You cannot be a miner and a user of radioactive material and then say, ‘But we don’t want to dispose of it after its use.’ It is bizarre. It is like a shipping coal to one of our export countries and them saying, ‘We don’t want to use that; we want to send it back to Australia because it might pollute our soil.’ It is a fatuous and silly argument and that is why I expect it is coming largely from the Greens, because on this issue both the Labor Party and the coalition are in agreement.

There has to be a proper management regime for nuclear material being used and properly disposed of. Australia has the capacity to do this. We are a massive nation with all the right ingredients to store the material that we produce and use in a responsible way. Like my coalition colleagues I obviously welcome the progress of this debate throughout the House in establishing a national management facility in Australia. We know that for some years the coalition has recognised the need for such a facility. We need an informed and responsible approach to managing Australia’s radioactive waste. You just cannot pretend that we do not mine it and do not use it.

A facility is crucial to a long-term strategy to managing radioactive waste in Australia and this needs to be gotten on with. For too long it has been dragging on. The Howard government introduced the original legislation in 2005 and here we are six years later in 2011 looking at a rejigged bill which the Labor Party in opposition totally slammed, opportunistically denied, tried to defeat and scared people with. Here today they have re-tweaked the Howard legislation into a bill. That is why we are supporting it: because it is legislation that has to happen, as is said here, in the national interest. We are not fairies at the bottom of the garden who are going to pretend that this is not something that happens in Australia and, if we shut our eyes for long enough and bury our heads in the sand for long enough, it will go away. We need to get on to it, particularly because we have something like 32 cubic metres of spent research reactor fuel returning to Australia in 2015-16 after being processed internationally.

Our hospitals and a whole range of other industries in Australia use radioactive isotopes for accurate cutting and measuring et cetera and those have to be disposed of. To stop them being stored in basements of hospitals and in containers at the back of industrial sites, we need a proper disposal management regime in this country to responsibly deal with the waste that we produce. You could draw a whole lot of parallels about the waste with coal and other fuels and try to relate them to this, but it is so wacky that we have been brought here today to debate this bill. The legislation will pass, no matter what the amendment is that the member for Melbourne has moved in this place, because there is a bipartisan approach to be responsible on this issue, whereas the Greens want to hang their hats on some sort of international scare campaign on nuclear.

Let us look at the wider philosophical debate. The Labor Party do not necessarily come to this issue with clean hands. They have tried for years and years to stick to the old three-mines policy generated back in the days of the Whitlam government and, at the same time, they have tried to rejig and morph the policy so that uranium can be mined at Olympic Dam in South Australia. That is still part of the three-mines policy, even though Rum Jungle in the Northern Territory, for example—which was one of the mines—no longer exists. We have this cute debate, which is ideologically driven, running in this country. Even though we have massive reserves of nuclear material—something like 40 per cent of the world’s known reserves of nuclear material—we are saying that we should not be exporting it. The Labor Party still will not deal with India because it has not signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, yet through the back door India is buying its uranium from countries like Kazakhstan. It is a ‘responsible’ country, of Borat fame, which is supplying material to India through the back door because it can, and we are missing the opportunity. How ridiculous is that! Australia is missing out on an opportunity where we would not only have some control over who buys it and who gets it but also have some control over what is done with it.

Every time you talk about nuclear in this country, the first things you hear about are Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. Three Mile Island and Chernobyl happened decades ago. When people want to talk about them, remember that comparing those archaic facilities at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl with nuclear facilities today is akin to comparing an FJ Holden to a Lamborghini. They were FJ Holdens, and they broke up and fell apart, but nothing in any way like that has happened since. The modern nuclear reactor today delivers clean, unpolluted power. The Greens will say, ‘Shock, horror—nuclear power!’ but there are energy depleted countries in Europe such as France, 70 per cent of whose power generated for domestic use comes from nuclear reactors.

On a study tour I was fortunate enough to do in Italy, I went to the area around Milan and I was told that some years ago they had had a national referendum to ban any future nuclear power generation. Guess what, Mr Deputy Speaker: they are walking away from that now as they are going to build five new nuclear reactors in Italy. Obviously, one of the reasons for that is the games that were being played by the old Russia and its satellite states which cut off the gas to Italy. As a result, their industry came to a grinding halt and they realised that they could not be held to ransom by other states in Europe but had to generate their own power. Because they have no natural resources such as coal, gas and oil to generate power, they are off building new facilities.

Of course, Italy and other countries are going to face the same problems as we are—that is, where to store it. I know the argument about ‘Not in my backyard’. Nobody wants a nuclear reactor built in their backyard—in their electorate. Ask every one of the 150 members of this House, ‘Are you happy to have a nuclear reactor in your electorate?’ and they will say, ‘No way,’ but then behind their hands they will say, ‘But it’s a good idea—it would probably not be a bad idea if we actually had cleanly generated power delivered through a very, very low-cost fuel which Australia generates 40 per cent of.’ It would be the same with the storage. You could ask, ‘Do you want to store nuclear waste in your electorate—in other words, in your backyard?’ The answer would be: ‘Oh no, you can’t do it here.’ It would be terrible—you would have people marching in the streets led by, I expect, the Greens in their little pixie outfits and, as a result, it would not happen. But a solution was arrived at and, as the states reneged on this agreement to go forward, it was decided that somebody needed to volunteer and select the most appropriate site.

My colleague the Hon. Ian McFarlane, the member for Groom, the former Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources and now the shadow minister for energy and resources, said that this bill seeks to find a national radioactive management facility for low- and intermediate-level radioactive waste. It is simply replicating what we have already done, and there is a need for a centralised long-term radioactive management plan and storage. That is simply being cut and pasted by the Labor Party, but the storage facility was eventually found in the Northern Territory at Muckaty Station. The Greens member of this House—who, as I digress, unfortunately got here on Liberal preferences, so we will have to do something about that next time; we saw what happened in Victoria last time, and maybe we should take note of that—just told the House that there is a ‘divided community’ at Muckaty Station.

Can I say to you, ‘Wake up, old son,’ because for all the native title issues throughout this country there can be a whole lot of claimants and title challenges from within the same family. You are seeing this regarding the facility that they want to build in the Kimberley for the processing of gas. One Aboriginal group, led by Mr Roe, is opposed to it, and the other side, led by Wayne Bergmann, who is trying to get decent jobs and income for his people in the region, has endorsed it. The courts endorsed him and two other members to go forward and negotiate before it is taken off them by the Western Australian state government. As a Western Australian, I feel quite passionate about this. We have the potential in our state to further develop the resources sector—the traditional mining of iron ore, gold and nickel; it is the richest mining province in the world—and add nuclear to that, because BHP’s Yeelirrie site is being progressed by a Liberal coalition government. It is sensible and in the national interest to get on with our resource that is used throughout the world for all the proper reasons. At Muckaty Station you will have somebody in the Aboriginal clan, or dynasty, who wants a better deal and wants to be in charge. They will go off to the High Court, as they do—they will probably get legal aid on the way—and will make sure that they string it out for as long as they can. But, at the end of the day, this is the most sensible place. Geologically, it is the most appropriate place. It is geologically stable, from a weather point of view it is dry and lacks in humidity, and no-one, to speak of, lives there. It has a very sparse population. Barely anyone lives in that arid and desolate part of the Northern Territory.

My colleague from the Northern Territory has a few issues with this because the old NIMBY issues come into her backyard, but, at the end of the day, the Commonwealth has found a site. We could look at other territories. I do not suspect that Cocos Islands, Norfolk Island or Lord Howe Island necessarily want to do a deal. They do not have the right geological framework to store this material. But, deep underground, with the technologies that are used now, this is an income for the local Indigenous people to make use of. It is only sensible and right that they are given the opportunity to do this rather than saying, as we hear in this place so often, ‘We know what’s better for you, you poor Indigenous people. You don’t know how to look after your affairs. We’ll look after them for you.’ We can see where that has got them—welfare dependency and all those sorts of things.

So, allow self-determination, allow an income for the people in this part of the world and allow a proper regime in this country that can be managed so that a facility can be built properly in order to get nuclear waste out of hospital basements and the backyards of industrial sites. We need a proper framework in place so that we can go forward. The Labor Party are supporting it and thumbing their noses at the Greens alliance that they are involved in at the moment, because they know that they will get this through the House. This side of the House supports sensible nuclear waste management. I endorse the bill.

Dick Adams (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The purpose of the National Radioactive Waste Management Bill 2010 is to establish a facility for managing, at a single site, radioactive waste currently stored at a host of locations across the country. As has been said, in many capital cities, around hospitals and many other sites, we have a lot of radioactive waste. This bill will ensure the safe and responsible management of this waste arising from medical and industrial areas and the research of radioactive material in Australia. The bill ensures the Commonwealth’s power to make arrangements for the safe and secure management of radioactive waste generated, processed or controlled by the Commonwealth. This has to be done on a voluntary basis. No site can be considered a potential location as a radioactive waste management facility without the voluntary nomination of the site and the agreement of persons with relevant rights and interests.

The sites mentioned that have been considered before include the Harts Ranges, Mount Everard, Alice Springs and Fishers Ridge near Katherine. The bill no longer singles out the Northern Territory as the only location to be considered. The minister must first consider whether a facility can be built on land nominated by a land council in the Northern Territory, including the current nomination. For example, the land councils of the Northern Territory have been given the first opportunity to nominate land to see if it is suitable for a waste facility. If the minister believes that it is suitable, the minister can obtain more information about land rights and interests in the site and also look at the physical site itself. It includes the collection of water and soil samples to help make a decision. Once a site has been selected, it will be put forward for regulatory approval. However, this does not guarantee the establishment of a facility. When all of this has been done and the site fails in some way and it is not feasible, the minister may open the nationwide nomination process. This allows the Ngapa peoples to have procedural fairness in any decision to select a site, including the current nomination at Muckaty Station.

The bill repeals the Commonwealth Radioactive Waste Management Act 2005 and applies a decision-making process based on natural justice. Natural justice puts in place a code of fair procedure. At its core is the hearing rule: a right to be heard by the minister before a decision is reached. The bill also reinstates the Administrative Decision (Judicial Review) Act 1977. This will allow persons aggrieved by a decision to apply for judicial review and ensure a higher level of accountability for decisions. A facility will not be established unless it meets environmental and regulatory requirements under the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, the Australian Radioactive Protection and Nuclear Safety Act 1998 and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation (Safeguards) Act 1987. A regional consultation committee will also be established to communicate with local communities during the environmental and regulatory approval process and the construction and operational stages of the project. This open and informed process will help raise awareness through dialogue, address local concerns and ensure government transparency when establishing a national radioactive waste management facility.

I think we have to be realistic that nuclear waste needs to be stored. The safest way to store it is in our own backyard, as we will then be certain that all the standards for safety and security are met. Any facility built here will store radioactive waste generated, processed or controlled by the Commonwealth or a Commonwealth entity. This is crucial to a long-term strategy for managing radioactive waste in Australia. Of course, that waste is generated in saving lives in hospitals, and it is generated in Australia. We have to take care of our own waste. This government’s intention is that the facility will manage Australia’s waste rather than just the waste from Commonwealth authorities. State waste will be accepted after detailed negotiations with the states have occurred. It is an improvement on our predecessors, who left the states and territories to make their own arrangements for managing these wastes, despite international best practice favouring centralised, purpose-built facilities.

I know there are many storage facilities in Tasmania. They are often the topic of conversation in the press when there is a scare, and there must be many others around this country. When the public becomes aware that they are just down the road, around the corner, underneath where they are working or whatever, people start to get a bit of an idea that there is something that this country must come to grips with, and that is the storage of its nuclear waste. This bill would allow it all to be put into one spot and will minimise the risk of any loss of control. It will help keep control of the radioactive material, therefore making it safer and more secure.

Two important facts provide compelling arguments as to why Australia should be at the forefront of nuclear spent fuel and waste storage research. Australia is a major exporter of uranium and nuclear power. It is the world’s largest and most promising source of low-carbon energy for most countries. In past public debates, proliferation has been the most important issue for objectors to nuclear power, while arguments about waste storage have centred on the technical questions of long-term stability and security of the storage systems. There are good reasons Australia should accept nuclear waste and store spent fuel prior to recycling. One reason is that Australia has a huge area suitable for long-term, relatively dry and geographically stable storage sites that meet that criterion. Most of them are remote from significant human habitation.

Another reason is that Australia is more politically stable than other countries that will inevitably attempt to enter the large-scale business opportunities of storage and handling systems. There is a very good reason why we should exploit our unique capacities in this activity. If we allow nuclear waste to come to Australia, not only do we make the world a safer place and protect our country from the major threat that nuclear waste poses to us but we could earn large sums of foreign exchange. As part of any plan, taking others’ waste could be an industry in itself for us into the future.

The argument about making the world a safer place by taking waste is also considerable. Nuclear waste stored below a desert in Australia is much less likely to become a dirty bomb than waste stored alongside a nuclear reactor in France or America. Making use of fuel rods or, in the future, fuel pellets would greatly reduce the chance of a dirty bomb exploding in a large city—and that is the major risk that waste poses for us. The natural causes of release of waste into the environment are easy to manage in Australia. We run a lower risk of radioactivity reaching our shores from a desert location inland from the Indian Ocean than from temporary storage facilities in California or Japan.

For our own good, we should offer a little patch of Australia to store nuclear waste. It is not a huge amount. Over 50 years Australia has accumulated a total of 4,020 cubic metres of low-level and short-lived intermediate and low-level radioactive waste. About 50 cubic metres is annually accumulated here. We do not produce any high-level waste. Other countries have a lot more, and maybe, in the long term, we might look at storing other people’s waste—of course, at a cost.

I do think that we have to get over the fear of nuclear materials and start understanding what risks there may or may not be by using it. There are fears about all sorts of things, and the best way to deal with that fear is to understand it. We need to understand what we are dealing with. We are beginning to understand a bit more about nuclear energy. New generations are coming to understand that, as we look at the need for a low-carbon future, we certainly have to have a debate on nuclear energy.

The only reason we have not had to do this in Australia is that nuclear is still very expensive compared to other power sources, such as coal. But there may be a day when we will have to consider it—and that day is getting closer all the time. Therefore, we need how best to use it and how to store and secure the waste safely. We need to work towards investigating ways to make the waste less potent and ways to more quickly break down that waste. It is important to have an understanding of the science and to have people with the necessary skill base.

This bill allows many options to be considered. There needs to be full consultation with the people and organisations that may have an interest in the location of such a waste site, and we need the proper checks and balances. This facility should be of great benefit to Australia in many ways. We need to have a debate about nuclear energy in Australia. We need to think about what will happen if we do not clean the coal that we have in the ground. We have 400 years of coal reserves based on present usage. Coal is a major, major fuel for us, but, if we do not find a way to clean it, we will need to look at another source. The Greens, who have spoken in this chamber, are opposed to nuclear energy and to coal. So we could be in trouble if they win the day. I support this bill. I believe it is a good bill and that it will take us forward as a nation.

Alex Hawke (Mitchell, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to endorse the National Radioactive Waste Management Bill 2010 as a long overdue measure this parliament ought to take in implementing what I regard as a vital piece of our national infrastructure. I reject the proposed amendment by the Greens, and I will get to that in a moment. I endorse the comments of the member for Lyons. It is a brave man inside the Labor Party who stands up and calls for the use of nuclear power, and I encourage him to pursue that line. We have seen in recent times union leaders coming forward and saying that they feel that nuclear power is a good way for this country to proceed. We have seen more and more Labor members realising—after decades of inaction—that nuclear is a viable and long-term strategic option in Australia’s interests.

However, I do want to correct the member for Lyons on a couple of points that he made. He contended that the coalition had done nothing in government and that somehow we are here today because of coalition inaction. We are standing here today after 11½ years of coalition policy stating that we need a centralised waste management system because of the intransigence of the Labor Party in opposition. They opposed us in that endeavour. Why did they oppose us? They opposed the centralisation of waste management in Australia because they could not resolve their own internal political tensions. Labor, the Greens and the left of centre in Australian politics have always sought to create fear out of the nuclear issue. That is why I think the comments of the member for Lyons were radically different here today. I endorse his comments, because it is long overdue that the left of centre of Australian politics came to grips with technology and with the realities of the world in 2011.

I say to the member for Lyons that it is not that we are only now learning about the use of nuclear power and how valuable it could be. It has been in operation for decades. Australia has been mining uranium for decades. We have been using the benefits of nuclear medicine for decades. These benefits have been obvious to those people following and interested in the debates on nuclear power, nuclear energy generation and the use of nuclear technology in this country. These benefits have of course escaped the notice of the Labor Party.

In the 2007 election campaign the Labor Party sought to run a series of fear campaigns around this country on the siting of nuclear power plants. The front page of local papers in my electorate of Mitchell carried a big picture of a reactor tower and the words ‘Nuclear plant coming to Mitchell’. That might have been a plan proposed by the member for Werriwa—who I notice is here in the chamber—because that was certainly replicated right across this country, particularly in marginal electorates. I thought that was a shallow and defeatist set of campaign tactics. We have to seriously consider these very important technologies for the future, not cynically campaign politically on such an important and vital part of this country’s future.

We have one of the world’s largest reserves of uranium. We were held back for decades by Labor’s three mines policy. People talk about trade cartels. Labor had a three mines policy for so long in ignorance of the opportunities that we are provided by this fortunate land that we live in. The coalition’s longstanding position has been one of support for this concept, and we support this bill. We are behaving responsibly in opposition. We are behaving in the national interest. For 11½ years we sought to act in the national interest and construct a repository in a suitable location. I note that the member for Solomon is here in the chamber today. She is here in defence of her constituents—and I think she is doing a great job in that regard.

Years ago there was a proposal for a suitable site in northern South Australia. The only reason that facility did not go ahead was Labor Party intransigence by the Rann government. That is what we have seen from state Labor governments around the country: a lack of leadership and a lack of vision for their state and for their country. We have seen short-term temporary politics overtaking long-term national interest and decision making. People in this country are sick of it. No wonder every Labor state Premier is as unpopular as Captain Bligh in the rebellion. No wonder every state wants to reject them. We would have had a centralised waste management facility in a suitable location—which was identified in the report—in northern South Australia many years ago, and everything would have proceeded in a much safer way for ordinary Australians. Labor has been content to allow the storing of radioactive waste containers in car parks, hospitals and inner city areas all around the country—totally unsuitable arrangements. That is why this bill is important. It is why a centralised facility in a suitable location is important to all Australians. We do have to handle the waste that is generated by nuclear activity, and it is something that Labor has opposed.

I want to endorse the remarks of the member for Groom. I think he has a great understanding, as a former Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources, of what this issue represents. In listening to what the member for Lyons had to say, it is interesting to note that, yes, we are a signatory to the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty, and we do have obligations in this country. Yet it seems to me that the Labor Party and the Greens, in particular, are always talking about meeting our international obligations in relation to so many things. We have international obligations for the safe handling of nuclear waste and yet that has not figured in their policies nor in their campaigning for so long. That is why this parliament has to override by necessity—using its powers under section 51—state and territory laws in relation to waste handling. It has to do that. The member for Lyons’s comments, while welcome, are long overdue in this case. The irrationality that has pervaded this debate from members of the Labor Party has been extraordinary.

When you look at the benefits that nuclear technology has brought to us, nuclear medicine today enables doctors to produce quick and accurate diagnoses of a wide range of conditions and diseases in persons of any age. When we look at the provisions of this bill, in Australia we have to recognise that we do not deal with high-level waste. We deal with low- and intermediate-level radioactive waste. It makes sense to centralise, in a safe way, the waste and to have a facility for dealing with it. I think it is odd to hear the remarks in this place, especially by the member for Melbourne, about the benefits of nuclear medicine to increase the standard of health care for all of our citizens and about the benefits of nuclear technology in an advanced and modern society.

The position of the member for Melbourne is that the location in the Northern Territory would be the wrong one, but he has no proposal for where to centralise waste management in this country. It is absolutely unsatisfactory to come into this chamber and say, ‘It’s the wrong place,’ and to have no alternative. I think it is absolutely the wrong position to come in here and say, ‘I really want the benefits of nuclear medicine; I want the advances that come from nuclear technology’—we live in a society where people do enjoy the benefits of it—and then say, ‘We don’t like the waste.’ Radioactive waste is a very unfortunate by-product of this technology. It is the level of technology that we have reached at this time in human development. We have to deal with it in the best way we can and in the most advanced way we can. We cannot be half pregnant on this issue. We cannot have nuclear generating facilities like Lucas Heights in Sydney and hospitals that use nuclear technology and not deal with the waste in the most intelligent fashion that we can. We must.

It is vital that this bill is supported as quickly as possible, and that is why the opposition is moving to do so. I think that the Greens have not just missed the practical and common-sense arguments about the importance of this technology to our country’s health and other benefits; they have also missed their own arguments on climate change. It is no accident that countries like France have so many nuclear power plants and have no problems with nuclear power. With the advances in technology, with fourth and fifth generation plants, and the way it is moving and progressing all around the world, we can move down this path in a very safe fashion. It is not an accident that other countries have lowered their emissions. Australia is one of the highest emitters of carbon, per capita, in the entire world and it is primarily because of our power generation. Everything this government has attempted to do around the edges that has not dealt with power generation is a waste of our time. We have wasted so much time. We can tackle carbon emissions through the use of nuclear power, and we can do so intelligently, in a forward-thinking fashion that provides energy generation for Australians for a long time to come.

It would not be a surprise to those opposite that I am a supporter of nuclear power plants. It would not surprise the member for Werriwa—who may or may not have been the architect of the scare campaign all around Australia about nuclear power plants—that I was not a supporter of the one that was reported on the front page of my newspapers in Mitchell. Mitchell is an unsuitable site for a nuclear power plant, just by virtue of it being in a metropolitan area, and it was wrong of the Labor Party to try to scare my constituents into thinking that there was ever a plan to put a nuclear power plant in Mitchell. It was wrong of them to scare communities across this country that they may have had a nuclear plant coming towards them. That was a wrong thing to do. But I am a supporter of nuclear power. I think there are appropriate sites in a country so large and a population so small.

I think that many of the provisions of this bill are improvements. While it does call for the repeal of the coalition’s previous act, I do think that there have been some improvements made in this bill. However, I also note that much of the original legislation is replicated in the bill before us today. They have not reinvented the wheel. They have fulfilled their promise of repealing the previous act and they have used large sections of the act and added new provisions. So it is a little bit cute of the Labor Party to come in here today and say that the coalition did nothing for 11½ years when, at every turn, the coalition proposed to deal with radioactive waste in the very manner prescribed in this bill. The reason it never came to fruition is that Labor at federal level and state levels across this country opposed it, at every step of the way, for pure political interest. That is why we are here as an opposition behaving differently. We support this bill because it is the right thing to do. We support this bill because we do need a centralised waste management facility in this country to ensure the safety and security of Australians in our metropolitan areas and to ensure that waste is properly handled, sensitively handled, in the right way and the best way that we know how. That is why I support this bill.

Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I also take the opportunity to speak on and support the National Radioactive Waste Management Bill 2010. As Chair of the Standing Committee on Climate Change, Environment and the Arts, this morning I presented an advisory report on the National Radioactive Waste Management Bill 2010 to this House. I will take the opportunity to very quickly summarise some of the points I made when I presented that report, and in doing so I also hope to respond to some of the comments made by the member for Melbourne.

This morning I pointed out to the House that this bill in fact replaces the 2005 act introduced by the previous, coalition government—the Commonwealth Radioactive Waste Management Act 2005. It is also a bill that was redrafted after having been presented to a Senate select committee early in 2010. Having been redrafted, it was presented to the House on 21 October last year at which time it was then referred to the Standing Committee on Climate Change, Environment and the Arts for consideration. There were no terms of reference for the inquiry, as is the case when a bill is referred to a committee, and so the committee determined the basis on which it would conduct its inquiry. In doing so, it looked at the very long history associated with the management of nuclear matters in this country. It ultimately made a report to the House.

The member for Melbourne was appointed as a supplementary member to the committee for the purpose of the inquiry into this bill. He in turn submitted a dissenting report. I say to the member for Melbourne: I respect his right to disagree with the work and findings of the committee. He is entitled to do that, but I believe he is wrong in attacking the members of the committee, who, I should point out, were unanimous in their recommendation to the House of the report that I presented this morning. In my view, the members of that committee did their work very diligently and took the matter very seriously. The fact that the committee was able to conclude its work within a four-week time frame in no way belittles the commitment of the committee or the work that was carried out.

The committee carefully analysed the matters that had taken place up to the point where this bill had been referred to the committee. Amongst those matters was the fact that since 2005 there had previously been on four occasions matters referred to a Senate committee associated with this very issue. On all of those occasions reports were brought back. I have done a quick count of the number of public submissions that were made in the course of those four reports alone, and there were something like 637 public submissions on this issue made prior to the committee making its decision.

Prior to that, there had also been a long-running history of public debate, public discussions and public consultations on a whole range of matters, again, very much associated with the matter that is before us. Having taken all of those matters into account, the committee determined that it would conduct its inquiry on the basis of three key areas. One was in terms of the very last report of the Senate select committee, which reported in May of last year, only some five or six months before the bill was reintroduced to the House. The committee determined to consider, firstly, to what extent the minister had taken into account the recommendations of that committee; secondly, the principle matters of concern raised in the dissenting report of the Senate select committee by Senator Scott Ludlam; and, thirdly, the critical issues associated with the differences of opinion with respect to the nomination of Muckaty Station as a site to be considered. On the basis of those three matters, the committee proceeded with its inquiry. I will take each of those matters separately.

In respect of Muckaty Station, the government was prepared to honour an agreement with the traditional owners of Muckaty in 2007; in fact, a nomination deed had already been signed with the traditional owners of Muckaty Station at the time. That deed still stands, and my understanding is that the minister met with a delegation of the Ngapa clan and executive members of the Northern Land Council in Darwin on 3 March 2010. At that meeting they confirmed their continuing support of their nomination. On that basis, it would seem clear to me that it would be in breach of an agreement properly entered into with a group of people for the government to do anything other than honour that nomination and agreement. Furthermore, the minister has made it quite clear that, should the matter of the Muckaty Station nomination being currently challenged in the Federal Court result in anything different, then the minister would honour the court’s decision.

I also stress the point that the nomination with respect to Muckaty Station is currently before the Federal Court. It was taken to court by an Indigenous person who claims that he was not properly consulted and not in agreement with the nomination. The committee considered that and the seriousness of that statement. In doing so, it felt that the appropriate place for such a matter to be resolved is in fact in the courts and not by a public inquiry of the committee.

I repeat what I said a moment ago: the minister has made it clear that the government will respect whatever the court’s decision is. Again I stress that whilst the committee in no way implied or intended to suggest that the nomination process was not being questioned, the committee also felt that the proper place for that to be resolved was in the courts and not by the committee, and that is exactly what is happening.

With respect to the other matters raised by Senator Scott Ludlam in his dissenting report, which have essentially been raised again by the member for Melbourne in his dissenting report to the report by the standing committee of this House that I presented this morning, they essentially come down to questions of safety matters associated with both the nuclear industry and the environment. Again, the committee quite rightly accepts that those are legitimate matters of concern. The committee, however, is also very conscious of the fact that this is essentially a three-step process: a site is nominated; the minister makes a determination as to whether the nominated site becomes selected after a process has been gone through; and then, if the relevant hurdles are overcome, a site is chosen for the development of a radioactive nuclear waste facility.

For the selection process, there are three critical acts that will come into play before a final decision is made. Nomination of a site does not imply, nor does it guarantee, that the site will in fact be chosen to establish such a facility. Prior to that occurring, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act will apply with respect to protection of the environment, therefore any procedural aspects associated with public consultation, public submissions and environment protection matters are covered in the framework of that act. Secondly, with respect to radioactive matters and nuclear safety, both the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Act 1998 and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation (Safeguards) Act 1987 also apply and both need to be complied with prior to a decision being made. If there are concerns about this site being suitable or that it may not meet international standards, then those concerns need to be addressed by implementing changes to those two acts, because they create the framework under which the approval will ultimately be granted. If there is a deficiency, the deficiency lies in those two acts, not in the act that we are currently debating. Therefore, again, the committee was satisfied that matters of nuclear safety and environmental protection were adequately covered in the process which follows the nomination process, because those acts are still relevant.

The third matter raised in the dissenting reports relates to judicial review and procedural fairness. In the revised bill that we are now debating, those matters have in fact been embraced by the minister. Certainly the procedural fairness does not apply retrospectively to the nomination of the Muckaty site. That matter has been dealt with and an agreement or deed has been entered into with the Ngapa people. With respect to any future nomination or any other nomination, judicial review and procedural fairness will apply. And judicial review and procedural fairness will apply once a nomination is made even with respect to the Muckaty Station site.

So the process from here on in provides for all of those matters to be taken into account. That is certainly my understanding. On that basis the committee felt that the bill as it currently stands should not only come to parliament but should be supported because the government has responded quite responsibly to the matters that were raised in the course of the public inquiries. In essence, we—the committee—accept that ultimately there will be differences of opinion about a range of matters and we accept that there will be ideological differences between people throughout the community and between members within this parliament. We also accept, however, that this matter has been ongoing for almost 11 years now, under the previous bill and now this bill.

We have some 4,000 cubic metres of low-level and short-lived intermediate-level-radiation material, which has accumulated over the last 50 years and is currently housed in various places around the nation. It is my view, as it has been the view of several other speakers here tonight, that it makes much more sense to have a properly constructed facility to store that material. That is exactly what this bill hopes to do. If the particular site that has been nominated falls through, then the process from here on in is that, firstly, it will be on the basis of a voluntary nomination, so a site has to be volunteered by a community. Secondly, anyone throughout Australia can nominate a site, whereas the previous act restricted it to the Northern Territory. Thirdly, once a site has been nominated, matters of judicial review and procedural fairness will entirely apply.

In his second reading speech the Minister for Resources and Energy went through, I believe quite thoroughly, each of the matters associated with this bill and why we need to proceed with it. We certainly will continue to accumulate nuclear waste. We certainly have had the debate about where it is best located—and, again, I accept comments by a previous speaker that nobody ever wants to have the nuclear waste in their backyard. The reality, however, is that it needs to be stored somewhere. It is my view that if you go through a thorough process, which this bill certainly does, both of complying with all the relevant acts and of ensuring you have a site that is best suited geologically for the storage of waste material, you should then proceed to develop a facility. That is what this bill does. It is my view that we should support the bill.

Josh Frydenberg (Kooyong, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in favour of the National Radioactive Waste Management Bill 2010, which repeals the Commonwealth’s Radioactive Waste Management Act 2005. The bill will lead to the establishment of a facility managing in a single site radioactive waste. This is important because radioactive waste in Australia is currently stored in multiple sites, and this creates handling and storage concerns that could otherwise be allayed with the creation of the single secure repository. Over the last five decades Australia has accumulated approximately 4,000 cubic metres of low-level and short lived intermediate-level radioactive waste. In stark contrast, and as has been pointed out in this House, Britain and France produce on an annual basis approximately 25,000 cubic metres of such waste. Low-level waste, according to the second reading speech of the Minister for Resources and Energy, includes:

... lightly contaminated light laboratory waste such as paper, plastic, glassware and protective clothing, contaminated soil, smoke detectors and emergency exit signs.

Intermediate level waste arises from the production of nuclear medicines, from overseas reprocessing of spent research reactor fuel and from disused medical and industrial sources such as radiotherapy sources and soil moisture meters.

In the words of Dr Adrian Paterson, the CEO of the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, who testified to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee:

The current situation where radioactive waste is held in over 100 separate locations around Australia is not conducive to the safety and security of that material, nor is it consistent with international best practice.

He goes on to say:

The opportunity that this legislation provides is for that management practice to now be established at a national level and to be available nationally to all of the small holders of these used sources and the orphan sources in Australia.

So here we have it, the technical experts and the people we trust to protect our safety advising us that this bill will make a positive difference. Critically, passage of this bill is urgent and the Greens tactics to delay it should not be supported because Australian spent fuel waste, which was transported to France and Scotland, will be transported back to Australia in 2015-16 and will need to be immediately and safely stored.

While the coalition supports this bill, it is important to acknowledge that during the years of the Howard government, when we advocated and legislated for a single national facility, the Labor Party at a federal level and Labor governments at a state and territory level put up obstacles at every turn and did their best to impede progress. The Rann South Australian Labor government in 2003 and the Martin Labor Northern Territory government made clear their opposition to coalition efforts to find a suitable central repository. Julia Gillard’s hypocrisy in taking to the election a policy that would repeal the coalition’s 2005 Radioactive Waste Management Act seems hollow in light of the bill that they have now put before the House.

This bill assumes many of the features of the coalition’s legislation and will still see Muckaty Station in the Northern Territory remain a potential site for radioactive waste. It is a site that was selected during the coalition government’s process after nomination, importantly, by the Northern Land Council. In the telling words of the Greens, Labor’s bill is ‘a cut and paste’ from the previous Howard government. This grandstanding from Julia Gillard and her party is both typical and cynical. But more dangerous than the ALP on this important issue is the Greens, who according to their election platform want to close down the reactor at Lucas Heights. This retrograde step must never be allowed to get traction.

Radioactive materials in Australia are being put to valuable use in the fields of medicine and industry. The Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation is responsible for providing 85 per cent of nuclear medicines to hospitals in Australia and in so doing helping to treat patients who are suffering from a range of diseases, including cancer. According to the Minister for Resources and Energy, around 500,000 patients annually benefit from radioisotopes in medical procedures. These facilities are clearly important to our society and need to be continued and supported.

As has been made clear by the member for Groom in his statement to this House, the debate about this bill provides an important opportunity for the leadership of the Labor Party to declare itself in favour of a comprehensive and immediate debate about pursuing the benefits of a civilian nuclear power industry. As we all know, the member for Batman is ahead of the pack and leading his colleagues out from underneath their ideological covers. Bob Hawke, who said of nuclear power, ‘It is intellectually unsustainable to rule it out as a possibility,’ and that quotable AWU leader, Paul Howes, are among the other outspoken nuclear proponents. Nuclear power is a carbon neutral baseload energy source. With Australia’s energy needs to double in coming decades and our desire where possible to transition to a less carbon intensive economy, we must consider nuclear energy in the mix. The facts tell the story. Australia is home to 38 per cent of the world’s known recoverable uranium reserves and we export it to more than 10 countries, to which we should add India immediately.

With 31 countries hosting 440 reactors in the world today and more than 55 reactors currently under construction, nearly half of them in China alone, the international message is clear: get on board because you are already being left behind. New technology is getting more cost-effective and power plants quicker to build. Decades of experience since the explosions at Chernobyl and Three Mile Island indicate that reactors are inherently safer too. Ziggy Switkowski, the pre-eminent voice in the Australian nuclear debate and until recently chairman of ANSTO, believes Australia can have its first operating reactor by 2020 and 50 in place by 2050 providing 90 per cent of Australia’s energy needs. This message has already been heard loud and clear by the Democrat American President, Barack Obama, who recently committed $1 billion in federal loan guarantees for the next-generation reactors, and the former Labour Prime Minister of Great Britain, Gordon Brown, who described nuclear power as ‘a fundamental precondition of preparing Britain for a new world’.

If it was good enough for the American Democrats and the British Labour Party to enthusiastically embrace nuclear power, why is it not good enough for their left-of-centre political cousins here in Australia? To paraphrase Paul Keating, they are still back down in the time tunnel. Australia’s long-term energy future requires a comprehensive and bipartisan debate about nuclear power. This is long overdue. It is time Julia Gillard took the lead. So, too, is Australia overdue in finding an appropriate and secure facility to store our existing stockpile of radioactive nuclear waste. This bill meets this end and I commend it to the House.

Melissa Parke (Fremantle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The National Radioactive Waste Management Bill 2010 is intended to repeal the Commonwealth Radioactive Waste Management Act 2005 and put in place a proper process to establish a facility for managing, at a single site, radioactive waste arising from medical, industrial and research uses of radioactive material. I fully support the repeal of the Commonwealth Radioactive Waste Management Act 2005, which the Howard Government rammed through the parliament and which was described variously as ‘extreme’, ‘arrogant’, ‘heavy-handed’, ‘draconian’, ‘sorry’, ‘sordid’, ‘extraordinary’ and ‘profoundly shameful’.

In 2008, the Senate Environment, Communications and Arts Committee found that the CRWMA legislation was unfair and discriminatory, that consultations and decision-making processes should reflect the interests of all clan groups in the immediate area, that a new foundation for building Australia’s nuclear waste policy was needed and that the legislation should be repealed. There is now a new bill before the House which itself has been the subject of some debate.

The area in question is a place north of Tennant Creek known as Muckaty Station. It has become the proposed site as a result of an agreement between the Howard government and the Northern Land Council. I understand that the class of traditional owners is disputed and is the subject of a Federal Court action at the present time. There are nevertheless a number of Aboriginal communities from the Ngapa, Milwayi, Wintirku, Ngarrka and Yapakurla groups in the Muckaty area identifying themselves as the traditional owners of the Manuwangku/Warlmanpa Land Trust who strongly object to a nuclear waste dump in the vicinity of their land.

I note the concerns expressed about the bill by the former member for Solomon, Damian Hale, in a speech in this place on 18 March 2010, and by the member for Barkly in the Northern Territory, Gerry McCarthy, in a submission to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Committee dated 5 March 2010. In that submission, Mr McCarthy said he supported ‘the development of safe and secure processes for the transport and storage of Australia’s nuclear waste on a national level with reference to the security of our generation and our future generations’. However, Mr McCarthy also said: ‘If the decision is based on the testimony of an extended family group living far-removed from Muckaty Station then the total dislocation of the Waramungu and Warlmanpa tribal communities of the Barkly that I represent is at stake … Any determination to proceed without direct, open and accountable consultation with the wider contemporary Indigenous community representing the neighbouring clans, moiety and tribal groups of the central Barkly will effectively lead to generational division and conflict among the very people the Minister has set out to support.’

I am aware that the road to this point has been long and tortuous and that there is a desire to achieve a solution to the vexed issue of the disposal of nuclear waste produced in Australia. Nevertheless, a number of issues have been raised with respect to the bill and I would like to speak to some of them. The first is the issue of community consent. The international human rights principles set out in the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, require the ‘free, prior and informed consent’ of affected communities. While the Northern Land Council signed off on this deal with the previous government some years ago in circumstances that are unclear, it is clear that the persons affected by a radioactive waste storage facility go well beyond persons who have a formal proprietary interest in the land on which the facility is constructed.

The bill allows ‘persons with a right or interest in the subject land’ to comment upon the proposed approval of a nomination and declaration of a selected site. It is indicated in the explanatory memorandum, and I am assured by the minister’s office that the phrase ‘persons with a right or interest in the land’ is to be interpreted broadly in accordance with normal administrative law and natural justice principles to mean all persons affected by the proposed approvals and declarations. Second, the bill provides that a failure to comply with the procedural and due process provisions in the proposed legislation, including requirements for consultation with affected communities, will not invalidate nominations or ministerial decisions. Again, I am assured by the minister’s office that these provisions relate only to technical breaches of the procedural and due process provisions and will not permit wholesale abrogation of the right of interested parties to be fully consulted. Further, concerns have been raised that the minister’s absolute discretion in relation to declarations and approvals is not required by the legislation to be constrained or shaped by criteria such as community consent or other scientific, environmental, social, cultural or economic considerations. I am, however, assured that all such considerations will be taken into account in the context of the required assessments under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act.

I conclude by making the general observation that we should always guard against the notion that remoteness equates to emptiness, which seems to be the view of the member for Canning who said, when speaking on this bill a little earlier today, ‘no-one lives there’. I am not at all suggesting that such a view informs this bill—I know it does not—but it is important to acknowledge that there are people affected by this proposed legislation whose geographical situation means, at the very least, that they tend to have less access to the nerve centres of policy and politics. That makes it critical that we acknowledge that such people have a deep and abiding connection to the land and that they are, and always be will be, entitled to have their views listened to and taken into account.

Natasha Griggs (Solomon, Country Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today during this debate on the National Radioactive Waste Management Bill 2010 to express my concerns about the proposed nuclear waste facility at Muckaty Station in the Northern Territory. My opposition to this waste facility is well known and it was a key issue in my electorate during the last election.

I oppose the placement of the proposed nuclear waste facility at Muckaty Station in the Northern Territory. My concerns relate to complaints by some of the traditional owners of a lack of appropriate consultation, and the minister’s failure to adequately respond to the Senate inquiry into the dump laws. The government has also failed to show the respect due to the traditional owners of the land, by not properly consulting them about plans for a nuclear waste dump at Muckaty Station north of Tennant Creek.

I understand that the minister is yet to meet with all of the Aboriginal people who claim an interest in Muckaty Station, or those who claim to be the traditional owners. Minister Ferguson should travel to the Northern Territory and meet them and hear their concerns and the concerns of all Territorians. I believe that the Gillard government is not showing sufficient respect for the views of the Northern Territory community about this issue.

From my perspective, the federal government is ignoring or overriding legislation which was passed in the Northern Territory parliament and which seeks to ban the imposition of nuclear dumps: the Northern Territory Nuclear Waste Transport, Storage and Disposal (Prohibition) Act 2004. Territorians and the people in my electorate want our concerns to be taken seriously and we want a proper consultation process with the local community most impacted by the decision to locate this waste facility at Muckaty Station. I do not believe these are unreasonable requests.

I am a committed team player and a strong supporter of the current leadership of Tony Abbott and Julie Bishop, and yet I must take a different position on this issue because I undertook to my electorate during the last election that I would stand up for them. I remain true to my commitment to the people of my electorate and I remain opposed to this decision.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise tonight to speak on the National Radioactive Waste Management Bill 2010. I rise in support of the bill before the House. At the outset, though, I put on the record that I have no time for uranium mining or for the use of uranium as a form of energy source in Australia. So it is odd, in some respects, for me to be talking on a radioactive waste bill but I have been passionately opposed for a very long time to the mining and use of nuclear material because I do not think we have resolved what you do with the waste at the end of the day. This bill articulates the issues around the consequences of using nuclear material. This bill deals with safe, low-level waste. Across Australia there is a substantial amount of it stored in very vulnerable, unsafe situations. The majority of our public and private hospitals probably have some form of low-level nuclear waste sitting in storage somewhere and the people in those buildings do not even know it is there. Nuclear medicine is something that we have fostered, enhanced and utilised in Australia to great effect but the by-product of that nuclear medicine is low-level nuclear waste and at some stage we in Australia must take responsibility for that waste and put it into a storage facility.

This bill is about finally biting the bullet and saying, ‘We are going to have a sensible debate—a sensible discussion—about where that waste will be stored.’ We can procrastinate for yet more and more years. We can have more and more inquiries. We can agree with the Greens and conduct another endless inquiry—as the Senate has done on so many occasions that we are losing count—or we can finally say, ‘Yes, we accept that nuclear waste of low-level radioactive material must be placed somewhere,’ and put it into a safe depository.

Time is of the essence. In 2015-16 material that Australia has sent overseas for processing will be returned. It will be arriving on a ship on our shores sometime soon and it needs to be put somewhere safe. So I want us to have the discussion about where that ‘somewhere safe’ will be.

The act also quite clearly states that a decision that is made about a site is made on a voluntary basis with all natural justice issues being considered. We then go into a four- to five-year process of determining the environmental suitability of the site and ensuring that where the site is established there is community consultation. Once the site is approved there is then another four to five years of legislative framework to go through before a site can be established.

The previous speaker, the member for Solomon, was speaking up for her community and I commend her for that. I think that was a very brave stance. She is standing up for her community but she is a bit misled and a bit misguided, because it was the previous, Howard government that signed the deal with Muckaty Station. That was the deal that the Labor Party determined that we would not quash. We would not enter into an agreement with individuals and ignore that.

But the bill does not say Muckaty Station will become the depository site. It does not actually enact Muckaty Station. It very clearly states, ‘We will again start the process of looking for appropriate sites on a voluntary basis and we will then enter into community consultation.’ Unfortunately, I did not hear the other speakers—I was in the chair upstairs—but I am sure that other people have mentioned that the current Muckaty Station is, in fact, part of a dispute in the courts at this moment, and it would be highly inappropriate for members of parliament to influence that ongoing Federal Court dispute.

We need to at some stage say, ‘Yes, there is somewhere for the waste to go. There is somewhere sensible for the waste to be placed.’ We need to be making that decision so that we can go down the path of community consultation and environmental establishment and not put this off to the never-never on the NIMBY process.

I will be honest. As I said at the outset, I am totally opposed to uranium mining; I am totally opposed to the use of uranium as a form of energy within Australia. But I understand that we have a responsibility to the waste we already have—to manage that appropriately, to place it somewhere sensibly, and to ensure that we enter into a rational dialogue with the individuals who may be exposed to where this site is placed. We cannot put off that debate for ever and ever. I commend the bill to the House.

Martin Ferguson (Batman, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Resources and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I welcome the opportunity to respond to what has largely been a constructive debate to what is a very important bill, the National Radioactive Waste Management Bill 2010. I begin by thanking the Standing Committee on Climate Change, Environment and the Arts for its advisory report into this bill, because it has very much been part of the debate before the House this evening.

As the committee noted, since 2005 radioactive waste management legislation has been the subject of four previous parliamentary inquiries, providing opportunities for consideration of evidence and submissions from members of the public. Members of the public were invited to comment on the bill last year during an inquiry by the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. The report notes that ‘the government’s bill has substantially addressed the recommendations of the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee’.

Whilst I will not go into detail on the debate and the contribution by all members, I will spend a little more time responding to the dissenting report of the member for Melbourne and addressing some of the assumptions contained therein, including his contribution to the debate this evening. The honourable member and his party colleagues are playing an old political game. On the one hand they express support for establishing a single national radioactive waste facility and then with the other they erect every conceivable barrier to prevent this realisation. I simply note that the process leading to this bill in Australia commenced in 1988. It is time that we fronted up to our responsibilities.

Based on his dissenting report and subsequent media statements, and reinforced in his contribution this evening, the member for Melbourne does not support the concept of a national radioactive waste facility. For instance, the member for Melbourne suggests that this bill allows the minister to make a decision that is not scientifically informed. The truth is that the bill’s framework is solidly underpinned by sound science. In 2009, extensive biophysical studies were completed and presented to the government by Parsons Brinckerhoff on the current nominated site.

Under the bill, similarly detailed site studies will be conducted for any other land nominated and being seriously considered as a site before any ministerial decision to select a site for full regulatory assessment. Any selected site would be referred for assessment under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. The facility will be subject to regulatory requirements of the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Act 1998 as well as those of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation (Safeguards) Act 1987. The bill ensures that these fundamental requirements are not bypassed—nor should they be. Against this framework and given the undoubted intelligence of the member for Melbourne, it is tempting to conclude that ‘sound science’ is simply a euphemism for an outcome that he agrees with.

The member for Melbourne’s dissenting report also suggests that there is something inherently wrong with the Commonwealth passing laws within its legislative competence that are inconsistent with or contrary to state legislation. This is not a view of the writers of our Constitution, who made specific provision in section 109 to allow for the supremacy of this parliament’s laws. Some examples, for the information of the member for Melbourne, of Commonwealth legislation overriding state law are the Native Title Act, the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Act and, of course, the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act 1983. Perhaps the honourable member for Melbourne could raise the repeal of these acts, particularly the latter, in his next party room meeting! Perhaps he now wants the Franklin River dam to actually be built!

It makes sense that these overriding provisions operate only to the extent necessary for the facility to be established and to operate as intended. Surely it is appropriate that an Australian government facility intended to benefit the whole of Australia should be regulated through Commonwealth laws and no single state and territory law should have the capacity to frustrate a benefit going to all others. The fact is that the member for Melbourne and his colleagues erect these straw men as arguments because of their ideological opposition to all things nuclear.

Perhaps, in terms of his argument about whether or not the Commonwealth should override state laws, he should also have a more detailed discussion with the member for Denison on his desire for the Commonwealth to legislate with respect to potentially overriding state and territory laws on the issue of gambling in Australia—proposed legislation supported by the Greens party room.

Need I point out that around 500,000 patients annually benefit from radio isotopes in medical procedures such as cancer diagnosis and treatment. Australians, including the Greens and the member for Melbourne, are responsible for creating nuclear waste from the use of mobile phones, iPods and computers. Accepting the benefit of these technologies means that we are all responsible for finding a safe location based on science to store Australia’s nuclear waste. As a community, we have failed miserably in this endeavour since 1988. As a 2010 Victorian Auditor-General’s report into hazardous waste stated:

… there is little assurance that hazardous waste is stored and disposed of appropriately.

The bill the government has introduced is aimed at ensuring that radioactive waste from the production and use of nuclear medicine and other essential applications is managed properly, subject to full scientific assessment and regulatory approvals. On this point, I also reinforce to this House that the intended facility will only store radioactive waste generated, possessed or controlled by the Commonwealth of Australia or a Commonwealth entity—no other country’s waste. The law of Australia prevents Australia from storing the waste of any other country.

In terms of the issue of Victoria, I simply say that the bill that the government has introduced is aimed at ensuring that radioactive waste from the production and use of nuclear medicine is appropriately stored. Indeed, the member for Melbourne ought to be aware of the following facilities in his own electorate, which neighbours my electorate of Batman in the northern suburbs of Melbourne, which use nuclear material in medical and other research: the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, the Royal Children’s Hospital, St Vincent’s Hospital and the University of Melbourne. Radioactive waste is stored at Peter MacCallum, right in the middle of Melbourne, and there is also a significant amount of material at Melbourne university. All four sites produce the same kind of waste, which will be managed under the provisions of this bill. This waste is therefore routinely transported throughout his electorate and many other electorates of the Commonwealth parliament—without, to my knowledge, any demonstrations against it by the honourable member or candidates from his party.

A national radioactive waste management facility is an essential element of a long-term strategy to manage Australia’s radioactive waste. Perhaps the most sensitive issue that has been exploited by the Greens and the Australian Conservation Foundation—who have been hand in glove with the Greens on this issue—has been their opposition to this bill in terms of traditional owners. I remind the House that traditional ownership of land in the Northern Territory is established through processes set out in the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976. Generally, this involves the Aboriginal land commissioner conducting hearings and publishing a report which the relevant land council considers in reaching its conclusions on who are the legitimate traditional owners.

Muckaty is a large cattle station covering 238,000 hectares, with seven clans, each with traditional ownership of a separate and distinct area of land. In relation to the land presently nominated as a site for the national radioactive waste facility, following the well-accepted process I have outlined, the Northern Land Council concluded in 2007 that the traditional owners were the Ngapa clan. Under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act only traditional owners are empowered to consent to third party use of Aboriginal land. This was the basis on which approval has previously been given by the Ngapa people for a railway, a gas pipeline and mining projects on Muckaty Station.

Contrary to the suggestion by the Australian Greens and the ACF, it is inconsistent with the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act to suggest that all traditional-land-owning groups on Muckaty Station must give their consent for all decisions about third party use of land on Muckaty Station. Against this background, it would clearly be inappropriate for a minister to treat a group of Indigenous people as traditional owners of a particular piece of land when an independent land council has made a different decision. One might say that it also flies in the face of Indigenous self-determination, something we on this side of the House long fought for.

I remind the House that there were Federal Court proceedings challenging the Northern Land Council’s consultation with traditional owners in nominating the land. I cannot speak for the honourable member for Melbourne, but the Gillard government will accept the court’s decision on this matter. However, we do know that throughout these court proceedings the Greens have consistently suggested that the Northern Land Council have got the wrong traditional owners and that the right traditional owners were not consulted. To present this as a matter of fact is to pre-empt the Federal Court’s decision.

As a former member of the Melbourne bar and officer of the court, the member for Melbourne should know it is unethical to pre-empt a decision of the court for political gain. It speaks volumes about the nature of his political ethics and those of the Greens and the ACF that each feel they can legitimately pick and choose who is and who is not a traditional owner. In the Labor Party we do not pick and choose traditional owners to suit our political circumstances or campaigns we seek to pursue for short-term political gain. We respect due process. We respect land councils. We respect Indigenous self-determination, which is facilitated by the Northern Land Council. The Greens respect only those that agree with them.

In conclusion, this bill will allow for the siting, construction and operation of a radioactive waste management facility. The legislative framework is based on volunteerism in identifying a site. Establishing the facility will be conditional on comprehensive environmental and other regulatory approval processes. These are conducted independent of the project proponents and ensure Australia adheres to international best practice. In commending the bill to the House, I indicate to the House that the government opposes the second reading amendment of the member for Melbourne.

If I were to undertake consultation as the minister at the present time, it would have to be pursuant to the terms of the existing act, which we seek to repeal this evening. I am not prepared to enter into negotiations with third parties on the basis of an act that does not allow procedural fairness and other protections, and whilst the Federal Court is considering issues associated with the determination of traditional ownership and the site nomination of the Ngapa. As I have indicated on many occasions, I await and will respect the Federal Court decision. As soon as this bill is passed and litigation concludes, I will consult widely with the parties that have rights, interests or legitimate expectations with respect to any nomination.

In actual fact, this bill for the first time gives me as the minister potential to actually consult beyond the traditional owners with what could be broadly described as affected parties. That capacity does not currently exist in terms of the act that operates with respect to the issue of siting a nuclear repository in Australia at the moment. Indeed, unlike the Howard government’s legislation that we are seeking to repeal, this bill will enable those consultations to occur subject to judicial review and procedural fairness.

Can I also say in response to some of the contributions that this debate is not about nuclear power; it is about our basic and fundamental responsibility to meet our international obligations to establish a single national nuclear repository in Australia in accordance with our international obligations.

Andrew Wilkie (Denison, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Wilkie interjecting

Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Bandt interjecting

Martin Ferguson (Batman, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Resources and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, the interventions speak in terms of what I regard as the rampant hypocrisy of the member for Melbourne, time and time again seeking to pursue short-term political activities using traditional owners to suit his own short-term political needs. He stands condemned. It is time for the Australian parliament to front up to its responsibilities and to actually ensure that we store our waste, which is basically used to look after the health and wellbeing of Australians, with half a million Australians per year benefiting from nuclear medicine. I commend the bill to the House and reject the amendment moved by the member for Melbourne.

Kirsten Livermore (Capricornia, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Melbourne has moved as an amendment that all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question. There being more than one voice calling for a division, in accordance with standing 133(b) the division is deferred until 8 pm.

Debate adjourned.