Annette Ellis (Canberra, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak on the Commonwealth Radioactive Waste Management Legislation Amendment Bill 2006. This bill is about the Howard government using Commonwealth power to impose a nuclear waste dump on the people of the Northern Territory, in particular on traditional landowners. But do not think that it will end there. Following the release of the government’s nuclear inquiry report last week, we can assume that the Howard government will use Commonwealth power to impose nuclear waste dumps and nuclear power stations on unwilling states and territories right around Australia—but I will discuss that a little later. First, let us look at the developments of this bill and why the Howard government is so desperate to impose a nuclear dump on the Northern Territory.

The Commonwealth has approximately 3,600 cubic metres of low-level waste, half of which is at Woomera, and produces around 30 cubic metres of low-level waste per year. The Commonwealth also has approximately 400 cubic metres of intermediate-level waste in Australia, and generates less than five cubic metres per year. Intermediate-level waste generated from spent fuel has been sent to France—6½ cubic metres—and the UK—26½ cubic metres.

The waste dump is needed and intended to house waste from, firstly, the new reactor, the Open Pool Australian Light-Water Reactor, or OPAL, presently under construction; the old reactor, the High Flux Australian Reactor or HIFAR, which is still operational; returning waste from France and the United Kingdom; defence waste, held at various sites around Australia, including contaminated soil from the Woomera test sites; Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation or CSIRO accelerator waste; and other Commonwealth waste.

In 2004, the government stated that it would cease trying to place a national low-level dump site near Woomera in South Australia and was going to pursue sites on Commonwealth land, both onshore and offshore. These sites would now co-locate low-level and intermediate-level waste.

Just prior to the 2004 federal election, the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Senator Ian Campbell, ruled out the Northern Territory for a dump site: ‘The Commonwealth is not pursuing any options anywhere on the mainland, so we can be quite categorical about that, because the Northern Territory is on the mainland.’ That was a revelation for him, I am sure!

In June 2005, the member for Solomon stated:

There’s not going to be a national nuclear waste facility in the Northern Territory. That was the commitment undertaken in the lead-up to the federal election and I haven’t heard anything apart from that view expressed since that election.

In July 2005, the government did what it does best: it went back on its word. It announced that it would investigate three locations in the Northern Territory to determine the most suitable location for a waste dump. In contradiction of its pre-election commitment and in the face of strong opposition from the Territory government and local communities, it decided to impose its wish. The government introduced the Commonwealth Radioactive Waste Management Bill 2005 to enable it to impose a radioactive waste dump on the Northern Territory. While I will not go into the technical legalities of the bill, I have to say that it excluded many of the procedural guarantees that normally allow a decisions to be made under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976. In other words, it destroyed the existing or possible rights of Aboriginal people to fight against having a waste dump imposed on them. Indigenous people would have no recourse to procedural fairness provisions for anyone wishing to challenge the minister’s decision to put a waste dump in the Northern Territory.

Labor strongly opposed the 2005 bill because of the impact it would have had on the voice of the Indigenous people and also for several other reasons: firstly, the government broke its pre-election promise not to locate a waste dump in the Northern Territory; secondly, it tramples over the rights of all Northern Territorians by overriding any existing or future state or territory law or regulation which interferes with the Commonwealth’s waste dump site selection; and, thirdly, it disregards the International Atomic Energy Agency’s recommendations on good social practices like consultation and transparency in relation to nuclear waste. I say in passing that this government tends to ignore those sorts of social practices on a range of issues, not just this one.

It is important to note that we have discovered in Senate estimates that the government has had discussions with the Northern Land Council on possible sites for radioactive waste. Unfortunately, the government will not reveal the content of those discussions but, in departmental briefings, officers have not denied that the purpose of the 2006 bill is to facilitate or encourage a site nomination from the Northern Land Council.

The 2006 bill, which we are debating today, goes one step further than the 2005 bill. It takes away even more rights from traditional owners of land. This bill amends the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1997 to make land nominations non-reviewable under the act. So, if a land council or the Territory government nominates land as a site for nuclear waste, local traditional owners of the land have no right to challenge that nomination. The government would have us believe that this will not occur. In her second reading speech on this bill, the Minister for Education, Science and Training said:

Current provisions of the act set down a number of criteria that should be met if a land council decides to make a nomination. Importantly, these criteria include that the owners of the land in question have understood the proposal and have consented to the nomination, and that other Aboriginal communities with an interest in the land have also been consulted.

I can assure the House that, should a nomination be made, I will only accept it if satisfied that these criteria have been met.

This is a farce, because the provisions in the bill remove the judicial review rights and the bill specifically provides that a nomination which does not comply with these criteria will still be considered valid. This bill also conflicts with the criteria set out by the Northern Land Council resolution of October 2005, which states:

The Northern Land Council supports an amendment to the Commonwealth Radioactive Waste Management Bill 2005 to enable a Land Council to nominate a site in the Northern Territory as a radioactive waste facility, provided that:

(i)

the traditional owners of the site agree

(ii)

sacred sites and heritage are protected (including under current Commonwealth and NT legislation);

(iii)

environment protection requirements are met (including under current Commonwealth and NT legislation);

(iv)

Aboriginal land is not acquired or native title extinguished (unless with traditional owners’ consent).

I can only imagine how difficult it might be for land councils in the real world in which we operate if they are faced with pressure from the government and offered large amounts of funding or other incentives while some Indigenous communities strongly object to their land being nominated as a nuclear waste dump. This has the potential to split Indigenous communities and put a lot of pressure on many people.

There is a further appalling aspect of this legislation. The legislation provides for Aboriginal land used as a radioactive dump to be returned to the traditional owners when it is no longer required and when it is considered ‘safe’. The problem is that the legislation does not guarantee the return of the land; it just outlines the process in the event that the Commonwealth chooses to return it. I ask a fundamental question: how long would it take for the land to be ‘safe’? As I understand it, a waste facility would probably be operational for 100 years, and then a further 200 years at least is needed for monitoring. So any possible return of the land to traditional owners could not occur for about 300 years. As the member for Calare said in his contribution to this debate just a few minutes ago, it seems that, under this government’s ideas, this land is basically destined to be polluted forever.

This bill takes away the rights of traditional landowners and gives the Commonwealth power to place nuclear waste dumps in the Northern Territory without consultation or the approval of traditional landowners. This leads to the question: how far is the government willing to go to place nuclear waste stations and dumps throughout Australia? The release of the recent nuclear inquiry report tells us that, if the coalition wins the next election, 25 nuclear power stations will be built around Australia—and obviously each of these power stations will produce nuclear waste. The government has refused to tell us where these power stations and high-level nuclear waste dumps will be based. Not one of the state or territory governments wants a nuclear power station or a dump, but that appears to make no difference at all to this government.

The government was quite happy to override state and territory rights to force harsh industrial relations reforms on all Australians, so why wouldn’t it do the same on nuclear power stations and dumps? As the member for Canberra, I cannot let this go without noting that the democratically elected government of the Australian Capital Territory has, on more than one occasion, been overruled by the Commonwealth government when it sees fit to do so. If the Commonwealth government does this on other issues, it is obviously going to be happy to do it on this issue as well.

We in the Labor Party have a very different view on energy. Labor believes that nuclear power is not the answer to Australia’s energy future. Our future lies in clean coal, gas and renewables, not reactors. I strongly believe that nuclear power is the wrong way for this country to go. The economics do not stack up. We have abundant low-emission energy resources. The issue of nuclear waste disposal is not resolved, and there are serious national security concerns. I think the government should adopt key measures from Labor’s climate change blueprint, including our plan for a national emissions trading scheme. Labor’s national emissions trading scheme is the right course for Australia’s environment, economy, jobs, homes and industry. In conclusion, I strongly support the amendment moved by my colleague the member for Jagajaga, which states:

... “ the House:

(1)

refuses the Bill a second reading, because of the Howard Government’s:

(a)

continuing arrogant approach imposing a nuclear waste dump on the people of the Northern Territory without proper scientific assessment and consultation processes;

(b)

broken election commitments to not locate a waste dump in the Northern Territory;

(c)

overriding of many Federal, State and Territory legal protections, rights and safeguards;

(d)

destruction of any recourse to procedural fairness provisions for anyone wishing to challenge the Minister’s decision to impose a waste dump on the people of the Northern Territory;

(e)

continuing and aggravated disregard of the International Atomic Energy Commission’s recommendations on good social practices like consultation and transparency in relation to nuclear waste;

(f)

failure to deliver a national waste repository after ten long years in government, and,

(2)

in light of the Howard Government’s imposition of a nuclear waste dump on the Northern Territory community, and the recent High Court decision in the Workchoices case, expresses deep concern that the Howard Government will override community objections and State and Territory laws to impose nuclear reactors and high level nuclear waste dumps on local communities across Australia”.

In conclusion, my concern over and above all of those things is for the welfare of the people of the Northern Territory, in particular its Indigenous people. They do not deserve to be treated like this and they should not be treated like this. It is yet another of this government’s policies of disregard for our Indigenous people and their heritage. I am very concerned for their future should this go ahead.

See this speech in context