Ms Julie Bishop (Curtin, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Women's Issues) Share this | Hansard source

I stated at the beginning of this debate that, in addition to the land hand-back, a purpose of the Commonwealth Radioactive Waste Management Legislation Amendment Bill 2006 is to prevent politically motivated challenges to a site nomination. The need for these provisions is as a result of the numerous threats by the Northern Territory government to oppose this government’s actions by using any means available, including legal challenges. Anti-nuclear green groups have also demonstrated a track record of taking legal action against government activities involving nuclear materials. None of these threats is based on any objective analysis of the safety of the planned waste facility. The safety and security of the facility are assured by the comprehensive and stringent Australian environmental and regulatory requirements that apply to it. Following completion of the scientific and technical works and presentation of a detailed assessment of any chosen site, people with a genuine belief that there are unresolved safety issues will have the opportunity to formally put their case to the independent regulators.

The act explicitly requires compliance with the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 and the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Act 1998, which include requirements for public consultation to ensure that the waste facility complies with the highest standard of environmental protection and radiation safety. These threats of legal action are to stop the government getting to square one—that is, selecting a site to undergo full independent environmental and regulatory scrutiny. These threats are to stop Indigenous communities nominating their land for the facility, if they so wish. The allegation that this bill is about the government bullying the Northern Land Council into nominating a site is outrageous. Under the existing provisions of the act, the only way a nomination can be made is if a land council or the Northern Territory Chief Minister make it. It is an entirely voluntary process. This bill does not alter that requirement in any way.

With the assistance of my colleagues the member for Solomon and Senator Scullion, the original Commonwealth Radioactive Waste Management Bill was amended to allow land to be nominated for the waste facility. The Northern Land Council was supportive of the mechanism to allow this voluntary process. The Northern Land Council has indicated that there is interest amongst Aboriginal groups within its area in nominating land. Further, it has indicated that it is concerning for groups to permanently give up their freehold title to the land. This government is responding to those concerns in a sensible and constructive way. If those opposite consider that listening and responding to representations is the equivalent of bullying then I suggest that they need to raise their level of English comprehension.

The land councils have made it clear that they cannot and will not nominate Aboriginal land without the consent of the traditional owners concerned. The Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 lists the functions of a land council as including consultation with the traditional owners of Aboriginal land with respect to any proposal relating to the use of that land. The suggestion that a council would act against the expressed wishes of its constituents is offensive to that council. I repeat my assurance to the House that, should a nomination be made, I will only accept it if I am satisfied that the criteria listed in the act have been met. What the government will not accept is speculative legal challenges that are designed not to ensure that Aboriginal people have given informed consent to a land nomination but to frustrate and delay the establishment of the facility.

We already have three potential sites on Defence land being investigated. If we do not receive a nomination, we will go ahead on one of those three sites. Of course, there is another important element of the bill which is largely overlooked in this debate. It is to ensure that, should a volunteer site be selected for the facility, there is a mechanism for the land to be returned to its original owners or successors when the site is no longer required for the facility. This can only be done with the consent of those wishing to receive their land back. The government would welcome the opportunity to sit down with the Indigenous community that, unlike most of those opposite, is prepared to take a mature and responsible approach to radioactive waste management.

Labor are in no position to criticise the Howard government for acting to put beyond doubt the Commonwealth’s power for the safe and secure management of Commonwealth radioactive waste given their own failure to establish suitable radioactive waste management and facilities in their 13 years in office. The Australian government have had to take responsibility for waste management due to the state governments’ ideological and ‘not in my backyard’ approach to this issue. The states are all happy to benefit from the radioisotopes produced by ANSTO for the treatment of cancer and other life-threatening illnesses, but they refuse to take responsibility for the disposal of the waste that is a consequence of the production of nuclear medicines. So the question remains: what would a Labor government do with Australia’s radioactive waste? Would they store it in a safe and responsible manner? Where would they store it? What is their policy on this issue? It is time the Labor Party stopped their hysterical scaremongering and politicking on this important national issue. I commend this bill to the House.

Question put:

That the words proposed to be omitted (Ms Macklin’s amendment) stand part of the question.

See this speech in context