Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration) Share this | Hansard source

I thank honourable senators for their contributions to the debate on the Commonwealth Radioactive Waste Management Legislation Amendment Bill 2006. I must concur with my colleagues on this side about some of the hysteria that has been peddled in relation to this. Any piece of legislation that relates to nuclear energy seems to attract an extraordinary level of hysteria. I think it just goes to show that there is a maturity on one side of the Senate in being willing to debate these issues sensibly, which is lacking in some other places. I do thank honourable senators for their contributions.

The minority report of the Employment, Workplace Relations and Education Committee’s inquiry into this bill contains much speculation as to the intent of the bill. I read that the bill is purportedly about overcoming opposition from traditional owners to the nomination of their land without weakening Aboriginal land rights and about denying legitimate challenges to land nomination. These alleged intentions of the government are just not supported by any sensible reading of the bill. The intent of this bill is clear: to allow an Indigenous community, if and only if it so desires, to nominate its land for a radioactive waste facility without interference from those ideologically opposed to the establishment of a facility.

The government is trying to facilitate a voluntary nomination of land that could be considered for a facility. The minister has repeatedly given assurances to the parliament that, should a nomination be made, she will only accept it if satisfied that the criteria listed in the act have been met. What the government will not accept are speculative legal challenges that are designed not to ensure that Aboriginal people’s wishes are respected but to frustrate and delay the establishment of the facility. The need for these provisions comes 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 are based on any objective analysis of the safety of the planned waste facility. The safety and security of the facility is assured by the comprehensive and stringent Australian environmental and regulatory requirements that apply to it. Following completion of the scientific and technical works and the 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. These threats of legal action are to stop the government commencing the proper process: 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.

Under existing provisions of the act, a nomination may only be made by a land council or the Northern Territory Chief Minister. It is an entirely voluntary process. This bill does not alter that requirement in any way. 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 traditional owners of Aboriginal land with respect to any proposal relating to the use of that land. In fact the suggestion that a council would act against the express wishes of its constituents I find insulting to the councils concerned. As the chairman of the Northern Land Council told the Senate inquiry, he would be swinging from the nearest bloodwood tree if he nominated land contrary to the wishes of the traditional owners.

Of course, there is another important element of the bill which has been largely overlooked in this debate—that is, to ensure that, should a voluntary 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. Again, this can only be done with the consent of those wishing to receive their land back. We have heard from the Northern Land Council that there is interest amongst Aboriginal groups within its area in nominating land. Further, they have indicated that it is concerning for groups to permanently give up their freehold title to that land. This government is responding to those concerns in a sensible and constructive way. These provisions are being made to protect the rights and interests of the traditional owners of Aboriginal land. That these provisions came after concerns were raised by the Northern Land Council indicates that the only thing the Northern Land Council is protecting is its constituents.

As to the Central Land Council’s outright objection to the bill, I would simply make the point that if there is no nomination of land within the CLC’s area then the bill will not have any impact whatsoever on Indigenous interests within their jurisdiction. As the CLC and the Northern Territory Chief Minister are vocal opponents of a facility, a nomination of land within the CLC’s area seems highly improbable, but it is entirely within their own control. The government is responsibly proceeding with the technical investigation of three potential sites on existing Commonwealth Defence land. If we do not receive a nomination, we will go ahead with one of those three sites. However, the government would welcome the opportunity to discuss the possible nomination of land with Indigenous communities who are prepared to take a mature and responsible approach to radioactive waste management and any opportunities it presents.

The Australian government has had to take responsibility for waste management due to the state government’s ideological and ‘not in my backyard’ approach to this issue. The states are happy to benefit from the medical radioisotopes produced by the Australian government’s premier nuclear science and research organisation, ANSTO. They are happy for their citizens to receive treatment for cancer and other life-threatening illnesses, but they refuse to take any responsibility for the disposal of the small volumes of waste that is a consequence of the Australian government’s production of nuclear medicines for the benefit of all Australians. In the interests of all Australians, and to protect the interests of Indigenous Australians in the Northern Territory who might be contemplating a land nomination, I commend this bill to the Senate.

Question put:

That the amendment (Senator Stephens’s) be agreed to.