Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

by leave—I move Greens amendments (1), (2) and (6) on sheet 5156 and (1) and (2) on sheet 5159:

(1)    Schedule 1, item 122, page 32 (line 14), at the end of section 37J, add:

           ; (e)    a nuclear waste dump containing nuclear materials other than nuclear waste of Australian origin or obligation;

              (f)    transportation of nuclear materials other than nuclear waste of Australian origin or obligation;

             (g)    uranium mining or processing facilities.

(2)    Schedule 1, item 318, page 101 (line 21), at the end of section 146M, add:

           ; (e)    a nuclear waste dump containing nuclear materials other than nuclear waste of Australian origin or obligation;

              (f)    transportation of nuclear materials other than nuclear waste of Australian origin or obligation;

             (g)    uranium mining or processing facilities.

(6)    Schedule 1, item 537, page 186 (after line 16), at the end of paragraph 305(2)(d), add:

                  (v)    a nuclear waste dump containing nuclear materials other than nuclear waste of Australian origin or obligation;

                 (vi)    transportation of nuclear materials other than nuclear waste of Australian origin or obligation;

                (vii)    uranium mining or processing facilities;

(1)    Schedule 1, page 27 (after line 5), after item 118, insert:

118A After section 34F

Insert:

                  (v)    a nuclear waste dump containing nuclear materials other than nuclear waste of Australian origin or obligation;

                 (vi)    transportation of nuclear materials other than nuclear waste of Australian origin or obligation;

                (vii)    uranium mining or processing facilities;

34G Declarations relating to nuclear actions

In moving these amendments I will explain their effect. The EPBC Act 1999 currently prevents the minister from approving certain nuclear installations—in particular, fuel fabrication plants, enrichment plants, nuclear power plants and reprocessing plants. However, other nuclear activities fall under the assessment and approval processes of the act as it currently stands. Nuclear activities, such as new uranium mines, nuclear waste dumps and transporting spent nuclear fuel, are examples of nuclear actions that come under the assessment and approval process. If the assessment finds that, for example, a nuclear waste dump will, or is likely to, have a significant impact on the environment, the act does not allow the minister to approve it.

The amendments that the government brought before the House changed that, and the amendments I am moving here tonight close the loopholes which could prevent uranium mines, nuclear waste dumps and nuclear transport facilities from being assessed if they occur in the context of bioregional plans, in the context of strategic assessments, in the context of conservation agreements, in the context of declarations made under section 33, in the context of the minister saying that it was approved by the Commonwealth or a Commonwealth agency and in the context of a bilateral agreement, which, as it currently stands, could include a declaration that a nuclear action does not require approval under part 9 for the purposes of sections 21 or 22A.

The amendments I am moving tonight move to close those loopholes so that the minister cannot avoid assessing nuclear activities—new uranium mines, nuclear waste dumps and transporting spent fuel—under the act. The reason I am concerned that the Commonwealth may consider doing that is that we have had several pieces of legislation before the House recently making way for a huge expansion in nuclear activity.

There was the ANSTO bill before the house, which allows ANSTO to handle nuclear waste that is from overseas and not generated in Australia. There was the radioactive waste dump bill, which took away procedural fairness and judicial review from traditional owners and anybody else who might have wanted to go through a proper process of consultation and to object. Then there was the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties recommending Australia go straight ahead with exporting hugely increased amounts of uranium to China in spite of the fact that the International Atomic Energy Agency is completely underfunded, as is the safeguards process. Then there was the report of the Prime Minister’s task force advocating a massive expansion in nuclear facilities, including nuclear power plants, but of course particularly highlighting new uranium mines and waste dumps.

Then there was the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Industry and Resources, which was supported by three Labor members: Mr Martin Ferguson, Mr Dick Adams, who represents Lyons in the state of Tasmania, and Mr Michael Hatton, who is the Labor Deputy Chair of that committee. They signed off on a recommendation that the Australian government minister, through the Council of Australian Governments and other means, encourage state governments to reconsider their opposition to uranium mining and to abolish legislative restrictions on uranium and thorium mining and exploration where these exist. Also, those Labor people signed off on a recommendation that the Australian government, again through the Council of Australian Governments, seek to remedy the impediments to the development of the uranium industry. They listed there that the government should specifically develop uniform and minimum effective regulation for uranium exploration and mining across all states and territories. They also disgracefully moved to ensure that processes associated with issues such as land access and native title assessments, approvals and reporting are streamlined. They have called for minimisation of duplication of regulation across levels of government, addressing of labour shortages and, finally, addressing of transportation impediments, particularly issues associated with denial of shipping services.

Everything points to a government push—with Labor support, if Mr Martin Ferguson, Mr Dick Adams and Mr Michael Hatton have anything to do with it—for expanded uranium mining, expanded nuclear facilities around the country and for minimising and getting rid of any legislative restrictions or impediments. On that basis, I think it is critical that we close the loopholes in the amendments the government has put forward. I am seeking to close those loopholes so that new uranium mines, nuclear waste dumps and nuclear transport facilities will have to be assessed under the environment protection legislation in this country.