Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

Perhaps you could at least answer the second question: how many nuclear armed or capable ballistic missiles are deployed by the Chinese government? And perhaps you could tell us the range of those weapons and then, I suppose, in a non-hypothetical sense we can do the numbers for ourselves.

I will move to the first amendment, which deals with clauses 20, 21 and 22. I will just speak to that briefly and then seek some advice from the minister. I will certainly be seeking the support of all sides of the chamber.

The first amendment deals with the establishment of a remediation fund, specifically to deal with the consequences of uranium mining and the extremely long-lived toxic waste streams arising from this kind of mining. I would just like to remind the Senate, by way of context, that this year in the Commonwealth budget there was $8.3 million set aside to rehabilitate one single uranium mine which is quite small by today’s standards.

I am obviously referring to the Rum Jungle mine, which operated from 1954 to 1971. It was one of Australia’s earliest radioactive sacrifice zones. It is not far from Batchelor in the Northern Territory. For many years, mine wastes were simply discharged onto a flood plain. After a period of some years, crude tailings dams were constructed; some of the tailings were returned to the mine voids and some were pumped into these crude tailings dams, which overtopped during heavy wet seasons and later collapsed. The AAEC’s Dr Warner at the time referred to it as a ‘minor local pollution problem’. We hear very much the same language around uranium spills today. Of course, it was much more serious than that. A Senate inquiry in 1963 suggested:

One of the major pollution problems in the Northern Territory is that caused by copper and uranium mining at Rum Jungle. The strongly acidic effluent from the treatment plant flows via the East Finniss River into the Finniss River, making the water unsuitable for either stock or human consumption for a distance of 20 river miles. Vegetation on the river banks has been destroyed and it will be many years before this area can sustain growth.

That was in about 1963. Nearly 40 years after that mine ceased operations, the Australian taxpayer is still paying for the clean-up because there were no remediation funds put aside by the mine operators at the time. About $1.8 million was spent in 1990-91. Today the bill is up to about another $8 million. The South Alligator Valley too, also in the Northern Territory, continues to require taxpayer funding to contain tailings that were discharged into flood plains. There are very high gamma radiation counts still persisting in some of those areas. In the 2006 budget, one of the last Howard budgets, Australians set aside $7.3 million for the cleanup of these abandoned mines. The Mary Kathleen mine is still a problem. About one million litres of radioactive effluent from evaporation ponds were deliberately released in 1984 and, to lower the cost, mildly radioactive waste rock was used to cover tailings instead of an engineered fine soil or clay. This has increased the risk of groundwater contamination and has led to more public expense. When the Nabarlek mine was closed, 95 per cent of the bond money was returned to the operator despite no final agreed and approved mine closure plan. I note the chair is smiling; this is very serious business.

The remediation fund amendment is a means to create a dedicated royalty stream to provide for environmental rehabilitation and post-closure monitoring, to responsibly deal with the impacts of uranium mining and to stop the need for contributions from the public purse long after the mining companies have departed. This is a responsible measure. It is a wise contingency measure. Past history—not theory but actual operating experience—has shown the necessity for such a measure. If uranium mining is meant to be such a grand success and such an enormous boon taking off across the Northern Territory then this dedicated stream will be absolutely essential. It will ensure an adequate response to an accident, an incident or the kinds of discharges that we have seen in the past—or that are occurring at the Ranger operation even now—and provide for long-term responsible planning.

The idea of this remediation fund was repeatedly raised during the inquiry because uranium, as I said in my speech on the second reading, is not like any other mineral. The tailings—and this may come as a surprise to some senators—contain around 80 per cent of the radioactivity of the original ore body. So the mine wastes are not stripped of all the radionuclides. In fact, most of the original radioactivity in the ore body remains in the waste streams. Post mining, they are vastly more bioavailable and mobile than they were when they were locked up in the geology prior to mining. In 2003 there was a cross-party Senate inquiry into the uranium sector. That was the last time that this chamber had a good look at the industry, and it did not find a pretty picture. It found a pattern of underperformance and non-compliance with environmental regulations at Australia’s existing uranium mines. I note that the operations at Roxby Downs were excluded from that inquiry. The Senate committee in its report said it:

… viewed tailings management as among the most serious challenges facing uranium miners and, indeed, the entire nuclear energy industry in the future. It will also continue to be a major preoccupation for regulators and scientists as well.

The government has recognised the unique nature of uranium mine tailings in setting a standard for the Ranger mine in the Northern Territory. That is the mine that has been leaking around 100,000 litres of contaminated radioactive water a day into Kakadu. The standard set for Ranger, though, is that all tailings must be physically isolated from the environment for a period of at least 10,000 years and that any contaminants arising from the tailings will not result in detrimental environmental impacts for 10,000 years. That is an extremely long time. It is actually not long enough, if you take seriously the fact that these isotopes are around for such long periods of time, but it is a pretty good start. The idea of a remediation fund for mines, as is explained in these amendments, is in recognition of the need to mitigate these very long-term impacts. The government needs to have the ability to ensure that environmental protection costs post mine closure are assured through this fund. I may well be criticised by future generations for not setting aside nearly enough. I do not know how the miners at the Ranger mine intend to isolate their waste for a period of 10,000 years. That amount of time would take us right back to the beginning of city based agriculture and human civilisation. Nonetheless, at least there is a start.

The 2006 House of Reps inquiry, which I think was referred to in a contribution earlier, recommended:

… the Australian Government provide adequate funding to ensure the rehabilitation of former uranium mine sites …

We are giving that legislative effect today. I do not believe that that cost should be borne by the public purse. So we are proposing, fairly simply, an amendment that will quarantine five per cent of the net value of the commodity in a remediation fund. I seek advice from the minister and from the opposition, if Senator Minchin cares to make a contribution, on the merits of setting aside a long-term remediation fund for uranium mining in the Territory. I move:

(1)    Page 12 (after line 19), at the end of the bill, add:

20  Uranium Mine Remediation Fund

Establishment of Fund and Special Account

        (1)    The Uranium Mine Remediation Fund is established by this subsection.

        (2)    The Uranium Mine Remediation Fund Special Account is established by this subsection.

        (3)    The Fund is a Special Account for the purposes of the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997.

Credits to the Fund

        (4)    There must be credited to the Fund amounts equal to the amounts of remediation payments received by the Commonwealth under section 21.

        (5)    If interest is received by the Commonwealth from the investment of an amount standing to the credit of the Fund, an amount equal to the interest must be credited to the Fund.

Administration of the Fund

        (6)    The Fund is to be managed by the Minister.

        (7)    Monies from the Fund are to be applied to management, rehabilitation and monitoring of the sites of mining operations to which this Act applies.

        (8)    Monies from the Fund are to be paid from funds appropriated by the Parliament for the purpose.

21  Rate of remediation payment

        (1)    A remediation payment is payable as an additional royalty amount in respect of any designated substance obtained from a production unit in any financial year.

        (2)    The holders of mining tenements that form part of a production unit are jointly and severally liable for the payment of royalty in respect of the production unit.

        (3)    The remediation payment is 5 percent of the net value of a saleable mineral commodity sold or removed without sale from a production unit in a financial year.

        (4)    For the purposes of subsection (3), the net value in a financial year is calculated in accordance with the following formula:

GR – (OC + CRD + EEE + AD)

                 Where:

      GR is the gross realisation from the production unit in the royalty year;

      OC is the operating costs of the production unit for the royalty year;

      CRD is the capital recognition deduction;

      EEE is eligible exploration expenditure, if any; and

      AD is the additional deduction, if any, under section 4CA of the applied law.

22  Remediation

        (1)    Despite any other law, any agreement between the Commonwealth or the Northern Territory (or both) and another party or parties allowing mining operations on land in the Northern Territory to obtain any designated substance must be made subject to the conditions specified in subsection (2).

        (2)    The conditions are that the other party or parties to the agreement:

             (a)    recognise the timeframe and toxicity associated with uranium mining by ensuring that the tailings from any such mining operation are physically isolated from the environment for at least 10,000 years, and that any contaminants arising from the tailings will not result in any detrimental environmental impacts for at least 10,000 years; and

             (b)    agree to pay the amounts payable under section 21 as a contribution to the management, rehabilitation and monitoring of the sites of any such mining operations.

(2)    Page 12 (after line 19), at the end of the bill, add:

23  Accountability

        (1)    Despite any other law, any agreement between the Commonwealth or the Northern Territory (or both) and another party or parties allowing mining operations on land in the Northern Territory to obtain any designated substance must be made subject to the conditions specified in subsection (2).

        (2)    The conditions specified by this subsection are that the other party or parties to the agreement agree to cooperate fully with any requirement:

             (a)    of the Auditor-General, undertaking any of his or her functions under this Act, including by providing full access to all financial and administrative records; and

             (b)    of the Supervising Scientist, undertaking any of his or her functions under this Act, including by providing full access to all mining, processing, transport and related operations, and to all related sites.

24  Auditor General’s functions

        (1)    The Auditor-General’s functions include the functions set out in this section.

        (2)    The Auditor-General’s functions include auditing:

             (a)    the arrangements for the calculation, payment and collection of any amount payable under this Act or under any applied law or corresponding law;

             (b)    the adequacy of the remediation fund established by section 20 to meet its objectives;

             (c)    the adequacy of contributions to the remediation fund.

        (3)    In performing these functions the Auditor-General:

             (a)    may perform or exercise any of the functions and powers conferred upon him or her by the Auditor-General Act 1997; and

             (b)    may seek, and must be granted, access to all financial and administrative records of any party to any agreement relating to mining operations to which this Act applies.

        (4)    As soon as practicable after completing any report on any audit performed under this Act, the Auditor-General must:

             (a)    cause a copy to be tabled in each House of the Parliament;

             (b)    give a copy to the responsible Minister;

             (c)    give a copy to the responsible Northern Territory Minister;

             (d)    give a copy to any Land Council which is a party to any arrangement to receive any royalty under this Act.

25  Supervising Scientist’s functions

        (1)    The Supervising Scientist’s powers and functions are expanded as set out in this section.

        (2)    To the extent that, under the Environment Protection (Alligator Rivers Region) Act 1978, the powers and functions of the Supervising Scientist are constrained by reference to a particular geographic region, those powers and functions are expanded so that the Supervising Scientist may perform and exercise any of those functions and powers in relation to:

             (a)    any mining operation to which this Act applies; and

             (b)    any region affected by any such mining operation.

        (3)    In performing these functions the Supervising Scientist may seek, and must be granted, access to all mining, processing, storage, transport and related operations, and all related sites under the control of any party to any agreement relating to any mining operation to which this Act applies.

        (4)    The Supervising Scientist may report to the Minister on any matter relating to any mining operation to which this Act applies, including:

             (a)    supervision, inspection and audit of operations and sites; and

             (b)    radiological, biological and chemical monitoring of sites; and

             (c)    rehabilitation and mine closure; and

             (d)    research activities;

in relation to both present and past uranium mining activities.

        (5)    As soon as practicable after the Minister is given a report made under subsection (4), the Minister must:

             (a)    cause a copy to be laid before each House of the Parliament;

             (b)    give a copy to the responsible Northern Territory Minister;

             (c)    give a copy to the any Land Council which is a party to any arrangement to receive any royalty under this Act.

(3)    Page 12 (after line 19), at the end of the bill, add:

26 Review of the costs and benefits of uranium mining royalty arrangements

        (1)    The Minister must cause independent reviews of the costs and benefits of uranium mining royalty arrangements to be conducted in accordance with this section.

        (2)    The first review must begin as soon as practicable after the fifth anniversary of the commencement of this section, and a further review must begin as soon as practicable after each third anniversary of that date.

        (3)    Each review must be completed within 6 months.

        (4)    Each review must:

             (a)    identify the costs and benefits of the application of laws and the operation of the royalty arrangements made by this Act;

             (b)    in particular, identify the costs and benefits to:

                   (i)    the Commonwealth;

                  (ii)    the Northern Territory Government;

                 (iii)    Indigenous communities, in general;

                 (iv)    Indigenous communities affected by mining operations to which this Act applies;

                  (v)    Indigenous communities which are party to any arrangement to receive any royalty under this Act; and

                 (vi)    corporate and other bodies involved in mining operations to which this Act applies.

        (5)    Each review must be undertaken by a panel comprising not less that 5 members, including:

             (a)    a person with expertise in royalty models and arrangements; and

             (b)    a person with expertise in mining law; and

             (c)    a person with expertise in the financial, managerial, infrastructure and service-delivery challenges of Aboriginal communities; and

             (d)    representatives of affected communities.

        (6)    The panel must give the Minister a written report of each review, and the Minister must cause a copy of the report to be laid before each House of Parliament within 15 sitting days of receiving the report.