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

Chair—

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Senator Ludlam, before I put the question?

Thanks, Chair, I appreciate that. I will just make some closing remarks on these amendments. I thank Senator Brown for his contribution and also Senator Scullion, and Senator Evans for at least indicating that the spirit of the amendment is supported if not the letter. The reason that this amendment is before us is that what we have here is a proposal being experienced not hypothetically, not in the abstract—a proposal which stands in absolute, clear, stark violation of the principle of free, prior and informed consent, on the table and embedded in this bill. The people fighting this proposal in the Federal Court and out the front of the minister's office did not offer their consent. They were not given advanced warning. And they were not free to make that decision. That is the problem that we have here. And maybe it is redundant to say, 'The proposal that is before us should at least make an attempt to be compliant with the provisions of the Aboriginal land rights act. But maybe it will give some comfort to the next people who find themselves in the firing line after the Muckaty proposal falls over, because quite clearly this proposal does not—otherwise you would not be getting the heat that you are getting. This minister is finding himself in the same hot water as the previous minister because he is pursuing the same strategy of a ram-raid—a land rights ram-raid. There is no free, prior and informed consent here at all.

So I thank all participants in the debate on this amendment for at least acknowledging that it would be nice if the act were in concurrence with the Aboriginal land rights act. But the fact is that we have a stark violation of the principles and, in my view, the letter of that act before us now. That is why this particular proposal is so hard-fought. In South Australia, they do not have an Aboriginal land rights act. Nonetheless, we saw the same government strategy of just booting the door down and then trying to explain its actions afterwards as being somehow consultative. We have changed the language in this instance. Now it is based on the principle of volunteerism: 'After we kick the door down you will be discovered to have volunteered for radioactive waste.' It is not good enough. This proposal is going to fall over no matter what the outcome is in the Federal Court because the bigger picture here is that we should not continually be seeking coercively to dump this material in a shed—as former minister Julie Bishop put it—'a long way from civilisation'. It demeans us as a civilisation if, when we get to that place in the middle of nowhere, in that land of terra nullius we find people who are telling us that they do not want the stuff on their block. They do not understand how it is that if it is unsafe in Sydney, somehow transporting it thousands of kilometres and taking it to Tennant Creek will magically make it safe. I commend these amendments to the Senate.