David Johnston (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Defence) Share this | Hansard source

Alice Springs and Darwin depend upon this railway line for their perishable and other durable goods. You cannot go forward with a piece of legislation like this unless all of the stakeholders are on the same page, and that is what we are seeking to do here. Defence is continuing to work closely with these existing users and respond to their concerns, which mainly consist of clarifying longstanding and existing working relationships and access arrangements and permission with Defence. The new users have not been prevented from accessing the area. As at 24 January there are 32 exploration deeds, four mining deeds, one petroleum deed, four extracting mineral deeds, one communication tower deed and 1,836 personnel have been authorised to access the area. That is since 24 January this year.

In terms of consultation, since July 2000 Defence has been continuing consultation with the different stakeholders, and they all have different interests and they all want different things. But, Senator, I want to see mining particularly start in this area as soon as possible in an orderly, orchestrated fashion. On 6 August Defence met with the rail companies to discuss range administration. Parties agreed that the rail is an existing user, inclusive of all associated infrastructure, and also agreed to develop a working level agreement covering consultation and notification arrangements. On 26 August the Rail Track Corporation wrote to confirm the understanding and stated that they can work with Defence to identify windows that minimise disruption to the rail operators' business. We need to formalise that in a way that all parties, including the Northern Territory government, can be confident about. On 5 September Defence met with the representatives of the South Australian Department for Manufacturing, Innovation, Trade, Resources and Energy and Defence South Australia to discuss matters including pastoral leases in the prohibited area and the consultation process.

On 3 December the advisory board met and held discussions in Woomera with the various stakeholders. The chair is Mr Stephen Loosley and the deputy chair is Mr Paul Holloway. The board includes senior ex-officio representatives from the Australian government departments of Defence, industry and Finance; from the South Australian Department for Manufacturing, Innovation, Trade, Resources and Energy; and from Defence South Australia. The board met with stakeholders including pastoralists, resource companies, and rail operators and owners. Pastoralists and resource companies indicated that coexistence with Defence is working well. The rail company have some concerns about potential future disruption but have a better understanding of how they can work with Defence, and Defence is continuing to work with them to develop communication protocols.

A further Woomera Prohibited Area Advisory Board meeting is scheduled for 18 February in Adelaide. The board is planning to meet with Indigenous groups, conservation WA and the South Australian Chamber of Minerals and Energy.

On 6 August Defence and South Australian representatives met in Adelaide with the owners and operators of the Tarcoola-Darwin rail link that bisects the prohibited area. They include the Australian Rail Track Corporation, Genesee & Wyoming Australia and the AustralAsia Railway Corporation. They agreed that the owners and operators of the railway are existing users and that the scope of their existing use includes the railway and all associated infrastructure, and they agreed to develop a working level agreement setting out the framework for consultation and notification arrangements between Defence and railway operators.

The Australian Rail Track Corporation has since written to Defence confirming that they can work with Defence to identify windows that will minimise disruption. The Northern Territory government has raised concerns about the potential for long disruptions to the railway and the impact of that on tourism and freight delivery to the Northern Territory. This is a very important concern. We need to get to the bottom of it and we need to resolve it before this legislation takes effect.

Current arrangements allow the minister to suspend permission to access the railway and Stuart Highway for safety and security for testing of war material at any time and with no limit specified. That is a blank cheque, and that concerns me. We need to know where we stand with these matters from a public policy point of view. These arrangements have existed in their current form since 1989. New arrangements allow for closures of a minimum of 70 days per year. Defence may not necessarily require this entire period every year. The 70 days are set in seven-day windows, in which Defence can plan specific test activities. The windows are forecast annually to allow non-Defence users of the prohibited area to do their own planning with this knowledge. Rail and road closures occur only for as long as is required to conduct the test and ensure safety and security. This will continue to be the case under the proposed new arrangements.

But all of the users need the security of formal documentation. For example, a recent long-range missile test required the suspension of rail traffic through the area for a period of three hours on three occasions over a 21-day period. This was done in close consultation with the operator and did not impact their schedule. By defining set exclusion periods, the proposed measures in the bill will provide greater certainty to non-Defence users for the periods in which closures may need to occur. Continuing positive engagement with the owners and operators of the railway, including the development of a working-level agreement, will minimise the effect that any testing activity may have on rail operations and schedules.

In October 2013 the South Australian government raised concerns about the potential unintended consequences of the legislation for their land management and economic objectives regarding pastoral leases in the area. So the South Australian government itself has raised important considerations with respect to this legislation. It noted that clause 72TB(3)(j) of the bill defines an existing non-Defence user who may continue to operate their current access arrangements as a person who:

(i) holds an existing pastoral lease; and

(ii) is in the Woomera Prohibited Area for purposes related to the lease …

Attaching rights to the person rather than to the lease, as this bill does, is an error. If they attach to the lease, they will run with the lease—they will run with the land—as opposed to the person.