Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In continuing my remarks on the Commonwealth Radioactive Waste Management Legislation Amendment Bill 2006, I would like to briefly conclude the comments I was making before being rudely interrupted by Senator Kemp prior to question time. I was explaining to the Senate that the Howard government were not the only ones being deceptive about nuclear safety issues. I was in the process of pointing out that the obsequious and fawning toad Piers Ackerman has criticised the Labor Party for its concerns about the potential dangers posed by nuclear reactors. In an article in the Hobart Mercury on 19 June 2006, he had this to say:

Albanese talked about nuclear safety as if every one of the 440 nuclear reactors currently operating around the world was a ticking bomb. He even had concerns over Lucas Heights.

Unfortunately, the toad went on to say:

If he knows something that the workers there don’t, he should outline his concerns to the staff there - or apologise, and shut up.

How very touchy. Piers Ackerman is either deceptive or very ill informed. To be fair to him, it seems his only source of information is to grovel for scraps off the Prime Minister’s desk. If he ever bothered to do some independent research of his own, he might learn that Sydney’s Lucas Heights nuclear reactor recorded no less than 13 safety breaches in only 18 months prior to his article.

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thirteen?

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, Senator Polley, 13—including an incident only weeks before the article in which radioactive gases, including krypton, escaped after an explosion inside a radioactive hot cell. But I guess publishing that information would not have served Piers Ackerman’s bigoted, anti-Labor ranting.

This series of three bills makes it clear that the Howard government will override community objections and, unfortunately, state and territory laws to impose nuclear reactors and high-level nuclear waste dumps on local communities across Australia. If the Howard government cannot consult, cannot build community consensus, cannot leave important legal rights untrampled and cannot gain the informed consent of Indigenous people for a low- and medium-level nuclear waste facility, what hope can we have that they will comply with International Atomic Energy Agency best practice guidelines in relation to nuclear power and the resulting high-level radioactive waste? On that note, I urge all senators to vote against this bill. (Quorum formed)

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As earlier speakers made clear, Labor is opposing the Commonwealth Radioactive Waste Management Legislation Amendment Bill 2006. The bill seeks to make land nominations for a Commonwealth radioactive waste facility non-reviewable under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977. It also seeks to ensure that noncompliance with the site nomination rules in the 2005 act will not affect the validity of the minister’s approval of a nomination. The bill will remove any entitlement to procedural fairness regarding site nominations. It also makes amendments to the Commonwealth Radioactive Waste Management Act 2005 concerning the return of Aboriginal land used for a waste management facility. And it provides an indemnity to traditional owners against any damages which may arise out of the use of land for a facility.

In removing the mechanisms for appeal and transparency over site nominations and weakening the requirements for consultation, the government has run roughshod over affected Indigenous communities, and that is why I join this debate. The legislation is a major attack on the rights of Aboriginal traditional owners and an abuse of the power of the Howard government. Labor recognises the need for the establishment of a domestic radioactive waste facility. It has been known of course for the last 10 years that the government has been seeking to establish a facility; it is now having to rush that project because of the scheduled repatriation of Australian radioactive waste in 2011. What we are dealing with here is the removal of any potential obstacle as the government rushes to meet the deadline. The obstacle being removed is the right of Aboriginal traditional owners to have a say over what happens on their land. As has been usual throughout our history, the rights of Aboriginal people will be overridden.

The intent of the government’s 2005 legislation was to put beyond doubt its capacity to pursue activities concerning the siting, construction and operation of a waste facility in the Northern Territory. Labor opposed that legislation because it undermined the rights of Indigenous people in the Northern Territory and Territorians more generally, it broke a coalition election promise, it overrode a number of federal legal protections and it was implemented without hearing the concerns of Territorians.

The legislation explicitly removed the right to procedural fairness regarding the selection of a site for the facility. The 2005 related amendment excluded application of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 to ministerial decisions on a facility site. The CLP member for Solomon moved amendments to last year’s legislation to allow for the nomination by the Northern Territory Chief Minister or a land council of land to be assessed for a site. Those amendments set down statutory rules that would have to be followed by land councils in the nomination process. These included demonstrated evidence that traditional owners had been consulted, had understood the nomination and had consented as a group. They also required that any affected, adjacent community or group be consulted and given the opportunity to express their view.

The legislation before us today downgrades those statutory rules to the status of guidelines. The bill therefore seeks to remove the requirement for consultation with and informed consent of traditional owners. It removes the right of adjacent communities to even be consulted and removes recourse to judicial review and procedural fairness.

With this bill the government is reneging on the commitment to consultation, consent and process which it made by accepting one of its own backbenchers’ amendments last year. Where Aboriginal owners and communities currently have a statutory right to proper process, they are now seeing that replaced with an unenforceable undertaking by the current Minister for Education, Science and Training, who in her second reading speech said:

Current provisions of the act set down a number of criteria that should be met if a land council decides to make a nomination. Importantly, these criteria include that the owners of the land in question have understood the proposal and have consented to the nomination, and that other Aboriginal communities with an interest in the land have also been consulted.

I can assure the House that, should a nomination be made, I will only accept it if satisfied that these criteria have been met.

That assurance is a pretty flimsy replacement for a set of legal rights. You have to be cynical about the value of a promise to uphold proper process made by a minister as she legislates to remove the right to such a process.

The establishment of a radioactive waste dump on Aboriginal land will have a major impact on the affected landowners. It could mean traditional owners losing access to their land for anything up to 300 years and it could have ramifications in regard to environmental health for nearby communities. That is not to say that all Aboriginal people are necessarily opposed to the establishment of a facility on their land. That is a decision for them to be informed about and to make after proper consultation. But how the traditional owners use their land is very much a decision for them and their communities. In doing so they should have the right to a transparent process, legal protections and procedural fairness.

Given the extremely long-term nature of a waste disposal facility, and its potential health and environmental impacts, it stands to reason that community consultation, consent and process are of the utmost importance. In the report of the Senate inquiry into these measures, government senators concluded that the overriding concern was the establishment of a facility and that ‘questions of due process and appeal rights are minor and subsidiary’. How dismissive and insulting! This is not a position which I think reflects well on those senators. I think many people would question whether those senators would have come to the same conclusion if it were their property rights and their entitlement to due process which were at stake. And I think many people would question why the government’s decade-long failure to establish a facility means that Aboriginal people’s property rights should now be diminished. Again, it is Aboriginal people whose rights are going to be overridden in order to facilitate government policy.

This legislation is being debated in the context of the changes to the Aboriginal land rights regime that were passed in the Senate in August. Those changes were the most radical redefinition of that framework since its enactment three decades ago. The government pursed its agenda without paying the basic respect of consulting with or gaining the consent of Aboriginal traditional owners. As such they trashed the long-established bipartisan commitment to the land rights regime—one of the most important and significant acts of reconciliation in Australian history.

The government is now seeking to coerce Aboriginal communities to sign up to 99-year leases on their land in exchange for basic services such as education. This is a calculated undermining of basic citizenship rights of Aboriginal people. The restoration of land to its traditional Indigenous owners was a vital step in reconciliation between black and white Australia. The government’s undermining of Indigenous rights over Aboriginal land—either through imposing changes to the land rights act or through the bill before us today—reflect a return to an approach that views Aboriginal people’s rights as some sort of gift of the government, to be removed at the government’s pleasure.

The siting of a radioactive waste facility on Aboriginal land is a decision of huge and long-term significance. To remove the legal rights that Aboriginal people have in that process is to do them a terrible wrong. It further entrenches the despair of so many Aboriginal people at their treatment and the continued lack of respect shown to them. It sends a clear message that the Howard government believes that Aboriginal rights are expendable and Aboriginal views can be ignored. It is not a message this Senate ought to endorse. It is not a message that this parliament ought to send to Indigenous people. I urge the Senate to reject the bill.

Ruth Webber (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Through my role in representing the state of Western Australia I come into contact with a number of people who live in the west who are highly and deeply suspicious of any form of centralised government and any edict that comes from Canberra. In fact, those of us who represent Western Australia are often accused, even by some on our own side, of being somewhat parochial. We admit to that, and we are quite proudly so. But when we debate legislation like the Commonwealth Radioactive Waste Management Legislation Amendment Bill 2006, and when you consider the track record of this government and statements by some of its ministers, it is little wonder that people in Perth, let alone in rural and regional Western Australia, are suspicious of the conduct of this government.

Consideration of legislation like this involves a couple of significant issues. As Senator Evans has said, this legislation goes to the heart of removing any say that traditional owners of the land have about where the siting of a radioactive waste dump will be. But it also highlights the fact that this government seeks to legislate away opposition rather than consult or try to have a constructive relationship with either state or territory governments or traditional owners. When faced with any form of criticism or opposition, its solution is to legislate it away.

The fear of a nuclear power industry and the site of a nuclear waste facility is one that has been discussed in my state for quite some time. And that is little wonder, because federal members of the Liberal Party have put it on the agenda. Last year the member for O’Connor, Mr Tuckey, was talking about the issue. Who can forget the comments that he made as well as those made by the federal member for Kalgoorlie, Mr Haase, and indeed the infamous comments of the federal member for Tangney, Dr Dennis Jensen. When you add together those comments with those of the former state leader of the Liberal Party, Mr Matt Birney, the state member for Kalgoorlie, then you really have to be deeply suspicious of what this government is up to.

Mr Birney, when he was leader of the Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition in the state parliament, when the state parliament had passed the Nuclear Waste (Storage) Prohibition Act, went on the record last year to say that, if he were in government, he would repeal that legislation, that he was happy for a nuclear waste dump to be in Western Australia. He said that one of the first things he would do would be to repeal legislation passed by the state parliament in March of the previous year—he said this last year, so in March 2004—which bans radioactive waste dumps being established in Western Australia. So when you match Mr Birney’s comments with those of some of the federal representatives of the Liberal Party, it is something that people in my state should be suspicious of. They should be suspicious of what this government has in mind for them. Add to that the report from the Australian on 24 May this year that reported the federal member for Kalgoorlie, Mr Haase, as saying that Australia, and particularly Western Australia:

… should also consider storing high-level radioactive waste and was in the perfect position to “charge like a wounded bull for those services”.

In the same article the Liberal member for O’Connor, the infamous Mr Tuckey, was quoted as saying:

We are the ideal repository for those spent fuel rods for the simple reason we have the best geological stability …

Then there is the federal Liberal member for Tangney, Dr Dennis Jensen. He also backed the option of storing high-level nuclear waste in Western Australia.

So when you add together this government’s drive to not in any way allow the traditional owners of the land any say on whether they are going to have to deal with the radioactive waste to Mr Birney’s pledge—no doubt he is on the way back to the front bench of the Liberal Party in Western Australia, and I am sure one day we will see him completely resurrect his political career—to repeal the state legislation that outlaws a radioactive waste dump in Western Australia and to this government’s drive to expand the nuclear industry in this country, and the significant comments of leading members of the federal Liberal Party from Western Australia, it is obvious that there is a plan and that the plan goes beyond the bill that is currently before us. It is obvious that there is a plan being generated by the government, and that is to soften up people in my home state to agree to the state becoming a nuclear waste dump. As even Mr Tuckey has conceded in some quarters, and I know Senator Minchin has in others, it is not something that is electorally popular, it is not something that the people of Western Australia are prepared to be softened up for and it is not something that any of them will stand for.

This is an issue that people in WA feel very strongly about. They do not trust what people are talking about here. They have seen what has happened with this government overriding the wishes of the Northern Territory government and insisting that the site will be there. Let’s face it: that is because it is a territory and they can do it; it is not because there has been any consultation or any agreement. Now they want to remove the rights of traditional owners to have a say. People are legitimately suspicious of what is going on here.

And then who can forget the leaked cabinet submission that talked about sites for the spent fuel processing plant, the leaked submission to the federal cabinet of 1997. It talked about Perth being a likely site for a nuclear power station; it talked about what electorates they were going to be in; it talked about not releasing information about alternative sites because that may unnecessarily alarm communities in the broad areas under consideration. It is little wonder that people in Western Australia are a bit sensitive, a bit suspicious and a bit parochial. You cannot take what this government says about these issues on face value. It is just chipping away, legislating away opposition so that it can get its own way and ride roughshod over what local communities want, not just traditional owners but all local communities. I am sure the people of the Northern Territory—a territory that I spent a significant part of my early childhood growing up in—are pretty suspicious of this government.

This issue is something that people in my home state are quite legitimately concerned about because the government keeps using its numbers to chip away section after section of the legislation and to prevent one group of people after another from having a say in what is going to happen within their communities. When you add that to the stance that is taken by key Liberal Party politicians in state parliament, we really should be worried about the plans that the Liberal Party has for our community in Western Australia.

There is no doubt in looking at the roles of Dr Jensen and Mr Tuckey and in adding the comments of Mr Haase to those of his state colleague Mr Birney—whose star is on the rise again; I am sure he will have a significant contribution to make to the state Liberal Party—that there obviously is a plan, at least in the Western Australian division of the Liberal Party, to turn my home state into not just a state that has nuclear power but also one that has a radioactive waste dump. What is being said by these significant Liberal politicians is part of the softening-up process. We are not being parochial; we are being quite rightly concerned about the conduct of some of these significant Liberal politicians and what they have planned for Western Australia. These issues are not as simple as the government would have us believe. You cannot just accept what it has to say at face value; you have to look at its conduct as a whole. I think it is important that people in Western Australia understand the real plans that the Liberal Party has for our state.

Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the Commonwealth Radioactive Waste Management Legislation Amendment Bill 2006. This should not be surprising; it was me who introduced particular amendments that allowed for three other classes of land. One was a class of land that could be nominated by the Northern Territory government—a very large landholder in the Northern Territory and principally responsible for land. The other two principal landholders are the Northern Land Council, which is effectively responsible for the northern half of the Northern Territory, and the Central Land Council, which is responsible for those remaining lands in the southern half of the Northern Territory.

The purpose of this bill falls principally into two parts. The first part is to provide for the return of land when the facility may no longer be required and also to indemnify those landholders following the return of the land against potential damages arising from the original use of the land. The second aspect of the bill deals with a number of issues that may cause a delay in the nomination process. We are all pretty familiar in this place with the history of this legislation, and the siting of a radioactive repository on behalf of all Australians—which was the original idea, and a very laudable one at that—with years of effort to try to get it right. I think everybody knows that that effort has been thwarted by those who create mischief by saying, ‘I will do anything to prevent a radioactive facility from being sited anywhere in Australia.’ That is not in anyone’s interest. This bill is very important because the second aspect of it deals with ensuring that there is no more mischief to be made in this matter. We have put beyond reach of the mischief makers the ability to cause any further, and clearly unnecessary, delays in this matter.

The bill also deals with the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 and makes some amendments to the land nomination process, particularly section 3A. This has the effect of adding a site nomination under proposed section 3A of the Commonwealth Radioactive Waste Management Legislation Amendment Bill 2006 to the classes of decisions that are not decisions to which the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act applies. Again, we think that it is a bit of a hole in what we consider to be a pretty clear future. This bill is all about making sure that there are no more holes in the future and no more little avenues where people can make some mischief.

It is also important to note that these amendments principally come from the Northern Land Council. Under the Aboriginal Land Rights Act, the Northern Land Council has a great deal of responsibility for not only the land under their jurisdiction but also the Aboriginal people who are the traditional owners of that land and it has the responsibility to ensure that the wishes of those people are met on a number of matters such as development and change and the siting of things, whether it be fishing entitlements, mining or railways. Historically, the Northern Land Council is quite expert on this matter and I have to commend it for its efforts in ensuring that traditional owners have an option, one which is in the amendments that I have put forward in this place. That option is that they can consider whether or not this is something they would like to have sited on their land or otherwise. This council has gone a long way to ensure that the processes are in place so that people are well-informed of the options before them.

Particular parts of these amendments, as I say, come from the Northern Land Council. Their concern is that a challenge may be raised on the basis that the Northern Land Council did not properly consult all interested parties, as required by subsection 3B(1) of the act, prior to making a nomination and the seeking of judicial review under the nomination under the AD(JR) Act, which I previously covered. Of course, the government shares that concern.

The Australian Government Solicitor believes on balance that, whilst a failure to comply with subsection 3B(1) of the Commonwealth Radioactive Waste Management Legislation Amendment Bill 2006 would not affect the validity of the nomination, there is not an insignificant risk that a court may decide otherwise. So the AGS considered the greatest risk was from a successful challenge to any siting decision made under section 7 of the Commonwealth Radioactive Waste Management Act or from an ongoing court action that prevented progress in making that decision, so that a challenge could be made at any time in the future after considerable time and effort has been spent on assessing a nominated site. Given the possibility of receiving a nomination of land adjacent to the Central Land Council’s jurisdiction, the prospect of a legal challenge is considered high, given the Central Land Council’s vocal opposition to the facility.

I have to say that there is a stark contrast between the behaviour of Northern Land Council and the Central Land Council in regard to these matters. It was interesting that I knew exactly what the Central Land Council thought about the amendments and the opportunity to be included in the discussion over the siting of a radioactive storage facility almost the following day after I made the amendments in this place, because there were yells and screams from the Central Land Council: ‘No, we’re not going to have it. We’ll have absolutely none of that.’ I have to say I was amazed at the time it took to consult so many people over those lands. It seemed like the next day they had it all squared away. There was no way they were going to have it on their land.

I had the opportunity during a committee hearing on Monday, 27 November to place a question on notice. They certainly put in the evidence that their position was a solid position because they had unanimous support for that decision. I actually asked them in a question on notice if they could provide the minutes of meetings reflecting upon who was there and that will obviously give me some guidance in that matter. I am looking forward to that answer.

It is in stark contrast to the Northern Land Council, who have, I consider, done an absolutely outstanding job. I inquired as to how Mr John Daly, the chairman of the Northern Land Council, a traditional owner himself, had gone about the process of informing individuals. He was able to tell me that the full council of 80 Indigenous traditional owners from the Northern Land Council region met in a place not far from Darwin in the Northern Territory—in Bynoe Harbour, I believe. They met for two full days and considered no other issue apart from informing the traditional owners what the amendments I brought before this place enabled them to do. They had two full days of deliberations where they invited ANSTO scientists to provide information about what it actually meant and they were able to question and deliberate slowly and, in a proper way, make a decision. Their decision was not, ‘Yes, we are going to have something on our land.’ Their decision was not, ‘Yes, we want it here.’ It simply informed those people from the Northern Land Council and they unanimously decided that they would allow and assist people in making a nomination should the landholders require it. It is, as I said, in pretty stark contrast to the Central Land Council. The Northern Land Council certainly made it clear in an announcement on 21 October last year which read:

The full council of the NLC has called for an amendment to the Commonwealth Radioactive Waste Management Bill 2005 so that the Land Council can nominate an alternative site in the Northern Territory for a waste facility provided that the traditional owners agree.

I have heard a lot of absolutely unadulterated garbage from the other side—I have only been listening to the debate for short time—but I did note a couple of comments from the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and I must say it brought me some sadness to hear him say that Aboriginal people have had their rights taken from them. I note that later in his submission he said that Aboriginal people have the right to make determination on their own land. The single word ‘self-determination’ I thought would come with the respect to stand up in this place and say that, if individuals from the Northern Land Council and the traditional owners want to make up their minds, they can choose to nominate a site to do anything they like on that country.

From my perspective, if you ignore the fearmongering from the other side, this process is no different from the process of establishing a corridor for a railway. It is a very important thing for the Northern Territory. Of course, the Northern Land Council did exactly the same in that matter and ensured that everybody was consulted for the entire length of the Territory. You can imagine the difficulties in doing that. They are very good at this. Why would we change the respect that was afforded them at that stage now? Why do we think this development is any different? Of course, it is because there is mischief afoot.

I have to say that the main mischief has been that provided by the Labor Party. The word ‘disingenuous’ starts paling into insignificance when you look at a bit of the history here. In this country some time ago—I was still catching fish when all this was happening—there was a principal agreement between the heads of the states and territories in Australia that it seemed very fair and reasonable that we would form a Commonwealth or a national repository where any radioactive material from around Australia would be stored to the very best level of amenity, properly and safely. So it was to everybody’s benefit that we studied that. I understand that it took some four years to go through that process and they established that it would be in the Officer Basin in whatever the section is in Woomera. They decided that that would be the very best place to have it. Of course, that is when the mischief starts. Mr Rann decided he was not doing too well in the polls, so a bit of fear and loathing would not hurt, and he suddenly said, ‘We’re not having radioactive waste in my backyard.’ He said that at the last moment.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Corporate Governance and Responsibility) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He did all right in the last election.

Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Wong, I can tell you right now that you should hang your head in shame. Right at the moment, you are dragging the good names of the traditional owners of the Northern Land Council through the mud. If you want to stand up and—

The Acting Deputy President:

Order! Senator Scullion, I suggest that you address your remarks through the chair.

Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Acting Deputy President, I think that Senator Wong should hang her head in shame over this entire issue, because I can tell you right now that we would not be in this very sorry circumstance—

Rod Kemp (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for the Arts and Sport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Acting Deputy President, on a point of order: I have observed what has happened. It is very rare that I would ever question a ruling of the chair, but my colleague was being seriously provoked by Senator Wong’s interjections, and I think she should have been asked to restrain herself, as would be entirely appropriate.

The Acting Deputy President:

Senator, there is no point of order.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Corporate Governance and Responsibility) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Acting Deputy President, on a point of order: the minister has passed a very serious aspersion on the chair, and I ask him to withdraw it.

Rod Kemp (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for the Arts and Sport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, of course, I do. But I make the point that Senator Wong was calling out, and it is entirely appropriate for the chair to call Senator Wong to order.

The Acting Deputy President:

I was calling both senators to order. Please continue, Senator Scullion.

Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Wong her for her interjection, because she reminds me that any senators from South Australia, if they are fair dinkum about this issue, must understand that they need to bear some of the shame in history that makes us face up to this particularly perilous set of circumstances we find ourselves in today. The more mischief—

Trish Crossin (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Dumping waste in the Territory! It’s an excuse to dump it in the Territory.

Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The dump—we have more fear and loathing from Senator Crossin. She refuses to call it a repository because it is sexy in the media. She is supposed to inform people in this place but, instead of informing people, she uses this whole rattle of fear and loathing. That is why the Labor Party have absolutely nowhere to be on this issue. The mischief of the Labor Party continues. We know they will be out there, whether it is Elliott McAdam down there in Tennant Creek saying, ‘This is all very terrible; you need to be very careful of all these sorts of things,’ and then—

Trish Crossin (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Acting Deputy President, on a point of order. That would be Minister Elliott McAdam from the Northern Territory government, I believe.

The Acting Deputy President:

Senator Scullion, I remind you to refer to all members of parliament according to their proper titles.

Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have to say, Madam Acting Deputy President, that that was not an intentional slight. I was not sure whether he is still a minister or not. Whether he is Minister for Local Government or Minister for Central Australia, I will certainly refer to him as Minister McAdam. When I was questioning him during the Senate process, I was not pulled up for that; perhaps that is what led me to that error.

The main mischief is the Labor Party. History shows that Mike Rann started us off on this. Isn’t it interesting that we have people saying, ‘It’s really dangerous; it’s radioactive.’

The Acting Deputy President:

Senator, again, would you refer to the Premier of South Australia according to his correct title.

Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Premier Mike Rann—certainly; continue to remind me if I forget those things. Premier Mike Rann started off this process by being disingenuous and saying right at the last minute that waste would not be stored in South Australia. Everybody had decided it was in the very best interests of Australia. He has some short-term political gains, so suddenly the entire process that everybody had agreed to has been absolutely thrown to the wind.

The Commonwealth has to show some leadership in this matter. As far as I am concerned—and as far as most clear-thinking Australians and most people in the Senate are concerned, I would have to say—this is a very important issue for the health of Australians. This is not an issue about a repository; this is an issue about access to fundamental health for Australians. I really do not understand the agenda of those who stand in the way of it. At the end of the day, this is about health and this is a very important issue for all Australians.

Of course, the mischief of Labor continues. The Minister for Central Australia, Elliott McAdam, whilst giving evidence, was putting it about the place that people in Central Australia had not been consulted. He was generally putting it about the place that there was something uncomfortable or dangerous about this radioactive facility. Anybody, including those people, could have afforded themselves of a process that informed them, which the Northern Land Council did. They actually visited ANSTO and asked some questions. They asked questions about safety. They wanted to see the materials, touch them, look at them and understand more about them. When they did, they came to the same conclusion I have. I went through exactly the same process, and the conclusion I have come to is that this is an extremely safe process.

Today we know that the Central Land Council are now saying that they would like to have a say over the traditional owners in a completely separate jurisdiction. I have been dealing with Indigenous people for a very long time, and to want to have a say over somebody else’s country is, I believe, beyond the pale. Again, we know that mischief is afoot and we need to pass legislation that puts beyond doubt all of those things. The process we have gone through identifies all the processes where I think there will be a bit of mischief, and I really hope that this will eventually put to bed any delays that come this way.

I have to say to those people in this place who say that we have trampled all over the rights of Indigenous Territorians that I think that is an absolute fallacy; it is quite the opposite. Indigenous Territorians have said quite clearly that they want the right to nominate a site on their land if they choose. I can remember clearly the times when the only three sites that were nominated were Commonwealth sites. The same people were jumping up and down and yelling in the aisles that that was a terrible affront and a terrible tragedy. I came up with some good amendments that said: ‘Let’s have much better scientific amenity. Rather than having it just anywhere, we should put it where it would best be.’ The Northern Territory government has completely failed. From day one they have said: ‘We won’t be putting in a nomination because we’re fundamentalists. We are simply ignoring the wider benefits to Australia in this and we’re going to play politics.’

That is interesting. Premier Mike Rann and Chief Minister Clare Martin are the very same ones who got together and said that radioactivity is bad. But somehow Mike Rann can put his yellowcake on the train or on a truck and send it right up through the Northern Territory—Clare Martin does not mind that, I have to say. It can go through Alice Springs, Tennant Creek and Katherine into Darwin, on to the Darwin wharf and get unloaded. Of course they have a mutual interest: Mike Rann actually wants to export his yellowcake; Clare Martin is interested in exporting Ranger uranium, of which we have been big supporters. But suddenly when it comes to fundamentally protecting the health of Australians it is: ‘Let’s make a bit of political mischief.’

The purposes of this bill are very basic. First of all, it is to ensure that the land is returned to Indigenous Australians after the facility is no longer required. Secondly, it ensures that it is put beyond the reach of those causing mischief—and I have to say that most of that is driven by those opposite. I hope that this is the last time we look to amending this legislation. I commend the bill to the house.

Trish Crossin (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to provide a contribution to this debate on the Commonwealth Radioactive Waste Management Legislation Amendment Bill 2006. This bill perpetuates the lies and half-truths that were told to Territorians before the last election about the placement of this nation’s radioactive waste, which is now going to be dumped in the Northern Territory. This is despite the fact that we were given a categorical assurance that the dump would not be built in the Northern Territory and that an offshore option was being considered. This was never ever the intention of this dishonest government.

This time last year we were faced with the first piece of legislation that bulldozed the Territory’s legislation out of existence. It overrode the Territory’s right to conduct its own affairs and it began the process of finding a place at which to dump the nation’s nuclear waste. The original bill, which the government is trying to amend today, was a huge embarrassment in the Northern Territory for Senator Scullion and his mate in the other place. I might add, as I refer to Senator Scullion’s mate one Mr David Tollner that, while reading the Hansard of last week’s proceedings of the House of Representatives, I noted that Mr Tollner did not even bother to make a contribution to the debate on this bill when it went through that house. He has given up trying to defend his position of overriding the rights of the Territory.

Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He voted for it.

Trish Crossin (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Scullion, I will take that interjection. You are right: he did vote for this legislation, as you will vote for it.

Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Absolutely.

Trish Crossin (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This shows that you have simply sold the Territory down the drain. I remember a number of previous senators representing the Northern Territory simply being chastised if they did not stand up for the rights of Territory legislation, particularly in respect of internet gambling and the euthanasia debate. I have referred to these in previous debates about this matter. It seems that in this day and age it is okay for people like Mr Tollner and Senator Scullion to simply support and protect their federal Liberal and National Party mates and completely sell out the Territory.

As a face saver, the Northern Land Council came to Senator Scullion’s aid, saying, ‘We might be interested in a dump.’ Senator Scullion, it is interesting that you have again confessed that some of these legislative amendments have been brought about by the request of the Northern Land Council. It is funny that that is not what your minister said in a Stateline interview last Friday night. I will get to that in the minute.

The Central Land Council opposes these amendments but the Northern Land Council does not, so what are we doing here? We have legislation that is driven at the behest of one land council in the Northern Territory because it suits their political agenda. It is a pity, Senator Scullion, that you did not seek to inform yourself about the extensive consultations that the Central Land Council have had on this matter. In fact, only two weeks ago there was a three-day meeting at Finke. While I know you are avid about what has happened during the Northern Land Council’s meetings, you should inform yourself about what has happened at the Central Land Council’s meetings. I note that at a meeting of the Northern Land Council—I do so with all due respect; it is not my intention to criticise it here—only DEST and ANSTO appeared, not the Australian Conservation Foundation or the Medical Association for the Prevention of War or other experts in this field who might provide an alternative view. They were never given the opportunity to brief or to talk to traditional owners about this matter.

Anyway, let us get back to last year when Senator Scullion was able to wriggle around his embarrassment, saying, ‘We’re going to have a dump in the Territory whether we like it or not and if you don’t like the proposed site we’ll amend the bill to let the Northern Territory or a land council propose one for us.’ Of course the bill was amended to allow this to happen. The Northern Land Council said, ‘Okay, we’ll have a look at it but we want some further changes to ensure that traditional owners are in control.’ As government senators noted in their report from the Senate committee of inquiry into the first bill:

It is clear that the NLC’s support for the legislation is conditional on traditional owners retaining a final veto right concerning the location of a waste facility on the basis of sacred site and environmental considerations.

Twelve months on, we now have this bill indicating that traditional owners or affected persons will have no final say on the siting of the dump. What we are doing today is legislating to remove traditional owners’ final veto right. A submission from Katherine Residents Against Nuclear Dump noted:

The implications of this are extraordinary, as it reduces the former rules of nomination to guidelines, allowing Land Councils to nominate land for a Commonwealth dump irrespective of traditional owners’ opposition and concerns, contrary to their usual, statutory obligations under the Land Rights Act.

The bill explicitly says there will be no right to procedural fairness or judicial review. The government’s legislation was to block what it called ‘politically motivated challenges’ to the process, but, as David Ross, the director of the Central Land Council, said in its submission in the last week or so:

I think the real issue here is that Aboriginal people are not interested in the politically motivated challenges; they are interested in their rights and in being consulted about what is to take place or what is not to take place on their land. That is what interests Aboriginal people more than anything else.

The site nomination by the land council will be the end of the process as far as traditional owners are concerned. The Northern Land Council correctly points out that leases granted over Aboriginal land cannot be invalidated on the basis of faulty consultation. However, under this bill, once a site is given up by traditional owners it will be a done deal for those people—before the government does the environmental assessment, or the designs for the facility and the access corridors, or any other work involved in getting the dump off the ground. Traditional owners will be effectively shut out, well before any of those other processes happen. That is why the provisions of this bill are, unlike other agreements, protected from any disputes about faulty consultation by the Land Rights Act.

Under the Land Rights Act, the protection of the agreement occurs at the end of the negotiation process, perhaps a few years down the track when all the details have been negotiated and what is to be done on the land that is to be leased would be well known by the interested parties. But, under this amended bill, once the site is nominated by the land council, and before the government even has a clear idea of what it will do at the site or in any access corridors, there is simply no further redress or say for traditional owners, even though they may find out a whole lot more about the waste facility, its size and its impact on their country.

This bill absolves the government of any responsibility to traditional owners of a site to ensure that they agree with it becoming a radioactive dump site and losing access to it. It also absolves the land council of meeting its responsibilities under the Land Rights Act to act only on the advice of traditional owners.

The Central Land Council in its submission to the inquiry last week asked:

Why are Australia’s most disadvantaged group being denied a basic entitlement to accountable and transparent process merely because of the possibility of “politically motivated challenges”?

It is ironic that after years of the Country Liberal Party accusing land councils of not acting in the interests of traditional owners, here is the very same Country Liberal Party and their coalition partners actually legislating to encourage it.

The Conservation Foundation said in its submission:

The new provisions in the CRWM Amendment (2006) Bill which specify that failure to comply with 3B(1) would not invalidate a nomination by a Land Council—or declaration by the Minister—just as clearly are intended to revoke Traditional Owners existing rights.

It is extraordinary and profoundly shameful that in a matter as controversial and contested as the siting of a nuclear waste dump such long held and procedurally proper processes are being circumvented.

Senator Scullion’s previous amendments to the dump legislation in 2005 made great play of giving traditional owners control of nominating their land for a dump. Now, in the interests of fast-tracking this dump at all costs, traditional owners will be shut out.

The No Waste Alliance in Darwin’s submission noted that the minister, in her second reading speech, has given a personal assurance that:

... should a nomination be made, I will only accept it if satisfied that these criteria have been met.

The submission continued:

Why, then, has the Minister proposed amendments which specifically state that failure to adhere to these criteria would not validate a nomination—or her declaration—of a site for a Commonwealth nuclear waste dump?

If the minister is being honest with traditional owners in the Northern Territory, and if she would only accept a nomination if she were satisfied the criteria had been met, I ask: why then do we need this legislation?

In the face of repeated lies and broken promises by federal politicians on the various parameters of dumping nuclear waste in the Territory, this empty assurance rings as hollow as her colleague Senator Campbell’s ‘categorical assurance’ two days before the last federal election that the Northern Territory would not be used to dump Commonwealth nuclear waste.

This government purports this bill is really about returning the land to traditional owners after hundreds of years, but—if that ever happens—it can be done at the government’s discretion already, without this legislation. What this bill is really about is blocking the rights of traditional owners or others from challenging any nomination of Aboriginal land for a dump site. But to take the government’s claim at face value: how likely is the return of the land in the foreseeable future?

Australia has just opened its new nuclear reactor in Sydney. It will be producing both low level and intermediate level waste for years to come. Trucks will be rolling into the dump for years and years. In Senate estimates, Mr Davoren of DEST Science Group spoke of the best case scenario with even low-level waste. He said:

You deal with radioactive material that, in the case of low-level radioactive material, for instance, might be disposed of to the environment and is regarded as posing a potential hazard for an institutional control period. If the facility is closed in 50 years, you would maintain surveillance over that site for the institutional control period, which might be 200 or 300 years.

Unless there is a great scientific leap forward, I imagine we will still be producing low-level waste in 50 years time, so why would the government close the facility then, when it is going to be monitored for hundreds of years into the future anyway?

That is the low-level waste; the intermediate waste is too dangerous to just be left in the desert to rot, so it will be stored, temporarily, possibly in the desert, so the government says. That is the same as all other intermediate and high-level waste in the world, which is ‘temporarily stored’ because no scientist anywhere in the world has yet devised a means of building a permanent disposal facility.

The reality is that traditional owners will be waiting a very long time—perhaps generations—until Australia finds a cheap, scientific and sound solution to storing intermediate waste and moves it, eventually, off their land. As the Northern Territory local member for the area of Aboriginal land most likely to nominated, the member for Barkly, Minister Elliott McAdam, said in his submission to the Senate inquiry:

The reality is however, that if radioactive waste is buried, the land will never be returned. If there is contamination from the storage of radioactive waste [on the] land it will never be returned and if no other site is ever found to relocate this radioactive waste, the land will never be returned.

Once again the government has used its numbers to ram through legislation and to allow only the most token of Senate inquiries into this important area. I note comments from my other colleagues about the process of dealing with these Commonwealth waste management bills. This is the second time we have dealt with the bill, the second time that the Senate Standing Committee on Employment, Workplace Relations and Education has looked into what is contained in the detail of this bill, and this is the second time we have been denied an opportunity to travel to the Northern Territory to meet local people concerned, to hear from traditional owners and to meet with the people who will be most affected by this radioactive waste dump.

The hearings have been held here in Canberra—and, if it were not bad enough that we did not give people the opportunity to fly down here, the hearing last Monday week was held by teleconference. It was a total abrogation of the right of people in the Northern Territory to attend a Senate inquiry and to take the time that is needed to put to the Senate committee their objections and concerns about this whole process. In its submission to the inquiry, No Waste Alliance Darwin notes that:

The lack of time for written submissions undoubtedly leaves all parties particularly keen to present further oral submissions to the inquiry. It is therefore once again a source of disappointment that the Committee will not be visiting the impacted regions, let alone the major cities, of the Northern Territory.

No justification or rationale has been presented for this unseemly haste; we can only speculate. One clear reason for rushing this Amendment through at high speed must be to evade unwanted scrutiny of its assault on the existing rights held by Traditional land Owners in the Northern Territory. Further, this haste denies impacted communities and electorates not only access to participation in, but also observation of the process.

As I said, this bill compromises the rights of Indigenous people living in the Territory to make decisions based on free, prior and informed consent. It negates the rights of procedural fairness and natural justice by excluding, under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act, any judicial review process in respect of proposed sites for the location of a Commonwealth radioactive waste facility.

The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission provided a submission to the inquiry. On page 6 of the submission they talk about the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People. They say that article 29 of that declaration states:

2. States shall take effective measures to ensure that no storage or disposal of hazardous materials shall take place in the lands or territories of indigenous peoples without their free, prior and informed consent.

This government’s own draft report on uranium mining, processing and nuclear energy—the Switkowski report—says that it is widely accepted that ‘effective community engagement is a common element in the successful siting of repository investigation sites’. There has been no effective communication in the Northern Territory by the federal government through this process—and, of course, there is no intention to have any effective communication.

But let us cut to the chase. On Stateline last Friday night, Minister Bishop suggested that the need for these provisions is a result of the numerous threats by the Northern Territory government to oppose this government’s actions by any means available, including legal challenges. She is very incorrect. There has never been any suggestion by the Northern Territory government that they would make any legal challenges to oppose this dump. They have never said that. That was an incorrect statement by the Minister on Stateline last Friday night—and I hope that, at some stage, she will have the courage to correct the record in respect of the actions of the Northern Territory government.

But let us be really clear what this is about. This is about ensuring that this government’s proposal to push this dump towards being on Muckaty Station is realised. Let us line up all the dominoes here. Earlier this year the Office of the Registrar of Aboriginal Corporations amended the constitution of the Muckaty Trust Association—with, I might say, some concern from the members of the Muckaty Land Trust, who believed they were not well informed by ORAC prior to that happening. ORAC tightened up their constitution, broadened the representation and ironed out a few rough edges in terms of the way in which the Muckaty trust can be managed.

This is also about the five families who belong to Muckaty Station, three of whom live on adjoining land. Senator Scullion himself said—and I will be interested to see the Hansard at some stage—that this was about ensuring that anyone who was on land adjacent to the Northern Land Council boundaries could provide no objections. That is exactly the political reality of this bill. This bill is about cutting out all the people affected by Muckaty Station, not just some of the traditional owners but a majority of them—not the ones who live within the Northern Land Council boundary but the ones who live within the Central Land Council boundary. I have a copy of a letter that was written by those people to the chairperson of the Northern Land Council, Mr John Daly, back in July. It states:

Dear Mr Daly,

We write to you with deep concern.

In the past, we have trusted the Northern Land Council (NLC) to protect our Homelands …

…            …            …

Mr Daly, why are you talking to David Tollner and Nigel Scullion for us about our country? Why are you helping the Commonwealth Government to take control of our land to build a nuclear waste facility?

…            …            …

Mr Daly, we ask you to stop talking for us. We do not want a nuclear waste facility built on our land.

This bill is exactly about silencing these traditional owners. (Time expired)

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It would be hard to recall better representatives for the Northern Territory than Senator Nigel Scullion and Mr David Tollner. We have had some good representatives from the Country Liberal Party over the years—the representatives from the Labor Party have not always been so hot—but you would go a long way to find better representatives than Senator Scullion and Mr Tollner. They both have the interests of the Northern Territory and Australia at heart in all the decisions that they make—and they do that again in relation to the Commonwealth Radioactive Waste Management Legislation Amendment Bill 2006. They do not act from some left wing ideology like the Labor representatives from the Northern Territory. They act in the interests of their constituents and in the interests of Australia.

I do not want to keep the Senate long, but I do want to indicate that I am in favour of the safe and responsible management of nuclear waste and I am in favour of Aboriginal people being able to make their own decisions about infrastructure development on their own land. Accordingly, I support the amendments.

It seems from the previous speaker’s speech that she and her party are in favour of Aboriginal people being able to make their own decisions only when it is Aboriginal people who happen to have the same view of life as they do. If it happens to be an Aboriginal group such as the Northern Land Council, who have indicated quite clearly that they want something, and it does not accord with the left wing view of the Labor Party, then the Labor Party are not very interested in what Aboriginal people want. Senator Crossin said she was not here to criticise the Northern Land Council but then she spent a fair proportion of her speech doing just that. I hope that the Northern Land Council and other Aboriginal people understand that Senator Crossin and her party are more interested in the Big Brother approach of saying: ‘We will tell Aboriginal people what is good for them. If they happen to have a view that doesn’t accord with ours, then that is not good for them. They don’t understand what is happening. We will tell them what is right.’ I am proud of Senator Scullion and the member for Solomon, Mr Tollner, in standing up for Northern Territorians, standing up for these Aboriginal people who have indicated what they want to do through their land council, and pursuing this particular policy.

Senator Crossin said with some feigned amazement, one would think, that the Australian Conservation Foundation, the ACF, was not invited to peddle their view on life around the Northern Territory. Why would you get the Australian Conservation Foundation in? Everybody knows that, for many a year now, they and the Australian Labor Party have been working very closely together, which is why they have not been treated as a genuine conservation group, as opposed to a political lobby group, for some time now.

As senators have mentioned, this bill provides a discretionary legislative mechanism for the return of land that has been used as a radioactive waste storage facility to the land trust to which it belonged, removes the process of nominating a site for consideration for use as a Commonwealth radioactive waste storage facility from the application of the AD(JR) Act and also removes the mandatory nature of the requirements governing the process for making nomination. I support this bill because it addresses issues that have been raised by the Northern Land Council in relation to the sensitivities for Aboriginal groups that may be considering putting forward their land for nomination to accommodate a Commonwealth radioactive waste management facility.

This debate has ranged far and wide. The general approach from the Labor Party and from some of the other speakers indicates a head-in-the-sand attitude to Australia’s future energy needs. I note that some members of the Labor Party, such as the member for Batman, Mr Martin Ferguson, believe there should be a debate on nuclear energy, as those of us on this side do. I am not saying that is the be-all and end-all of our energy requirements and greenhouse gas questions; I am simply saying that nuclear energy should be part of the mix. It should also include hydro—I am always surprised about this—which the Greens seem to be opposed to. I invite the Greens, as I have previously done, to explain to me why hydro is bad. It would seem to me to be the best energy source that would have the least impact on greenhouse gas emissions. The Greens also seem to be opposed to biomass when it comes to helping reduce greenhouse gas emissions. I think they both need to be looked at and put in the mix. The Greens now say they are all in favour of wind power. However, it was not so long ago the Greens were opposing wind power because of what they class as visual and noise pollution.

This government believes that there should be a wide range of energy sources put into the mix. An interesting one that the member for O’Connor, Mr Wilson Tuckey, and many of his Western Australian colleagues, including Senator Eggleston and Senator Johnston, have long been advocating is the use tidal power in the north-west of Western Australia. I must congratulate those Western Australians who have put a hell of a lot of work into looking at tidal power in the north west. I do not claim any expertise on this but it seems to be a great initiative that deserves further consideration and so, too, the government’s clean coal initiatives.

While the Greens, the Labor Party and the Democrats seem to be totally opposed to nuclear power, they always laud France, Great Britain and Europe, with their greenhouse gas emissions. However, they always forget to mention that those European countries have ‘proportionately’ low greenhouse gas emissions because they have a substantial commitment to, and usage of, nuclear power. When I was in the United Kingdom with a delegation a few months ago, the United Kingdom government was renewing its commitment to the use of nuclear power as part of a mix. One of the reasons used was that nuclear power limited their greenhouse gas emissions. They are the sorts of facts that those opposed to even putting it on the table for debate think about when it comes to the question of whether or not nuclear power should be included in the debate on future energy needs not only for Australia but also for the world.

Time moves on. Issues in this debate have been widely canvassed by all speakers. I commend the bill to the Senate and urge its adoption.

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