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

As I foreshadowed during the second reading debate, I have a number of amendments. I will discuss them in three blocks dealing with the three different aspects that I spoke about earlier. I would just like to begin with some broader questions relating to the consequences of passing a bill like this through the Senate. I will put a couple of questions to the minister if I can. Is the minister aware of how many nuclear reactors are currently operating in China?

Ursula Stephens (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Social Inclusion and the Voluntary Sector) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you for that question, Senator Ludlam. I understand that there are about 11 at the moment.

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

And I believe there are about the same number under construction, and perhaps 30 or 40 foreshadowed, depending on who you believe. Is the minister aware of how many nuclear armed or capable ballistic missiles are deployed by China?

Ursula Stephens (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Social Inclusion and the Voluntary Sector) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can say that no, I cannot.

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

And neither can your adviser. I wonder whether you could take that on notice for us, in tandem with—

Nick Minchin (SA, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Ask the Chinese embassy.

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

We could ask the Chinese embassy. I am sure they would be delighted to tell us how many Australian cities there are in range of those weapons! Could you take those two questions on notice, unless you are able to provide us with information now.

Ursula Stephens (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Social Inclusion and the Voluntary Sector) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Ludlam, you are asking me to answer a hypothetical question and I really cannot do that in the context of this debate.

Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to 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.

Nick Minchin (SA, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I indicate to the chamber and to Senator Ludlam that, on all of his amendments, our approach is that we have to keep in context what the Uranium Royalty (Northern Territory) Bill 2008 is about. This bill is not about approving uranium mining in the Northern Territory. Uranium has been mined in the Northern Territory for decades. This bill is relatively simple in its scope. It simply seeks, appropriately, to bring the arrangements regarding royalties with respect to uranium into line with the royalty arrangements for other minerals in the Northern Territory. That is an appropriate and sensible thing to do in our view, based on the steering committee’s report that I referred to yesterday. We as an opposition do not believe that we should be encumbering this bill with other agendas. We are satisfied with the arrangements that have been in place for decades with respect to uranium mining in the Northern Territory, as they pertain to remediation, accountability, the supervising scientist and the other matters to which Senator Ludlam’s amendments refer. Even if there were matters, hypothetically, that needed attention, this would not be the bill for that purpose. This bill has a very simple purpose, as I said. It is one that we support. This bill should not be encumbered with other agendas, so we will not be supporting these or other amendments.

Ursula Stephens (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Social Inclusion and the Voluntary Sector) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Ludlam, the amendments you have proposed to the Uranium Royalty (Northern Territory) Bill 2008 are absolutely outside the scope of the bill. For that reason, the government is opposed to all those amendments. I would like to reiterate that the government’s intention is that the royalty regime applicable to uranium in the Territory be consistent with other minerals, thereby providing certainty for all stakeholders. But you have raised some important questions for me and I would like to respond to some of the issues you have, particularly in this first amendment, and then I presume you will want to go through the others.

The first group of amendments you raised seek to establish a new remediation fund. You have proposed a five per cent remediation royalty stream. I am advised that, at a uranium price of US$30 per pound, the Greens proposal would raise about $59 million over 20 years. At a price of US$36 per pound, approximately $136 million would be raised. While there is much to commend this approach in obtaining funds to secure that the necessary rehabilitation is undertaken, if this amendment were defeated, the regime that is currently in place and operates at the present time means that the Northern Territory actually requires mining operators to submit a security bond that covers 100 per cent of the cost of rehabilitating the site. That security is held by government as cash or a bank guarantee and is updated annually.

I assume that your proposal in this amendment is not that a miner would pay twice for the same rehabilitation, because that would be, I think, quite an outrageous expectation. But, on the basis of this, a real advantage of the Greens amendment is that the payments by the miner would match their cashflow and this would be a great benefit in encouraging the mining operations. If I could be persuaded that there were no disadvantages from an environmental perspective from such an approach, I would support it. However, the problem is that the total monies raised in any point in time may be less than the cost of rehabilitation at that same time. There could be circumstances which would potentially again leave the taxpayer to pick up the cost. Because the current system requires a bond to cover 100 per cent of the estimated cost of rehabilitation associated with that mine, most importantly, this cost is reassessed annually and the required bond is updated. I am advised that the bond currently held for Ranger is actually $146 million. In other words, while the intent is there, what is actually being proposed in practice is a system that may well result in miners potentially contributing less to the true cost of rehabilitation. The Labor government is very clear in its support for uranium mining, but only with the thorough environmental protection processes in place.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will not prolong the debate much further. I am interested in the issues that Senator Ludlam has raised. I come back to the questions I raised in my speech in the second reading, to which the minister responded, ‘Well, look at the ALP website and you will see what it is all about.’ I just had my staff check on the ALP website in my home state of Queensland, which is where I first looked, it being the home branch of the Prime Minister and the Treasurer. When you click on the website it says that this is secret; you have got to be an ALP member to do it. It says that you are not authorised to look at this site but, if you want authorisation, contact the membership officer, join the party and then you can look at what the uranium policy is in the state of Queensland. Having come to a blank wall there, Parliamentary Secretary, perhaps—it is a pretty simple policy—you can just tell me what the ALP policy on uranium is and what policy the Queensland Labor Party, along with the South Australian Labor Party, will be adopting. I guess it is pretty simply policy.

Ursula Stephens (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Social Inclusion and the Voluntary Sector) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I say to Senator Macdonald that it is very clear in the party platform. Perhaps if you went to the national website you might be able find it, but I will ask the minister to provide it to your office. The Labor government is clear that it is supporting uranium mining as long as there are thorough environmental protection processes in place.

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

I would like to make a couple of comments and put some questions in response to the minister’s answer there. Thank you very much for providing that information to us. I am certainly not proposing that this amendment replace the way that mediation bonds are held by the Territory government; I am not sure that is even within the power of the Senate to do. In fact, this is intended for long-term care and maintenance of the kind we are still seeing where the taxpayer is having to cough up for rehabilitation of sites that were mined up to 40 years ago. Indeed, this is in addition to the way that bonds are set aside at this time. I want to talk about the reason I am suggesting this. You put the case to us about the money set aside by the Ranger operation. That mine has conditions that were set quite early on, after a very fierce debate, that it would need to be isolated from the environment for a period of 10,000 years if you would want to apply for long-term care of the volume of radioactive tailings that is being produced at Ranger right now. Is the minister aware of whether this condition has been subject to any proposed future uranium mines in the Territory or whether it is under discussion at any level?

Ursula Stephens (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Social Inclusion and the Voluntary Sector) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can advise Senator Ludlam that there are no other mines in the Northern Territory under consideration that have got through the very rigorous environmental impact assessment processes, so we are not at that stage of having to consider those issues.

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

This might be something that would need to be forwarded to the environment minister then. Is the Commonwealth considering 10,000-year isolation conditions for mine waste from uranium mines in the territory—or anywhere else, for that matter?

Ursula Stephens (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Social Inclusion and the Voluntary Sector) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Ludlam, the requirement that you have suggested assumes that one size fits all. The Commonwealth is actually required to consider the conditions around any of these issues on each individual case’s merits and circumstances.

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

I just put on the record now that the Greens will not oppose 20,000- or 50,000-year conditions if what has been set aside for Ranger is later found to be inadequate. I would put to you that the particular elements that are of greatest concern, with the longest half-lives in this case, uranium 238 and its daughter isotopes, are relatively common. There are some differences, obviously, in mine geology and chemistry at each deposit, but the key elements that we are concerned about here—and I would not have jumped up to have this debate about nickel or gold mining—are common right across all sites, so it is not quite good enough to say that one size does not fit all. Certainly 10,000 years may be found to be grossly inadequate. I will put the question to you again: in the case that we are dealing with elements that have the same characteristics no matter where uranium is mined in Australia or in the world, will the Commonwealth will be insisting on these sorts of provisions—very, very long term care and maintenance of these waste streams—which would justify a separate remediation fund as we are proposing here?

Ursula Stephens (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Social Inclusion and the Voluntary Sector) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Ludlam, for your patience; you do understand that this is not my portfolio area so I am seeking some advice. I am advised by the department that it is the responsibility of the minister for the environment to consider each case on its merits and to be satisfied that long-term environmental impacts are appropriately and adequately addressed.

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

I do not propose to dwell here; I will just ask if you could take on notice back to the minister—as he is going to be considering these proposals in detail—that, if he is not considering minimum 10,000-year rehabilitation and site isolation plans, I would be very interested to know why not. If you are able to at least take that back to the minister I would appreciate it. My last question on this amendment is about the degree of confidence to which the minister can assure the Senate that future Australian governments will not in fact be repeating taxpayer funded clean-ups of uranium mines that are either under consideration or being actively mined today, if the government does intend to oppose this amendment.

Ursula Stephens (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Social Inclusion and the Voluntary Sector) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Ludlam, the circumstances around the establishment of the uranium mines in 1963 were very different in terms of the science, our understanding, certainly environmental protection measures and of course the presence of the EPBC Act here in Australia, to which these mines relate. We would expect to do much better than the framework that was put in place in 1963, and of course we are. Continuous best practice improves as our knowledge and experience develops around the world. and we will continue to adapt procedures in the future. You have asked me what is almost a hypothetical question; I cannot speak for future governments but this government is determined to have world’s best practice as part of any consideration of a framework for expanded uranium mining.

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

My point, and the reason that we have dwelled on this for a few minutes, is that I cannot think of another uranium mining operation—certainly not in this country or anywhere in the world—that has a 10,000-year mine waste isolation plan attached to it and a Commonwealth government department looking over its shoulder. I would like to know, either now or a little bit later in the debate, what we actually mean by ‘world’s best practice’. To my knowledge, it is Commonwealth departments specifically set up to look over the shoulder of the mining companies, in this case the Office of the Supervising Scientist—which was established at the same time as the Ranger operation—and 10,000-year site conditions. That is world’s best practice. If it is being done better somewhere else, I would be really interested to hear about it.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that Australian Greens amendment (1) be agreed to.

Question negatived.

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

That is such an awful shame. The second amendment which I will be moving relates to accountability, which I am sure the minister will be interested in helping us improve. The inquiry into the bill raised quite a few questions about how profit is calculated and shown, which is a very important matter when royalties are calculated on a profit basis. Obviously the mining company has to declare how many tonnes it is shifting and how many tonnes of product it is refining and moving from the site, and that is a matter of record, obviously. The way that profits are calculated, on the other hand, can be quite obtuse.

There are two amendments here. I will move them as a block, but there are two substantive components to what I am seeking to do here—firstly, having the Auditor-General take a role in the way that profits are declared and recorded and, secondly, having the Office of the Supervising Scientist play a much greater role in the development of the industry in the region, with Supervising Scientist reports being subject to tabling in parliament and being passed to the responsible minister in the Northern Territory and the relevant land council to which royalties are being paid. I would be willing to split this amendment in two, should either of the major parties indicate support for the proposal. I also will not be holding my breath.

One of the drawbacks raised during the inquiry on the profit based royalty system, which held hearings in Darwin, was the possibility for companies to hide profits by various ways and means or to continue to plough profits back into capital investments and so on so that the company makes very few or even no royalty payments at all. The most commonly cited example—and I know they get a bit cross about seeing their name up in lights all the time—is the Xstrata mine at McArthur River, which paid royalties to the Territory government for the very first time in 2007 after operating since 1996. My amendments have the express purpose of providing additional support to the Territory government. No offence is intended to Xstrata in this case and no accusations are being made at this point. I simply state that that supervision is absolutely essential, particularly as the government seems intent on encouraging smaller and more marginal operators to get projects up and running.

What we are doing here is creating a more robust scrutiny of the calculation, payment and collection of amounts payable via the office of the Commonwealth Auditor General. That is the first part. That relates to clauses 23 and 24. Clause 25 seeks to extend the role—and make it an intervention role, if necessary—of the Supervising Scientist’s office. The Supervising Scientist currently operates to provide government oversight of the mine at Ranger. It does play a role—I think almost on a consultancy basis—in advising the government and companies elsewhere in the country. We are trying to formalise that by way of this amendment.

The 1977 Fox report into uranium mining recommended that a supervising scientist be established, having both administrative skills and scientific expertise to report to the environment minister of the day and to provide an annual report on the government’s monitoring program of the Ranger mine. At the time, the inquiry recommended that the office be legally empowered to require relevant information from Ranger operations and any agencies participating in research and monitoring of the site and be able to physically inspect the site and its operations. It was envisaged that that office would be a place where research and monitoring staff would work together. It was established in 1978 as a statutory authority under the Environment Protection (Alligator Rivers Region) Act 1978.

The Greens have been quite critical of this office. I have been critical of it myself in recent times—for example, over the adequacy of the office’s handling of a 10,000-litre a day leak from under the Ranger tailings storage facility. But it is a good model as these things go. Having the office, having the scientific and technical capacity up there, on site in Jabiru and Darwin, and having the oversight of the Ranger mine, I think you would be hard pressed to argue that it has not at least improved the performance of the company up there. It has served to remind the company of its obligations, of the standards, of the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. It has also kept this parliament informed of what is going on. I have had some very interesting and useful exchanges with the Supervising Scientist himself here at a number of estimates hearings. It is quite a good model. It is certainly better than the way we regulate the operations at Roxby Downs.

If this office was seen as necessary at the Ranger mine in the Territory, what we are proposing here is that that same oversight and audit function should be entirely appropriate for other uranium mines in the Territory and indeed across the country. The amendments that I am moving now allow the Supervising Scientist to have access to all uranium mining, processing, storage and transport operations in the Northern Territory—that is, data flowing from the companies—in the same manner as is recorded at the Ranger operation. That would empower the scientist to report on the mine sites—the radiological monitoring of the sites, the future rehabilitation of the sites and any research activities that are undertaken.

In the NT Mining Management Act there is a section that says the Territory must consult with the Commonwealth before it takes any approval action on a project that involves uranium or thorium. There are a number of agreements and memoranda in place between government parties which provide that the Supervising Scientist is the first point of contact in those instances. So the NT government is restricted from making any approval with regard to Ranger without having consulted with the scientist and sought his opinion of that approval. I think that is a particularly good model in this regard. I am seeking some feedback from the government and opposition as to whether you would support the concept of the Supervising Scientist having an expanded oversight role and, if not, why not?

Nick Minchin (SA, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I said in relation to amendment (1), our general view is that this bill is not the appropriate mechanism for these additional functions. This is a bill about the royalty arrangements relating to uranium and should not be encumbered by other agendas. The defeat of the Greens first amendment renders this second amendment partly redundant in that, in relation to the Auditor-General’s functions, it refers to the ‘adequacy of the remediation fund’, which of course has not been established because that amendment has been defeated. I do not think the amendments can any longer stand the way they are, from a practical point of view.

I do not believe it is appropriate to draw the Auditor-General into this purpose. It is not the function of the Auditor-General. The Auditor-General’s role is in relation to direct government programs and direct government spending, not ensuring that profits or income from mining operations are adequately reported. All uranium is exported and all sales contracts have to be provided to the government. I think that the arrangements at the moment are adequate. Certainly it is not the role of the Auditor-General to get involved in that matter. In any event, as I said, this amendment is made redundant by the defeat of the first amendment.

Again, this is not the vehicle for seeking to expand the responsibilities of the Supervising Scientist. I note and welcome Senator Ludlam’s remarks about the Supervising Scientist, given that it was the Fraser coalition government that established that office in 1978. I agree with him—I think it was a good policy initiative that has, by and large, worked very well. There is only one uranium mine in the Northern Territory. Were any additional mines to be established then the role of the Supervising Scientist in relation to any future mine and any approval processes for an additional mine could be considered at that time. But this is not the appropriate vehicle to address that question.

Ursula Stephens (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Social Inclusion and the Voluntary Sector) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I indicate to Senator Ludlam, as I said earlier, that the government is not supporting any of your amendments. But, if I could respond to the issues that you have raised in your amendments, that perhaps would give you some clarity.

What we are seeking here, through these amendments, is to give the Commonwealth Auditor-General a specified role in checking that the royalties payable to the Northern Territory are correctly calculated. The real impact of that is to impose on the Northern Territory a degree of supervision that is not imposed on states. You suggested in your remarks that there is no evidence of financial manipulation by companies but it is certainly something that governments would have an incentive to ensure does not occur. As the law presently stands, the onus is on the company and not the government to prove that the price is valid. So, if the Northern Territory Treasury questions the price being paid for the uranium in the royalty return, the payer has to disapprove that department’s view—and the Northern Territory process is subject to similar oversight by its Auditor-General. So, to the extent that the Auditor-General already has the power to review the Commonwealth department administering payments to the Aboriginal Benefits Account, we believe that this is adequate.

All uranium producers in Australia require uranium export permission, and this requires that copies of all uranium contracts are submitted to the Commonwealth. Companies are also required to declare to the Commonwealth all shipments, which includes declaring the quantities, the prices, the customer and the shipping routes. Accordingly, the Auditor-General already has the capability to do what is proposed. Therefore, we believe that the amendment adds nothing to prudential supervision and so we are not supporting it.

In relation to the proposal in item 25 of the amendment which seeks to expand the function of the Supervising Scientist in relation to uranium mining in the Northern Territory, again that is imposing on the Territory a degree of regulation that is not applied to the rest of the country. Also, the legislation we are presently considering goes to the issue of taxation; the relevant legislation for approval, monitoring and rehabilitation of uranium mines in the Northern Territory is the Territory’s Mining Management Act 2001, which will apply to any new uranium mines in the Northern Territory and has the appropriate mechanisms to regulate all aspects of Northern Territory uranium mines. In any event, as Senator Minchin said, the Commonwealth has a very substantial role in relation to the Supervising Scientist’s work and in relation to the environmental regulation of uranium mining through the EPBC Act. If, Senator Ludlam, you wish to change what is already a very comprehensive environmental regulatory regime with respect to uranium mining, that is where the amendments should be sought—to that act, not this bill. So we are not supporting either part of that proposed amendment.

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

Obviously, I disagree with the proposition that this is not the right place or time to consider these matters. I certainly would not qualify Senator Minchin’s comments as support, but at least there was a willingness to consider the possibility, down the track, of expanded OSS oversight of uranium mining companies in the Territory. I would welcome the expansion of that oversight to proposed mines in Western Australia, South Australia and Queensland, but I suspect here is certainly not the place to do it.

I wonder, Parliamentary Secretary Stephens, whether you would be able to put on the record for us whether the government would consider or is considering, if not in this bill then at another place or time, an expanded role for the OSS. This is not an academic or a hypothetical question, because there are mines in various stages of environmental assessment and approval in the Territory right now. There is the Angela-Pamela site on the outskirts, within the water catchment of Alice Springs, for example, where Paladin Energy and Cameco are finishing a drilling campaign today, I believe, to prove up the resource there. Cameco is certainly a very serious global player in this industry. That is not a hypothetical development.

If we are not expanding the position of the Office of the Supervising Scientist to review the way that these very real proposals are being established, then I wonder when that would happen, given that—as we have just been through in this part of the debate—the office was set up at the same time as and was part of the assessment of the Ranger operations. It was not set up as some sort of afterthought; it was actually an implicit part of uranium mining being allowed to occur in the Kakadu region in the first place. So I just wonder if the parliamentary secretary can provide us with any information at all that would indicate whether an expanded role for the office is being contemplated, because Senator Minchin certainly seemed to indicate that he would at least consider those ideas on their merit if they were brought before us.

Ursula Stephens (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Social Inclusion and the Voluntary Sector) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Ludlam. The government certainly values the role and function of the Supervising Scientist in relation to uranium mining in the Northern Territory. I am not speaking for the minister when I say this, but I am sure that, as those new proposals are proven up more substantially, the Supervising Scientist’s oversight and administration role in those uranium mines will be a factor the minister takes into account in terms of his advice and his consideration. I have advice that the expansion of the Supervising Scientist’s role in administrative arrangements is under consideration, but the minister has yet to determine the extent to which that will occur.

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

Parliamentary Secretary, could you just clarify what you mean by those last comments. I did not quite catch them.

Ursula Stephens (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Social Inclusion and the Voluntary Sector) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I just said, Senator Ludlam, that the expansion of the role of the Supervising Scientist in terms of administration of these issues is being considered, but that has not been determined at this stage.

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

That obviously falls very well short of what we are proposing today, but it is a relief to hear that at least that thought has occurred to the minister. And the office which we have in place—lest I be accused of perhaps being a little bit too cheerful about its operations—did not prevent and has done very little to make proposals for remediation of a various serious leak out from underneath this alleged world’s best practice uranium mine, so there is obviously still a long way to go as far as the way the Office of the Supervising Scientist operates. However, at least it is part of a model. I move Greens amendment (2) on sheet 5797:

(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.

Question negatived.

Progress reported.