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

My question is to Senator Carr as the Minister representing the Minister for Resources and Energy. It is a question that relates to radioactive waste management in Australia, which rightly belonged in Senator Carr’s portfolio before it was for some reason transferred to resources and energy. When will the government implement its very clear election promise, its policy platform and a great many public undertakings, including from you, to repeal the Commonwealth Radioactive Waste Management Act and replace it with a process that is—in your language, the language of the ALP—scientific, transparent, accountable and fair and which allows access to appeal mechanisms? What exactly is the reason for the delay of nearly two years having elapsed since you came to government? Will you acknowledge that this is actually a very clear breach of an election commitment?

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Ludlam, I will seek to provide you with information. The repeal of the Commonwealth Radioactive Waste Management Act is in fact an election commitment which we will honour, which we stand by. However, it will be done as part of a total package which will involve a long-term solution to the profound difficulties associated with the management of radioactive waste. Australia, of course, as a signatory to the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management, has an obligation to ensure that radioactive waste is safely and securely managed. In fact, this is a problem that has defied the wit of governments over 35 years. There is a long history of attempts that have been made by the Commonwealth government to secure this matter—

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

Mr President, I rise on a point of order which goes to relevance. I wonder whether the minister is planning on addressing in his answer any of the following words: ‘scientific’, ‘transparent’, ‘accountable’, ‘fair’ or ‘access to appeal mechanisms’. Thus far, with a minute left on the clock, we have heard nothing of relevance.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister has 59 seconds remaining to address the question.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Australia has radioactive waste stored at some 30 temporary locations around the country—they are the Australian government agencies, I should say. There are in fact some 100 locations throughout the country which state governments are using to store radioactive waste—in hospitals, in universities, in factories. Most of these existing stores are not specifically designed for long-term radioactive waste management. The very words that Senator Ludlam has used are the words that we will be applying to a holistic national approach to radioactive waste management. We will be able to do that once the processes have been completed and agreed to by government. I look forward to the continuing support of the opposition parties on this matter, and we will get an opportunity to test that support very shortly. (Time expired)

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

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. The final report from the consultants Parsons Brinckerhoff was submitted to the department on 18 March 2009, along with CH2M Hill’s peer review and Parsons Brinkerhoff’s response to that peer review, assessing and characterising proposed sites for a nuclear waste dump. Will the government table these and related documents now? Does the government stand by Minister Ferguson’s comments that the government will choose a site and consult later?

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As to the tabling of particular documents, I will have to seek the advice of the minister responsible on those matters. The previous government had announced that there would be a process to establish the suitability of a number of defence properties in the Northern Territory. The previous government has also agreed to assessment of the voluntary Aboriginal site at Muckaty Station and has signed a site nomination agreement which committed the Commonwealth to a $12 million compensation package if the voluntary site was selected and used as a facility. Parsons Brinckerhoff were contracted by the previous government to undertake the assessment of the relevant site. So all of those matters I can confirm. However, the issue of establishing a transparent, accountable and fair process for identifying that site is one that we have maintained, and we as a government are committed to ensuring the repeal of the Commonwealth Radioactive Waste Management Act— (Time expired)

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

That is two minutes of our lives that we will never get back. Mr President—

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Ludlam, continue with your supplementary question.

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

My further supplementary question is on the matters the minister has raised about the 2007 site nomination deed, which the minister referred to in his previous answer, between the Commonwealth, the Northern Land Council and Muckaty Land Trust, which did provide a schedule of payments to a charitable fund, as the minister noted. Given that this contract was highly contested and remains to this day a matter of considerable public interest and given that it is for an amount exceeding the Murray motion Senate requirement of 2001, which requires contracts over $100,000 to be made public, will the government refer this contract to the Auditor-General’s office for it to undertake an assessment of the contract to determine whether or not it should be deemed commercial in confidence? If not, why not?

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think the critical issue here is the fact that Australia currently holds some 3,820 cubic metres of low-level radioactive waste and produces some 35 cubic metres of such waste annually. Also, Australia currently holds approximately 435 cubic metres of long-lived intermediate-level waste and produces some 3.5 cubic metres annually.

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

Mr President, I raise a point of order. I was not seeking an inventory of Australia’s radioactive waste; I am more than aware of what is in Australia’s radioactive waste inventory. I ask you to draw the minister’s attention to the question, which related to government referral to the Auditor-General’s office.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Carr, I draw your attention to the question that has been asked by Senator Ludlam.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I draw senators’ attention to the fact that Australia does have significant holdings of radioactive waste, which are held at some 130 sites across this country. The critical issue—

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

Mr President, on a point of order: I am sorry from tying up the chamber’s time, but the minister appears to be about to restate the inventory of Australia’s radioactive waste, which was not the question. I asked whether he would refer that contract to the Auditor-General’s office.

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

Mr President, on the point of order: I think it is a bit rich to raise a point of order that says, ‘The minister is about to do something and I take objection to what he is about to do.’ Foresight about Senator Carr’s contributions is impressive, but we are getting to a pretty sorry state if a point of order can be taken on what you think the minister might say next.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On the point of order, Mr President: of the 60 seconds, 50 have gone, and the minister is talking about the inventory, not the question that Senator Ludlam asked. This is a yes or no answer question if ever there was one, and the minister should answer it.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Bob Brown, as you and others know, I cannot instruct the minister as to how to answer the question. I have already drawn the minister’s attention to the question that was asked by Senator Ludlam. I again draw the minister’s attention to the question and remind the minister that he has 10 seconds remaining to answer the question.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The critical question the Greens have to face up to is: do you support the management of this nuclear waste or do you think it should be stored in filing cabinets— (Time expired)