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

Mr President, my question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Carr. Today Minister Martin Ferguson announced that fairness had been restored to the process for selecting a national radioactive waste dump site. Can the minister confirm that the nomination of Muckaty Station as a site for the dump was only possible under the Radioactive Waste Management Legislation Amendment Act 2006, which the ALP opposed and described at the time as a major attack on the rights of traditional owners and an abuse of power? How can the government continue to progress the nomination of Muckaty while claiming to repeal the act that made it possible?

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

The Minister for Resources and Energy, Martin Ferguson, has indicated that tomorrow he will introduce the National Radioactive Waste Management Bill 2010. This honours the government’s long-standing commitment to repeal the Howard government’s Commonwealth radioactive site—

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

Mr President, I rise on a point of order going to relevance. I have read the minister’s press release. I draw the minister’s attention to the specifics of the question relating to the nomination of the Muckaty site.

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

The minister has been proceeding for a very short period of time; he is 21 seconds into the answer. I draw the minister’s attention to the question.

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

Senator Ludlam says he has read the press release. Then he would be aware that the new legislation will provide a proper process to establish a purpose-built facility for managing radioactive waste generated by Australia’s medical, industrial, agricultural and research use of nuclear materials. I am sure the senator does appreciate that the purpose of that matter—and in the minister’s view he has made this very clear—is that a site selection process has to be concluded. Of course there can be no facility automatically imposed on any particular community. The minister has indicated that the new bill will require that any site is to be volunteered by the landowners. It also says that affected landowners and communities must be consulted, and that is exactly what the minister is doing.

I would expect that this chamber would be only too happy with that process, and I look forward to the support of the chamber on this important matter. There will be procedural fairness and the rights that were stripped away by the Howard government will be restored. The bill will ensure that a selected site will go through full environmental heritage and approval processes. I look forward to the support of the chamber on those matters as well.

14:29:36

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

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Does the minister accept that the Muckaty nomination for a nuclear waste dump is heavily contested—it was at the time—and that it does not have the continued support of the Ngapa clan, as Minister Ferguson’s press release wrongly states? Can the minister outline what appeal rights will be available to people aggrieved by the Northern Land Council’s unilateral nomination of their land for this facility? Does the Minister appreciate how divisive this will be and has been within this community?

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

The senator would be aware that the minister’s statement does go to what the minister will assert are the views of the direct landowners concerned at this particular site. The previous government announced in July 2005 that there would be an assessment of the three Defence sites in the Northern Territory, and the act gave powers to establish the facility at any of the Defence sites or the sites nominated by the Aboriginal land council or the Northern Territory government. The previous government also assisted the volunteer Aboriginal site at Muckaty Station and signed a site nomination agreement committing the Commonwealth to a $12 million compensation package if the site was selected. The Ngapa people, the traditional owners, remained committed to that nomination. That is the advice I have been given, and that is the advice I tender to the chamber.

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

Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. Can the minister confirm on behalf of the Minister for Resources and Energy whether that minister ever read the correspondence sent to him by 55 traditional owners from the Muckaty Land Trust? And can he explain the logic of a federal radioactive waste management scheme based on the routine transportation of large volumes of radioactive waste over long distances and through many regional centres and communities?

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

I have no reason to doubt that the minister would be reading his correspondence. As to which particular letters the minister has read or has not read, I am at a loss and cannot provide further advice. I have absolutely no doubt that the minister has pursued his responsibilities diligently and he has pursued these matters with great care. I know of his commitment to consultation with Indigenous communities and I have absolutely no doubt about his sincerity in these matters.