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

Mr President, my question is to Senator Carr, as the Minister representing the Minister for Resources and Energy. Minister, last week the Minister for Resources and Energy failed to comply with part of an order for the production of documents. At the time he said, ‘I am advised that neither the Minister for Resources and Energy nor his office is or ever has been in possession of an anthropological report by consultants to the Northern Land Council, Kim Barber, Robert Graham and Dr Brendan Corrigan, provided to the then minister, Julie Bishop, in 2007, so that document was not tabled.’ Senior resources department officials have given evidence on a number of occasions that this report provides the entire basis for the department proceeding with negotiations in payment of a particular group. Can the minister explain how this document has gone missing in the otherwise seamless transition between Minister Bishop’s handling of the issue and Minister Ferguson’s?

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

I am advised, and I had intended to provide documents after question time on this very matter, that on Friday, 12 March, subsequent to the tabling of Minister Ferguson’s response to Senator Ludlam’s return to order, Mr Ferguson was advised that his department in fact had held a copy of the anthropological report prepared by consultants to the Northern Land Council. As indicated in the return to order itself, the report was provided to the previous government. The minister has been advised and the Northern Territory council has confirmed to the minister’s office that the report was provided to and received by the previous government on the basis that, because it contained information regarding sacred sites and matters of cultural sensitivity to Aboriginal people, the full report would remain confidential, with the Northern Land Council supplying the then government with a precis of the report, which could be made public. And consistent with the basis with which the report was provided to and received by the former government, it is my intention to table the precis of the report provided by the Northern Land Council to the previous government.

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

Mr President, that is a somewhat unexpected answer. I ask a supplementary question. Can the minister please explain why this information was not provided to the Senate at the time, and the basis for the minister’s incorrect answer as to the return to order last week?

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

I can only indicate to the chamber, on the basis of the advice I have been given, that subsequent to the proposition being advanced by the Minister for Resources and Energy there was advice to the minister on the nature of the report and the terms under which that report had been provided to the previous government, and that is the basis on which I will be seeking to table this report. I am quite happy to seek leave to table it now if the chamber wishes.

Leave granted.

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

Perhaps it was behind the couch all along?

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party, Shadow Minister for Finance and Debt Reduction) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

With the Henry tax review!

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

With Barnaby’s calculator!

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

Order! Senator, start your question.

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

I cannot hear myself ask the question.

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

I can.

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

I have a further supplementary question. Minister, given that the government has literally cut and pasted from the former Howard government’s legislation, given the procedural unfairness in the Muckaty nomination has been preserved, which, as the minister well knows, allows for no legal appeals, and given that the bill Labor has tabled gives enormous discretion to the minister to assess whether or not the Muckaty site will go ahead, can you inform the Senate of how the government intends to proceed? Is there any process whereby the minister will assess the suitability of the Muckaty site? Are there timelines or deadlines? Will anybody be consulted? Or is the process entirely at the discretion of Minister Ferguson?

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

I have indicated previously in answers to questions from Senator Ludlam that in the new bill there are new legislative processes in place to allow for a purpose-built facility to be developed in this country. Unlike the previous laws, the new legislation will not impose a radioactive waste management facility on any community. The new legislation is based on land being volunteered for consideration as a potential site. The three sites that were selected by the Howard government were—

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

Mr President, a point of order on relevance—and perhaps I was not clear enough in asking the question: I am seeking some advice from the minister as to the process whereby the Muckarty site will be assessed by the minister. There is nothing in the legislation outlining any processes, time lines or any form of accountability whatsoever.

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

There is no point of order. The minister was addressing the question. The minister has 23 seconds left.

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

The bill ensures that the selected site will be subject to all the relevant Commonwealth environmental, heritage and approval processes. In particular, the selection will be subject to exhaustive environmental and nuclear regulatory assessment.