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

I move:

That the Senate—

(a)

notes that:

(i)

29 September is International Radioactive Waste Action Day,

(ii)

locating domestically produced nuclear waste at Muckaty Station in the Northern Territory is highly contested by traditional owners, is currently being challenged in the Federal Court and is inappropriate due to under and above ground water movements and high seismic activity in the region,

(iii)

winning public confidence and social licence is internationally recognised as essential for successful and sustainable waste management, as noted by the International Atomic Energy Agency [IAEA], the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD], the International Commission on Radiological Protection [ICRP], the European Union, and the United Kingdom and Japanese governments, and

(iv)

above ground, dry storage of radioactive waste at or near the site of origin is recognised as providing access for routine monitoring, repair of leakages and responsible isolation from the water table and environment; and

(b)

calls on the Australian Government to:

(i)

abandon proposals to dump radioactive waste at Muckaty Station, and

(ii)

establish a process for identifying suitable sites, transport and storage of Australia’s radioactive waste that is consistent with international best practice scientific processes, and that is transparent, accountable, fair, allowing access to appeal mechanisms and full community consultation.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy President, I seek leave to make a short statement.

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Leave is granted for two minutes.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Perhaps Senator Ludlam, at a later date, can correct this, but International Radioactive Waste Action Day, as far as I can determine, has no official status. On that basis, in my view as Manager of Government Business in the Senate, it is unusual for the Senate to recognise an international day which has not been declared as such.

That aside, in addition to the substance of the particular motion itself, the issue of whether those contesting the nomination of Muckaty are relevant traditional owners is a matter that is currently before the Federal Court. This government will, of course, always respect the court’s ruling and decision in respect of that. On that basis, the Senate should not, in my view, use a motion to pre-empt the decision of the court in respect of this matter if it is construed to go to that issue.

Thirdly, and perhaps more importantly, since the government has proposed legislation which establishes a proper process for identifying suitable sites for transport and storage of Australia’s radioactive waste that is consistent with international best practice and scientific processes and that is transparent, accountable and fair and allows appropriate access to appeal mechanisms and full community consultation, there is on that basis no requirement for the Senate to call on it to do so. The Senate, of course, can express its desire for such a process by supporting the government’s legislation. That is not to detract from Senator Ludlam moving the motion. I am just pointing out that the government has already taken on the substance of the matter and is proceeding as outlined. For those reasons, the government does not see any need for the motion and will not support it.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy President, I seek leave to make a brief explanation.

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Leave is granted for two minutes.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I indicate that I cannot support the motion in its current form, although I am very sympathetic to it. I have had an opportunity to discuss this with Senator Ludlam. I share many of Senator Ludlam’s concerns in relation to the process by which Muckaty Station was chosen as a nuclear waste dump. I have real concerns about that and I look forward to the bill being debated in this chamber, because I have many questions in relation to that.

I do have a concern about part (a)(iv) of the motion, which relates to the storage of radioactive waste at or near the site of origin. I have discussed that with Senator Ludlam. There is an issue there as to whether it is more appropriate to refer to the site of production of that waste. My concern is that there could be seen to be some ambiguity in relation to that. So I have a concern with respect to that, but I do share the concerns of Senator Ludlam in relation to the whole issue of the approval process for storing nuclear waste at Muckaty Station.

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

by leave—I thank the chamber. I indicate at the outset that I do intend to call a division on this motion. I thank the minister for taking the time to work through some of the clauses. That is somewhat rare, and I appreciate that it was at least read and considered. Twenty-nine September—you are quite right, Minister—has no official status in the United Nations calendar of days of various activities, causes or issues. That is true. Perhaps by this time next year it will, in which case we can take that argument off the table. But I will point out that there are activities today around the world—in Australia, many states of the United States, Canada and a number of places in Western Europe—where people on the ground or in various institutions or community groups are contesting the imprint and the impact of the nuclear industry and the consequences of producing radioactive waste in the first place.

In Australia we have a terrible reputation for trying to manage, characterise and look after even the relatively small, by international standards, volumes of radioactive waste that we have—and we have still managed to make a complete hash of it. For any senators who heard, I did spend 15 minutes addressing this issue in the MPI earlier in the day. This motion goes directly to the issues that I raised in that brief speech. We have made a real mess of this process, but this parliament is an opportunity for us to do it well and to do it better. I recognise Senator Xenophon’s concerns and acknowledge, perhaps, the wording to clear the ambiguity. Very much the intention here is not to see high-level spent fuel that has been burnt in power stations overseas return, for example, to the site of origin or the site of mining at Roxby Downs, Ranger or, indeed, Beverley. That is clearly not the intention. I suppose I should apologise for that ambiguity in the wording of the motion. It recognises the principle that we should not move this material any more than we absolutely have to.

Question put:

That the motion (Senator Ludlam’s) be agreed to.