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

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Senator Conroy. How does the EPBC approval for the expansion of the Olympic Dam uranium mine qualify, as the environment minister suggested yesterday, as the toughest set of environmental conditions ever imposed when the conditions are much less than those imposed on the Ranger mine here in Australia, with the tailings at Ranger having to be buried in a pit and isolated for 10,000 years rather than 10 years, as is the case for the Olympic Dam expansion.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Ludlam for his question. The minister for the environment has approved the proposed Olympic Dam expansion under national environmental law, imposing in excess of 100 stringent conditions. Minister Burke approved the proposed Olympic Dam expansion on 10 October this year. The approval conditions and the assessment report are available to the public on the department's website. The minister's decision was informed by expert advice on the assessment information from Geoscience Australia, the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency and the Supervising Scientist. The minister also took into account public submissions on BHP Billiton's environmental impact statement and comments from relevant ministers.

The approval conditions require BHP Billiton to strictly manage or avoid any environmental impacts not just during operations but well beyond the life of the project. The conditions apply to all parts of the project, including the proposed desalination plant in the upper Spencer Gulf, and will ensure that the gulf and its marine life, including the giant cuttlefish, are protected. The measures that the company will use to achieve these goals must all be detailed in an extensive and thorough environmental management and monitoring program which must be approved by the minister before work can begin. Ongoing monitoring will ensure that any issue can be addressed immediately and the program must be reviewed every three years to ensure it remains effective over time and takes account of the latest scientific information. BHP Billiton must also do a comprehensive review every 10 years to ensure they are using the best practical technology to minimise environmental impacts and risks. The conditions require BHP Billiton to develop for Mr Burke's approval— (Time expired)

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

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I thank the minister for, I think, essentially reading the environment minister's media release instead of a response. How does this approval accord with ALP policy and election commitments on uranium mining standards in the ALP national platform, which state that Labor will only allow the mining of uranium under the most stringent conditions and will ensure that Australian uranium mining, milling and rehabilitation is based on world's best practice standards, when the approval at Roxby Downs does not even meet criteria set for uranium mining in the Northern Territory?

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I understand Senator Ludlam has criticised the approval, stating that conditions for the treatment of tailings and waste rock are not at the same level as for the Ranger mine in the Northern Territory. The Ranger mine exists in a different climate and operates solely as a uranium mine. Approvals for mines are not one size fits all and it is the responsibility of the government to ensure the application of environmental conditions specific to the particular mining operation. Radiation management systems required to protect members of the public and nonhuman biota must be consistent with the Code of Practice and Safety Guide for Radiation Protection and Radioactive Waste Management in Mining and Mineral Processing, produced by the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency. The radiation dose constraint for members of the public must be no more than 300 microsieverts per year. In terms of these requirements complying with ALP policy, they are entirely consistent.

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

Mr President, I will persist and ask a further supplementary question. I ask whether or not the minister will confirm that this approval pre-empts that which is not yet sanctioned under Australia's bilateral uranium sales agreement with China and that it will require a future nuclear treaty with China, yet to be negotiated with China or put to this parliament's Joint Standing Committee on Treaties inquiry and thereafter to this parliament, that may not even be realised?

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am sure Senator Ludlam would acknowledge that there was a fair degree of speculation, and possibly even a hypothetical scenario, in his question but I am happy to take the matter on notice to see if there is any further information that either the Minister for Foreign Affairs, given this has moved into some of his areas, or Mr Burke would like to add.