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

My question is to the Minister for Resources and Northern Australia. It relates to the announcement made on Monday that there would be a third round of consultation with the Kimba community in South Australia on the location of a national radioactive waste facility in the Kimba area, including a postal ballot. In embarking on this consultation the government was advising that it was seeking 'broad community consent' for participating in the process of site selection. It also went on to say, 'The Federal Government has said it won't impose the facility on an unwilling community'. Two consultations have occurred, both last year, in early and late 2016. The first saw 51 in favour and 49 against. The second consultation resulted in another split result, with 56 per cent in favour and 44 per cent against. What does 'broad community consent' mean to the government? What percentage does the government say constitutes 'broad community consent'?

Matthew Canavan (Queensland, Liberal National Party, Minister for Resources and Northern Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Xenophon for his question and for the prior nomination of the topic. The second round of figures—56 to 44 per cent—were as a result of some early consultations my department did in Kimba with a narrow range of the community. We are not using those figures as a reliable estimate of community support; they were never intended to be used in that way. It was to try and make an assessment as to whether this nomination should be taken forward any further. I must clarify to the Kimba community and to others that we are not using those figures as a basis for further decisions because they were not a full and comprehensive assessment of support in Kimba. The earlier figure that Senator Xenophon mentioned was from a consultation period concluded early last year, and he is correct that the results were 51 to 49. We did not take that nomination forward. Even though it had majority support, we did not view that as being broad community support so it was not further.

We had taken forward a proposal from the Hawker region—Senator Xenophon might be aware of that—where support was at 65 per cent. We have not put a definitive figure on broader community support, for the reason that it is not just about the overall figure; we would need a figure in the range of the support we received in Hawker. There are other considerations to factor in, depending on the local circumstances, including the neighbouring landholders and their support, which is of great importance to me and my department in making the assessment—as are the views of any traditional owners who might be present or might have rights on land that has been brought forward through this voluntary process. For the two nomination that I have accepted this week, the department's assessment is that there is greater support from neighbouring landholders. We are aware of only one landholder who is opposed to these two nominations coming forward from the direct neighbours. I will go further in the next answer— (Time expired)

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Xenophon, a supplementary question.

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

The Kimba community has gone through a consultation process not once, not twice but a third time. Can the minister advise how much the first and second consultation processes cost taxpayers? What is the budget for the third consultation process? Is the minister aware of the cost to the community, including community polarisation, in respect of this issue? And when will there be finality for the Kimba community on this issue?

Matthew Canavan (Queensland, Liberal National Party, Minister for Resources and Northern Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do not have a precise figure for the cost of the consultation for Kimba at this stage. I will take that on notice. Senator Xenophon might be aware that it has been part of an overall consultation process, where a number of sites have been assessed at different times. We will do what we can to split out those costs for the Kimba region. I am certainly aware of the different views in Kimba. On this issue, I have met with Working for Kimba's Future, which is a group supportive of the proposal, and also with the group No Radioactive Waste on Agricultural Land in Kimba or SA. I have met with both those groups. I understand that. However, our assessment was that given the early assessments by the department and the support from neighbouring landholders and also from the local council to proceed with this process—not necessarily the nominations themselves but the vote—it was important in my decision to accept those proposals now and further test community support.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Xenophon, a final supplementary question.

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

What other sites around the nation is the minister considering for this radioactive waste facility? Will the government consider Crown land as an option?

Matthew Canavan (Queensland, Liberal National Party, Minister for Resources and Northern Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is one other area under active consideration. Wallerberdina Station, near Hawker in South Australia, has been accepted. It is in a further phase of assessment than the nominations we received in Kimba. We are open to taking further applications and nominations from other areas around the country, including on Crown land, but at this stage these are the nominations that we have accepted. We intend now to have a 90-day consultation process in Kimba, after which there will be a vote and an assessment of those support levels.

Senator Xenophon is probably aware that this has been going on for some time—trying to find a centralised facility for low-level and intermediate radioactive waste. I think it is very important for our nation to do this. One in two Australians will benefit from the use of nuclear medicines in their lifetime, and a lot of radioactive waste relates to those products. We currently store radioactive waste on more that 100 sites in this country, so finding a centralised home is necessary and important to the objectives of this government. (Time expired)