Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Families and Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move amendments (1) to (10) on sheet SV110 together:

(1) Clause 1, page 1 (line 15), omit "Specification", substitute "Selection".

(2) Schedule 1, page 3 (line 1) to page 14 (line 19), omit the Schedule, substitute:

Schedule 1—Site selection

1 Certain land taken to have been nominated and approved

(1) For the purposes of the National Radioactive Waste Management Act 2012 (the Act), the following table has effect:

(2) The land specified in this subitem is the area of land that is bounded by the line starting at the point described in item 1 of the following table and running sequentially as described in the table.

(3) The land specified in this subitem is Section 38, Hundred of Moseley, in the area named Moseley, being part of the land described in South Australian Certificate of Title Volume 5925 Folio 858.

(4) The land specified in this subitem is the whole of the land described in South Australian Crown Lease Volume 6200 Folio 237 (formerly South Australian Crown Lease Volume 1215 Folio 28), being:

(a) the allotment comprising pieces 30, 31, 32 and 33 Deposited Plan 46041 in the area named Flinders Ranges Hundred of Cotabena; and

(b) the allotment comprising pieces 40, 41, 42 and 43 Deposited Plan 46041 in the area named Flinders Ranges Hundred of Cotabena.

2 Compensation for acquisition of property

(1) If the operation of this Schedule would result in an acquisition of property (within the meaning of paragraph 51(xxxi) of the Constitution) from a person otherwise than on just terms (within the meaning of that paragraph), the Commonwealth is liable to pay a reasonable amount of compensation to the person.

(2) If the Commonwealth and the person do not agree on the amount of the compensation, the person may institute proceedings in the Federal Court of Australia for the recovery from the Commonwealth of such reasonable amount of compensation as the court determines.

(3) Schedule 2, item 1, page 15 (lines 9 to 11), omit the definition of local government area in section 4, substitute:

local government area means an area that, at the time the Minister makes a declaration under subsection 14(2) in relation to a site, is an area for which a local government body is constituted by or under a law of the State or Territory in which the site is situated.

(4) Schedule 2, page 15 (after line 14), after item 1, insert:

1A Subsection 22(1)

Omit "Immediately after a declaration under subsection 14(2) takes effect, the", substitute "The".

(5) Schedule 2, page 15 (after line 17), after item 2, insert:

2A Section 34A

Repeal the section, substitute:

34A Application of Part

This Part applies if:

(a) the Minister has made a declaration under subsection 14(2) that a site is selected as the site for a facility; and

(b) a facility has been constructed at the site; and

(c) a facility licence that authorises a person to operate the facility has been issued under the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Act 1998.

(6) Schedule 2, item 3, page 16 (lines 1 to 4), omit paragraphs 34AA(2) (b) and (c), substitute:

(b) the local government body that serves the local government area in which the facility is situated;

(c) the government of the State or Territory in which the facility is situated.

(7) Schedule 2, page 17 (after line 27), after item 6, insert:

6A Paragraphs 34B(1 ) ( b) and (c)

Repeal the paragraphs, substitute:

(b) the State or Territory in which the facility is situated;

(c) a Commonwealth entity or an authority of the State or Territory in which the facility is situated;

(8) Schedule 2, page 18 (after line 1), after item 7, insert:

7A Subsection 34B(3)

Repeal the subsection.

(9) Schedule 3, page 19 (before line 4), before item 1, insert:

1A Section 3

Repeal the section, substitute:

3 Object of Act

(1) The object of this Act is to ensure that controlled material is safely and securely managed by providing for:

(a) the selection of a site for a radioactive waste management facility on land in Australia; and

(b) the establishment and operation of such a facility on the selected site.

(2) By ensuring that controlled material is safely and securely managed, this Act, among other things, gives effect to certain obligations that Australia has as a party to the Joint Convention, in particular, Australia's obligations under Chapters 3 and 4 of the Joint Convention.

(10) Schedule 3, page 19 (after line 23), after item 3, insert:

3A Section 4

Insert:

Joint Convention means the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management, done at Vienna on 5 September 1997, as amended and in force for Australia from time to time.

Note: The Joint Convention is in Australian Treaty Series 2003 No. 21 ([2003] ATS 21)] and could in 2021 be viewed in the Australian Treaties Library on the AustLII website (http://www.austlii.edu.au).

The government is absolutely committed to the urgent establishment of the National Radioactive Waste Management Facility to secure Australia's nuclear medicine manufacturing capability. The government has invited parliamentary oversight of this bill and is open to further scrutiny of the site selection decision. The specification of the site in legislation was never intended to avoid scrutiny of the site selection decision. The government has heard the concerns that have been raised, particularly about those who are uncomfortable with the site's selection decision being made by the parliament, and has worked closely with the opposition in developing and consulting on these amendments.

I am moving amendments which reinstate the existing site declaration process and provide legislative recognition of the short-listed sites. Focusing the site declaration decision on the three short-listed sites is consistent with community expectations and the existing site selection process. Together with the legislative amendments establishing the community fund, these amendments will ensure a national radioactive waste facility can be progressed in the national interest and that the community that hosts it will be well supported.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I've got a couple of questions for the minister. In relation to these amendments, which seem like a nice face-saving exercise for the government on something that they were unable to get through the parliament until now, why is the table that lists the three sites included? If this is not prescriptive, then what's the purpose of the table that includes the three short-listed sites, as opposed to a nomination process by the minister that is then, of course, available for judicial review?

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Families and Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My understanding is that the purpose of identifying the short-listing of these three particular sites and the fact that it's recognised in legislation draws a line between the three short-listed sites, which have been subject to the extensive consultation, analysis and community surveys, and other historical nominations. Whilst the minister is not bound to declare any of the three sites, it's important to recognise that the sites have been nominated by landowners in good faith and have been short-listed for further assessment. As you rightly point out, the amendments will recognise the three short-listed sites of Lyndhurst, Napandee and Wallerberdina Station.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Could I just ask the minister to clarify if, under these amendments, the minister is not bound to declare one of these three sites, is it correct that the minister could declare a fourth site or a fifth site or a sixth site?

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Families and Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The answer to your question, Senator Hanson-Young, is yes. But if there was to be an additional site nominated, it would have to go through the full and thorough process of consultation, assessment and analysis before it was able to be listed.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I appreciate the minister answering these questions. I think it's important for people to understand why these amendments have been drafted the way they have. If the minister is not bound to declare any of these three sites, they could indeed go through another consultation period to declare a fourth or a fifth site. What would the be process for declaring any of these three sites? And what would be the process if, indeed, the minister said: 'We don't want any of these three sites. We'll go back to the drawing board?'

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Families and Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The process that has to be followed is outlined in the act, so the same process that was followed in relation to these three sites would have to be followed by any other site that was put forward, but it would be bound by the requirements of the act.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can I clarify that, Minister, in your second reading contribution, you said that the site in the Flinders Ranges is not a site that the government wishes to pursue. Are you able tonight to rule out a nuclear waste dump in the Flinders Ranges?

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Families and Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister obviously has not made a decision in relation to the site that he may choose. However, it is consistent with government policy that the site would require the support of the community in order for it to go forward. I've been clear around the fact that the deeming of the Wallerberdina Station site does not change the government's position in relation to that site.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can we just be crystal-clear about this? Previously, the minister has ruled out a nuclear waste dump in the Flinders Ranges. Surely, we can get that commitment again tonight, and if not, that should be ringing alarm bells.

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Families and Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As you would be aware, the amendments that are being put forward still leave the determination of the site as a process, a decision and a determination that still remain with the minister. I think I was very clear in my second reading speech that the listing or the deeming of the Wallerberdina Station site is nothing more than recognising that it was part of the short-listing stage of the process that has already been undertaken. The community that live and work in the area of Wallerberdina Station have made it very, very clear that they do not support the facility being located there. Therefore, on that basis, the act speaks for itself in terms of the process that must be accepted in order for the site to go forward. The government could not be clearer. It will not force the facility or impose the facility on an unwilling local community.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm struggling to understand why the minister can't just rule out Flinders Ranges being used as a nuclear waste dump site. I thought that is the position you were taking, and now I'm getting weasel words. I don't understand why you can't just say, 'No, we will not be putting a nuclear waste dump in the Flinders Ranges—full stop, end of story.' Give us that commitment.

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Families and Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator, you quite clearly understand the legal process that has been undertaken by these amendments. I have made it very clear that the government is not going to enforce a facility on an unwilling community, and that absolutely remains the government's position. However, I am not in a position to be the person who makes the determination in relation to the site. This legislation does not give me that power. That decision-making power remains with the minister for resources. However, I think I have been very, very clear in saying that the government does not intend to enforce this facility on a community that does not want it.

Rex Patrick (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Following on from that, I want to know the process the government went through in publishing these amendments. You can appreciate that the people in Hawker had been through a process that was quite divisive; it divided the community. In reintroducing this into legislation, what consultation did you have with the community to set their minds at ease that this was not a reselection or, really, reintroduction of Wallerberdina as a possible site?

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Families and Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I understand that the department has spoken to the community to reassure them that there is no intention by the government to reopen the Wallerberdina site, because they have already clearly stated that they don't want the facility in that location. Also, statements by both me in this place and the minister in the other place have been very clear that this decision and these amendments does not reflect a decision to change our position on that particular site.

Rex Patrick (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Noting that the list in some sense is not really a list from which the site is going to be selected—I did listen to your second reader—why is it then that you won't permit Woomera to be included on the list? I note that it's an option, and the list has little meaning.

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Families and Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In order for another site to be deemed, it would have to go through the same process. As I also mentioned in my second reading summing-up speech, it is very much the view of the military that a radioactive waste repository and a missile testing range don't really go very well together.

Rex Patrick (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I wonder if you're aware of the study commissioned by the Howard government in 2002 that looked extensively at the suitability of the Woomera site. I have the document here, if you'd like it. It's about 400 pages. It's a very, very comprehensive study, which finds in favour of putting a facility at Woomera. Perhaps you weren't aware of the study, but I wonder whether or not it would change your view. I'm happy to walk over and give it to you. It's a public document. I'm happy to table it, or whatever is necessary to convince you that a lot of due diligence has been done on the Woomera site.

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Families and Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It will probably come as no surprise to you, Senator Patrick, that I actually haven't read the document to which you refer, but I'm sure that the minister and preceding ministers have. My understanding is that Woomera has not been nominated or shortlisted as a site under the current process that is underway, as you would be aware, and nor have the communities surrounding it been consulted in relation to this.

I've also further been advised that in 2017 the department conducted a risk assessment and found the WPA unsuitable to be considered as a site for the facility. That is the most recent assessment that has been undertaken, at which point it was determined that that particular site was not preferred for consideration.

Rex Patrick (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can you just confirm that the department you are talking about is the department of industry, or is it the Department of Defence?

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Families and Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I understand it is the department of industry, but I will make sure that I get clarification to make sure that I haven't misled you in my answer. I understand it is Industry.

Rex Patrick (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think Industry did make inquiries to the Department of Defence. In a two- or three-page submission, they sought to rule that out. You'll be aware that the committee that examined this piece of legislation took a trip to Woomera and had a look at the site. I note in your speech in the second reading debate you said that Woomera was not suitable; it's a test range. Just to inform you, Minister—you may already know this—Woomera is 13 per cent of the area of South Australia. It is twice the size of Tasmania. It's beyond comprehension that anyone would accept from the Department of Defence the idea that you can't fit a facility there. It is a massive area. If you look to the north-eastern corner of the Woomera prohibited area, you will find there's a uranium mine at Roxby Downs. It's something like 20 or 30 kilometres inside the WPA. There is a community that clearly doesn't have any particular issue with radioactive material, noting that their livelihoods depend on that. I'm sure you've been up there, as I have, to Roxby and the Olympic Dam.

I also heard during your speech in the second reading debate the idea that we were going to mix a radioactive waste site with a missile firing range. This has all been dealt with by the committee. The Department of Defence advises that, whenever they conduct a missile firing, they have a safety template. So they lay out the area for which there is a danger so that if a missile, aerial vehicle or drone goes rogue it will actually most likely land in that particular safety template. The Department of Defence provided the committee with an overlay map of all of the safety templates that have been used since 2014, and there are massive areas of the Woomera prohibited area that, in actual fact, do not overlap with any test sites. It's an area that is remote. It's not on prime agricultural land. There is quite a thick study that shows that it's quite feasible. It's done all of the geological work and all of the safety work. On the idea that you can't find a location there, this is Defence defending Defence land like no other. This is the department that came to the government in 2009 and said, 'Let's have a $12 billion Future Submarine project,' and then that project got estimated up to $50 billion and then grew to $89 billion and now we have to pay an extra $10 billion to extend the life of the Collins class in order to get it to the point where it can last until the future submarines arrive sometime after 2035. This is the same department you're talking about. It's clearly incompetent in relation to these sorts of projects.

Any person could reasonably go up to Woomera, have a look at the sites and have a look around the airfield up there. You'll see that there are ammunition areas and fuel storage areas, all of which are manageable from an aircraft perspective well away from the range. We've got the road to Roxby Downs that's a stone's throw from the airfield. It's never been shut, under the various rules. There's lots and lots of space up there. You've got a list of three sites that appear to be face-saving sites. Why wouldn't you simply accept the possibility that Woomera is not a bad facility? Remember, at the start of this we ended up with the three sites that you have named in your table, in the amendments, by asking people whether they'd want to have their land as a radioactive waste management site—not by looking and asking, 'What's the best place to put it?' but simply, 'Who wants to have one—which landowner wants to sell their land at four times the market rate to have a facility?' So they can move on and go somewhere else and leave behind a facility.

I've got an amendment on the sheet, and that amendment includes consultation with Indigenous parties and indeed the community. It beggars belief that the government doesn't want to add another potential site where there could well be broad community support, where in the past proper studies have been done that say that this can go there. It's a government that seems to be scared of the Department of Defence and takes a two- or three-page submission to rule out something—afraid of the brass, afraid of the shiny uniforms—and basically takes at face value what they've said yet doesn't listen to the community in Kimba and what their concerns are. That doesn't seem to matter.

I'm left flabbergasted as to why it wouldn't be considered, particularly in circumstances where there are two radioactive waste sites up in the Woomera Prohibited Area. Hangar 5 has 10,000 CSIRO drums sitting there that will have to be moved at cost. Koolymilka has defence waste that includes intermediate-level waste. That's somehow managed to survive for 20 years—longer, actually—without causing interruption to the operations up in the Woomera Prohibited Area. So, I wonder, Minister: how do you reconcile the fact that we've had radioactive waste up there since the 1990s, yet Defence have been able to operate perfectly well with the two facilities that we have up there? I wonder whether you can reconcile that.

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Families and Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There are a number of responses to that long contribution from Senator Patrick. We are going to have to agree to differ in our opinions in relation to the advice that's been received by Defence. You clearly have your own point of view in relation to the advice and the efficacy of the advice that we've received from Defence. We obviously take very seriously the advice we receive from our defence forces.

It's also worth noting that this is a process that's been going on for 40 years now, as you would be well aware, Senator Patrick, and we did undertake previous processes to seek site identification on the basis of technical specifications. But at no time were we able to secure community support for any sites solely on that basis. Also, you made the comment that nobody's listening to the Kimba community. Well, I acknowledge in the gallery—and he's been here most of the day—the member for Grey, who lives in the Kimba community and has had very hands-on involvement in the consultation process that's been undertaken in his community in relation to this particular facility. He would probably have been aghast to think that you would come in here and say that the Kimba community hasn't been consulted, that the Kimba community hasn't been listened to, because I think he would absolutely think that that was not the case.

In relation to Woomera, it has not been nominated to date. It has had no technical assessment, and it has had no community consultation. To simply suggest that we go and tack on to a process that is already well underway, in terms of the full process that has been undertaken in relation to the act that governs this particular activity, is something that you've obviously overlooked. Senator Patrick, we're just going to have to agree to disagree in relation to the validity of the advice received by the government from defence.

Rex Patrick (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In the lead-up to the transportation of radioactive waste to Woomera that came from CSIRO and St Marys, there's a report I got under FOI that dates back to 1995. The report is called Review of arrangements for the recent transportation of radioactive waste. It describes some of the material that is on the Koolymilka site. I want to understand what the plans are in relation to that particular material, noting the fact that it is not low-level radioactive waste. The paragraph reads:

The waste includes obsolete medical radium sources, radium-based luminescent paint powder, obsolete radium-contaminated laboratory equipment, electronic valves, luminescent watch and compass faces, night markers, and spent sealed medical sources. The radionuclides which comprise the main part of the waste are cobalt-60, radium-226, americium-241, strontium-90, and caesium-137. The waste also contains very small amounts of other radionuclides, including a minute amount of plutonium-239.

This material is intermediate-level waste. If a site is chosen in Kimba, I wonder whether the government plans to shift that particular waste into the facilities at Kimba, in effect making it almost immediately an intermediate-level waste facility. If that is the case, what is the process by which this material will be rendered safe?

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Families and Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm advised that, before waste is able to be transported to or located at the proposed new facility, it would have to achieve waste acceptance criteria that would enable it to be eligible to be safely stored at that site.

Rex Patrick (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm curious about that particular material that I've identified, which is on the Koolymilka site. We don't need to go to the specifics of the different types, but is it the intention of the government to transport that material, eventually, in some form, to the site that would be determined by the minister under the current act?

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Families and Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can't answer your question specifically about the waste that is currently located at Koolymilka. But I can say that there is a set of criteria for the storage of any waste that goes to this new facility that has to be met. I'm happy to take it on notice and come back to you in relation to what would need to happen to the waste that you're referring to if it were to be transported. But I am unaware of the specifics in relation to the particular repository of the waste that you're talking about. I will have to come back to you. But, as I said, there are predetermined standards that the waste has to meet before it is able to be stored at this facility. I'm unaware of the actual details of the waste that you're referring to, but I'll come back to you on notice with a direct answer as to whether that would require further treatment.

Rex Patrick (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In some sense, the question is as much about Woomera as it is about Kimba because if the circumstances are that you can't store that particular type of waste—as I said, there are small amounts of plutonium stored there—then, in fact, you're going to be in a situation where you have a facility at Kimba, presumably, but you still have a radioactive waste storage area in the very place that Defence says it can't exist, because it's not consistent with their operations. I wonder if that question was ever asked of Defence in order to test their assertions in relation to the claim that you can't put this waste there. Is it the intention of the government to close the Koolymilka site at Woomera and in what time frame?

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Families and Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I've tried to answer the question as well as I can on the basis of the determining criteria for the use of the site that we're establishing at the moment. I do not have to hand the information in relation to the issue that you're talking to. I've said I will take it on notice and get the information to you, because I simply do not have that information with me.

Rex Patrick (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I don't mean to ambush you, Minister, but I have two amendments on the table that look at Woomera as a site. I don't think it's an unreasonable question to ask, noting that in your second reading speech you said that a radioactive waste site is not consistent with the operations at Woomera, when in fact we've had radioactive waste stored at Woomera since about the mid-nineties. It may well be that it will continue to be stored there, because the waste at Koolymilka is not suitable to be shifted, in which case the whole thing becomes a bit of a shambles with Defence saying, 'We can't have it here,' knowing full well that it's going to stay there. That's the burden of my question. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask that question, noting I have a couple of amendments on the table that look at Woomera, which you're knocking out for what appears to be quite shallow reasons. If you've gone through the process completely—not you personally, Minister—if the department has gone through the process or the minister has gone through the process properly, when that advice came back from Defence you would think that you might have challenged some of it, particularly to get an understanding of whether or not that waste will go to, presumably, Kimba. Maybe we can start with hangar 5. Hangar 5 has 10,000 drums of low-level radioactive waste that is stored very close to the range head. Perhaps you can say whether it's the intention that that material, noting it's in a pretty perilous state—I know CSIRO is working to tidy that up—go from hangar 5 at Woomera to the new facility?

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Families and Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Patrick, you are asking a series of questions with some level of detail. I think I've already explained to you that, in the process that is currently being undertaken, the proposal is for the establishment of a facility that will have site-specific design, that will have a whole heap of information that is contained in that that will determine what is and is not to be located at that site into the future. The fact is that the site that you are suggesting in your amendment should be deemed alongside the two or three sites that are proposed to be deemed by the amendments that I have just moved has not gone through the same process as the process of the three sites to be deemed. What we are merely saying to you is that you cannot just tack on a site that has not been through the appropriate processes that are contained in the act. The reason that the three sites that we are proposing to be turned by this amendment is that all three of them have been through that process. You're talking about something that is quite in advance of what we are proposing. The sites have not been consulted on, so we've never tested the community acceptance of those sites. As I said, Defence have suggested that it is unsuitable. I accept the fact that you disagree with that, and that it's entirely your prerogative to do so, but the advice that we've received from Defence is that the site is not appropriate.

As I said, I'm more than happy to get some specific information in relation to the particular current repositories of waste that you're referring to, but that is not the point of what we're trying to do here by these amendments. The point of what we're trying to do here is to enable the determination, as has been highlighted through the consultation process that's undertaken, to allow the three sites that have already had the process undertaken for them to be deemed, to give the minister the opportunity to select one of those sites or undertake a full process again should none of those sites be ones that the minister determines to declare, but that is a matter for the minister.

Rex Patrick (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you. You actually clarified things in the last part of your answer. I thought, when Senator Hanson-Young asked about adding additional sites, you said that that is a possibility and that there could be other sites other than those nominated on the table, which means they would have to go through a process. In fact, you've presented the Senate with an option that says, 'Look, here's three sites that have been through the process, but we're not going to limit it to that.' I'm suggesting that the minister could nominate a site in the WPA that we know has gone through an extensive process. It might not have been the exact same process. How is that different to, perhaps, some other site that could be included in the minister's additional research if he decides not to have it at Napandee?

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Families and Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As we've discussed ad nauseam over the last half-hour, the advice of Defence is that the site is not suitable. You disagree with that, and that's entirely your prerogative to do so, but the advice that has been received by government from Defence—and I understand also from the department of industry—is that the site is not suitable. Equally, it has not gone through the process. We can sit here and argue all night about your opinion that it is suitable, but the advice that I have contained in my papers is that it is not suitable. That is the reason it has not been listed in this short-listing process.

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Northern Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I just thought I might put on record the opposition's position on these amendments. The government is proposing amendments that: firstly, reinstate the ministerial site declaration process in the current act, as proposed by the opposition, and as originally contemplated in the 2012 legislation; secondly, deem certain land taken to have been nominated and approved under the act, being the three short-listed sites of Lyndhurst, Napandee and Wallerberdina; and, thirdly, allow for judicial review of the ministerial site declaration aspect of the process. The amendments include compensation provisions to ensure beyond doubt that existing rights to compensation are maintained.

The current government amendments, if passed, will mean the minister will make a site declaration regarding one of the three presently short-listed sites which have been nominated and approved, or any other site which is subsequently short-listed. In the event that Napandee is selected, the traditional owners, the Barngarla Determination Aboriginal Corporation, will then have the ability to undertake a judicial review of the ministerial site declaration. The community fund of $31 million will remain as part of the legislation.

Labor's primary concern with the original bill, which compelled parliament to make a site selection for the National Radioactive Waste Management Facility, presented by this government, was that it removed judicial review. This was also the primary concern of the Barngarla Determination Aboriginal Corporation. Labor has been consistent on this throughout this debate. We wouldn't support passage of this legislation unless the traditional owners were comfortable with it.

Finally, the government has come to the table on this. Labor insisted over many months that BDAC be consulted in relation to the current government amendments before they go before the parliament. This happened last week. These amendments are a good compromise, which maintains the ability for judicial review, at the same time acknowledging the work that has already been done in short-listing the three sites to get the process moving ahead in the interests of all Australians.

Concerns had been raised by BDAC regarding the deeming of the three sites and whether this would restrict the government in future from nominating other sites outside of the three listed. Labor clarified this with the government, who have since confirmed in the explanatory memorandum the following:

Recognition of the three shortlisted sites confirms the sites as being nominated and approved under the Act, but does not limit the Minister from approving new nominations. The Minister may declare any approved nomination as a site, and is not bound to declare one of the three shortlisted sites.

Given the above assurances in the explanatory memorandum, the Barngarla people are supportive of the amendments and are confident the revised bill provides the legal recourse they need to ensure their voices are heard in the event that Napandee is ultimately declared to be the site. That is why Labor is supporting the amendments. I know there have been a lot of things said, particularly by the Greens today, about the rights of traditional owners and Labor's position on this bill, but we are actually following the request of the traditional owners in this respect.

The Adnyamathanha native title holders, who are the traditional owners of the Flinders Ranges, have rightly expressed alarm at the inclusion of the Wallerberdina site in the proposed amendments to the government's bill. The ATLA, alongside the Wallerberdina community, have vehemently rejected this proposal. I note that after the ballot was lost in 2019—the community ballot, that is—Minister Canavan stated:

While the community ballot was just one of many measures I am considering, I have said that achieving at least a majority level of support was a necessary condition to achieving broad community support …

This ballot does not demonstrate a sufficient level of support and I will no longer consider this site an option for the facility.

Listing the Wallerberdina station site recognises the short-listing stage of the site selection process only. It is not intended to signal a change in the government's assessment of that site. Labor wouldn't support legislation that forced this facility on a community that doesn't want it. Labor has consulted with the Adnyamathanha and their legal representatives, who are comfortable with Labor's support of the bill, providing the government confirms it will not impose the facility on Wallerberdina. Labor expressed this to the government, who have assured Labor that this legislation does not do this. Labor therefore called on the government to assure the ATLA of this fact on the record in the Senate, and we welcome this statement by the minister in her summing-up speech.

Again, Labor's position is very clear, and we have consulted with traditional owners for two different sites. We welcome the shift in the government's position, and that's why we have decided to support this legislation and why we're supporting these amendments.

Rex Patrick (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I just want to move from Woomera to Leonora in Western Australia as another possible site. I see you shrugging your shoulders, Minister. I can see the two Western Australian senators sitting behind you are very keen on this idea—jobs for WA. Leonora was actually nominated under the process. It's gone through a part process. It's a site that was made available or at least discussed well before the process started, actually. I've been there, Minister; let me describe it to you. It's just barren land. If there is a goanna on the site at Leonora, it's in transit to some place better, I can tell you. That's the situation. It's a hard rock site. It could have a facility underground. It could possibly take on intermediate-level waste. It just strikes me as unbelievable that that's not a place that the government would also put on this list or at least signal that it was willing to consider as a site.

Obviously, you'd need to consult with the locals. I went up there. I spoke to some elders who seemed favourable towards that being a site. Now, that's not to say that my consultation would be accepted as rigorous—but perhaps as an indication. I wonder whether, beyond the passage of this legislation, the government is looking at the Leonora site.

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Families and Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Given the way you've just described their communities, I'm not sure you'd be welcome back there. I'm advised that the communities of Leonora and Brewarrina were both advised that their alternative site nominations would be considered if any of the short-listed sites did not progress. To date, the communities have not had the opportunity for the in-depth analysis that the other three sites have had. It is also the government's policy to try to come up with a centrally co-located intermediate-level waste storage facility with a low-level waste storage disposal facility. Whilst those two communities have been considered in the mix, my understanding is that they've been advised that, if none of the sites currently being considered are deemed suitable, they would potentially be considered.

Rex Patrick (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That's at least some good news. I just want clarify, on the record, that I don't describe Leonora, the township, in that way. In order to get to the site that is proposed, you have to get into a four-wheel drive and head out to the never-never. It's well away from town. If you get there and you see a goanna, it is transiting. I seek leave to move amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 1310 together, which are amendments to the government amendments on sheet SV110.

Leave granted.

I move:

(1) Amendment (2), Schedule 1, item 1, at the end of the table in subitem 1(1), add:

(2) Amendment (2), Schedule 1, item 1, at the end of the item, add:

(5) The land specified in this subitem is the land within the area determined by the Minister under subitem (6).

Minister to determine area within the Woomera Prohibited Area

(6) The Minister must, by legislative instrument, determine an area within the Woomera Prohibited Area (within the meaning of the Defence Act 1903) for the purposes of table item 4 of the table in subitem (1).

(7) The determination must specify each person who, on the day the determination is made, held an interest in land within the area determined in the determination that is an interest of a kind referred to in section 7 of the Act.

(8) For the purposes of subitem (6), section 72TA of the Defence Act 1903 applies as if the purposes referred to in paragraph 72TA(2) (a) of that Act include establishing and operating a facility.

Table has no effect until determination made

(9) Despite subitem (1), the table in that subitem does not have effect until the day after the Minister makes a determination under subitem (6).

Selected site within Woomera Prohibited Area

(10) If an area within the Woomera Prohibited Area determined under subitem (6) is selected as the site for a facility, the Minister administering Part VIB of the Defence Act 1903 (which deals with the Woomera Prohibited Area):

(a) must ensure that the Woomera Prohibited Area Rules made under section 72TP of that Act enable access to the selected site for the purposes of establishing and operating a facility; and

(b) must not exercise, or fail to exercise, the Minister's powers under that Part or those Rules in a way that prevents or hinders the establishment or operation of a facility at the selected site.

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Families and Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government does not agree with the amendment that's being proposed by Senator Patrick. This amendment is in relation to the Woomera Prohibited Area. As I've already said in response to Senator Patrick's questions, it would not be sensible to permanently site a radioactive waste facility in this area. Woomera has not been nominated for short-listing, nor have the surrounding communities been consulted. The government is absolutely committed to community consultation and to only siting a facility where there is broad community support. There have been no community consultations on the Woomera site or indications of broad positive sentiment towards a facility.

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Northern Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Labor will be opposing these amendments. As Senator Patrick is well aware, Woomera is unable to be deemed a site, as it hasn't voluntarily nominated itself to be a site. Labor is not going to be supporting legislation or amendments from any senator who forces this facility on a community that doesn't want it. I'd encourage Senator Patrick to think about that.

Rex Patrick (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In actual fact, much of the land up there is either owned by the state of South Australia—it's Crown land—or owned by the federal government, which can self-nominate a site. The amendment is not prescriptive in identifying a particular site in the Woomera Prohibited Area. I point out that the Woomera Prohibited Area is 12.7 million hectares of desert. It's not a small site. There is scope to find a reasonable location; you just have to be willing to try. Again, a nomination can come from either the state government or the federal government, which owns some of the land there. That could then initiate a process, which, in a number of sites, has been examined in detail. Of course, there would have to be consultation with the local community, including the Indigenous folk.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Road Safety) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the amendments to government amendment (2) be agreed to.

Question negatived.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: The question now is that the government amendments be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Northern Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The opposition welcomes passage of the government amendments on sheet SV110. As previously stated, the opposition has worked with the Bungala and Adnyamathanha peoples to ensure this bill reflects their preferences. In doing so, we sought two actions by the government. First, the government clarified the effect of this bill on the site nominations process, which was done in the explanatory memorandum with the addition of the following passage: 'Recognition of the three short-listed sites confirms the sites as being nominated and approved under the act, but does not limit the minister from approving new nominations. The minister may declare any approved nomination as a site and is not bound to declare one of the three short-listed sites.'

Second, we welcome the minister's commitment that listing the Wallerberdina Station site recognises the short-listing stage of the site selection process only. It is not intended to signal a change in the government's assessment of that site, and the government has not changed its position that it will not impose a facility on an unwilling local community.

With these actions by the government and the passage of the amendments on sheet SV110, I can advise the chamber that the opposition will not be proceeding with the amendments that have been circulated on sheet 1042, revised 2, and sheet 1322.

Rex Patrick (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'll indicate to the chamber that I don't intend to move amendments (1) to (6) on sheet 8965, revised. But I will urge the government as it moves forward, noting the division in Kimba, noting the fact that this process has been completely botched to get to the point where it has, that it will almost certainly go to judicial review if it picks Napandee. There is an alternative that makes a lot more sense. You have to be able to stand up to those uniformed people who have made a claim that is outrageous in the context of the site at the WPA—12.7 million hectares, 13 per cent of South Australia, twice the size of Tasmania. Not all of the site is used for missile testing. It is in the middle of a desert. It's on a secure Defence site. The community are likely to be much, much warmer to the idea and, indeed, it is not agricultural land.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Road Safety) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the bill, as amended, be agreed to.