As anticipated by the NT media, the ABC and Crikey, yesterday Martin Ferguson announced the repeal of the Howard Government’s Commonwealth Radioactive Waste Management Act 2005 and a process to investigate the establishment of a nuclear waste dump at Muckaty Station in the Northern Territory.
He was immediately followed by Damian Hale, Labor’s bluff member for Solomon, who declared himself pleased with the repeal of the CRWMA and definitely not pleased at all with the proposal for Muckaty Station. Hale had made his views known in Caucus that morning. His fellow MPs from other states weren’t too impressed, primarily at the idea that a nuclear waste dump might end up anywhere near them.
The NT Government, which in 2008 was demanding the Rudd Government abandon any plans for a waste dump in the NT, also welcomed the repeal of the CRWMA and criticised the nomination of Muckaty Station.
There’s a small problem with that position, though. Labor’s 2007 election commitment was to repeal the CRWMA, which overrode NT laws and any Commonwealth legislation that might have delayed or hindered the investigation of waste dump sites, and replace it with a “a consensual process of site selection”. And Ferguson insisted yesterday that that was exactly what was happening.
“I’ll introduce legislation into the Parliament tomorrow that repeals the Howard Government Radioactive Waste Management Act. I will introduce in its place a process which requires me as the minister to actually engage to establish a purpose-built facility, having proper regard to the normal processes that exist in Australia, going to issues of heritage and environmental protection.
“For example, it means that if we are to proceed with a particular site there will be full application of the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act at arm’s length to me via the Minister for the Environment.”
A close look at Ferguson’s Bill, however, suggests it has an awful lot in common with the CRWMA.
S.11 of the Bill overrides all state and territory laws that regulate or prohibit nuclear waste dumps
S.12 of the Bill directly overrides the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984 in a similar manner to the Howard-era Act. It also overrides the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 to prevent the Environment Minister (Peter Garrett — haven’t heard much from him lately) from having any role in the site selection process i.e. Garrett’s role in determining whether the environmental impact of the waste dump is significant only applies after a site has been selected for the dump.
Both ss. 11 and 12 are exact copies of the comparable sections of the Howard-era Act, with the exception that Ferguson’s overriding of state and territory laws is even wider in scope than under the CRWMA. Damian Hale and the NT’s Paul Henderson both might want to read the Bill before declaring themselves pleased that the previous Act will be repealed.
Greens Senator Scott Ludlam called the Bill “a legislative battering ram that squarely lines up the Northern Territory as the target for the nation’s radioactive waste.” He is pushing for a Senate inquiry into the Bill but has been told by the other parties there may not be support for the Bill. The Coalition has already indicated it will support the Bill.
Ferguson was correct to say yesterday that the issue of a permanent waste storage is one Australia has been avoiding for too long and that the Government must make a hard decision about where to place a facility. However, he shouldn’t be pretending that he isn’t using exactly the same tools as his conservative predecessors used.
Labor… spelt L.I.B.E.R.A.L
Wonder why the coalition has agreed to support it? Because it pleases them and their backers in every way.
What a bitter disappointment this Labor government is proving to be. I remember how disappointed we all were after Hawke decided to go with uranium mining (it earnt export dollars right! Say no more. Nothing else matters.) I am feeling it again. We all hoped for so much with Rudd….
What a sad compromising party LABOR has turned out to be. I am hopeful that the Greens will get more support. Time for people to stop swinging back and forth between two bananas, when they are really hungry for an apple!
Ah but Jim. When you have put a ONE in the Green candidate’s square, you still have to number each and all of the other squares or your vote is informal and does not count. Whether you like it or not, in a Federal election you must fill in ALL of the squares. Inevitably this means you must vote for either Labor or Coalition – even if you give them your last and second last vote. Unless the Green candidate actually wins (never happened in the lower house) your second last vote will decide whether the Labor or Coalition candidate ends up with your preference. Bummer eh?
H(C)McColl has a bit of a mental blockage.
Vote above the line and you will not need to do anything more to make sure that your vote is not extinguished.
Vote below the line, and you must then number all squares to acieve the same immortal result.
Of course, if you are tempted to vote GREEN above the line and do not like their subsequent preferencing, you may decide to research and rank every other candidate, but that is not really needed.
Vote (1) Green – as HCMCcoll recommends, and the rest will run like a clock and your vote will not be extinguished.
I appreciate that in the end, if the Greens candidate does not win the seat and the voting goes to preferences, then yes, sooner or later one of the big parties gets the vote. But there are still good reasons to vote Green first:
1) If more and more people do, then the big parties will get a message that they better start copying some of the best Greens policies or else continue to loose support.
2) The Greens will get the $1.40 per vote (or whatever it is) that the government gives to parties after the election for each primary vote that is cast to them. (Assuming the party gets at least a certain percentage of the overall vote… it might be 4%) Nobody gets that payment for coming in 2nd on a voting paper.
3) It might just get a green or two voted in!
4) If the contest you are voting in does not go to preferences, you have not personally been someone who voted for one of the big two.
I have to concede though, even if you vote above the line or below the line, (now we are talking upper house of course), then sooner or later the vote ends up with a major party if a minor or independent does not win the seat. It happens in the lower house too of course with the smaller tickets. If we follow the party recommendation (and put a 1 in the box for that party above line), then even then, sooner or later, if the small party does not get in, the vote works its way down to a major party. So we do have to still decide which of the big two is the “lesser of the two evils”.
It use to be easy for me: Labor was better than Liberal. I think they still are… only just… but what are the main differences now? Help me please! It use to be the nuclear issue…. but I have a very bad feeling about this nuclear dump and what it might just lead to…