Most Reports from Senate Committees fade from view pretty quickly — particularly when they are released in the news dead-zone that is the week before Christmas.
And so it was with the Senate Standing Committee on Environment, Communications and the Arts report into the Commonwealth Radioactive Waste Management (Repeal and Consequential Amendment) Bill 2008 which was introduced as a private members Bill by West Australian Greens Senator Scott Ludlam.
The findings of the Committee Report regarding radioactive waste legislation have been misreported in the media, with groups opposed to the building of a radioactive waste storage facility at one of four nominated sites in the Northern Territory all claiming a victory of sorts.
This sort of response is not that unusual with many Senate reports — everyone can be a winner. The Report tries hard to include statements which favour all persons and groups which appeared before it — meaning that various stakeholders have been able to publicise that aspect of the report which reflects their position, while ignoring those less favourable.
From my reading of the Report the most important finding is at paragraph 3.21 of the report:
“The committee also believes that repealing the existing legislation, unless it is conducted simultaneously with the implementation of alternative arrangements, would be inadequate. There must be recognition that the current situation is not desirable.”
From the concluding statement of the ANSTO submission:
“The current situation in Australia whereby there are limited facilities for the disposal for long-term storage of radioactive waste forces holders of that material to store it in facilities which may be unsafe or insecure. That is not conducive to the safety and security of that material.”
The various media reports that the committee has recommended that the Howard Government legislation of 2005 simply be repealed miss the point.
The Committee has recommended that any repeal be conditional on replacement legislation, and such legislation would need to comply with longstanding ALP policy — dating from 1992 — that a remote national repository site be identified.
The Committee’s finding at paragraph 3.21 indicates one approach which might be taken by the Rudd Government some time this year – if so, probably earlier rather than later.
This would involve the introduction of replacement legislation into the Commonwealth Parliament by the Resources Minister, Martin Ferguson, which would presumably differ in various substantial respects from the Howard Government’s legislation.
One particular issue noted by the Committee was that procedural fairness remedies in the Federal Court might be restored regarding the site selection process.
But Labor hasn’t always played a straight bat on that issue either. When Labor was last in power the Keating ALP Government also legislated to prevent litigation by aggrieved persons or environmental groups regarding uranium matters — the ANSTO Amendment Act 1992.
This amendment effectively nullified a decision by the NSW Land and Environment Court which ordered that ANSTO could not store radioactive waste generated by other entities at Lucas Heights — Sutherland Shire Council v ANSTO — in the NSW Land & Environment Court from 1992.
If the Rudd Government introduces replacement legislation it will need the support of the Coalition in the Senate, as the Greens seek repeal, and would never support replacement legislation.
The Dissenting Report of the Coalition Senators published by the Senate Committee suggests that Coalition support will only be given if replacement legislation guarantees a remote repository site prior to 2011-2015. That time-frame represents the dates during which processed fuel rods and other material in the form of intermediate radioactive waste will return to Australia from overseas for storage.
If the Rudd Government does not introduce legislation, or if its replacement legislation fails to pass the Senate, then the current Howard Government legislation from 2005 will remain in force, and will provide the only legislative option for the Commonwealth Government in relation to the remote storage of radioactive waste.
And of the fours sites in the NT, all have been contentious to varying degrees.
The Fishers Ridge site near to Katherine has some local opposition and possible site difficulties, being close to a major aquifer.
The two sites in central Australia, and within the jurisdiction of the Central Land Council, do not have the support of their Aboriginal traditional owners.
That leaves Muckaty Station, near Tennant Creek and within the jurisdiction of the Northern Land Council. There the Ngapa traditional owners have supported the building of a nuclear waste repository on a small block of their country.
As senior Ngapa traditional owner Amy Lauder told the Senate Committee:
We made our decision regarding our country after carefully considering all issues at meetings with the NLC and Commonwealth representatives during 2006 and 2007, which included three visits by traditional owners to the nuclear research reactor at Lucas Heights in Sydney. The Ngapa group’s support was overwhelming with substantial support by members of neighbouring Aboriginal groups. Only a few noisy individuals in other groups have opposed our decision about our country.
Declaration: Bob Gosford worked at the Northern land Council from 1999 to 2001 and again from October 2007 to July 2008. He had no involvement on the radioactive waste repository proposals either at Muckaty Station or at Fisher’s Ridge. He also grew up at Heathcote in the Sutherland Shire, within sight of the Lucas Heights nuclear research reactor.
This is scary, as these decisions are based on political imperatives, not on the best science. As well as an appropriate location for a waste dump, transport issues need to be considered. The NT might look like an ideal location, but transport of materials as dangerous as radioactive waste on Territory roads (or the sole rail corridor) is a very vexed issue. The only major transport route through the NT is the Stuart Highway, which goes through all the major population centres in the Territory. All other roads are in relatively poor condition, and would be very dangerous. Might not look like there’s much around from the perspective of the coastal dwellers, but believe it or not, people live here. Lots of them, including more of the country’s original inhabitants than anywhere else in the land of Oz. Also lots of wildlife and some fabulously beautiful country In the last year there have been a number of alarming spills on Territory roads and rail lines due to trucking accidents and derailments. Radioactive waste is not able to be “cleaned up” in the same way that say sulphuric acid (the last spill in the NT) was; there is not anything that can conveniently neutralise a spill of radioactive waste. The science recommends a location in SA near Maralinga – no aquifers, no permanent populations nearby, security not too problematic (due to extreme isolation), as being the best option for an Australian waste facility. Something that baffles me is why waste from overseas is an Australian problem?? Whose stupid idea was that? And why is Australia so keen to dig more of the horrible stuff up so we can get it back in an even more dangerous and concentrated form a few years later??
… (continued)
Third, the inquiry report acknowledged the degree to which a centralised remote facility is questioned as necessarily an appropriate option. Witnesses argued that a dump in a remote area might not be the best way to manage this intractable waste at this time, and that other models should be explored by policy makers. Some groups argued strongly that a remote facility increased the transportation risks without any clear public health benefit.
And finally, the inquiry exposed just how contested the favoured site at Muckaty Station really is. Contrary to Mr. Gosfords assertion, Amy Lauder, a senior Ngapa traditional owner did not appear, nor did she make a submission to the Inquiry. Instead, we heard from other senior Ngapa traditional owners who gave compelling evidence about the flawed nature of the consultation process and questioned the accuracy of a secret anthropological report that designates a small handful of individuals as speaking exclusively for that country.
The Greens signed onto the government-led Committee report because it recommended that radiative waste policy should be adopted in consultation with communities, be based on environmental best practice, and be fair and transparent. Mr. Gosford’s prediction that “the Greens would never support replacement legislation,” is bizarre. It is essential that sooner or later Australia faces up to its radioactive waste legacy in a deliberative and measured process, and any future legislation to this effect will be carefully scrutinised by the Greens and supported if it enables the kind of the scientific, transparent, accountable, and fair process the government has promised.
The Senate Inquiry into my bill to repeal Howard’s Commonwealth Radioactive Waste Management Act 2005 received 103 submissions from organisations and individuals. Two public hearings held in Alice Springs and Canberra provided thoughtful and considered input to the Environment, Communication and the Arts Committee’s deliberations and final report.
Overall, I would characterise the process as a very constructive one that pooled information and expertise, and encouraged constructive dialogue about a complicated and controversial issue which has rarely been given the space for open debate.
First, the inquiry revealed an overwhelming consensus regarding the deficiencies and consequences of Howard’s 2005 legislation which enables the Federal government to impose a radioactive waste facility on unwilling Territory communities and against the wishes of the NT government. The legislation does this through overriding laws generated by the Territory government, preventing the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984 from having effect during investigation of potential dump sites, excluding the Native Title Act 1993 from operating at all, overriding the Land Rights Act and wiping out procedural fairness through suspension of the Judicial Review Act.
Second, the inquiry increased pressure on the government to fulfil an election promise to repeal the Act and to establish a scientific, transparent, accountable, and fair process ensuring full community consultation in radioactive waste decision-making processes. More than a year after being elected, its time the government took action, and the Committee not only provided guidance as to what future legislation should include, it also described exactly how it should differ from the existing Act.
(continued)…
Siting a radioactive waste facility is not a matter of “community consent”, it is a matter of property rights. In this case, the Commonwealth owns three potential sites and the Muckaty Aboriginal Land Trust owns a fourth. It is therefore a matter for these two land holders. The one fetter on property rights is no adverse impact on neighbouring properties. That is what radiation safety regulators exist for and any person suffering damage has a common law right to seek recompense.
Of course, to the extent that the Commonwealth constructing a waste facility involves the expenditure of taxpayers’ money, it is proper for the Parliament to scrutinise any decisions in the same way that it does any other expenditure.
Jenny Mac is absolutely correct – you can’t clean up radioactive waste in the same way as sulfuric acid. Solid radioactive waste can be repackaged and you’re on your way. Liquid sulfuric acid leaches into the soil and requires extensive remediation.
Overseas waste is not an Australian problem (although it is criminal that Australian law prevents a land owner establishing an international waste facility). Australia sends spent fuel rods from its research reactors overseas for reprocessing. The resultant waste is effectively Australian waste and must be returned.