Madeleine King (Brand, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Northern Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I rise today to make a statement on court proceedings challenging the Commonwealth's proposed National Radioactive Waste Facility and related matters. In 2012, the Gillard government passed the National Radioactive Waste Management Act 2012, which set out a legislative framework for selecting and establishing the Commonwealth's National Radioactive Waste Management Facility.

The vast majority of Australia's radioactive waste is from nuclear medicine, which every Australian is likely to benefit from in their lifetime. It is also produced in the development of industrial and agricultural technologies in undertaking lifesaving scientific research. Anyone in this place who knows someone who has needed cancer treatment can understand why this material exists and the need to store these materials safely.

According to the most recent national inventory, conducted in 2021, Australia has 13,287 cubic metres of low-level radioactive waste, which, by volume, is more than five standard Olympic swimming pools, and 4,377 cubic metres of intermediate-level radioactive waste, which equates to just under two standard Olympic swimming pools. Currently, radioactive waste is stored in over 100 locations nationwide, including hospitals, scientific facilities and universities. Australia's radioactive waste will grow into the future. While safe, these facilities are not purpose built and long-term management of Australia's waste at these locations is unsustainable.

The site of Australia's only nuclear reactor at Lucas Heights can safely store waste on site for some time, but we must ensure this waste has an appropriate disposal pathway. The Labor Party, National Party and Liberal Party have recognised, through successive terms of government, that responsibly managing this waste is imperative for the nation. There has been bipartisan support for the responsible management of this waste.

The current site-selection process has been in train for seven years. In November 2021, the former minister for resources, the member for Hinkler, declared the former farming property known as Napandee, near the town of Kimba, in South Australia, as the proposed site for the facility. This followed a number of years of consultation through various processes. Despite the genuine efforts of the Australian Radioactive Waste Agency and others, many feel they weren't adequately consulted. The traditional owners, the Barngarla people, have for many years pointed to deficiencies in the consultation process. Other landowners and farmers near the proposed site but not in the district of Kimba have made clear their concerns regarding the proposed site and their frustrations at not being included in those earlier consultations.

The Barngarla people exercised their right to seek judicial review of the former minister's declaration of the Napandee site under the National Radioactive Waste Management Act 2012. On 18 July 2023, Justice Charlesworth of the Federal Court set aside the declaration that was made in November 2021. Some comments have been made in this place about the reason for Her Honour's decision. It has been said, quite incorrectly, that the decision to set aside the site declaration relates to the operation of native title. While the judgement does reflect briefly on native title law, this in no way was the basis of the decision of the Federal Court last month.

The question raised in this case was about a decision-making process, not a claim of native title. The Federal Court's decision in no way impacts on existing law regarding when and in what circumstances landowners are required to consult with traditional owners. To suggest that it does is misleading. The Barngarla were able to bring this case to court because of their interest in the decision-making process. Any other person or group could have done the same thing and could have reached the same result.

Rather, the site declaration was set aside because the court found apprehended bias present in the decision of the then minister. This is founded on certain statements made by the former minister relating to the site in question. I want to be very clear that the Federal Court did not find any actual bias demonstrated by the decision-maker, but Her Honour concluded that apprehended bias was sufficiently present to order that the site declaration be set aside. Some matters do remain before the courts, and I will not pre-empt the remaining judicial processes.

Today I want to make clear with regard to the principal matter that I do not intend to appeal the judge's findings of apprehended bias. I have reached an agreement with the Barngarla Determination Aboriginal Corporation on costs, and I hope that we will also come to an agreed approach to orders relating to the date of application of the judge's decision in coming days for the court's consideration in due course. The judgement was clear, and the government is listening.

I visited Kimba in January of this year and saw for myself what was in my opinion—and not everyone agrees with this—a town divided. I met residents supportive of Kimba hosting the facility and those that were not. There are many people in Kimba who support hosting this facility and I want to acknowledge their efforts over many years to diversify their local economy.

I met with the traditional owners, the Barngarla people, who are no longer residents of Kimba but clearly have a deep connection to their ancestral country after being driven off it many years ago. We have said all along that the national radioactive waste facility requires broad community support—broad community support which includes the whole community, including the traditional owners of the land. This is clearly not the case at Kimba.

The previous government sought to temporarily store intermediate-level radioactive waste on agricultural land and contemplated the double handling of the transport of this waste, first from Lucas Heights in New South Wales to temporary storage in South Australia, and then on to an undetermined permanent disposal site. This approach has raised concerns regarding international best practice and safety standards. Therefore, the Albanese Labor government does not intend to pursue Napandee as a potential site for the facility, nor is the government pursuing the previously shortlisted Lyndhurst and Wallerberdina sites.

I can confirm that site characterisation activities taking place at and around the site near Kimba have ceased. Any activities that have already been conducted were non-permanent and will be reversed or remediated. The site is currently being supervised to ensure it remains safe and cultural heritage is protected while we work through dispossession of the land. The government intends to honour existing contracts for community benefit program round 3 grants. My department has begun work on alternative proposals for the storage and disposal of the Commonwealth's civilian low-level and intermediate-level radioactive waste.

I am deeply sorry for the uncertainty this process has created for the Kimba community, for my own department, for the Australian Radioactive Waste Agency workers, and for the workers involved in the project at Napandee. I also acknowledge the profound distress this process has caused the Barngarla people, and I am sorry for that too. But we have to get this right. This is long-lasting, multigenerational government policy for the disposal of waste that can take thousands of years to decay.

This government remains committed to the Australian Radioactive Waste Agency and its goal of safely storing and disposing of radioactive waste. We must consult widely and bring stakeholders, including First Nations people, along with us. We remain bipartisan in our approach and willing to work with those opposite and across the parliament on a resolution in the national interest. This is not where we wanted to be, but we have to start from where we are. This government is determined to get this right.

David Littleproud (Maranoa, National Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's profoundly disappointing that the government is abandoning the years of work for Australia's first national radioactive waste management facility. This is a legacy failure for Australia's radioactive waste management, the nuclear medicine industry and the pursuit of research and development. The coalition and Labor have worked in a bipartisan way over a number of years to ensure radioactive waste is effectively stored and managed. However, Labor has abandoned that today.

Senator McDonald and Senator Cash wrote to the Minister for Resources and the Attorney-General last week offering any support necessary from the coalition to secure the site, and it's disappointing that this offer was not accepted or even acknowledged by the government. So much for the Prime Minister's claims of wanting to engage in a new type of politics. It's disappointing that this government has walked away from the bipartisanship on this issue and thrown into doubt the future of Australia's nuclear medicine industry. Almost every Australian will benefit from nuclear medicine in their lifetimes. Australia has a long and proud history of nuclear science, operating over many decades, and the development of this facility was the next step in this process.

The former coalition government proactively engaged with the local Kimba community and Barngarla people and underwent a significant consultation process over a number of years, including ballots, which demonstrated strong community support. Local community sentiment supporting the facility was one of a number of important considerations in declaring the site. The minister says that consultation was deficient and that the site did not have broad community support, yet over 61 per cent of residents of the Kimba area and 60 per cent of its local business supported the site. A hundred per cent of neighbours who shared a boundary supported the site.

The former Minister for Resources and Water, Mr Pitt, met with representatives of the Barngarla Determination Aboriginal Corporation, and the former government engaged with the corporation at numerous times throughout the process. The former government offered to support the Barngarla people to undertake ballots to gauge community support. And when the corporation undertook their own ballot through a private third party, that ballot was considered, along with all others, in the assessing factors. The Kimba community's ballot was undertaken by the local council in the local government area surrounding the site, following standard council election procedures. Processes were undertaken to ensure that the site near Kimba was the right site for this project. The minister is also right that the Bungala people had no native title claim over the site selected.

It poses the question: what is the government's impetus for not continuing with Kimba? The minister says the judgement was clear and that the government is listening. The Federal Court did not rule against the site but set aside a ministerial decision on administrative grounds. The court did not rule on the merits of the project, the viability of the site or the importance of developing a site to store radioactive waste. Nothing prevents the minister from simply remaking the decision through the process as set out in law. As Minister King said in June last year, the declaration of the site at Napandee was a step forward in ensuring that Australia can safely and securely manage its radioactive waste—waste that is not going to go away. If that's correct, why is the minister now walking away from Kimba? It would be deeply disappointing if other political pressures were forcing the minister's hands on this decision, because making decisions that put Labor Party factional politics and other political agendas above the national interest is no way to govern.

The coalition will always support our nuclear medicine industry, which is vital for cancer patients around the country. The Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, ANSTO, have made it clear that the development of a purpose-built waste management site is paramount to their operations continuing. The CEO of ANSTO said that if the site did not proceed then ANSTO's operations would be impacted within the next decade—as early as 2027. Operations that are so critical to Australians, like developing cancer treatments—the most widely used nuclear medicine in the world—occur at ANSTO's Lucas Heights facility. Yet this could be at risk because of this government's decision.

It's absurd that the government criticises the temporary nature of the intermediate-level storage as a reason not to proceed with the site, as now they have no solutions at all. Seven years of work has gone into developing the National Radioactive Waste Management Facility, and with one swift move this government has erased that progress. They won't even consider the two alternative sites that were shortlisted as part of the process. So, after the work of successive governments and resources ministers, this government has nothing to show. It has become clear that they have no plan to manage Australia's radioactive waste and no plan to support our nuclear medicine industry. Despite the rhetoric from those opposite, they have delivered nothing for the people of Kimba, nothing for the future of ANSTO, nothing for the future of radioactive waste and nothing for the millions of Australians who rely on nuclear medicine.