Trish Crossin (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to continue my contribution to the debate regarding the National Radioactive Waste Management Bill 2010. I think the last time we dealt with this was back in March, and I had a few minutes to contribute to this just prior to question time. I do not have very much I want to say today in wrapping up my contribution to this debate, but I do want to turn our attention to the issue of radioactive waste and radioactive materials.

Radioactive waste has been an emotional issue. In my time that I have represented the Northern Territory, if it has not been the issue of whether or not we mine uranium the other major question has been what we then do with the waste that is produced once we have used that mineral for radioactive activities. We know that radioactive materials have a variety of important uses in industry, agriculture and, most noticeably, in medicine. The production and use of radioactive materials in all these applications is strictly regulated to ensure the safety of people and the environment. But we also know that around 500,000 Australians per year benefit from medical diagnosis or treatment using radioisotopes that are produced by the research reactor at Lucas Heights in Sydney.

Radiopharmaceuticals—therapeutic drugs —contain radioactive materials. They are important in the diagnosis and treatment of serious illnesses such as cancer. We know that cancer affects one in three men and one in four women by the age of 75. While the quest for a cure continues, treating it directly by irradiating the cancer and using special radioactive medicines that attach themselves to the tumour provides benefits for many cancer sufferers. In the last 18 months we have witnessed the opening of an oncology unit in the Northern Territory. The Alan Walker Cancer Care Centre has been a welcome benefit and relief for people living in the Northern Territory. It means that now, for the first time ever, you do not have to pack up your goods and your family and travel down to Adelaide for those long periods of treatment for your cancer. In fact, your oncology, radiotherapy and chemo­therapy treatment can be done on the spot in Darwin. So lots of people are talking about and benefiting from the use of radioactive materials, particularly when it comes to treating diseases such as cancer.

I turn now to the issue of what we do with the waste that comes from those materials and that treatment. Getting the benefit of nuclear medicine also means accepting the responsibility to safely manage resulting radioactive waste. The majority of our waste is actually medium to low level, resulting from over 40 years of research, medical and industrial uses of radioactive materials. The low-level waste, which I have seen at Lucas Heights myself, includes paper, plastic, glassware, protective clothing—even Chux wipes and gloves—and canisters contam­inated as a result of the clinical procedures, and spent fuels. We know that this waste is currently stored in over 100 individual locations around the country, as well as in repositories in Britain and France.

A recent Victorian Auditor-General's report into hazardous waste said:

… there is little assurance that hazardous waste is stored and disposed of appropriately.

We have an international obligation to safely secure and manage our waste, and the next step in that is building a purpose-built radioactive waste management storage and processing facility, a single facility that would provide greater safety and security benefits for the community compared with the current practice. Our obligation does not include receiving waste from other countries. That is forbidden by Australian law and has been reiterated time and time again by ministers in my government and the Prime Minister. But, like other countries, we have to take responsibility for the proper management of our own waste. We know that spent fuels were sent to France and Scotland and that we have an obligation to store them because they are our fuels that were sent there for decommissioning and they are due back.

If we look at the history of the debate about where we are going to put this purpose-built nuclear waste facility in this country, we see, as I said in my previous contribution, that this has been on the agenda for decades. In fact, I think the Minister for the Regional Australia, Regional Develop­ment and Local Government, Simon Crean, started this process when the Hawke and Keating governments were in power, more than a decade or so ago. Now we have come to the pointy end of the debate: making a decision about what we are going to do in this country. We know that the previous coalition government reached an agreement with the Ngapa clan, who nominated their land at Muckaty Station as a potential site for the facility. The approach taken in this piece of legislation and by this government honours the commitments made by the previous government to the Ngapa traditional owners of the land at Muckaty Station.

We know that that land was identified through the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act and the traditional owners of the nominated land were identified by the Northern Land Council. And we know that the nomination has now been questioned in a court of law. We also know that as late as last week the Prime Minister, when she was in the Northern Territory, publicly stated that we would abide by the outcome of any court decision. We also know that other clans on the Muckaty land trust have nominated and entered into agreements with respect to their land at Muckaty Station for other uses, such as for part of the railway and as a gas easement. It is not uncommon, of course, for individual families to nominate sections of the land on the Muckaty land trust for use. I know there is a dispute about whether or not the Ngapa clan were the right people to have put forward their land for use by a purpose-built radioactive waste facility. That matter is being tested in a court of law. We have publicly said—on transcript, through the Minister for Resources and Energy, Martin Ferguson, and now the Prime Minister—that this government will abide by any outcome of that court case.

Let us turn to what the National Radio­active Waste Management Bill does. The bill that we have put before this parliament improves the existing legislation for the management of our radioactive waste. This piece of legislation does four key things. It introduces procedural fairness to all decisions regarding the selection of the site. It ensures that only voluntary nominations can be considered in selecting a site, and this process expressly recognises the rights of the traditional owners of any potential site. Again, the Ngapa clan have volunteered their land at Muckaty Station. That voluntary process is under dispute in a court. We have said that we will abide by the outcome of that court case. This bill rules out from further consideration the three potential sites that were identified by the previous government without consultation and without any deliberation as to the impact on any Indigenous people or traditional owners if any of those three sites went ahead, including the site in Katherine which borders a particular family's cattle station. In the event that further nominations are required to select a site, the Northern Territory will not be singled out as the only region that can be considered. If the outcome of the Federal Court case is such that it does not rule in favour of the Northern Land Council and the Ngapa clan, the Northern Territory will not be singled out as the only region that can considered.

What this legislation does, which I think people fail to appreciate, is to set out a blueprint for a purpose-built radioactive waste management facility in this country. It is not just about the Northern Territory; it is about a storage facility in this country. Some would claim that the government is disregarding the rights of traditional owners by seeking to enforce the storage of the nuclear waste at Muckaty Station. That is wrong. Under this bill the government cannot impose a facility on any one community. A site must be volunteered for consideration. The site at Muckaty was volunteered for consideration. Some people do not like that; some people disagree with it. But at the end of the day, under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act, that land was put forward. It was accepted by the previous federal govern­ment, the coalition government, and we have said we will acknowledge that acceptance, subject to the result of the Federal Court case. As we know, at present there are Federal Court proceedings challenging the Northern Land Council's ruling on the traditional ownership of the land at Muckaty Station, and Martin Ferguson, the minister, has said publicly that he would respect the court's decision and will continue to respect the wishes of the lawfully determined traditional owners of the land at Muckaty Station. The government has no intention to take any action under the Howard govern­ment's radioactive waste legislation. This is a different bill that will achieve a different outcome. This is a bill that acknowledges that volunteered site, and this is a bill that will now lay a blueprint for the nation's handling of radioactive waste material in this country.

Also, we will see the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act come into play. Before any work can commence in constructing the facility on a selected site, the requirements and necessary approvals under the EPBC Act and the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Act 1998 will be met and obtained. The facts are simply missing from a campaign that is being waged against the establishment of a long-term solution for the responsible management of our radioactive waste.

I just say finally that we need to respect the rights of the Ngapa clan, who have made a decision about the use of their land just like any other Indigenous group. But, of course, that is being tested in the courts by other Indigenous members. We need to respect that, and we have said we will respect that. We are obliged to deal with the difficult issue of managing our own low- and medium-level radioactive waste, and we have a responsibility to the community to deal with it in a safe and secure manner so the important and valuable benefits of radioactive materials, such as cancer treatment, can continue. I just say again, though, that this is a blueprint for a national radioactive waste management facility. It does, of course, consider Muckaty first, but Muckaty Station and the Muckaty Land Trust were volunteered by Indigenous people under the land rights act, which we will honour unless, of course, there is a decision in the courts otherwise.