Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I want to say at the outset that I acknowledge and appreciate the importance that the mining industry plays in Australia's wealth. There will be debate later this year in this chamber about whether a mining tax is appropriate and whether the design of that tax is appropriate. I am not implacably opposed to nuclear power, but I have very grave reservations about it. I think what we have seen recently in Japan at Fukushima indicates we need to be very wary about the safeguards that are in place for nuclear power. I note that Germany will be shutting down a number of its nuclear power reactors in years to come. A conservative government effectively in Germany has made the decision to wind up nuclear power in that country. The National Radioactive Waste Management Bill 2010 is not about whether you are for or against mining or for or against nuclear power; it is a question of process—it is a question of treating the traditional owners at Muckaty Station with respect.

Not so long ago in this chamber we debated the wild rivers bill, which was a piece of legislation to overturn the Queensland government's wild rivers legislation. I know my colleagues in the Greens have a different view on this, as does the government, but I thought the key principle in that bill, which was introduced by Senator Scullion and by the opposition leader in the other place, was to ensure that there was genuine consent given before a wild rivers declaration was enacted in Queensland. In other words, that legislation would have overridden the Queensland legislation. I supported that legislation, and still do, because it is about honouring and respecting the traditional owners of the land. It is about ensuring that they have some real say in terms of self-determination. That is what the Queensland wild rivers legislation does not do. It is completely disrespectful of Indigenous owners in that it seeks to make declarations affecting the economic viability of the land and the self-determination and the economic destiny of Indigenous Australians in Queensland. As a result, that Queensland legislation is a very shabby piece of legislation. And I see some parallels to what is being proposed here by the federal government which is in effect picking up what the former government wanted to do in relation to this. I am disappointed that the government has opted to put this bill on the program this week when the legislation includes a proposed location for a radioactive waste dump that is currently the subject of a Federal Court challenge. This is about respecting traditional owners. This is about process first and foremost. It seems extraordinary when there is a challenge before the Federal Court, when there are matters that are still before the court, when there has been significant litigation about this—and I will go to that shortly—that the government is seeking to overturn a process that has already begun in the courts.

The bill specifically names one site in the Northern Territory, Muckaty Station, to be assessed as the location of a radioactive waste dump where nuclear waste from the states and territories will be deposited. The government claims that this is okay because the site was volunteered. But that is not the case. The Senate should wait until the Federal Court has made its findings as to whether those who claim to be the owners of Muckaty Station and who volunteered the site are the correct parties to do so. This is a live issue before the courts; it is a significant issue before the courts. It is an issue that must not and cannot be ignored. It concerns me that the government is seeking to just wipe away the Federal Court process, to ignore it, and to effectively say: 'We know better. We'll ignore the matters that are before the Federal Court in relation to this.'

I have heard very often from the government that they cannot support certain amendments until the outcome of a review, for example. That is what they do to me, to my fellow crossbenchers and to the opposition all the time by saying: 'We need to review this. We don't have enough information.' Yet today the government want to vote through legislation that is currently the subject of a Federal Court case. When the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Climate Change, Environment and the Arts inquired into this bill it noted the dispute between the Federal Court and concluded it would be inappropriate to inquire into a matter currently before the courts. In fact, the committee said in its report that it would be improper for it to do so. It is inappropriate; it is improper and the Senate should not vote on this bill today.

I want to give some further details in relation to this. The Australian Conservation Foundation do much good work—I do not agree with them on all issues, but they do some good work. I think it is important to put on the record what the Australian Conservation Foundation has said. It has described as cynical and irresponsible the introduction to the Senate of this bill aimed at fast-tracking a nuclear waste dump in the Northern Territory. This bill will seek to override state, territory and local government concerns and exempt the federal government from meeting key environmental and Aboriginal heritage rules—this is what we are debating today. I agree with Australian Conservation Foundation campaigner Dave Sweeney who said:

This heavy-handed legislation is a cut-and-paste of a deeply unpopular Howard era law—it is not a credible or mature basis for managing Australia's radioactive waste.

It is being challenged … by traditional owners of the region.

I agree with Mr Sweeney and again I am not implacably opposed, as some are, to nuclear power. We should have a discussion and debate about it, but after Fukushima I think we should be even more wary about nuclear power. I think Mr Sweeney made a good point when he said:

Radioactive waste lasts a lot longer than a politician's promise so we need to get its management right.

He went on to say:

This dump plan is a cynical attempt to find a short term political fix to a long term environmental and human health hazard.

Mr Sweeney made the point that with key questions around consultation, consent and ownership currently before the Federal Court it is improper for Minister Ferguson to be trying to fast-track this legislation which is based on a false premise and a broken promise. I agree with that. I agree that this legislation is deeply flawed; it is deeply flawed because the Federal Court process is still proceeding.

Let us go into some of the details of the Federal Court case which really shows the folly as to this legislation being dealt with in the Senate today. The Federal Court case is around the ownership of the land in question. It is also about the obligation of the Northern Land Council as a statutory authority to consult with all groups. I emphasise all groups because that is a very serious concern. I think that there are some concerns about the propriety of those purporting to have ownership in terms of the decisions made. The land commissioner that established the Muckaty Land Trust, the site in question, recognised shared interests in group structures. He recognised interweaving songlines and ceremonial relationships—that is what the land commissioner stated—to that land amongst five community groups, not one but five groups, over the whole area covered by the trust. Those groups are Ngapa, Milwayi, Wirntiku, Ngarrka and Yapa Yapa. I apologise to any of those groups for mangling any pronunciation.