Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

It is interesting that again the government has sought to simply wash its hands of the dodgy and rather dark process that underlies the original nomination that you strongly condemned when you were in opposition, sheeting it home to the Northern Land Council and saying: 'That's their dirty laundry. Their process is their business. They have their obligations, and we simply accept what pops through the post box.' It is absolutely unacceptable. In 2006, in evidence to the Senate Standing Committee on Employment, Workplace Relations and Education, Mr Ron Levy, who is the NLC principal legal officer and who gave evidence to our committee late last year in the budget estimates hearing that I referred to before, put this into the record:

It is unlawful for a land council to nominate land as a waste facility unless it first has the consent of traditional owners.

So far so good. He said:

Your question, as I understood it originally, was: can a land council lawfully nominate land without the consent of the traditional owners? The answer is no.

So far so good. He went on:

The question as you now put it is: if the land council was to do that unlawfully, would it be validated? The answer to that question—in common with how the land rights act has operated for over 30 years and in common with, for example, how the Torrens title system operates regarding the real property—is yes.

It gets back to the issue before of the minister somewhat dismissively saying: 'That's just about spelling mistakes and stuff. That happens in legislation all the time. We will establish a set of criteria. Then there will be a clause in there that says that if any of these criteria are violated, it does not matter for the purpose of the nomination.'

That is why people are contesting this issue everywhere from the Federal Court to Minister Ferguson's doorstep in the electorate of Batman, where he is becoming more and more unpopular by the year. That is exactly the clause in the bill that they have zoomed in on and their legal counsel have zoomed in on and said, 'Just a moment.' First of all, they believe that the nomination was actually put up unlawfully. They have real problems with the terms of this legislation and with the way that the land rights act has been interpreted before, but I suspect the minister is going to tell me that there is long precedent for this kind of behaviour: that we can go through notional processes of consultation, tick all the boxes and then be told that, if any of the boxes were not ticked or if anything turns out to have been dodgy or if people were left out of the process or if cheques were written out to the wrong people, no matter how dodgy the process was, there is a clause in the act that says it does not matter, that the nomination can proceed. That is why people are so concerned about this.

We were told by the government and we were certainly given reason to believe by the Labor Party when they were in opposition that there would be a different approach. This is not a different approach. This is a continuation of the approach of terra nullius that says there is empty land out there. Julie Bishop, when she was federal science minister, referred to it as the middle of nowhere. She put it like this:

All the sites in the NT are well away from houses. There are three sites—

and now we can add a fourth—

that are currently being considered and they are former defence sites so they are some distance from any form of civilisation.

Tell Mitch that, tell Dianne Stokes that—that their block is some distance away from any form of civilisation and can therefore host this material, which will still kill you in a quarter of a million years, in a shed surrounded by barbed wire and two security guards. What kind of civilisation is it exactly that is promoting that kind of approach?

Senator Nigel Scullion, since he is still here and is taking part in the debate occasionally, said, 'Territorians don't like having this sort of stuff shoved down our throats because we are not a state.' Well, then, bring on statehood. If it takes being a state, if it helped the South Australians kick this project out of their backyard with the support of the Rann government, local government authorities, media organisations, the broader community and, most importantly, the kungas, the senior Aboriginal women who led that campaign—then bring on statehood. We have not yet heard Senator Scullion on that.

Earlier I quoted Alexander Downer, the former Minister for Foreign Affairs, proposing that what we should really have is high-level radioactive waste, spent fuel from commercial power plants all over the world, coming into Australia. Here is what he said:

I'd rather have that low-level waste out at—well it will be in the Northern Territory now. I would rather have it in the Northern Territory than in Mount Barker just down the road from my electorate office.

That, senators, sums up this entire debate. They want the technology as long as it is nowhere near them, as long as somebody else is picking up the tab. The people I have met with, because I have taken the time to go to Tennant Creek and to spend a bit of time in the Barkly region and in Darwin and Alice Springs, say that that approach is not appropriate. If it is unsafe in Sydney, it is not going to get any safer in a shed or a shed-like facility in the Barkly region.

These reminders of the way people from both sides of politics have handled this debate for decades tell us the reason we keep failing, the reason we keep running up against community opposition. People are saying: 'Wait a minute. You weren't straight with us. You weren't clear with us about the nature of this material, about how long it is lethal and about your reasons for getting it out of your backyard and into ours.' This game of toxic pass-the-parcel simply has to end.

I hoped I would be able to draw out from Senator Scullion his views on the amendments. Minister, you gave us advice earlier that there are at least some people behind the scenes who think the proposal is reasonably sensible. You have since been given legal advice that it is not going to be possible to do so or that you would rather not do it. I commend these amendments to the chamber. I hope that we hear some voice from the opposition—after all, Senator Scullion, it is a senator from Western Australia who is trying to prevent this stuff going into your backyard. I hope you will take the opportunity now to stand up and explain why you think that this is a good idea, that we do not at the very least embed the basic objectives of the land rights act into this Commonwealth bill.