Bills Digest no. 125 2009–10
National Radioactive Waste Management Bill
2010
WARNING:
This Digest was prepared for debate. It reflects the legislation as
introduced and does not canvass subsequent amendments. This Digest
does not have any official legal status. Other sources should be
consulted to determine the subsequent official status of the
Bill.
CONTENTS
Passage history
Purpose
Background
Financial implications
Main provisions
Concluding comments
Contact officer & copyright details
Passage history
National Radioactive Waste Management Bill
2010
Date introduced: 24 February 2010
House: House
of Representatives
Portfolio: Resources, Energy and Tourism
Commencement: On Royal Assent.
Links: The
relevant links to the Bill, Explanatory Memorandum and second
reading speech can be accessed via BillsNet, which is at http://www.aph.gov.au/bills/.
When Bills have been passed they can be found at ComLaw, which is
at http://www.comlaw.gov.au/.
The National Radioactive Waste
Management Bill 2010 (the Bill) is intended to repeal and replace
the existing Commonwealth Radioactive Waste Management Act
2005 (the Act).
The Bill will restore some review rights and procedural fairness
rights to the process of selecting a site for the proposed
Commonwealth radioactive waste management facility, and enables the
establishment of a regional consultative committee. Unlike the
current Act, the Bill also allows for a site to be selected outside
the Northern Territory.[1]
Back to top
Extensive historical background on the proposed Commonwealth
Radioactive Waste Management Facility is set out on the Bills
Digest to the Act.[2] That legislation, along with the Commonwealth
Radioactive Waste Management (Related Amendment) Act 2005, and
the subsequent Commonwealth Radioactive Waste Management
Legislation Amendment Act 2006, were intended to facilitate
the process of selecting a site, and then developing, and
eventually operating, a Commonwealth radioactive waste management
facility in the Northern Territory.
At the time of the
time of the passing of the Act, three potential sites for the
facility had been identified by the former Howard Government in the
Northern Territory. These were all Commonwealth Defence Department
properties: Mount Everard and Harts Range (both near Alice Springs)
and Fishers Ridge (near Katherine). All three sites are listed in
Schedule 1 to the Act. The Act also allowed the Chief
Minister of the Northern Territory to nominate other potential
sites, as long as they were not on Aboriginal land within the
meaning of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act
1976). Northern Territory indigenous Land Councils were also
able to nominate sites on Aboriginal land. In May 2007, the
Northern Land Council nominated an Aboriginal land site on Muckaty
station, about 120 km from Tennant Creek. In September 2007, the
nomination was approved under the provisions of the Act by the then
Minister for Education, Science and Training, the Hon Julie Bishop
MP, triggering the legal powers and protections conferred by the
Act to potential facility sites.
Over 2006-2008, consultants Parsons
Brinckerhoff undertook extensive studies in order to consider the
suitability of the three Defence sites and Muckaty station as a
location for the facility, including detailed studies of the sites'
physical, biological and socioeconomic environments. Following a
peer review process, the final report was submitted to the
Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism in March 2009. The
report has not been released, and the Government has previously
stated it does not intend to do so.[3]
However, the Government has said
that the Mount Everard, Harts Range and Fishers Ridge sites are no
longer being considered as potential sites.[4] The Muckaty station nomination is still
afoot.
In terms of the types of waste that
might be stored at the proposed facility, the Minister’s
second reading speech stated:[5]
In terms of radioactive waste, Australia
produces low level and intermediate-level waste through its use of
radioactive materials. Low-level waste includes lightly
contaminated laboratory waste, such as paper, plastic, glassware
and protective clothing, contaminated soil, smoke detectors and
emergency exit signs.
Intermediate-level waste arises from the
production of nuclear medicines, from overseas reprocessing of
spent research reactor fuel and from disused medical and industrial
sources such as radiotherapy sources and soil moisture meters.
As can be seen the generation of low-level and
intermediate-level radioactive waste is an unavoidable result of
many worthwhile activities.
During the past 50 years, about 4,000 cubic
metres of low-level and short-lived intermediate-level radioactive
waste has accumulated in Australia. It is currently stored at
interim facilities including a multitude of small stores located in
suburban and regional areas across Australia.
By comparison, countries such as Britain and
France annually produce around 25,000 cubic metres of low and
intermediate-level waste. But unlike the current situation in
Australia, Britain and France dispose of such waste in purpose
built repositories.
In addition to providing proper disposal of
Australia’s low-level and short-lived intermediate level
radioactive waste, the facility to be established under this bill
will also be suitable for storing the approximately 32 cubic metres
of long lived intermediate-level nuclear waste arising from
reprocessing ANSTO’s spent research reactor fuel. This
material will return to Australia from France and the United
Kingdom in 2015 and 2016.
The Act provides the Commonwealth or
a person working on behalf of the Commonwealth (including
contractors and subcontractors) with the legislative authority to
do anything in the Northern Territory ‘necessary for or
incidental to the purposes’ of selecting the final site from
those listed in Schedule 1 or otherwise nominated[6] and then developing, operating and
eventually decommissioning the facility.
The Act also provides that various
state, territory and Commonwealth legislation does not apply to
various stages of the facility. For example, the Act explicitly
overrides the operation of both Territory and State laws that
‘regulate, hinder or prevent’ the facility’s
development and operation, although it retains the flexibility to
permit the operation of any Territory or State laws if the
Commonwealth considers this appropriate.[7] It also overrides the application of
the Commonwealth’s Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
Heritage Protection Act 1984 and the Environment
Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBCA) as
far they might apply to the site selection process only.[8] The construction and
operation of the facility would however still be subject to the
usual Commonwealth approval and licensing provisions, including the
Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Act
1998 (ARPNS Act) and the EPBCA.[9]
Other significant features of the
Act include:
- the failure to observe the consultative and consent
arrangements in relation to nomination of a place as a potential
site by the Chief Minister or a Land Council, does not invalidate
the nomination or any subsequent Commonwealth Ministerial approval
of the nomination
- the nomination of place is not reviewable under the
Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977
(ADJRA) and is not disallowable by Parliament
- the Government’s decision on the preferred site is not
disallowable by Parliament, is not reviewable under the ADJRA, and
the Government owes no legal obligation of procedural fairness
towards anybody affected by the decision
When in Opposition, the ALP stated
that it was ‘committed to repealing the Commonwealth
Radioactive Waste Management Act and establishing a consensual
process of site selection’.[10]
The Northern Territory government
remains opposed to siting of the facility in the Northern
Territory.[11]
Reports suggest that there are mixed
feelings amongst the traditional owners of the Muckaty station site
regarding the potential for the facility to be located
there,[12]
including elements of strong opposition.[13]
The Opposition have said they
continue to support the need for the facility, noting the Muckaty
site was identified under the Coalition Government’s process.
They have stated that they ‘will closely examine the
details’ of the Bill.[14]
The Greens have been critical of the
Bill, and have expressed concerns about the openness of the site
selection process to date and have pressed for further
consultations.[15]
The Bill has been referred to the Senate Legal and
Constitutional Affairs Committee for inquiry and report by 30 April
2010. Details of the inquiry are at
http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/legcon_ctte/radioactivewaste/info.htm.
Back to top
The Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill states:[16]
Overall, the financial impact of the
legislation is considered to be negligible. Provision for any
costs, including any liability of the Commonwealth to compensate
persons for any acquisition etc. of their interests in land
affected by the Bill, would be sought to supplement the existing
administrated appropriation for Outcome 1 of the Department of
Resources, Energy and Tourism.
The Bill incorporates a requirement on the part of the Minister
to accord procedural fairness in relation to:
- declaring that general nominations for potential facilities
sites may be made, as opposed to restricting nominations to
Northern Territory Land Councils, and
- declaring that a particular site has been selected for the
facility.[17]
Such a requirement is explicitly excluded under the current Act.
The new requirement is not however unduly onerous – it
necessitates the Minister inviting comment from specified persons
or entities, and ‘tak[ing] into account and relevant comments
given’.
In the event that the Minister makes an error of law in the
processes applying to site nominations, approval of nominations,
and selection of the preferred site, the Bill restores the right of
an ‘aggrieved person’ to seek judicial review under the
ADJR Act. However, the Bill also retains the current provisions of
the Act that a failure to comply with certain procedural elements
does not invalidate the nominations etc.
The Bill also contemplates, in the
event that the Minister declares that general nominations for
facility sites may be made, that the facility could be built
outside the Northern Territory.[18] However, depending on the
circumstances, it is perhaps arguable that the Commonwealth does
not have clear constitutional power to enact legislation to
construct and operate a facility outside the territories, although
the external affairs and implied nationhood power may provide
sufficient power. This is covered in more depth in the discussion
of new section 37 in the mains provisions section
of this Digest.
The Bill retains the existing
provisions of the Act that effectively exclude State and Territory
laws from operating where they would ‘regulate, hinder or
prevent’ the Commonwealth from doing work to investigate the
suitability of potential sites and then the construction and
operation of the proposed facility, including the transporting of
radioactive materials.
New section 3 contains a number of definitions,
including those of ‘Commonwealth contractor’ and
‘subcontractor’. The effect of these two definitions,
combined with new sections 4 and
12, is that persons and companies with very remote
legal contractual connections to the Commonwealth will potentially
be exempted from State and Territory law when undertaking work
connected to the proposed facility.
New section 4 allows for nomination of
potential sites on Northern Territory Aboriginal land by the
relevant Land Council. However, such a nomination may only be done
before the ‘general nomination start time’. General
nominations are done under new sections 5-7 (see
below). This ‘general nomination start time’ will be
fixed by the Commonwealth Minister by a written declaration made
under new section 5, at some unspecified future
date. The declaration is not a legislation instrument, and hence
not disallowable by Parliament.
New section 4 nominations contain similar
procedural elements as existing section 3B of the Act (particularly
in relation to providing evidence of consultation and consent with
the relevant traditional Aboriginal owners). As with the current
Act, however, a failure to comply with these elements does not
invalidate a nomination, nor is the nomination disallowable by
Parliament.[19]
In respect of general nominations,
these may be made under new section 6 by the owner
of the relevant land, or by the certain leaseholders,[20] but only following a
Ministerial declaration under new section 5.
Before making such a declaration, the Minister have regard to
whether it is unlikely that a facility will be able to be
constructed and operated on Aboriginal land that has been nominated
as a potential site under new section 4. This
avenue for general nominations opens up a fall-back option if it
appears that any Land Council nominated sites are not feasible for
a facility for whatever reason. It is notable that a general
nomination can be for a site outside the Northern Territory –
the Act currently only allows for sites within the Northern
Territory. New section 7 contains procedural
elements (particularly in relation to providing evidence of
consultation and consent with ‘specified groups of
persons’[21])
but again, a failure to comply with these elements does not
invalidate a nomination, nor is the nomination disallowable by
Parliament.
New section 8 enables the Minister to,
‘at his or her absolute discretion’ give written
approval of land, or part of land, nominated under new
sections 4 or 6.[22] A failure to observe procedural elements (which have
been largely discussed above) does not invalidate any section 8
approval, nor is the approval disallowable by Parliament as it is
not a legislative instrument. New section 8 essentially
replicates the equivalent section (section 3C) currently in the
Act.
New section 9, dealing with procedural fairness
for section 5 declarations and section 8 approvals, is major change
as compared the current Act. Existing section 3D of the Act
specifies that ‘no person is entitled to procedural
fairness’ in relation to a section 3A nomination of a site or
section 3C Ministerial approval of a nomination.
New section 9 contains a process that ‘taken
to be an exhaustive statement of the requirements for natural
justice’ for new section 5 declarations and
new section 8 approvals. It makes no mention of
natural justice in relation to nominations.[23]
In relation to natural justice for a new section
5 declaration, the Minister must invite comments from all
Land Councils and the general public (with a minimum 60 day period
for comments to be received) on the proposed declaration, and then
take these into account in deciding whether to make the
declaration.
In relation to new section 8 approvals, the
Minister must invite comments from each nominator, and via public
notices in the Gazette and newspapers, from persons with a right or
interest in the relevant land – again with a minimum 60 day
period for comments to be received. Comments from these persons
must be taking into account by the Minister in deciding whether
approve the nomination.[24]
New section 10 provides the Commonwealth or a
person working on behalf of the Commonwealth (including contractors
and subcontractors) with the legislative authority to do anything
in a state or territory ‘necessary for or incidental to the
purposes’ of selecting a site on which to construct and
operate a facility. New subsection 10(3) provides
a non-exhaustive list of the sort of activities which would fall
into this category. New subsection 10(4) places
various obligations on persons engaged in such activities outside
of the sites – essentially to cause as little damage or
inconvenience as possible to the relevant land and occupiers.
New section 10 differs from the equivalent section
4 in the Act in that extends to all states and territories –
not just the Northern Territory, but otherwise is the same.
New section 11
effectively excludes State and Territory laws from operating where
they would ‘regulate, hinder or prevent the doing of a thing
authorised by section 10’. New section 11(1)
does state that only certain types of State and Territory laws (eg
laws relating to ‘the uses or proposed use of land or
premises’) are excluded, but the range of laws mentioned is
so wide they are likely to give almost complete coverage. Indeed,
even if a State or Territory law fell outside the type listed in
new subsection 11(1), the law could be excluded by
prescribing it under regulation: new subsections
11(2)-(3). This prescribing power also allows parts of
laws, rather than the whole, to be excluded. Conversely,
new subsection 11(4) provides that the regulations
may prescribe a State or Territory law, or part of it, such that it
has effect despite anything in new section 11.
This allows the Commonwealth to limit the exclusions discussed
above if thought appropriate. New section 11 is
the same as section 5 in the current Act.
New subsection
12(1) provides that two Commonwealth laws, the
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act
1984 and the Environment Protection and Biodiversity
Conservation Act 1999, have no effect where they would
‘regulate, hinder or prevent the doing of a thing authorised
by section 10’. Again a prescription power under regulation
exists (subsection 10(2)) to allow for the
exclusion of other Commonwealth laws, or parts of laws. New
section 12 is the same as section 6 in the current
Act.
Back to top
Part 4 allows the
Minister to acquire and/or extinguish various rights and
interests[25] both
in the site finally selected for the facility or other land where
this is required for providing all-weather road access to that
site.
New subsection
13(2) enables the Minister to declare that a nominated
site, or part of that site, has been selected as the site for the
facility.[26] Under
new subsection 13(4), a declaration may also be
made that that all or specified rights or interests in land in a
State or Territory are required for providing all-weather road
access to the selected site. Subsection 13(2) declarations may be
revoked, but there is no provision for revocations in relation to
subsection 13(4) declarations.
New section 14 specifies that a failure to
comply with these various procedural elements in the nomination,
Ministerial approval or declaration process does not invalidate a
declaration, nor is the declaration disallowable by Parliament.
However, the declaration must comply with new section
17 procedural fairness requirements, which contains a
process that ‘taken to be an exhaustive statement of the
requirements for natural justice’. By comparison, the Act
currently specifically provides that the Minister need not accord
any person procedural fairness in making a declaration selecting a
site or land for road access.
Under new section 17, the Minister must invite
comments from each nominator[27], and via public notices in the Gazette and
newspapers, from persons with a right or interest in the relevant
land, with a minimum 60 day period for comments to be received.
Comments from these persons must be taking into account by the
Minister in deciding whether to make the new section
13 declaration.
New subsection
18(1) provides that at the time any new
subsections 13(2) or 13(4) declaration has effect, any
rights or interest in the selected site or road-access land that
are specified in the declaration are acquired by the Commonwealth
or extinguished and freed and discharged from all other rights and
interests and from all trusts, restrictions, dedications,
reservations, obligations, mortgages, encumbrances, contracts,
licences, charges and rates. This is little different from the
equivalent section of the current Act.
The acquisition and/or
extinguishment of rights and interests under new section
18 has effect despite any other law of the Commonwealth,
State or Territory, including the Commonwealth’s Lands
Acquisition Act 1989 and the Native Title Act 1993:
new section 19. This is identical to existing
section 10 in the Act. Although the Explanatory Memorandum to the
Bill makes no real comment on the provision, the Explanatory
Memorandum to the current Act (then Bill) noted that the provision
has the effect that:
it is not necessary for the
Commonwealth to comply with any and all provisions of those Acts
relating to preliminary processes for the acquisition or
extinguishment of rights and interests in relation to land.
New section 21, allowing for the establishment
of a regional consultative committee, is entirely new as compared
to the current Act. Once a site selection declaration (new
subsection 13(2)) has taken effect, the
Minister may establish such a committee. The functions of the
committee are to facilitate:
- communication between the Commonwealth, the operator of the
facility (if any) at the selected site and persons living in or
near the region where the selected site is situated, and
- such other functions as are prescribed via regulation.
Regulations may also prescribe the membership of the committee.
Part 5 is broadly
similar to Part 3 except that it deals with
activities once the final site has been selected. It is also
virtually identical to existing Part 4 in the Act.
New section 22
provides the Commonwealth or a person working on behalf of the
Commonwealth with the legislative authority to do anything
‘necessary for or incidental to’ the various things
listed new subsection 22(2). These range from
gathering information necessary for the Commonwealth licensing of
the facility, building access roads, constructing, operating
– including transport radioactive waste to and from the site
- and decommissioning the facility. [28]
New section 23
effectively excludes State and Territory laws from operating where
they would ‘regulate, hinder or prevent the doing of a thing
authorised by section 12’. New sections
23(1)-(2) do state that only certain types of State and
Territory laws (eg laws relating to ‘the uses or proposed use
of land or premises’) are excluded, but again the range is so
wide they are likely to give almost complete coverage. Even if a
State or Territory law fell outside the types listed in new
subsections 23(1)-(2), the law could excluded by
prescribing it under regulation: new subsections
23(3)-(4). This prescribing power also allows parts of
laws, rather than the whole, to be excluded. New subsection
23(5) provides that the regulations may prescribe a State
or Territory law, or part of it, such that it has effect despite
anything in new section 23. This allows the
Commonwealth to limit the exclusions discussed above if thought
appropriate. New section 23 is the same as section
13 in the current Act.
New subsection
24(1) provides that the Commonwealth may prescribe by
regulation a Commonwealth law, or part of it, so that it has no
effect to the extent it would otherwise ‘regulate, hinder or
prevent the doing of a thing authorised by section 22’.
However subsection 24(2) provides that the
following laws cannot be prescribed:
• the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety
Act 1998;
• the Environment Protection and Biodiversity
Conservation Act 1999;
• the Nuclear Non-Proliferation (Safeguards) Act
1987.
This means these laws will continue to apply.
Part 6 is virtually identical to existing Part
4A in the Act. That Part was added to the Act by the
Commonwealth Radioactive Waste Management Legislation Amendment
Act 2006.
It provides a legislative structure for the future return of
Aboriginal Land to its original owners. The return is to be made in
the Minister’s ‘absolute discretion’.
New section 25 sets out the
features of the land to be returned. These define the land to have
been Aboriginal land in the beginning, the nature of the original
acquisition and the fact that the facility has been abandoned in
accordance with the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear
Safety Act 1998, that is, it is no longer needed as a
radioactive waste storage facility and it has been declared to be
safe.
New sections 26 and 27 establish a mechanism
whereby the Minister (in his or her absolute discretion) can
declare the land is no longer needed. The declaration must specify
the land and the Land Trust to which he or she intends to return
it. To come within these provisions, the Land Trust must be the
same Land Trust (or its successor) which held the land before it
was acquired by the Commonwealth. The declaration must be published
in the Gazette and the Land Trust must be notified in
writing. Provided these conditions are met, and the Land Trust has
consented to the return of the land within the prescribed time
frame (12 months, in the first instance), the Minister must make a
declaration returning the land as a grant of estate in fee simple
(with mineral rights reserved) or releasing the
Commonwealth’s interests in the land.
New section 32
provides for an indemnity by the Commonwealth to the Land Trusts
specified in the return of land. The indemnity covers the Land
Trust against any action, claim or demand brought against the Land
Trust in respect of any liability arising from, or damage caused
by, ionising radiation from the transport or management of
‘controlled material’ at the facility. This indemnity
is reduced to the extent that any fault on the part of the Land
Trust is involved (proposed subsection 32(2)).
Furthermore the indemnity will not operate if the Land Trust does
not notify the Commonwealth, in writing, of the issue ‘as
soon as practicable’ (proposed subsection
32(3)) and it must then follow the directions of the
Commonwealth in relation to the claim.
New sections 34 and
35 contain some recent standard Commonwealth
legislative provisions on compensation. New section
34 provides for ‘reasonable’ compensation to
be payable to a person whose right or interest has been acquired,
extinguished or otherwise affected under new section
18. New section 35 provides that, if the
effect of the Bill (once in operation) would result in
constitutional acquisition of property from a person
‘otherwise than on just terms’, again reasonable
compensation must be paid. In both cases, if the Commonwealth and
the person claiming compensation do not agree on the amount, the
person to whom the compensation is payable may institute
proceedings in the Federal Court to determine, and recover, the
amount payable.
New section 36 is
revised form of section 16A Act. Section 16A requires the
Commonwealth to indemnify the Northern Territory[29], and keep the Northern Territory
indemnified against any ‘action, claim or demand brought or
made against the Northern Territory in respect of any liability
arising from, or damaged caused by, ionising radiation from any act
done or omitted to be done by or on behalf of the Commonwealth in
relation to the transport of controlled material to or from, or the
management of controlled material, at a facility on the selected
site’. The amount of the indemnity is reduced by the extent
to which any fault on the part of the State or Territory, or its
employees, agents or contractors, contributed to the liability or
damage. The indemnity only applies if the Northern Territory both
gives the Commonwealth written notification of the action, claim or
demand as soon as practicable, and follows any directions of the
Commonwealth in relation to the action, claim or demand.
New section 36 is broadly
similar, however it applies only if the nomination of the
selected site was through section 4 (nomination of Aboriginal land
by the relevant Land Council). Unfortunately neither the
Explanatory Memorandum nor the second reading speech provide any
background to the perceived need for this entirely new provision,
including why it effectively only applies should the proposed
facility be built on Aboriginal Land in the Northern Territory, as
opposed to other locations.
New section 37
provides a constitutional ‘safety net’ in the event
that the purported operation of the Bill to a prospective facility
outside a territory is beyond the constitutional power of the
Commonwealth.[30]
Certainly the Commonwealth has the
power under section 122 of the Constitution to legislate to with a
prospective facility in a Territory. If the Commonwealth has the
constitutional ability to legislate on a subject, it also has the
power to explicitly exclude or limit the operation of State or
Territory law with respect to matters dealt with by the
legislation. For example, section 83 of the Australian
Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Act 1999 provides
that:
If a law of a State or Territory,
or one or more provisions of such a law, is prescribed by the
regulations, that law or provision does not apply in relation to
the following:
(a) an activity of a controlled
person in relation to a controlled apparatus or a controlled
material;
(b) an activity of a controlled
person in relation to a controlled facility.
There are a range of other
constitutional powers that may arguably serve to support those
parts of the Bill that authorise activities outside of the
territories. For example, the external affairs power (section
51(xxix)) could be relevant by virtue of Australia being a party to
the 1997 Convention on the Safety
of Spent Fuel Management and the Safety of Radioactive Waste
Management.[31]
By expediting the development of the proposed facility, the Bill
could be said to support the broad objectives of the Convention.
The ‘implied nationhood’ power could also be relevant
to support legislation that essentially seeks to allow the
Commonwealth to safely store waste generated by its agencies,
although the scope of that power is uncertain.
However, depending on the
circumstances, there may still be doubts that the Constitution
would support those parts of the Bill that potentially authorise,
or are related to, activities for a facility that may be outside of
the territories. In this case, new section 37 allows the Bill to
effectively operate so it only applies in relation a facility, and
other relevant land, within a territory.
Back to top
Item 1 repeals the current Act.
Item
2 repeals the current exemption from the ADJR Act in
respect of site nominations, approval of nominations, and selection
of the preferred site.
Schedule 2 is designed to
effectively preserve the legal status of the 2007 Muckaty station
nomination. However, should it be eventually selected as the
facility site by the Commonwealth under a new section
13 Ministerial declaration, the new procedural fairness
requirements in new section 17 will apply to that
declaration process.
Concluding comments
The issue of the proposed Commonwealth Radioactive Waste
Management Facility is a contentious one, particularly as both this
Bill and the current Act allow for the overriding of Territory and
State law in particular. The Bill does restore and address some
procedural fairness requirements and judicial review rights to the
process, which were excluded by the Howard Government through the
passing of the Act in 2005, and later amendments in 2006.
Members, Senators and Parliamentary staff can obtain further
information from the Parliamentary Library on (02) 6277 2764.
Angus Martyn
9 March 2010
Bills Digest Service
Parliamentary Library
Back to top