Coalition Senators - Additional
Comments/Dissenting Report
Introduction
1.1 This inquiry
highlights the Australian Labor Party’s preference for platitudes and ‘spin’
over substance.
1.2 During the 2007
election campaign, Labor promised to repeal this legislation if elected to
Government. It is now more than a year since the election, and Labor has not
only failed to deliver on its promise but has also put politics ahead of the
national interest by further delaying the establishment of a Commonwealth radioactive
waste storage facility.
1.3 Labor’s promise to
repeal the Commonwealth Radioactive Waste Management Act 2005 put
electoral prospects ahead of science and the national interest.
1.4 Over the last year,
however, the Rudd Labor Government has breached its faith and ignored the
voices of the community it claimed it would protect through this repeal,
failing to respond to or interact with key stakeholders and interested parties
since the election.
1.5 The Northern Land
Council maintains that the traditional owners overwhelmingly support the
development of the radioactive waste disposal facility on the Muckaty site[1]
and groups such as the Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological
Societies (FASTS) highlight the degree of urgency with which Australia needs to
develop a central radioactive waste facility[2],
whether at Muckaty or any of the three other sites under evaluation.
1.6 This inquiry has
clearly highlighted the urgent need for a national facility, something which
has been delayed by the ‘spin over substance’ tactics of the Rudd Labor
Government that are endangering Australia’s prospects of securing a suitable
site for the radioactive waste we are committed to storing appropriately and
safely.
Historical context
1.7 Radioactive waste,
and the associated need to manage it safely and appropriately, arises from the
use and production of radioactive materials.
1.8 Radioactive materials
have a variety of important uses in industry, agriculture, sterilisation, even
in our homes, but perhaps most importantly in medicine.
“Radioisotopes
are mainly used in diagnosis of various cancers, heart disease,
neurodegenerative disease, which is becoming an increasingly important issue in
Australia. An
early diagnosis of those diseases is crucial to survival rates. Nuclear
medicine is essential. Doctors – not us – decide it is an essential part of
their armoury for dealing with those sort of diseases, and we cannot see that
changing in the short or medium term. A small percentage of radioisotopes are used
for treatment of cancers.”[3]
1.9 Australia
generates low level and intermediate level radioactive waste.
1.10 A coordinated search,
initiated by a Federal Labor Government in the early 1990s, for a site for a
single national radioactive waste facility initially had support from state and
territory governments.
1.11 Coalition Senators
express their disappointment that, despite the initial support, a lack of
cooperation from the states and territories forced the Howard Coalition
Government to abandon this approach in 2004.[4]
1.12 Coalition Senators are
broadly in agreement with newspaper editorials at the time strongly critical of
the cheap and populist positions adopted by Labor premiers at the expense of
the national interest:
“... the
unanimous opposition of the Labor premiers to a nuclear waste dump on their own
patch is cheap populism. It represents an abject cave-in to deep-green
scaremongering ... A do-it-somewhere-else attitude might give each of the
individual premiers political traction in their own backyard, but where does it
leave the nation?”[5]
1.13 Federal Labor stood by
while State Labor Governments, most notably South Australia,
played politics with and derailed a national, scientifically based approach,
only to take a position that it would recommence the process, a position that
again rightly met with media criticism.
“Labor
leader Mark Latham ... says
a Labor Government would move to establish a national repository, but would
start the process all over again because the one that selected the Woomera site
was flawed. He seems to forget that the process was instigated at least 12
years ago by a Labor Government. A briefing on it would have told him that it
was as slow, deliberate, transparent and scientifically thorough as it could be
...”[6]
1.14 For Federal Labor to
have pledged in 2007 that it would walk away from the current potential sites
and recommence the process is no less ridiculous and worthy of criticism than
was Federal Labor’s position under Mark Latham in 2004.
Labor’s political games
“The
people of the Northern Territory elected the Labor Party. We
were led to believe that the nuclear waste thing would be all overturned and
overruled, and at this moment we are extremely disappointed.”[7]
1.15 Labor promised during
the election campaign, as traditional owner Ms Marlene Bennett
recalls, to change the legislation if elected to office.
1.16 Labor’s then spokesman
on the environment, Peter Garrett, said:
‘the
only way to guarantee there will be no nuclear reactor or waste dump in your local
community is to elect a Rudd Labor Government.’[8]
1.17 However, since Labor’s
election to office, they have failed even to interact with any of the key
stakeholders in relation to this issue. This approach has seen the Rudd Labor
Government losing the trust of the community and important organisations
starting to question its credibility in this key area of national interest.
“It is
a profound disappointment to the ACF – I
know that it is a great and daily disappointment to people in those affected areas
– that it has not moved forward. I suppose there is a sense that the action
minister has an approach that is not inclusive or free flowing with
information. If the minister cannot deliver on a clear government promise we
hope that the government can deliver on that promise...”[9]
Northern Land Council
1.18 The Northern Land
Council is:
“...a
statutory authority whose primary function under the Land Rights Act and
the Native Title Act 1993 is to represent the interests and position of
traditional Aboriginal owners regarding their country, including by negotiating
agreements regarding Aboriginal land with their consent.”[10]
1.19 The Northern Land
Council does not support the repeal of the current legislation, which allows
Aboriginal communities to self nominate their lands for possible site
selection, as it believes a proper community consultation was conducted with
the traditional owners, as identified by anthropological evidence, and
“... that
under Aboriginal tradition, the group with ultimate authority regarding that
land overwhelmingly supported the nomination and that remains our view.’[11]
1.20 Repeal of the Commonwealth
Radioactive Waste Management Act 2005 would render the process of the
nomination of Muckaty invalid.
1.21 Coalition Senators are
firmly of the view that neither this Bill nor
this inquiry is an appropriate mechanism by which to make any judgements in
relation to ownership. These judgements are rightly determined by properly
constituted Land Councils and any concerns about their efficacy in this regard
should be addressed through their processes and supporting legislation.
1.22 The Northern Land
Council Chief Executive Officer, Kim Hill, has
stated:
“It’s
the right of those Traditional Owners to do business.”[12]
1.23 Repealing the Commonwealth
Radioactive Waste Management Act 2005 would effectively disenfranchise the
Council, the body facilitating and enabling the traditional owners to make
decisions about their land.
Conclusion
1.24 Labor has ignored this
problem, of its own creation due to political posturing during the federal
election, for the past twelve months. The Labor party will stand condemned if
it fails to deliver a solution.
1.25 Whether that solution
is the Muckaty site, any of the three possible sites on defence land in the Northern
Territory or indeed a site such as Woomera in South
Australia (which would have been a real test of cooperative
federalism) should be left for scientists and other experts to determine.
1.26 However, what is clear
is that a decision is required soon and a ‘back to the future’ approach from
Labor where we start this debate all over again would not be in the national
interest.
Recommendations
1.27 That the Rudd Labor
Government walk away from its reckless and politically motivated election promise
to repeal the Commonwealth Radioactive Waste Management Act 2005 and
apologise to the people of the Northern Territory for having misled them.
1.28 That the Rudd Labor
Government follow through on the process initiated by the former Coalition
Government or immediately announce a solution to this issue that can be
achieved as soon as possible.
Senator Simon Birmingham
(Deputy Chair)
LP, South Australia
Senator the Hon. Judith Troeth
LP,
Victoria
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page