|
senate vote 2021-06-21#12
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2021-09-17 12:38:08
|
Title
Bills — National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment (Site Specification, Community Fund and Other Measures) Bill 2020; in Committee- National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment (Site Specification, Community Fund and Other Measures) Bill 2020 - in Committee - Agree with amended bill
Description
<p class="speaker">Anne Ruston</p><p>by leave—I move amendments (1) to (10) on sheet SV110 together:</p><p class="italic">(1) Clause 1, page 1 (line 15), omit "<i>Specification</i>", substitute "<i>Selection</i>".</p>- The majority voted in favour of agreeing to the bill [as amended](https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fsched%2Fr6500_sched_ad726a22-9692-481b-b2ec-0522be011f37%22;rec=0), and so ended the [in committee stage](https://peo.gov.au/understand-our-parliament/how-parliament-works/bills-and-laws/making-a-law-in-the-australian-parliament/). This means the Senate can now decide whether to pass the bill.
- ### What does the bill do
- According to the [bill homepage](https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/r6500), the bill:
- > *Establishes a National Radioactive Waste Management Facility to permanently dispose of low level radioactive waste and temporarily store intermediate level radioactive waste by amending the National Radioactive Waste Management Act 2012 to:*
- >
- > * *specify the site selected and enable the acquisition of additional land for the facility;*
- > * *abolish the National Repository Capital Contribution Fund and establish a Community Fund to provide economic and social sustainability for the community in which the facility will be located; and*
- > * *provide clear and objective links between the operation of the Act and the relevant Constitutional heads of power.*
<p class="italic">(2) Schedule 1, page 3 (line 1) to page 14 (line 19), omit the Schedule, substitute:</p><p class="italic">Schedule 1—Site selection</p><p class="italic">1 Certain land taken to have been nominated and approved</p><p class="italic">(1) For the purposes of the <i>National Radioactive Waste Management Act 2012 </i>(the <i>Act</i>), the following table has effect:</p><p class="italic">(2) The land specified in this subitem is the area of land that is bounded by the line starting at the point described in item 1 of the following table and running sequentially as described in the table.</p><p class="italic">(3) The land specified in this subitem is Section 38, Hundred of Moseley, in the area named Moseley, being part of the land described in South Australian Certificate of Title Volume 5925 Folio 858.</p><p class="italic">(4) The land specified in this subitem is the whole of the land described in South Australian Crown Lease Volume 6200 Folio 237 (formerly South Australian Crown Lease Volume 1215 Folio 28), being:</p><p class="italic">(a) the allotment comprising pieces 30, 31, 32 and 33 Deposited Plan 46041 in the area named Flinders Ranges Hundred of Cotabena; and</p><p class="italic">(b) the allotment comprising pieces 40, 41, 42 and 43 Deposited Plan 46041 in the area named Flinders Ranges Hundred of Cotabena.</p><p class="italic">2 Compensation for acquisition of property</p><p class="italic">(1) If the operation of this Schedule would result in an acquisition of property (within the meaning of paragraph 51(xxxi) of the Constitution) from a person otherwise than on just terms (within the meaning of that paragraph), the Commonwealth is liable to pay a reasonable amount of compensation to the person.</p><p class="italic">(2) If the Commonwealth and the person do not agree on the amount of the compensation, the person may institute proceedings in the Federal Court of Australia for the recovery from the Commonwealth of such reasonable amount of compensation as the court determines.</p><p class="italic">(3) Schedule 2, item 1, page 15 (lines 9 to 11), omit the definition of <i>local government area</i> in section 4, substitute:</p><p class="italic"><i>local government area</i> means an area that, at the time the Minister makes a declaration under subsection 14(2) in relation to a site, is an area for which a local government body is constituted by or under a law of the State or Territory in which the site is situated.</p><p class="italic">(4) Schedule 2, page 15 (after line 14), after item 1, insert:</p><p class="italic">1A Subsection 22(1)</p><p class="italic">Omit "Immediately after a declaration under subsection 14(2) takes effect, the", substitute "The".</p><p class="italic">(5) Schedule 2, page 15 (after line 17), after item 2, insert:</p><p class="italic">2A Section 34A</p><p class="italic">Repeal the section, substitute:</p><p class="italic">34A Application of Part</p><p class="italic">This Part applies if:</p><p class="italic">(a) the Minister has made a declaration under subsection 14(2) that a site is selected as the site for a facility; and</p><p class="italic">(b) a facility has been constructed at the site; and</p><p class="italic">(c) a facility licence that authorises a person to operate the facility has been issued under the <i>Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Act 1998</i>.</p><p class="italic">(6) Schedule 2, item 3, page 16 (lines 1 to 4), omit paragraphs 34AA(2) (b) and (c), substitute:</p><p class="italic">(b) the local government body that serves the local government area in which the facility is situated;</p><p class="italic">(c) the government of the State or Territory in which the facility is situated.</p><p class="italic">(7) Schedule 2, page 17 (after line 27), after item 6, insert:</p><p class="italic">6A Paragraphs 34B(1 ) ( b) and (c)</p><p class="italic">Repeal the paragraphs, substitute:</p><p class="italic">(b) the State or Territory in which the facility is situated;</p><p class="italic">(c) a Commonwealth entity or an authority of the State or Territory in which the facility is situated;</p><p class="italic">(8) Schedule 2, page 18 (after line 1), after item 7, insert:</p><p class="italic">7A Subsection 34B(3)</p><p class="italic">Repeal the subsection.</p><p class="italic">(9) Schedule 3, page 19 (before line 4), before item 1, insert:</p><p class="italic">1A Section 3</p><p class="italic">Repeal the section, substitute:</p><p class="italic">3 Object of Act</p><p class="italic">(1) The object of this Act is to ensure that controlled material is safely and securely managed by providing for:</p><p class="italic">(a) the selection of a site for a radioactive waste management facility on land in Australia; and</p><p class="italic">(b) the establishment and operation of such a facility on the selected site.</p><p class="italic">(2) By ensuring that controlled material is safely and securely managed, this Act, among other things, gives effect to certain obligations that Australia has as a party to the Joint Convention, in particular, Australia's obligations under Chapters 3 and 4 of the Joint Convention.</p><p class="italic">(10) Schedule 3, page 19 (after line 23), after item 3, insert:</p><p class="italic">3A Section 4</p><p class="italic">Insert:</p><p class="italic"><i>Joint Convention</i> means the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management, done at Vienna on 5 September 1997, as amended and in force for Australia from time to time.</p><p class="italic">Note: The Joint Convention is in Australian Treaty Series 2003 No. 21 ([2003] ATS 21)] and could in 2021 be viewed in the Australian Treaties Library on the AustLII website (http://www.austlii.edu.au).</p><p>The government is absolutely committed to the urgent establishment of the National Radioactive Waste Management Facility to secure Australia's nuclear medicine manufacturing capability. The government has invited parliamentary oversight of this bill and is open to further scrutiny of the site selection decision. The specification of the site in legislation was never intended to avoid scrutiny of the site selection decision. The government has heard the concerns that have been raised, particularly about those who are uncomfortable with the site's selection decision being made by the parliament, and has worked closely with the opposition in developing and consulting on these amendments.</p><p>I am moving amendments which reinstate the existing site declaration process and provide legislative recognition of the short-listed sites. Focusing the site declaration decision on the three short-listed sites is consistent with community expectations and the existing site selection process. Together with the legislative amendments establishing the community fund, these amendments will ensure a national radioactive waste facility can be progressed in the national interest and that the community that hosts it will be well supported.</p> <p class="speaker">Sarah Hanson-Young</p><p>I've got a couple of questions for the minister. In relation to these amendments, which seem like a nice face-saving exercise for the government on something that they were unable to get through the parliament until now, why is the table that lists the three sites included? If this is not prescriptive, then what's the purpose of the table that includes the three short-listed sites, as opposed to a nomination process by the minister that is then, of course, available for judicial review?</p> <p class="speaker">Anne Ruston</p><p>My understanding is that the purpose of identifying the short-listing of these three particular sites and the fact that it's recognised in legislation draws a line between the three short-listed sites, which have been subject to the extensive consultation, analysis and community surveys, and other historical nominations. Whilst the minister is not bound to declare any of the three sites, it's important to recognise that the sites have been nominated by landowners in good faith and have been short-listed for further assessment. As you rightly point out, the amendments will recognise the three short-listed sites of Lyndhurst, Napandee and Wallerberdina Station.</p> <p class="speaker">Sarah Hanson-Young</p><p>Could I just ask the minister to clarify if, under these amendments, the minister is not bound to declare one of these three sites, is it correct that the minister could declare a fourth site or a fifth site or a sixth site?</p> <p class="speaker">Anne Ruston</p><p>The answer to your question, Senator Hanson-Young, is yes. But if there was to be an additional site nominated, it would have to go through the full and thorough process of consultation, assessment and analysis before it was able to be listed.</p> <p class="speaker">Sarah Hanson-Young</p><p>I appreciate the minister answering these questions. I think it's important for people to understand why these amendments have been drafted the way they have. If the minister is not bound to declare any of these three sites, they could indeed go through another consultation period to declare a fourth or a fifth site. What would the be process for declaring any of these three sites? And what would be the process if, indeed, the minister said: 'We don't want any of these three sites. We'll go back to the drawing board?'</p> <p class="speaker">Anne Ruston</p><p>The process that has to be followed is outlined in the act, so the same process that was followed in relation to these three sites would have to be followed by any other site that was put forward, but it would be bound by the requirements of the act.</p> <p class="speaker">Sarah Hanson-Young</p><p>Can I clarify that, Minister, in your second reading contribution, you said that the site in the Flinders Ranges is not a site that the government wishes to pursue. Are you able tonight to rule out a nuclear waste dump in the Flinders Ranges?</p> <p class="speaker">Anne Ruston</p><p>The minister obviously has not made a decision in relation to the site that he may choose. However, it is consistent with government policy that the site would require the support of the community in order for it to go forward. I've been clear around the fact that the deeming of the Wallerberdina Station site does not change the government's position in relation to that site.</p> <p class="speaker">Sarah Hanson-Young</p><p>Can we just be crystal-clear about this? Previously, the minister has ruled out a nuclear waste dump in the Flinders Ranges. Surely, we can get that commitment again tonight, and if not, that should be ringing alarm bells.</p> <p class="speaker">Anne Ruston</p><p>As you would be aware, the amendments that are being put forward still leave the determination of the site as a process, a decision and a determination that still remain with the minister. I think I was very clear in my second reading speech that the listing or the deeming of the Wallerberdina Station site is nothing more than recognising that it was part of the short-listing stage of the process that has already been undertaken. The community that live and work in the area of Wallerberdina Station have made it very, very clear that they do not support the facility being located there. Therefore, on that basis, the act speaks for itself in terms of the process that must be accepted in order for the site to go forward. The government could not be clearer. It will not force the facility or impose the facility on an unwilling local community.</p> <p class="speaker">Sarah Hanson-Young</p><p>I'm struggling to understand why the minister can't just rule out Flinders Ranges being used as a nuclear waste dump site. I thought that is the position you were taking, and now I'm getting weasel words. I don't understand why you can't just say, 'No, we will not be putting a nuclear waste dump in the Flinders Ranges—full stop, end of story.' Give us that commitment.</p> <p class="speaker">Anne Ruston</p><p>Senator, you quite clearly understand the legal process that has been undertaken by these amendments. I have made it very clear that the government is not going to enforce a facility on an unwilling community, and that absolutely remains the government's position. However, I am not in a position to be the person who makes the determination in relation to the site. This legislation does not give me that power. That decision-making power remains with the minister for resources. However, I think I have been very, very clear in saying that the government does not intend to enforce this facility on a community that does not want it.</p> <p class="speaker">Rex Patrick</p><p>Following on from that, I want to know the process the government went through in publishing these amendments. You can appreciate that the people in Hawker had been through a process that was quite divisive; it divided the community. In reintroducing this into legislation, what consultation did you have with the community to set their minds at ease that this was not a reselection or, really, reintroduction of Wallerberdina as a possible site?</p> <p class="speaker">Anne Ruston</p><p>I understand that the department has spoken to the community to reassure them that there is no intention by the government to reopen the Wallerberdina site, because they have already clearly stated that they don't want the facility in that location. Also, statements by both me in this place and the minister in the other place have been very clear that this decision and these amendments does not reflect a decision to change our position on that particular site.</p> <p class="speaker">Rex Patrick</p><p>Noting that the list in some sense is not really a list from which the site is going to be selected—I did listen to your second reader—why is it then that you won't permit Woomera to be included on the list? I note that it's an option, and the list has little meaning.</p> <p class="speaker">Anne Ruston</p><p>In order for another site to be deemed, it would have to go through the same process. As I also mentioned in my second reading summing-up speech, it is very much the view of the military that a radioactive waste repository and a missile testing range don't really go very well together.</p> <p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>
|