Antinuclear

DUMPING ON DEMOCRACY – THE NATIONAL RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT BILL,

The Government plans to ignore and override legislation passed in the NT Parliament which seeks to ban the imposition of nuclear dumps – the Northern Territory Nuclear Waste Transport, Storage and Disposal (Prohibition) Act 2004. The NT Government remains steadfastly opposed to the dump plan…..The Bill also provides wide-ranging powers to override Commonwealth legislation.

PROPOSED RADIOACTIVE WASTE DUMP AT MUCKATY, NT by Jim Green, February 2011, “……….Federal Resources Minister Martin Ferguson is driving the plan for a radioactive waste dump at Muckaty. The legislation he has put forward – the National Radioactive Waste Management Bill – is heavy-handed and undemocratic.The NT Central Land Council says the Government is pursuing “an approach characterised by the desire to find a politically expedient solution, contempt for state and Territory laws, and disregard for decision making processes enshrined in the Land Rights Act.”

The Government plans to ignore and override legislation passed in the NT Parliament which seeks to ban the imposition of nuclear dumps – the Northern Territory Nuclear Waste Transport, Storage and Disposal (Prohibition) Act 2004. The NT Government remains steadfastly opposed to the dump plan. NT Chief Minister Paul Henderson states: “Public consultation should establish public consent — not the consent of a handful of people but broad-based public consent.”

On December 22, 2010, the House of Representative’s Climate Change, Environment and the Arts Standing Committee’s report on the NRWMB was tabled. The committee refused to hear or receive submissions from the public or from Muckaty Traditional Owners. The Committee did not address any of the substantive concerns with the Bill. The timing was clearly a cynical attempt to avoid public scrutiny as the inquiry was not required to report until late March 2011. The report (including a dissenting report from the Australian Greens) is posted at www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/ccea/radioactivewaste/report.htm

The text of the National NRWMB, explanatory memoranda, second reading speeches, and a Bills Digest, are posted at <http://tiny.cc/0werx>. A November 2010 Parliamentary Bills Digest outlines the main provisions of the amended NRWMB. The Digest is posted at: www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/bd/2010-11/11bd052.htm

The following points (and quotations) are drawn from the Parliamentary Bills Digest:

The Bill incorporates a requirement on the part of the Minister to accord ‘procedural fairness’ in relation to the nomination of a site for a repository, however the “new requirement is not however unduly onerous – it necessitates the Minister inviting comment from specified persons or entities, and ‘tak[ing] into account any 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 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.”

The Bill requires evidence of consultation and consent with the relevant traditional Aboriginal owners but “a failure to comply with these elements does not invalidate a nomination, nor is the nomination disallowable by Parliament.”

The Bill states that the Minister can “at his or her absolute discretion” approve a nomination of a site and a failure to observe procedural elements does not invalidate the approval nor is it disallowable by Parliament.

“New section 12 effectively excludes State and Territory laws from operating where they would ‘regulate, hinder or prevent the doing of a thing authorised by section 11’. New section 12(1) does state that only certain types of State and Territory laws (eg laws relating to ‘the use 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 12(1), the law could be excluded by prescribing it under regulation …”

“New subsection 13(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 11’. Again a prescription power under regulation exists (subsection 13(2)) to allow for the exclusion of other Commonwealth laws, or parts of laws.”

“The acquisition and/or extinguishment of rights and interests under new section 19 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 24 effectively excludes State and Territory laws from operating where they would ‘regulate, hinder or prevent the doing of a thing authorised by section 23’. New subsections 24(1)-(2) do state that only certain types of State and Territory laws (for example, 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 24(1)-(2), the law could be excluded by prescribing it under regulation …”

The Bill also provides wide-ranging powers to override Commonwealth legislation.

The Bill entrenches Muckaty as the only site under active consideration for a repository although it has provisions for the nomination of sites anywhere in Australia.

February 8, 2011 - Posted by Christina Macpherson | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, politics, wastes