Introduction
2.1
This chapter examines key stakeholder views on the provisions of the Atomic Energy Amendment (Rehabilitation and Mine Closure) Bill 2022 (the bill). It draws on both the submissions received, as well as evidence heard by the Senate Economics Legislation Committee (the committee) during the public hearing in Canberra on 18 October 2022.
2.2
The chapter provides an indicative, although not exhaustive, account of the key issues relating to the bill and concludes with the committee’s views and recommendations on the bill.
Overall support for the bill
2.3
All submissions to the inquiry supported the bill and its intent to preserve the regulatory framework currently in effect. Submitters welcomed an expedited process to allow time for consultation and planning on the rehabilitation of the Ranger Project Area (RPA).
Specific matters raised by stakeholders
2.4
Although they expressed support for the general intent of the bill, several inquiry participants had additional comments, including some concern of clarity on the scope and provisions amending the Act. The key matters highlighted by submitters are discussed below.
Amendments to the Act
Extending the January 2026 deadline and preserving the Regulatory Framework
2.5
The current Section 41 Authority, granted in the Commonwealth Atomic Energy Act 1953, requires Energy Resources of Australia (ERA) to rehabilitate the RPA to the specified environmental requirements by 8 January 2026.
2.6
There was consensus among the submitters regarding the need for Energy Resources Australia (ERA) to have more time to complete the rehabilitation works and closure of the Ranger Mine.
2.7
For example, in its submission, ERA emphasised that:
Attempting to finalise rehabilitation by 8 January 2026 is not feasible and will not meet the agreed objectives of stakeholders. ERA is committed to undertaking proper and thorough rehabilitation of the Ranger Project Area to a world class standard. It has already commenced that work, but in order to rehabilitate the mine site to that standard, it requires further time beyond 8 January 2026.
2.8
In his submission provided to the committee, the Supervising Scientist, Mr Keith Tayler, highlighted the current regulatory framework’s limitations:
Ranger operates on a Section 41 Authority granted under the Atomic Energy Act 1953 which will expire on the 8th of January 2026 and cannot be renewed or extended. Beyond this date ERA will lose access to the site and it is possible that the remaining liability for rehabilitation would then fall to the Australian Government. The amendment bill will allow ERA’s tenure at Ranger to be extended beyond the 8th of January 2026 and provide the required time for rehabilitation to be completed.
2.9
Representatives from the Gundjeihmi Aboriginal Corporation reminded the committee of the commitment that the Commonwealth has made regarding the rehabilitation of the RPA. In the Canberra hearing, Mr Corben Mudjandi, Traditional Owner Director of the Gundjeihmi Aboriginal Corporation asserted that:
This change to the law is about listening to us. We say, give them more time to clean up Ranger. Let them do the full job of cleaning up. We will work with them to heal our land, our mother, to heal ourselves and provide jobs for our people. But that means they need more time to access the area. This new law will give them that time.
2.10
Indeed, there was consensus between submitters and witnesses at the public hearing regarding the need to preserve the regulatory framework currently in place for Ranger Mine. For example, the Department of Industry, Science and Resources (DISR) asserted that ‘the bill will enable the preservation of the RPA’s regulatory framework until ERA has rehabilitated the RPA to the standard set out in the ERs’.
Consultation and engagement with traditional owners
2.11
Several stakeholders highlighted their support of the level of consultation undertaken by the DISR on the amendments—specifically the consultation with the representatives of the Mirarr Traditional Owners. The consultation related to the drafting of the bill, as well as the regulatory framework and rehabilitation planning the ERA is undertaking.
2.12
The ERA Chief Executive, Mr Brad Welsh, reaffirmed the extensive consultation on the bill:
…there has been quite a lot of consultation between ERA and the department as well as the traditional owners and the Northern Land Council along with supervising scientists, so the significant stakeholders in the bill. It’s been over 18 months’ worth of working together and understanding the drafting.
2.13
In their submission, DISR made clear the longstanding arrangements in place regarding the requirement to consult with traditional owners on the rehabilitation of the RPA will remain, and that the traditional owners’ input will assist in the transition of post-mining land use objectives.
2.14
DISR further outlined in their submission that:
Outside of the provisions of the [Act] and Bill, Traditional Owners (via their representative bodies) are closely involved in the oversight of Ranger’s rehabilitation. [Northern Land Council] and [Gundjeihmi Aboriginal Corporation] are members of several Ranger-focused committees and are formally consulted on ERA’s Annual Mine Closure Plan, rehabilitation designs and the development of closure criteria which will be used to determine if ERA has achieved the ERs.
2.15
Mr Matthew Crawshaw from DISR provided further explanation on the consultation timeline at the public hearing in Canberra:
…in terms of developing the bill, the process has been to engage with the Northern Land Council and the Gundjeihmi Aboriginal Corporation as the representatives of the Mirarr, as well as ERA, to develop an in-principle agreement about the design of the bill and the design of the frameworks that would be in place for the longer-term rehabilitation and closeout. The bill was drafted to reflect those discussions.
2.16
Mr Crawshaw also highlighted the protections afforded to the traditional owners when new authorities are to be issued:
…a new authority cannot be issued with the Mirarr via their representatives, the Northern Land Council, firstly entering into a land use agreement for the rehabilitation to continue at site. That means there’s a formal decision point where the Mirarr must be satisfied with the new authority before a minister can issue that authority. It ensures that both the government and the Mirarr are effectively invested in developing an authority that’s mutually agreeable.
Progressive close-out of the RPA
2.17
Other submitters discussed amendments in the bill that would allow for a progressive close-out of the RPA. For example, ERA highlighted that the bill includes:
…provisions that provide for the progressive relinquishment of parts of the RPA as and when rehabilitation of areas are complete (and environmental standards are met and ongoing), returning those areas to the Traditional Owners sooner.
2.18
The Supervising Scientist spoke favourably about the progressive close-out, stating that:
Whilst full site relinquishment will take many decades, the amendment bill will allow for the closeout of discrete parts of the Ranger Project Area which have met the rehabilitation objectives such as the large undisturbed areas to the north of the active mine site.
2.19
This sentiment was reiterated by DISR and the National Indigenous Australians Agency:
The Bill will also enable progressive ‘close-out’ of the RPA by providing for rehabilitated areas to be returned to the Mirarr traditional owners sooner. This will ensure that the Mirarr traditional owners regain control of rehabilitated areas of their land as soon as possible, even as rehabilitation remains ongoing in other parts of the RPA.
2.20
During the public hearing in Canberra, Ms Susan O’Sullivan, a representative of the Gundjeihmi Aboriginal Corporation, spoke in support of the amendments of the bill relating to the progressive close-outs:
There are current arrangements in place which already refer to progressive close-outs. The effect of the bill is really to put a bit more detail around that. No part of the Ranger project area has been closed out to date. That includes areas that were not disturbed. So theoretically there are undisturbed areas that could be closed out easily.
2.21
Ms O’Sullivan then continued by conveying the sentiments of the Mirarr traditional owners regarding the progressive close-out:
The Mirarr traditional owners do support there being progressive
close-out. The primary thing that they support is that the mechanics of the regulator are enlivened so that these kinds of decisions start to get made. …The traditional owners welcome anything that puts a bit more meat on the bones about how the regulator makes these decisions towards closeout….[T]hey would welcome undisturbed areas being returned as soon as possible.
Maintaining environmental requirements
2.22
Proposed section 41CI of the bill would allow the Minister to make a declaration that a Part III authority (or provisions of a Part III authority) is no longer in force for whole, or part, of the land of the Ranger Project Area, if the holder of the Part III authority agrees to the Minister making the declaration and has consulted with the Land Council.
2.23
The Gundjeihmi Aboriginal Corporation and Northern Land Council expressed concern that as a result, the Minister would only be required to consult with the Land Council before making the declaration, with ‘the effect of diminishing the role of the [Northern Land Council] on behalf of the Mirarr Traditional Owners’. According to the Gundjeihmi Aboriginal Corporation and the Northern Land Council, any proposed revocation currently requires the Supervising Scientist and the Northern Land Council to agree that the specific rehabilitation requirements have been met.
2.24
Both DISR and the Supervising Scientist in their submissions and in the evidence presented at the public hearing in Canberra asserted that the amendments to the bill would not affect the environmental requirements currently in place. The submission from the Supervising Scientist affirmed that:
The amendment bill will not change the Environmental Requirements or reduce the standard of rehabilitation required at Ranger.
…
ERA is required to submit an annually updated mine closure plan for Ranger which provides clear scientific evidence to demonstrate that the rehabilitation works proposed by ERA will achieve the rehabilitation objectives. The Ranger Mine Closure Plan is publicly released and subject to detailed assessment by regulators and stakeholders, including the Supervising Scientist, and requires approval from the Australian Government Minister for Resources and the Northern Territory Minister for Mining and Industry. The Supervising Scientist is undertaking a detailed rehabilitation verification process to provide certainty that all rehabilitation works are completed in strict accordance with the Ranger Mine Closure Plan and associated approvals.
2.25
DISR also addressed the concern raised by the Gundjeihmi Aboriginal Corporation and Northern Land Council regarding consultation, during the public hearing in Canberra:
…[T]he Northern Land Council holds a determinative function in the longstanding authority, and it’s very important to traditional owners that that power for them in the authority is carried through in a new authority. So, 41CH is the provisions that seek the head of power for that to occur. Section 41CI of the bill is the second administrative step. That involves the minister declaring that an authority is no longer in force where the rehabilitation requirements have been satisfied and where there’s been the agreement of the Northern Land Council in the earlier head of power…So section 41CH sets up the process. It can confer a determinative function to the Northern Land Council. That’s the head of power that deals with the process of determining close-out and the achievement of the environmental requirements. And the second step, which is set up by 41CI, is the administrative disapplication of it to that particular part of the land where there is agreement that rehabilitation has been completed.
Committee view
2.26
The committee would like to thank all the stakeholders who took the time to submit to the inquiry and appear at the public hearings.
2.27
The committee welcomes the strong support for the intent of the bill to maintain strong legislative frameworks for the rehabilitation and closure of the Ranger Project Area, including provisions to progressively return rehabilitated land to Traditional Owners. In particular, the committee notes that there was no opposition to the bill, only calls to provide confidence in transparency around the Minister’s powers to vary a Section 41 Authority and consult with the Traditional Owners.
2.28
The committee appreciates the time taken by submitters to recommend further measures to improve the bill. Indeed, these recommendations may form a foundation for further regulatory development.
2.29
The committee considers the bill to be an important change to the Atomic Energy Act 1953 to continue the preservation of the Ranger Project Area’s regulatory framework to ensure that Ranger Project Area will be appropriately rehabilitated.
2.30
The committee recommends that the bill be passed.
Senator Jess Walsh
Chair
Labor Senator for Victoria