Footnotes

REPORT TO THE SENATE - Evidence received from the Northern Land Council in relation to the inquiry into the provisions of the National Radioactive Waste Management Bill 2010

[1]        Senate Hansard, 25 February 2010, p. 1277. This extension followed a motion by Senator Scott Ludlam for a simultaneous referral of the Bill to the Senate Environment, Communications and the Arts Committee with a reporting date of 24 June 2010, Senate Hansard, 25 February 2010, p. 1243.

[2]        Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, Interim Report: National Radioactive Waste Management Bill 2010 [Provisions], April 2010, available at https://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/legcon_ctte/radioactivewaste/index.htm, (accessed 1 November 2011).

[3]        Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, National Radioactive Waste Management Bill 2010 [Provisions], May 2010, available at https://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/legcon_ctte/radioactivewaste/index.htm, (accessed 1 November 2011).

[4]        Submission 230, p. 4; Mr Ron Levy, NLC, Committee Hansard, 30 March 2010, p. 17.

[5]        Senate Environment, Communications and the Arts Committee, Commonwealth Radioactive Waste Management (Repeal and Consequential Amendment) Bill 2008, December 2008, available at https://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/eca_ctte/radioactive_waste/index.htm, (accessed 27 September 2011).

[6]        Correspondence received from Senator Scott Ludlam dated 10 May 2011, attached at Appendix 1. The documents sourced from the National Archives of Australia are: Aboriginal Land Commissioner (ALC), Re: Muckaty Pastoral Lease, Land Claim Number 135, Transcript of Proceedings, 27 July 1993, p. 285; ALC, Re: Muckaty Pastoral Lease, Land Claim Number 135, Transcript of Proceedings, 28 July 1993, pp 325-327 and pp 332-339; ALC, Muckaty Pastoral Lease Claim, Submissions on Behalf of the Claimants, Part 1 – Traditional Ownership and Traditional Attachment, Northern Land Council, 1994, pp 35-36; Northern Land Council, Anthropologist's report by Dr P. Sutton, Dr D. Nash and P. Morel, Darwin, May 1994, pp 51-52.

[7]        Correspondence received from Senator Scott Ludlam dated 10 May 2011.

[8]        The committee's letter is attached at Appendix 2.

[9]        The NLC's response is attached at Appendix 3.

[10]      Matthew James and Ann Rann, 'Radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel management in Australia', Background paper, 21 July 2011, p. 2, available at https://www.aph.gov.au/Library/pubs/BN/sci/RadioActiveWaste.pdf, (accessed 15 August 2011).

[11]      The Bill lapsed at the end of the 42nd Parliament and was reintroduced on 21 October 2010 in the House of Representatives by the Minister for Resources, Energy and Tourism, the Hon Martin Ferguson MP. The reintroduced version of the Bill incorporates amendments recommended in the committee's majority report. This version of the Bill was passed by the House of Representatives on 22 February 2011 and is currently before the Senate.

[12]      Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, National Radioactive Waste Management Bill 2010 [Provisions], May 2010, p. 9.

[13]      Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, National Radioactive Waste Management Bill 2010 [Provisions], May 2010, p. 15.

[14]      Submission 230, pp 4-5.

[15]      Committee Hansard, 30 March 2010, p. 15.

[16]      Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, National Radioactive Waste Management Bill 2010 [Provisions], May 2010, pp 39-40.

[17]      Maurice Blackburn Lawyers, 'Fresh evidence boosts traditional owners legal challenge to Muckaty Station nuclear waste dump', Press Release, 9 May 2011, available at http://www.mauriceblackburn.com.au/news/press-releases--announcements/2011/fresh-evidence-boosts-traditional-owners-legal-challenge-to-muckaty-station-nuclear-waste-dump.aspx, (accessed 15 August 2011).

[18]      Maurice Blackburn Lawyers, 'Fresh evidence boosts traditional owners legal challenge to Muckaty Station nuclear waste dump', Press Release, 9 May 2011, available at http://www.mauriceblackburn.com.au/news/press-releases--announcements/2011/fresh-evidence-boosts-traditional-owners-legal-challenge-to-muckaty-station-nuclear-waste-dump.aspx, (accessed 15 August 2011).

[19]      Northern Land Council, Response to supplementary question on notice, 6 July 2011, p. 3.

[20]      Northern Land Council, Response to supplementary question on notice, 6 July 2011, p. 5.

[21]      Northern Land Council, Response to supplementary question on notice, 6 July 2011, p. 1.

[22]      Harry Evans (ed), Odgers' Australian Senate Practice, 12^th edition, 2008, p. 199.

[23]      Privilege Resolution 6(12)(c).

[24]      Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, National Radioactive Waste Management Bill 2010 [Provisions], May 2010, p. 40.

[25]      Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, National Radioactive Waste Management Bill 2010 [Provisions], May 2010, pp 39-40.

[26]      Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, National Radioactive Waste Management Bill 2010 [Provisions], May 2010, p. 40.

[27]      Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, National Radioactive Waste Management Bill 2010 [Provisions], May 2010, p. 40.

DISSENTING REPORT BY THE AUSTRALIAN GREENS

[1]        Referred on Thursday 25 February 2010, the Committee was initially given a 15 March reporting deadline – 11 working days.  That date was changed to 30 April after strong objections from the Greens.  While the Committee's process was longer than the government initially intended, the short time frame for submissions was a limiting factor on all stakeholders putting forward their views. Despite this the Committee received 237 submissions that were overwhelmingly critical of the legislation, particularly the extent to which it retained one nomination, that of Muckaty, and shielded it from procedural fairness and access to judicial review. The Committee was repeatedly called to go to Tennant Creek and was unwilling to do so. Had it done so it would have helped to compensate for the fact that providing rights to Aboriginal people to be heard in written form only is prejudicial. The failure to visit Muckaty or hold a hearing in Tennant Creek questions the accuracy of claims about the process engaging all stakeholders.