Download Fragment

Tuesday, 13 March 2012
Page: 1494

Senator LUDLAM (Western Australia) (13:26): I will briefly respond to some of Senator Scullion's comments and also indicate that the Greens will not be supporting this amendment. That is somewhat moot, of course, because this bill will get up with us or without us, but I do not think it is appropriate for us to sit on the same side of the chamber as Senator Scullion on this particular amendment. As much as you might say that it is wonderful that you have managed to score 10 million bucks from the Commonwealth government in order for the Territory to cop it, I want to back up a bit to your earlier remarks about South Australia, because they go precisely to the point that I was making just before you rose, which was that that study started on the assumption that the waste will be going to a remote bit of country somewhere. Which bit of faraway country from the cities is best for it? They looked at geology, geophysics, earthquakes, rainfall, groundwater, access to transport corridors and so on, starting on the premise that, sooner or later, it would go to some remote piece of land, and that is precisely what I am trying to avoid with the amendment that the Senate just negatived. I am very happy to put it back up again if you are going to have second thoughts, although I am not sure I can do that. It started on the assumption that it is going to a remote bit of land. It started on the terra nullius premise, and guess what? When you got there the Cooper Pedy Kungas were there, saying, 'No, you don't.' They were not asked, but a bunch of scientists were asked: if we are going to put this stuff in a remote shed, where should the remote shed be? It was started on a premise that pre-empted the outcome of an honest inquiry, which is what we are putting up. When you got there, it was not empty land; the Kungas were there, and they said, 'No thanks; we're not having it.' They put up a very, very strong campaign, which is effectively the template for what the Muckaty are up to now, calling in people from around the country, and indeed around the world, to say: 'If this stuff is safe in Sydney, perhaps it should stay in Sydney; if it is not safe in Sydney, why the hell are you bringing it to our block?' Where is the case for this stuff to go remote?

With great respect, Senator Scullion—and you were involved in that process back then—I was on the other side of the debate supporting the Kungas from a long way away in Western Australia. This is not a NIMBY approach. From a Western Australian perspective maybe they should have just copped it. But of course not; they are out there; it was their flock. They were not consulted and neither were the Muckaty mob.

In terms of the substance of this amendment, the Chief Minister branded the $10 million rent money for the dump as offensive. He said it was a bone being thrown at us to try to get us to roll over.

Senator Scullion: Let's see him knock it back.

Senator LUDLAM: He is not going to have the choice. The minister was saying before about how cooperative this is all going to be once the bill passes—that we will cooperatively engage with Territory police and emergency services so that they can cooperatively deal with a disaster, if there is one, after we have pushed the laws aside regulating transport of this material. It is all going to get nice and cooperative after we have passed this law. If they have no choice in taking the $10 million fund, I am sure they will put it to good use. The Territory is not rolling in cash; I hope they do put it to good use. But it absolutely is offensive. I think that is an entirely appropriate word for the idea that for 10 million bucks you are somehow over the line. Senator Scullion, join us on this side of the chamber when we vote against this bill. It should not be going into your electorate. It should not be going up to the Muckaty block, and that is what this bill sets in train. I have put as clearly as I possibly can that the Greens will not be supporting this amendment when it is put.