Third, the inquiry report acknowledged the degree to which a centralised remote facility is questioned as necessarily an appropriate option. Witnesses argued that a dump in a remote area might not be the best way to manage this intractable waste at this time, and that other models should be explored by policy makers. Some groups argued strongly that a remote facility increased the transportation risks without any clear public health benefit.

And finally, the inquiry exposed just how contested the favoured site at Muckaty Station really is. Contrary to Mr. Gosfords assertion, Amy Lauder, a senior Ngapa traditional owner did not appear, nor did she make a submission to the Inquiry. Instead, we heard from other senior Ngapa traditional owners who gave compelling evidence about the flawed nature of the consultation process and questioned the accuracy of a secret anthropological report that designates a small handful of individuals as speaking exclusively for that country.
The Greens signed onto the government-led Committee report because it recommended that radiative waste policy should be adopted in consultation with communities, be based on environmental best practice, and be fair and transparent. Mr. Gosford’s prediction that “the Greens would never support replacement legislation,” is bizarre. It is essential that sooner or later Australia faces up to its radioactive waste legacy in a deliberative and measured process, and any future legislation to this effect will be carefully scrutinised by the Greens and supported if it enables the kind of the scientific, transparent, accountable, and fair process the government has promised.

Overall, I would characterise the process as a very constructive one that pooled information and expertise, and encouraged constructive dialogue about a complicated and controversial issue which has rarely been given the space for open debate.

First, the inquiry revealed an overwhelming consensus regarding the deficiencies and consequences of Howard’s 2005 legislation which enables the Federal government to impose a radioactive waste facility on unwilling Territory communities and against the wishes of the NT government. The legislation does this through overriding laws generated by the Territory government, preventing the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984 from having effect during investigation of potential dump sites, excluding the Native Title Act 1993 from operating at all, overriding the Land Rights Act and wiping out procedural fairness through suspension of the Judicial Review Act.

Second, the inquiry increased pressure on the government to fulfil an election promise to repeal the Act and to establish a scientific, transparent, accountable, and fair process ensuring full community consultation in radioactive waste decision-making processes. More than a year after being elected, its time the government took action, and the Committee not only provided guidance as to what future legislation should include, it also described exactly how it should differ from the existing Act.

(continued)…

Of course, to the extent that the Commonwealth constructing a waste facility involves the expenditure of taxpayers’ money, it is proper for the Parliament to scrutinise any decisions in the same way that it does any other expenditure.

Jenny Mac is absolutely correct - you can’t clean up radioactive waste in the same way as sulfuric acid. Solid radioactive waste can be repackaged and you’re on your way. Liquid sulfuric acid leaches into the soil and requires extensive remediation.

Overseas waste is not an Australian problem (although it is criminal that Australian law prevents a land owner establishing an international waste facility). Australia sends spent fuel rods from its research reactors overseas for reprocessing. The resultant waste is effectively Australian waste and must be returned.