Senator ABETZ-Aha! You were watching. Somebody does not have a life. It is very kind of you that you were watching and so will be able to assist. I hope you are highly paid to watch Senate estimates.

Mr Davoren, can you give us an update in relation to where we are at with nuclear waste disposal in the country? At the moment it is still housed in drums under hospitals, under city buildings and scattered all around the country. Might I add, before people get too excited, that these are the wastes as a result of nuclear medicine, which is of great benefit to possibly hundreds of thousands of Australian people. Alarm bells should not be going off about the fact that we have these wastes, because these wastes are the result of some very good medical treatment that is improving the quality of life for many people. I think it is important to get that on the record. But how far have we progressed with the dump, the repository-whatever we want to call it- especially given that ANSTO has contractual arrangements whereby 2011 is a deadline for them to take this material back from Scotland, as I understand it? Also, there is some discussion about extending that period of
time beyond 2011. I think we also have contractual arrangements with France, with a cut-off date of 2015. If any of those basic matters that I have raised as facts are wrong, feel free to correct me, but could you give us a general outline, please.

Mr Clarke-Before Mr Davoren responds, I should clarify for the record, of course, that the details of
ANSTO's arrangements are a question that only that portfolio could confirm, with regard to the detail you provided. I am sure Mr Davoren can talk to you about the status of the repository.

Senator ABETZ-Yesterday ANSTO was telling us that responsibility for where it will be housed lies with
this department.

Mr Clarke-That is correct.

Senator ABETZ-All right.

Mr Clarke-We will talk about the ultimate housing and location of it, but you are asking for confirmation about the dates in ANSTO's contracts. I am saying that that is not our portfolio.
Senator ABETZ-That is a fair point, Mr Clarke, and I accept that other than to say that-

Mr Clarke-There is a consequence.

Senator ABETZ-Yes. There is a consequence of that time line, which now makes it somewhat urgent.

Mr Clarke-Of course.

Senator ABETZ-Yes.

Mr Davoren-I am able to comment on that schedule because of material that is on the public record; in fact, material that was provided in response to a question from Senator Ludlam that was answered in February of this year. We are not looking at 2011 for the radioactive waste returning from Dounreay. Initially there was a window-

Senator ABETZ-Dounreay is in Scotland?

Mr Davoren-That is right.

Senator ABETZ-Yes.

Mr Davoren-Initially there was a window in which that material could return. The earliest date was 2011 and the end of that window was 2015. ANSTO has been able to negotiate arrangements which will see that material coming back around 2015.

Senator ABETZ-This is not a trick question. I was of the view that ANSTO was still in the process of
negotiating, but I may have misheard.

Mr Davoren-They are negotiating the specific modalities of that return.

Senator ABETZ-But it has been agreed to defer it till 2015?

Mr Davoren-That is right. In fact, if you looked at question 1175, which was answered on, I think, 3
February 2009, that would provide the detail on the Dounreay shipment. As far as the broader policy is concerned, the minister stated that the government is developing a strategy for management of the Commonwealth's radioactive waste. That strategy is still under development and it will not be announced until it has been settled and decided within government. The minister has repeated that position as recently as this morning on radio in Darwin. The government has committed itself to repeal of the Commonwealth Radioactive Management Act 2005, but not until it has made arrangements for suitable replacement legislation in accordance with the policy that it eventually adopts.

Senator ABETZ-If I were to hazard a guess that this strategy will not be in place before the next election, would you agree with me?

Mr Davoren-I would not go anywhere near that, Senator.

Senator ABETZ-That is very wise, well done on that. Can you tell us, without putting an election into it, the timeline for this proposed strategy?

Mr Davoren-We do not know the timeline for the strategy. I can inform you on the stages-

Senator ABETZ-We are developing a strategy; is that right?

Mr Davoren-The government is developing a strategy.

Senator ABETZ-Minister, when do we anticipate that this strategy will be completed? You had a very
strong policy at the last election to repeal certain legislation, but in the rush of legislation I have not seen replacement legislation. Chances are you might even get cooperation from at least one or two other parties in the Senate if you were to introduce legislation. Can you advise us of the timeline for the strategy?

Senator McLucas-Minister Ferguson is on the public record regularly and often around the question of
progressing this work. I will ask him if there is any information that he can provide to this committee with respect to your question of the timeline.

Senator ABETZ-Thank you very much, because you are quite right. He is on the radio and airways
regularly and often talking about all these things and studiously avoids the issue of the timeline. That is why I am not surprised you are not able to answer the question-and indeed I do not think anybody is-in relation to the strategy. We are talking about dealing with the Commonwealth's waste, given this new era of cooperative federalism that has broken out. Are we cooperating with all the states in the strategy so we get one central repository for all of the nation's nuclear waste and so that in my capital city of Hobart, for example, we do not have this radioactive material stored in drums under buildings in the city?

Mr Davoren-That is a matter for the government to decide in the context of its strategy. I might add that one state, Western Australia, went its own way on this matter a long time ago and has an operating nearsurface low-level-waste disposal facility at Mt Walton East in the Goldfields district.

Senator ABETZ-It is a policy issue, so I will direct it to the parliamentary secretary at the table. Is it the government's view and policy position that it would be ideal if all the waste of the nation, from both the Commonwealth and the states and territories, were placed in a central repository?

Senator McLucas-Once again, I will seek some advice from Minister Ferguson.

Senator ABETZ-If that is the government's policy position-which I would have thought, on the face of
it, at least, makes sense-have any discussions have been had at COAG, a relevant ministerial meeting or a leaders' meeting to progress this so that we can have a national strategy as opposed to potentially eight or nine different strategies around Australia?

Senator McLucas-I will take that on notice.

Senator ABETZ-How many people are working on this strategy in the department?

Mr Davoren-I have a staff of three officers.

Senator ABETZ-How long have they been working on this strategy?

Mr Davoren-We provide advice to government on this issue quite regularly. We provided advice to the government on the work done by the previous government and on the site assessment studies that were commissioned by the previous government, and we are awaiting advice from the government on how it wishes to proceed.

Senator ABETZ-This might be a bit of a cheeky question and discipline me if it is. You have provided the advice, so what are you and the three staff doing whilst you are waiting on a government response? Are you freewheeling?

Mr Davoren-This is not the only issue we have responsibility for, Senator. We have responsibility for
managing the former atomic nuclear test sites at Maralinga in South Australia, where the Commonwealth is still responsible for about 3,000 kilometres of land and the infrastructure out there. We also have responsibility for a program of monitoring and maintenance works at Rum Jungle, which was recently funded in the budget.

Senator ABETZ-But at this stage there is no further development on the repository; the ball is fair and square in the minister's court?

Mr Davoren-That is correct.

Senator ABETZ-In that case, Parliamentary Secretary, given that the department has finished its work on this matter, could the minister then provide us with a timeline as to when a decision is made? If the department has finished with its considerations, it would be very interesting to know when the minister will make his determination on it. More likely, is it stuck in the Prime Minister's office for consideration and the tick-off? When it is likely to re-emerge from the government, either via the minister's office or the Prime Minister's office, because it now seems that all the preliminary work has been done and the only stalling is on the part of the government?

Senator McLucas-In good faith I have taken those questions on notice, and I note that you have made your political point. We probably could move on to other questions.

Senator ABETZ-Not a political point-an observation. But if you are saying to us that this matter will
not go to the Prime Minister's office prior to the ministerial tick-off by Mr Ferguson, I will ask that question. Can the minister advise whether the proposal will go to the Prime Minister's office for consideration prior to final approval and decision and also whether this matter will go to cabinet-

Senator McLucas-I expect so. I will find out for you.

Senator ABETZ-before a final decision is made?

Senator McLucas-I imagine it will go to cabinet.

Senator ABETZ-In that case, it will go to the Prime Minister's office and my suggestion that it would go to the Prime Minister's office, therefore, was not a political comment and your intervention was ill-considered, was it not?

CHAIR-Senator Abetz, Senator McLucas has said she will take all that on notice. Are you finished?

Senator ABETZ-I don't know why, but chances are Senator Ludlam will have a question or two on this
area.

CHAIR-Exactly.

Senator ABETZ-Senator Joyce as well. I have got further questions but on this area I think it is-

CHAIR-We will go on to this area. Senator Ludlam.

Senator LUDLAM-Thank you, Chair. You have just described you have three staff working for you and
you have other responsibilities. How much time is the waste dump issue taking up now-or is it actually off your desk?

Mr Davoren-It takes very little of our time. We have correspondence on it, as you would expect, and
occasionally we brief ministers on issues that arise.

Senator LUDLAM-But the main work of-do I call it a department, a unit or a-

Mr Davoren-It is a section.

Senator LUDLAM-The main work of your section on the radioactive waste dump issue is concluded for
the time being?

Mr Davoren-Certainly as far as the national facility is concerned.

Senator LUDLAM-Have you, therefore, provided drafting instructions for a repeal bill?

Mr Davoren-We have not. We are not in a position to do that. I think the government said that it is not going to repeal unless it is in a position to put in appropriate replacement legislation. That legislation would reflect its policy, which has not yet been developed.

Senator ABETZ-Can I just ask a question? Was that the actual policy announcement during the election campaign?

Senator LUDLAM-There were quite a number of announcements.

Senator ABETZ-They would not repeal the legislation until they had alternate legislation? Do you know the answer, Parliamentary Secretary? If not, take it on notice.

Senator McLucas-Senator, I think it is fair to say that our government is a consultative government. It is very important-

Senator ABETZ-That is not the question.

Senator McLucas-I can actually answer your question around states and territories as part of this
question. It is important that we do consult with various stakeholders who are part of this piece of work that has to be done, including Indigenous people-

Senator ABETZ-But my intervention was-

Senator McLucas-and including the states and territories.

Senator ABETZ-in relation to what your election promise regarding the legislation was. If I recall it-
and I may be mistaken on this and corrected-it was a statement that you would simply repeal-

Senator LUDLAM-That is correct.

Senator ABETZ-and that you would not make the repeal subject to alternate legislation. This is a new
development. You have been mugged by reality and I welcome that to a certain extent.

CHAIR-Senator Abetz, you continue to make these comments that invite interjection.

Senator ABETZ-Only from the chair on this occasion.

CHAIR-I allowed you to come in on that interjection. If you could just ask a straight question and then we will go back to Senator Ludlam.

Senator ABETZ-Chair, I fully agree with you. I asked a very straight question, which was: was it part of the policy of the opposition, now government, at the last election, to simply repeal the legislation or only to repeal the legislation subject to? We then got a political diatribe from the minister, and that is what unfortunately tempted me to make further political commentary-

CHAIR-I do not think her diatribe was anything like as lengthy as yours, Senator Abetz. Senator
McLucas, do you have any further response?

Senator McLucas-The timing was not included in the election commitment. I think everyone would
know that. The commitment was to repeal. It is now very clear from Minister Ferguson's office and Minister Ferguson himself that there is a commitment to consult with the community. We are committed to the repeal of the Commonwealth Radioactive Waste Management Act, but we will not take piecemeal steps or decisions on radioactive waste management in the absence of a total package that will solve this problem for the long term. I think that is well known to this committee, and I think, Senator Ludlam, you understand that as well.

Senator LUDLAM-I have just about memorised that statement! Thanks for the reminder, though. I think you will find, Senator Abetz, that the commitment prior to the election was not conditional-

Senator ABETZ-That is right.

Senator LUDLAM-on substitute legislation.

Senator ABETZ-Exactly.

Senator LUDLAM-If you would like to correct the record down the track, that would be appreciated. Let
us just stay with where we were. So you have not provided drafting instructions of any sort yet?

Mr Davoren-That is right.

Senator LUDLAM-Will those originate with the minister or are you expecting some time down the track that that responsibility will-

Mr Davoren-We do not really have any access to parliamentary drafting services until the government
has made a decision.

Senator LUDLAM-The government will make a decision and then it will be down to you to provide
some drafting instructions for-

Mr Davoren-I assume so.

Senator LUDLAM-We are now in early June and that process has not even commenced yet?

Mr Davoren-Correct.

Senator LUDLAM-Thank you, that is helpful. The minister was on the radio a couple of weeks ago,
again from Darwin, saying that they were not going to waste a whole heap of time consulting until a site had actually been selected, which is a substantial shift. Actually, it is a 180-degree shift in the policy that the government took to the election. Could you just describe for us the work that your section has conducted; has it been designing a process or are you still conducting site selection activities?

Mr Davoren-Work on the site selection has concluded, with the work initiated by the former
government-that is, a consultant's report was provided on the three defence sites and the volunteer site at Muckaty Station. That report was subject to a peer review process. That peer review report and the consultant's response to that have been provided to the minister.

Senator LUDLAM-So let us just step this out. The original Parsons Brinckerhoff consultants report was
provided to you; on what date was that provided?

Mr Davoren-I think it was provided in final form towards the end of last year.

Senator LUDLAM-Would you be able to provide us with the date for that?

Mr Davoren-I could.

Senator LUDLAM-On notice, if you would. Are you able to table that PB report for the committee?

Mr Davoren-I am not in a position to, seeing it is with the minister. It is being considered by the minister.

Senator LUDLAM-Then you subjected that report to a peer review by CH2M Hill?

Mr Davoren-That is correct.

Senator LUDLAM-When did you receive that peer review?

Mr Davoren-In January 2009.

Senator LUDLAM-Then you referred that document back to PB for their comments on the peer review;
is that the way the process worked?

Mr Davoren-Yes.

Senator LUDLAM-When was that final feedback from PB?

Mr Davoren-February 2009.

Senator LUDLAM-Was that before or after the last session of estimates-the last time we spoke?

Mr Davoren-It might have been just after.

Senator LUDLAM-So those three documents are finalised and are now with the minister; is that correct?

Mr Davoren-That is correct.

Senator LUDLAM-Are there any other sites apart from those four under consideration?

Mr Davoren-Not by us, Senator.

Senator LUDLAM-Okay. So whatever process the minister might have running, that is separate to yours. But you have basically concluded the work that the Howard government had undertaken to select those four sites?

Mr Davoren-Yes.

Senator LUDLAM-Have you played any part at all in advising the government on a consultation process or is it strictly site selection work that you have been undertaking?

Mr Davoren-Obviously, we have not provided this government with a consultation process.

Senator LUDLAM-Sorry; you have not?

Mr Davoren-No, because I think we would need to know what they intended, how they intended to
proceed. There are a whole range of options that are open to them.

Senator LUDLAM-That is certainly true.

Mr Davoren-They could proceed with an already identified site; they could go to a complete national
selection process. I do not see that we are in a position to provide any advice on a consultative process when we do not know the broader context.

Senator LUDLAM-When did you provide those three documents to the minister?

Mr Davoren-Earlier this year, Senator, pretty soon after we got them.

Senator LUDLAM-So some time maybe in mid-February. Would you again be able to provide dates for each of these processes?

Mr Davoren-I will take that on notice, Senator.

Senator LUDLAM-Thank you, I would appreciate that. Has your section conducted any consultation
with a land council or any other parties on this matter or has your interaction strictly been with government?

Mr Davoren-It has strictly been with government. We obviously see the land councils because we deal
with them on other matters, like the Rum Jungle project, and naturally they ask us what we are doing and I think we give them the same answer that we give you.

Senator LUDLAM-But there is no formal correspondence between you and the land council? It is not
your role to be consulting or putting options to anyone?

Mr Davoren-No, certainly not.

Senator LUDLAM-Strictly with the government. What about the Northern Territory government or any
agencies of the Northern Territory government-do you liaise with them at all on this matter?

Mr Davoren-I think the situation with the previous process was that the Northern Territory government
opposed that process, so we had no arrangements for consultation with them, and that remains the current situation.

Senator LUDLAM-So there is no dialogue with the Northern Territory government either. Do you have
any indication at all in terms of your forward planning-and we will get to the budget in a moment-of the expected workload for your section in the next few months on this issue or are you really in a holding pattern?

Mr Davoren-Obviously, if there was an early decision on this, we would have a substantial workload. We would be involved in-

Senator LUDLAM-An early decision, with respect, would have happened 18 months ago.

Mr Davoren-I am talking from now. There would be a considerable workload in terms of legislation. If
we proceeded to an environmental impact assessment of a particular site, there would obviously be quite a deal of work, contractual work and work on a referral.

Senator LUDLAM-Can I just bring you to the budget statement. At page 33, under radioactive waste
management, there is roughly $2 million between this point and out to the 2011-12 financial year, with nearly half of the total funds in the next financial year's budget. Can you tell us what you plan to do with $4½ million dollars between now and this time next year?

Mr Davoren-Investigation and early licensing stages of a facility are a major expense. We will be
conducting an environmental impact assessment and also applying for a siting licence from the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency. We are working on the basis that we are going to do this work, say, in the current financial year. There has been no decision, so this represents a rephasing of those funds so that those moneys are moved into 2009-10 so that we can respond to a decision by the government.

Senator LUDLAM-That is not construction work, though?

Mr Davoren-No, not at all.

Senator LUDLAM-That is feasibility work and studies and so on?

Mr Davoren-Yes. I think it is important to understand that with this project most of the time is taken in licensing processes. We need three licences from ARPANSA, we need EPBC approval and we probably need to take it to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works.

Senator LUDLAM-The $4.4 million that is in this financial year, the one coming, will that include
consultation?

Mr Davoren-Yes, it would.

Senator LUDLAM-Once you have a policy decision from the government, it will actually be down to
your section to conduct whatever consultation process is being envisaged?

Mr Davoren-That is my understanding, Senator.

Senator LUDLAM-What expertise do you have in your section around running consultative or
deliberative processes around these sorts of issues?

Mr Davoren-We have significant experience, particularly in relation to consulting Indigenous
communities. We handled the consultation on a number of radioactive waste projects, including the Maralinga project, which was a particularly challenging one. It involved commissioning independent scientific advice for the benefit of the traditional owners. Where we do not find that we have relevant experience, I think there are a number of potential contractors that operate in that field that we could use.

Senator LUDLAM-For that kind of budget, you would be in a position to bring in other sources of
expertise?

Mr Davoren-Once again, Senator, that depends on the task. If we had the consultation process involved in a nationwide site selection process, we might have to go back to the government for some more money. Once we know the nature of the task, we can then work out what we have got to do.

Senator LUDLAM-But, certainly, if the minister just decides on a site and tells you to go out and sell
that, that would be presumably a much cheaper exercise than actually running a properly deliberative process?

Mr Davoren-I am not going to respond to the words that you have used, Senator.
Senator LUDLAM-Fair enough. Are you aware that the long-running nature of this debate and the fact
that some of the communities in the Northern Territory are feeling frankly betrayed by the way the minister has handled this issue-

Senator McLucas-I do not think the officer can answer that question, Senator.

Senator ABETZ-I am sure you can.

Senator LUDLAM-I just put it then as a preamble to the question. Are you aware that all three of the
sites that are under study-certainly, if your section has not investigated any other of those four sites-are very strongly contested by the people living in the vicinity of those sites?

Mr Davoren-I am aware that there are a range of views on those sites.

Senator LUDLAM-A range of views meaning very strong opposition. I do not know if you have taken
the time yourself to visit those places.

Mr Davoren-I have visited all of those sites.

Senator LUDLAM-You would be then directly aware firsthand of the strength of opposition in those
communities?

Mr Davoren-I just do not think that is an accurate statement in regard to some sites.

Senator LUDLAM-Which sites do you feel are welcomed?

Mr Davoren-One of them is a volunteer Aboriginal site, so the people that volunteered it obviously were not strenuously opposed to it.

Senator LUDLAM-You would be referring to the Muckaty site?

Mr Davoren-Yes.

Senator LUDLAM-The other three obviously were not volunteer sites. They were proposed and the
people first heard of those in media statements apparently. It is not a concern to you that those three were not volunteer sites?

Mr Davoren-My concerns are neither here nor there.

Senator LUDLAM-Are you aware of the very strong opposition amongst traditional owners of the
Muckaty site, which, as you say, was volunteered? Large numbers of traditional owners and people with responsibilities for that country are very strongly opposed to that

Mr Davoren-That is a very loose statement, Senator. The people who actually volunteered their land are not opposed. A lot of other people are opposed, but they are not the traditional owners of the land concerned.

Senator LUDLAM-I think they would be very upset to hear that statement. Finally, to confirm, you were not instructed or requested by the minister to investigate any other sites?

Mr Davoren-No, we were not.

Senator LUDLAM-You are absolutely clear about that?

Mr Davoren-Absolutely not.

Senator LUDLAM-Just the four. Thank you. Are you involved in the ongoing administration of the funds that were paid to the Muckaty Land Trust as a result of their nomination being accepted by the previous government?

Mr Davoren-That is the responsibility of the Northern Land Council.

Senator LUDLAM-Your section has no responsibility whatsoever for administration of those funds from
the Commonwealth?

Mr Davoren-Not at all. Once the payment is made, and one payment has been made, the disbursement of those funds is the responsibility of the Northern Land Council under well-established processes that apply to any range of projects, from mining projects right through to infrastructure.

Senator LUDLAM-Does the NLC report back to the government on the disbursement of those funds?

Mr Davoren-Not to our portfolio. It may report to the minister for Indigenous affairs.

Senator LUDLAM-Are you aware of what milestones will trigger the next payment to be made to that
group?

Mr Davoren-Yes, I think it would be a referral, the selection of a site for environmental assessment.

Senator LUDLAM-I will leave it there. If you are able to provide us with the materials that you
undertook to provide on notice, or the dates in particular of the documents, that would be greatly appreciated.