Senator Ludlam: To ask the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts (transferred to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence on 19 December 2008)-

(1) What environmental impact studies have been conducted in relation to the planned Exercise Talisman Sabre 2009, which will involve the movement of tens of thousands of troops, with associated tanks and other military hardware, on the fragile ecosystems of the Shoalwater Bay Military Training Area in Central Queensland.

(2) Has the possible impact from Exercise Talisman Sabre 2009 on the Great Barrier Reef been assessed.

(3) (a) Will Exercise Talisman Sabre 2009 be compliant with the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, and compatible with the Commonwealth Heritage listing of Shoalwater Bay, both of which the Minister cited in his recent rejection of the rail line and coal port proposal due to the area's unique biodiversity values; and (b) in particular, how will local fauna be protected from the effects of live firing exercises.

(4) What impact will the 2009 exercise have on the Shoalwater Bay Ramsar wetlands.

(5) Will the Government give a guarantee that no depleted uranium (DU) weapons will be used by forces of either the United States of America or Australia during the 2009 exercises.

(6) Has any DU been used in any previous Exercise Talisman Sabre.

(7) (a) What military chemicals does the Government anticipate will be left in the land and marine environments as a result of the 2009 exercise; and (b) what are the human health impacts of these chemicals.

(8) Will nuclear-powered and/or nuclear weapons-capable vessels take part in the planned 2009 exercise; if so: (a) what preparations have been made for the event of a nuclear accident on one of these vessels; and (b) which government would bear the enormous financial cost of a clean-up in the event of such an accident.

(9) Has the economic impact of such an accident on tourism been considered in the decision to conduct the 2009 exercise at Shoalwater Bay.

Senator Ludlam (Western Australia) asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Ageing, upon notice, on 5 November 2008:

In regard to recent changes by the United States Environmental Protection Agency lowering the maximum amount of uranium allowed in drinking water from 30 to 20 parts per billion (ppb) and the subsequent requirement of municipalities to notify residents of uranium levels more than twice the 20 ppb limit:

(1) Is there an Australian drinking water standard in regard to uranium content; if so, what is the standard; if not, why not.

(2) Are records kept for drinking water supplies containing uranium; if not, why not; if so, will the Minister table the latest set of data.

(3) Are there any requirements for residents to be informed of high levels of uranium content in water; if not, why not.

Senator Ludlam (Western Australia) asked the Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research, upon notice, on 4 September 2008:

With reference to the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) Open Pool Australian Lightwater (OPAL) research reactor, located 31 kilometres from Sydney at Lucas Heights:

(1) Since its opening in April 2007, what is the total number of days the reactor functioned compared to when it has been inoperative.

(2) (a) How much has it cost Australia through the closure, the required attempted repairs and the limited function of the reactor since it was restarted; (b) can a breakdown be provided of this total costing; (c) how much of this cost may be expected to be recovered from the Argentinean company, INVAP; and (d) what measures is the Government pursuing in order to recover these costs.

(3) Given the ongoing problems with the reactor, does the Minister agree with the description on ANSTO's website describing the OPAL reactor as ‘world-class'.

(4) What was the total cost for the construction of the reactor.

(5) What are the ongoing annual maintenance and running costs of the reactor.

(6) Can a breakdown be provided of the annual revenues which were: (a) projected to be derived from the operations of the reactor; and (b) actually derived from the operations of the reactor.

(7) Given that the reactor has been unable to deliver its promised four times the amount of radioisotopes for nuclear medicine than its predecessor and related expansion in the nation's capacity for nuclear medicine, from which countries and companies did Australia source its isotopes during the reactor's inactivity.

(8) What contingency measures is the Government putting in place to provide for long-term alternatives to the production of radioisotopes from the reactor.

Senator Ludlam (Western Australia) asked the Minister representing the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 15 September 2008:

(1) Is the Minister accurately quoted in an article on page 1 of The Age on 9 June 2008 stating ‘He said it was necessary to finalise the site well before the next election because nuclear waste from Sydney's Lucas Heights research reactor sent overseas for reprocessing would return to Australia from 2011'.

(2) Can the Minister confirm that the Contract for the Management of ANSTO's [Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation's] Research Reactors Spent Fuel, dated 1999, between ANSTO and the French company Compagnie Generale des Matieres Nucleaires (COGEMA) for reprocessing the spent nuclear fuel from Lucas Heights, states at 5.3.1 ‘Principle' that return ‘shall take place in 2015 at the latest', with a reference at 5.3.2.1 under the heading ‘Performance bond' to the date of 31 December 2015.

(3) Can the Minister confirm that in the aforementioned agreement there is a reference to ‘any extension permitted by COGEMA' indicating the potential for a later date to be sought by Australia.

(4) Can the Minister confirm that while the contract provides for a potential return ‘as soon as technically possible', there is a provision that a performance bond be paid by Australia of 1.5 million francs (approximately $397 514) to COGEMA in 2013, which may then be forfeit if return is not made by 31 December 2015.

(5) In the absence of a radioactive waste management strategy that satisfies the ALP [Australian Labor Party] National Platform and Constitution 2007, ‘Chapter 5', ‘scientific, transparent, accountable, fair and allows access to appeal mechanisms', will the Minister consider negotiating an extension arrangement with COGEMA or paying the performance bond and further management costs for Australia's waste to remain in France.

Senator Ludlam (Western Australia) asked the Minister representing the Minister for Housing, upon notice, on 4 September 2008:

(1) As recommended in the report by the Select Committee on Housing Affordability in Australia, A good house is hard to find: Housing affordability in Australia, dated June 2008, has an emergency taskforce been established to consult with Pilbara communities and industry to develop a coordinated response to the housing affordability crisis: (a) if so: (i) what are the terms of reference and membership of the taskforce, and (ii) when and with whom will it meet; and (b) if not: (i) does the Minister intend to establish such a taskforce, and (ii) given the conditions that people in the region are experiencing and its impact on the sustainability of the regional economy, can the Minister inform the Senate of when this emergency will be recognised and addressed by the Government.

(2) What funds does the Government intend to invest to address the crisis in public and community housing in the Pilbara.

(3) Will the provision of units of affordable housing in the Pilbara be prioritised in the assessment of projects under the National Rental Affordability Scheme.

(4) Has the issue of land-banking (the speculative withholding of land release) and reform of LandCorp been discussed with the State Government of Western Australia as part of the discussions about ongoing Commonwealth housing funding.

On 15 September 2008 Senator Ludlam asked the Minister representing the Minister for Resources and Energy:

 (1) Is the Minister accurately quoted in an article on page 1 of The Age on 9 June 2008 stating ‘He said it was necessary to finalise the site well before the next election because nuclear waste from Sydney’s Lucas Heights research reactor sent overseas for reprocessing would return to Australia from 2011’.

 (2) Can the Minister confirm that the Contract for the Management of ANSTO’s [Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation’s] Research Reactors Spent Fuel, dated 1999, between ANSTO and the French company Compagnie Generale des Matieres Nucleaires (COGEMA) for reprocessing the spent nuclear fuel from Lucas Heights, states at 5.3.1 ‘Principle’ that return ‘shall take place in 2015 at the latest’, with a reference at 5.3.2.1 under the heading ‘Performance bond’ to the date of 31 December 2015.

 (3) Can the Minister confirm that in the aforementioned agreement there is a reference to ‘any extension permitted by COGEMA’ indicating the potential for a later date to be sought by Australia.

 (4) Can the Minister confirm that while the contract provides for a potential return ‘as soon as technically possible’, there is a provision that a performance bond be paid by Australia of 1.5 million francs (approximately $397 514) to COGEMA in 2013, which may then be forfeit if return is not made by 31 December 2015.

 (5) In the absence of a radioactive waste management strategy that satisfies the ALP [Australian Labour Party] National Platform and Constitution 2007, ‘Chapter 5’, ‘scientific, transparent, accountable, fair and allows access to appeal mechanisms’, will the Minister consider negotiating an extension arrangement with COGEMA or paying the performance bond and further management costs for Australia’s waste to remain in France.

On 4 September 2008 Senator Ludlam asked the Minister representing the Minister for Housing:

(1) Has an Emergency Taskforce, as recommended in the June 2008 Senate Select Committee on Housing Affordability in Australia, been established to consult with Pilbara communities and industry to develop a coordinated response to the housing affordability crisis in the Pilbara?

(2) If so, what are the terms of reference and membership of the Task Force and when and with whom will it meet?

(3) If not, does the Minister intend to establish such a Task Force?

(4) If not, can the Minister inform the Senate of when this emergency will be recognised as such by the government, and addressed - given the conditions that people in the region are experiencing and its impact on the sustainability of the regional economy?

(5) What funds does the Commonwealth intend to invest to address the crisis in public and community housing in the Pilbara?

(6) Will the provision of units of affordable housing in the Pilbara be prioritised in the assessment of projects under the NRAS?

(7) Has the issue of 'land-banking' (that is, the speculative withholding of land release) and reform of LandCorp been discussed with the State as part of the discussions about ongoing Commonwealth housing funding?

On 4 September 2008 Senator Ludlam asked the Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research:

(1) Since its opening in April 2007, what is the total number of days the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) OPAL research reactor 31 km from Sydney at Lucas Heights functioned as compared to the number of days it has been inoperative?

(2) What cost has been incurred to Australia through the closure of the reactor, the required attempted repairs and the limited function of the reactor since it was restarted?

(3) Can the Minister provide a breakdown of this total costing?

(4) How much of this cost may be expected to be recovered from INVAP?

(5) What measures is the Government pursuing in order to recover these costs?

(6) Given the ongoing problems with the reactor, does the Minister concur with the description on ANSTO's website describing the OPAL reactor as "world-class"?

(7) What was the total cost for the construction of the OPAL research reactor?

(8) What are the ongoing annual maintenance and running costs of the OPAL reactor?

(9) Can the Minister provide a breakdown of the annual revenues which were projected to be derived from the operations of the OPAL reactor?

(10) Can the Minister provide a breakdown of the annual revenues which are actually derived from the operations of the OPAL reactor?

(11) Given that the OPAL reactor has been unable to deliver what it promised – four times the amount of radioisotopes for nuclear medicine than its predecessor, and related expansion in the nation's capacity for nuclear medicine – from which countries and companies did Australia source its isotopes from during the reactors inactivity?

(12) What contingency measures is the government putting in place to provide for long-term alternatives to production of radioisotopes from the OPAL reactor?

Senator Ludlam asked the Minister representing the Minister for Resources and Energy on 23 July 2008:

(1) When is the government intending to repeal the Commonwealth Radioactive Waste Management Act 2005, a commitment made in Chapter 5 of the ALP National Platform 2007?

(2) Will the Department of Defence sites being assessed under the Commonwealth Radioactive Waste Management Act 2005 be repealed in accordance with the ALP National Platform to, “not proceed with the development of any of the current sites identified by the Howard Government in the Northern Territory, if no contracts have been entered into for those sites?”

(3) Will the Minister confirm that on repeal of the Commonwealth Radioactive Waste Management Act 2005, the Muckaty site also no longer has legal status and will therefore be repealed in accordance with the April 2008 resolution of the Northern Territory Labor Party Conference?

(4) Did the Minister meet on 16 July with Northern Land Council representatives and/or Traditional Owners of Muckaty Station.?

(5) If so, what were the matters under discussion?

(6)  Is the Minister undertaking negotiation or discussions on “transitional arrangements” regarding the Muckaty site?

(7) If yes, what was the nature of the negotiations or discussions?

(8) On repeal of the Commonwealth Radioactive Waste Management Act 2005, given that the Northern Territory legislation prohibiting Commonwealth nuclear waste facilities will come back into legal effect, will the new ALP Commonwealth government respect the right and jurisdiction of the NT government?

Senator Ludlam (Western Australia) asked the Minister representing the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 25 July 2008:

(1) When does the Government intend to repeal the Commonwealth Radioactive Waste Management Act 2005, a commitment made in Chapter 5 of the Australian Labor Party (ALP) National Platform 2007.

(2) Will the Department of Defence sites being assessed under the Act be repealed in accordance with the platform to not proceed with the development of any of the current sites identified by the Howard Government in the Northern Territory, if no contracts have been entered into for those sites.

(3) Will the Minister confirm that, on repeal of the Act, the Muckaty site will no longer have legal status and will therefore be repealed in accordance with the resolution of the Northern Territory ALP conference in April 2008.

(4) Did the Minister meet, on 16 July 2008, with Northern Land Council representatives and/or the traditional owners of Muckaty Station; if so, what were the matters under discussion. 

(5) Is the Minister undertaking negotiation or discussions on ‘transitional arrangements' regarding the Muckaty site; if so, what is the nature of the negotiations or discussions. 

(6) Given that the Northern Territory legislation prohibiting Commonwealth nuclear waste facilities will come back into effect on repeal of the Act, will the Government respect the right and jurisdiction of the Northern Territory Government.