Factbox: Muckaty Nuclear Waste Dump

8 Feb 2012, 3:27 pm   -   Source: SBS Staff
2 Comments
Share This
+ Comment
2
(SBS/Bill Code)

(SBS/Bill Code)

Who's for the dump, and who's against it? Will a federal court case make the government's legislation void?

RELATED

WHAT'S THE PLAN?

The government says it needs a place to store low and medium level nuclear waste somewhere in Australia.

Muckaty station is 120km from the nearest town of considerable population, Tennant Creek, and was first named as a possible location in 2007. After South Australia rejected earlier plans, Muckaty is the only site nominated under the current proceedings.


The site would be used to store medical and research waste in one place; some of it would come from the Lucas Heights nuclear waste facility in Sydney. Were the Muckaty plans to go ahead, some Australian nuclear waste would also be put there when it returns from Europe in 2014/15.

Despite Labor speaking out against Howard-era legislation which first named Muckaty, the current government's National Radioactive Waste Management Bill 2010 is similar to the previous plans; it suspends the application of certain indigenous and environmental protections as well as state and Territory laws that would prevent a site being selected.

WHO'S FOR IT?

The federal government and opposition both support plans to build a dump for medium-level waste somewhere, and the National Radioactive Waste Management Bill they're voting on specifically names Muckaty station as a possible site.

Certain members of the local Ngapa people - the Lauder family - signed a deal to allow the site to be nominated, in exchange for federal funding.

The Lauder family were backed in their dealings by the Northern Land Council, which recognises them as owners.

WHO'S AGAINST IT?

Members of indigenous groups opposed to the plans include people from the Milwayi, Yapa Yapa, Ngarrka, and Wirntiku people, and certain Ngapa clans outside of the Lauder family.

The Northern Territory government: Chief Minister Paul Henderson has long said he would like the site to be dictated by science, not 'constitutional vulnerability': the N.T. does not have the power to refuse the dump, as a state would.

Greens Senator Scott Ludlam has fought a long campaign in the federal Senate against the National Radioactive Waste Management Bill 2010, joined in his fight by various environmental activists.

WHAT'S THE COURT CASE ABOUT?

Some of the traditional owners opposed to the dump say the way the site was nominated was flawed. They say the way the Northern Land Council decided that one branch of the Ngapa clan were the sole owners - giving them the right to nominate the site - was not done correctly or
fairly, claiming that the site, which they hold as a sacred place, was always shared land.

The NLC says it's done everything above board, and is disputing the matter in the Federal Court in Melbourne. Well known human-rights lawyer George Newhouse is representing the 'no' corner.

The government says it will respect the outcome of this court case, which could set the site nomination process rolling again. 

WHY MUCKATY?

The site is remote, being 120km from Tennant Creek.

The site has been nominated in exchange for federal money, by the people deemed to be the traditional owners by the Northern Land Council.

Time is ticking for the government to locate a site for its nuclear waste.

WHY NOT MUCKATY?

The site nomination process is keenly disputed, and has gone to the federal court.

A sacred male initiation site sits on Muckaty Station.

The N.T. government says it is unfair it is being forced on the Territory, which cannot refuse it.

Some scientists dispute the site is suitable, citing recent earth tremors.


 

  • Follow us: 
  • Follow us on Facebook
  • Follow us on Twitter
  • Follow us on Youtube

Your Comments

NO NUKE DUMP

Grant Donohue - from Kenthurst, 4 months ago

This plan goes against common sense by both parties. It is being forced on the people.The current governments own plan said it has to be voluntary by people , yet as seen it is opposed by the traditional owners . Why won't the Minister for Resources go and explain to them.

Muckaty site was never included in scientific report

Christina Macpherson - from Sydney, 4 months ago

In 2005, the Howard Government chose the NT, and ruled out NSW, for purely political reasons. When the federal Bureau of Resource Sciences conducted a national repository site selection study in the 1990s, informed by scientific, environmental and social criteria, the Muckaty site did not even make the short-list of ‘suitable’ sites. No need for choice of Aboriginal land April 2008 NT Labor Party conference unanimously passed a resolution calling on the federal government to exclude Muckaty

Join the Discussion

Name
City / Suburb E.g. Artarmon, Sydney
Title
Comment
You have characters remaining.
Validation
What's this?
This is a captcha-picture. It is used to prevent mass-access by robots.
All submitted comments become the property of SBS. They are moderated, so we reserve the right to edit comments and remove HTML tags. Not all submitted comments will be published. Publication does not mean we endorse the opinions expressed. Please read our terms and conditions for more information.