Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee [Part 2], , 1:52:15 to 2:00:00
The Director General of the Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Regulator explains the agency's first year of operations and reporting independence.
Topics: Integrity, Law reform
Speakers: Michael Drake, Senator David Shoebridge, Speaker 1, Unknown Speaker
>> I'd like to now welcome Michael Drake, Director General of the Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Regulator. Hello, sir.
>> Good evening, chair.
>> How are you?
>> I'm well, yourself?
>> Um much better seeing you. >> Um and also to all your officers here tonight. Did you have an opening statement this evening?
>> I do have a short opening statement, chair.
>> If it's short, please proceed.
>> Thank you. Um good evening, chair, senators, and thank you for the opportunity to make a brief opening statement. The Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Regulator, ANSNR, is independent, specialized, and dedicated to the task of upholding nuclear safety for naval nuclear propulsion activities in Australia. Nuclear safety is at the center of all of our decision-making, and as a statutory body, ANSNR is accountable to the Parliament and ultimately the Australian public. In 4 days' time, it'll be 1 year since ANSNR commenced, and we've made significant progress in developing our regulatory framework, conducting licensing activities, and building our technical capabilities. We've also been out engaging on our role regulating for Australia with our regulatory community, our peer AUKUS nuclear powered submarine regulators, with defense industry, state and local governments, community leaders, including First Nations representatives, and the Australian public. We've been actively speaking with people about nuclear safety and our part in delivering Australia's nuclear powered submarine capability, because that's what we expect of any license applicant as well. Our regulations require that license applicants must undertake meaningful consultation with relevant stakeholders, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, and the broader community. This regulatory requirement enables Australians to engage and support our shared interest in keeping nuclear safety at the center of the development of Australia's nuclear powered submarine program. Alongside our engagement activities, ANSNR has been getting on with the job of regulating, and our interests now span three key locations. First in South Australia, on the 12th of June this year, ANSNR issued its first license to Australian Naval Infrastructure for the Osborne Nuclear Powered Submarine Construction Yard, authorizing them to start preparing the site for the naval nuclear propulsion facilities that will build SSN Aukus. This license decision is important milestone for ANP in applying our new regulations to a significant regulatory assessment. Importantly, since June, we've also been back to South Australia to conduct inspections and ensure that ANP is meeting the conditions of its license. Secondly, at HMAS Stirling, Western Australia, since I last spoke to this committee, we've been actively working with the Australian Submarine Agency to consolidate the licenses they had issued from the Australian Radiation Protection Nuclear Safety Agency, ARPANSA, to prepare and construct the low-level radiological waste facility at HMAS Stirling. We now have a single license to ensure continuity for nuclear safety. The scope of license activities remains consistent with what was authorized by ARPANSA. And finally, also in Western Australia, the Henderson Defense Precinct, following the government's announcement on the precinct's footprint in August this year, we're engaging with Defense, the ASA, and other stakeholders to support a shared understanding of the regulatory requirements and expectations that will need to be met to build the facilities for Australia's nuclear-powered submarine sustainment over the coming decade. Being clear at the start is important so we get nuclear safety right for the long To conclude, as we approach the anniversary of our first full year regulating, I'm pleased with the progress that ANP has continued to make in establishing itself as Australia's independent naval nuclear power safety regulator. Thank you, Chair, and I welcome questions.
>> Um thanks, Chair. Um How does the What is the relationship between ANP? I'm sorry, how do you pronounce that?
>> ANP. ANP.
>> ANP.
>> ANP.
>> ANP. >> ANP.
>> Yes, it's a it's a long acronym.
>> ANP.
>> ANP. >> Never heard it sung, Chair.
>> I'll start again. Um >> ANP. >> Can you describe the relationship between ANP and the Minister? How does that relationship um um work in practice?
>> Uh I report to the Minister. Um we are statutory appointees, both myself and Mr. Hawkins as the Deputy Director General. Um we are independent in our regulatory decision-making. Um as you're aware, we sit in the defense portfolio, um but our reporting relationship is directly to the Minister for Defense, being the Deputy Prime Minister.
>> So, um um uh your reporting to the Minister of Defense happens Does it happen through the department, or does it happen directly through the Minister's office?
>> Di- directly to the Minister's office.
>> And what um in terms of your um uh your regulatory activity,
>> Yes, sir.
>> um what what oversight, if any, does the Minister have of your regulatory
>> Um we brief the Minister after we make a regulatory decision. For example, the Minister has as part of what's embedded in our act, we are independent in our regulatory decision-making. Um there's very limited circumstance where the Minister can actually intervene in that regulatory decision-making, um and and they're quite in extremis circumstances. Other than that, we are independent in our decision-making.
>> Um in terms of informing the Minister about applications you've received, your communications with ASA or others, I assume there's an open channel of communication there?
>> Yes, there is, Senator, and there's also a requirement um regarding applications we receive. We actually put a notice on our website as well, so >> All right. >> that to the public.
>> Um and has it ever Have you ever identified a conflict of interest in terms of your engagement with the Minister when the Minister's responsible on one side for the application, whether it's coming through the ASA or some other entity, but primarily through the ASA, the Minister is responsible for both the application and for your consideration of the application. Has the conflict ever become apparent when you've been communicating with the Minister?
Senator, the regulatory decision-making remort the agencies, not the ministers. The act that we operate under is very clear on that point. So, the minister does not have the power to direct us in regards to our regulatory decision-making. In in light of that
>> The minister though decides your budget. >> And your budget is absolutely critical for your ability to undertake your regulatory roles.
>> It is, Senator.
How do you deal with that conflict then, given the minister is also responsible for who you're regulating? Do you have any protocols with the minister to ensure independence of your budget? How are you dealing with that aspect?
Senator, that has not arisen in this case. Our budget and the forward estimates are more than sufficient for our needs, and we have not needed any additional funding, so that has not
>> So, there's no arrangements in place to ensure independent budget.
>> Not currently regarding the budget, no, there is not.
>> Um is it something you think would be prudent to turn your mind to, given that potential conflict? The minister, of course, being responsible for the agencies that are putting propositions to you, and you having the obligation to independently review them. That obviously being only capable with adequate budget. Have you turned your mind to that?
>> Uh Senator, like every conflict, conflicts in general, we turn our mind to them. And we will continue to do so as as situations arise, absolutely.