Dr LIM - 1998-11-26
Only yesterday, this Chamber debated the Sessional Committee on the Environment’s report on the uranium province. There was bipartisan support for the development of uranium mining at Jabiluka. What is the Territory government’s response to the UNESCO World Heritage Commission’s recommendation that the multi-million dollar Jabiluka uranium mine be stopped?
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, I welcome the question from the member for Greatorex. As many Territorians would have seen on television last night, and heard on radio or read about in the newspaper today, the report has been described by the federal Minister for the Environment, Robert Hill, as ‘biased, unbalanced and totally lacking in objectivity’.
It is not until you closely examine the report and you start to understand the recommendations that subsequently flowed from the committee in Paris that you come to a full understanding that not only Australia, but the Territory, has been done over in the most uninformed and irresponsible way imaginable.
The UNESCO group which came to the Territory, spent 3 or 4 days here and perhaps 3 days in Canberra. With one wave of its hand, it has swept aside 18 years of soundly based research under the supervision of the Supervising Scientist which has clearly demonstrated that uranium mining at Ranger has been conducted in a safe and responsible way, and the same could be said of Jabiluka.
The myths that are perpetuated in this report are recurring ones: That Jabiluka is in Kakadu or a World Heritage Area. It is not. No matter how often it might be written or said in the media, Jabiluka is not in Kakadu. It is not in a World Heritage Area. The other myth that is constantly pushed is that the traditional owners do not support the Jabiluka project. They do. They voted for this project in 1982 and 1991, and the vast majority have never withdrawn their support.
What are we to do when a supposedly responsible organisation under the United Nations, UNESCO, sends a working party to the Northern Territory to report in an objective fashion, only to find that the majority recommendation of the working party was overturned when it was taken back to Paris. The overwhelming majority of people on that working party did not recommend that Jabiluka should not proceed.
I have been filled with confidence at the response of the Coalition government. Robert Hill has said that Jabiluka will proceed. I am not filled with confidence when I listen to Senator Nick Bolkus from the Labor Party, on radio this morning, who quite clearly takes a different view. Labor in opposition are now truly in opposition. They oppose the development of Jabiluka, they oppose the generation of jobs in the uranium industry here in the Territory and, by implication, their colleagues opposite stand - and sit - condemned. They have to demonstrate that they have a different view on this, or Territorians will see them for what they really are, an anti-development party.
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, I welcome the question from the member for Greatorex. As many Territorians would have seen on television last night, and heard on radio or read about in the newspaper today, the report has been described by the federal Minister for the Environment, Robert Hill, as ‘biased, unbalanced and totally lacking in objectivity’.
It is not until you closely examine the report and you start to understand the recommendations that subsequently flowed from the committee in Paris that you come to a full understanding that not only Australia, but the Territory, has been done over in the most uninformed and irresponsible way imaginable.
The UNESCO group which came to the Territory, spent 3 or 4 days here and perhaps 3 days in Canberra. With one wave of its hand, it has swept aside 18 years of soundly based research under the supervision of the Supervising Scientist which has clearly demonstrated that uranium mining at Ranger has been conducted in a safe and responsible way, and the same could be said of Jabiluka.
The myths that are perpetuated in this report are recurring ones: That Jabiluka is in Kakadu or a World Heritage Area. It is not. No matter how often it might be written or said in the media, Jabiluka is not in Kakadu. It is not in a World Heritage Area. The other myth that is constantly pushed is that the traditional owners do not support the Jabiluka project. They do. They voted for this project in 1982 and 1991, and the vast majority have never withdrawn their support.
What are we to do when a supposedly responsible organisation under the United Nations, UNESCO, sends a working party to the Northern Territory to report in an objective fashion, only to find that the majority recommendation of the working party was overturned when it was taken back to Paris. The overwhelming majority of people on that working party did not recommend that Jabiluka should not proceed.
I have been filled with confidence at the response of the Coalition government. Robert Hill has said that Jabiluka will proceed. I am not filled with confidence when I listen to Senator Nick Bolkus from the Labor Party, on radio this morning, who quite clearly takes a different view. Labor in opposition are now truly in opposition. They oppose the development of Jabiluka, they oppose the generation of jobs in the uranium industry here in the Territory and, by implication, their colleagues opposite stand - and sit - condemned. They have to demonstrate that they have a different view on this, or Territorians will see them for what they really are, an anti-development party.
Last updated: 09 Aug 2016