Mr ADAMSON - 1994-08-25
Is the Chief Minister aware that, in the Senate yesterday, one of the Territory's representatives voted to retain the ridiculous 3-mine uranium policy? This is particularly disappointing considering the unanimous resolution of the Territory's parliament, which was passed on the previous day, that this policy should be abandoned.
Page 77
ANSWER
Mr Speaker, I found it somewhat ironic that I was asked questions yesterday by the media about Senator Collins's remarks during debate in the Senate on a motion from the Democrats. I was told by the media representative that, during his contribution, Senator Collins adopted a supportive stance in respect of a change to the 3-mine policy. However, at the end of the debate, when the question was put, he changed his mind. What he was prepared to say on the floor of the House was different from what he was prepared to vote for at the end of the debate. The motion that the Democrats had moved was: 'In the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: the need for the government to maintain the named 3-mine policy with respect to uranium mining'. It indicates that Senator Collins is not really the Territory's representative in Canberra but rather the contrary in that he voted with the Democrats and other members of the Labor Party to support a continuation of the existing 3-mine policy.
It is a shame that Senator Collins did not reflect for a moment on what the founding fathers envisaged for the Senate - that it be the states' House. Senator Collins was well aware that this Assembly had passed a motion unanimously the day before that the 3-mine policy should be replaced with a saner policy. However, what did the Senator representing the Northern Territory do? He voted against the very stance taken by this House! We are aware that Senator Collins has changed his view on uranium a couple of times. He was one of the original sponsors of this very tainted policy. His attitude at present does not bode very well for changes to the policy when it is dealt with in Hobart next month. I am not sure whether the Senator has a vote on the floor of the conference. The Leader of the Opposition shakes his head. Perhaps that is a good thing, having regard to his vote yesterday. It was interesting to note the results of yesterday's vote on the motion in the Senate. The Labor Party and the Democrats voted for the motion to retain the 3-mine policy, but the Coalition and the Greens, as well as Senator Harradine, who supposedly is an independent, voted against it. The motion was lost 30 to 32. However, it was interesting to see the Coalition and the Greens voting together. Of course, the Greens were voting against the motion on the basis that they do not support any uranium mining at all.
The other point of interest for Territorians is the amazing absence of any view expressed in public by our member of the House of Representatives during this uranium debate. Whilst few of us would be in any doubt about where Mr Snowdon stands on the issue of further uranium mining, we can be very sure that his is not a stance taken in the interests of the traditional owners who want at least one of the mines to be developed in the Kakadu region. It appears that we have 2 members in the federal parliament, one in the Senate and one in the House of Representatives, both of whom simply are not acting in the interests of Territorians or responding to what they would know is a clear wish of Territorians had they simply put their ears to the ground. That message is that they should start to recognise that, from time to time, it might be an idea for them to break from the traditional party line, stand up on their hind legs for the Territory and vote in the interests of their constituents.
Page 78
Page 77
ANSWER
Mr Speaker, I found it somewhat ironic that I was asked questions yesterday by the media about Senator Collins's remarks during debate in the Senate on a motion from the Democrats. I was told by the media representative that, during his contribution, Senator Collins adopted a supportive stance in respect of a change to the 3-mine policy. However, at the end of the debate, when the question was put, he changed his mind. What he was prepared to say on the floor of the House was different from what he was prepared to vote for at the end of the debate. The motion that the Democrats had moved was: 'In the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: the need for the government to maintain the named 3-mine policy with respect to uranium mining'. It indicates that Senator Collins is not really the Territory's representative in Canberra but rather the contrary in that he voted with the Democrats and other members of the Labor Party to support a continuation of the existing 3-mine policy.
It is a shame that Senator Collins did not reflect for a moment on what the founding fathers envisaged for the Senate - that it be the states' House. Senator Collins was well aware that this Assembly had passed a motion unanimously the day before that the 3-mine policy should be replaced with a saner policy. However, what did the Senator representing the Northern Territory do? He voted against the very stance taken by this House! We are aware that Senator Collins has changed his view on uranium a couple of times. He was one of the original sponsors of this very tainted policy. His attitude at present does not bode very well for changes to the policy when it is dealt with in Hobart next month. I am not sure whether the Senator has a vote on the floor of the conference. The Leader of the Opposition shakes his head. Perhaps that is a good thing, having regard to his vote yesterday. It was interesting to note the results of yesterday's vote on the motion in the Senate. The Labor Party and the Democrats voted for the motion to retain the 3-mine policy, but the Coalition and the Greens, as well as Senator Harradine, who supposedly is an independent, voted against it. The motion was lost 30 to 32. However, it was interesting to see the Coalition and the Greens voting together. Of course, the Greens were voting against the motion on the basis that they do not support any uranium mining at all.
The other point of interest for Territorians is the amazing absence of any view expressed in public by our member of the House of Representatives during this uranium debate. Whilst few of us would be in any doubt about where Mr Snowdon stands on the issue of further uranium mining, we can be very sure that his is not a stance taken in the interests of the traditional owners who want at least one of the mines to be developed in the Kakadu region. It appears that we have 2 members in the federal parliament, one in the Senate and one in the House of Representatives, both of whom simply are not acting in the interests of Territorians or responding to what they would know is a clear wish of Territorians had they simply put their ears to the ground. That message is that they should start to recognise that, from time to time, it might be an idea for them to break from the traditional party line, stand up on their hind legs for the Territory and vote in the interests of their constituents.
Page 78
Last updated: 09 Aug 2016