Mr SETTER - 1994-08-24
Honourable members would be aware of the comments made by the Environment Centre's Lyn Allen this morning in which she expressed disappointment in this Assembly's motion calling for the abolition of the 3-mine uranium policy. Is the minister taking the concerns of the Environment Centre seriously?
ANSWER
Mr Speaker, it is very difficult indeed to take seriously remarks made by representatives of the Environment Centre, particularly those of Ms Allen. Of all environmentalists, she is perhaps the only one in Australia with anything more than a scrap of scientific knowledge about the impact of uranium mining on Kakadu National Park and the processes that are being undertaken to ensure that environmental damage has been kept to a minimum. Indeed, it has been conducted under one of the best environmental management programs in the world as far as uranium mining is concerned.
Ms Allen was appointed by the federal Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, Hon Barry Cohen, in 1986 as the environmental movement's delegate on the Coordinating Committee for the Alligators Rivers Region. This committee, chaired by the Office of the Supervising Scientist, has reported on the impact of mining, milling and water management systems at Kakadu. As a delegate on this committee, Ms Allen has enjoyed access to a comprehensive range of scientific reports on the impact of mining at Ranger Uranium Mine and at the former Nabarlek Mine. As far as environmentalists are concerned, Ms Allen has had a far better insight into these operations than anyone else.
At the time of her appointment, the Territory government protested loudly, strongly and quite rightly about the proposed appointment. As some of the longer-serving members will be aware, the attitude of Ms Allen is non-negotiable. She is 100% anti-uranium and will not hear about any of its more positive aspects. At the time of her appointment, we argued that Ms Allen was an unfortunate choice of candidate for the position, given her personal views on uranium. Despite our objections, she served on the committee and contributed to its work, in particular its examination of the Alligator Rivers system. As a delegate on the committee and an avid environmentalist, Ms Allen is acutely aware of the consistent findings of the Office of the Supervising Scientist. She would be aware of reports to the federal parliament that demonstrate clearly that there has been no significant environmental detriment outside the mining lease areas which can be attributed to mining. Notwithstanding that, she still takes the opportunity to denigrate the mining operations.
Page 65
My point is that Ms Allen was on radio today arguing a position she knows is fundamentally incorrect. As someone who has enjoyed access to the information about mining in Kakadu, one would think that at least she would have the integrity to speak truthfully about the impact that mining has had on the environment there. Given the personal perspective of Ms Allen, it is no wonder that she was disappointed with yesterday's historic bipartisan decision of this Assembly whereby both the Australian Labor Party and the Country Liberal Party supported abolition of the 3-mine policy. Given the Territory branch of the Labor Party's strong support for the motion, I can understand why those at the Environment Centre might feel there is some cause for concern.
It is high time that the Environment Centre and, in this case, Ms Allen, recognised the needs of the mining industry, and recognised that almost a million Australians are unemployed and that they would have some prospect of obtaining a job and being employed if these mines were allowed to proceed. She recognised the economic benefit to the Northern Territory that would flow from the commencement of additional uranium mines and indeed the vastly improved terms of export trade that would flow to this country if uranium mining proceeded once the 3-mine policy is abolished.
The Environment Centre has to recognise that, without some productivity, without mining, there would be no Environment Centre because there would be no taxpayers to pay for the Environment Centre. As an operation, it is almost fully-funded by the taxpayer, yet all it does is criticise the productivity of this country. It is time that its people recognised that their arguments are flawed. The economic argument against mining no longer exists, nor does the environmental argument, and there is every reason why it should be allowed to proceed.
Page 66
ANSWER
Mr Speaker, it is very difficult indeed to take seriously remarks made by representatives of the Environment Centre, particularly those of Ms Allen. Of all environmentalists, she is perhaps the only one in Australia with anything more than a scrap of scientific knowledge about the impact of uranium mining on Kakadu National Park and the processes that are being undertaken to ensure that environmental damage has been kept to a minimum. Indeed, it has been conducted under one of the best environmental management programs in the world as far as uranium mining is concerned.
Ms Allen was appointed by the federal Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, Hon Barry Cohen, in 1986 as the environmental movement's delegate on the Coordinating Committee for the Alligators Rivers Region. This committee, chaired by the Office of the Supervising Scientist, has reported on the impact of mining, milling and water management systems at Kakadu. As a delegate on this committee, Ms Allen has enjoyed access to a comprehensive range of scientific reports on the impact of mining at Ranger Uranium Mine and at the former Nabarlek Mine. As far as environmentalists are concerned, Ms Allen has had a far better insight into these operations than anyone else.
At the time of her appointment, the Territory government protested loudly, strongly and quite rightly about the proposed appointment. As some of the longer-serving members will be aware, the attitude of Ms Allen is non-negotiable. She is 100% anti-uranium and will not hear about any of its more positive aspects. At the time of her appointment, we argued that Ms Allen was an unfortunate choice of candidate for the position, given her personal views on uranium. Despite our objections, she served on the committee and contributed to its work, in particular its examination of the Alligator Rivers system. As a delegate on the committee and an avid environmentalist, Ms Allen is acutely aware of the consistent findings of the Office of the Supervising Scientist. She would be aware of reports to the federal parliament that demonstrate clearly that there has been no significant environmental detriment outside the mining lease areas which can be attributed to mining. Notwithstanding that, she still takes the opportunity to denigrate the mining operations.
Page 65
My point is that Ms Allen was on radio today arguing a position she knows is fundamentally incorrect. As someone who has enjoyed access to the information about mining in Kakadu, one would think that at least she would have the integrity to speak truthfully about the impact that mining has had on the environment there. Given the personal perspective of Ms Allen, it is no wonder that she was disappointed with yesterday's historic bipartisan decision of this Assembly whereby both the Australian Labor Party and the Country Liberal Party supported abolition of the 3-mine policy. Given the Territory branch of the Labor Party's strong support for the motion, I can understand why those at the Environment Centre might feel there is some cause for concern.
It is high time that the Environment Centre and, in this case, Ms Allen, recognised the needs of the mining industry, and recognised that almost a million Australians are unemployed and that they would have some prospect of obtaining a job and being employed if these mines were allowed to proceed. She recognised the economic benefit to the Northern Territory that would flow from the commencement of additional uranium mines and indeed the vastly improved terms of export trade that would flow to this country if uranium mining proceeded once the 3-mine policy is abolished.
The Environment Centre has to recognise that, without some productivity, without mining, there would be no Environment Centre because there would be no taxpayers to pay for the Environment Centre. As an operation, it is almost fully-funded by the taxpayer, yet all it does is criticise the productivity of this country. It is time that its people recognised that their arguments are flawed. The economic argument against mining no longer exists, nor does the environmental argument, and there is every reason why it should be allowed to proceed.
Page 66
Last updated: 09 Aug 2016