Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 7 Hansard (25 June) . . Page.. 2146 ..

MS REILLY (continuing):

This is an area of great beauty. The flood plains there are extremely important as wetlands and as a nursery for a number of species that are important in Australia. If we mine these flood plains, we will lose these species. Maybe some of the species are minor species that no-one would worry about, but it is also an area that is important for the development of barramundi - an important industry for all of us. If we allow the mining to go ahead, we can lose a lot. We can lose the flood plains.

Although there is no known way of looking after uranium in the long term, we allow it to be used in ways that are not always acceptable. When uranium is sold overseas, we have no control to ensure that it goes only into power generation. We cannot stop it being used in bombs in various places. It is foolish to say that our uranium goes overseas with little flags on it to suggest, "This is Australian uranium. It will not be used in bombs or other armaments". We have the opportunity at this time to stop further uranium mining in Australia and not start the Jabiluka mine. We have to realise the fact that it is in a national park that has World Heritage listing. What other country would consider mining in an area that has that type of listing?

We know that there are mines in other national parks. There is already a mine in that national park at Ranger, but why do we have to perpetuate this stupidity by having another mine at Jabiluka? Apart from the Jabiluka site being on a flood plain, there are great difficulties in extracting uranium ore from that area. Rather than opening up something that will be extremely difficult, I think Australia as a nation should say no to further mines. They could take it even further and close down the mines that have already opened.

MR STEFANIAK (Minister for Education and Training) (6.53): On 1 July a rather historic event occurs. It is historic for a number of reasons. Hong Kong reverts to Chinese rule. I went to a reception at the High Court yesterday which the Chinese Embassy hosted, and they are all naturally very excited about it. It is very important for them. I will do this from two perspectives - from a Hong Kong perspective and then from the perspective of another very significant event which it reflects. Hong Kong, of course, was ceded to Great Britain after the first opium wars, which were initially about the right to trade but, as much as anything else, the British wanted to ensure that their opium continued to go into China. China at the time was governed by a weak Manchu dynasty. The British were ceded Hong Kong as a result of being victorious in that war.

That war marked the start of a steady decline which China suffered for over 100 years under Western domination and, towards the end of the nineteenth century, domination by an aggressive Japan. The Chinese, of course, see that as a great humiliation and they see the return of Hong Kong as being the final return of all the territory that was taken from them and the final expunging of that humiliation that goes back to the 1839-42 war. Macau, of course, reverts to Chinese rule at the end of 1999, but that in a way is a different kettle of fish.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .