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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 7 Hansard (25 June) . . Page.. 2148 ..

MS HORODNY (continuing):

It is important to note that a new uranium mine in Kakadu would be against the wishes of the traditional owners of that area. A total economic evaluation of uranium mining would reveal that it is a loss-making operation. It is worth remembering Rum Jungle, the uranium mine south of Darwin, which operated in the 1950s and 1960s. The clean-up of radioactive contamination cost the Australian Government far more than it ever earned from the mine. Mining techniques have improved since then, but community expectations of environmental protection have increased and action is demanded to maintain the integrity of national parks, World Heritage areas and the wider Australian environment.

Too often government looks only at the export revenue from the mining operation. There are many costs which would cancel out the benefits of this revenue. These costs include the health costs to uranium miners and the environment, the health and environmental costs of power plant operation and accidents, the health and environmental costs of radioactive waste disposal and the costs of proliferation of nuclear weapons. There is no doubt that nuclear power programs encourage the spread of nuclear weapons. We have only to remember the controversy regarding France's nuclear weapons testing in the Pacific. I believe that as representatives of the community we should all be writing letters to the Prime Minister, John Howard, telling him that, if the uranium mining industry were forced to take into account the costs listed, then it would close down due to unprofitability. The only sensible decision is to halt the expansion of uranium mining in Australia and phase out existing uranium mines.

MS TUCKER (7.01): I also would like to speak on the topic of uranium mining. We are in the period now where the Federal Government is considering a proposal for a new mine in a national park. I want to state once again my absolute disgust at the policy of the Federal Government on uranium mines. I would also express disgust at the policy of the Labor Party when it proposed a three-mine policy. I commend Ms Reilly, however, for speaking on this issue. If more people do not have the courage to stand and speak on this issue, future generations will condemn us. I have said that before and I will say it again. I will say it tomorrow night in the adjournment debate, in fact.

Basically, the Liberal Government proposes that Australia should further exploit its uranium deposits to cater for "new markets", especially in Asia, which produce a window of opportunity, they say. If they actually looked through that window, they would see that it was not an opportunity; it was a nightmare. Uranium is a problem substance.

Ms McRae: Go on!

MS TUCKER: It has a relatively short useful life in weapons.

Ms McRae: Tell us something we do not know.

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