Available completely online here : Report tabled in the Senate on May 15, 1997
http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/uranium_ctte/report97/index.htm The report has had scathing criticism from environment groups. Some comments are listed below.
The Minority report by Sen. Meg Lees & Sen. Dee Margetts available completely online here :
http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/uranium_ctte/report97/minor1.htm Transcripts available completely online here (in electronic Acrobat or PDF format) :
http://www.agps.gov.au/parl/committee/comsen.htm FoE Sydney's submission is available completely online here (in electronic Rich Text Format or RTF format) :
http://sydney.foe.org.au/nuclear/index.html The Northern Territory Green's submission is available completely online here :
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~greenntt/senatsub.htm The submission by Gavin Mudd is available here (Acrobat/PDF):
sscumm96.pdf Comments by Aus. Conservation Foundation
Uranium Inquiry Highlights Industry Problems
May 16, 1997.ACF's Criticism of the SSCUMM (Majority) Report
The recent Senate report into uranium mining and milling has identified a range of problems facing the Australian uranium industry. These problems are real and continuing and would be exacerbated should increased mining be permitted.
They include:
- the problems of tailings management;
- the industry's reluctance to adopt international standards concerning radiation exposure;
- the lack of a uniform measure for recording dose limits of workers and affected people;
- the lack of compensation mechanisms for exposed workers;
- failures in Australia's safeguard regime;
- the need to improve the handling of uranium mining proposals;
- the need to improve the evaluation of environmental impacts of mining.
These issues are a few of the many that plague the existing industry and demand immediate attention.
Given this acknowledgment it seems extraordinary that the majority report has reached a conclusion which accepts continued uranium mining. Such a decision seems based more on political considerations than a detailed assessment of the environmental, health, and social impacts of the uranium industry.
ACF remains highly critical of the reports failure to look at the full range of radioactive waste issues involved in the uranium debate. "All of Australia's uranium exports ultimately become radioactive waste. This Inquiry's failure to acknowledge and deal with this fundamental fact is an abrogation of its duty of care to all Australian's", stated ACF spokesperson Dave Sweeney.
Another glaring weakness of the Inquiry is its failure to make an unequivocal commitment to no mining in reserved or protected areas. "Uranium mining is incompatible with the preservation and management of Australias' high conservation areas and both government and industry need to accept this", concluded Mr Sweeney.
Page last updated January 5, 1999.
Back to the SEA-US Front Page