Senator BISHOP(4.09 p.m.) —I wish to make a few comments concerning the select committee report on uranium mining and milling in Australia. The report is the product of fairly intensive work by committee and the secretariat alike. The committee visited South Australia, Western Australia and the Northern Territory for inspections of current mines and proposed mine sites. It received extensive and detailed evidence from a range of interested groups. Those groups included labour unions, green and conservation organisations, relevant companies, Commonwealth and state departments and, indeed, many community groups and individuals.

The Labor Party senators—indeed, most members of the committee—were acutely aware of the decision of the current government to ditch the three-mine policy of the previous government and, subject to relevant legislation, permit expansion of the uranium mining industry in Australia. Labor Party senators were also aware that this position was broadly in conformity with the policy of the Liberal Party prior to the last election. Labor Party senators—indeed, I think all committee members—realised that the terms of reference did not extend to making a decision as to whether the industry should contract or expand. The committee determined at the outset that:

This report is not about whether uranium should be mined and milled in Australia, either at existing or expanded levels.

That being the case, the committee really had little choice but to take note of the express intent of the government and pursue its deliberations accordingly.

If there is a consistent theme to this report, it is one of concern—concern about minimising the impact of mining on the environment; concern about ensuring that the health and safety of employees in the industry are protected; concern about the rights of adjacent communities; concern about establishing a mechanism to foster constructive relationships between mining companies and Aboriginal communities; concern about maintaining and enhancing international and Australian safeguards to ensure that Australia's mined uranium is only used for civil purposes in countries which are signatories to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

Concern of itself is, of course, worthless. That is why the committee has recommended a new and enhanced regulatory framework to oversee the uranium industry in Australia. That regulatory structure advocates a three-tier approach.

Firstly, there is the expansion of the Office of the Supervising Scientist as the independent research arm of the Commonwealth in this industry. The OSS has carried out high quality research in the Alligator Rivers area of the Northern Territory over many years. It is highly regarded by both corporate interests and green and conservation groups, as evidenced by the fact that both sides of the debate constantly quoted findings and research of the OSS.

The second tier of the committee's approach is the creation of a highly focused, strategically orientated entity to be known as the Commonwealth uranium authority. The CUA would maintain Commonwealth involvement in this critical industry and have coverage of uranium mining and milling in all states and territories. Its primary role would be to grant approvals to mine; to direct environmental impact statements; to supervise plans and programs to ensure that the impact of mines on the environment is minimised; to conduct triennial audits of environmental performance at mines; and to review, audit and evaluate health and safety measures at mines and other locations.

It is disappointing that government senators did not support this agency. And I suggest strong public interest and concern about all aspects of the uranium industry warrant ongoing Commonwealth regulation of this industry. There is no doubt in my mind that the high standards established and maintained by the ERA in the Northern Territory and also at Narbalek are assisted by the presence of the OSS and the strict regulatory role that the Commonwealth has established in that part of Australia.

The third and final leg of our approach is a recommendation for the creation of local committees at each mine site in Australia. This particular recommendation is a direct response from local communities, both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal, for a direct say in matters that impact upon their lives. Whilst uranium mining might bring export dollars, earnings to shareholders and some development opportunities, it cannot be at the expense of local communities. Local communities have a legitimate interest in the environmental issues of uranium mining as they impact on both individuals and the broader physical environment.

This three-tier approach really establishes new oversight standards. The government in the past 14 months has retained ALP established controls and safeguards. They were acceptable minimums in the last 10 years. New work practices and new technologies are changing the nature of this industry. Public concern still exists about potential hazards.

This report recommends new oversight standards for the uranium industry and is a fine example of proactive public policy receptive to change but ensuring safety. A recurring feature of many submissions was the occupational health and safety of the work force. The committee has listened closely to those submissions and recommends a raft of major changes to guarantee a healthy and safe workplace.

In particular, it is critical that uniform measurement standards for data collection be established in the development of a national radiation dose register. Other recommenda tions go to research for appropriate career dose limits, a uniform method of measuring, calculating and recording dose limits and a full briefing of radiation and radiation hazards for all employees. This should be done regularly and in plain English. In this context, it is worthwhile to highlight a finding of the committee which was critical of the long, drawn out delay in the adoption of the latest international standards concerning radiation exposure. Seven years for development and implementation of standards is much too long.

The Senate committee was greatly assisted by the secretariat in its deliberations. It commissioned and received a number of research papers on international safeguards, worker health and safety, and the impact of uranium mining on Aboriginal communities. All papers were of a high quality. They were objective, accurately analysed all evidence and made cogent recommendations which greatly assisted the committee in its deliberations.

In particular, the paper by Dr Leigh on worker health and safety and the paper by Ms Irene Wilson from the Defence department were very helpful in guiding the committee in giving form to its recommendations. I wish to thank Mr John Nethercote, the secretary of the committee, for his assistance in planning and organising the work of the committee. He kept committee members up to date with correspondence reports and assisted in the deliberation process. His role was critical in the function of the committee, which addressed a delicate and divisive issue. I also wish to acknowledge the role of government senators—Senator Chapman, Senator Macdonald and Senator Ferguson—who indicated a willingness to negotiate around key issues.

In conclusion, the committee acknowledges that, while the past may have been okay, public interest demands a higher standard in the future. The possible expansion of the uranium industry is of concern to many. That expansion needs strong Commonwealth supervision and the three-tier approach suggested by the ALP to enable the creation of new oversight standards. This is the most critical aspect of the report. I commend it to the Senate.