Senator MARGETTS —My question is to the Minister for the Environment. I refer the minister to the recent article by Lenore Taylor in the Australian Financial Review in relation to environmental conditions for the proposed Jabiluka Uranium Mine within Kakadu National Park. For example, Ms Taylor referred to the fact that your condition that `ERA must ensure that the Jabiluka proposal does not have any adverse impact on the world heritage values of Kakadu National Park' has been watered down to the extent that the condition now is that it must be `reasonably practicable'. Is it true that of the 77 recommendations you made with regard to environmental protection in the mine proposal the vast majority have been watered down to such an extent that they are now virtually meaningless and their implementation will largely be determined by economic factors associated with the project?

Senator HILL —No, that is not correct. As the honourable senator said, I made in excess of 70 separate recommendations to my colleague Senator Parer, the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, in relation to the Jabiluka proposal. As I understand it—and I certainly heard him say so on the radio—he has accepted all of them. I understand that he has confirmed that in writing to me.

This is an important investment for this country. It is expected to produce revenue in excess of $12 billion, with 87 per cent of it remaining in Australia. The estimate of the national economic benefit is therefore something in the vicinity of $3 billion. It is going to produce some 380 direct jobs, including 110 new jobs at Jabiluka. A sum of $210 million in royalty is to go to the Aboriginal peoples of the region. So it is a development with very major economic benefits to Australia and particularly to those living within the region. It is also a development that can be conducted—

Senator Margetts —Madam President, I raise a point of order. I specifically asked about conditions being watered down. I hope the minister is getting to the point about whether `watered down' equals `accepted'.

Senator HILL —I was saying that it is also a development that can be and is to be conducted according to the highest environmental standards. It has been approved on the basis that there will be no detrimental effect to nearby world heritage values. That is the basis on which I made my recommendations to Senator Parer. As Senator Margetts knows, it is my responsibility under both the convention and the legislation to ensure that that is the case. I have powers to ensure that that is the case.

The experience of the nearby Ranger mine is that uranium mining and processing can take place in that region in a way that does not cause environmental damage beyond the mine site. We have had 15 years of monitoring by the Office of the Supervising Scientist to give us confidence in that fact. In fact, this is probably the most closely monitored mining region of the world in relation to uranium mines. So the Australian people can have great confidence that this mining will be carried out without environmental damage.

In conclusion, I simply remind the senator that there is not a separate processing plant attached to this new ore source. Jabiluka will simply be providing an ore source that will be processed in the existing Ranger facility. Therefore, there is not the need for further plant of that type or for a further tailings dam, which in many ways makes it—I think that Senator Margetts would even agree—a much better environmental prospect than having to address a whole new plant, tailings dam and the like. I also should mention that because of the way it is being designed the envelope of the mine will actually be very small—something like only one-tenth of the size of the existing Ranger project.

Senator MARGETTS —Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. So it does seem that the minister is saying that `no detrimental effect' does equal `to the extent reasonably practicable' and that the current situation at Ranger where they cannot yet guarantee no release of radioactive material because they are still experimenting with artificial wetlands to try to leach out radioactivity is acceptable. Given that Senator Parer has specifically promised the Australian mining industry lower environmental compliance costs and in light of the changes made by Senator Parer to the environmental conditions associated with the Jabiluka project, how can the Australian community have any faith in the assurances given by you and your government, Minister, in relation to the protection of Kakadu National Park?

Senator HILL —Regrettably, that seems to be a set-piece supplementary. The honourable senator obviously did not listen to my answer, because I said that we have every reason to be confident that there will be no detrimental environmental effect beyond the mine site. It is on the basis of that confidence—confidence that we have from all the best engineering and other advice that has come through the EIS—that it was ultimately approved. So I say to Senator Margetts that she should also have that confidence, because the Howard government is determined to maintain the strongest environmental standards. Mining proposals that go ahead have to get over a very high high-jump bar. We do not apologise for that, because basically the mining industry of Australia has changed. It wants to grow and develop, and we want it to do so. But we want it to do so according to high environmental standards, and they are standards they are prepared to meet.