PREAMBLE
ESTABLISHMENT
Following presentation of the report of the Select Committee on Radioactive
Waste in April 1996, the Senate decided, on 2 May 1996, to reconstitute
the Committee as the Select Committee on Uranium Mining and Milling. The
terms of reference are set out in the front of this report.
AVENUES OF INVESTIGATION
For the purposes of its inquiry the Select Committee used four means
for acquiring information: submissions; public hearings; inspections;
and research.
Submissions
The Committee advertised for submissions in major newspapers in May 1996.
It also wrote directly to organisations expected to have an interest in
the inquiry, including to everyone who had lodged a submission with the
Committee's predecessor, the Senate Select Committee on Radioactive Waste.
As a consequence the Committee received 110 submissions. These are listed
at Appendix P1. The sources of submissions is as follows:
Government:
Commonwealth departments/ agencies 7
State/ Territory departments/ agencies: 3
Industry:
Mining companies 4
Mining industry organisations 6
Business (other than mining industry) 8
Unions 2
Aboriginal organisations 4
Other community & environmental groups 30
Academics/ professionals 6
Other individuals 40
Public Hearings
The Committee conducted a comprehensive series of public hearings in
Canberra, Jabiru, Darwin, Perth, Parnngurr (Cotton Creek), Roxby Downs
and Adelaide. Details of the public hearings are contained in Appendix
P2.
It was of particular note in the public hearings program that the Committee
heard oral evidence on more than 50 of the 110 submissions it received
and from a number of other organisations and individuals. The Committee
also heard oral evidence from the four Aboriginal organisations and individuals
who lodged submissions. Those giving public evidence were:
Government:
Commonwealth departments/ agencies 9 [1]
State/ Territory departments/ agencies 3
Industry:
Mining companies 4
Mining industry organisations 4
Business (other than mining industry) 1
Unions 1
Aboriginal organisations 10 (1 in camera)
Other community & environmental groups 14 [2]
Academics/ professionals 1
Other individuals 4
Inspections
During the inquiry several members of the Committee visited various locations
involved in uranium mining and milling. These visits included former,
existing and possible mine sites at Rum Jungle, Nabarlek, Ranger, Jabiluka
and the Olympic Dam Operation. Weather prevented a visit to the site of
the proposed CRA mine at Kintyre.
The program of inspections and visits was as follows:
2 September 1996 |
Nabarlek; Environment Research Institute of the Supervising
Scientist; Jabiru Town Council |
4/5 September 1996 |
Ranger; Rum Jungle |
21 January 1997 |
Parnngurr (Cotton Creek) |
22/3 January 1997 |
Olympic Dam Operation |
The Committee held a public hearing at Parnngurr (Cotton Creek), WA.
L to R: Senator Mark Bishop, John Nethercote (Committee Secretary),
Senator Grant Chapman (Chair), Senator Sandy Macdonald,
Senator Alan Ferguson, Senator Dee Margetts (Deputy Chair)
The Research Program
To complement traditional methods of parliamentary inquiry and investigation
the Committee sponsored a comprehensive research program broadly covering
the terms of reference. These studies were undertaken by an officer of
the Department of the Senate; three members of the Parliamentary Research
Service; an officer of Worksafe Australia engaged on a consultancy basis;
and an officer of the Defence Department assigned to the Committee's secretariat
under the Public Service Senior Women in Management Program.
They were Paul Kay, Parliamentary Research Service; Derek Drinkwater,
Committee Office, Department of the Senate; Dr Rod Panter, Director of
Science, Technology, Environment and Resources Group, Parliamentary Research
Service (seconded to the Committee secretariat to undertake the project);
Dr James Leigh, Worksafe Australia Pty Ltd; Irene Wilson, Department of
Defence (attached to the Committee Secretariat under the Public Service
Senior Women in Management Program); David Anderson, Department of the
Parliamentary Library(seconded to the Committee secretariat to undertake
the project).
The research program served several purposes. It provided a framework
in which submissions and evidence from diverse sources could be assembled
in an orderly and coherent way in relationship to the terms of reference.
So assembled, it could much more readily be related to both public reports
and academic work relevant to the inquiry.
It also furnished an avenue, in several instances, whereby individuals
with expertise in complex fields such as the impact of uranium mining
on the environment, health and safety matters and international safeguards
could make a sustained and systematic contribution in a form not only
of use to the Committee but to be available more generally.
Research papers composed under the Committee's auspices are available
in Volume 2 of the Report.
Performance of research assignments, especially in fields of complexity
such as the environment, health and safety and international nuclear safeguards,
on a contract or consultancy basis has considerable benefits for a parliamentary
committee. It provides access to expertise and experience which it is
unlikely that generalist staff, however able, could acquire in the time
available for an expeditious inquiry.
Providing the purpose of the research is well-defined, an appropriate
individual is chosen for the assignment, and the project is consciously
linked into material coming to the Committee in submissions, evidence
and inspections, there is likely to be undoubted value for money in this
approach.
In the case of the Select Committee, both Dr Panter and Dr Leigh went
to Jabiru, visiting both the Ranger mine and the Environmental Research
Institute of the Supervising Scientist.
Dr Leigh also accompanied the Committee on its visit to the Olympic Dam
Operation.
Irene Wilson accompanied the Committee on its visits to Western Australia
and South Australia.
While it would be unwise to draw general propositions about research
for a parliamentary inquiry on the sole basis of the Select Committee's
experience, it may with confidence be concluded that, especially where
complex scientific matters are involved, our approach, properly overseen
by the Committee, can with confidence be recommended.
[1] The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade
and the Australian Safeguards Office made a joint submission and were
heard together.
[2] A joint submission was made by the Conservation
Council of South Australia and Friends of the Earth Nouveau.