MORE THAN A DECADE OF CONTROVERSY

The proposals also formed the genesis of more than a decade of conflict and disputation about monitoring and supervision of the impacts of mining uranium on the environment of the Alligator Rivers region. As described in a paper prepared by the Committee's research staff:

From the outset the SS was required to discharge his responsibilities within a complex interlocking network of Commonwealth and NT legislation and instruments (for example, permits, licences and agreements), a reflection of the conflicts of interests aroused by mining developments in the Region and of the need to reconcile Commonwealth control of uranium mining with the self-governing NT's own regulatory requirements. Disagreements arose sooner rather than later over several aspects of the SS's role, most notably between Ranger and the SS and the latter and the NT Department of Mines and Energy (NTDME). (Drinkwater, "The Office of the Supervising Scientist", 4-5)

As a result the Supervising Scientist and his organisation became, during the first fifteen years of operation, one of the most reviewed agencies of the Commonwealth. These reviews, each with a particular focus, sometimes detailed, sometimes passing, were conducted by the Australian Science and Technology Council (ASTEC); the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies (1984); the Senate Standing Committee on Environment, Recreation and the Arts (1988); the Auditor-General (1989); the Department of the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories (1989); the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment, Recreation and the Arts (1989); the Industry Commission (1991); the Joint Committee of Public Accounts (1992); and ASTEC again (1993). To this list may now be added this Senate Select Committee. Details of these various inquiries are set out in Appendix 3.1.

Criticisms of the Supervising Scientist came across a broad front. The research program was seen as too wide and not sufficiently refined and focussed; as lacking key monitoring and evaluation expertise in the field of mining engineering; as poorly managed and conducted by an organisation lacking scientific credibility; and as inappropriate and irrelevant to the needs of the mining company. Other criticism focussed on internal supervision of research; monitoring progress of research projects; and delays in publication of reports on the results of research. One report, however, proposed a broader research role for the Alligator Rivers Research Institute (now the Environmental Research Institute of the Supervising Scientist) (ASTEC, 1993).

Some studies considered that geographical separation of research, conducted mainly at Jabiru, and administration, mainly conducted in Sydney and later Canberra, was a source of difficulty and adversely affected research performance.

Throughout the 1980s and early 1990s there was constant friction between the Supervising Scientist, the Northern Territory authorities and Ranger. In the 1988-89 annual report the Supervising Scientist observed that the NTDME, whose prime responsibility was to promote development of mining in the Northern Territory, found the Commonwealth Government's environmental constraints "inflexible and sometimes inappropriate, and the presence of the OSS intrusive"(9). The OSS and the NTDME disagreed over matters as diverse as water release standards and when to prosecute Ranger for its environmental transgressions.

The then Supervising Scientist was unmoved by NTDME complaints, commenting in the 1987-88 annual report that: "The Northern Territory, though carrying out the day-to-day licensing of the mining operations, has not established the scientific resources necessary to ensure comprehensive protection of the environment of the Region to the standard required by the Commonwealth . . . Nor has it established an environmental protection agency independent of the regulating Department of Mines and Energy . . . "(4)

The Committee's research paper on the matter considered that "[a]t the heart of NT Government-OSS disagreements, however, were two very different conceptions of what environmental monitoring in the Region should involve: while the OSS was convinced that 'the only practical protection target . . . is that the mining operations produce no observable biological impact' [1987-88 Annual Report, 18], the NT regulatory authorities appear to have believed that they should aim at no more than the prevention of serious environmental damage" (Drinkwater, 9).