CURRENT OPINIONS

The course of reorganisation was welcomed by ERA. It told the Committee that:

Today ERA believes the OSS is a more accountable organisation with a broader role and a greater degree of flexibility to devote resources to where they are needed. The OSS and Environmental Research Institute of the Supervising Scientist (ERISS) are well positioned to address the major issues which face the ongoing operation of Ranger.

ERA recognises the importance of the Commonwealth in the surveillance, monitoring and regulation of uranium mining. The role of the Supervising Scientist as a third party assessor is to maintain the Australian public's confidence in uranium mining operations. (S 63, 33-4)

The Northern Territory Government is less sanguine about the Supervising Scientist. Its concerns include the lack of a link between ERISS and the Northern Territory University or other NT instrumentality. The NT Government also states that there is "no forum for the Northern Territory to influence the type of research, operational or strategic, which is being undertaken by OSS. Research projects have been generated internally without the benefit of advice from the Northern Territory. Research being conducted by OSS can be seen as satisfying needs which could be external to Northern Territory needs." (S 100, 25)

Other matters of concern to the Northern Territory Government include the absence of a comparable surveillance body elsewhere; the matter of consistency of standards and outcomes; conduct of research which might be undertaken by locally based bodies; and the need for the Supervising Scientist to have access to a wider range of "professional mining experts either on the staff or from outside the organisation".

And on the research activities of the Supervising Scientist the Northern Territory Government comments:

The effectiveness of any research program is measured by the use to which the information which is being collected is being put. Whether it is leading to changes in operational procedures on the mine or changes in environmental management by the park or others. OSS research which has possibly led to positive feedback are biological toxicity testing, the fate of contaminants from land application and rehabilitation models for final land forms. However most of this information is also available in the public domain and it is arguable whether OSS is a leader or simply a follower in these areas of research. (S 100, 24-5)

The Northern Territory Government acknowledge that the Supervising Scientist has -

. . . served a useful political role as it is seen as an independent watchdog at a time when environmental concerns about the likelihood of environmental damage were uppermost in the public mind. [The Supervising Scientist] has also contributed significantly to the Northern Territory economy and the local economy of Jabiru. (S 100, 25)

The Northern Land Council considers that the Supervising Scientist has "long been hampered by its inability to enforce its recommendations" (S 42,23).

This is a view also shared by the Australian Conservation Foundation. It similarly supports the Supervising Scientist being "given powers of enforcement", which it claims were recommended by Fox (S 81, 10). (This reading of the Fox recommendations (RUEI Report No 2, 1977, 332) is only partially accurate. Whilst Fox proposed powers in certain specified cases, for example, adoption of improved pollution control equipment, the report did not include a recommendation about plenary enforcement powers.)

Friends of the Earth Sydney have a "strong belief" that OSS's powers need to be "vastly increased" in the context of a view that it should have " full and sole regulatory authority over all uranium mines in Australia" (S 40, Part II, 54). Friends of the Earth Sydney consider that the Supervising Scientist -

. . . should be playing a much more interventionist role in day to day operations at Ranger, and it does have a potential role to play in for example, pointing to the best ways to implement B[est] P[racticable] T[echnology] and water release regimes, and its research seems poorly focussed to that end . . . [FOE] would . . . refocus OSS research on operational matters, give OSS complete regulatory power over all uranium mining operations in Australia, and tighten rather than loosen environmental requirements. (S 40, Part 2, 64-5)

These views are generally supported by environmental and conservation bodies and individuals with similar concerns. Peter Milton, previously an ALP member of the House of Representatives, called for the Supervising Scientist to be "more critical of the failures in the operations of the Ranger Uranium Mine, with regard to the uncontrolled release of contaminants and the control of chemicals on site" (S 9, 3). Mr Milton added that "the OSS did not give sufficient regard to the possible deleterious long term environmental effects of uranium mining" (S 9, 3).

Another submission complained that -

Despite the Office of the Supervising Scientist (OSS) having wide ranging legislative powers, it has never taken it's [sic] role as regulator seriously. Instead it has concentrated on researching the impact of uranium mining and milling. It is meant to do this independently, but when employees have been seen to move from a uranium mining company to OSS, such independence is seriously compromised. (Gavin Mudd, S 34, 3).

Another drew attention to an independent report which in 1984 stated that the "research capabilities of the OSS have been severely constrained by restricted government funding and uncertainties about the future of the Office, making it difficult to recruit and retain experienced staff" (S 55, 5), quoting from the Report of the Independent Committee of Inquiry into the Nuclear Weapons and Other Consequences of Australian Uranium Mining, 64).

Women Opposed to Uranium Mining stated their belief that the Supervising Scientist "lacks the power, independence and funds to carry out its duties adequately" (S 76, 2).

The Environment Centre of the Northern Territory considers that combining the appointments of Supervising Scientist and head of the Commonwealth Environment Protection Agency has

"created an unwelcome conflict of interest, given the usual interpretation of the OSS charter as minimizing any detrimental effects of uranium mining vs the CEPA responsibility for protecting the environment." (S 84, 9)

Everyone for a NUclear Free Future (ENUFF) disagrees with progressive "budget and staff cuts" to the Supervising Scientist, and also believes any reductions in the Supervising Scientist's "involvement in monitoring and research at Ranger is unsatisfactory" (S 93, 8).

A submission from a Darwin-based private organisation, the Uranium Research Group, also criticised reductions in budget and staff of the Supervising Scientist (S 102). The Group stated that the Environmental Research Institute of the Supervising Scientist is "understaffed and grossly overworked".

The Group made several recommendations, including:

• boosting staff numbers to cover all aspects of environmental monitoring, leaving nothing to speculation or dubious computer modelling.
• responsibility for all monitoring relating to environmental and health protection be taken out of the hands of ERA and passed to an adequately resourced team of independent scientists.
• ERISS to carry out a full scale research program examining traditional use of bush resources.
• research be undertaken on a broader range of animal groups to ascertain the success of environmental and human protection more accurately.

The Group's conclusions favour cessation of all mining activities pending the outcome of a public series of research investigations of indeterminate scope and boundary, "regardless of expenditure", mainly by the Supervising Scientist or under his supervision.