AN EXPANDED ROLE FOR THE SUPERVISING SCIENTIST?

The Committee also received submissions concerning an extended national role for the Supervising Scientist in uranium mining and milling.

In the case of the Olympic Dam Operation, several environmental groups advanced a view originating in the 1989 Taylor inquiry into the Office of the Supervising Scientist that the Office's role should extend to Roxby Downs and all other uranium mines in Australia. The purpose of this enlarged role for the OSS would have been ensuring national uniformity in regard to environmental protection and monitoring and to provide for independent monitoring of the mines' activities.

In Western Australia, the Western Desert Puntukurnuparna Aboriginal Corporation (WDPAC) wrote that "conditions placed on the Kintyre project substantially reflect those that apply to the Ranger mine and that the office of the Supervising Scientist be given an on-going responsibility to monitor all effects of the mine on the surrounding environment" (S 52, section I).

State authorities did not accept either the need or desirability for an extended role for the Supervising Scientist. The South Australian Government recounted the circumstances surrounding establishment of the Office of the Supervising Scientist. It contrasted these with those prevailing in South Australia. Among its views was a substantial difference in the respective environments of the two mines. Of the environment in which the Olympic Dam Operation is located, it stated: "The environment in which the Olympic Dam project and other uranium deposits in SA are found is quite different from the ARR in NT. While environmentally sensitive in its own way, it is not unique, being representative of large areas of inland Australia, and does not have the species density or diversity of the wet tropics" (S 109, 25).

It concluded: ". . . the South Australian Government's regulatory arrangements, particularly for the Olympic Dam operation, are cost effective and expeditious and the extension of the OSS into South Australia would lead to unnecessary duplication, expense and may lead to unnecessary delay." (S 109, 26)

The South Australian Chamber of Mines and Energy expressed a view that the South Australian regulatory bodies ". . . have demonstrated the necessary knowledge and experience to monitor and regulate uranium mining in South Australia. This experience has been gained through years of managing Olympic Dam and other mining enterprises with similar characteristics dating back to Radium Hill which operated from the 1930's" (S 87, 4).

As a sign of the competence of South Australian authorities, the Chamber of Mines and Energy observed that for the up-date of the environmental impact statement on Olympic Dam, the Commonwealth Environment Protection Agency sanctioned South Australian auditing as appropriate. Hence, the Chamber "believes that jurisdiction of the Office of the Supervising Scientist should be restricted to the Alligator Rivers Region, Northern Territory" (S 87, 5).

Similarly in Western Australia, the Department of Minerals and Energy, referring to a previous report on the Supervising Scientist, stated: "Briefly, we believe that pseudo-regulatory agencies should not be constructed since companies need clear regulation from a single authority. The State authorities are the most appropriate agencies to provide this regulation." (S 47, 1)

A submission from the Chamber of Minerals and Energy of Western Australia basically concerned with the titanium minerals industry was firm that the Supervising Scientist "has no role in monitoring the radiation protection activities of the titanium minerals industry. This function is viewed as a State prerogative" (S 51, 1).

The Committee is not especially persuaded by the various reservations about an enlarged national role for the Supervising Scientist. It has already observed in chapter 2 that it is because of the research and public accountability of the Supervising Scientist that it is possible for it to be confident about the integrity of environmental performance of the mines in the Alligator Rivers region to an extent which is not possible in the case of the Olympic Dam Operation in South Australia. This latter mine simply does not have independent scientific endorsement comparable with that available for Nabarlek and Ranger.

Furthermore, the range of tasks undertaken in recent years by the Supervising Scientist in other areas clearly demonstrates a capacity for diverse application of expertise which could only be beneficial if the uranium mining industry in Australia were to grow. These activities of the Supervising Scientist, as outlined in the most recent annual report, include the Mount Lyell Remediation Program in Tasmania; improving environmental awareness and behaviour for the local phosphate mining operation, tourism developments and the general community on Christmas Island; bird kills at North Parkes; the proposed Lake Cowal mine in NSW; mining and proposed mining activities at Ok Tedi, Porgera and Lihir; and the Gouldian Finch colony at Mt Todd gold mine in the Northern Territory (Supervising Scientist, Annual Report 1995-96, 1996, 26).

There is undoubtedly a positive public benefit to be obtained by encouraging the Supervising Scientist to develop, in response to demand, a broad expertise in environmental aspects of uranium mining and milling.

For these reasons the Committee expects that its proposed new Commonwealth Uranium Authority (CUA) will very likely draw principally upon the expertise, knowledge and skills of the Supervising Scientist in such scientific and research work as it commissions.

Inasmuch as these assignments would take place on a consultancy or contract basis, the CUA would not be exclusively required to engage the Supervising Scientist. But it should be clear that there is a positive value in having a scientific body in Australia with a comprehensive expertise in the environmental impacts of uranium mining and milling, and a body where such skills and expertise may be acquired, fostered and developed.

Accordingly, unless there are clear reasons for doing otherwise, the CUA and the Supervising Scientist should collaborate constructively in pursuit of those purposes identified as warranting a more active Commonwealth role, namely ensuring that the good practice which now prevails is maintained and improved; that world best practice standards are, as a matter of course, promptly applied in all uranium mines in Australia; that Australian experience is drawn upon and developed if (and as) the industry expands; and that through public accountability mechanisms, the Australian public are informed about the quality of the environmental performance of uranium mines.

In contrast, on the basis of evidence before the Committee, Government Senators Chapman, Ferguson and Macdonald do not see any reason for proposing an enlarged role for the Supervising Scientist but do not raise significant objection to State and Territory governments taking advantage of any relevant knowledge, skills, expertise and experience of the Supervising Scientist as has occurred with various projects identified in the Supervising Scientist's Annual Report 1995-96, to which reference has been made earlier by the Committee. They thus agree that the expertise of the Supervising Scientist's organisation should be more generally available on a fee-for-service basis.

However, that is a different matter from recommending a new structure such as the Committee's proposed Commonwealth Uranium Authority with new, mandatory, jurisdictions and a specified, expanded role for the Supervising Scientist under this structure. The proposals for a larger role are not focussed as to purpose or expected benefit. In particular, they are not based on argument which relates the expertise and skills of the Supervising Scientist to the problems which they seek to have addressed: one of the reasons for concern is that the problems needing attention are too ill-defined to form the basis for such recommendations.

It should be emphasised that the Supervising Scientist exists primarily for accomplishment of public policy objectives in the Alligator Rivers region; other activity is ancillary.

Once these purposes have been substantially achieved, and it is agreed that special arrangements for overseeing the region are no longer required, the Government Senators do not see any reason for retention of the organisation within the Commonwealth public sector. An appropriate course might be for the Northern Territory to take over the organisation. Another possibly appropriate course would be to move the organisation into the private sector in similar manner to the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation. The Commonwealth, the Northern Territory Government and even ERA might then continue to purchase the organisation's services in respect of minimising the impacts of mining in the Alligator Rivers region and achieving other recognised environmental goals.