P A R L I A M E N T  O F  A U S T R A L I A

17 H O U S E  O F  R E P R E S E N T A T I V E S 1st FLOOR  GRANVILLE TOWERS  10 BRIDGE STREET

GRANVILLE, N.S.W. 2142  TEL. 637 4713

O F F IC E  OF H O N . T . U R E N , M .P .

FEDERAL MEMBER FOR REID

STATEMENT BY TOM UREN, LABOR SPOKESMAN FOR URBAN AND

DRAFT RANGER AGREEMENT. A POOR DEAL FOR ABORIGINAL PEOPLE.

Labor's spokesman on Urban and Regional Affairs,

Tom U r e n ,  said today that the Government's proposed

environmental requirements for the Ranger Uranium

Project ranked with the weakest environmental laws in

the country. Mr. Uren said that he had received and

studied a copy of the Draft Land Rights Agreement for

the Ranger Project. He said that the Draft Agreement

was a very poor deal for the Aboriginal people of the

Northern Territory.

Mr. Uren said that the Northern Land Council had wanted

to meet three objectives in the Ranger negotiations:

protection of the environment,  minimising the social

impact and a fair and reasonable financial settlement

for the Aboriginal people. Howe v e r ,  the government has

failed them on all three counts.

j!

The most fundamental weakness in the environmental requirements

is that the Minister for Trade and Resources can alter them

at any time or override them with any other Commonwealth or

Territory Law. 'He is only required to consult the Minister

for Enviroment1.

REGIONAL AFFAIRS

/ 2

2

In other w o r d s ,  the developer becomes the environmental

watchdog. The Atomic Energy Commission which has a

fifty per-cent interest in Ranger can go to its

Minister if it is unhappy with the environmental controls

and seek changes. '

Another major weakness is that the power to set standards

regarding water pollution,  soil erosion, atmospheric j

pollution and other important matters is left with various j

branches of the Northern Territory Government. It has always

been accepted that these should be matters for the Australian

Parliament. ,

The environmental requirements are weaker than those in

several States which at least have 'quasi-independant1

environmental watchdog authorities.

The draft agreement fails to give any say to the Northern

Land Council on environmental standards. It specifically

fails to meet the wishes of the traditional land owners

that the mine pits be refilled after mining has ceased.

Under the agreement,  two lakes and a 100 metre high waste

rock dump will remain. Aboriginal land owners hold spiritual

objections to the creation of lakes at the Ranger site.

i

The agreement allows Ranger to use a level of pollution .

control technology which is much poorer than recommended

by the Ranger Inquiry. A requirement to instal the 'best

practical technology'  is qualified by cost considerations.

/ 3

/

3

-ÃÂ

i

Under the force majeure provision of the Draft Agreement,

the Ranger Partners can escape all their obligations in

the event of 1  earthquakes,  storms,  floods or other adverse

weather conditions 1  .

This is a huge loophole. During the Ranger Inquiry the

the company argued that its designs would stand up to all

conceivable storms,  floods and earthquakes. Now they don't

have to stand by their word.

The royalty payment of four and one-quarter per-cent in

the Draft Agreement falls far short of royalty levels

elsewhere in the world. It compares poorly with levels

of 13-18% in the United States and even falls short of

‘some levels in racist South Africa.

The social controls in the Draft Agreement are loosely

worded and provide little authority to aboriginals.

The government has already rejected the Ranger Inquiry's

foremost social control - sequential development.

Mr. Uren said that the Ranger negotiations had been a

one sided affair - the government had all the authority.

In fact the term 'negotiation'  is a misnomer - it implies

that both sides have bargaining power. 'However,  denial

by the government of the aboriginal right to veto m i n i n g ,

which was recommended by the Woodward Commission,  has

left the Northern Land Council with no bargaining power.

The only option available to the Northern Land Council

besides negotiation has been arbitration. But the

government has made it clear that a government appointed

arbitrator would give them a worse deal.

The government continues to deny the basic opposition

of aboriginal people to mining on their land.

CANBERRA,  September 3, 1978.

