THE CRITICISMS
Ranger itself constantly challenged the Supervising Scientist about
research and its jurisdiction as an environmental watchdog as well as
the cost and outcomes of research. Particular criticism was aimed at
the levy imposed upon uranium production, the proceeds of which were
used partly to finance the operations of the Supervising Scientist.
This criticism was particularly pronounced in the late 1980s when the
levy was increased at a time when the international market for uranium
was collapsing.
A source of concern throughout the 1980s was the quality of laboratory
facilities. In 1982 the Australian Science and Technology Council recommended
construction of a permanent field laboratory at Jabiru. Seven years
later a new environmental radioactivity laboratory was completed.
It has been considered that the lack of regulatory powers to enforce
environmental monitoring systems was a serious problem for the Supervising
Scientist. Professor G H Taylor, in a review in 1989, recommended that
the Northern Territory regulatory authorities be obliged to adhere to
and implement Supervising Scientist advice concerning Environmental
Requirements. This recommendation was never acted upon.
Aborigines have had a number of concerns about the Supervising Scientist.
These have centred upon "perceived exclusion from or inadequate
inclusion of Aboriginal representative groups in initial planning and
continuing negotiations over the effects of uranium extraction in the
area" (Drinkwater, 10).
The then Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies questioned the
role of the Supervising Scientist in the 1984 report, Aborigines
and Uranium, but did not seriously criticise its performance, seeing
it instead as one of several participants in a complex regulatory environment
based on a series of "structured conflicts":
Structured conflicts can serve as a regulatory mechanism -
as clearly seen by [Mr Justice] Fox [in the Ranger Reports] when he
set the mining companies, the Northern Land Council and the Australian
National Parks and Wildlife Service in a delicate balance with each
other. It could be argued that the Office of the Supervising Scientist
and its associated Alligator Rivers Region Research Institute [now
the Environmental Research Institute of the Supervising Scientist]
were intended to be neutral parties in this equation: the voice of
reason, the bearers of the scientific tradition, and the arbiters
of true knowledge. While this was done in the name of the environment,
they were not neutral, or, more to the point, they themselves were
subject to supervision, (formally through the Coordinating Committee
for the Alligator Rivers Region) and required to be responsible to
pressures, not only from the mining companies, ANPWS and the Land
Council, but also from the Commonwealth and Northern Territory governments
and various of their departments. (Australian Institute of Aboriginal
Studies, Aborigines and Uranium, (1984), 126)
Another subject of criticism is the provision for secrecy contained
in section 31 of the Environment Protection (Alligator Rivers Region)
Act. Its repeal has been proposed on a number of occasions. This has
not occurred. It does not seem to have been a serious impediment to
the workings of the Supervising Scientist.
