House debates
Tuesday, 11 August 2009
Questions without Notice
Emissions Trading Scheme
3:43 pm
Kevin Rudd (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Hansard source
I thank the honourable member for his question. He comes from that party of renowned climate change believers, the National Party, led by Senator Barnaby Joyce, who was right out there in his full, wholehearted support for the current Leader of the Opposition! I will come back to the question of the impact for household goods and services in a minute. It must have been a doozy of a party meeting this morning. I am just reading from—
Hadley Baker
Posted on 12 Aug 2009 11:55 am
The Right Honorable PM Mr Rudd,
Can you please explain why your environment Minister is at odds with expert opinion on the Four Mile Creek (Beverley) Uranium Mine? A Miner which is clearly breaking Australian laws ( Mark Parnell - SA Parliament - Atomic General - duress - Native Title - ATLA).
Is this to become a standard for the operation of business in this country and is the federal government planning to cover the costs of land rehabilitation post the ISL Chemical Leaching of uranium and the re-pumping of waste materials back into these same aquifers. Is the Minister Garrett going to be let off his lead and resume a position of intelligence, in opposing for the good of all Australians, a business and a process which from so many angles is producing so much harm.
Does the PM see a relationship between the lack of oversight with the Beverley Mine and the Federal governments plans to purchase military hardware from the US parent General Atomic? If this is the case can the PM explain why the impacts of the conflict are not placed now on the public record.
Can the PM explain why Clean Energy funding is channeled to Petratherm and partners Tru Energy and Beach Petroleum in supply of the above Uranium Mine with electricity and can the PM explain how the ISL Chemical Leaching process fits the definition of 'clean energy' or for that matter how the process and large embodied energy costs of the uranium mining process is equated in these grants with 'clean energy'?
Can the Minister explain why the Australian Government is not following the example of Australian Ethical Investment in removing itself from the reach of such mining processes which are causing damage to the indigenous population in the area and the water systems connected to the Great Artesian Basin?
http://sydney.indymedia.org.au/image/australian-ethical-gets...
Thankyou Mr Prime Minsiter we look forward to truth and straight answers to these questions and hope the Parliament of Australia can resume the business of honest government without the distraction of the nonsense ETS legislation which will no doubt be opposed on good grounds.