❓ A WA parliamentary question regarding conflicting statements within the Liberal party about uranium mining and nuclear waste disposal, highlighting apparent disunity between the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Cottesloe.
AnsweredQoN 419Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
Is the minister aware of the comments made by our good friend the former Leader of the Opposition that Western Australia will mine and export uranium if the Liberal Party wins the next election? Dr J.M. EDWARDS
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for some notice of this question. Yes; I, like many other members, watched the Stateline program that starred the member for Cottesloe. It was a very interesting program, because one can only say that the member for Cottesloe went on ABC television and said in sheer defiance of the member for Kalgoorlie, the Leader of the Opposition, that - . . . we shouldn’t, in my view, hold on to our uranium, we should be making sure it’s available and be part of the world economy in developing nuclear energy. The member for Cottesloe went on to say - . . . we have a responsibility to look after any waste that we produce in Australia, but not the waste produced in other countries. This was followed up on the early morning news the next day, when the member for Cottesloe was reported as saying that if the Liberals win the next election, WA will become a producer of uranium. This indicates that the member for Cottesloe supports not only uranium mining but also Western Australia becoming a nuclear waste dump. This smacks of the Pangea proposal which members opposite floated and which was so comprehensively condemned by the community of Western Australia. Let us compare the comments of the member for Cottesloe with those of the current Leader of the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition has openly said that he is uncomfortable with the proposal to mine uranium and that he would not support it while the public is against it. He said that his party - I assume that it is the same party that the member for Cottesloe was talking about - would continue to oppose uranium mining, and that the issue of uranium mining was not even on his party’s agenda. In fact, he was quoted in the Kalgoorlie Miner last June as saying - . . . his party would continue to oppose uranium mining, in defiance of the Federal Liberal Government’s desire to increase Australian uranium exports, while the public opposed it. Mr M.J. Birney : Is that in inverted commas? Dr J.M. EDWARDS : It is in inverted commas. That was a very good comment; I read it in the Kalgoorlie Miner and was very impressed. This raises a very interesting question: whose party is it, who is driving it and who is running the agenda? The member for Cottesloe yesterday put a motion on the notice paper calling on the Labor government to remove its ban on uranium mining in Western Australia. On today’s list of private members’ business there are items in the name of the member for Warren-Blackwood and the Leader of the Opposition; even the member for Nedlands gets a guernsey. However, there is nothing listed in the name of the member for Cottesloe. What has happened to the “u” word? We can conclude only that either the Leader of the Opposition is asserting his authority by using the issue of uranium mining to say that he is in control, or the member for Cottesloe, who has a policy brain at times, is asserting his authority by trying to undermine his leader. The public of Western Australia needs to know who is in charge of the Liberal Party, who is the Leader of the Opposition and what is its policy.
Dr J.M. EDWARDS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. Yes; I, like many other members, watched the Stateline program that starred the member for Cottesloe. It was a very interesting program, because one can only say that the member for Cottesloe went on ABC television and said in sheer defiance of the member for Kalgoorlie, the Leader of the Opposition, that - . . . we shouldn’t, in my view, hold on to our uranium, we should be making sure it’s available and be part of the world economy in developing nuclear energy. The member for Cottesloe went on to say - . . . we have a responsibility to look after any waste that we produce in Australia, but not the waste produced in other countries. This was followed up on the early morning news the next day, when the member for Cottesloe was reported as saying that if the Liberals win the next election, WA will become a producer of uranium. This indicates that the member for Cottesloe supports not only uranium mining but also Western Australia becoming a nuclear waste dump. This smacks of the Pangea proposal which members opposite floated and which was so comprehensively condemned by the community of Western Australia. Let us compare the comments of the member for Cottesloe with those of the current Leader of the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition has openly said that he is uncomfortable with the proposal to mine uranium and that he would not support it while the public is against it. He said that his party - I assume that it is the same party that the member for Cottesloe was talking about - would continue to oppose uranium mining, and that the issue of uranium mining was not even on his party’s agenda. In fact, he was quoted in the Kalgoorlie Miner last June as saying - . . . his party would continue to oppose uranium mining, in defiance of the Federal Liberal Government’s desire to increase Australian uranium exports, while the public opposed it. Mr M.J. Birney : Is that in inverted commas? Dr J.M. EDWARDS : It is in inverted commas. That was a very good comment; I read it in the Kalgoorlie Miner and was very impressed. This raises a very interesting question: whose party is it, who is driving it and who is running the agenda? The member for Cottesloe yesterday put a motion on the notice paper calling on the Labor government to remove its ban on uranium mining in Western Australia. On today’s list of private members’ business there are items in the name of the member for Warren-Blackwood and the Leader of the Opposition; even the member for Nedlands gets a guernsey. However, there is nothing listed in the name of the member for Cottesloe. What has happened to the “u” word? We can conclude only that either the Leader of the Opposition is asserting his authority by using the issue of uranium mining to say that he is in control, or the member for Cottesloe, who has a policy brain at times, is asserting his authority by trying to undermine his leader. The public of Western Australia needs to know who is in charge of the Liberal Party, who is the Leader of the Opposition and what is its policy.
I thank the member for some notice of this question. Yes; I, like many other members, watched the Stateline program that starred the member for Cottesloe. It was a very interesting program, because one can only say that the member for Cottesloe went on ABC television and said in sheer defiance of the member for Kalgoorlie, the Leader of the Opposition, that - . . . we shouldn’t, in my view, hold on to our uranium, we should be making sure it’s available and be part of the world economy in developing nuclear energy. The member for Cottesloe went on to say - . . . we have a responsibility to look after any waste that we produce in Australia, but not the waste produced in other countries. This was followed up on the early morning news the next day, when the member for Cottesloe was reported as saying that if the Liberals win the next election, WA will become a producer of uranium. This indicates that the member for Cottesloe supports not only uranium mining but also Western Australia becoming a nuclear waste dump. This smacks of the Pangea proposal which members opposite floated and which was so comprehensively condemned by the community of Western Australia. Let us compare the comments of the member for Cottesloe with those of the current Leader of the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition has openly said that he is uncomfortable with the proposal to mine uranium and that he would not support it while the public is against it. He said that his party - I assume that it is the same party that the member for Cottesloe was talking about - would continue to oppose uranium mining, and that the issue of uranium mining was not even on his party’s agenda. In fact, he was quoted in the Kalgoorlie Miner last June as saying - . . . his party would continue to oppose uranium mining, in defiance of the Federal Liberal Government’s desire to increase Australian uranium exports, while the public opposed it. Mr M.J. Birney : Is that in inverted commas? Dr J.M. EDWARDS : It is in inverted commas. That was a very good comment; I read it in the Kalgoorlie Miner and was very impressed. This raises a very interesting question: whose party is it, who is driving it and who is running the agenda? The member for Cottesloe yesterday put a motion on the notice paper calling on the Labor government to remove its ban on uranium mining in Western Australia. On today’s list of private members’ business there are items in the name of the member for Warren-Blackwood and the Leader of the Opposition; even the member for Nedlands gets a guernsey. However, there is nothing listed in the name of the member for Cottesloe. What has happened to the “u” word? We can conclude only that either the Leader of the Opposition is asserting his authority by using the issue of uranium mining to say that he is in control, or the member for Cottesloe, who has a policy brain at times, is asserting his authority by trying to undermine his leader. The public of Western Australia needs to know who is in charge of the Liberal Party, who is the Leader of the Opposition and what is its policy.
Dr J.M. EDWARDS : It is in inverted commas. That was a very good comment; I read it in the Kalgoorlie Miner and was very impressed. This raises a very interesting question: whose party is it, who is driving it and who is running the agenda? The member for Cottesloe yesterday put a motion on the notice paper calling on the Labor government to remove its ban on uranium mining in Western Australia. On today’s list of private members’ business there are items in the name of the member for Warren-Blackwood and the Leader of the Opposition; even the member for Nedlands gets a guernsey. However, there is nothing listed in the name of the member for Cottesloe. What has happened to the “u” word? We can conclude only that either the Leader of the Opposition is asserting his authority by using the issue of uranium mining to say that he is in control, or the member for Cottesloe, who has a policy brain at times, is asserting his authority by trying to undermine his leader. The public of Western Australia needs to know who is in charge of the Liberal Party, who is the Leader of the Opposition and what is its policy.
Dr J.M. EDWARDS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. Yes; I, like many other members, watched the Stateline program that starred the member for Cottesloe. It was a very interesting program, because one can only say that the member for Cottesloe went on ABC television and said in sheer defiance of the member for Kalgoorlie, the Leader of the Opposition, that - . . . we shouldn’t, in my view, hold on to our uranium, we should be making sure it’s available and be part of the world economy in developing nuclear energy. The member for Cottesloe went on to say - . . . we have a responsibility to look after any waste that we produce in Australia, but not the waste produced in other countries. This was followed up on the early morning news the next day, when the member for Cottesloe was reported as saying that if the Liberals win the next election, WA will become a producer of uranium. This indicates that the member for Cottesloe supports not only uranium mining but also Western Australia becoming a nuclear waste dump. This smacks of the Pangea proposal which members opposite floated and which was so comprehensively condemned by the community of Western Australia. Let us compare the comments of the member for Cottesloe with those of the current Leader of the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition has openly said that he is uncomfortable with the proposal to mine uranium and that he would not support it while the public is against it. He said that his party - I assume that it is the same party that the member for Cottesloe was talking about - would continue to oppose uranium mining, and that the issue of uranium mining was not even on his party’s agenda. In fact, he was quoted in the Kalgoorlie Miner last June as saying - . . . his party would continue to oppose uranium mining, in defiance of the Federal Liberal Government’s desire to increase Australian uranium exports, while the public opposed it. Mr M.J. Birney : Is that in inverted commas? Dr J.M. EDWARDS : It is in inverted commas. That was a very good comment; I read it in the Kalgoorlie Miner and was very impressed. This raises a very interesting question: whose party is it, who is driving it and who is running the agenda? The member for Cottesloe yesterday put a motion on the notice paper calling on the Labor government to remove its ban on uranium mining in Western Australia. On today’s list of private members’ business there are items in the name of the member for Warren-Blackwood and the Leader of the Opposition; even the member for Nedlands gets a guernsey. However, there is nothing listed in the name of the member for Cottesloe. What has happened to the “u” word? We can conclude only that either the Leader of the Opposition is asserting his authority by using the issue of uranium mining to say that he is in control, or the member for Cottesloe, who has a policy brain at times, is asserting his authority by trying to undermine his leader. The public of Western Australia needs to know who is in charge of the Liberal Party, who is the Leader of the Opposition and what is its policy.
I thank the member for some notice of this question. Yes; I, like many other members, watched the Stateline program that starred the member for Cottesloe. It was a very interesting program, because one can only say that the member for Cottesloe went on ABC television and said in sheer defiance of the member for Kalgoorlie, the Leader of the Opposition, that - . . . we shouldn’t, in my view, hold on to our uranium, we should be making sure it’s available and be part of the world economy in developing nuclear energy. The member for Cottesloe went on to say - . . . we have a responsibility to look after any waste that we produce in Australia, but not the waste produced in other countries. This was followed up on the early morning news the next day, when the member for Cottesloe was reported as saying that if the Liberals win the next election, WA will become a producer of uranium. This indicates that the member for Cottesloe supports not only uranium mining but also Western Australia becoming a nuclear waste dump. This smacks of the Pangea proposal which members opposite floated and which was so comprehensively condemned by the community of Western Australia. Let us compare the comments of the member for Cottesloe with those of the current Leader of the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition has openly said that he is uncomfortable with the proposal to mine uranium and that he would not support it while the public is against it. He said that his party - I assume that it is the same party that the member for Cottesloe was talking about - would continue to oppose uranium mining, and that the issue of uranium mining was not even on his party’s agenda. In fact, he was quoted in the Kalgoorlie Miner last June as saying - . . . his party would continue to oppose uranium mining, in defiance of the Federal Liberal Government’s desire to increase Australian uranium exports, while the public opposed it. Mr M.J. Birney : Is that in inverted commas? Dr J.M. EDWARDS : It is in inverted commas. That was a very good comment; I read it in the Kalgoorlie Miner and was very impressed. This raises a very interesting question: whose party is it, who is driving it and who is running the agenda? The member for Cottesloe yesterday put a motion on the notice paper calling on the Labor government to remove its ban on uranium mining in Western Australia. On today’s list of private members’ business there are items in the name of the member for Warren-Blackwood and the Leader of the Opposition; even the member for Nedlands gets a guernsey. However, there is nothing listed in the name of the member for Cottesloe. What has happened to the “u” word? We can conclude only that either the Leader of the Opposition is asserting his authority by using the issue of uranium mining to say that he is in control, or the member for Cottesloe, who has a policy brain at times, is asserting his authority by trying to undermine his leader. The public of Western Australia needs to know who is in charge of the Liberal Party, who is the Leader of the Opposition and what is its policy.
Dr J.M. EDWARDS : It is in inverted commas. That was a very good comment; I read it in the Kalgoorlie Miner and was very impressed. This raises a very interesting question: whose party is it, who is driving it and who is running the agenda? The member for Cottesloe yesterday put a motion on the notice paper calling on the Labor government to remove its ban on uranium mining in Western Australia. On today’s list of private members’ business there are items in the name of the member for Warren-Blackwood and the Leader of the Opposition; even the member for Nedlands gets a guernsey. However, there is nothing listed in the name of the member for Cottesloe. What has happened to the “u” word? We can conclude only that either the Leader of the Opposition is asserting his authority by using the issue of uranium mining to say that he is in control, or the member for Cottesloe, who has a policy brain at times, is asserting his authority by trying to undermine his leader. The public of Western Australia needs to know who is in charge of the Liberal Party, who is the Leader of the Opposition and what is its policy.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.