From rock star to MP, Garrett defends uranium backflip
Posted
Updated
Peter Garrett had been a fervent anti-nuclear campaigner since the late 1970s (Getty Images: Paul McConnell)
Environment Minister Peter Garrett has announced a political compromise that might not have sat well with Peter Garrett the activist rock star.
Mr Garrett has never hidden his personal views about uranium mining and had been a fervent anti-nuclear campaigner since the late 1970s.
But on Thursday he officially approved the expansion of the Beverley uranium mine in South Australia, insisting it would not cause long-term problems for the environment.
His transition into big party politics forced a new pragmatism on the former firebrand.
"I've sought the advice of the CSIRO, Geoscience Australia and additionally, the chief scientist to provide me with guidance as to the best environmental standard that we need to set for the processes," he said.
"I'm confident that the process will be at world's best practice in terms of disposal of waste."
The Beverley mine uses a controversial leaching process to extract the uranium ore from the earth, and some believe the decision will turning the watertable into a nuclear waste dump.
"Advice is clear to me that in terms of storing this material, whether you store it above ground, whether you store it in drums, or whether you do re-inject it into a saline aquifer, the last option of re-injecting it into the saline aquifer is considered by all the scientific advice that came to me to be the best, most effective, most environmentally safe way of dealing with the waste," Mr Garrett said.
He says the Government has set a range of conditions to make sure the mine does not hurt the environment.
"I've said yes [to the uranium mine] because the proposal won't produce any adverse significant impacts on matters of national environment significance," he said.
Uranium backflip
Just last year, Mr Garrett was dead against lifting Labor's moratorium on new uranium mines, but he agreed to abide by the party's decision.
"Obviously I'm very disappointed in the consequence of this debate but completely accept that this is a democratic party," he said then.
And he says now, as environment minister, his professional views take precedence over the personal.
"I had a very strong view which I argued within the party too," he said.
"The party's determined that we will have activities of this kind.
"I'm the Environment Minister of the Government, I have got to discharge my responsibilities as Environment Minister - not on the basis of a personal view one way or the other, but to get the best environmental outcomes I can.
"My views about this issue have been well-known and I did oppose at the conference the change in policy.
"But I also made it clear that if it was the democratic will of the party, that the policy would change, and if that was the Government's policy position, that I would support it.
"I'm a cabinet minister and as a consequence of my role as effectively a decision-maker, I see my task now as being to make sure that we set the best possible environment standards we can."
- Adapted from a story first aired on PM and ABC1's Lateline program, August 28.
Search for news
Comments (86)
Comments for this story are closed. No new comments can be added. If you would like to have your say on this issue, you can do so via the Emails section of our Opinion pages.
-
Ford:
29 Aug 2008 10:55:13am
If Garret had achieved anything at all as Environment Minister, or expressed a strong opinion on anything that differed with the ALP policy, I might have more respect for his new found pragmatism.
Seems to me he's just sold out for a very cheap price.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Brad:
29 Aug 2008 12:11:05pm
Actually he did express an opinion different to ALP policy.
"I've long been opposed to uranium mining, I remain opposed to it. Obviously I'm very disappointed in the consequence of this debate, but completely accept that this is a democratic party. I had a very strong view which I argued within the party too. The party's determined that we will have activities of this kind. I'm the Environment Minister of the Government, I have got to discharge my responsibilities as Environment Minister, not on the basis of a personal view one way or the other, but to get the best environmental outcomes I can."
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2008/s2349480.htmAgree (0) Alert moderator
-
PenPal:
29 Aug 2008 1:41:47pm
If he's that strongly opposed - what's wrong with maintaining his personal view and resigning his portfolio as it conflicts with his personal beliefs.
His beliefs are obviously not that robust - pity I wasted my money on his recordings really, but they won't be staying in my house!Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
Harry:
29 Aug 2008 1:00:58pm
It seems that what really motivated Peter Garret to become a Labor politican is his concern over global warming especially, and I think he was prepared to make some concessions for the bigger picture - but he probaly didn't realize how much of a concession he would have to make.
And obviously approving an uranium mine is a *big* concession considering he once stood for the Nuclear Disarmament Party.
Peter's heart is in the right place, but it seems very hard to apply himself in a meaningfull way within the Labor machine.
The Labor Party has to be very careful to not take for granted that they will be percieved as greener than the Coalition. If the Coalition can get their head around decent policies to reduce carbon emissions they could out-do Labor federally. But it's a big ask.
Right now on the state level the Coalition often enough have better environmental policies, because Labor have become too apathetic on many environmental issues.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
Dev:
29 Aug 2008 10:55:17am
Gee Mr Garrett, your credibility is just going through the roof.
Agree (1) Alert moderator
-
Skewer:
29 Aug 2008 11:16:53am
His credibility is fine. He said he opposed it, but he was outvoted in Cabinet and he accepted that. That's how our democracy works.
He's an elected member of government and so he's there to represent the view of all Australians. Any other action would be undemocratic.
He's no longer an activist, and expecting him to be one is just an easy cheap shot - and a misguided one.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Mash:
29 Aug 2008 12:05:57pm
His credibility would be better if he resigned in disgust at the prevailing nomenclature under Mr Rudd.
Agree (1) Alert moderator
-
Nautilus:
29 Aug 2008 2:18:11pm
It is a pity that he isn't demonstrating the anguish his lyrics protray. he has sold out and to declare that it is within his responsibility as a Minister is just garbage.
He got conned by Labour as a popular figure in a bid to win over younger voters, now Peter, let's see what you are really made of. Oh Global Warming, right, and he thought that he could convince Europe, China, India and USA to do what?
Skewer, he has lost his credibility when he says that injecting waste product into a saline aquifer is best practice.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
Greg h:
29 Aug 2008 11:40:12am
In the 70's and 80's, the uranium debate was dominated by scare mongering.
Today science has advanced a lot, and uranium minimum and nuclear energy is being used by lots of countries around thanks to technological advances, and it is more mainstream.
Garett (unlike other leftists) has grown up and changed his opinion.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Ford:
29 Aug 2008 11:51:39am
Sorry, I think you need to try actually reading the article.
Garret is quite clear that he hasn't changed his opinion, he's simply been overruled and given a spiel to recite to the press.
He says in the article he's opposed to the mining and disappointed with the ALP decision.
Garret hasn't grown up, he's just been beaten down by Chairman Rudd.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Greg h:
29 Aug 2008 12:15:41pm
Garett is opposed due to moral reasons but approved it on scientific grounds.
This is what the article says
'But on Thursday he officially approved the expansion of the Beverley uranium mine in South Australia, insisting it would not cause long-term problems for the environment.'Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Ford:
29 Aug 2008 12:38:44pm
How remarkable that Garret is only discovering science now.
What a coincidence that the scientific evidence stating that there's no environmental damage from Uranium Mining (try typing THAT with a straight face!) coinicides with the policy Kevin Rudd is pushing.
I can't see where he says he approved it on scientific grounds, rather that the scientists advised him of the 'best practices'...perhaps you could point out exactly where he makes these statements you're claiming he has?
All I see if him saying he opposed it but caved in because cabinet voted for it.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Joe :
29 Aug 2008 12:45:17pm
But it will still turn an aquifer into a nuclear waste dump - its a pragmatic decision - we value the money and uranium more than the aquifer. Garrett accepted the value decision and made the best of a bad situation.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
Brad:
29 Aug 2008 12:12:20pm
That doesn't change the fact that uranium is not a renewable resource.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
ravensclaw:
29 Aug 2008 1:23:57pm
Brad
Uranium is not renewable but it is recyclable... many times in fact.
Unlike the common "renewables" you imply, nuclear is reliable. Wind and solar are not.
The lifecycle of a Nuclear industry also emits less CO2 than wind or solar?
CheersAgree (0) Alert moderator
-
sillyfilly:
29 Aug 2008 1:44:45pm
The lifecycle of a Nuclear industry also emits less CO2 than wind or solar?
Not if you include the construction and decommissioning phases in your so-called life cycle. Wafting with the breezes methinksAgree (0) Alert moderator
-
ravensclaw:
29 Aug 2008 2:08:42pm
sillyfilly
Construction and decomission of the nuclear facility and uranium thorium mining vs construction of windmill or solar farms and associated processes.
The answer is very easy, and not in the favour of renewables. The only form of energy that is cleaner over its lifecycle is hydro. Goethermal and tidal sources I don't know.
Also if we include the space saving of nuclear reactors vs the sprawl of solar or wind farms, and use that for forest regrowth there is additional carbon savings.
CheersAgree (0) Alert moderator
-
MO:
29 Aug 2008 2:11:44pm
SF, you too forgot about all that mining, transporting, manufacturing, generating footprint for coal and oil, solar and wind as well.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
fred:
29 Aug 2008 1:32:36pm
Sadly, the only renewable energy sources we have are coal, gas and oil. Problem is that we're using them up at a much faster rate than the natural processes which create them can replenish supplies.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
Joe :
29 Aug 2008 12:43:57pm
I continue to watch Garrett with interest. He is an intelligent and passionate man and must have some goal at heart, something he wants to acheive at the highest level he can get to.
Re Greg h's comments, did you read this in the article:
"and some believe the decision will turning the watertable into a nuclear waste dump.
"Advice is clear to me that in terms of storing this material, ..., the last option of re-injecting it into the saline aquifer is considered by all the scientific advice that came to me to be the best, most effective, most environmentally safe way of dealing with the waste,"
In other words - it will turn the aquifer into a nuclear waste dump, but that is the least worse outcome. Pretty bad outcome by all accounts, but not as bad as the other possibilities.
Doesn't sound like the technology is that good to me.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
-
Bruce:
29 Aug 2008 10:56:15am
Whether you are for or against uranium mining, Peter Garrett does seem to be the Minister for Doing What He's Told.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Gary:
29 Aug 2008 11:27:34am
Refer to the comment above by Skewer. It is called cabinet solidarity and is a foundation stone of our Westminster system.
If you are so fundamentally opposed to the Cabinet outcome and can't go along with it, you have but one option. Return to the backbench.
Give the man a fair go.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Ford:
29 Aug 2008 11:33:44am
So we should give him a go because he's a liar, a hypocrite and a sell out...but it's OK because...that's politics?
One might suggest that that's the reason 'good' men don't go into politics?
He's had his fair go, stuffed it up, now let him suffer the consequences.
They want to be celebrity candidates? Well, welcome to fame!Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Gary:
29 Aug 2008 11:54:56am
One might suggest that the reason many good people don't go into politics is that they are not prepared to put up with some of the ill informed comments in forums such as these.
They prefer to make a real difference in their own quiet way.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Spank:
29 Aug 2008 12:01:50pm
One might suggest that good people don't go into politics to keep their integrity intact. Garret sold out.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Somewhat Perplexed:
29 Aug 2008 12:23:26pm
I think they all sell out their ideals to some degree once they join a political party.
Is Peter more annoying in this regard because we no longer see his great passion.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
-
-
Bertrand:
29 Aug 2008 10:56:34am
"And he says now, as environment minister, his professional views take precedence over the personal."
Its good to see that he has admitted that an anti-nuclear standpoint can only be driven by emotion, and not reason. Take note, everyone.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Skewer:
29 Aug 2008 11:19:55am
Rubbish Bertrand: giving precedence to professional views over the personal just means he accepts Cabinet's decision even though he opposed it.
It has nothing to do with "emotion" or "rationalism".
Plus:
Emotion has its place in politics.
And: a lot of the opposition to nuclear power is not just "emotional" - it's rational too.Agree (1) Alert moderator
-
lukemac:
29 Aug 2008 11:44:23am
So what youre saying is what we all know.
He's a sell out!
He spend years demonizing Nuclear power, not the shoe is on the other foot and he can't stand up for his ideals.
So he is either a sell out or a puppetAgree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
-
Brought:
29 Aug 2008 11:06:43am
Everthing can be brought, just a matte of how much.
Since he is Enviroment minister how come he never has much to say about the Murray Darling issue, is it something to do with old Kevvie and his micro managementstyle.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Gary:
29 Aug 2008 11:24:50am
Simple answer ... he is not responsible for water - that is Penny Wong's job.
That in itself may say something for Mr Rudd's view of our environment ministers political skills.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
spewbag:
29 Aug 2008 11:07:29am
Bob Brown would never give up his principles for political points, or maybe PG was acting green just to sell records way back then - either way, he's a bigger dud than Cheryl Kernot.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Gary:
29 Aug 2008 11:23:05am
Bob Brown has never been and never will be in government.
It is always easier to take one narrow view when you are not responsible and have no accountability for anything.
Peter Garratt does not impress me as a minister - he seems a bit accident prone for my liking. But pragmatism and representing the interests of all Australians [not narrow vested interests] is very much in the job description.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
spewbag:
29 Aug 2008 11:45:14am
umm...I simply meant that BB has more integrity than PG in my humble view - not sure where you pulled the accountability card from but anyways whatever. Many hoped PG would maintain his power and passion for this beautiful earth but sadly, he has a short memory in his new redneck wonderland.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Ford:
29 Aug 2008 11:54:13am
I think Gary's point is that Brown's principals have, actually, never been put to the test.
Brown makes all these grandiose claims and suggestions, and he's never once had to put them to the test....and he knows he wont have to because the Greens will never have any real power or responsibility in Government.
One wonders how long Brown's idealism would last if he were responsible for the budget and the wellbeing of the entire nation, as opposed to being little more than a media whore.
He may have more integrity than Garret, but we'll never know.Agree (1) Alert moderator
-
Joe :
29 Aug 2008 1:01:23pm
True to some extent, but holding the balance of power in the senate can lead to making some important decisions and having accountability for passage of some legislation.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
-
Jim Bendfeldt:
29 Aug 2008 11:43:08am
I agree spewbag, it sounds to me that PG was simply engaged in greenwashing, i.e. the unjustified appropriation of environmental virtue by a company, an industry, a government, a politician or even a non-government organisation to create a pro-environmental image, sell a product or a policy, or to try and rehabilitate their standing with the public and decision makers after being embroiled in controversy.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
ravensclaw:
29 Aug 2008 1:28:08pm
spewbag said: "Bob Brown would never give up his principles for political points, or maybe PG was acting green just to sell records way back then - either way, he's a bigger dud than Cheryl Kernot."
----
Now that is the funniest thing I have read all day.
Bob Brown is accountable for nothing he says, and he knows it.
CheersAgree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
Steve:
29 Aug 2008 11:13:57am
"White and two, thanks Peter" says Kevin
"Chai Latte, please Peter" says Penny
"Scotch and Dry, Pete" says Wayne.
He is a bit of a joke now, isn't he ? I played Species Deceases the other day .... recorded when Peter had a spine !Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
fig:
29 Aug 2008 11:15:26am
We trusted Peter.
But now he is a politician.
I suppose all good things must come to an end.
The beds are burning. Our world is turning.
When will we give it back? When it is so polluted we do not have a want for it any more.
Good on you Peter you are now a fully fledged politician.......resign
and be a man again
FigAgree (0) Alert moderator
-
Skewer:
29 Aug 2008 11:29:14am
He's not a "yes man" - he opposed the mine expansion.
I'd rather keep him in Cabinet - then at least we have one bloke in Cabinet with a conscience - even if he doesn't win every battle.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
Gerald:
29 Aug 2008 11:20:26am
Mr Garret seems to have been well and truly muzzled and straight-jacketed ever since he proclaimed to the effect that the party was simply making promises to get elected which it had no intention of fulfilling.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Wendy Bunce:
29 Aug 2008 11:23:02am
Neither Rudd, Garrett or Wong have the slightest interest in genuinely protecting any of our fresh water resources or our environment. Money always wins them over every single time! The only leadership in this country is by politicians who are much more interested in purely short term economic benefits, & never the long term detrimental outcomes of literally legalizing the active depletion of our most precious rivers & groundwater resources, let alone would they ever show real vigilance to sincerely defending our fragile landscapes. This government, like the previous one, is ruthlessly handing over virtually all of our natural resources to commercial interests, often of highly dubious entity. But uranium is different again & very deadly too!
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
MO:
29 Aug 2008 1:05:33pm
Wendy, to talk of resources and commercial interests in the same sentence indicates confusion.
Maybe you mean "natural slendours, not resources. Resources get used. We cannot exist without using resources. Oxygen, food etc are just a couple that come to mind.
I have read many of your blogs on this subject, but aside from ranting against resource use, what can you propose aside from "leave everything alone". You must know that this cannot happen. What practical suggestions to see progress to your agenda's goals can you propose?Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
Peter69:
29 Aug 2008 11:23:33am
I wouldn't say it was a backflip.
Peter fought hard for his anti urnaium stance at the ALP convention. He was defeated and now has to live with the ALP decision on the matter and support it as a minister. I am sure if he had a choice it would be different.
What I question is his motive to be in the ALP. Would being a Green senator achieve more without the need to go against his personal stance?
There is too much to sacrifice being in the ALP Peter, and at the end of your political career what will you have acheived other than regret?Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Brad:
29 Aug 2008 12:14:40pm
Have you forgotten that he stood for the Senate in 1984 representing the Nuclear Disarmament Party?
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Peter69:
29 Aug 2008 1:20:01pm
No I haven't, nor have I forgotten his stance during the ALP conference.
There were Liberals who disagreed with the immigration policy of Howard but had to toe the party line. This is what being in the 2 parties is about.
It was always expected he would be a Green senator. I believed he may have acheived a lot from there.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
sillyfilly:
29 Aug 2008 1:52:42pm
Nuclear power and nuclear disarmament are substantially diifferent issues. I support nuclear disarmamnent but I'm against nuclear power in Australia. As many have mentioned, the pollution outcomes of nuclear power can be catastrophic, Three Mile Island, Chernobyl. Let alone the unresolved complexities of nuclear waste storage. Hopefully the technology of fusion power reactions can be overcome and this won't be an ongoing issue.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
-
Jim Bendfeldt:
29 Aug 2008 11:25:11am
Peter, Peter, Peter......
You've obviously forgotten the lyrics to 'Harrisburg', from 'Red Sails in the Sunset':
Harrisburg oh Harrisburg
The plant is melting down
The people out in Harrisburg
Are getting out of town
And when this stuff gets in
You cannot get it out
The company said it would not blow
The government said it might
Harrisburg oh Harrisburg
I wonder who is right
..... So who was right after all?Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Clownfish:
29 Aug 2008 11:38:49am
Midnight Oil's audience paid to hear a bunch of trendy leftist slogans set to some rockin' good music ... actually, most of the "Oooyyyy-allllllllll"'s audience didn't give a toss what the lyrics were, they just wanted a rock show.
Now Peter Garrett's employer is paying him to endorse uranium mining.
Perhaps it's always about telling the employers what they want to hear?
He who pays the piper calls the tune, as the saying goes.
Personally, I'm becoming more and more strongly of the opinion that nuclear - particularly new technology like Thorium - may just be the (short-term at least) answer to carbon pollution. This after a lifetime of opposition to nuclear power.
Lordy, lordy, maybe Little Johnny was right! Strange days indeed ...Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Skeptical:
29 Aug 2008 12:05:34pm
I'd like to think of our lyrics. I know the song was focussed on a different issue but -
"..how do we sleep while our beds are burning"
seems to be such an apt question for Peter right now.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
baz:
29 Aug 2008 11:35:35am
he calls himself an environment minister yet couldn't even get plastic bags banned - talk about toothless and weak!
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Gary:
29 Aug 2008 12:59:19pm
Please don't get me started on banning plastic bags.
There has never been a more ill-conceived / evidence free policy in the history of this country.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
John O:
29 Aug 2008 11:39:16am
What is the obsession with celebrity politicians with Labour - Peter Garrett, McKew, Kernot, Jodi Mckay (NSW State) ?
Can't they find decent politicians who don't have to rely on their celebrity status?
As fro this latest "backflip" maybe Garrett has realised that youthful idealism has no place in the real world?Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Aldaron:
29 Aug 2008 11:39:37am
It is for the likes of Garrett that the term "traitor" was invented. If he is willing to go against his fundamental principles to "work with the party", then he shouldn't be IN the party.
Garrett is the biggest sell-out in this nation since Hayden dropped his Republican stance to become G-G.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
thelonenut:
29 Aug 2008 11:50:16am
I don't understand why people are so surprised - the man was a musician, a very talented and creative one . As a Human Being he of course had principles and ideals, as do we all.
Of course the perception is that "rock stars" are spokespeople for their generation and all that rot.... at one time Peter had strong views on many issues, including nuclear proliferation. Rebellion and protest are marvellous fodder for fine rock music - isn't Peter allowed to change his mind without having accusations of "selling out" hurled against him?
Fer gawd's sake, at one time when I was 16 yrs old, I had adolescent ideas that the US was all bad and Russia was all good - as time passed I have come to learn that there is no black and white, only dirty grey --maturity often ( but not always) comes with age, along with wisdom ( that's the theory, anyway) ...
And the term "selling out" to me is a meaningless one, people are allowed to change their minds, remaining static and immutable sometimes is a sure sign of a dogmatic lack of emotional and intellectual growth -Agree (1) Alert moderator
-
whitelephant:
29 Aug 2008 12:35:04pm
Yeah thelonenut-you make some good points about 'selling out'-if all those who write in just to slag off at others (like Gregh for example) actually did something and tried to form constructive alliances with those who have somewhat differing views the world might be a better place.
I too am disappointed with Garrett but doesn't mean I need to abuse him as I'm sure there would be some areas of agreement between us.
The position he finds himself in is one of the shortcomings of the party system-maybe there is a better way-why don't the armchair philosophers try and find it and let us all know of their efforts (how about it Gregh?)Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
thelonenut:
29 Aug 2008 1:09:31pm
Yea, and thanx, White Elephant - I too disagree with some of the stuff Peter Garrett is into these days , but at this juncture in Time in the History of Our Universe, "compromise" is the accepted way of dealing with many dilemmas of modern life and society .
How many times in History have whole populations agreed to forego certain popular and iconic activities and pastimes and , yes, even strongly-held beliefs, for the greater good of Society and fellow Human Beings?
Even if Peter Garrett planted his feet firmly in the Red Dust and refused to budge on his previous non-nuclear stand, would that make a difference? He has made his choice, he is part of the Labour Machine. We who disagree now have to do what all others who live in a "democratic" society do , and use every right of protest and dissent we have , and try to change or amend these policies
.....I am a great believer in People Power - it can move mountains and change regimes, without the sordid and meaningless bloodletting that comes with invasions by Coalitions of The Willing, or not so willing...
I did not vote Labour either in the most recent Federal election ,nor in the recent NT election - it made me nauseaus and sick to the stomach to not give Labour my vote, as I am a lifelong socialist and Labour voter / supporter ( I hasten to add that neither did I vote for the Liberals)
- but I exercised by Human and democratic right to change my mind..Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
-
Lionel:
29 Aug 2008 11:50:34am
More of Mark Latham's disastrous legacy!
Fancy getting someone like Garret as a candidate. His views were always going to be in conflict with ALP policy, and to cap it all, he has no political aptitude at all to offer to the job!
Thank heaven Russ had enough sense to appoint a competent person like Penny Wong to take on the hard stuff.
Garrett should get out ASAP!!
Cheers,
LionelAgree (0) Alert moderator
-
Ivan:
29 Aug 2008 11:51:09am
Some people should never be in politics.
They can do more from outside the party room, as PG is discovering.
Takes more than a pretty face, Peter.
The job is too big for a minstrel such as thee. Better to be a wandering bard than a court jester.
The whole world was behind PG on the issue of whaling with Japan.
What did he do then?
Same as now - only the subject has changed.
Get thee into the deep woods, Sir Pete, and sing your Utopic songs.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Merlin 23:
29 Aug 2008 11:52:19am
Garrett had two choices:
Stand on the sidelines as an activist and have no input
or
Get involved and have some input.
So he lost this battle - so what. Give the man some support while he is trying to win the warAgree (0) Alert moderator
-
michael:
29 Aug 2008 11:56:43am
i remember his lyrics.
"Nothings as precious... as a hole in the ground"
at the time i thought it was sarcasm.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Walls:
29 Aug 2008 11:57:12am
First the pulp mill and now the uranium mine; and not a word on the Murray Darling disaster. I voted for Peter Garrett because I thought he would bring a voice to environmental issues... I guess that was before he was elected.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
redexile:
29 Aug 2008 11:57:54am
I thought it was a very sad day when he entered politics. The demise of a strong, honest (and opinionated!!) voice on any issue of the day to a 'toe the line' pollie...
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Shevaun:
29 Aug 2008 12:10:36pm
What a crock ... Peter Garrett is a politician, not an activist rock star. He became a politician when he joined the Labor Party.
Of course he's going to toe the Party line by backing what's more politically expedient!Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Jim Bendfeldt:
29 Aug 2008 12:19:02pm
....and the Labor Party recruited him to try to gain some environmental cred.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Shevaun:
29 Aug 2008 12:41:04pm
But still ... at least they're courageous enough to hire someone who's actually quite politically vocal about their beliefs.
I still think that Garrett will do something positive in his role as Environment Minister. Just let's not lose sight of the fact that he is a politician now and not get too outraged when he does something that's ... wait a minute ... POLITICAL!Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
Gary:
29 Aug 2008 1:02:23pm
Is it politcal expedience or the need to weigh up often conflicting views and take a decision in the national interest?
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
GDH:
29 Aug 2008 12:12:37pm
Peter Garrett has been a big disappointment as Environment Minister, and I think it was a bad political move to put him this role because no matter what he did (follow cabinet solidarity or his own conscience), he was going to be open to criticism for selling out or naiveity, or many iother thuings.
Given that, I think he is a talented individual and a decent person, and in the right area would make a much better contribution than he is doing now.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
whitelephant:
29 Aug 2008 12:19:12pm
Hey Ford, re Bob Brown's principles never having been put to the test-C'mon mate that's a bit unfair. Whether you agree with him or not he's been in there for the Franklin, been arrested and been consistent over many years for the environment when it was not popular.
Fighting lone battles over twenty -thirty years is to me a pretty good test as to whether someone is prepared to stand by their principles I would have thoughtAgree (0) Alert moderator
-
Gryphonn:
29 Aug 2008 12:26:22pm
You rode the backs of the environmentalists to get a seat in parliament, then you stabbed the same people in the back and jumped on the coat-tails of big business.
Shame on you Peter Garrett. Personally, if I had compromised my beliefs the way you have yours, I wouldn't be able to live with myself. I think I'll recycle all my Midnight Oil albums now.
You really make me sick Peter. Words cannot describe the shame I feel for supporting you.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Robert Stewart:
29 Aug 2008 12:42:39pm
What a great shame that Mr. Garrett has no experience or knowledge of the subjects that he has to sign off as Government Environment Minister. The photo does justice only to the Midnight Oil Rock Star. What the heck was the Labor Party thinking of that someone from outfield is appointed to such a position just because they personally object to something as universal as the destruction of the forests of the planet by the poor.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
jonno:
29 Aug 2008 12:45:59pm
Uranium Mining is the most dangerous LEGAL activity that can be undertaken in Australia today.
Therefore the entities undertaking this activity must be of the highest character possible.
The Beverly Mine has always been contentious because not only is it a uranium mine but uses In Situ Leaching, the most dangerous form of uranium mining.
The Beverly operation should never have been allowed in the first place and should definitely not have been allowed an expansion. My understanding is that it still hasn't actually produced any product yet.
A few years ago there was a major leak of radioactive waste at the site that would never have been revealed except for activists who were in the area at the time. As far as I know it was never cleaned up.
And as for the Chief Scientist, this bloke stood up recently and backed Ziggy Switstardust's stupid proposal to build 23 nuclear reactors in this country.
if you want a Nuclear Action (under the EPBC Act) to get approval just get the Chief Scientist and some twit from ANSTO to say everything is alright and that's it. Instant rubber stamp.
Garret has shown himself to be as stupid as Ziggy and the Chief Scientist. This may explain the recent reports that young people have interest or faith in Australia's political system.
Goodbye Great Artesian Basin, your death through radium and heavy metal poisoning is now directly linked to imbecile servitude of Garret.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
James:
29 Aug 2008 12:48:29pm
Sure got to admire someone who sticks to his beliefs through thick and thin. What's 20 peices of silver worth these days?
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
MO:
29 Aug 2008 12:59:51pm
I respect Peter Garrett. Here is a man who decided that to really make a difference he needed to be inside, not outside throwing rocks like most bloggers.
Obviously it is not easy when the narrow agenda gets broadened and decisions need to be taken when all the facts and agendas are taken into account.
Tough Gig Peter, but at least you are having a go at creating the changes you want, even if I don't necessarily agree with the narrow agenda. Maybe your time will come as the environment and the parties adjust.
This is the reality. Narrow agendas cannot be followed as the good of all must be considered.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Gryphonn:
29 Aug 2008 1:10:41pm
'The good of all'.
Does that mean that long term environmental damage caused by storage of waste from uranium mining is for 'the good of all'?
So many people are claiming that uranium mining is a safe practice, when we know that it is a dangerous practice and the end product (nuclear waste from reactors) cannot be stored safely for future generations.
Why do people look at today instead of the future of this planet? I'm yet to hear anything from the environment minister promoting wind/solar/hotrock/solarthermal, or other energy sources.
'The good of all' should encompass present and future don't you think?Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
MO:
29 Aug 2008 1:35:11pm
G, I suppose you also oppose the radio active waste storage facility mooted for NT or SA. ?
Much better to have it stored in our warehouses and basements in the cities!
Garret is practicing pragmatism - look it up.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Gryphonn:
29 Aug 2008 2:17:50pm
Well MO, I oppose uranium mining and enrichment. Strange that. But I guess I'm just another damned greenie. One of those damned greenies that was spouting some rot about 'global warming' and 'greenhouse effects' in the eighties.
I would have thought that it would be obvious to everyone that we cannot afford to continue promoting uranium mining and uranium based energy production as economically viable practices. In the long term, we will all pay the environmental price.
I guess you consider it OK to dump radioactive waste so long as it isn't anywhere near where you live MO?
It was OK to bury chemical waste in the bush 50 odd years ago. Then cities expanded and houses were built on long forgotten dumps, and suddenly toxic waste began to surface, forcing the abandonment of entire suburbs.
Will it be OK in a hundred years when radioactive waste leaches into the Great Artesian Basin?
Have you thought that if Rudd, Garrett et al started spending money on serious research projects for renewable energy resources instead of putting money in large corporate pockets with uranium interests, we wouldn't have to have this discussion?Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
-
-
Fratelli:
29 Aug 2008 1:00:25pm
I was optimistic in the beginning. But Garrett has since joined the long line of sell-out politicians. Unbelievable. He has no credibility. No backbone. Weak as all hell.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
bobby:
29 Aug 2008 1:04:22pm
Come on Peter all of those songs you sang, you could have really made a difference as a polly but you have failed at ever hurdle.
Take the easy way Peter maybe someone will write a song about you as a failed polly.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Zoe:
29 Aug 2008 1:14:47pm
It's hard to watch a person's moral fibre deteriorate infront of your eyes.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
ravensclaw:
29 Aug 2008 1:19:43pm
It continues to amaze me that some people still cannot apply some critical thinking to be able to tell the difference between -
Nuclear weapons, nuclear medicine, nuclear power and other uses of radioactive materials eg aviation.
We have a nuclear power station, we use radioactive material for cancer treatments and the aviation industry every day. We even transport radioactive materials around the country every day.
Do we have a Nuclear Bomb? No
Are there any 2 headed babies born near our Nuclear Power Station? NO!
Has any radioactive waste escaped from storage, transformed into a Godzilla and radiated the nation? No.
Has there ever been a sensible argument against the responsible use of uranium for energy and medicinal use? NO, and there probably will never be! Nix to Chernobyl - If the reactor had a containment facility the event never would have happened. That was a fault of socialism, not responsible use of uranium.
CheersAgree (1) Alert moderator
-
HG:
29 Aug 2008 1:35:57pm
I would have thought that he would champion renewable energies.
I am disappointed, I am a great fan of him but I will have to re-consider my position. It might be necessary to not vote for him the next time.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Cynet:
29 Aug 2008 1:39:06pm
Political compromise about allowing additional nuclear material mining translates to a risk of compromising the environment. When the solution to pollution is dilution it needs to be proven. Just because the mining site is remote it doesn't mean that it isn't going to come back and bite. Some of the material has a half life of 3000000 years, a responsibility that can't be held by anyone. Selling the material exacerbates pollution risks and more acute and directed contamination. We all know these issues as well as the politicians so, why has our democracy allowed this risk? Would the decision to allow mining this stuff be the same if we didnt leave it to 140 odd elected members but rather used a referendum approach? The small numbers of representatives are easily lobbied by very determined groups. Weve only ourselves to blame for allowing this system to operate like this. Our society is rapidly networking and although communication, of various qualities, is being exchanged we have informed opinions without a formal outlet.
Ive shared an office with someone whos been advised to buy uranium mining shares. I understand that they have also been advised that the risks to be financially better-off are better than the risks of investing in fossil fuel companies. The get-rich-at-all-costs game is not the same as the philanthropy game and so we are different animals. Its hard to take the constant punishment of pollution from those who dont aspire to similar ideals. I said to this colleague to respect your tribe: dont drive and was penalised by a particularly polluting old model Merc acquisition by them to fill my lungs with carcinogenic poly aromatic hydrocarbons like the majority of inhabitants of this sulphur aerosol trapping landscape. Its a confounding feeling to realise similar decisions are being taken in the upper echelons of management of this country.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
jonno:
29 Aug 2008 2:10:26pm
Actually Cynet,
the half life of U-238 (99.7% of natural uranium) is 4.5 billion (1,000 x 1,000,000) years. Look it up.
That's the 'official' age of the earth.
The interesting thing about a half life is that you cant have a half life of nothing, so after 4.5 billion years, there's still half of the original isotopes left. In another 4.5 billion years you will have half of that second half (1 quarter) left. And on it goes. But you never reach zero.
U-238 is a powerful alpha emitter and once natural uranium is milled to PM10 or less, there is no way to stop it migrating through the environment and into the human body.
Garret knows this and has therefore added weight to the proposition that once people become Australian party politicians, they get a microchip inserted into their brains to make them toe the line.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
Robert2:
29 Aug 2008 2:02:05pm
Garrett has proved himself to be the ultimate hypocrite. His political opportunistic attitude has cemented his position and he has got to be the classic example of what Joe Stalin termed "usefull idiots".
Irrespective of the extreme viewpoints he may have held as a younger person, either left or right, by capitulating from his doctrine, he has shown his true perspective.
I believe his past moralistic approach to issues of international concern was but a charade to satisfy his own ego and economical circumstances, no different to the "Byron Bay Bolshevicks" or "Chardonay Socialists" getting their rocks off on university campuses now.Agree (0)