uranium debate heats up..., page-5

The below is an extract form a recent interview with Kevin Rudd. BTW the ALP website is a useful source of info on uranium (search as keyword).

Basically, the "National" conference may argue against U mining but the states which control the resources will not be stood in the way of if that is the path they choose. On that basis MTN and AGS among others must be firming (as highlighted by their recent strength).

Hopefully Rann can get us all over the line as you say!



HUTCHISON: You’ll be pushing hard at National Conference this month to scrap Labor’s ban on new uranium mines. Are you uncomfortable with Alan Carpenter’s unwillingness to support such a policy?

RUDD: Individual Premiers will make their own decisions about local land use decision-making approval processes. That’s as it should be. I’m a federalist. The national government is responsible for clearing the way for export permits. And the proposal I’m taking to National Conference is to open up our export permits regime for future uranium exports to the rest of the world. What State governments do in terms of local land use decision-making processes is a matter for them, whether it’s in WA, Queensland, or wherever.

HUTCHISON: But can Labor have a national view on uranium and then a different one on a State level?

RUDD: I’ve got to say that when it comes to clearing the way for export permits for any given resource, that’s a job for the national government. But it’s actually quite wrong, the national government, to reach down into the detailed local land use decision-making processes and mines approval processes for State governments and take that over. As I said before, I’m a federalist, not a centralist. I come from Queensland, bit like Western Australia in some ways, at the end of the day you’ve got to rely on State governments to make locally-informed decisions with these sorts of questions.