This article first appeared on antinuclear.net
Will Australia become the global nuclear toilet? It’s not obvious to the rest of the nation, but this question is about to be advocated in two South Australian events, that will have repercussions for the whole of Australia. These are the second Nuclear Citizens’ Jury in Adelaide on October 29 and the South Australian Labor Party Conference, also on October 29. The ALP conference is really the most important one, as Premier Weatherill will surely need the backing of his own party as he moves to the process of overturning South Australia’s law against nuclear waste importing.
Indeed, the Nuclear Citizens’ Jury is really irrelevant. Whatever decision it makes, is in no way binding on the government. And anyway, this so-called “Jury” of 350 persons cannot make a convincing decision. The brief given to them is worded, in terms that come straight from the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission South Australia’s (NFCRC) report that advocated nuclear waste importing:
Under what circumstances, if any, could South Australia pursue the opportunity to store and dispose of nuclear waste from other countries?
I understand that some jurors wanted a change from this question, but no change was allowed.
The previous Citizens’ Jury had some very dubious witness presentations, particularly on the health effects of ionising radiation. This was not entirely the fault of the organisers, DemocracyCo, as the 50 jury members themselves selected the witnesses to be invited.
One might expect this second Citizens’ jury to be better served by witnesses, but the new witness list is a curiously mixed bag. Of the 31 names, including 5 facilitators, 16 are likely to be supporters of nuclear waste importing, 11 opposing it, and 4 appear to be neutral.
The most worrying section in this Citizens’ Jury is the session on SAFETY, dealing with general safety, siting and transport. For this session, there are 8 witnesses. Of these, only one witness appears to be a neutral expert. This is Professor Sandy Steacy who knows all about earthquakes. The other witnesses are:
- Haydon Manning, a vocal promoter of the nuclear industry
- Gerald Ouzounian also a nuclear power enthusiast
- Professor David Giles, of Minerals & Resources Engineering Future Industries Institute has all too strong a background in the mining industry.
- Dr John Loy: his theme is all about medical waste(an almost negligible component of Australia’s own Lucas Heights nuclear waste), and over-confidence on the safety of nuclear waste facilities. He has a background in promoting nuclear power to United Arab Emirates.
- Frank Boulton, General Manager WMC (Olympic Dam Marketing) Pty Ltd
- Dr AndrewHerczeg, formerly of the International Atomic Energy Agency
- Ian Hore-Lacy formerly of the Uranium Institute in Australia-he now works for the World Nuclear Association. Mr Hore-Lacy is unusual: he sees support for nuclear power as a religious and moral duty (He is also very critical of Pope Francis’ ideas on environment)
These pro nuclear experts have had much to say on storage of nuclear wastes. But none seems to have taken much interest in the issues around transporting highly radioactive wastes over thousands of kilometres across oceans and land. With the increasing volatility of weather events, as climate change progresses, and with the also growing concerns about terrorism, this omission is one of the greatest weaknesses of the case for importing nuclear wastes. The subject just glossed over in a few brief paragraphs in the NFCRC Report.
On the subject of SAFETY, focussing on the aspect of human health, the facilitator Tony Hooker is a bit of a worry. He worked with Professor Pamela Sykes on her mouse studies, at Flinders University? Funded by America’s Department of Energy, Syke’s research purported to show that low dose radiation is actually good for you.
Apart from the facilitator, the 4 witnesss for this section are evenly matched, with Dr Margaret Beavis and Dr Robert Hall opposing nuclear waste importing, and Dr Sami Hautakangas and Dr Stephan Bayer supporting it.
The vital section could well turn out to be ECONOMICS. And here, there IS a surprise, with an apparent bias towards the negative camp. The facilitator, Adjunct Professor Richard Blandy is an opponent of nuclear waste importing. So this is not fair. Speakers Richard Dennis, Professor Barbara Pocock and Assoc. Professor Mark Diesendorf (via Skype) all have views opposing waste importation. The remaining speaker, Tim Johnson, from Jacobs, is supportive of the plan, but only cautiously so.
If economics were the only consideration, the waste import plan might conceivably die a quiet death, following this Citizens’ Jury, and a possibly negative report from a Parliamentary Inquiry. However, there are other considerations, such as underlying connections with the defence industry.
The South Australian Labor government, led by Premier Jay Weatherill, is enthusiastically backing the nuclear lobby’s campaign for setting up South Australia as the first place in the world to invite in the world’s nuclear waste, as a profit-making enterprise.
In practical terms, you can forget this government’s extravagant public relations promotion of the nuclear industry, culminating in these “Citizens’ Juries”. They really matter very little, in comparison with the actual steps to be taken for the pro nuclear campaign to succeed.
Step One is to overturn a South Australian law – the NuclearWaste Storage Facility (Prohibition) Act 2000. It includes:
8 Prohibition against construction or operation of nuclear waste storage facility
9 Prohibition against importation or transportation of nuclear waste for delivery to nuclear waste storage facility (The Act does have exemptions for the nuclear waste generated within Australia, e.g from Australia’s research reactor at Lucas Heights).
The government has already weakened this Act (In April 2016) by amending this provision:
13—No public money to be used to encourage or finance construction or operation of nuclear waste storage facility
(1) Despite any other Act or law to the contrary, no public money may be appropriated, expended or advanced to any person for the purpose of encouraging or financing any activity associated with the construction or operation of a nuclear waste storage facility in this State.
They had to change it quickly – to allow for financing community consultation or debate on the desirability or otherwise of constructing or operating a nuclear waste storage facility in this State. – seeing that they had already spent $7.2 million promoting nuclear waste storage, in the NFCRC
Anyway, prior to overturning this Act, Premier Weatherill is surely going to need to have the Labor Party onside. At last year’s ALP Conference, He and State Labor president Peter Malinauskas made a big push for South Australia going nuclear As the national ALP policy remains clearly opposed to all nuclear industry further development, we can expect that Weatherill will meet with some opposition to his nuclear plan from Labor members at the conference.
Perhaps the nuclear lobby, their captive South Australian Premier, and subservient national media, will not be able to press on with their plan without an unpleasant fracas.