Federal election candidates oblivious about the South Australian nuclear waste plan
Nuclear waste importing: The taboo election topic, Independent 
Australia 29 June 2016, An international nuclear waste dump is planned for South Australia but it is hardly mentioned in the lead up to the federal election. Noel Wauchope approached the candidates to see where they stand.
THE MAJOR PARTIES have each shrunk their thinking down to a couple of themes.
Occasionally, there’s a little burst from Labor about climate change, to which Turnbull might respond with a few motherhood statements on that subject.
But the one that nobody touches is nuclear waste importing.
The South Australian Labor Government is spending an enormous amount of money, time and effort, towards starting the world’s first commercial nuclear waste importing business. They plan to make a decision on this later this year — a decision that will impact the whole of Australia.
Whether you think about ports for receiving radioactive wastes or road or rail transport to the South Australian waste facility, or other issues, such as safety, the terrorism risk, Australian agriculture’s clean green reputation, it is pretty clear that this is a matter of national importance.
I’ve now found that Australian federal politicians, outside of South Australia, are pretty much oblivious of this extraordinary plan, unprecedented in the world, to invite in global nuclear waste.
I’ve been writing to every Labor, Liberal and Xenophon candidate for the coming election, asking what they think about the idea of Australia setting up shop as the radioactive waste toilet for the world. Well, no, I didn’t express it quite that way. I followed this up with phone calls to some of the electoral offices. Of some 350 candidates that I contacted, most did not reply.
However, over 30 Labor candidates did reply. Some of them clearly said that, in the event of a move coming up to weaken Labor’s nuclear-free policy, they would vote to keep it unchanged. Most Labor respondents sent me a statement that explained that they did not oppose the return and disposal of reprocessed nuclear waste that had originated at the Lucas Heights research reactor in Sydney, but did oppose the importation of foreign waste……
I received just one answer from a Liberal candidate. I rather admire this person for spelling out clearly his support for the waste import proposal.
The smaller parties? From the Xenophon Team came three diplomatically worded replies that amounted to cautiously neutral opinions and two who clearly oppose a commercial nuclear waste import scheme. And, surprisingly, two replies from National Party candidates clearly opposed the scheme.
The Greens? They have a lengthy anti-nuclear policy, which includes rejection of importing foreign nuclear waste.
Was my querying a complete waste of time, seeing that I received so few replies? I don’t think so. In my follow-up calls to candidates, I found that many of them seemed to not understand the difference between the Federal Government’s search for a site to bury the Lucas Heights returning wastes and the South Australian Government’s plan for a commercial waste import industry. If the exercise merely raised awareness of this difference, it was probably worthwhile………
Several individual Labor present and past heavies have a pro-nuclear track record. For example,Bob Hawke, Bob Carr, Martin Ferguson and yes, Bill Shorten. The Labor Party’s traditional loyalty to policy has served them well but can also be problematic, if some of the heavy hitters work to change things.
If Jay Weatherill’s South Australian Labor Government does decide to pursue the nuclear waste goal, it will be interesting to see where the federal politicians stand. At least we know what Labor’s policy platform is. The Liberals don’t seem to have a formal policy on matters nuclear but their history is all too clearly pro-nuclear.
It would be useful to have this issue put before the voters. https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/nuclear-waste-importing-the-taboo-election-topic,9173
No comments yet.
1.This month.
Zoom webinar – “Nuclear Winter: The Environmental Consequences of a Nuclear Exchange.”
April 7th at 11:30 am PST / 2:30 pm EST
Nuclear Winter: The Environmental Consequences of a Nuclear Exchange”
Join us for an informative webinar with renowned atmospheric scientist, Professor Brian Toon, as he discusses the environmental risks and global impacts of a nuclear war. Despite the potential damage caused by the blast from even small nuclear weapons, many countries continue to invest in and expand nuclear arsenals. Professor Toon will provide a scientific assessment of civilian fatalities, agricultural failures, climate concerns, and complications with food supply that would follow any international nuclear conflict. We need to plan how to prevent nuclear conflict and avoid catastrophe. Politicians and military planners must be made aware of global climate and agricultural complications that would ensue. Don’t miss this opportunity to learn from, and engage in, this vital conversation
The Road to War brings a sharp focus to why it is not in Australia’s best interest to be dragged into a war with China which will almost inevitably go nuclear very quickly. The filmmaker has interviewed some of Australia’s senior foreign policy analysts who have vast experience behind them in analysing what really is going on here as the United States rattles its sabres with China. And sets us up to be its proxy, like the poor Ukranians have been fed into the Meatgrinder. So America can remain the Top Dog. The Road to War reveals how the United States through its spy base at Pine Gap and by stationing six nuclear capable B52 bombers in the Top End (without permission from the traditional owners) is making Australia a prime nuclear target if the current war of words suddenly melts down into full scale war.
The Road to War shows the implicit connection between Carbon emissions (the US military uses a whopping 70% of America’s annual petroleum to move its armies and vast War Machine around the globe to its 800+ military bases..but under a loophole wangled at Kyoto, the US military does not have to report its C02 annual emissions). The Road to War starts screening at selected cities and regional centres in March. See the trailer end for details.
Antinuclear 
Leave a Reply