Diana Rickard Submission – Australia’s nuclear bans reflect public rejection of the nuclear industry, and support for clean renewables.
Submission No 74. against Environment and Other Legislation Amendment (Removing Nuclear
Energy Prohibitions) Bill 2022
Nuclear Power is not needed in Australia. Germany is decommissioning its last two nuclear reactors.
There is enough science and technology to provide reliable and sustainable renewable energy for
industrial and residential needs in Germany and in Australia, we have more than enough sunlight,
wind and water to provide clean and sustainable energy for our needs.
- Our legislative prohibitions reflect public and community concern over and rejection of
nuclear power and nuclear waste storage in Australia. - Australia does not need reactor meltdowns, fires and explosions as happened at
Chernobyl and the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power site. We have inherited colonial
nuclear bomb testing sites and uranium processing sites that still need rehabilitating
costing billions of dollars and these weapon testing sites have caused sickness and
permanent disability to people caught up in their poisonis a disgrace that should not be
repeated. - There is still no permanent nuclear waste disposal facility operating anywhere in the
world for high-level nuclear waste generated by nuclear power reactors. - Uranium mined in Australia is used for failed nuclear reactors and weapons proliferation
overseas and the international safeguards system has not been funded anywhere near
what it would take to avoid or even monitor this. We should avoid further
contamination from dirty and dangerous nuclear power plants in Australia adding to this
problem. - Talk of AUKUS nuclear powered submarines and B52s carrying nuclear weapons while on
Australian soil makes me very uneasy that we could become a military target. The risk of
reactors becoming military targets (as has been the case with research reactors in the
Middle East on multiple occasions) remains a serious concern. - Many countries do not have clear and unambiguous rules governing nuclear power and
nuclear waste. This is despite the fact that inadequate regulation is widely accepted as a
main cause of the Fukushima disaster. In a country like Australia where a national motto
in the 1980s was ‘ Near enough is good enough’ followed by ‘Where the bloody hell are
you?’ hardly shows our commitment to clear, accountable and sustainable rules-based
governance on vital issues, does it? - If we remove prohibitions to nuclear power, we would then need significant reforms in
existing legislation not designed to deal with nuclear power. We would then need a
massive increase in government resources as well as recruiting an appropriately skilled
and capable workforce. - With resources concentrating on getting nuclear power right, essential resources to help
us tackle human-induced climate change, secure a national renewable energy policy and
deliver modern environmental protection legislation would be lost.
Australia is suffering massive infrastructure, livelihood and life loss due to climate change floods that
should be once in a hundred years but are happening regularly. Our environment is suffering
through massive landclearing by other than small, family farmers or miners.
We cannot trust our future to greedy people and foreign corporations with no care except to make
short-term profit even when it destroys our national interest and iconic environment.
Nuclear power plants are unsustainable, corporately owned and dirty. Renewable energy can
operate independently of large, asset-greedy business interest and can be installed on homes and in
small paddocks. Renewable energy belongs to the people and does not harm the environment as
surely as nuclear energy does. https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Environment_and_Communications/Nuclearprohibitions/Submission
Jean M Christie -Submission – nuclear power is expensive, polluting, and too slow to be of any use to Australians.
Environment and Other Legislation Amendment (Removing Nuclear Energy Prohibitions) Bill 2022 Submission 78
For several reasons, nuclear power is inappropriate for Australia. These are as follows.
Since 2010, nuclear power has actually become more expensive, rising in cost by 33%.
Nuclear power reactors produce waste, and Australia does not have a deep underground repository for
nuclear waste. At present, the residents of Kimba, South Australia, are engaged in a legal battle with the
Commonwealth of Australia, as they fight to protect their home from becoming a dumping ground for
nuclear waste generated in New South Wales.
The development of nuclear power is very time-consuming, and Australia lacks a workforce with the
necessary skills to do this.
Thus nuclear power is expensive, polluting, and too slow to be of any use to Australians.
Furthermore, nuclear power plants are rendered unsafe by the effects of climate change. These effects
include warming water sources, sea-level rise, storm damage, and drought. In military and terrorist events,
nuclear power plants are obvious targets, as malicious forces seek to cut off electricity supplies. In addition,
the electricity necessary to cool such reactors is also disrupted, and the risk of nuclear core meltdowns
increased. We are seeing this now in Ukraine, as Russia directs missile strikes at Ukrainian nuclear power
plants. Even in peacetime, risks are present, as demonstrated by the tragic nuclear meltdown and waste spill
in Fukushima, Japan, which has rendered surrounding areas uninhabitable.
Thus nuclear power is expensive, polluting, slow in availability, and very risky with regard to national
security. I urge politicians to support renewable energy, in order to protect the environment, and prevent
further climate disruption. . https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Environment_and_Communications/Nuclearprohibitions/Submission
The three big questions Australia’s leaders must answer about the Aukus deal
Gareth Evans, Guardian, 21 Mar 23,
The public has a right to know why we are making such a drastic shift in our defence strategy and spending, writes Australia’s former foreign minister
Love Paul Keating or loathe him, admire or abhor his invective, he has raised questions about the Aukus deal which are hugely important for Australia’s future and demand much more compelling answers than we have so far received from government ministers past or present.
The big three for me are whether, for all the hype, the submarines we are buying are really fit for purpose; whether an Australian flag on them really means we retain full sovereign agency in their use; and if it does not, whether that loss of agency is a price worth paying for the US security insurance we think we might be buying……………
is the Aukus fleet – on the brave assumption the vastly complicated acquisition program does not become the “goat rodeo” (fiasco) predicted by some respected US-based analysts – really our best buy? If the purpose of our new boats is to be a useful, albeit numerically marginal, add-on to US underwater capability in the South China Sea and around Taiwan, they can play that role well. But if their primary purpose is to prevent continental Australia – and our Indo-Pacific sea-lanes – from possible attack, it remains entirely legitimate to demand a detailed explanation as to how that task could be better performed by the Aukus fleet than the 20 or more sons-of-Collins we could buy for the same price, given that only three nuclear-propelled boats are likely to be on station at any given time.
The core issue is how comfortable we should be in so obviously shifting the whole decades-long focus of our defence posture away from the defence of Australia – which has always included a strong presence in our archipelagic north and, within a very considerable radius, the sea-lanes so crucial to our trade – toward a posture of distant forward defence. The case must be made, not just asserted.
The second big unanswered – or less than persuasively answered – question is whether, by so comprehensively further yoking ourselves to such extraordinarily sophisticated and sensitive US military technology, Australia has for all practical purposes abandoned our capacity for independent sovereign judgment. Not only as to how we use this new capability, but in how we respond to future US calls for military support.
There were assurances at the time of the first Aukus announcement by the US secretaries of state and defense that “there will be no follow on reciprocal requirements of any kind” and “no quid pro quo”. But in my own experience that is not quite the way the world – and American pressure – works………………..
When it comes to decisions to go to war, we have too often in the past, most notably in Vietnam and the Iraq war of 2003, joined the US in fighting wars that were justified neither by international law nor morality, but because the Americans wanted us to, or we thought they wanted us to, or because we wanted them to want us to…………………………
My last big question may be unanswerable for now, but should be getting far more attention. Just how much security has our devotion to the US and our ever-increasing enmeshment with its military machine, really bought us, should we ever actually come under serious attack?
While the Anzus treaty requires the US “to act” in these circumstances, it certainly does not require that action to be military. I am afraid that we should be under no illusion whatever that, for all the insurance we might think we have bought with all those past down-payments in blood and treasure and our “century of mateship”, the US – whoever is president – will be there for us militarily in any circumstance where it does not also see its own immediate interests under threat……………… https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/mar/21/gareth-evans-the-three-big-questions-australias-leaders-must-answer-about-the-aukus-deal?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
Labor and union movement at odds over AUKUS nuclear submarine deal
The finalising of the $368bn AUKUS submarine deal has set up a potential clash between Labor and one of its most reliable allies.
Catie McLeod, news.com.au 28 Mar 23
The finalising of the $368bn AUKUS submarine deal has set up a potential clash between Labor and the peak union body over nuclear power.
Australian Council of Trade Unions president Michele O’Neil declared at the National Press Club on Tuesday that unions backed a “nuclear-free Defence policy”, at odds with the government’s plan to purchase and manufacture nuclear-powered submarines over the next 30 years.
Under the trilateral security agreement with the US and the UK, Australia will become the first non-nuclear weapon state to acquire nuclear-powered submarines by seeking an exemption from the International Atomic Energy Agency………………………………………………….. https://www.news.com.au/technology/innovation/military/labor-and-union-movement-at-odds-over-aukus-nuclear-submarine-deal/news-story/b2c607ab41db26dd3883359fcd227b4e
1 This month
of the week – Disrupting War & Militarism in Oceania. Active solidarity. Radical practice.
Antinuclear 