Australian Senate vote on Kimba nuclear dump delayed till mid-May, but dump opponents will be fighting on
Nothing clean about nuclear, coal or gas – Australian Conservation Foundation
The Australian Conservation Foundation has urged parliamentarians not to undermine Australia’s successful clean energy bank by changing its mandate to invest in dirty, dangerous energy options like gas, coal and nuclear.
The government’s Clean Energy Finance Corporation Amendment (Grid Reliability Fund) Bill, which would give Energy Minister Angus Taylor power to direct the CEFC to invest in technologies that are not renewable and make investments that would not generate a financial return, is listed for debate today in the House of Representatives.
Some government MPs and Senators want the CEFC to be able to fund coal and nuclear.
“Undermining the popular and successful Clean Energy Finance Corporation would be a massive own goal,” said ACF campaigner Dave Sweeney.
“Talking up nuclear and new coal-fired power plants is a dangerous distraction from facing up to Australia’s very real energy challenges and choices.
“There is nothing clean about the fuel behind the Fukushima and Chernobyl disasters, which produces waste that remains radioactive for tens of thousands of years.
“There is no such thing as clean coal and the CEFC wouldn’t be considered a trusted investment partner if it was expected to invest in this outdated, dirty technology.
“Despite the urgent need to cut climate pollution – which is why the CEFC was established – no country in the world is choosing to set up a nuclear industry from scratch.
“When it comes to climate action, nuclear power is a dead end. The reactors that exist are expensive and risky; the promised new reactors don’t exist. Nuclear is not a credible climate response and has been repeatedly rejected by the market and the community.
“To spruik nuclear as the world approaches the tenth anniversary of the Fukushima disaster is an act of wilful blindness and political convenience – a fission fig leaf for politicians stuck in a previous century.
“Australia’s energy future is renewable, not radioactive.”
ACF is proud to have come up with the idea of a Clean Energy Finance Corporation in a 2010 report, Funding the transition to a clean economy.
Retain Gosford’s nuclear free zone status.
 Keep the Coast nuclear free, https://coastcommunitynews.com.au/central-coast/news/2021/02/keep-the-coast-nuclear-free/ Donna Carey, Narara Ecovillage, NararaFEBRUARY 12, 2021 I am passionately in favour of retaining Gosford’s nuclear free zone status. No one who I have engaged with, in person or on social media, is in favour of this being rescinded. Opening up Central Coast Council like this would allow the use, storage of or transportation through the LGA of nuclear weapons, waste or material for the first time since 1984. I am strongly opposed to this action being facilitated. It also paves the way for small-scale nuclear facilities on the Central Coast. In addition, it is on the public record that Taylor Martin MLC is in favour of small-scale nuclear reactors to generate electricity. The rationale for this proposal is that “the handling and mining of radioactive materials is now highly regulated at a State and Federal level” and “any public concern regarding nuclear-related activities is best dealt at the State and Federal level”. However, this is not completely correct, and legislation is slowly changing. In 2019, a NSW Upper House inquiry into the Uranium Mining and Nuclear Facilities (Prohibitions) Repeal Bill 2019 recommended repealing the original bill in its entirety. Uranium exploration is also already permitted under current legislation; its mining just currently is not. There is no certainty that “there are no known uranium deposits on the Central Coast” (Item 4.1, Attachment 3, Council agenda, Feb 8). As you are aware, the former Wyong Shire Council had a similar nuclear free zone policy, which was revoked in April, 2014, and “policies from the former Gosford City and Wyong Shire Councils still apply in their respective former Local Government Areas, until a new policy is adopted for the Central Coast Council region” (https://www.centralcoast.nsw.gov.au/council/forms-and-publications/policies). My first preference would be for the nuclear free zone to be extended back into the previous Wyong LGA. If our Council’s “financial crisis” is your main order of business in your role as Administrator, Mr Dick Persson, I urge you to focus on this being the main issue at hand. I also thought that you said that it was not your role to go back over previous decisions. Please resist allowing your professional integrity to be compromised by the Council’s Environment and Planning department, which will pave the way for future nuclear power generation, uranium mining, and/or the storage of nuclear waste on the beautiful Central Coast. |
|
|
2020 in Australia – a successful year for resistance to nuclear pollution
DAVE SWEENEY | Nuclear Free Campaigner, Australian Conservation Foundation | www.acf.org.aua 15 Dec 20,
A year ago today the then federal resources/radioactive waste Minister Matt Canavan read the room in the Flinders Ranges and stated: “I will no longer consider this site an option for the facility”. https://www.minister.industry.gov.au/ministers/canavan/media-releases/national-radioactive-waste-management-facility-wallerberdina
Viva!! This decision was a great tribute to Adnyamathanha, the FLAG crew and wider community resistance.
In the year since
- Canberra has turned to Kimba where they are facing a stiff fight and have failed in an attempt to rewrite the laws to remove people’s right to legally challenge the waste plan
- SA Labor, Unions SA and many more civil society groups and state and national voices have come on board against the waste plan
- The Australian Human Rights Commission acknowledged the three sisters – Vivianne and Regina McKenzie and Heather Stuart as Human Rights Heroes for their radwaste efforts
- ARPANSA – the federal nuclear regulator – has confirmed that Australia’s worst waste can securely remain at Lucas Heights ‘for decades”
- Matt Canavan is gone and we have a new Minister – the sixth in as many years – if radioactive waste had the same longevity as federal ministers it wouldn’t be an issue.
- Collectively we are stalling the deeply flawed federal plan and shifting the story from the search for a postcode to the need for a credible process
Congratulations to all those who successfully defended the Flinders – and strength to those now actively contesting the dodgy Kimba plan.
Farmers to Canberra, to protest the law that forces a nuclear dump on Kimba’s agriculutral land
We are members of the Kimba community and proud and productive grain farmers who have travelled to Canberra to meet with Labor, Green and cross-bench Senators to put a face to those directly impacted by the proposed legislation to name Kimba as the site for Australia’s radioactive waste dump.
In our view the process the Government has employed to site this facility in Kimba over the last five years has been unfair, manipulative and completely lacking in transparency.
We are extremely concerned that the Governments proposed legislation currently awaiting Senate consideration intentionally removes our right to contest the decision and denies basic protections .
It is clear that productive farming land in Kimba is not the best, or even the right place for our nations radioactive waste. We urge the federal government to step back and review their selection process rather than continue trying to force this decision through via Parliament.
Quotes can be attributed to Toni Scott – Secretary, No Radioactive Waste on Agricultural Land in Kimba or SA Committee Media Contact – Kellie Hunt – 0428 572 411
Farmers, Traditional Owners fight radioactive waste dump
Farmers, Traditional Owners fight radioactive waste dump https://www.greenleft.org.au/content/farmers-traditional-owners-fight-radioactive-waste-dump, Renfrey Clarke, Adelaide, September 8, 2020
A 160-hectare tract of farmland has been purchased near the small town of Kimba and, as inducement to deliver support for the plan, local residents have been promised a $31 million “community development package.” A non-binding ballot conducted last November among residents of the Kimba District Council area recorded 62% in favour of the scheme.
But opponents of the dump remain active and vocal. As well as farmers and townsfolk concerned for their safety and for the “clean and green” reputation of the district’s produce, those against the plan include the Barngarla First Nations people, who hold native title over the area.
Critics argue that last year’s ballot sought the views of only a narrow section of the people affected. In particular, members of the Barngarla people, who do not live locally, are angry at being excluded.
The federal Coalition government, however, has not been deterred. In June, the House of Representatives passed a set of amendments to the legislation governing the scheme. These changes would strip opponents of the dump — including the Barngarla — of the right to mount legal challenges.
The amendments still have to pass through the Senate. But, confident of victory, in July the government set up the Australian Radioactive Waste Agency as part of the Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources. With its base in Adelaide, and a satellite office in Kimba, the agency is to “lead the process to deliver” the waste dump.
Low and intermediate-level wastes
In volume terms, the great bulk of the radioactive waste currently produced in Australia results from nuclear medicine, and is considered low-level. These materials do not require shielding in handling or storage, but must be kept secure until the radioactivity has decayed to the point where they can safely go to landfill. At present, these wastes are stored at more than 100 sites around the country, mostly in hospitals or universities.
The amount of low-level waste created here each year is about 40 cubic metres, roughly three truckloads, suggesting that the need to collect these materials into a centralised store is questionable.
More than likely, the risks of shifting these wastes exceed those of keeping them where they are for the decades needed until their radioactivity falls to natural background levels.
There are also intermediate-level wastes. These accumulate at a rate of about five cubic metres a year, and are in a very different category. Highly dangerous, they require shielding, and must be kept secure for as long as 10,000 years. They consist almost entirely of spent nuclear fuel from the research reactor at Lucas Heights, near Sydney, returned after reprocessing in Europe and currently stored on the reactor premises.
The waste dump planned for the farm property Napandee, near Kimba, is meant to provide a permanent home for Australia’s low-level wastes — but not for the intermediate-level materials. The latter are to be held in above-ground canisters at the facility until permanent storage provisions have been made.
Will this “interim” storage turn out to be permanent?
Kimba is remote enough that the temptation will be great for governments to leave these dangerous, long-lasting materials there indefinitely.
Meanwhile, if the Napandee dump is to hold the intermediate-level wastes for only a few decades, where is the need to move these materials there at all? The store at Lucas Heights has room to hold the wastes for many years to come, while permanent disposal methods are being devised and tested. Simply keeping the materials on site would avoid the risks of multiple handling and long-distance transport.
Community rifts
In Kimba, the social rifts from years-long disagreements over the dump remain painful. Many local people look to the facility to sustain a town that is steadily declining as farmers are compelled to “get big or get out”, and as the regional population shrinks.
Farmer Heather Baldock, who supports the dump, lamented to a Senate committee hearing in August: “We lose students, youth, neighbours, friends, sporting club members, emergency service volunteers … We gain more empty houses and property for sale.”
The federal government has suggested that a total of 45 jobs will be created by the facility — a big boost for a town of barely 600 people. Many of these jobs, however, will likely be part–time, or will be performed on a fly-in-fly-out basis.
The $31 million community package will create excellent town amenities, but not a long–term basis for the local economy. It will not solve the worst problem confronting regions like northern Eyre Peninsula: global warming, which raises temperatures, reduces already sparse rainfall and sends farmers into crippling debt.Opponents of the dump, meanwhile, speak bitterly of the deceits by a government determined to impose its scheme regardless of local objections.
Farmer Peter Woolford, who heads the group No Radioactive Waste on Agricultural Land in Kimba or SA, told the Senate hearing: “The path that the federal government has taken … has been a long road of propaganda, manipulation and promises without justification.”
The flow of information to the community, Woolford noted, has been tightly controlled and almost entirely narrated by the department. “No assistance, practical or financial, has been given to provide independent advice. Every speaker who has visited Kimba at the expense of the government has been a supporter of the proposal.”
Ballot manipulation
Opponents of the scheme are especially angry at the way the terms of last year’s ballot were manipulated. Rejecting a call for voting to be open to all residents within a 50-kilometre radius — a far more meaningful measure of the people for whom Kimba is the local hub — the government and the Kimba District Council insisted on the smaller area within the council boundaries. If the 50-kilometre boundary had applied, critics argue, the vote would have failed.
Particularly impressive has been the resolve of the Barngarla people to have their say in deciding the outcome. In 2018, the Barngarla fought and lost a court case against the district council, demanding to be included in the prospective ballot.
Excluded from the official vote, the Barngarla Determination Aboriginal Corporation organised its own independently-run ballot. This recorded a total of 83 members against the dump and zero in favour. A recent letter from the Barngarla to the federal resources minister stated: “The systematic racist behaviour by your government is a stain on the collective consciousness of this country.”
In any case, opponents of the dump ask why “community support” for the dump should be measured only by the views of a few hundred people. Why should the decision not be one for the whole population of South Australia — where indications are that the idea of hosting a radioactive waste dump is highly unpopular?
As Woolford pointed out, of 2789 submissions received in a public consultation 94.5% oppose the facility.
‘Nuclear will never happen in the Latrobe Valley’
Nuclear discussion is a hot topic in the Latrobe Valley, Latrobe Valley Express, Michelle Slater, 26 Aug 20, “……..
‘Nuclear will never happen in the Latrobe Valley’
The call to lift the state’s prohibition on nuclear is not being backed by all unions, as some community groups come out swinging against any nuclear proposal in the Latrobe Valley.
Many concerns surrounded the region’s geographical instability, the use of water, dangerous waste and the need to forge ahead with large-scale renewables.
The Victorian branch of the Electrical Trades Union doubled down on its opposition in its submission into the Inquiry into Nuclear Prohibition.
It instead called for large scale renewables such as the Star of the South offshore wind farm off the Gippsland coast to provide a just transition for workers and communities.
“Renewable energy is affordable, low risk, clean, and popular. Nuclear is simply not,” the ETU submission said.
“Our shared energy future is renewable, not radioactive and our government must plan for and support a fair and just transition for energy workers, their communities and the Australian people.”
Voices of the Valley convenor Wendy Farmer backed the ETU stance, rejecting claims from the CFMMEU that nuclear would provide a “just transition” for the Valley.
Ms Farmer also rigorously argued that there was no social licence from within the local community to go ahead with nuclear.
She said any nuclear plant in the Valley, particularly if it was built on the former Hazelwood site, would be too close to homes in a seismically unstable location.
“Nuclear will never happen in the
Latrobe Valley, it’s too expensive and will take too long to build. Do we just care about jobs and not a healthy community? This would impact all of Gippsland,” Ms Farmer said.
“Yes, we need a proper transition and secure energy, but nuclear is not the way to go when we need the federal government’s will to build more renewables.”
Community over Mining spokesperson Tracey Anton has voiced her concerns about using water to rehabilitate the Latrobe Valley’s coal mines.
The community advocate said nuclear was unsuitable for the region due to the volume of water it would require, creating a burden on downstream agriculture and environmental needs.
“We’ve already over-allocated our ground and surface water, how do you fit in another industry that needs more water when we don’t have enough as it is,” Ms Anton said.
“The (state) government can’t even figure out how to rehabilitate the existing coal pits, or even how to transport asbestos safely, never mind nuclear.”
Friends of the Earth’s Yes2Renewables campaigner Patrick Simons has been working with the local proponents for the proposed Delburn wind farm, helping campaign for renewables in Gippsland.
Mr Simons said the conversations around nuclear were a “distraction” from discussing rolling out renewables in a decentralised grid.
“There is surplus grid capacity in Gippsland,” he said.
“Renewable energy built in the region will complement wind power operating in western Victoria, where the grid is constrained, making the energy system overall more resilient.”……..
nuclear power remains unlawful in Australia under federal legislation.
The Victorian government has no plans for a nuclear power industry, which has been banned since 1983 and is instead focusing on “cheaper, safer and more sustainable alternatives in the form of renewable energy and storage”.
A state government spokeswoman pointed to Victoria’s ambitious 50 per cent renewables targets by 2030, creating more than 24,000 jobs, “particularly in regional areas”…….. https://www.latrobevalleyexpress.com.au/story/6896995/nuclear-discussion-is-a-hot-topic/
A nuclear power station is inappropriate for the Central Coast
 A nuclear power station is inappropriate for the Central Coast, https://coastcommunitynews.com.au/central-coast/news/2020/03/a-nuclear-power-station-is-inappropriate-for-the-central-coast/ Chris Castellari, Avoca Beach MARCH 22, 2020
Just a few points as to why a nuclear power station is inappropriate for the Central Coast. Nuclear power stations can’t be built under existing law in any Australian state or territory. |
|
Nature Conservation Council says the Nationals’ support for nuclear power is a “dangerous and expensive distraction”
|
Environment groups say nuclear push a “dangerous distraction” to clean energy debate, Macquarie Port News, 6 Mar 20, THE Nature Conservation Council says the Nationals’ support for nuclear power is a “dangerous and expensive distraction” from the coal to clean energy debate and is not the sustainable, long-term priority for the environment. Deputy premier John Barilaro has confirmed The Nationals will support a One Nation bill to allow nuclear power in NSW, reigniting debate on the controversial topic. NSW One Nation leader Mark Latham’s Uranium Mining And Nuclear Facilities (Prohibitions) Repeal Bill is currently before the upper house and, if successful, would see the 36-year prohibition on uranium mining and nuclear lifted.
NSW Labor hit back immediately confirming it would not introduce nuclear power in NSW, if elected. Port Macquarie, Kempsey, Grafton and Coffs Harbour have all been flagged as regions of
 interest for nuclear power plants.Other regions include the Upper Hunter (Singleton, Muswellbrook), Shoalhaven (Jervis Bay, Nowra), Central West (Lithgow), Snowy Mountains, and Albury/Wodonga. “Local MPs Leslie Williams and Stephen Bromhead need to tell us whether they support their leader’s plans to make it legal to build a nuclear power plant on the Mid-North Coast,” Nature Conservation Council chief executive Chris Gambian said. “Nuclear power is extremely dangerous and leaves a legacy of radiation pollution that lasts generations. “It is a dangerous and expensive distraction from urgent work we need to do to transition from coal to clean energy and storage. “People on the Mid-North Coast don’t want nuclear power and they don’t need it. “Clean energy is by far the cheapest, cleanest and most sustainable way to meet our energy needs and it offers regional areas a very bright future. “The transition from dirty coal and gas to clean solar, wind and storage will attract $25 billion of investment, result in the construction of about 2,500 wind turbines and installation of more 42 million solar panels across the state.”….. Newcastle MP Tim Crakanthorp slammed the Nationals’ move and condemned the Nationals’ “reckless support” for nuclear power in NSW at its 2019 conference. https://www.portnews.com.au/story/6665518/environment-groups-say-nuclear-push-a-dangerous-distraction/ |
|
Nuclear free has served NSW well and should remain- Australian Conservation Foundation
Nuclear free has served NSW well and should remain, https://www.miragenews.com/nuclear-free-has-served-nsw-well-and-should-remain/ Nuclear power has no role in Australia’s energy future and is a dangerous distraction from the climate challenges facing Australia.
A pro-nuclear NSW upper house inquiry initiated by One Nation MLC Mark Latham has recommended removing the state’s long-standing legislative ban on uranium mining and opening the door to nuclear power, but Labor committee members have reaffirmed their party’s opposition to uranium mining and nuclear energy.
The inquiry report recommends the repeal of the Uranium Mining and Nuclear Facilities (Prohibitions) Act, but a dissenting statement by Labor committee members says a ‘Labor Government will maintain a ban on uranium exploration, extraction and export’ and a ‘Labor Government will not introduce nuclear power in NSW’.
The Australian Conservation Foundation said Australia was blessed with outstanding renewable resources and did not need to explore dangerous nuclear energy options. “The state ban on uranium mining has served NSW well and should remain,” said ACF nuclear campaigner Dave Sweeney.
Nuclear Stigma is, and will continue to be the cancer that erodes Kimba future.
“Them or us, a shit town and a policeman on the fence.”
Kimba farmer / nuclear profiteer, Andrew Baldock who has recklessly fueled the ongoing promotion to degrade a agriculture region is now pleading for the community to reunite. This maybe seen as Baldock’s failed solicitation to procure redemption, forgiveness or clemency for the irremediable damage ignorantly portrayed upon what is mostly a nobbled and unwilling community.
Sunday the 2nd of February anti-nuclear rally, portrayed attending people as welcome contributing visitors to the town until their views of nuclear were apparent only to find they were treated no better than a leper in Kimba’s colony. One local person and yes I say one, that being of the local constabulary claimed to be on the fence and treated people with regard, where the nuclear embracing dichotomy has failed to welcome.
Nuclear Stigma is, and will continue to be the cancer that erodes Kimba future. https://www.facebook.com/groups/941313402573199/
Strong opposition to nuclear waste dump plan for Flinders Ranges
South Australia’s nuclear dump deadline looms large, Newcastle Herald, Amy Green, 11 Dec 19
South Australia’s Flinders Ranges nuclear waste ballot closes tomorrow.
Thousands of people have signed an open letter to the federal government asking it not to proceed with the current plan. The Australian Conservation Foundation is behind the letter, which has garnered more than 5000 signatures, addressing Minister for Resources Senator Matt Canavan.
Nuclear Free Campaigner Dave Sweeney has labelled the process “deeply flawed and irresponsible”. “The current federal waste plan lacks key information of such important things as waste acceptance criteria, who would manage any facility and transport methods and routes,” Mr Sweeney said.
“It also fails to make any credible case for doubling handling the long lived intermediate level waste (ILW). “The vast majority of this ILW waste is currently securely stored above ground at the ANSTO Lucas Heights facility in southern Sydney, but the federal Department want to re-locate this above ground storage in regional SA – pending future disposal via a yet to fund or identified place or process.
“There is a real risk this waste will become stranded at any future SA site.”
The Department of Industry, Innovation and Science is encouraging interested people who haven’t done so already, to have their say on the proposed National Radioactive Waste Management Facility.
The department is consulting with two South Australian communities who live near three potential sites volunteered by landowners – two near Kimba and one near Hawker.
The results of these ballots and surveys, together with public submissions and feedback received elsewhere will be given to Minister Canavan to assist him in deciding whether the facility can be established at one of the potential sites…. https://www.newcastleherald.com.au/story/6538918/sa-nuclear-dump-deadline-looms-large/?cs=9397
Queensland Liberal National Party opposes nuclear power
Queensland LNP breaks with federal branch to oppose nuclear power, Amy Remeikis, 3 Oct 2019 Queensland LNP says it supports a greater focus on energy efficiency measures
One of the biggest detractors of the federal Queensland Liberal National party’s push to investigate nuclear energy as a potential power source for Australia has come from within its own house.
The state LNP opposition has publicly declared its opposition to making any changes to the current bipartisan ban on nuclear energy generation, declaring the government would be better served in its goals by focusing on renewable energy sources, in a marked split from their federal state colleagues.
Australia is once again looking at nuclear energy as a potential solution to its power woes, after a group of Coalition MPs, led by a cohort from Queensland, pushed the federal party room into investigating the prospect, through a parliamentary inquiry.
But in a move which has surprised their federal counterparts, the Queensland state LNP spokesman for energy, Michael Hart, made a written submission to the inquiry, announcing his arm of the party’s opposition to any attempt to allow nuclear energy generation, citing the risks to the communities and the environment.
Instead, Hart said the Queensland LNP supports “greater focus” on “energy efficiency measures, along with encouraging investment in renewable energy options like wind and solar, in combination with battery storage when it is technologically and economically feasible to do so”.
“It is considered that Australia’s rich renewable energy resources are more affordable and bring less risk than the elevated cost and risk associated with nuclear energy,” Hart submitted.
“The LNP encourages additional jobs and investment in Queensland’s renewable energy industry, while also supporting resource jobs and exploration which provides baseload power and employment for thousands of Queenslanders.
“In addition to the possibility of accidents and operational failure, nuclear facilities can be a potential target for terrorists. Securing insurance around such possibilities would be virtually impossible.
“In conclusion, the commercial, as well as the political risks, associated with nuclear energy are substantial. To this end, the LNP is strongly committed to an energy policy that delivers safe, affordable and reliable energy to consumers, while fulfilling Australia’s international emissions reduction obligations.
“We believe this can be achieved without lifting the moratorium on nuclear energy generation. Accordingly, we would encourage the committee to ensure an increased emphasis is placed on measures to encourage investment in renewable energy that creates green jobs and lowers electricity bills, for both consumers and industry, which does not (underlined) include nuclear energy”.
The state Labor government established a 50% renewable energy target by 2030 upon winning power in 2015.
The federal inquiry was established after a group of Coalition MPs, led by Hinkler LNP member Keith Pitt and Queensland LNP senator James McGrath, pushed for an investigation into whether nuclear power should be considered as part of the mix, as the government hunts for a long term solution to Australia’s surging energy prices.
Not wanting to reignite the war that led to the downfall of the national energy guarantee, and ultimately, Malcolm Turnbull’s leadership, the government acquiesced to calls for an investigation, which was established after a recommendation from Angus Taylor.
The state LNP position stands in stark contrast to their federal colleagues, including conservative senator Amanda Stoker, who said that “Australia must develop a nuclear energy industry”, as well as her Queensland colleague Gerard Rennick.
McGrath has publicly pushed for the nuclear discussion in numerous interviews and his own social media, as well as within the party room. Pitt, who describes himself as “technologically agnostic”, said the discussion had to be had.
“The first priority for the nations future energy needs will always be reliability and affordability,” he said. “As technology changes I expect our energy mix will also change over a period of time. I am completely technology agnostic in terms of the fuel types that might be utilised. Currently Queensland has the country’s youngest fleet of coal fired generators and I expect they will continue to be a critical part of Queensland’s energy mix into the future.”
He demurred from any questions on the split between state and federal lines, saying the state arm could “speak for themselves”, but attacked the state Labor government for its price management of the state owned power assets.
But the submission did give Queensland Labor senator, Murray Watt, a late week boost.
“This submission shows the LNP’s state MPs have had enough of their federal counterparts’ pointless culture war against renewable power,” he said. “Even the LNP’s state MPs acknowledge that renewables are a cheaper and safer way of meeting our future energy needs.
“They have also slammed their federal counterparts’ pursuit of nuclear power as a massive waste of time and resources.
“The Queensland LNP’s federal representatives should stop wasting everyone’s time by pursuing their obsession with nuclear power and get behind cheaper and safer means of meeting our energy needs.”
Found – historic film of Aboriginal resistance to uranium mining
Kakadu uranium protest documentary Dirt Cheap unearthed by Northern Territory Library, ABC News By Matt Garrick 18 Sept 19 The rediscovery of an old VHS tape, left forgotten on the shelves of the Northern Territory Library, has unearthed a tense and important piece of Australian history.
Key points:
- The 1980 documentary Dirt Cheap showcased the Mirarr people’s fight against uranium mining
- The Northern Territory Library recently hunted down the only digital copy of the documentary so it could be shown at a film festival
- Filmmaker Ned Lander says the movie created a stir at the time of its release
The rare copy of the nearly 40-year-old documentary Dirt Cheap, which details the early pushback against uranium mining in Kakadu National Park, was practically unwatchable due to its age……..
The film documented the concerns of the Mirarr people during what was a tense period of negotiation in the lead-up to the 1979 Ranger Uranium Mining Agreement.
It also showcased the pressures and broken promises the traditional owners faced. “It was very, very apparent to us that people were not ready to sign the agreement in relation to mining, and this was being done under pressure.
Mirarr resistance inspires protests around nation
Against the push of government and business interests, the Mirarr stood resolute in their bid to protect their land.
“As a child growing up I saw the struggle of my family, including my grandfather — they [had] been struggling,” traditional owner Jimmy Nabanardi-Mudjandi said.
I’m really proud of them, but it’s sad because they’re not here to see what the new future of Jabiru’s gonna be.”
The resistance from the Mirarr had a flow-on effect around the nation.
Banner-waving protesters took to the streets in Melbourne and Sydney in great numbers, scenes which Dirt Cheap captures in vivid detail.
“Mirarr people got major support from around Australia, from around the whole nation,” Mr Nabanardi-Mudjandi said.
Next stage of uranium mining looms
In the decades since the film’s release, uranium has been mined at Kakadu, but the Ranger mine is now expected to wind up in 2021.
Mr Nabanardi-Mudjandi said it was vital the land was protected during its rehabilitation.
“We are watching them, what they’re doing,” he said.
Mr Nabanardi-Mudjandi will be a special guest when Dirt Cheap screens as part of the Darwin International Film Festival at the Northern Territory Library at 5:30pm on Wednesday. Contact Matt Garrick https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-09-18/northern-territory-film-uranium-protests-unearthed-for-festival/11519914
Jervis Bay and previous governments’ secret plans for nuclear weapons
|
Nuclear reactor and steelworks plan once considered for pristine beaches of Jervis Bay Key points:
A steelworks, petrochemical plant and an oil refinery were also slated for the site at Jervis Bay, but what was not announced was a plan to generate weapons-grade plutonium that could have seen Australia become a nuclear power. Fifty years later, Australia is again mulling over the question of nuclear energy with two separate inquiries underway. A federal parliamentary committee is investigating the economic, environmental and safety implications of nuclear power in Australia. In NSW, meanwhile, a committee is looking into overturning a ban on uranium mining and nuclear facilities. While neither is talking specifics in terms of where nuclear enrichment technology or modern-day facilities like small modular reactors (SMRs) could be located, it has brought to the forefront questions of geography. Jervis Bay is a Commonwealth territory, located within NSW, but the laws of the Australian Capital Territory apply. Potential reactor sitesIn 2007, in the wake of the Switkowski nuclear energy review under the Howard government, the Australia Institute published a research paper identifying 19 of the most likely reactor sites. The sites were located across Queensland, Victoria, South Australia, NSW, and the ACT. It found the most suitable sites were close to major centres of demand and preferably in coastal areas to ensure easy access to water. Jervis Bay inevitably comes up as a potential reactor location due to its history as the only nuclear power plant to have received serious consideration in Australia. At the time it was promoted as the first of many. In February 1970, the Illawarra Mercury proclaimed:
That was the blueprint that nearly became a reality. Shrouded in secrecyThere was a darker side to the Jervis Bay reactor too, with evidence revealed in a 2002 ABC documentary, Fortress Australia, that the 500-megawatt fast breeder reactor was chosen due to its ability to generate weapons-grade plutonium for use in an Australian nuclear weapon Fortress Australia uncovered secret documents showing how the chairman of the Australian Atomic Energy Commission (AAEC), Phillip Baxter, influenced three Liberal prime ministers (Menzies, Holt and Gorton) to support the project. ….. Associate Professor Wayne Reynolds from the University of Newcastle told ABC podcast The Signal how Gorton pushed for the nuclear power station at Jervis Bay…….”They did the study, they worked out the capability, they had to go negotiate with the British about the technology, then they actually started to build this reactor at Jervis Bay.” The project was first delayed after William McMahon became prime minister in 1971 and was later put on hold indefinitely, despite efforts to keep the project alive. As late as March 1975, the Illawarra Mercury was reporting:
But the horse had bolted. Any hopes of a nuclear power industry in Australia effectively ended when McMahon lost government to Gough Whitlam’s Labor in December 1972. Whitlam’s signing of the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons Treaty in 1973 also ended any plans by the AAEC to provide Australia with the capacity to manufacture atomic weapons……. The Booderee National Park, meaning “bay of plenty” in the Dhurga language, was created out of the Jervis Bay National Park in 1992, which underlined the cultural significance of the lands and surrounding ocean. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-08-12/jervis-bay-once-site-for-nuclear-proposal/11371296?fbclid=IwAR16IqfL2gPD9lS6u9xoMkedjYNqJ1TKT_MoGww_5iwNVfq-vqYjfOrz3S4
|
|
1.This month
For international nuclear news go to https://nuclear-news.net
of the week
Nuclear power cannot solve the climate crisis
PETITION https://www.alp.org.au/petitions/australians-dont-want-nuclear-power/
26 Feb – 24 April The Image is not Nothing (Concrete Archives) is a group exhibition that explores the ways in which acts of nuclear trauma, Indigenous genocide and cultural erasure have been memorialised by artists and others. It comes as the result of research by curators Lisa Radford and Yhonnie Scarce whose fieldwork has encompassed sites of significance including Auschwitz, Chernobyl, Fukushima, Hiroshima, Maralinga, New York, Wounded Knee and former Yugoslavia.
—
Submissions to the Senate Committee Inquiry into National Radioactive Management Amendment Bill. 2020. Go to our summaries of significant submissions, conveniently listed in alphabetical order at Kimba waste dump submissions or see all submissions listed at Read the Submissions
