Publications

Friends of the Earth Adelaide > Publications

Nuclear Submarines: answers to common questions

September 20, 2021

Following secret deliberations, this week, the Morrison government has announced that Australia will acquire nuclear-powered submarines. Anti-nuclear movement stalwart, and Friends of the Earth National Nuclear campaigner, Dr. Jim Green, had these comments to common questions about the decision.

Shrugging person over a submarine - Text in box: Nuclear Submarines: Answers to common questions - Friends of the Earth logo and anti nuclear logo

Are there alternatives?

Apart from the French built, fossil fuel diesel options already on the table,  because the process has been entirely secret, we have no way of knowing whether alternative options have been properly considered. These include the options of building fewer submarines (or none at all), and advanced lithium-ion battery technology to power submarines (South Korea’s choice after 30 months of comprehensive evaluation).

What about nuclear weapons and security?

Nuclear powered submarines typically use highly-enriched uranium (HEU) fuel. This would undermine global efforts to phase out the use of HEU because of WMD proliferation and security concerns.

The Nobel Peace Prize-winning International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons notes: “Military nuclear reactors in Australia would present a clear nuclear weapons proliferation risk and become potential sites for nuclear accidents and radiological contamination long into the future.”

Sign our petition to say no to nuclear subs

Take Action

The government wants to build nuclear submarines in suburban Adelaide. Does that put a target on our back? Is it prudent to build nuclear submarines in a city of 1.3 million people? What alternative locations have been considered, if any?

Does the government secretly want to bring Australia closer to a nuclear weapons capability with a nuclear submarine program? Do such deliberations explain why the Morrison government refuses to sign the UN’s Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons and has actively undermined the Treaty at every step? (In the late 1960s, John Gorton’s government actively pursued a nuclear power program and Gorton later acknowledged a hidden weapons agenda. Gorton actively opposed Australia signing the UN’s Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.) 

Will this encourage the broader nuclear industry?

Then Defence Minister Christopher Pyne noted that in 2019 that Australia would be the only country in the world with nuclear submarines but no domestic nuclear industry to back them up.

All countries operating nuclear submarines (the five ‘declared’ weapons states plus India) have both nuclear power and weapons.

Building a domestic nuclear industry to support nuclear submarines would be astronomically expensive and problematic in other respects. Nuclear power is vastly more expensive than renewables — and significantly more expensive than renewables plus backup stored power (batteries, pumped hydro storage, etc.)

Opposition leader Anthony Albanese says that Labor support for nuclear submarines is conditional on there being no requirement for a domestic civil nuclear industry (among other conditions).

What about nuclear waste?

The government has been silent about disposal of the high-level and intermediate-level nuclear waste generated by a nuclear submarine program.

No country in the world has a repository for high-level nuclear waste. The only deep underground nuclear waste repository in the world ? the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in the US, for disposal of long-lived intermediate-level nuclear waste ? was shut down from 2014 to 2017 following a chemical explosion in a waste barrel, with costs estimated at $2 billion (clean-up, lost income etc).

Waste from a nuclear submarine program would be dumped on Aboriginal land, as is the case with the federal government’s current plan to dump Australia’s nuclear waste at Kimba in SA despite the unanimous opposition of Barngarla Traditional Owners. It speaks volumes about the crude racism of the federal and SA Coalition governments that they are prepared to ignore unanimous Aboriginal opposition to a nuclear dump. The federal government even fought to exclude Traditional Owners from a so-called ‘community survey’. SA Labor’s policy is that Traditional Owners should have a right of veto over any proposed nuclear facility including a nuclear waste dump.

 

Friends of the Earth Australia was forged in nuclear resistance,
and we reject the radioactive racism of the entire nuclear fuel cycle.
Nuclear submarines is no different.
#Auspol #NuclearIsSUBpar #NoNukes pic.twitter.com/YFbmciTRKH
— Friends of the Earth (@FoEAustralia) September 16, 2021

 

Can we afford this?

The high-level and long-lived intermediate-level nuclear waste generated by nuclear submarines would cost tens of billions of dollars to dispose of, based on cost estimates overseas. For example, the cost estimate for a high-level repository in France is A$40 billion. The US government estimates that to build a high-level nuclear waste repository and operate it for 150 years would cost A$130 billion. The South Australian Nuclear Fuel Royal Commission estimated a cost of A$145 billion over 120 years for construction, operation and decommissioning of a high-level nuclear waste repository.

It is highly unlikely that the government has considered these massive long-term costs in its secret deliberations.

Do I get a say in all this?

A 2019, a federal government-dominated parliamentary committee released a report on nuclear power titled ‘Not without your approval’. The report emphasised that nuclear power would not be pursued without community support.

But now, the federal government has secretly decided that Australia will acquire nuclear submarines and any consultation will likely be tokenistic. This is the DAD — Decide, Announce, Defend — approach which is the antithesis of good government.

Despite the government’s secrecy and obstinacy, the plan for nuclear submarines could easily collapse for any number of reasons — economics, the availability of superior options, public and political opposition etc.

Read more…

 

**We will update this document as more information comes to light.

Nuclear, Old_Notes

Stop the nuclear dump! Don’t dump on SA!

July 1, 2021

 
Please join us this Friday,  July 2 to voice opposition to the Morrison government’s plan to impose a national nuclear waste dump near Kimba in SA.
The nuclear dump is unwanted, unnecessary and unsafe.
It is unanimously opposed by Barngarla Traditional Owners and many other South Australians.
When: Friday July 2, 1 pm for 1.30 start to 3pm
Where: Steps of Parliament House on North Terrace
Some things you can do to help stop the imposition of the proposed nuclear dump:
* Donate to the Barngarla crowdfunder to fund a legal challenge (judicial review).
* Sign the Barngarla petition
* Sign the Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) petition
* Join the Adelaide-based ‘Don’t Dump on SA’ group, we meet on zoom every Tuesday (or sometimes every second Tuesday). Contact: jim.green@foe.org.au, 0417 318368

Actions, Nuclear, Old_Notes

A Law Against Ecocide

June 29, 2021

From the Press Release by the Stop Ecocide Foundation:

The Independent Expert Panel for the Legal Definition of Ecocide convened by the Stop Ecocide Foundation has completed its deliberations.  The proposed definition of ecocide as a 5th crime under the Rome Statute is now available for states to consider – and for civil society to demand.  We think the drafting panel has achieved something remarkable – we love this legal definition!  It’s well pitched between what needs to be done to protect ecosystems and what will be acceptable to states – it’s both bold and workable at same time.  Governments and activists alike will take it seriously.  
You can find the full text of the definition with accompanying commentary HERE and on the newly launched Ecocide Law website, an academic and legal resource hub we are co-managing with the Promise Institute for Human Rights at UCLA School of Law.  There is also an additional FAQ page. 

Earth Jurisprudence, Environmental Law, Old_Notes

Traditional owners can challenge nuclear waste dump on Country

June 29, 2021

In 2019, the Australian Electoral Commission conducted a month-long community ballot, asking the question ‘Do you support the proposed National Radioactive Waste Management Facility being located at one of the nominated sites in the community of Kimba?’

The ballot returned a 61.58 per cent ‘yes’ vote.

Barngarla conducted their own poll, saying they had been excluded from the AEC’s postal ballot.

100 per cent of the votes returned from Native Title holders said ‘no’ to the proposed nuclear facility.

Barngarla said the site selection process had been “completely and utterly miscarried”.

“No proper heritage assessment of the site was ever undertaken,” read the statement.

“… the most obvious and appalling example of this failed process was when the Government allowed the gerrymandering of the Kimba ‘community ballot’ in order to manipulate the vote.

“The simple fact remains that even though the Barngarla hold Native Title land closer to the proposed facility than the town of Kimba, the First Peoples for the area were not allowed to vote.

“…Mistakes have been made and the process needs to start again.”

“Traditional owners can challenge nuclear waste dump on Country”, Keira Jenkins, NITV News, SBS

Environmental Law, Nuclear, Old_Notes

Barngarla: Help us Have a Say on Kimba

June 29, 2021

22 June 2021 Joint Press Release:
Barngarla Determination Aboriginal Corporation and No Radioactive Waste on Agricultural Land in Kimba or SA
 
The issue of the nuclear waste facility is something which provokes significant emotion, and community opposition. However, no one else is as affected by it like we are. We issue this joint press release as the First Peoples for the Kimba area, and the farming communities who make their livelihood from the land because we are having our home, our land and our heritage threatened. We are the groups of people whose lives will be permanently damaged, if a waste facility is placed on our home.

We have fought hard and will continue to fight against a nuclear waste facility being placed on our home. We do not want it, and we will never support it. Our voices and views have been ignored by the Government. Local member Rowan Ramsey has been one of the main influences in pushing the Government to place a nuclear waste facility at Kimba. If you do not want this facility in SA or in the Eyre Peninsula or the Mid-North, then you must vote out Rowan Ramsey. We will never end this issue, whilst he is a local member.

The Government has completely and utterly miscarried the site selection process. There are many examples of this. No proper heritage assessment of the site was ever undertaken, and they have marginalised the voices of the farming community throughout the entire process.
However, the most obvious and appalling example of this failed process was when the Government allowed the gerrymandering of the Kimba “community ballot”, in order to manipulate the vote. The simple fact remains that even though the Barngarla hold native title land closer to the proposed facility than the town of Kimba, the First Peoples for the area were not allowed to vote.
They prevented Barngarla persons from voting, because native title land is not rateable. Further, they did not allow many farmers to vote, even though they were within 50km of the proposed facility, because they were not in the Council area. They targeted us, because they knew that if they had a fair vote which included us, then the vote would return a “no” from the community.
The process also ignores the fact that the Government never sought the views of the communities which will be affected by the transport of nuclear waste. Those communities, where the waste will be transported through, have had no right to have a say. South Australians more broadly haven’t had any rights to have a say.
 
Mistakes have been made and the process needs to start again. Instead, the Government sought to change the law to remove our democratic right to judicial review of their actions so that no Court could ever assess what had been done. We find this staggering, as checks and balances are needed for a functioning democracy. The removal of independent scrutiny is, for all Australians, frightening.
 
Protecting judicial review was the issue before the Federal Senate on Monday. It is important to understand that this is what the Senate was debating. We have won our right to have judicial review restored in this process. The broader failures are matters which will have to be dealt with in the future.
 
The Government have been forced by the Senate to preserve judicial review. The table in Schedule 1 of the Government’s revised Bill, is merely a face-saving exercise, and has no legal impact or effect. Even the Government Explanatory Memorandum makes this clear. Their own document states:
“Recognition of the three shortlisted sites confirms the sites as being nominated and approved under the Act, but does not limit the Minister from approving new nominations. The Minister may declare any approved nomination as a site, and is not bound to declare one of the three shortlisted sites”
 
The Government’s attempt to remove judicial review was so egregious and careless, that it provoked almost unanimous opposition across the political spectrum. This is a great moment for democracy, and for those who appreciate the importance of independent scrutiny of Government action, this is a day that the Barngarla people and the farmers at Kimba have saved one of the fundamental rights in a Democratic Country.
Because the Government were opposed by everyone from very different political backgrounds, such as: Labor, Pauline Hanson’s One Nation, the Greens and Senator Patrick, we consider it appropriate to express our thanks to all of these groups.
This reflects the fact that judicial review is a pivotal right no matter a person’s political background. We thank everyone in no particular order, as it remains the fact that had they not stood together, the Government would have removed the democratic rights of judicial review from us, and set a precedent which would have weakened democracy for all Australians:
• Labor: The Australian Labor Party deserves congratulations from all Australians for its actions. Without  the support of the Opposition, the Government would have gotten away with removing a fundamental democratic right from us and set a precedent to remove that right every other time they did not get their way.
Labor listened to all of us, but in particular they lived up to their commitment to listening to the First Peoples for the Kimba area. The Barngarla worked extensively with Labor, and in particular the Shadow Minister Ms Madeliene King ensured that the Barngarla were entitled to review any further amendments before they were
introduced.
We intend to write to other members of Labor, such as Senator Wong who has fought for all South Australians to express our thanks. As a party, however, they have been outstanding.

More broadly, there is the issue of what to do if Labor win Government. Many in Labor do not support a process where Aboriginal people were denied the right to vote. We believe Labor will continue to fight for us. But that is tomorrow’s issue. Monday was about judicial review, and Labor protected us and by extension all Australians, by preserving our right to judicial review.

• Pauline Hanson’s One Nation & State Leader of One Nation in SA Ms Jennifer Game: It remains a simple statement of fact that without PHON and Ms Jennifer Game, there would be a nuclear waste facility on prime farming land, in circumstances where Aboriginal people were denied the right to vote, and Aboriginals and farmers would have no right to independent legal review.

For those of you out there who might relate to this side of politics, particularly the farmers in the Eyre Peninsula, who do not want a waste dump then we strongly suggest you look at what One Nation and their representative Ms Jennifer Game have done to save South Australia from nuclear waste. They said “no” and listened to the local farming community when the Local member ignored us.

The Barngarla also recognise the great work of PHON and Ms Jennifer Game. It is a testimony of our work together that we have prevented the Government from removing fundamental basic rights for all Australians.

• The Greens: Special recognition must be given to the Greens. This is an issue that is central to the Greens, they have stood up and through their tireless and passionate advocacy have helped us immensely.
All Green supporters should be proud of their party’s efforts. In particular, Senator Hanson-Young has been a tireless advocate for South Australia. She was one of the first Senators to help us, and we imagine she will be with us to the end of this fight.
 
We would also like to acknowledge the strong words of Senator Thorpe. We agree that the Government has been tokenistic in its approach to the Barngarla people. What could be more tokenistic than saying they want to hear Barngarla views, but then deny the Barngarla the right to vote. It is our hope that with advocates like
Senator Thorpe, no other Aboriginal group will ever have to be treated in such a despicable way.

• Senator Patrick: Senator Patrick deserves great credit for his commitment to South Australia. He deserves the recognition of everyone committed to our State. He has been actively engaged on this issue from the very beginning. He has tirelessly fought to access Government documents under FOI so that South Australian’s can have access to the information which shows how badly this process has been miscarried.
We would like to thank Senator Patrick for his regular commitment and support to us in fighting to ensure our access to judicial review. Senator Patrick has also sought to find other solutions by trying to assess additional site options, whether Woomera or Leanora or others. We hope that this work by Senator Patrick will one day pay
dividends, and the Government will abandon its terrible plan to place this facility on prime agricultural land, which is significant also to the Barngarla People.

• The remaining cross bench: We would also like to thank the efforts of the remaining cross bench. Although we did not ultimately need to rely on their votes, we understand that they would likely have ensured our rights to judicial review. They spoke to us and engaged and should be acknowledged for their efforts.

Further information contact:
Barngarla: barngarlamedia@gmail.com
Peter Woolford: 0447 001 493

Nuclear, Old_Notes