Publications

Where do the parties stand on the proposed Nuclear Waste Dump?

roman March 12, 2018

Radioactive waste

One of the questions asked of the parties was whether they would

Protect SA from the threat of radioactive waste importation, storage and disposal.

Actively oppose the federal government plan for a radioactive waste facility in SA and support the state Nuclear Waste Storage Facility (Prohibition) Act 2000 which makes any such facility illegal. Commit to further strengthen this legislation by removing the modified section 13(2).

The detailed responses given to the SA Our Future Questionnaire are as follows:

The Greens

11a. Categorically rule out the creation of an international high and/or intermediate level radioactive waste storage and disposal facility Yes

11b. Actively oppose the federal government plan for a radioactive waste facility in SA Yes

11c. Actively support the state Nuclear Waste Storage Facility (Prohibition) Act 2000. Commit to further strengthen this legislation by removing the modified section 13(2). Done! Thanks to Greens Bill

The Liberals

11a. Categorically rule out the creation of an international high and/or intermediate level radioactive waste storage and disposal facility Yes

11b. Actively oppose the federal government plan for a radioactive waste facility in SA No response

SA Best

11a Categorically rule out the creation of an international high and/or intermediate level radioactive waste storage and disposal facility Yes

11b. Actively oppose the federal government plan for a radioactive waste facility in SA
SA Best recognises the benefits of nuclear medicine and research and supports a responsible approach to radioactive waste management in Australia. However, this must be based on transparent and inclusive processes. SA Best notes community concern and is not supportive of any planned national radioactive waste facility in SA in the absence of full federal government transparency regarding its consultation, selection and assessment processes. Should the federal government fail to demonstrate this SA Best would support using existing state legislation to block the plan.

11c No Response

Labor

No radioactive waste
Actively oppose the federal government plan for a radioactive waste facility in SA and support the state Nuclear Waste Storage Facility (Prohibition) Act 2000 which makes any such facility illegal. Commit to further strengthen this legislation by removing the modified
section 13(2).

Response

SA Labor has supported changes to the Nuclear Waste Storage Facility (Prohibition) Act 2000.

We have written to the Turnbull government outlining our strong expectations around community support for any proposed facility, including a veto for the local Aboriginal Community.

The State Labor Government supported an amendment in parliament that affirmed the State’s ban on spending public money on nuclear waste. The Government has also been clear that any Commonwealth nuclear waste facility MUST have the support of the community, including the local Aboriginal community.

Premier Jay Wetherill has recently written to the Turnbull government and made our expectations in this regard very clear, and to request their process include a veto policy for any local Aboriginal community.

513 of the Nuclear Waste Storage Facility (Prohibition) Act 2000 prohibits the expenditure of money on any nuclear waste facility. 513(2) allowed us to spend money on consultation on the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission. We recently supported an amendment Bill to remove this clause — but with a modified replacement clause as follows:

Subsection (1 ) does not prohibit the appropriation, expenditure or advancement to a person of public money for the purpose of financing the maintenance or sharing of information or to enable the State to engage with other jurisdictions

This clause means that money cannot be spent on pursuing a nuclear waste facility, but allows us respond to enquiries from the public and to engage with the Commonwealth on their process. Without this amendment, our Act would prohibit us from even talking to the Commonwealth in relation to their process.

Adelaide FoE Notes

Where do the parties stand on the top ten environmental issues for South Australia?

roman March 12, 2018

33 environmental and community organisations scored parties on 36 key environmental issues.

The full response, with details on questions at https://www.ourfuturesa.org.au

A summary of the “top ten” issues at star_ratings_for_top_10_issues (Out of 50: Liberal 18.5, Labor 21.5, Greens 50, SABest 38.5)

The ACF

The ACF have been handing out their leaflet comparing the parties on pollution, clean energy and protecting nature

They note:

The Greens are leading the way in South Australia, with five stars for policies on cutting climate pollution, ramping up clean energy and respecting and protecting nature.
SA Best made some good commitments on banning oil exploration in the Bight and fracking in the South East, but only back a 50% Renewable Energy Target by 2025, which SA has almost already reached.
We found Labor scored well on policies to make SA a global leader on clean energy (a 75% Renewable Energy Target by 2025!), but has a blind spot on banning oil and gas.
The Liberal Party scored lowest with 1.5 stars – they’re weak over radioactive waste dumping in SA and want to scrap the Renewable Energy Target.

Solar Citizens

Solar citizens have provided a detailed report on where the parties stand in renewables, and how they respond to issues raised in the Solar Citizens’ Repowering South Australia report. See https://www.solarcitizens.org.au/south_australian_election_guide

Solar Citizens’ Solar Scorecard

See separate entry on the nuclear waste dump issue.

Adelaide FoE Notes, FoE

Southpaw Backhander

roman March 12, 2018

The return of the Liberal Party government in Tasmania with a bare, reduced majority was not an unalloyed catastrophe for the progressive forces in the island State. Labor was returned with an increased minority on an issue of principle, pokies reform. This confirms the strong leadership of Rebecca White, who is arguably well poised to regain government at the next election, circumstances permitting; the Green vote was alarmingly static, not to say worse. There is the consolation that losing with a sound policy at least leaves a legacy to build on. But it is nonetheless a setback for progressive forces in Tasmania and nationally. It once again shows that excessive tension between Labor and the Greens only benefits the Tories, in keeping with the maxim that disunity is death. It is unhealthy that the Hodgeman dynasty administration has been returned to office, with its plans to log wilderness extensively and restrict the democratic right to protest to appease capital. Despite Hodgeman’s denials that the election was bought, there is no doubt that the massive advertising campaign by the gambling lobby, led by the Federal Group which owns the island’s two casinos, was a powerful factor.

Labor and the Greens can now only govern together. Labor’s primary vote has fallen to historic lows, while Bob Brown’s ambitions to `replace the bastards’ are illusory. Labor and the Greens are as doomed to serve the public together as the Liberals and Nationals are condemned to loot the public purse on behalf of vested interests as Coalition partners in crime. As a Tasmanian expat I have been arguing this case like Cassandra since my teenage years in Tasmania during the rise of the Greens in the 1970s. These basic political principles have national implications. As the 2018 Tasmanian General Election shows, they are ignored at the peril of the interested parties and the public, not to mention the environment. And it’s not as if they prevent creative competition and mature political agreements to disagree, so nothing should be allowed to stand in the way on either side. As it is, the Tasmanian electorate has held its nose and marginally voted Liberal after pronouncing a pox on both progressive houses, seeing them as unstable, divided and divisive.

Why have Labor and the Greens defied common sense for so long, destabilizing one another by devouring each other’s vote? Competition from diverse class, philosophical and cultural bases is certainly part of the problem. A certain willfulness too is a common fault; Labor sees the Greens reductively as middle-class, while Green smugness about `old parties’, which must irritate half the electorate over 30, begs the question about the positive value of certain traditions. Both parties must grow out of these bad habits. The progressive cause and the environment itself demand no less.

Dr David Faber Adelaide March 2018

Adelaide FoE Notes, FoE

CSIRO planning US military funded genetic extinction experiments in WA

roman March 1, 2018

A raft of emails obtained through a Freedom of Information request (The Gene Drive Files) reveal that CSIRO and University of Adelaide scientists are part of a US military funded global network researching a risky new genetic modification (GM) technique referred to as gene drives. The group have already identified six potential islands in Western Australia where they intend to use the technique to drive local mice populations to extinction.

Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA – the US military’s research arm) is contributing US$6.4M to fund the Genetic Biocontrol of Invasive Rodents Program (GBIRd). This is being spread between the CSIRO, the University of Adelaide, several US research institutes and the NGO Island Conservation.

The release of gene drives could have potentially catastrophic ecological consequences. Even gene drive proponents have now admitted that the gene drives are too risky to be released into the environment. We find it incredible that CSIRO and its GBIRd partners are already considering the environmental release of this technology.”

Gene drives are a new and highly controversial technique that can force altered genetic traits through successive generations. The GBIRd scientists intend to use the technique to develop mice that only produce male offspring in order to drive local populations to extinction.

Mice are notorious for stowing away on boats, which is how they have spread globally. One of the proposed release sites for the gene drive mice is Boullanger Island – a popular tourist destination just 1km from the mainland. There is no way that a release of gene drive mice there could be geographically contained.

Most rodents are considered keystone species in their ecological communities as herbivores, seed eaters and seed dispersers, and prey for many carnivores. Many other species depend on them for survival. The ecological impacts if mice are driven to extinction in their natural habitats in Europe and Asia could be catastrophic.

Gene drives are a classic ‘dual use’ technology, meaning that gene drives ostensibly developed for one use could also be used as a weapon. For example, gene drives could be developed to make insects, parasites or microbes spread disease or toxins. And releasing a gene drive into agricultural fields could attack a country’s food production. DARPA has sunk approximately 100 million dollars into gene drive research making the agency probably the largest single funder of gene drive research on the planet.

DARPA has no interest in funding public interest research. It is interested in the militarisation of this technology and it is deeply disturbing that CSIRO is aiding and abetting it in this work.

In the GBIrd coalition CSIRO has the highly conflicted responsibility of both promoting gene drives and assessing their risks. According to the FOI documents, the CSIRO is planning community engagement “as part of a wider effort to gain social license for environmental applications of synthetic biology (1) technologies“. CSIRO has allocated $3.5M for community/stakeholder research related to synthetic biology and is attempting to secure more money from DARPAspecifically for this work on the GBIRd project.

CSIRO scientists have already decided they want to release gene drive mice into the environment. The community engagement work they are planning is no more than a cynical marketing exercise. They clearly have no interest in a genuine societal debate on the use of this technology.

The Government is currently reviewing whether new GM techniques such as gene drives and CRISPR should be regulated. CSIRO gene drive developer and GBIRd partner Mark Tizard is currently advising both the Department of Health and Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) on the regulation of new GM techniques.

This starkly illustrates the extent of the capture of our regulatory agencies by vested interests. Here we have a gene drive developer who has called for the complete deregulation of new GM techniques such as CRISPR advising the Government on whether these new techniques should be regulated.

The Government needs to urgently remove individuals with clear conflicts of interest from its advisory committees and introduce a moratorium on gene drive research.

Read our briefing on the Gene Drive Files

(1) Synthetic biology is an extreme form of genetic engineering that involves re-engineering and designing genes to create new synthetic organisms that do not exist in nature.

Adelaide FoE Notes, Gene Technology

Senate Enquiry National Rad Waste Facility

roman March 1, 2018

Mara Bonacci, the CCSA’s Nuclear Waste campaigner writes:

On 6 February 2018, the Senate referred an inquiry into the selection process for a national radioactive waste management facility in South Australia to the Senate Economics Reference Committee for inquiry and report by 14 August 2018.

This is welcome.

Submissions are due by Tuesday 3rd April.

It would be wonderful if you could write a submission.

The terms of reference can be found here

Some points to consider including are:

A single individual or property owner should not be allowed to nominate a site for a nuclear waste dump.
The federal government have not made a clear or compelling case that we need a national nuclear waste dump in SA.
The consultation process has been deficient and has caused division in our communities.
The federal government plan lacks social licence or community consent. Traditional Owners have flagged concerns over cultural heritage issues.
The project has not considered the full range of options to best advance responsible radioactive waste management in Australia. Australia’s worst waste should be dealt with better.

In addition, I have set up on online submission system that is pre-filled but can be edited. I encourage as many people as possible to take a few minutes to complete.

It would be great to get as many submissions to the Senate Standing Committees on Economics as possible so collectively we can end this terrible process and get the federal government to finally take a responsible approach to radioactive waste management.

Please contact me if you have any questions or need any help with this.

thanks and regards,

Mara Bonacci
Nuclear Waste Campaigner

Usual Hours Monday – Wednesday 10am – 3pm

Conservation Council SA
The Joinery / 111 Franklin Street, Adelaide SA 5000
(08) 8223 5155 mobile: 0422 229 970

Adelaide FoE Notes, Clean Futures, Nuclear