DOCSLIB.ORG

Uranium Mining and Nuclear Facilities (Prohibitions) Repeal Bill 2019

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Uranium Mining and Nuclear Facilities (Prohibitions) Repeal Bill 2019 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL STANDING COMMITTEE ON STATE DEVELOPMENT Uranium Mining and Nuclear Facilities (Prohibitions) Repeal Bill 2019 Report 46 March 2020 www.parliament.nsw.gov.au LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL Standing Committee on State Development Uranium Mining and Nuclear Facilities (Prohibitions) Repeal Bill 2019 Ordered to be printed 4 March 2020 according to Standing Order 231 Report 46 - March 2020 i LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL Uranium Mining and Nuclear Facilities (Prohibitions) Repeal Bill 2019 New South Wales Parliamentary Library cataloguing-in-publication data: New South Wales. Parliament. Legislative Council. Standing Committee on State Development. Uranium Mining and Nuclear Facilities (Prohibitions) Repeal Bill 2019 / Standing Committee on State Development. [Sydney, N.S.W.] : the Committee, 2020. – [xiv, 150] pages ; 30 cm. (Report no. 46 / Standing Committee on State Development) Chair: Hon. Taylor Martin, MLC. “March 2020” ISBN 9781920788599 1. New South Wales. Parliament. Legislative Council—Uranium Mining and Nuclear Facilities (Prohibitions) Repeal Bill 2018. 2. Uranium mines and mining—Law and legislation—New South Wales. 3. Nuclear industry—Law and legislation—New South Wales. 4. Nuclear energy—Law and legislation—New South Wales. I. Martin, Taylor. II. Title. III. Series: New South Wales. Parliament. Legislative Council. Standing Committee on State Development. Report ; no. 46 622.349 (DDC22) ii Report 46 - March 2020 STANDING COMMITTEE ON STATE DEVELOPMENT Table of contents Terms of reference vi Committee details vii Chair’s foreword viii Findings and recommendations x Conduct of inquiry xiii Chapter 1 Background 1 The bill in context 1 The Uranium Mining and Nuclear Facilities (Prohibitions) Repeal Bill 2019 1 Rationale and impetus for the bill 2 Committee comment 3 Other inquiries into nuclear 4 Other parliamentary inquiries 4 The Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission (South Australia) 5 The Switkowski review 6 Overview of uranium mining 7 Prohibition on uranium mining in NSW 7 Uranium mining laws in other Australian jurisdictions 9 Overview of nuclear facilities 11 Prohibition on nuclear facilities in New South Wales 11 Current nuclear applications in Australia 13 Case study: Canada 14 Committee comment 16 Chapter 2 Uranium mining 17 Uranium mining in Australia 17 Key considerations for uranium mining in New South Wales 19 Potential deposits in New South Wales 20 Potential economic benefits for New South Wales 23 Current state of the market 28 Industry prerequisites for workplace safety and capacity 30 Environmental impacts of uranium mining 32 Transportation and export of uranium 35 Committee comment 36 Report 46 - March 2020 iii LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL Uranium Mining and Nuclear Facilities (Prohibitions) Repeal Bill 2019 Chapter 3 Energy in New South Wales 39 The New South Wales electricity system 39 The electricity supply chain at a glance 39 Overview of the National Electricity Market (NEM) 40 Energy issues in New South Wales 44 Emissions reduction targets 44 The energy trilemma 45 Current energy mix and trends in New South Wales 46 The energy trilemma in New South Wales – are we losing our competitive advantage? 48 Committee comment 51 Nuclear as a solution to the State's energy issues 51 The capacity factor 51 The future: nuclear or variable renewables? 52 Nuclear's environmental and emissions footprint 55 Dispatchability and nuclear power as firming for renewables 57 Committee comment 59 Chapter 4 Nuclear energy in New South Wales? 61 Nuclear technologies defined 61 Nuclear technologies at a glance 61 Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) 64 Committee comment 67 Viability and suitability of nuclear energy in New South Wales 68 Safety 68 Committee comment 74 Cost of nuclear 75 Construction times 83 Committee comment 85 Waste 85 Committee comment 91 Weapons 91 Prerequisites for a nuclear power industry in New South Wales 93 Regulatory framework for nuclear energy 93 Workforce capacity 95 Committee comment 98 Conclusion 99 iv Report 46 - March 2020 STANDING COMMITTEE ON STATE DEVELOPMENT Chapter 5 Social consent for nuclear energy 103 Public attitudes and support for nuclear energy 103 The Chernobyl effect 103 Trends 105 Other factors influencing support for nuclear 108 The role of media and popular culture in shaping public attitudes 109 Committee comment 110 Community engagement and education on nuclear energy 111 Promoting the benefits of nuclear 111 Popular misconceptions of radiation and its effects 112 Existing outreach and community education initiatives 114 Future community engagement strategies to obtain social acceptance 115 Committee comment 121 Appendix 1 Submissions 123 Appendix 2 Witnesses at hearings 126 Appendix 3 Minutes 128 Appendix 4 Dissenting statement 149 Report 46 - March 2020 v LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL Uranium Mining and Nuclear Facilities (Prohibitions) Repeal Bill 2019 Terms of reference 1. That: (a) the Uranium Mining and Nuclear Facilities (Prohibitions) Repeal Bill 2019 be referred to the Standing Committee on State Development for inquiry and report, and (b) on tabling of the report by the Standing Committee on State Development, a motion may be moved without notice that the bill be restored to the Notice Paper at the stage it had reached prior to referral. 2. That as part of the inquiry the New South Wales Parliamentary Library prepare an Issues Paper on the bill.1 The terms of reference were referred to the committee by the Legislative Council on 6 June 2019.2 1 The terms of reference were amended by the House on 13 November 2019, LC Minutes No 31, item 6, p 656 2 Minutes, NSW Legislative Council, 6 June 2019, pp 59-60. vi Report 46 - March 2020 STANDING COMMITTEE ON STATE DEVELOPMENT Committee details Committee members The Hon Taylor Martin MLC Liberal Party Chair The Hon Mick Veitch MLC Australian Labor Party Deputy Chair The Hon Mark Bansiak MLC Shooters Fishers and Farmers Party The Hon Wes Fang MLC The Nationals The Hon Scott Farlow MLC Liberal Party The Hon John Graham MLC Australian Labor Party The Hon Natasha Maclaren-Jones MLC Liberal Party The Hon Mark Latham MLC* Pauline Hanson's One Nation * The Hon Mark Latham MLC substituted for the Hon Mark Pearson MLC as a member of the committee for the duration of the inquiry Contact details Website www.parliament.nsw.gov.au Email [email protected] Telephone (02) 9230 3081 Report 46 - March 2020 vii LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL Uranium Mining and Nuclear Facilities (Prohibitions) Repeal Bill 2019 Chair’s foreword This inquiry was established to inquire into the Uranium Mining and Nuclear Facilities (Prohibitions) Repeal Bill 2019, which was referred to the Standing Committee on State Development for inquiry and report on 6 June 2019. The bill seeks to remove all State-based legal impediments to uranium mining and the construction and operation of nuclear facilities in New South Wales. The Uranium Mining and Nuclear Facilities (Prohibitions) Act 1986 may be considered an artefact of its time, a post-Chernobyl era characterised by concern about the environmental and health impacts of nuclear, as well as fears of nuclear war and the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Since 1986, much has changed. Nuclear technology has improved and there are further promising innovations such as Small Modular Reactors being developed. This report highlights the opportunities that exist for New South Wales if we were to play a greater role in the nuclear fuel cycle. If the bill is enacted in law, the prohibition on uranium mining in New South Wales would be lifted, making it legal to mine for uranium within State boundaries for the first time since 1987. However, the prohibition on nuclear facilities would still remain in place as a result of prohibitions enacted in Commonwealth legislation. The inquiry provided a timely platform for debate on whether nuclear energy should be considered on its merits as one possible energy source in the State's future energy mix. It presented an opportunity to gather the facts about nuclear energy based on the best available science and technology and to evaluate the prospects of nuclear energy as a low emissions source of electricity. This was not the first fact-finding mission on nuclear energy undertaken by an Australian parliament. Over the past fifteen years, Australian parliaments and governments have considered a greater role in the nuclear fuel cycle at various times. While neither the focus, findings, nor recommendations of this inquiry are entirely new, no Government has embraced the opportunities of an expanded nuclear industry. One of the themes of this inquiry was the decarbonisation of New South Wales's electricity generation. Despite the share of wind and solar in the New South Wales electricity generation mix tripling in the past five years, just over seven per cent of the State’s electricity currently comes from these sources. It is a finding of this inquiry that wind and solar firmed with gas, batteries and pumped hydro would not be an adequate solution to meet the State’s future needs for affordable and reliable electricity following the decommissioning of our ageing coal fired generation assets. There is an imperative for legislators and governments to be genuinely technology-neutral and not lock out appropriate, low-emissions alternatives to replace these ageing assets. This inquiry was not about promoting an overnight change in the legal settings for nuclear energy in New South Wales. Rather, removing the barriers that exist will increase the ability for private investment in this space and there remains significant work to be done before it becomes a possibility. The report highlights that the Government will need to consider the viability of nuclear energy from an economic perspective, workforce capacity and regulatory frameworks prior to any proposal being implemented. viii Report 46 - March 2020 STANDING COMMITTEE ON STATE DEVELOPMENT Serious and informed policy dialogues about nuclear energy involve incredibly complex issues and considerations – and therefore take time. They also will require a willingness to listen to contemporary evidence that challenges entrenched views.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • In Situ Leach (ISL) Mining of Uranium
    In Situ Leach (ISL) Mining of Uranium (June 2009) l Most uranium mining in the USA and Kazakhstan is now by in situ leach methods, also known as in situ recovery (ISR). l In USA ISL is seen as the most cost effective and environmentally acceptable method of mining, and Australian experience supports this. l Australia's first ISL uranium mine is Beverley, which started operation late in 2000. The proposal for Honeymoon has government approval and it is expected to be operating in 2008. Conventional mining involves removing mineralised rock (ore) from the ground, breaking it up and treating it to remove the minerals being sought. In situ leaching (ISL), also known as solution mining, or in situ recovery (ISR) in North America, involves leaving the ore where it is in the ground, and recovering the minerals from it by dissolving them and pumping the pregnant solution to the surface where the minerals can be recovered. Consequently there is little surface disturbance and no tailings or waste rock generated. However, the orebody needs to be permeable to the liquids used, and located so that they do not contaminate ground water away from the orebody. Uranium ISL uses the native groundwater in the orebody which is fortified with a complexing agent and in most cases an oxidant. It is then pumped through the underground orebody to recover the minerals in it by leaching. Once the pregnant solution is returned to the surface, the uranium is recovered in much the same way as in any other uranium plant (mill). In Australian ISL mines (Beverley and the soon to be opened Honeymoon Mine) the oxidant used is hydrogen peroxide and the complexing agent sulfuric acid.
    [Show full text]
  • About Uranium Mining in South Australia Foreword
    The Facts about uranium mining in South Australia Foreword South Australia has been a major producer of uranium since 1988. We are proud of our track record and our global reputation for excellence. The South Australian Government thoroughly To achieve that aim we need to challenge assess mining lease proposals, and through the perceptions of unacceptable hazards stringent conditions, rigorously upholds the associated with the uranium industry. Risks highest standards for monitoring and safety. associated with nuclear energy are judged harsher than competing energy sources. The enduring strength of this State’s leadership in uranium mining is an insistence Access to information and education is on world’s best practice for managing our the key to challenging these perceptions. resources. Uranium – The Facts is just that, the facts that should be the basis for any informed debate Our global reputation enables us to attract about uranium and South Australia’s current the world’s leading uranium miners and role in the global nuclear fuel cycle. lead the country in annual production. Uranium produced in South Australia is equivalent to delivering CO2-free power to 20 million people. Yet with more than 80% of Australia’s total Hon Tom Koutsantonis MP, uranium resource, there remains considerable Minister for Mineral Resources and Energy scope to expand. It’s not enough that we produce exports from the world’s largest uranium deposit at Olympic Dam, we want to unlock the full potential of all South Australia’s uranium assets. How we regulate The Foreign Investment Review The Australian regulatory framework Board examines foreign investment for the uranium industry is widely proposals to ensure the investment is recognised as world’s best practice.
    [Show full text]
  • Arkaroola Protection Area: a Field Guide to Selected Geological Features
    Arkaroola Protection Area: A field guide to selected geological features Graeme L. Worboys and Stephen B. Hore arkaroola.com.au environment.sa.gov.au Citation: Worboys, G. L. and Hore, S.B. (2013) Arkaroola Protection Area: A field guide to selected geological features. Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary and Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources, Adelaide. Copyright: © This work is copyright. Apart from any use permitted under the Australian Copyright Act 1968, no part may be reproduced by any process, nor may any other exclusive right be exercised without the express permission of the authors. Acknowledgements: Many individuals and organisations contributed to the development of this Field Guide. The text has been sourced predominantly from the Arkaroola National Heritage Listing nomination jointly submitted to the Australian Government by the South Australian Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources and Margaret and Douglas Sprigg of the Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary. Appreciation is expressed for the use of this material. The Field Guide also sourced technical geological quotes from a 2004 field guide developed by John Drexel and Stephen Hore and appreciation is extended for the use of this material. Thanks are particularly extended to Margaret and Douglas Sprigg, Lorraine Edmunds and Dennis Walter of Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary; Jason Irving of the South Australian Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources; Tim Baker of the Geological Survey of South Australia; the Geological Society of Australia (South Australia Division); Jim Gehling and Joël Brugger of the South Australian Museum; the University of Adelaide; Malcolm William Wallace of the University of Melbourne; Malcolm Walter of the University of New South Wales; Narelle Neumann of Geoscience Australia; and Paul O’Brien of Helivista Helicopters (South Australia) for their assistance in the development of this material.
    [Show full text]
  • 4 Pages on U Mining by End of October, See Pol D
    URANIUM MINING IN AUSTRALIA Friends of the Earth, Australia foe.org.au/anti-nuclear January 2013 With Australia holding 30-40% of the world's uranium mining was overturned in 2012. In WA, known conventional uranium reserves, the the Liberal government supports uranium mining uranium mining industry hopes to significantly but the Labor opposition opposes any new increase production. However the Coalition uranium mines (but might permit mines that have government, in power from 1996-2007, succeeded received prior approvals). In NSW, the Liberal in establishing only one new mine. The Beverley government supports uranium exploration but has mine in South Australia began commercial not (yet) moved to permit uranium mining. production in 2001. The tiny Honeymoon mine in SA began production in 2011 but in May 2012 joint A 2003 report by a federal Senate References and venture partner Mitsui announced that it was Legislation Committee found "a pattern of under- withdrawing from the Honeymoon project as it performance and non-compliance" in the uranium "could not foresee sufficient economic return from mining industry. It identified many gaps in the project." knowledge and found an absence of reliable data on which to measure the extent of contamination As at January 2013, there is bipartisan support for from the uranium mining industry, and it uranium mining at the federal level and in SA and concluded that changes were necessary "in order the NT. In Queensland, a long-standing ban on to protect the environment and its inhabitants from serious or irreversible damage". The history of secret nuclear weapons research, and committee concluded "that short-term states stockpiling 'civil' plutonium.
    [Show full text]
  • A Fair Share for Australian Manufacturing: Manufacturing Renewal for the Post-COVID Economy
    A Fair Share for Australian Manufacturing: Manufacturing Renewal for the Post-COVID Economy By Dr. Jim Stanford The Centre for Future Work at the Australia Institute July 2020 A Fair Share for Australian Manufacturing 1 About The Australia Institute About the Centre for Future Work The Australia Institute is an independent public policy think The Centre for Future Work is a research centre, housed within tank based in Canberra. It is funded by donations from the Australia Institute, to conduct and publish progressive philanthropic trusts and individuals and commissioned economic research on work, employment, and labour markets. research. We barrack for ideas, not political parties or It serves as a unique centre of excellence on the economic candidates. Since its launch in 1994, the Institute has carried issues facing working people: including the future of jobs, out highly influential research on a broad range of economic, wages and income distribution, skills and training, sector and social and environmental issues. industry policies, globalisation, the role of government, public services, and more. The Centre also develops timely and Our Philosophy practical policy proposals to help make the world of work As we begin the 21st century, new dilemmas confront our better for working people and their families. society and our planet. Unprecedented levels of consumption co-exist with extreme poverty. Through new technology we are www.futurework.org.au more connected than we have ever been, yet civic engagement is declining. Environmental neglect continues despite About the Author heightened ecological awareness. A better balance is urgently Jim Stanford is Economist and Director of the Centre for Future needed.
    [Show full text]
  • The Legal Regime for the Road Transport of Uranium Oxide in Western Australia
    YELLOWCAKE ROAD: THE LEGAL REGIME FOR THE ROAD TRANSPORT OF URANIUM OXIDE IN WESTERN AUSTRALIA EMILY BELL BACHELOR OF LAWS / BACHELOR OF CRIMINOLOGY MURDOCH UNIVERSITY This thesis is presented for the Honours degree of Bachelor of Laws of Murdoch University, 2017. WORD COUNT: 19,620 (Excluding footnotes, bibliography and appendices) DECLARATION I, Emily Bell, declare this thesis is my own account of my research and contains as its main content, work which has not been previously submitted for a degree at any tertiary education institution. ii COPYRIGHT ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I acknowledge that a copy of this thesis will be held at the Murdoch University Library. I understand that, under the provisions of s51.2 of the Copyright Act 1968, all or part of this thesis may be copied without infringement of copyright where such a reproduction is for the purposes of study and research. This statement does not signal any transfer of copyright away from the author. Signed: ………………………………. Degree: Bachelor of Laws / Bachelor of Criminology Thesis Title: Yellowcake Road: The Legal Regime for the Road Transport of Uranium Oxide in Western Australia Author: Emily Bell Year: 2017 iii ABSTRACT Uranium is a contentious and emotive commodity. Attitudes towards uranium and the nuclear fuel cycle have, overall, been negative. Distrust of the nuclear industry and misunderstandings about the level of risk posed by the transport of uranium oxide (also known as yellowcake) has influenced a policy ban prohibiting uranium exports from Western Australian ports. Western Australia has a nascent uranium industry, with four major projects at various stages of government approval. When these mines commence production, producers will be forced to truck the uranium oxide by road to either Port Adelaide or Port Darwin for export.
    [Show full text]
  • Renewable Electricity Policy for Australia
    Renewable electricity policy for Australia Mark Diesendorf Associate Professor, School of Humanities & Languages UNSW Sydney Email: [email protected] November 2018 ABOUT THE AUSTRALIA INSTITUTE The Australia Institute is an independent public policy think tank based in Canberra. It is funded by donations from philanthropic trusts and individuals and commissioned research. We barrack for ideas, not political parties or candidates. Since its launch in 1994, the Institute has carried out highly influential research on a broad range of economic, social and environmental issues. OUR PHILOSOPHY As we begin the 21st century, new dilemmas confront our society and our planet. Unprecedented levels of consumption co-exist with extreme poverty. Through new technology we are more connected than we have ever been, yet civic engagement is declining. Environmental neglect continues despite heightened ecological awareness. A better balance is urgently needed. The Australia Institute’s directors, staff and supporters represent a broad range of views and priorities. What unites us is a belief that through a combination of research and creativity we can promote new solutions and ways of thinking. OUR PURPOSE – ‘RESEARCH THAT MATTERS’ The Institute publishes research that contributes to a more just, sustainable and peaceful society. Our goal is to gather, interpret and communicate evidence in order to both diagnose the problems we face and propose new solutions to tackle them. The Institute is wholly independent and not affiliated with any other organisation. Donations to its Research Fund are tax deductible for the donor. Anyone wishing to donate can do so via the website at https://www.tai.org.au or by calling the Institute on 02 6130 0530.
    [Show full text]
  • Covering Letter
    Inquiry into Australia’s faunal extinction crisis A u n s o t i r t a a l ia d n un Koala Fo Covering Letter 2nd August 2018 Committee Secretary Senate Standing Committee on Environment and Communications [email protected] The Inquiry into Australia’s faunal extinction crisis The Australian Koala Foundation is pleased to provide these comments to the Senate Standing Committee on Environment and Communications. Should you require further information our contact details are as follows: Deborah Tabart OAM, CEO of the Australian Koala Foundation Ph: (07) 3229 7233 Email: [email protected] GPO Box 2659, Brisbane QLD 4001 I would appreciate if the Committee could make the submission and my name public. Inquiry into Australia’s faunal extinction crisis - Page 1 of 13 A u n s o t i r t a a l ia d n un Koala Fo Inquiry into Australia’s faunal extinction crisis Submission by the Australian Koala Foundation (AKF) Submission summary On behalf of the Australian Koala Foundation (AKF), we thank the Senate En- vironment and Communications Committee for the opportunity to comment on Australia’s faunal extinction crisis. The Australian Koala Foundation participated in a former Senate Inquiry for the Koala in 2011. The AKF’s submission to the 2011 Inquiry is attached in Appendix A. The scientific bibliography should satisfy our credentials on this matter. The Senate Report of 2011 identified that the Koala was in crisis and the Com- mittee took 101 submissions and had 3 hearings, in Brisbane, Melbourne and Canberra. It is sobering reading and as I prepare this submission, it shocks me that nothing has changed, except the plight of the Koala is now worse.
    [Show full text]
  • The Australia Institute Is an Independent Public Policy Think Tank Based in Canberra
    The MRRT should not be abolished Submission October 2013 David Richardson Submission About TAI The Australia Institute is an independent public policy think tank based in Canberra. It is funded by donations from philanthropic trusts and individuals, memberships and commissioned research. Since its launch in 1994, the Institute has carried out highly influential research on a broad range of economic, social and environmental issues. Our philosophy As we begin the 21st century, new dilemmas confront our society and our planet. Unprecedented levels of consumption co-exist with extreme poverty. Through new technology we are more connected than we have ever been, yet civic engagement is declining. Environmental neglect continues despite heightened ecological awareness. A better balance is urgently needed. The Australia Institute’s directors, staff and supporters represent a broad range of views and priorities. What unites us is a belief that through a combination of research and creativity we can promote new solutions and ways of thinking. Our purpose—‘Research that matters’ The Institute aims to foster informed debate about our culture, our economy and our environment and bring greater accountability to the democratic process. Our goal is to gather, interpret and communicate evidence in order to both diagnose the problems we face and propose new solutions to tackle them. The Institute is wholly independent and not affiliated with any other organisation. As an Approved Research Institute, donations to its Research Fund are tax deductible for the donor. Anyone wishing to donate can do so via the website at https://www.tai.org.au or by calling the Institute on 02 6206 8700.
    [Show full text]
  • BHP Billiton: Dirty Energy
    dirty energy Alternative Annual Report 2011 Contents Introduction 1 BHP Global mining operations – dirty energy investments 3 Coal BHP Billiton in Colombia: Destroying communities for coal 4 BHP Billiton in Indonesia: Going for Deadly Coal in Indonesia 7 BHP Billiton in Australia: When too much in!uence is never enough 8 BHP Billiton Australia: Coal mine workers "ght back - Queensland 10 BHP Billiton Australia: BHP battle with farmers - New South Wales 10 Oil and Gas and Greenhouse Gases BHP Billiton globally: Re-carbonising instead of decarbonising 11 BHP Billiton in Australia: Hero or destroyer? 12 Uranium BHP Billiton in Australia: “Wanti” uranium – leave it 13 BHP Billiton in Australia: Irradiating the future 15 BHP Billiton in Indonesia: Mining for REDD a false solution to climate change 18 Solutions? Less mining, more reuse and recycling? 19 Moving into rare earths? 20 Footnotes 22 Introduction “More than 30 million people were displaced in 2010 by environmental and weather-related disasters across Asia, experts have warned, and the problem is only likely to grow worse as cli- mate change exacerbates such problems. Tens of millions more people are likely to be similarly displaced in the future by the effects of climate change, including rising sea levels, floods, droughts and reduced agricultural productivity. Such people are likely to migrate in regions across Asia, and governments must start to prepare for the problems this will create.” – Asian Development Bank Report1 %+3 %LOOLWRQ LV WKH ZRUOG¶V ODUJHVW GLYHUVL¿HG QDWXUDO SROLF\
    [Show full text]
  • Australian Conservation Foundation
    SUBMISSION NO. 8 TT on 12 March 2013 Australian Conservation Foundation submission to the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties on the Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the United Arab Emirates on Co- operation in the Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy May 2013 Introduction: The Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) is committed to inspiring people to achieve a healthy environment for all Australians. For nearly fifty years, we have worked with the community, business and government to protect, restore and sustain our environment. ACF welcomes this opportunity to comment on the Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the United Arab Emirates for Co-operation in the Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy. ACF has a long and continuing interest and active engagement with the Australian uranium sector and contests the assumptions under-lying the proposed treaty. ACF would welcome the opportunity to address this submission before the Committee. Nuclear safeguards Uranium is the principal material required for nuclear weapons. Successive Australian governments have attempted to maintain a distinction between civil and military end uses of Australian uranium exports, however this distinction is more psychological than real. No amount of safeguards can absolutely guarantee Australian uranium is used solely for peaceful purposes. According the former US Vice-President Al Gore, “in the eight years I served in the White House, every weapons proliferation issue we faced was linked with a civilian reactor program.”1 Energy Agency, 1993 Despite successive federal government assurances that bilateral safeguard agreements ensure peaceful uses of Australian uranium in nuclear power reactors, the fact remains that by exporting uranium for use in nuclear power programs to nuclear weapons states, other uranium supplies are free to be used for nuclear weapons programs.
    [Show full text]
  • The Eye of the Storm. an Integral Perspective on Sustainable
    The Eye of the Storm An Integral Perspective on Sustainable Development and Climate Change Response Christopher Riedy Institute for Sustainable Futures University of Technology, Sydney Thesis submitted for the PhD in Sustainable Futures May 2005 CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORSHIP/ORIGINALITY I certify that the work in this thesis has not previously been submitted for a degree nor has it been submitted as part of requirements for a degree except as fully acknowledged within the text. I also certify that the thesis has been written by me. Any help that I have received in my research work and the preparation of the thesis itself has been acknowledged. In addition, I certify that all information sources and literature used are indicated in the thesis. Signature of Candidate _________________________________________________ Acknowledgements The thesis I present here is the culmination of a long journey that has taken many twists and turns. I have many people to thank for their guidance and support along that journey. My supervisors have each contributed in their own way. Mark Diesendorf, my original supervisor, provided the vision that began the journey and introduced me to academic research. It was Mark’s idea to investigate subsidies to fossil fuel production and consumption in Australia. My initial work on subsidies benefited greatly from Mark’s experience. My second supervisor, Chloe Mason, introduced me to the social sciences and to the rigour required of an academic. The lessons were difficult at the time but valuable in hindsight. Indirectly, Chloe taught me to pursue my own research path. My current supervisor, Professor Stuart White, gave me the freedom to pursue that path and my work flourished under his supervision.
    [Show full text]