Dissenting Report—Australian Greens
The Australian Greens do not
believe the Fifth Agreement to Extend the 1987 Regional Cooperative Agreement
for Research, Development and Training related to Nuclear Science and
Technology done at Bali on 15 April 2011 should be simply rolled over for a
further five year period, particularly in the wake of Fukushima.
The Committee's report
perfunctorily dismisses the concerns and arguments provided in submissions and
contrasts poorly with its past considered and detailed engagement on nuclear
issues.
The Committee notes that there,
"may have been an opportunity missed to upgrade the agreement rather than
simply 'rolling it over'" and then goes on then to facilitate precisely
that occurring by recommending that the agreement be simply rolled over.
The vague suggestion that next
time the Agreement comes up for another rolling over some of the issues
canvassed could be reviewed begs the question as to who is rolling over and for
whom?
While the Committee and ANSTO
may wax lyrical about the "important benefits for Australia" arising
from this agreement, or the "important national interests in maintaining
its participation" or the "important vehicle for Australia's
cooperation with regional countries", it is equally important for
Australia's government, parliament and uranium industry to face some facts.
While the nuclear industry's
optimism may have a therapeutic function, it is not grounded in reality.
This is an industry deeply
shaken by the global financial crisis, the ongoing Fukushima disaster with its
regular revelations of more cover ups and duplicity, as well as fierce
competition from renewable technologies which continue to outpace nuclear
because they are more affordable and faster to install. Installed worldwide
nuclear capacity decreased in the years 1998, 2006, 2009 and again in
2011, while the annual installed wind power capacity increased by 41 GW in
2011 alone. A total of 19 reactors were shut down in 2011 while only seven
were started up that year, and only 2 more in 2012.
Since the Fukushima disaster
three countries – Germany, Belgium and Switzerland– have announced nuclear
phase out. Taiwan's government presented a new energy strategy in
November 2011 to “steadily reduce nuclear dependency, create a low-carbon green
energy environment and gradually move towards a nuclear-free homeland”. At
least five countries – Egypt, Italy, Jordan, Kuwait and Thailand – have decided
to not engage or reengage their programs. New build projects were
officially cancelled in Brazil, France, India and the USA. Japan has
restarted only two of its 54 reactors, and in both Bulgaria and Japan two
reactors under construction were abandoned.
The rating agency Moodys
explains that nuclear investment is risky and "a nuclear project could be
the thing that pushes [the utility] over the edge – it's just another negative
factor." The rating agency welcomed the decision by German
utilities RWE and E.ON to abandon their U.K. new build plans as they “can
instead focus on investment in less risky projects”.
Large and successful companies
are making serious losses. TEPCO has lost 96 per cent of its share value
since 2007. In the same period the French state utility EDF has lost 82
per cent of its value, the share price of the French state company Areva has
fallen by 88 per cent. Siemens announced it would entirely withdraw from
nuclear because it, "frees up funds that Siemens can redeploy in
businesses with better visibility."
These and other cold hard facts
and citations are provided in the recently released World Nuclear Industry
Status Report available at www.worldnuclearreport.org.
Here in Australia BHP Billiton
has put off the decision about the expansion of the Olympic Dam uranium mine
for 2 years. The proponents of the Kintyre uranium mine in the Western
Desert have also postponed any decision on mining after their pre feasibility
study indicated the project would be making a loss with current uranium price.
Rather than the "cutting
edge nuclear technologies" described in the report, nuclear technology is
a dangerous and increasingly bankrupt 20th century technology.
Technology and techniques for generating isotopes for medical diagnosis and
treatment are well underway. In March 2010, the Canadian government
Response to the Report of the Expert Review Panel on Medical Isotope Production
committed to 100 per cent non-reactor production of radioisotopes from 2016.
The "grand bargain"
established last century in the NPT that bestows the "inalienable
right" to nuclear energy amounts this century to the inalienable right of
an expensive industry to massive subsidies provided by taxpayers, the
inalienable right to expose citizens to routine hazardous releases of radiation
and the inalienable right to produce a riddle science cannot yet solve: large
quantities of radioactive waste.
As ICAN noted in its submission,
"...the challenging but achievable goal of a world free of nuclear weapons
will be more readily achieved and sustained in a world in which nuclear power
generation is being or has been phased out. This is because the material and
capacity to produce nuclear power intrinsically involves the capacity to
produce fissile material usable for nuclear weapons. "
The submission from the
Gundjeihmi Aboriginal Corporation representing the Mirarr people from whose
land half of Australia's uranium exports are sourced, also expressed deep
concern "about the fate of uranium sourced from their land with relation
to this Agreement" due to the fact that "three of the signatories to
the Agreement are Nuclear Weapon States (NWS): China, India and
Pakistan,' and cited the authors of the UN system wide study into the
implications of the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant who
stated the irrefutable fact that, "Nuclear science and technology can also
be used to develop nuclear weapons. "
The Committee's report fails
entirely to note the rather important fact that this agreement
facilitates Australian nuclear cooperation with Pakistan and India – two states
that developed clandestine nuclear weapons programs and which continue to defy
the international community by standing outside the NPT without nuclear
safeguards.
Pakistan, with which Australia
has one cooperation agreement underway, is currently increasing its arsenal
faster than any other state. India, with which Australia has two
cooperation agreements underway, is modernising its nuclear forces while
continuing protests against nuclear power are brutally repressed by the State.
Australia's credentials as a
champion of the NPT and nuclear disarmament lack credibility while cooperation
mandated under this agreement would undermine the NPT as a cornerstone of the
non-proliferation regime by facilitating advancement of the domestic nuclear industries
and expertise of non-NPT states.
The Mirarr state that, "The
prospect of uranium from Mirarr land making its way to the poorly regulated
nuclear industry of a Nuclear Weapon State is of grave concern to
Mirrar," and add that in addition to concerns about nuclear proliferation,
"Mirrar are worried about nuclear material originated from their lands
causing injury, distress or illness as a result of a nuclear
accident...particularly given the horrific impacts of just such a nuclear
accident currently being experienced in Japan. The risk of further
accidents at nuclear reactors elsewhere in the world continues to grow as
reactors age and extreme weather events and other impacts of climate change
heighten."
The Australian Conservation
Foundation stated that any move to amend this Agreement should be coupled with
explicit mechanisms that seek to assess and address the reality of the nuclear
industry in 2012, noting that the ongoing Fukushima disaster has led to
widespread reappraisal and review of the role of safety of nuclear energy,
"the lessons of which are not adequately reflected in the 'business as
usual' approach that underpins this treaty and the accompanying National
Interest Analysis."
The Australian Greens entirely
agree that the government and Committee have failed to grasp the gravity of the
lessons that must be learned from Fukushima. I sought clarification from
ANSTO as to what mechanisms the Australian government or agencies have used to
address unresolved concerns related to uranium, (as noted by the 2003 Senate
Inquiry which found the sector characterised by a pattern of underperformance
and non-compliance, an absence of reliable data, an operational culture that
gives greater weight to short term considerations than long term environmental
protection) and the wider nuclear industry in order to provide clear and
contemporary evidence to help inform the Committee's consideration.
The response provided by ANSTO
to my questions on notice as to actions taken on nuclear safety was a long list
of meetings. While certainly some of these meetings at the IAEA, as well
as Ministerial Conferences, and technical conferences and regulatory
cooperation forums and international meetings of experts might be evolving the
discussion, I do not glean any increased rigour in decisions being taken by
Australia as a result of Fukushima.
ARPANSA the lead agency for our
government indicates to me in Senate Estimates that it is participating in
meetings, monitoring public domain documents, while stressing that its statutory
role is as a national regulator with roles limited within the borders of
Australia. When I ask questions of the Australian Safeguards and
Non-Proliferation Office about reactor safety overseas I am referred to
ARPANSA.
ASNO at least answers questions
on notice truthfully; when I asked whether there has been any material change
in the legal, regulatory or operational framework of the uranium sector in
Australia since the Fukushima nuclear disaster, I was answered with a word of
one syllable: no.
Given Australian uranium was in
each of the reactors at Fukushima, this business as usual approach is
unacceptable, especially when the report of Independent Commission
established by the Japanese parliament found that the independence of the
Japanese regulators, "was a mockery" because TEPCO had been able to,
"manipulate its cosy relationship with regulators to take the teeth out of
regulations." The report documents errors, wilful negligence and
concludes that the accident was the result of "collusion between the
government, the regulators and [Fukushima plant operator] TEPCO," and
concludes that this "profoundly man-made disaster that could and should
have been foreseen and prevented".
That is, the 36% of children
found to have abnormal growths, cysts or nodules on their thyroids a year after
the Fukushima disaster (as documented by the Fukushima Radioactive
Contamination Symptoms Research after testing 38,000 children in the Fukushima
Prefecture) could have been prevented. Likewise, the evacuation of 150,000
people, many of which are still dislocated, could have been prevented.
In the face of such damning
report, it is irresponsible for the Committee to postpone examination of
Australia's nuclear cooperation agreement in the light of evidence that
Australia's bilateral safeguards agreements do not live up to the absolutist
statements about them being the best in the world. The Prime Minister should
rethink her statement that Fukushima, "doesn't have any impact on my
thinking about uranium exports," a grossly irresponsible statement given
the years of documented gross mismanagement of nuclear power in one of
Australia's uranium customer countries.
Delusions held by industry and
government about the safeguards system stopping nuclear material from entering
weapons programs are also not grounded in reality. The Australian
government's 1977 Fox Inquiry correctly noted that safeguards offer only an
"illusion of protection." That's as true today as it was then.
With a similar clarity to the
Fox Inquiry, the Independent Panel appointed by Japan's Parliament has exposed
nuclear safety as a myth. The anzen shinwa “safety myth” has seen
governments and industry stifle honest and open discussion of the risks, which
this Committee has continued through failing to question the wisdom of
Australia continuing nuclear cooperation when the lessons of Fukushima have
simply not been learned.
Senator Scott Ludlam