Margie Pestorius

At Wage Peace, we are trying to orient you, our many new friends, to what is happening in resistance to the weapons industry across the country. We hope that you will get from our website – and other platforms – a brief introduction to what is happening in the weapons industry AND the people’s resistance to it.

You can find out about the Bisalloy campaign at Woolongong Friends of Palestine Instagram . That page has an excellent and short overview of Bisalloy’s complicity by Senator Shoebridge on the Picket July 27, 2025. And this piece from Yaakov Aharon at Michael West Media – A Protest Speech version! and Michael West Media written version!

It is clear the weapons industry is mostly profitable at the point at which a genocide occurs. The Racist State of USA, in supporting the apartheid State has dozens of corporations profiting from genocide. People in Australia a standing up against this morally corrupt fabricators and manufacturers across the country. Bisalloy is one of the few directly arming Israel with steel.

This article below, published by Heatwave, is an important contribution to the movement discourse on the tactic named in Australia “the Community Picket”. Born from union discourses of last century, when unions still ran strikes with picket lines from time to time, the Community Picket is half blockade, half driveway occupation. Community Pickets have taken place in a half dozen locations across the east coast of the continent, most notably where the F35 components are being made for the dangerous supply chain.

---

Blockade Bisalloy: A Report from the ‘Gong

In Australia, as across the world, a massive wave of struggle rose against the genocide in Palestine, comprised of a wide constellation of political groups and practices. Compared to previous iterations of Palestine solidarity here, this wave has been more widespread, involving a broader range of tactics. -Heatwave, June 7, 2025

Head to the rest of the article over here at HEATWAVE.

---

By Two Wollongong Friends of Palestine

We arrived at 5:45 a.m. It was an overcast morning in November, but unlike last time the sky was already light, dawn had just passed. We were in the middle of a regional industrial zone that was already alive with machinery churning, trucks arriving and departing, and workers from various sites smoking or drinking coffee at the gates. As we walked down the road to Bisalloy Steels, where the picket would be, a friend struck up a conversation with some men on the street. They had heard about the picket happening down the road, but weren’t too keen on discussing the basis of it: better things to do with their short time on ‘smoko’. In the distance we could see some comrades already gathered at the gates of Bisalloy. 

It felt good to see their numbers already growing. In the week leading up to the picket, we had received intel from workers and unions at Bisalloy that the company was saying they had to cross the picket line. The night before we again had it confirmed that operations would continue, the bosses having issued an ultimatum that if workers didn’t cross the line, they’d have to take leave or go unpaid. So we had expected there would be some conflict today, most likely with the police as they sought to break the picket. We came prepared, with pallets and other materials to reinforce the barricades. 

But as we arrived it was impossible not to notice how quiet it was. The usual industrial clamour of the steel treatment plant, the hiss and stamp of the machinery, was silent beyond the fence. All doors were closed, signals that no work was underway were lit up, and no one was inside. Few police were visible, scattered up and down the street. A piece of paper on the office door proclaimed, “Closed for the day for annual company picnic”.

Head to the rest of the article over here at HEATWAVE.

---

Acknowledgement and thanks to Heatwave

Heatwave is a multi-media project dedicated to sharing experiences and strategizing together in preparation for the next round of struggles to break free from the infernal prison of capital. As the world burns and the political horizon grows increasingly grim, we seek to connect comrades around the globe and contribute to building a mass movement powerful enough to incinerate that prison. In its ashes, we will build a world based on the classic principle from each according to their ability, to each according to their need — a life worth living on a thriving planet.

---

A sign of the staunch diversity and openness by which this tactic provides for community involvement. Picket Bisalloy!

Speech given at ABC Brisbane to the Justice for Palestine Magandjin Rally July 2025

Margaret Pestorius

We are here on Yuggera territory. And I reckon no Australian institution – specially not the ABC – has ever has never told the whole truth on Aboriginal Land.

The ABC is failing us. The ABC does not do enough, to help us understand how Australia is supporting and facilitating the international weapons trade, especially never the role of the weapons trade in the bombing of Gaza. Every month, weapons built or assembled here — or    components — move through the US, Germany, and direct channels to Israel. And the ABC says almost nothing.

The ABC is failing to report proportionately. The weapons exports industry in Australia has exploded in recent years — and is directly implicated in in the assault on Gaza.

The government is spending about $40 to $50 billion a year: In addition to the usual defence force budget on the military export business. But we hear virtually nothing of this massive spend. The ABC is silent on how the US and Israel use our components and our complicity to sustain their wars. The f35 parts, the steel, wing kits for bombs, drone parts.. They’re silent on what’s being exported, where it’s going, and whether international humanitarian law is violated .

They are silent on the structure of the industry, it’s emerging role in the economy, it’s relationship to US equity funds much less the actual movement of equipment. These are things we need to understand the bigger picture.

Understanding requires history, context, different voices.and perspectives.

The ABC is failing to investigate war crimes.

We are so grateful for the work of Declassified Australia which has become one of the best sources we have. Because the AbC is not doing its job. But there’s also Michael West media and even Crikey has run some excellent investigative reporting.

Why no follow-up or investigation on the German weapons corporation Rheinmetall?  Rheinmetall received $45 million in Federal and State subsidies to build the bomb factory in Maryborough. And presumably as much or more for the factory at Redbank.

These subsidies are for export businesses. They are not subsidies to build Australian owned equipment.

The ABC is failing its own Charter. Its Charter says it should inform the Australian protect the statec — not truth, not sanitize militarism, not ignore genocide. Where are the questions about Australia’s obligations under the Arms Trade Treaty?

The Arms Trade Treaty is explicit about how weapons are defined … And the definition includes components and parts of supply chains. Where are the reports on  US-Australian arrangements which allow weapons tranfer into Gaza, or the many ways Australia is complicit — through exports, manufacturing, funding and silence?

The ABC is failing to distinguish ‘defence’ from ‘export’. This isn’t about defending Australia. This is about feeding an industry — a weapons industry — that’s profitable when people elsewhere die. And the ABC refuses to say so clearly. Instead, we get from them the voices of Pentagon-controlled think-tanks like ASPI, the Australian Strategic Policy “‘Institute.”  ASPI operatives are part of a vast set of think tanks obscuring the appalling actions of the United States of America. It’s those ASPI operatives who are interviewed and quoted in ABC stories — without ever revealing it’s board is stacked with BOEING, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, and it’s funded by the US State Department.

The ABC is failing to investigate power. Why doesn’t it tell us about Accurus, the private equity weapons firm that bought Ferra ENGINEERING? FERRA Engineering used to make steel components for medical equipment . But it’s been bought by a private equity company which specialises in death: in aerospace components. Accurus, a company with no moral standards, no ethical foundation. It’s business is profit via genocide. It REQUIRES a genocide.

AbC: Give is information about that. Help us understand the intersection between private equity, the government weapons companies and this genocide and the next.

Why doesn’t it question how steel is flown into Maryborough from Germany and then flown back out again — after being turned into the cruel, ubiquitous 155mm artillery shells?

That business in Maryborough entirely exports BOMBS to Germany. That business received 45 million in subsidies which has gone to a family trust partnered with a foreign weapons conglomerate.

The ABC could investigate how did it happen that a bomb factory which employs just 50 staff received almost $1 million per created job.

How does that even happen?

The ABC has one defence reporter — Mr Andrew Greene. He files a couple of articles a week. He’s thorough on each. He’s persistent, his work is good — but structurally he is unsupported. His pieces are not backed by other ABC platforms and programmes because a lot of the depth of the ABC has been stripped. So his work goes unnoticed by radio for example.

And unfortunately, he was recently stood down after accepting a $16,000, arms industry-funded junket to Germany. It’s a sign of the amount of money rollicking around.

Money that should be rolled back into the climate transition… To EarthCare not warfare.

Their investigative teams? Missing in action.

We need explanations so that people understand the NATURE AND EXTENT of the industry. Four Corners has done one major story on the weapons industry in five years. 7.30 has done around 10 stories in that time. That’s once every five months. This is a multi-billion dollar machine, and the ABC gives it the attention of a niche hobby – as if it’s an extention of amateur drone clubs. Ooo… Flying cameras! We can now see in Gaza what the drone hobby has turned into – quadcopters killing children.

The ABC is failing to reflect public interest. They won’t talk to activists or scholars from the peace movement. Because we talk outside the proscribed discourse. They won’t talk to Palestinian-Australians, or Yemenis, or survivors of war who know what these weapons do. They don’t ask whether the ADF’s procurement plans are even about national security — or just cover for building an export economy.

They operate within a discourse shaped by US military dominance — where dissent is marginalised, and even public broadcasters are afraid to name how that alliance controls what can and cannot be said.

So when Defence Minister Richard Marles told the ABC that Australia’s contribution to the F-35 warplane was “non-lethal”? They printed the quote. They didn’t challenge it. They didn’t investigate it. They let a lie stand — and called it journalism.

The ABC is not neutral. Its silence is political. Its avoidance is structural. Its reporting is not proportionate to the scale of the violence we are complicit in.

Their editors stand inside a proscribed discourse that procludes truth telling and thereby stops us understanding what the hell is going on.

So we’re saying this clearly: The journalists at the ABC must do better. The ABC must stop acting like a public relations firm for the weapons industry.

They will have to risk their career positions and stand for something. They must organise amongst themselves so they have internal and external support and report courageously on Australia’s role in arming genocidal wars — including the ongoing assault on Gaza. It must prioritise truth, not access. It must listen to the public, not the Pentagon.

Because we deserve to understand what’s being done in our name — and with our money.

And until the ABC starts telling the truth, we will. On the streets, in our communities, in front of their offices. We will tell the truth they are too afraid — or too compromised — to say out loud.

No more silence. No more lies. No more complicity.

Margaret Pestorius

Legal Observer Report: The Policing of the Disrupt Land Forces (DLF) Protests

DOWNLOAD THE PDF HERE

Melbourne Activist Legal Service – MALS – completed this comprehensive report following Land Forces 2024. We appreciate their work very much. It should be noted that they also assisted greatly with coordinating general legal services to the people harmed, maimed, arrested and charged.

Wage Peace with many people on the ground in Naarm coordinated activist care and support.

Summary

The Land Forces Exposition (the expo) took place at the Melbourne Convention and Exhibition Centre (MCEC) from 11 to 13 September 2024. The expo is promoted to be the “largest defence industry event ever held in Australia”.¹ It invites international military, defence and weapons contractors and manufacturers to demonstrate their products and services to thousands of individuals in the defence, government agency, business, academic, scientific and other related weapons sectors.

The Naarm-Melbourne anti-war community organised to protest the expo from 10 to 13 September in a movement known as Disrupt Land Forces (DLF). The coalition comprising of over 50 organisations and independent individuals used a variety of mediums, including attempting to create traffic disruptions in the streets around the MCEC, picketing and blockading the expo, marches and rallies, music and artistic performances, and candlelight vigils.

Melbourne Activist Legal Support (MALS) fielded trained legal observer teams at multiple protest events across each of the four days. Anti-war protests and resistance are not new to Naarm-Melbourne. From the moment that the expo was announced to be held, negative and sensationalist responses from the Victorian government, Victoria Police, and media paved a stigmatising platform to justify extraordinary levels of force to be used by police against protesters. This preemptive response included invoking special weapons and anti-terrorism legislation to equip police with broad powers.

Commentary by the media, politicians, and police—specifically events on Wednesday 11 September 2024—have overwhelmingly focused on the actions of protesters engaging in violent or confrontational behaviours. There has been minimal scrutiny or focus on the use of force and violence by police, including coordinated tactical manoeuvres, and the disproportionate levels or forms of violence facilitated by an arsenal of weaponry, with state and media sanctioning. There has also been a dearth of commentary and analyses by these institutions on the tactics and decisions by the police and their impacts on creating, instigating, and escalating violence and tensions in the events that occurred on Wednesday 11 September 2024. This includes the increased levels of risk of harm to members of the public that arise from uses of force and violence by the police, including the use of weapons, chemical irritants, and potentially lethal weapons.

This report details MALS areas of concern from observations across the four days of protests, including police use of force and weaponry, special powers, arrests, treatment of legal observers, media narratives and strategic misinformation.

WAGE PEACE SUBMISSION TO INQUIRY

Summary

WHO WE ARE p.1 

A. DEPLOYMENT TIME FRAMES p.1-2 (original document)

Introducing nuclear power would be too slow to help decarbonise. 

B. FUEL SUPPLY AND TRANSPORT OF FUEL p.2 

The nuclear industry has a poor safety record for transport of nuclear materials

C. URANIUM ENRICHMENT CAPABILITY p.2-3 

Australia has no uranium enrichment capacity. 

D. WASTE MANAGEMENT, TRANSPORT AND STORAGE p.3 

This remains unsolved  

E. WATER USE AND IMPACTS ON OTHER WATER USE p.3 

Evaporatively cooled nuclear energy plants use 25% more water than evaporatively cooled large coal  -fired power plants  

F. RELEVANT ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE CAPACITY, INCLUDING BROWNFIELD SITES AND  TRANSMISSION LINES p.4 

There is no capacity for uranium conversion or deconversion, nor for uranium enrichment nor for fuel  fabrication. 

G. FEDERAL, STATE, TERRITORY AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT LEGAL AND POLICY FRAMEWORKS p. Nuclear power is illegal in Australia. p.4 

H. RISK MANAGEMENT FOR NATURAL DISASTERS OR ANY OTHER SAFETY CONCERNS p.5-7 Nuclear energy has a very poor safety record and is unsafe due to the dangers of accidents during  construction and transport of fuel, operation and decommissioning. 

J. NECESSARY LAND ACQUISITION p.7 

This could be problematic legally. 

K. COSTS OF DEPLOYING, OPERATING AND MAINTAINING NUCLEAR POWER STATIONS L. THE IMPACT OF THE DEPLOYMENT, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF NUCLEAR POWER STATIONS ON ELECTRICITY AFFORDABILITY p.7 

Nuclear power would be uneconomic in Australia and far more expensive than continuing to build an energy system based on renewables. 

M. ANY OTHER RELEVANT MATTERS p.7-8 

RECOMMENDATIONS p. 8 

That the committee rejects the option of nuclear power for Australia as it is would contribute to the  proliferation of nuclear energy and also nuclear weapons. We also ask the committee to recommend  that the AUKUS deal is revisited and annulled. 

REFERENCES p.8-9 

---

WHO WE ARE – WAGE PEACE

Wage Peace runs strong campaigns to disturb war and militarism in so-called Australia and organises  and mobilises to end war culture. 

We oppose nuclear energy proliferation, as it is closely linked to nuclear weapons proliferation – and  also for all the reasons listed below. 

A. DEPLOYMENT TIME FRAMES 

Australian Chief Scientist Alan Finkel has pointed out that : “Any call to go directly from coal to nuclear  is effectively a call to delay decarbonisation of our electricity system by 20 years.” (1)

Also, NSW Chief Scientist Hugh Durrant-Whyte, a former Chief Scientific Adviser at the UK Ministry of  Defence, in a 2020 report prepared for the NSW Cabinet comments that introducing nuclear power to  Australia would be expensive and difficult and that it would be naive to think a nuclear plant could be  built in less than two decades.(2) 

While there have been claims that small modular reactors (SMR) would be a great solution for climate  change, Australian economist Prof. John Quiggin notes that even if SMR proposals “work as planned (a  big if), they will arrive too late to replace coal power in Australia.” (3) 

So nuclear energy is considered by these experts to be too slow to help us carbonise.  – 

B. FUEL SUPPLY, AND TRANSPORT OF FUEL 

It is not true that Australia has an advantage , having large reserves of uranium. In the 2020 report  referred to above, NSW Chief Scientist Hugh Durrant-Whyte noted that it is:  

“important to dispel a significant myth propagated through the [NSW nuclear power] inquiry that  having large local uranium reserves is a driver for low-cost nuclear power. Most costs associated with  the manufacture of fuel has little to do with the cost of uranium. It has much to do with enriching the  fuel, manufacture of fuel rods … reprocessing of the spent fuel and storage of waste.”(4) 

Australia has significant uranium reserves but no capacity for uranium conversion or deconversion, no  capacity for uranium enrichment, and no capacity for fuel fabrication. 

Transport 

Nuclear transport incidents and accidents are commonplace in countries with a significant nuclear industry. A British study (5) identified 806 radioactive transport incidents in the UK from 1958−2004 including incidents involving: 

• medical and industrial isotopes (376),  

• residues including discharged irradiated nuclear fuel flasks (111),  

• irradiated fuel (101),  

• radiography sources (78),  

• radioactive wastes (63),  

• uranium ore concentrate (33) and  

• other(44). 

There are no comparable studies of transport accidents and incidents involving radioactive materials in Australia. However numerous accidents and incidents have been reported over the years. ANSTO has acknowledged that there are 1−2 accidents or incidents every year involving the transportation of radioactive materials to and from the Lucas Heights research reactor site. 

C. URANIUM ENRICHMENT CAPABILITY 

Uranium enrichment is currently illegal in Australia (Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Act 1998; Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999). 

In the 2020 report referred to above, NSW Chief Scientist Hugh Durrant-Whyte noted:  “Enrichment is very unlikely to ever be undertaken in Australia due to cost, skills and non-proliferation agreements. Consequently, we will still need to send our mined uranium overseas to be enriched and probably converted into fuel rods, which we will then need to ‒ import.”(6) 

D. WASTE MANAGEMENT, TRANSPORT AND STORAGE 

Australia has no national facilities for nuclear waste disposal, and no country in the world has an  operating repository for the disposal of high-level nuclear waste.  

There is one operating deep underground repository for long-lived intermediate-level nuclear waste −  the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) in the US state of New Mexico. However, the WIPP repository  was shut for three years following a chemical explosion in an underground radioactive waste barrel in  2014, a result of inept management and inadequate regulation. (7) 

Efforts to establish national radioactive waste facilities (repositories and stores) in Australia for low- and intermediate-level waste have repeatedly failed since the 1990s, resisted by many First  Nations people. (8) 

The amount of waste that would be generated has been underestimated by Opposition leader  Opposition Leader Peter Dutton. He claimed that: “If you look at a 450-megawatt reactor, it produces waste equivalent to the size of a can of Coke each year.” (9) 

In fact, according to nuclear expert Dr Jim Green, over 450 million empty Coke cans per year would be  required to accommodate waste generated across the nuclear fuel cycle for the operation of one 450- megawatt reactor. Excluding front-end waste (at uranium mines and enrichment plants), 367,000  empty Coke cans per year would be required;and just the spent nuclear fuel alone would require  about 11,700 empty Coke cans per year. (10) 

Transportation of radioactive materials (including nuclear waste) also poses security risks. 

E. WATER USE AND IMPACTS ON OTHER WATER USES 

A World Economic Forum paper states that water consumption for nuclear power is 2,870 to 3,270 litres per megawatt-hour (l/MWh), far thirstier than coal (1,220 to 2,270 l/MWh) and gas (700 to 1,200 l/MWh).(11) 

According to a report prepared by Dr Ian Rose for the Queensland Government (15), evaporatively-cooled large coal-fired power plants use around 1,850 to 2,000 l/MWh whereas evaporatively-cooled nuclear power plants use around 25% more water, or around 2,300 l/MWh. Water consumption per megawatt-hour for solar PV and wind power is near-zero.(12)(13) 

On the basis of worldwide experience, it appears that the enormous water requirements for nuclear  reactors severely limits non-coastal siting. 

F. RELEVANT ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE CAPABILITY, INCLUDING BROWNFIELD SITES AND  TRANSMISSION LINES 

Australia has no capacity for uranium conversion or deconversion, no capacity for uranium enrichment, and no capacity for fuel fabrication. 

The introduction of nuclear power to Australia would require the education and training of thousands of nuclear scientists, engineers etc., presumably at taxpayers’ expense.

Claims that converting coal power plants to nuclear plants will be straightforward and advantageous rest on shaky foundations. Coal-to-nuclear transitions could potentially reduce nuclear costs by using some existing infrastructure at coal plants, but nuclear power would still be far more expensive than firmed renewables (renewable systems with storage capacity). (15) No coal power plants have been repurposed as nuclear plants in the US or the UK, so purported synergies and cost savings are speculative. 

Most or all of the owners of the sites targeted by the federal Coalition for nuclear reactors have no interest in supporting the development of nuclear power or in selling their sites. On the contrary, they are pursuing renewable energy projects and energy storage projects. 

G. FEDERAL, STATE, TERRITORY AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT LEGAL AND POLICY FRAMEWORKS 

Nuclear power was made illegal in Australia under two pieces of legislation introduced under the Howard Coalition government:  

• the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Act 1998 and  

• the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. 

Any government seeking to pursue nuclear power would need Senate support not only to repeal existing bans but also to pass other legislation to facilitate the development of nuclear power. 

Queensland, NSW and Victoria have legislation banning nuclear power. The federal government might have legal powers to override state/territory laws banning nuclear power, although costly and protracted legal challenges could be anticipated.  

A federal government attempting to introduce nuclear power would also require the political cooperation of relevant state/territory governments because of the primary role of state/territory governments in managing energy systems, yet nuclear power is opposed by state governments in all five states targeted for nuclear reactors by the Coalition (including the incoming Queensland LNP government) (16). With the possible exception of SA, where the Liberal opposition supports consideration of nuclear power, there is bipartisan opposition to nuclear power in the five states. 

The Dutton Coalition has made it clear that a Coalition government would be prepared to override and ignore local community opposition(17) – a risk to our democratic processes and social  cohesion. 

H RISK MANAGEMENT FOR NATURAL DISASTERS OR ANY OTHER SAFETY CONCERNS

Death and Illness due to Nuclear Disasters and Long Term Exposure to Low Level Nuclear radiation. 

Controversy about Deaths Due to Nuclear Disasters. 

Claims have been made about the safety of nuclear power using extremely low estimates of the final  death tolls of the two worst nuclear power disasters, i.e. Chernobyl 433, and 2,314 from Fukushima (18)  and ignoring deaths due to evacuation and trauma and also short and long term morbidity. This seems  comparable to assessing the safety of a playground only looking at the number of deaths it has caused  and ignoring any injuries!

The Chernobyl Disaster 

In 2006, Tom Parfitt, in an article in the medical journal, the Lancet wrote ‘Some estimates of the  number of deaths so far in the former Soviet countries range as high as 50 000, reflecting deep splits in  opinion over the appropriate way to evaluate the long-term effects of the tragedy’. (19)  

He reported in this article that ‘Specialists in the former Soviet Union suggest the international scientific community is ignoring local research which indicates a high rate of illnesses not usually connected to  radiation—eg, cardiovascular diseases—among people who received low doses. They say this means  the death rate from Chernobyl is much higher than was originally predicted.’ 

A later report published in 2009 by members of the Russian Academy of Sciences indicates that there  could have been as many as 830,000 people in the Chernobyl clean-up teams . They estimated that  between 112,000 and 125,000 of these – around 15% – had died by 2005. (20) 

This report found ‘a marked increase in general morbidity in [contaminated areas] Increased numbers  of sick and weak newborns were found in the heavily contaminated territories in Belarus, Ukraine,  and European Russia. 

‘Accelerated aging is one of the well-known consequences of exposure to ionizing radiation. This  phenomenon is apparent to a greater or lesser degree in all of the populations contaminated by the  Chernobyl radionuclides.’ 

It is likely that, contributing to the wide range of estimates of mortality are: 

• different dose response models used by different researchers  

• disagreement among experts about which diseases can be caused by radiation. • lack of transparency from the governments and officials. 

• the chaos seen during and after disasters of this magnitude. 

• political upheaval and now war in Ukraine. 

No one disputes that the Chernobyl nuclear accident was both a humanitarian and economic disaster,  with adverse effects being seen as far afield as Northern Europe – such as effects on the sale of sheep in Wales, as outlined in my introduction.  

Fukushima 

Japan is still in the early stages of recovering from the 2011 Fukushima nuclear catastrophe. The human impacts have been profound, particularly for the more than 190,000 evacuees (21) displaced by the nuclear disaster. Direct economics costs alone amount to many hundreds of billion dollars.(22) Chernobyl was a trillion-dollar accident.(23) 

Sadly, the risk of another nuclear energy plant accident being catastrophic remains. Indeed this was  confirmed by Dr Ziggy Switkwoski, the former chair of the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology  Organisation, when he gave evidence to the Standing Committee on the Environment and Energy on  29/08/2019 on Prerequisites for nuclear energy in Australia . ‘After Three Mile Island in 1979, Chernobyl  in 1986 and Fukushima in 2001, the possibility of catastrophic failing within a nuclear system is non negligible.'(24)

Diseases linked with radiation 

Some nuclear experts only look at cancer mortality when assessing radiation induced disease while  there is some research linking low dose radiation with circulatory, age related and neurodegenerative  diseases. (25) 

Effects on Fertility 

Research done in Israel concluded that ‘The overall fertility of Chernobyl-exposed women seems to be  reduced as reflected by the lower number of children and their greater need for fertility treatments.  Our findings raise concerns regarding the long-term implications of the Chernobyl disaster.'(26) 

Long Term Effects of Nuclear Radiation 

There is also some concern that the effects of low dose radiation have been underestimated. In a recent research paper, Dr Chris Busby found ‘a significant cancer risk associated with serving on a nuclear powered ship'(27). 

Nuclear safety risk & insurance 

It is noteworthy that insurance policies from some of Australia’s major insurers, including AAMI, CGU, Allianz, QBE and NRMA contain specific text excluding coverage for nuclear disasters. None of these will insure homes, cars or possessions against a nuclear accident or release. (28) 

The conflict in Ukraine reminds us of the security issues that Australians would need to consider if nuclear power were to be introduced here. The Russian military’s seizure of the operating Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant — at a time when some of the plant’s six reactors were operating — was the most dangerous incident so far. Off-site power to the Zaporizhzhia plant has been cut eight times since Russia seized control of the plant in 2022, increasing the risk of a major accident. 

International Atomic Energy Agency Director-General Rafael Mariano Grossi warned in April 2024 that attacks on the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant raise “the very real threat of a serious nuclear accident, which could have significant health and environmental consequences”.(29) 

No other energy system is as easily weaponised as nuclear power and reactors have been described as pre-deployed terrorist targets.  

J. NECESSARY LAND ACQUISITION 

The Coalition states that it has legal advice that it can use compulsory acquisition powers to seize land for its proposed nuclear reactors. 

The Howard Coalition government illegally seized control of farming land in South Australia for a national nuclear waste dump in 2003. That land seizure was annulled following a Federal Court challenge. 

K. COSTS OF DEPLOYING, OPERATING AND MAINTAINING NUCLEAR POWER STATIONS

L. THE IMPACT OF THE DEPLOYMENT, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF NUCLEAR POWER STATIONS ON ELECTRICITY AFFORDABILITY 

Nuclear power would be uneconomic in Australia and far more expensive than continuing to build an energy system based on renewables. Nuclear power would result in increased taxes and increased power bills. Taxpayer subsidies worth tens, perhaps hundreds of billions of dollars, would be required. 

CSIRO’s May 2024 GenCost report clearly demonstrates the cost advantage of firmed renewables:(30) 

* Large-scale nuclear: $155-252 / MWh 

* Small modular reactors: $387-641 / MWh 

* 90% wind and solar PV supply to the National Electricity Market including storage and transmission costs: $100-143 / MWh 

A recent report by the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis found that nuclear power would increase power bills for a four-person household by $972 per year, and that the cost of electricity generated from nuclear reactors would be 1.5 to 3.8 times higher than the current cost of electricity generation in eastern Australia.(31) 

M. ANY OTHER RELEVANT MATTERS 

Weapons Proliferation 

The contribution of civil nuclear power programs to nuclear weapons proliferation has been  documented by nuclear expert Dr Jim Green. Some countries openly acknowledge this with French  president Emmanuel Macron summarising: “without civil nuclear power, no military nuclear power,  without military nuclear, no civil nuclear”.(32) 

First Nations Communities  

Over the past 25 years successive governments have unsuccessfully tried to establish a national  radioactive waste repository and store against the wishes of Traditional Owners at multiple sites,  particularly in South Australia and the Northern Territory. 

In 2023, Dr. Marcos Orellana, the UN Special Rapporteur on Toxics and Human Rights, visited Australia.  His end of mission report noted that these struggles over proposed radioactive waste facilities have left  “a legacy of division and acrimony in the communities” and that “alignment of regulations with the  UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is a critical step in the path towards healing open  wounds of past environmental injustices”. (33) 

The UN Declaration states that “no storage or disposal of hazardous materials shall take place in the  lands or territories of indigenous peoples without their free, prior and informed consent”.(34) 

RECOMMENDATIONS

We therefore ask the committee to make the recommendations that: 

1. . Australia rejects the option of nuclear power. Adopting nuclear power generation would bring  us closer to a nuclear war, nuclear energy being linked to nuclear weapons proliferation.  

Nuclear energy generation would also be a threat to our democracy due to the lack of community  license, the culture of secrecy and the high level security required. The necessary siting of nuclear waste dumps would further fracture government relationships with and also relationships within First Nations  peoples. 

Nuclear energy generation and the resultant radioactive waste is also far too dangerous as can be seen by its sad history of the devastation of so many Eastern European and Japanese people’s lives. 2. Uranium mining is made illegal. 

3. Australia withdraws from the AUKUS agreement due to the intractable issue of the waste  produced, the loss of sovereignity and the threat of nuclear weapons proliferation both by  Australia and other countries. 

---

REFERENCES

1. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/mar/22/heres-why-there-is-no-nuclear option-for-australia-to-reach-net-zero 

2. https://www.skynews.com.au/australia-news/will-be-starting-from-scratch-report-paints-grim picture-of-australias-long-road-to-nuclear-power/newsstory/dec9f44aed1e82c65f224bb5dd34a959 

3. https://theconversation.com/dutton-wants-a-mature-debate-about-nuclear-power-by-the-time weve-had-one-new-plants-will-be-too-late-to-replace-coal-224513 

4. https://www.skynews.com.au/australia-news/will-be-starting-from-scratch-report-paints-grim picture-of-australias-long-road-to-nuclear-power/newsstory/dec9f44aed1e82c65f224bb5dd34a959 

5. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7ebb6fed915d74e33f2126/HpaRpd014.pdf 6. https://www.skynews.com.au/australia-news/will-be-starting-from-scratch-report-paints-grim picture-of-australias-long-road-to-nuclear-power/newsstory/dec9f44aed1e82c65f224bb5dd34a959 

7. https://theecologist.org/2014/nov/27/new-mexico-nuclear-waste-accident-horrific-comedy errors-exposes-deeper-problems 

8. https://www.apln.network/projects/voices-from-pacific-island-countries/the-politics-of-nuclear waste-disposal-lessons-from-australia 

9. https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/dutton-s-claim-nuclear-waste-would-be-size-of-coke can-hard-to-swallow-20240621-p5jnmy.html 

10. https://jimkgreen1.substack.com/p/drink-up-peter-dutton-needs-one-billion 11. https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/foe/legacy_url/1868/Water-energy-2009CERA.pdf 12. https://web.archive.org/web/20070908215425/http://thepremier.qld.gov.au/library/office/Nuclea rPowerStation261006.doc 

13. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/7/4/045802/meta 

14. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032119305994 

15. https://www.acf.org.au/power-games-assessing-coal-to-nuclear-proposals-in-australia 16. https://reneweconomy.com.au/coalition-in-a-panic-about-response-to-confused-and-unpopular nuclear-power-plan/ 

17. https://johnmenadue.com/duttons-nuclear-thuggery/ 

18. https://ourworldindata.org/what-was-the-death-toll-from-chernobyl-and-fukushima 19. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(06)68559-0/fulltext 20. https://nyaspubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1749-6632.2009.04822.x 21. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fukushima-residents-return-despite-radiation/ 22. https://www.jcer.or.jp/english/accident-cleanup-costs-rising-to-35-80-trillion-yen-in-40-years 23. https://globalhealth.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2016_chernobyl_costs_report.pdf 24. https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=COMMITTEES;id=committee s%2Fcommrep%2F3abfb90c-9215-4b65-a5d2-32d112e8cd46%2F0001;query=I 

25. 1. Sharma NK, Sharma R, Mathur D, Sharad S, Minhas G, Bhatia K, Anand A, Ghosh SP. Role of Ionizing Radiation in Neurodegenerative Diseases. Front Aging Neurosci. 2018 May 14;10:134.  doi: 10.3389/fnagi.2018.00134. PMID: 29867445; PMCID: PMC5963202. 2. Yang EH, Marmagkiolis  K, Balanescu DV, Hakeem A, Donisan T, Finch W, Virmani R, Herrman J, Cilingiroglu M, Grines CL,  Toutouzas K, Iliescu C. Radiation-Induced Vascular Disease-A State-of-the-Art Review. Front  Cardiovasc Med. 2021 Mar 30;8:652761. doi: 10.3389/fcvm.2021.652761. PMID: 33860001; PMCID:  PMC8042773.  

26. Cwikel J, Sergienko R, Gutvirtz G, Abramovitz R, Slusky D, Quastel M, Sheiner E. Reproductive  Effects of Exposure to Low-Dose Ionizing Radiation: A Long-Term Follow-Up of Immigrant  Women Exposed to the Chernobyl Accident. J Clin Med. 2020 Jun 8;9(6):1786. doi:  10.3390/jcm9061786. PMID: 32521764; PMCID: PMC7356322 

27. Busby, C. (2020). High Cancer Risk in US Naval Personnel Serving in Nuclear Powered  Ships. Cancer Investigation, 38(3), 143–149. https://doi.org/10.1080/07357907.2020.1731526 28. https://australiainstitute.org.au/post/nuclear-power-uninsurable-and-uneconomic-in-australia/ 29. https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/pressreleases/update-221-iaea-director-general-statement-on situation-in-ukraine 

30. https://www.csiro.au/en/research/technology-space/energy/GenCost 

31. https://nuclear.foe.org.au/wp-content/uploads/CivMil-CaseStudies2010.pdf 32. https://www.elysee.fr/emmanuel-macron/2020/12/08/deplacement-du-president-emmanuel macron-sur-le-site-industriel-de-framatome 33. https://www.un.org/sites/un2.un.org/files/eom_-_08_sep_2023_-_final_.pdf 34. https://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/DRIPS_en.pdf