Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Fighting Ferguson's dump

By Natalie Wasley - posted Thursday, 22 March 2012


Scullion's deal would see an initial injection of $10 million by the Commonwealth - with states and the ACT then paying the NT to store waste produced in their jurisdictions. However, Scullion admits this sweetener was not needed for the Coalition to support Ferguson's Bill, telling ABC News last week "We were supporting this in any event".

Penny Phillips asked in response "Who is Nigel Scullion to sell our land out from under us for $10 million dollars? He's never even been out to Muckaty to see the land he's trying to sell. That's our land and we say no to the waste dump."

NT Chief Minister Paul Henderson has called the deal "offensive". Gerry McCarthy, member for the Barkly region where Muckaty is located, called it "bribery", adding: "This debate is far too important for a short term fix with a cheap approach to try and pay somebody off to get a storage facility established quickly."

Advertisement

Medical professionals have called for federal politicians to stop using nuclear medicine as justification for the Muckaty proposal. Nuclear radiologist Dr Peter Karamoskos wrote in the NT News: "…the contention that is most in error is that the radioactive waste to be disposed of there is largely nuclear medicine waste. Nearly all such waste is actually short-lived and decays in local storage and is subsequently disposed of safely in the normal waste systems without need for a repository. The vast bulk of the waste ... is Lucas Heights nuclear reactor operational waste, and contaminated soil from CSIRO research on ore processing in the 1950s and 1960s."

Toxic trade-off

A toxic trade-off of basic services for a nuclear waste dump has been part of this story from the start. The Muckaty nomination was originally made with the promise of $12 million compensation for a small group identified by the Northern Land Council as the exclusive Traditional Owners.

The Traditional Owner who was the main proponent of the dump passed away in late 2011. At a Senate Inquiry she gave the following evidence: "As you have probably heard, the government do not have money for out-stations anymore ... So we made a decision about this waste problem to get money to build up our outstations, to get money to go back to our land and have schooling, have employment, have health out on the land itself."

Both the NT and Commonwealth governments have systematically stripped back resources for small remote Indigenous communities, placing increased pressure on them to accept long-term and high impact projects like the waste dump.

While Ferguson's legislation passed the Senate with government and Coalition support, there is a broad and growing alliance that will challenge the proposal every step of the way.

Advertisement

After a trade union delegation visited Tennant Creek last August, Peter Simpson, from the Electrical Trades Union's Queensland Branch, told the local newspaper the unionists had agreed to do everything they could to stop the nuclear dump from proceeding. A growing number of councils along the transport corridor have also voiced their opposition.

Traditional Owner Pamela Brown from the Milwayi group told New Matilda, "We want the government to come down and see us and we can show them all the sites, we want Martin Ferguson and the others to comes out to Muckaty. We want them to come out and see - people will do ceremony, our way, to prove who really owns Muckaty. That's our way, not whitefella way, if we are talking about land".

Protest actions will continue in Tennant Creek across the Territory and a photo exhibition of the community titled "Manuwangku, Under the Nuclear Cloud" has begun a national tour.

The campaign against the Muckaty dump continues to call for a comprehensive and independent inquiry into the full range of radioactive waste management options in Australia.

In the meantime, there is a simple solution: leave the waste where it is produced at the Lucas Heights nuclear research centre, run by the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, which is south of Sydney. That is where the waste is produced, and that is where Australia's nuclear expertise is concentrated.

As Dr Ron Cameron from ANSTO said: "ANSTO is capable of handling and storing wastes for long periods of time. There is no difficulty with that." Similar views have been expressed by the Commonwealth nuclear regulator, ARPANSA, by the Australian Nuclear Association and even by Martin Ferguson's own department.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

11 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Natalie Wasley is a maritime worker and long time nuclear free campaigner.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Natalie Wasley

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Article Tools
Comment 11 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy