By Jim Green
The ALP has been badly embarrassed by Gareth Evans, who has stuck his foot in his mouth yet again. Evans wrote to the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) acknowledging that the ALP "opposition's" "opposition" to the plan to build a new nuclear reactor at Lucas Heights is based on "the realities of politics in an election year, and in particular our need to win [the federal seat of] Hughes" rather than "objective safety-focused concerns".
The federal science minister, John Moore, made the most of Evan's gaffe in the media on July 31.
The ALP's stated position is that it opposes the construction of a new reactor in the southern Sydney suburb, and it is yet to be convinced of the need for a reactor anywhere in Australia.
In reality, the ALP's position depends on the electoral pendulum, and it has no objection to a reactor being built elsewhere. As Evans said in his letter, "There is certainly no desire, however, to stand in the way of developing a new capacity elsewhere if an appropriate site could be found, but that of course is not going to be an easy exercise to accomplish".
The ALP — in conjunction with the minor parties — established a Senate inquiry into the reactor plan last year. The inquiry has deferred its report, ostensibly because it wants to take account of the environmental impact assessment which is also under way.
A more likely reason for the deferral is that the ALP does not want to put its new-found anti-reactor position in writing, since that could magnify the political backlash if there is a change of government and the ALP decides it does want a reactor at Lucas Heights after all.
The Coalition has itself been in damage control mode, thanks to a bureaucrat who said far too much to an ABC radio journalist earlier this year.
This "senior government source" was quoted on Radio National's Background Briefing as saying, "The government decided to starve the opponents of oxygen, so that they could dictate the manner of the debate that would follow the announcement. Because they couldn't win it on rational grounds ... they decided, right, we'll play the game and in the lead-up to the announcement catch them totally unawares, catch them completely off guard and starve them of oxygen until then."
Misinformation
ANSTO and the government face a dilemma. On the one hand, the obvious public relations angle for the reactor is "saving lives with medical isotopes". On the other hand, the medical arguments for a new reactor are extremely weak.
In order to resolve this dilemma, ANSTO and the government have had to rely on an ongoing stream of misinformation.
Earlier this year, I compiled a catalogue of this misinformation and submitted it to the Senate inquiry. The submission was far from comprehensive, but it still ran to 20,000 words. ANSTO is the major culprit, but it is common enough for bureaucrats and politicians to parrot misinformation which appears to have originated from ANSTO.
ANSTO has not prepared a response to my catalogue of misinformation, nor has the government; they prefer to stick their heads in the sand.
Dr Clarence Hardy, from the Australian Nuclear Association, read my 200-page technical submission to the inquiry but could do no better than to concoct a myth. At a public hearing of the inquiry, he said, "I think you should know ... that part of his [my] research is supported by Greenpeace, an avowed anti-nuclear association."
Having been alerted to the fact that I have never had anything to do with Greenpeace, Hardy withdrew the claim and sent me a written apology.
The federal Department of Industry, Science and Tourism and ANSTO also tried a clumsy stunt. In a written response to my submission, they quote me saying numerous things I have never said. After threatening to take the matter to the Parliamentary Privileges Committee and to the media, I eventually received a grudging apology from a bureaucrat, who claimed that I was "inadvertently" misquoted.
ANSTO Staff
Former ANSTO staff have joined the chorus of criticism of the reactor plan. An engineer who was employed at ANSTO for over 25 years says, "It is an unfortunate state of affairs that dear old ANSTO, which lives off taxpayers' money, is feeding us all this propaganda and very little objective information. I thought governmental agencies are there to serve the public — not just to perpetuate themselves."
Professor Barry Allen has made written and oral submissions to the Senate inquiry. Allen was employed at ANSTO for 30 years (as the chief research scientist for some years) and is now head of biomedical physics research at the St George Cancer Care Centre. Thus his scathing criticisms are not to be taken lightly.
Allen says, "Certainly the $300 million reactor will have little impact on cancer prognosis, the major killer of Australians today. In fact, the cost of replacing the reactor is comparable to the whole wish list that arguably could be written for research facilities by the Australian Science, Technology and Engineering Council ... [The reactor] is a far cry from the optimal expenditure of funds that Australia badly needs in science and technology."
Other former ANSTO employees, such as Murray Scott and Jim Fredsall, have also gone public with well-informed criticisms of the reactor plan.
Currently employed ANSTO staff are necessarily coy, because of the likelihood of reprisals if they speak out publicly. Nevertheless, one ANSTO staff member has offered to help prepare a critical response to the environmental impact statement when it is released.
It appears that quite a number of ANSTO's 800 staff members are opposed to the reactor plan for one reason or another.
Staff working on non-reactor instruments — such as cyclotrons and linear accelerators — have an obvious reason to oppose the plan, since their work will continue to be marginalised if a new reactor is built.
Public debates
The People Against a Nuclear Reactor campaign group decided some months ago to organise a public debate with three supporters and three opponents.
However, John Moore, declined the invitation. So did Liberal Party member Danna Vale, who holds the federal seat of Hughes. Nor was ANSTO prepared to debate the issue in public. So there were three speakers against, and three empty chairs.
The following week, I was scheduled to debate an ANSTO public relations officer at a smaller function. He pulled out with just one day's notice, claiming that I would bring along protesters who would heckle him, and that I would bring the media. The irony is that there was only one interjector at the larger public debate held the previous week — the very same ANSTO employee.
Danna Vale has threatened three opponents of the reactor plan with defamation suits, myself included. So much for free speech: she will not debate the issue publicly but instead tries to silence and intimidate her opponents with threats of legal action.
She accuses me of defaming her by accusing her of releasing "misinformation" on the reactor plan. In fact she has released a good deal of misinformation in a document titled "Facts About Australia's Nuclear Industry". Much of that document draws heavily from ANSTO's propaganda, though without acknowledgment.
The proponents of the new reactor are clearly on the back foot. And if anyone was in any doubt, Gareth Evan's gaffe has made it clear that the reactor plan will be beaten by a strong, broad political campaign, not by ticking one box or the other on election day.
If you can help the campaign in any way, contact People Against a Nuclear Reactor by phoning (02) 9545 3077 or by writing to PO Box 595, Sutherland NSW, 2232.
[The four volumes of submissions to the Senate inquiry can be obtained, free of charge, by phoning the Senate Economics Reference Committee on (02) 6277 3740. The catalogue of misinformation referred can be found in volume four.]