H O U S E  O F  R E P R E S E N T A T I V E S

P A R L I A M E N T  O F  A U S T R A L I A

ÃÂ

1st FLOOR

GRANVILLE TOWERS

10 BRIDGE STREET

GRANVILLE. N.S.W. 2142   TEL. 637 4713

OFFICE OF HON. T. UREN, M.P. FEDERAL MEMBER FOR REID

SPEECH BY TQM UREN, M.P. TO HIROSHIMA DAY RALLY, SYDNEY

SATURDAY, 5th AUGUST,  1978

To me, Hiroshima Day is an important day. A day that should  be embedded in the memory of every living person. Â·

It was on the 6th August,  1945 in Hiroshima that the world

first witnessed the massive destructive power of nuclear

energy.

The bombing of Nagasaki 3 days later was the 2nd stark example.

I will never forget the horror of Nagasaki. I was about 50 miles

as the crow flies from Nagasaki—  I will never forget that

crimson discolouration of the sky on that day.

Today we live in a world in which the threat of mass .

Ã¢ÂÂ   '  .  Vi- .  . .

distruction many times larger than. Hiroshima or Nagasaki

is ever present.  -

On the one hand/super powers continue to stockpile bigger

weapons and develop more precise delivery and communications

systems. On the other hand,  the capacity to develop nuclear;

weapons is rapidly spreading beyond the small select club as

the basic ingredients —  nuclear technology and uranium —

become readily available.

This is nuclear weapons proliferation.

This is what the Ranger Commissioners were talking about in

their findings that the nuclear power industry was leading

to an increased risk of nuclear war.

It is not scare-mongering by people opposed to nuclear power,

It is happening today. .  ’  :

We all know about India's nuclear explosion. We know that .

Israel and South Africa can assemble a nuclear bomb at very

short notice —  if they have not done so already.

These countries can build nuclear weapons —  not because they  have commercial reprocessing plants or fast breeder reactors — Â·

they don't. A research reactor is all that is needed to produce

enough plutonium to build a few bombs.

The bigger the reactor,  the easier it is to divert a bit of  plutonium. Even the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission has  admitted that plutonium of the grade found in an ordinary

reactor can be used to make nuclear bombs.

In the face of growing public awareness of these facts,  the  Fraser Government and the pro-mining lobby have been forced to

talk about safeguards.

We only have to look at the Fraser Government's treatment of the

safeguards issue to see that their main concern with safeguards

is as a public relations exercise to get people to accept Ã¢ÂÂ    uranium mining. .

In May last year Mr. Fraser announced the safeguards policy Which

was full of loopholes,  and has been watered down ever since then.

The Government's policy is based on the International Atomic

Energy Agency safeguards. The IEAE itself admits that they do

not always provide adequate controls to detect diversion of

materials for military purposes.

At the time the Fraser Government's safeguards policy was

announced,  Mr. Anthony and Mr. Fraser were deploring the dangers

of reprocessing in an attempt to justify the sale of uranium.

I

l

Now when we examine their model safeguards agreement we can see

a change of emphasis —  it is clear that the government will  allow reprocessing.

- 3-

If we compare the model agreement with the bi-lateral agreement  signed with Finland two weeks ago,  we can see that they have

backed down even further. .

In that agreement,  the stock piling of weapons usable material

is no longer prohibited,  and Australia's control is weakened by

an arbitration clause.

While the agreement still allows Australia to veto reprocessing,

it explicitly endorses reprocessing for waste storage purposes *

If they back down in the face of pressure exerted by a small  country such as Finland,  for how long will they stand up to the  powerful Euratom countries?

France and West Germany have made their position clear —  they  do not intend giving Australia any say over what happens to

uranium exported to them. Their opposition to Australia having

a say left Mr. Anthony flat-footed in London,  unable even to

initial a safeguards agreement with Britain. "

The fact is there are no adequate safeguards. .  v

Nuclear weapons go hand iri hand with the nuclear power industry.

They are inter-connected —  they are" inseparable.  .

* * *

I want to now turn from the violence of nuclear war to a different

violence: that which has been perpetrated by our society on the

aboriginal people for the last two centuries. Ã¢ÂÂ

The pro-mining lobby,  with the assistance of some elements of the

media,  have run a subtle propaganda campaign to distort the trhe

position of the aboriginal people in the Alligator Rivers Region.

Their line is that because the Northern Land Council is negotiating

with the government over Ranger,  the.1 Â·  traditional aboriginal land

owners have accepted mining. .  .

Nothing could be further from the truth.

............./4

- 4-

One only has to look.at the Land Rights Act to see that there

is no aboriginal power to veto mining. .

The NT uranium projects are specifically excluded from any veto  by traditional aboriginal land owners.

Furthermore, the government can appoint an arbitrator to decide

the terms and conditions, under which mining should occur.

In other words, the Northern Land Council had no choice—  it.  had to negotiate with the government or let the government

decide how mining should proceed, and thereby get the worst deal

possible. .

The traditional aboriginal land owners are opposed to mining on  their land. This is clearly set out in the report of the Ranger

Inquiry. They reiterated this opposition at a meeting at

Mudjinberry in March. The strength of their feeling against

mining on their land was reflected in a decision they made last

month to take part in an occupation of the Ranger site with 10

prominent Australians. ;

This is a very significant decision. These people are used to

being kicked in the guts every time they stand up for their

rights. It is not a decision which they can make lightly.

We must stand in support of the aboriginal people.

We should not accept the propaganda which says that because

they are negotiating over Ranger, they accept'mining.

If an agreement is reached between the Northern Land Council and

the government, it is because the NLC had no choice.

The struggle of the aboriginal people for land rights and against

mining will continue and will be a: .  long struggle. -

*  *  Â· - *

In conclusion I want to make a few remarks about the ALP and

the struggle ahead.

/5

- 5-

It is now a little over a year since the Perth National

Conference decision on uranium.

I think that the understanding of and support for that policy  right throughout the party is greater than ever. "

In the last few months it has had the overwhelming endorsement  of the N.S.W. State conferenceÃÂ the ACT and Victorian branches

have decided to campaign on the uranium issue at a grass roots

level in the community.

The mining companies have a definite interest in trying to make  the ALP policy look weak and lacking support from all sections

of the Party. They have been assided by the media owners and

editorial writers. This is because Labor policy is an effective  policy. It says that a Labor Government will repudiate any

uranium contracts agreed to by this Government.  It gives a

warning to those investors or prospective investors —  do so,

but at your own risk —  don't ask for compensation —  because

you won't get it -- don't say we didn't warn you.

There is broad based unanimity of agreement in the Labor Party  because

and the Labor movement against uranium mining — /many aspects

of the nuclear industry are still unresolved.

The opposition to uranium mining in the Australian community

is broad-based and runs very deep. . . .

Fraser has been in power for over years now, yet the

pro-nuclear forces —  despite their urgency —  still have not

been able to commit any uranium to the world nuclear fuel cycle.

This is a major achievement of our movement.

Public opposition is growing on a world-wide basis. In

California the industry has not been able to build any new

nuclear power stations. The nuclear industry has problems in

Western Germany and in Spain. The economics of the industry

is also turning sour,  and the great profits from the nuclear

industry seen by many,are drying up fast. .

It will be a long struggle,  but it will be a struggle which we

will winJ

