Ã¢ÂÂ¢ *

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

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

FIRST FLOOR'

GRANVILLE TOWERS

10 BRIDGE STREET

GRANVILLE, N.S.VV. 2142

TEL 637 4713

O F F IC E  OF H O N . T. U H E N , M .P .

FEDERAL MEMBER FOR REID . Ã¢ÂÂ   . '

f SPEECH BY TOPI UREN,  F.P AT. A r UBLIC MEETING, ADDRESSED BY SISTER ROSALIE BERTELL, GRANVILLE-TC'-ViV HALL —  FRIDAY, 15TH FEBRUARY, -1980. I am pleased to speak here tonight with Sister Bsrtell who highlights the

health hazards of low level radiation.. This is a problem associated with

the normal operation of the nuclear fuel cycle,  which iue are only now just

beginning to understand. It is a problem of great concern to workers in the

industry,  and to the many people who live near to uranium mines,  nuclear

power stations end other nuclear facilities.

And like so many of the implications of the nuclear fuel cycle it is a .

problem about which the public have been kept in the darkÂ» It also seems

that many of the experts, on whom we are so dependent, either don't know,

or don’t understand the effects of low level radiation.

In my contribution tonight,  I want to refer to another, separate but related

problem of the uranium/nuclear industries —  the problem of nuclear bombs

and (as the third finding of the first Fox Report says) the increased risk

of nuclear war that is a.directÂ·outcome of the spread of the nuclear power

industry.

It is timely, with all the talk in the media these days of "the Third World

War",  to again make this link between,  uranium,  nuclear power, and. the

threat of nuclear war. Ã¢ÂÂ

Nuclear generation of electricity was born out of the military nuclear

programmes.  And it has always remained interconnected with the military

applications. At first nuclear power was seen by many as a way of harnessing

the destructive power of the bomb, for the good of all humanity. In the

early 1950 s I, like many others, accepted the "atoms for peace" idea which

was propagated by the nuclear bureaucracies.  But nuclear matters have "  *

always been shrouded in secrecy and all decisions taken by a small elite of

"experts". .  Ã¢ÂÂ

Except for this small elite feu people had little idea of the technology of

nuclear power and its implications.  ,  Ã¢ÂÂ

It is only sinca the decisions of these, experts have been questioned and .

challenged by scientists and environmentalists,  by residents and workers and

by others that we have .begun to understand the unresolved problems of

nuclear power. '  -  '  .  ,  .

In Australia a landmark in building that understanding was the Ranger

Uranium Environmental Inquiry,  established by the last Federal Labor .

Government.

The Ranger Inquiry Report played a major role in forming the Labor Party's policy

on uranium mining. It was an important factor in raising .concern about uranium

amongst the many Australians:,  particularly women and youth,  who have a

sharp sensitivity to the threat of uranium, nuclear power and nuclear war,

and are moved to try to do something about it. .  .  Ã¢ÂÂ

Since the Ranger Report nothing has happened which challenges the truth cf

its very important finding on the increased risk of nuclear war. In fact,

before the Ranger Report we knew that India, using the materials and

technology of "civil" nuclear power,  had obtained the bomb by stealth. We

now know that South Africa and Israel have obtained the bomb by stealth and

us can be sure that Pakistan will obtain the bomb by stealth.

There are other, nations- knocking on the door of the nuclear weapons club.

These include Taiwan, South Korea,  Argentina and Brazil. Some of these

countries may test a nuclear weapon in the future. Ã¢ÂÂ

And others will refrain from nuclear weapons testing for the time being.

They would prefer to do without the adverse international response that

testing would generate.  However they can become prepared to quickly produce,

test and use nuclear weapons at some future date. .  '

For this reason we can no longer simply divide the world into the nuclear

weapon haves and have nots.  .

And what about the nuclear weapon haves?

-hie now live in. a world in which the nuclear arsenals of the major powers contain

the equivalent of 1.3 million Hiroshima bombs. That is enough to kill the

entire population of the planet 24 times over. And the United States alone

continues to produce on average three new nuclear weapons per day. And I

presume a similar pattern is occuring in the Soviet Union. The weapons have

continued to grow in size and become more accurate. .

And no longer do we live under the so-called balance of terror in which it

was argued that neither superpower would launch a nuclear attack on the other

because it would sustain an equally devastating counter attack.  Instead"  .

the strategies of the superpowers are now more and more based on devising ways

where one superpower could launch a successful first attack without suffering

a very effective retaliation.

Ã¢ÂÂ   ÃÂ member of the Prima Minister's cun party on his recent overseas trip

suggested to the press that fchn use of tactical nuclear weapons in the Persian

Gulf had been threatened by the United States. It uas intimated that

President Carter had suggested this to Hr Fraser. This uas a deliberate

orchestration of the possible use of nuclear weapons.

ÃÂÃÂ¿ÃÂ, I don't say that keeping Australian uranium in the ground is going to

stop the superpowers pursuing 'this course (clearly, only a mighty political

mobilisation of all the peoples whose lives are threatened in the capitalist

and communist worlds is going to be able to dismantle this threat). '

tihat I do say is that Australian uranium would help supply the nuclear power

industry —  which is the hot-house, the breeding ground for both the

ingredients and the technical experts that provide the whers-with-all to the

military apparatus (in superpower count!.res and elsewhere) to build up their

nuclear weapons. .  '

Australia has 23% of the world's high grade reserves .of uranium, and something

like 70% of the world's uncommitted deposits. ... Â·  '  .  .

If the nuclear cower industry is starved for fuel.and choked by the growing

world-wide opposition by people to nuclear power, then it will bo very much

harder for nuclear weapons to proliferate.

The pro-nuclear forces say we can have "safeguards" that, prevent the

proliferaticn of nuclear weapons. .  '

However the Ranger Inquiry found the international safeguards arrangements

to be inadequate. .

And these are the same safeguards that failed in the case of India and again

in the case of Israel and of South Africa.

In fact some of the more impatient and hardline proponents of uranium mining

will admit their inadequacy. For example, the Queensland Premier recently

stated that nuclear non proliferation treaties are not worth the paper they

.are written on.

And anyone who has followed the Federal Government's arguments on safeguards

will remember chat not so long ago they were warning of the dangers of the Â·

plutonium economy. They echoed the policies of President Carter which opposed

reprocessing ar.d fast breeder reactors. They oven tried to justify the export

of uranium 35 an anti-proliferation measure. But it is a bankrupt policy.

They were right to say thatÂ· the production of plutonium increased the risk

of nuclear proliferation. But they neglected to say that plutonium uas a

necessary byproduct of the use of uranium for power generation that is now

going on. ivery nuclear power reactor produces plutonium which can be

separated out for use in a weapon. _

But where is the Government s concern about plutonium today? President

Carters strategy has failed and so the Government no longer talks of the

dangers of .plutonium.. Ã¢ÂÂ   Â·

Instead uranium is to be provided to some of the world s most repressive

and unstable military governments. ,  Ã¢ÂÂ   Ã¢ÂÂ  Â·  Ã¢ÂÂ

Sales contracts have been signed with South Korea which faces an uncertain

future since the assassination of its long time military dictator.

A safeguards agreement has been signed with the martial law government of the

Philippines. Â·  '  Â·  .  .  '

And the Fraser Government was on the verge of agreeing to safeguards and

uranium sales with Iran only a few months before the Shah was ous.ted.

With the new found enthusiasm of Wr Fraser and President Carter for the brutal

regime of General Zia, I woolen t even be surprised if we find the Government

entering into uranium sales to Pakistan.

These are the sorts of regimes .that are being supplied with the raw ingredients

of nuclear weapons. .  .

And this is taking place under the thinly veiled guise of peaceful nuclear

power. .

Australians:  and particularly the Australian Labor movement has long struggled

for peace and against the terrible prospect of nuclear war. Opposition to

the mining and export of uranium is part of that relentless and moral '

struggle. .  .

I believe that through the strength and vigilance? of ordinary people taking

a moral stand against uranium, nuclear power the prospect of nuclear war

we can contribute to peace,  and. to the survival of the human species.

And today, in Australia, with the war-mongering and the rush to sell uranium,

we can challenge the policies of our own Government, where they contribute

to the prospect of nuclear war, and take a stand against them in the name

of all humanity.

