From: LLee Levett-Olson [debllee1@senet.com.au]
Sent: Thursday, 15 August 2002 4:45 PM
To: The Secretary
Subject: Environment and Uranium Inquiry
        
A Submission in Regard to Present and Proposed Processes
for Extraction, Use, and Storage of Radioactive Materials in South Australia
Inquiry into Environmental Regulation of Uranium Mining

           To the Secretary:

In its officially adopted Policy Statement (18 March 2000), which I am attaching, the Uniting Church in Australia commits itself to work for "the cessation of uranium mining" and an end to all "involvement in the nuclear fuel cycle".  As one of the working party that helped develop that policy, my own experience has provided me with a unique chance to assess the benefits and risks of our present national approach in regards to radioactive material.  The conclusion of the church has been built upon a range of factors, including ethical considerations, our religious convictions, and the latest scientific research.

I would like to highlight three of the ten Principles adopted in the church's policy:
        1) the call for transparency in decision-making in regards "to all aspects of the nuclear fuel cycle", which not only mandates genuinely inclusive consultation processes, but also preferential voice for those most directly affected by the consequences.
        2)  the international consensus amongst religious groups that any form of connection with nuclear weapons (including 'depleted uranium' armaments) "is a sin against God and humanity"
        3)  an immediate change in approach to risk assessment from the "utilitarian principle" to the "precautionary principle", which bases decisions on recognition of 'potential' harm even when scientific evidence is inconclusive, and shifts the burden of proof to those who seek to initiate new technologies or processes

In regards to the first of these, the South Australian community continues to be most directly affected by all aspects of the present approach to fissile material, enduring a disproportionate share of potential harm that will only increase with the transport and storage of nuclear waste.  The community has spoken overwhelmingly against such new developments, including strongly supported resolutions through our elected representatives in Parliament.  The sense of betrayal by the community that such opinions are simply disregarded has markedly increased the pervasive disillusionment with the federal government and its decision-making processes.  The church is well aware of the harm done to social cohesion and participatory democracy when such disillusion reaches the present levels of cynicism and mistrust.

The Uniting Church in South Australia has a strong record of standing in solidarity with Indigenous Peoples in their various struggles for justice and social recognition.  In this regard the total alienation of the Kokatha and other groups from their ancestral lands for the purposes of mining, processing, and storing uranium represents the latest in a long tradition of total disenfranchisement for Australia's first peoples. On behalf of the church I register my profound protest at such treatment.  The religious convictions of many faiths, including Christianity, rest upon caring and continuing stewardship of creation.  The present practise not only defies such stewardship but also makes it virtually impossible for Aboriginal people in South Australia to exercise their own care for the land itself and all its living creatures.

The second principle warns that the nature of the present global economic system is such that there is no practical safeguard which can ensure that any radioactive material extracted from the ground will be quarantined from use in weaponry.  Australia's own armed forces continue to suffer the consequences of depleted uranium shells used by the United States in both Iraq and the Balkans; the legacy of Afghanistan will exacerbate these effects.  It is hardly necessary to point out that such toxins are themselves in violation of any 'just war' ethics, since they constitute a plague that falls at least equally, if not especially, on civilian non-combatants and will not lose its harm potential for many generations.

When our closest ally redefines its doctrine to threaten 'first strike' use of nuclear weapons against targets chosen unilaterally without any regard to their respective capacities for mutual deterrence, Australia's complicity in this sin becomes compounded.  We have no moral ground to argue against such horror until we extract ourselves from any involvement in the production of minerals which can be developed into weapons-grade fissile materials.

It is in regard to the enduring legacy of radioactive toxicity that I emphasise the third principle.  The Uniting Church in Australia has produced a very significant resolution on the 'Rights of Nature and Future Generations', which I append.  Amongst its clauses is this one:
   "Future generations have the right not to be confronted with products and
   wastes of earlier generations that threaten their health or require excessive
  expense for protection and control."

The present state of scientific expertise within the nuclear fuel cycle is entirely inadequate to ensure that this right will be respected.  Indeed, present policies seem to be predicated on the assumption that we can expect coming generations to bear a hugely disproportionate burden as a consequence of our contemporary practices.  Because of that illegitimate evasion of our own present responsibility, there is a much more significant need for 'precautionary' ethics: we cannot introduce technologies which affect future generations until they are proven to be fail-safe and embargoed from temporal deterioration.

The operation of the Beverley mine, with its litany of errors, failures, near-disasters, and covert secrecy even in this initial phase demonstrates a callous disregard for precautionary ethics.  Moreover, in this 'driest state in the driest continent', when water is already precious and seems certain in future to become an unimaginably scarce and valued resource, it is the height of arrogant folly to promote the 'in situ leaching' method of mineral extraction with its inherent threat to the integrity of natural aquifers.

For all these reasons, while I do not claim any official capacity to speak on behalf of the Uniting Church or any other organisation, I believe I am entirely in harmony with the stance of the church, and furthermore voice concerns common to an overwhelming majority of South Australians, when I demand:

   * the immediate closure of all new experimental uranium mining, specifically
Honeymoon and Beverley developments, with the restoration of the land to its prior undisturbed state

   * the immediate adoption of a programme to phase out the extraction, processing, transport, and sale of radioactive material within existing mines

   * the immediate formal and guaranteed repudiation of any plans for any new radioactive depository within the borders of South Australia, until such time as a referendum with full and meaningful Aboriginal participation has determined the agreement and consent of the people of this state to accept such a depository

        With thanks for your consideration, I remain
                Very truly yours,
                Rev. L Lee Levett-Olson, B.A., M.Div.