Philip White, 14 Oct 15 I know a few Australian anti-nuclear activists put
themselves forward as candidates for the public hearings that the Royal Commission is now conducting. As far as I am aware, none of us has been offered an opportunity to present evidence at these hearings.
The nearest thing to anti-nuclear activists to present so far were Arjun Makhijani from the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research (USA) and Mark Diesendorf of the University of NSW. They both did a great job, but that does not excuse the Royal Commission for ignoring people who have been campaigning against various aspects of the nuclear fuel cycle for a couple of decades.
In my case, the Royal Commissioner offered me a “short extension” to make a “brief written submission”. No matter how he chooses to view it, I do not regard this as an extension to the original round of submissions, but rather as a submission “in lieu of an oral submission”.
I sent my submission on 21 September. It addressed an aspect of Issues Paper 3 (electricity generation). The Royal Commission has given no indication of whether or how it is going to consider it and, without giving me an outright refusal, has led me to believe that it has no intention of publishing it on its web site.
FoE Adelaide has therefore published it on its submissions page. You can find it immediately below FoE Adelaide’s original 4 submissions on the following page:
It requests them to bear in mind “how the nuclear industry has used its political and economic power to undermine renewable energy in Japan and other countries” and to learn from that “how expanding the role of the nuclear industry in South Australia is likely to impact on environmentally, socially and economically preferable alternatives”.
This political angle is something that I doubt very much that the Royal Commission wants to consider.