The anti-nuclear movement emerged as a social movement out of the global mass demonstration movement of the 1960s (Burgmann, 2003). Activists are opposed to the use of nuclear technologies during any stage of the nuclear fuel cycle.
Worldwide, there is a plethora of issue-dedicated groups, such as the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) and the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War. Although the initial focus of the movement was nuclear disarmament, the attention has increasingly shifted towards opposition to the use of nuclear energy. Additionally, many direct action and environmental groups, including Friends of the Earth (FoE) and Greenpeace, have identified
themselves with the movement at a local or even international level. However, it is important to note that in this context, anti-nuclear campaigns remain only one amongst many foci for these organisations, competing – internally as well as externally – for attention and funding alongside, for example, Deep Sea Destruction, Deforestation, Indigenous Land Rights, and many more.
Anti-nuclear groups argue that nuclear energy poses a number of threats to humans and the environment. These include health risks and environmental damage due to exposure during uranium mining, processing, and transport; the risk of nuclear weapons, warfare and exposure to radiation; and finally, the yet unsolved challenge of nuclear waste storage. Open pit mining has in particular attracted the attention of activists, who have raised concerns about the potential for radioactive dust to travel thousands of kilometres across the country (Roberts, 2009). Additionally, uranium mining has a direct impact on Indigenous land rights, as many deposits are located in remote areas, where Indigenous people have the potential for greater access to their land. Anti-nuclear activists maintain that contrary to the framing of nuclear energy by the nuclear lobby as a means through which to mitigate climate change, it is not an emissions free solution. Activists emphasise the strong reliance on water, which is largely ignored within pro-uranium discourses, as well as the contribution of the mining process, transportation and storage costs to carbon emissions. A thorough analysis and critique of the data provided by the pro-nuclear lobby is perceived as a crucial element of the anti-nuclear argument (see e.g. Beljac et al., 2005). From this perspective, nuclear energy is costly and dangerous or, in the words of anti-nuclear activists, “an expensive way to boil water” (e.g. Siewert, 2007, speech).
Despite frequent criticism by the media and the industry that the anti-nuclear movement primarily draws on emotive arguments to gain support (e.g. ABC News, 2010a; Granger, Symons-Brown, & Jones, 2010; Kelly, 2010), structured anti-nuclear campaign work is commonly characterised by a reliance on thorough scientific research, extensive statistics, and well evidenced arguments. Whilst images of protesters chained to gates and rail tracks, aiming to prevent nuclear waste transports between Germany and France, ensure coverage on the evening news around the globe (e.g. AFP, 2011a), campaign organisers, particularly within larger organisations such as Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth (FoE), draw on extensive research knowledge and expertise provided by industry reports and academic sources. In fact, a number of activists have turned their passion into an academic career, and are frequently called upon to provide scientific support and
validation for anti-nuclear arguments. For example, Jim (James) Green is a national anti-nuclear campaigner with Friends of the Earth and regular media commentator (e.g. Green, 1998; Green, 2005), in particular on nuclear waste issues. He completed his PhD in Science and Technology studies at the University of Wollongong, analysing the New South Wales based Lucas Height research reactor (Green, 1997), Australia’s only nuclear reactor. Another prominent figure has been Dr Helen Caldicott, a trained physician, Nobel Peace Prize nominee, author and outspoken anti-nuclear commentator, who divides her time between Melbourne, Australia and Washington, D.C. (Caldicott, 2006). In Nuclear power is not the answer to global warming or anything else, Caldicott draws on the knowledge gained during 38 years of international campaign work, focused on the medical, environmental, political and moral consequences relating to nuclear weapons, power and waste (Caldicott, 2006).
Public concern about nuclear weapons emerged in the 1950s, following extensive nuclear testing in the Pacific region (Grabosky, 1989; Hacker, 1994; D. S. Meyer, 1995) and in South Australia (Maralinga). This provoked concerns about the safety of nuclear power (Gyorgy, 1979). Two international events arguably contributed to the rapid growth of the anti-nuclear movement during the late 1970s and early 1980s: firstly, the killing of the US anti-nuclear activist Karen Silkwood in 1978, followed a year later by the near meltdown of the Three Mile Island nuclear reactor in Pennsylvania, US (Kearns, 2004). These events highlighted the potential dangers associated with nuclear energy (Gyorgy, 1979) and consequently exacerbated a drop in public support for nuclear power, particularly in the UK and the US (Doyle, 2011). Secondly, the 1986 major reactor incident in Chernobyl, in the former Soviet Union, is arguably one of the most widely recalled environmental disasters globally.
The reactor meltdown and its repercussions seriously damaged public support for nuclear energy throughout Europe and beyond, resulting in a widespread suspension of the construction of new power stations. Until today, strong links remain between the Chernobyl victims and anti-nuclear groups (Anti Nuclear Alliance of Australia (ANAWA), 2009a; Greenpeace International, 2010; Macy, 2007).
At the start of the 21st century, the anti-nuclear movement has been particularly vocal in central Europe, where key leaders pledged an end to a reliance on nuclear energy. For example, in 2002, Germany’s ruling coalition of Social Democrats and Greens passed a law that stated all of the country’s 17 nuclear power plants were due to go offline by 2021 (Deutsche Welle, 2003). In early 2010 this date was
reviewed, attracting widespread criticism by the anti-nuclear lobby and mobilising mass rallies by wider support networks (Gerhardt, 2010). Other European countries, such as Austria, Denmark, Greece, Ireland and Portugal, equally remain strongly opposed to nuclear power (The Economist, 2011) .
The anti‐nuclear movement in Australia
The following section provides an historic insight into the emergence and development of the anti-nuclear movement in Australia, from mass demonstrations against nuclear testing in the Australian Outback, to the new challenges faced by the WA movement during the first decade of the 21st century. Much of the historic insight into the Australian anti-nuclear movement relies on archived newspaper articles and self-authored accounts, such as interviews with key activists in Kearns’
(2004) Stepping Out for Peace: A History of CANE and PND (WA). Social movement literature, such as Burgmann’s (2003) Power, profit, and protest:
Australian social movements and globalisation, has equally provided useful, first-hand insights.
In addition to nuclear energy, nuclear testing, and uranium mining and export have frequently been the subject of public debate in Australia. Australia’s involvement with nuclear weapons pre-dates its involvement with uranium mining. In 1952 the Liberal government, under the leadership of Robert Menzies, passed legislation that provided the British government access to remote parts of the country for nuclear testing (Lowe, 1999). Most of these tests took place around Maralinga in South Australia in the mid-1950s to mid-1960s. The isolation of the location and the secrecy surrounding the tests meant that the full legal, political and health implications of the testing program took decades to emerge (see e.g. P. A. Burns, Cooper, Lokan, Wilks, & Williams, 1995; Haywood & Smith, 1992), with a Royal Commission investigation into the severe after-effects from radiation amongst the local Indigenous population only taking place in 1984 (Holmes, 2005b). In the 1960s the US government established a network of military bases throughout Australia, which have equally attracted criticism over the past decades (Kearns, 2004), particularly relating to the use and testing of nuclear weapons (Green, 1998).
Protests against permission for American nuclear warships to enter Australian ports have also continued well into the 21st century (e.g. 'kimk', 2009; Cardy, 2009).
In the late 1960s, the world was in the grip of the Cold War, the Cultural Revolution was raging in China, the United States and its allies were fighting in Vietnam; the world was in turmoil, characterised by mounting fear and a lack of security. These events provided the context and motivation for millions of people worldwide to take to the streets and participate in mass demonstrations. A global anti-nuclear movement emerged, and Australia was no exception. Thousands took to the streets in peace marches, motivated by what was perceived at the time to be the imminent danger of nuclear warfare (Kearns, 2004).
A more structured Australian anti-nuclear movement formed in the early 1970s, when France commenced its nuclear testing in the Pacific Region. This was followed by an increased focus on uranium mining in the late 1970s (Green, 1998).
Influenced by memories of the Hiroshima bombings, opposition to uranium mining, exports, and nuclear weapons, groups developed simultaneously across all States into what Burgmann (2003) refers to as “a significant political mobilisation” from the mid-1970s onwards. A national inquiry into the mining of uranium, resulting in what is known as the Fox Report (Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry, 1976), and a subsequent document in May of the following year (Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry, 1977), provided new fuel for the anti-nuclear movement. They offered
“scientific expert support for the arguments against uranium mining” (Burgmann, 2003p. 172), by stating that the industry was “unintentionally contributing to an increased risk of nuclear war” (quoted in Kearns, 2004, p. 17). In early 2010 these reports provided the “foundation for current policy on uranium mining in Australia”
(Parliament of Australia, 2003).
In the first chapters of her book, Kearns (2004) provides a detailed history of the anti-nuclear movement’s development in Australia and the emergence of a wide range of sub-groups. Most of this insight is based on her own experience with the movement as well as interviews with key activists. The following paragraph provides a brief overview of key developments. Kearns claims that by 1977, the anti-nuclear lobby had developed into a mass movement with a wide network of local groups, that frequently demonstrated. The National Uranium Moratorium Campaign (NUMC), a coalition of mostly anti-nuclear groups from around the country, loosely coordinated these groups. The main aim of the campaign was to delay uranium mining by five years, during which time more evidence about the effects of radioactivity could be collected. Another major group in this period was WAUM (Women Against Uranium Mining), supported, like the Moratorium, by the Australian Labor Party (ALP). The Uranium Moratorium was replaced by the Movement
Against Uranium Mining (MAUM) in 1979, which acted as a national umbrella organisation for a wide range of interest groups from around the country. Other groups at the time were the Coalition for a Nuclear Free Australia (CNFA), a coalition of 79 organisations, unions, anti-nuclear, environment centres and Friends of the Earth groups from around Australia (Kearns, 2004), and the Australian Coalition for Disarmament and Peace. At the same time, People for Nuclear Disarmament (PND) groups were established around the country, inspired by the UK’s Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND). In his brief history of the anti-nuclear movement, Green (1998) provides insight into the size, complexity and fluid nature of the movement, referring to “more than 100 local groups opposed to the nuclear industry” in the State of Victoria alone. Nationally, ‘Palm Sunday’, or Peace Rallies attracted up to 250,000 demonstrators (National Times, 4-10 May, 1984) in the early 1980s. Some authors cite numbers of up to 350,000 people taking to the streets across the country (Murray, 2006; Wittner, 2009). In summary, nuclear issues were at the forefront of the Australian consciousness, anti-nuclear activism was widespread and attracted mainstream appeal. Global events in the 1970s and 1980s, namely the killing of US anti-nuclear activist Kareen Silkwood and the two reactor incidents at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, ensured that the movement maintained its relevance and momentum, further fuelling its rapid growth (Kearns, 2004).
Burgmann (2003) asserts that during the 1970s and 1980s, the anti-nuclear movement in Australia was particularly characterised by the involvement of the union movement and the support of the Australian Labor Party (ALP). In his history of the anti-nuclear movement, Falk (1982) further argues that it was primarily the threat of escalating union action that pressured the then Fraser government into delaying plans for the export of uranium. Strikes, blockades, the refusal to handle uranium and the stoppage of shipments characterised the coming years. However, not all unions were opposed to the mining and export of uranium. The Australian Workers Union (AWU) in particular made a stance by volunteering replacements for those workers crucial to the uranium industry (McClausland, 1999, quoted in Burgmann, 2003). The movement’s alignment with the Labor Party soured in 1982, when the ALP conference overturned its anti-uranium policy in favour of a “one mine policy” (Burgmann, 2003). Two years later this was upgraded under Bob Hawke’s leadership to a “three mine policy” (Kearns, 2004). Labor’s decision to change its position on uranium mining resulted in the formation of a new political party, the Nuclear Disarmament Party (NDP), founded by the Canberra doctor and peace
activist, Michael Denborough. Candidates included the Midnight Oil rock singer Peter Garrett and the former Victorian ALP senator, Jean Melzer. Despite its single issue focus, the NDP received 7.23% of the total votes in the 1984 federal elections, once more emphasising the widespread opposition to uranium mining across the country. However, only one of the NDP candidates was elected to the senate: the West Australian peace activist Jo Vallentine, then a young mother of two. This considerable initial success was arguably a result of a political situation (Warhurst, 1985) that was shaped by the Cold War and the perceived threat posed by the actions of the US government under the leadership of Ronald Reagan (Kearns, 2004). The NDP soon experienced internal difficulties, with all three of their candidates walking out of the national conference and resigning from the NDP within twelve months, based on concerns about hidden political agendas (MacLellan, 1985). However, despite signalling the slow death of the NDP, these events were a major catalyst behind the formation of the Australian Greens (the Australian Green Party) in the early 1990s (S. Bennett, 2008; Miragliotta, 2010;
Turnbull & Vromen, 2006).
Two further events revived the national debate around the nuclear cycle. In the mid-1990s the French government resumed a series of nuclear tests in the South Pacific Region, resulting in “an angry response from many sections of Australian Society”
(Burgmann, 2003, p. 177). Actions included the writing of thousands of letters to the French government through schools and community centres, as well as sponsored advertisements on behalf of the medical association in Parisian papers. However, with boycotts against French goods (Ettenson & Klein, 2005) and union bans on French planes and ships entering Australia, Grenfell (2001, quoted in Burgmann, 2003) argues that the “potential of the campaign to focus on environmental consequences of uranium mining and nuclear weapons was weakened by the degree of anti-French sentiment” (p. 178).
Tension flared once again when following the election of the Howard Liberal Coalition government in 1996, the Jabiluka mine was approved by both the Federal and the Northern Territory Governments, despite strong opposition from the Australian public (BBC World Service, 1998). Situated in the Kakadu National Park, Australia’s first registered world heritage site, and legally on Aboriginal land, the construction was eventually abandoned. In her history of the anti-nuclear movement in Western Australia, Kearns (2004) attributes Rio Tinto’s decision to close the site to the work of activists from around the country. However, Grenfell (2001) is slightly more sceptical about the actual reasons behind the closure. He argues that
following the Chernobyl reactor incident, the reason that finally determined the fate of the mine was the fall in uranium prices and receding market demand, rather than the environmental movement.
Anti-nuclear campaigners, like any activists, are aware that they are operating in a constantly changing political environment. The long-standing John Howard-led Coalition government entered the 2007 federal elections with a pro-nuclear platform, promoting nuclear energy on environmental grounds. This stance was backed by two major reports: an extensive document produced by the House of Representatives’ Standing Committee on Industry and Resources’ (2006), with the telling title “Australia’s uranium—greenhouse friendly fuel for an energy hungry world”, and what is widely referred to as the “Switkowski Report”. The Howard government appointed Dr Zygmunt (Ziggy) Switkowski, the former Chief Executive Officer of Telstra Corporation, with a PhD in nuclear physics from the University of Melbourne and an outspoken supporter of nuclear energy, as Chairman of the Taskforce. This move arguably premeditated the outcomes of this “comprehensive review of uranium mining, value-added processing and the contribution of nuclear energy in Australia in the longer term” (Switkowski & Uranium Mining Processing and Nuclear Energy Review Taskforce, 2006, p.1). Among others, Switkowski’s findings emphasised the merit of establishing and operating Australian nuclear power plants by 2016 (Nuclear power in Australia within 10 years: Switkowski Sydney Morning Herald. Nov 26, 2006). However, these findings were not widely supported amongst the Australian public, with a poll by The Weekend Australian indicating that support for the construction of nuclear power plants on Australian soil had decreased to 35% of voters (Lewis & Kerr, 2006). This further encouraged a wide range of activist groups to lobby against nuclear energy, and in particular the generation of waste at all stages of the nuclear fuel cycle. During this time, Australians witnessed the emergence of a new type of activism: organised online advocacy. Inspired by the US based MoveOn.com and the global Avaaz.org, GetUp, an independent, virtual, grassroots community advocacy group emerged, with the aim of giving “everyday Australians opportunities to get involved and hold politicians accountable on important issues” (GetUp, 2010). GetUp is a multi-issue group that actively lobbied against the re-election of the Howard government alongside the anti-nuclear movement.
This section has highlighted how anti-nuclear sentiment has traditionally been deeply engrained in the Australian psyche. Despite continuous efforts by both
industry and consecutive governments to introduce uranium mining and nuclear power, major projects have failed to gain momentum or even been unable to move beyond the initial approval processes. This may be due to continuous support by the wider public for anti-nuclear activism. However, as discussed, there has been a shift from strict mining bans to the introduction of first a one mine, then a three mine, and finally, a no limitation policy (Grattan & Fitzgerald, 2009; Milne, 2007). Equally, in line with international development, nuclear power has gained increased attention and publicity as a ‘low emission’ alternative to coal and an answer to global warming (Nason, 2010; The Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia. House of Representatives. Standing Committee on Industry and Resources, 1996; Towie, 2010).
The anti‐nuclear movement in Western Australia
The focus of this study is the West Australian anti-nuclear movement. Although its development has been broadly in line with global and national events, it is particularly important to take local cultural, environmental, social and political factors into account. This section provides a brief overview of the WA anti-nuclear movement from its early days until the commencement of this study in 2010.
Western Australian anti-nuclear campaigners joined the rest of the country when the nuclear movement gained momentum in the mid-1970s. According to Martin (2007), nuclear power was “a big issue in Australia, probably the biggest environmental issue of the period” (p. 43). The Campaign Against Nuclear Energy (CANE) was loosely formed around predominantly student and union representatives (Kearns, 2004). During this time, the Federal Whitlam Government decided to provide
Western Australian anti-nuclear campaigners joined the rest of the country when the nuclear movement gained momentum in the mid-1970s. According to Martin (2007), nuclear power was “a big issue in Australia, probably the biggest environmental issue of the period” (p. 43). The Campaign Against Nuclear Energy (CANE) was loosely formed around predominantly student and union representatives (Kearns, 2004). During this time, the Federal Whitlam Government decided to provide