Eco-conscious Randwick Council motion receives hostility

By ABHA HAVAL

At a recent Randwick City Council meeting, a motion to think beyond the boundaries of the Randwick local government area and push for climate action fell on deaf ears.

During the council meeting on Tuesday night last week, Greens Councillor Philipa Veitch put forward a motion calling for the suspension of plans to release contaminated water from the Fukushima Daiichi Power Plant into the Pacific.

The motion, which suggested writing to the relevant international authorities to request the cancellation of discharge plans, did not pass. 6 councillors voted in favour of the motion, while 9 voted against it. The council agreed to read and note a report from an expert panel, commissioned by the Pacific Island Forum, which the motion made reference to but did not commit to writing to a Japanese ambassador and various Australian ministers on the matter.

Cr Veitch theorised that the reason the motion failed was because “many thought this was an anti-nuclear power motion and didn’t think this was a local issue.”

“The marine environment of the Pacific Ocean is under extreme pressure”, the motion read, “from pollution, climate change, overfishing, resource extraction, and the radioactive pollution legacy of nuclear weapons testing.”

In addition to these environmental hazards, the Japanese Government and TEPCO (Tokyo Electric Power Company) now plan to discharge over 1.3 million tonnes of contaminated treated water into the Pacific Ocean from the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant over the course of 30 to 40 years.

Cr Veitch said, “[The contamination] will spread first to the north Pacific, but it will affect Australia. Ocean currents do travel.”

“Randwick is a coastal city, and a resident from Japan living in the area raised this issue. There’s a large population further towards the south from Indonesia as well who are concerned.”

“People consume seafood, and most of us have no idea where these products come from.”

“Part of the reason for this motion was to raise the issue and create awareness as this will be happening over a period of time,” she said.

Councillor Noel D’Souza who supported the motion in the meeting told City Hub that judicial decisions in environmental law are made based on two principles – the principle of intergenerational equity and the precautionary principle.

He said, “the reason why I voted as I did was because the discharge of contaminated waters from the Fukushima Daiichi Power Plant is contrary to both principles, and therefore has no legal legs to stand on.”

Recognising the danger posed to Australian waters, Cr D’Souza stated, “pollutants and nuclear discharge would eventually reach Australian waters and the marine life would be contained, and may lead to future health problems.”

Cr Veitch has suggested that the approach of the Japanese government and TEPCO is flawed.

“The discharge is a cheap option for disposing of contaminated waste and the safer alternative would be to put it in a seismically large isolated storage tank. We can’t just put [radioactive waste] in the ocean,” she said.

“Scientists are asking for applications for nuclear safety standards in the Fukushima case, and people are calling to secure the contamination on site”.

“Ecosystems are very fragile with climate change causing so many natural disasters; the last thing we need is a health and environmental catastrophe.”