Who should pay for nuclear site clean-up?

Press, 18 December 1985, Page 21

Who should pay for nuclear site clean-up?

From

STEPHEN TAYLOR

in Sydney

The dust from the report on British nuclear testing in Australia has barely started to settle before doubts are being expressed on the grounds for its assertion that the Thatcher Government is legally, as well as morally, obliged to make reparations which could amount to $l5O million. The 600-page document tabled in the Australian Senate and compiled by a Royal Commission under the chairmanship of Mr Justice James “Diamond Jim” McLelland, has catalogued a devastating indictment of official negligence and incompetence over Aboriginal Safety during the

But legal experts in Sydney believe that the report, which was hurriedly put together to meet a deadline imposed by the Hawke Government, is on weak ground in stating that Britain is responsible under law for clearing a contaminated test site of toxic waste.

Canberra is acutely aware that two previous Australian Governments signed agreements, in 1968 and 1979, which absolved Britain from any further liability for clean-up of the range at Maralinga in South Australia. In this, as in a number of other significant respects, the report is an embarrassment and hot potato

for Mr Hawke. Although it has agreed to send officials to Canberra for talks, the signs are that Whitehall feels it is under little compulsion to pay for a costly clean-up exercise. Officials have instead pointed to a section in the 1979 agreement which states that Britain will offer technical advice and assistance in any future operation. The commission, describes the distress and hardship to Aboriginal

people caused by loss of access to tribal lands, including traditional holy places. Then, addressing the need for an operation to restore the Aborigines to their land, it asks: “Who should pay for the clean-up of Maralinga?” In laying the responsibility at Britain’s door, the commissioners cite a British legal case from the nineteenth century (London and South West Railway Company versus Blackmore) which

“The general words in a release

are limited always to that thing or things which were specially in the contemplation of the parties at the time when the release was given.”

The report goes on: “It is clear that at the time of the execution of

both releases, matters now relevant were not in the contemplation of the parties. It would appear that no-one was aware, and certainly not the Australian authorities, of the nature and extent (of the contamination).” As a result, the report goes on, neither of the two agreements would release Britain from responsibility for clearing the range.,

On this basis, the report adds: “In the opinion of the Royal Commission, the United Kingdom remains liable for the total cost of rendering the contaminated areas safe without fences or patrols.”

The Commission is not specific how much this would cost and says it has not had sufficient data to say how the process to decontaminate about 100 hectares of about 20 kilograms of highly toxic plutonium buried under rubble and debris and another two kilograms of particles scattered on the surface. — Copyright, London Observer Service.