Health & Industries


A communities need for jobs does not equal a social licence for unhealthy industries.

Wolves pack around those perceived to be vulnerable

Dirty and dangerous industries are usually located in the most disadvantaged communities.

This is a long standing and well known social and economic phenomenon.

The more a community is perceived to be in need of jobs, the dirtier the jobs offered will be.

Long before the closure of Hazelwood the writing was on the wall for the coal industry in the Latrobe Valley.

Offers of industry and projects began to come forward that had previously been destined for India and other third world countries.

Those who feel, rightly or wrongly, that it is their job to produce good employment figures in these communities must be sorely tempted by the plethora of dirty industry proposals disguised as jobs and growth and a boost to the local economy.

Some proposals never get far because markets or backing fall out, some because they are inherently unsafe and some are still worming their way through the red tape out of sight of the broader community.

Out of sight and with no real feedback, worker and government groups might assume that the general community or public will risk their health and that of their families for the promise of a few jobs.

Strangely enough, that is exactly what the Latrobe Shire and the CFMEU have put forward to the State Nuclear Inquiry, that there is a "Social Licence" for a series of nuclear power stations in the Latrobe Valley.

Given that VotV believe that this affects the whole community for generations and not just a few of its workers, we believe the community should be asked if they are willing to take the risk.


What are your thoughts?


Showing 8 reactions

Please check your e-mail for a link to activate your account.
  • Sharon Gibson
    commented 2020-09-25 20:28:35 +1000
    I have never heard of any public conversation as to whether I or any of the Community are comfortable with nuclear. Let alone what the safety factors are, how, when, why, where, or anything else with nuclear. Before a proposal like this was to be even considered, I would suggest the whole community would need to be consulted.
  • Neil Rankine
    commented 2020-09-05 18:38:04 +1000
    Nuclear doesn’t work anywhere unless it is subsidised by a country with a nuclear weapons program. The life cycle requirements when factored in make it way too expensive to go down the nuclear route. Funny how these are never mentioned or calculated when nuclear proponents are pushing this discussion which is just another delaying strategy to slow up clean and cheap renewables, the technology of the future.
  • Catheryn Thompson
    commented 2020-08-28 09:20:35 +1000
    How can the CFMEU (leaders?!) claim to represent the interests of the workers when they are prepared to advocate for dangerous nuclear energy. Come on guys. Embrace a healthy renewable future & really represent the people’s interests.
  • Merv Ford
    commented 2020-08-27 22:22:11 +1000
    An unbelievably backward plan. Remember Fukushima, Chernobyl, 8 Mile Island and so on. The nuclear industry is as bad as the fossil fuel gangsters who all use dirty tactics to sell their wares to the ignorant or vulnerable.
    Shame on the CFMEU too.
  • Catheryn Thompson
    commented 2020-08-27 20:23:56 +1000
    The community conversation around transition has been embracing safe renewable industries such as wind & solar & battery storage. Nuclear has not been part of this conversation because people know it would be an absolute disaster. The community is not interested in nuclear. There is NO social license.
  • Cherry Prior
    commented 2020-08-22 06:29:33 +1000
    In no way do I support the establishment of nuclear power stations in the Gippsland region. The risk from waste alone is beyond comprehension. I would relocate if this occurred.
  • Elke Frank
    commented 2020-08-21 21:21:37 +1000
    I do not approve of any nuclear power station being built in Gippsland. Other countries with decades of experience with nuclear power stations, are phasing them out for good reasons. Why follow that path, when there are better and safer alternatives?
    I would not give my approval to the construction of multiple, or even one, nuclear power statiin in the Latrobe Valley.
    There is no “social licence” from the general community to build Nuclear Power Statiins in Gippsland or the Latrobe Valley.
    There is no “social licence” to mine for nuclear materials in Gippsland and the Latrobe Valley.
  • Leanne Narelle
    followed this page 2020-08-21 18:28:10 +1000