Did she lie to the Senate? – Samantha Chard, Chief of National Radioactive Waste Management Facility Taskforce
A senior public servant has been accused of lying to a Senate committee and only correcting the evidence given when a Freedom of Information request was set to expose her.
Independent senator Rex Patrick made the accusation under parliamentary privilege in a dissenting report on a government bill on radioactive waste management.
Ms Chard said she didn’t recall talking about it in her personal discussions, but Senator Patrick said he would use Freedom of Information to see if that was the case.
“It is completely implausible that Ms Chard was unable to recollect being involved in discussions on the new bill about the bill’s effect of removing judicial review of the site selection decision,” Senator Patrick said in the report.
“She was dishonest. She lied to the committee.”
Senator Patrick accused Ms Chard of only updating her evidence because of the FOI request.
A spokesman for the Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources said Ms Chard answered all questions truthfully to the best of her ability.
“The committee has already reached out to the government and asked if it would like to respond to any aspects of the report including minority or dissenting reports, which the department will,” he said.
“All members of the department who appear at proceedings in Parliament are aware of their obligations to answer all questions truthfully and to the best of their ability, which Ms Chard did.
In a further exchange between Ms Chard and Senator Patrick at a hearing in August, Ms Chard again said she had been truthful.
“In my clarification of the evidence I make it really clear that I have been involved in policy discussions related to the proposed legislation having the effect of reducing the risk of potential legal challenges, including through judicial review,” she said.
“At the time, the questioning was specifically related to section 14 of the act and whether this bill was designed to remove judicial review, and I maintained that it was not the intention of the bill to remove scrutiny under section 14 of the act.”
It is not the first time Senator Patrick has used parliamentary procedures to call out what he believes is a growing tendency for public servants to choose protecting their ministers over being open and transparent.
“I am absolutely determined to protect the integrity of the Senate’s oversight processes,” he said to The Canberra Times.
Senator Patrick said he would be calling ministers who make “erroneous public interest immunity claims” to the Senate chamber to explain themselves.
“I will be not be tolerating officials who are evasive, misleading or untruthful in their answers.”
He also threatened to publicly name FOI officials who make “blatantly cavalier” exemption claims that are then overturned by the Information Commissioner.
“Ministers and officials who meet their public service obligations and are fulsome and truthful in their responses to the Senate need not fear anything,” he said.
“FOI officers who make decisions consistent with the objectives of FOI act need not fear anything.”
Words Before Waste: South Australians Call for More Consultation on Federal Radioactive Waste Plan
New research shows that, while South Australians are divided on the issue of a nuclear waste dump, a clear majority believe more consultation should be undertaken before any final decision is made regarding a proposed disposal and storage facility near Kimba on the Eyre Peninsula.
The Australia Institute recently surveyed 510 South Australians about the proposed nuclear waste facility.
Key Findings:
- Two in three South Australians (66%) say the traditional custodians of the land, the Barngarla people, should be formally consulted via a ballot before any proposal is advanced.
- Three in five South Australians (60%) believe the whole SA population should be formally consulted via a ballot before any proposal is allowed to go ahead.
- Two in five South Australians (40%) oppose the nuclear waste dump, while the same share of respondents (40%) support the plan.
- One in two South Australians (51%) oppose the potential use of the South Australian ports and roads to transport nuclear waste.
“This issue is dividing the state and there is a strong appetite for more consultation with both the Barngarla people and the general South Australian public,” said Noah Schultz-Byard, South Australian Director at The Australia Institute.
“Our research has shown that a significant number of people hold concerns about the transportation of nuclear waste on South Australian roads and through South Australian ports.
“In 2016 the current Premier Steven Marshall said he had much greater ambitions for South Australia than for it to become a nuclear waste dump. If that is still the case, the Premier should support a state Parliamentary inquiry and a far broader community conversation regarding the proposed federal facility.”
“This is a highly controversial proposal, with many questions unanswered and a lot of misinformation flying around. It’s little wonder the community is divided,” said Craig Wilkins, Chief Executive of Conservation SA.
“However, one thing is crystal clear: the Barngarla people, who are the formal native title owners of the area, have consistently said they have not been properly consulted. The South Australian people clearly believe further consultation, particularly with Barngarla Traditional Owners, must take place before this proposal progresses.
“There is no hurry: federal authorities have confirmed that there is safe and secure storage at Lucas Heights in Sydney for decades. So, let’s get the process and the consultation right – starting with genuine and respectful engagement with the Barngarla people,” he said.
Call to Australian Labor Party to state its position on Napandee nuclear waste dump plan
Labor split on nuclear waste dump, https://www.miragenews.com/labor-split-on-nuclear-waste-dump/ The Greens are calling on the Labor Leader in the Senate, Penny Wong to declare where her party stands on the proposed Nuclear Waste Dump in SA, after a clear division within the Labor Party was revealed in a Senate Inquiry Report released late yesterday.
NSW Labor Senator Jenny McAllister delivered a dissenting report, independent of her Labor colleagues including SA Senator Alex Gallacher who supports the majority report that SA should be a dumping ground for nuclear waste.
Greens Senator for South Australia Sarah Hanson-Young said:
“Penny Wong needs to come out today and tell South Australians where the Labor Party stands.
“Does it stand with Senator McAllister who has stated the process for selecting a site has been flawed and no meaningful community consent obtained? Or does it stand with SA Senator Alex Gallacher and the Liberal Party who want to dump on SA?
“The decision to set up a nuclear waste dump in SA will affect our state for generations to come. All South Australians should have the right to have their say on this important issue and they should know very clearly where the ‘opposition party’ stands both at a federal and state level.”
Broad support for nuclear waste dump at Napandee? Senate report shows that is a lie
|
The inquiry was established to examine controversial changes to national radioactive waste laws in order to secure the Kimba site and prevent this decision from being subject to judicial review. “This is a deeply deficient plan based on a flawed and restrictive process,” Australian Conservation Foundation campaigner Dave Sweeney said. “That one Committee inquiry has generated four separate responses from Senators shows there is no consensus on the plan. “The Coalition-dominated majority report predictably supported the waste plan, while the three other responses are critical. “The government’s proposal would lead to potentially dangerous waste management, including trucking radioactive waste from Lucas Heights in Sydney through our communities and dumping it on South Australian farmland. This is actively opposed by many in the wider region, including the Barngarla Traditional Owners who have been consistently excluded from the consultation process. This is not a credible plan. Australians deserve better than an approach which lacks credibility, is inconsistent with international standards, and shirks hard questions about what to do with the worst waste.” The federal waste plan has drawn criticism and opposition from a range of civil society and community groups and South Australia’s Labor opposition. Federal Labor voted against the plan in the House of Representatives in June. Key concerns with the plan include:
|
|
Australia’s mainstream media dutifully parrots out Government spin about gas
|
Gas Gush: the toadies of mainstream media trot out government’s fossil fuel fracking campaign https://www.michaelwest.com.au/gas-gush-the-toadies-of-mainstream-media-trot-out-governments-fossil-fuel-fracking-campaign/
 by Michael West | Sep 15, 2020 Gas fracking and a new fossil fuel power plant got a big leg-up today as News Corp, Nine Entertainment, ABC News and Guardian Australia faithfully splashed with the latest government gas plan on their front pages today.
This is not journalism. This is stenography. This is not balanced reporting. This is reporting a government press release one day early. Australia’s captive mainstream media all splashed with the same story this morning, the Morrison Government’s fossil fuel public relations campaign. The Age, the Sydney Morning Herald, The Guardian, The Australian, the Australian Financial Review. They all featured the same story on gas. Now, breakfast TV and morning radio will be left to follow it up, unquestioning, now that it’s been “in the papers”. The gas propaganda blitz did not feature the critical facts that gas is almost as polluting as coal, that fracking the Beetaloo Basin, the Galilee Basin and the North Bowen Basin will destroy water systems and endanger wildlife and farmland. Neither did this media blitz, orchestrated by expert media manipulators in the offices of government, and keenly assisted by the gas lobby, mention that the gas multinationals which stand to benefit from this campaign have been acting as a cartel, ratcheting up gas prices at a cost to all Australians and siphoning profits offshore to tax havens. Neither did the slavishly toadying coverage in the corporate media mention how much the companies Shell, BHP, Exxon, Origin and Santos and their proxies pay political parties in donations. No, the journalists and their editors simply gush the Government’s line. “Scott Morrison will announce”, “The Government will announce”. There was, and still is, no detail, nothing official from the Government but its toadies in the mainstream media have recorded the story faithfully. They are paving the way for the Government to spend billions in taxpayer money on a new gas power plant and pipelines – for a pipeline industry controlled by Chinese and Singaporean multinationals who don’t pay tax. The only difference between the big black headlines in The Age and the SMH were the words “in NSW”. “Morrison to back construction of new gas-fired power station in NSW,” touted the SMH. The team of press secretaries in the office of Prime Minister and Cabinet – a team brimming with fossil fuel advocates – could not have asked for great loyalty and dedication to the cause. “Scott Morrison is prepared to forcefully intervene in the energy market by building a new gas-fired power station in the Hunter Valley in NSW if need be, and underwriting the construction of gas pipelines to feed a new national trading hub,” wrote the AFR‘s Canberra correspondent Phil Coorey. Although there is still no press release from the Prime Minister, and nothing official from the office of Energy Minister Angus Taylor either, the AFR had four stories on the big gas plan. “The prime minister will say the government intends to pursue 13 measures,” wrote Katherine Murphy in The Guardian. How did she know that? How did they all know it? They got “the drop”. The drop is industry parlance for a leak from government which is a favour. The political operative engineers the drop to the select journalist and the select journalist is expected, in return, to deliver favourable coverage. Morning TV and radio will follow up on cue. By this afternoon, the Government’s media campaign will have dominated the 24-hour media cycle. The actual details of the plan may be released this afternoon. Late morning perhaps. By then, independent journalists and the non-spoon-fed media may become privy to the detail and report the news properly. “Power up or we build gas plant: Morrison,” is the headline in The Australian. It is accompanied by a flattering “comment piece” by Murdoch media’s top correspondent in Canberra, Simon Benson: “Morrison move to energise industry.” Already, Australia is up there with Qatar as the world’s biggest exporter of gas. Australians pay among the highest prices in the world for gas too. This is no accident. This is a failure of government and media. The corporations that dominate the gas cartel have got the better of government, completely dominated the governments state and federal in fact. They have dominated the media too. Their advertising, their slick lobbying, craven editorial management. Australia’s politicians and media have failed the people. |
|
See this graphic exposure of the coal, oil, gas, corruption in Australian government
Australian Government Corrupt Connections – Fossil Fuels , https://tasmaniantimes.com/2020/09/corrupt-connections-fossil-fuels/Our democracy has been hijacked by the fossil fuel industry. Australians need to know about government links with the coal, oil & gas industry.Please share this so more people are aware. WE need an ICAC now!
For more information we recommend watching “Dirty Power” (15 min) which documents many of the fossil fuel links to government detailed in this thread. Australian Government Corrupt Connections – Fossil Fuels
Thread produced by @aaron_brooks10 & @DanielBleakleyMost info sourced from michaelwest.com.au
Coalition to divert renewable energy funding away from wind and solar
|
Coalition to divert renewable energy funding away from wind and solar
Scott Morrison says solar and wind are commercially viable and do not need subsidies from the $1.43bn funding, Guardian, Katharine Murphy and Adam Morton, Thu 17 Sep 2020 The Morrison government will continue to fund Australia’s renewable energy agency to the tune of $1.43bn over a decade but overhaul its mandate so there will be less investment in solar and wind, and more focus on investment in hydrogen, carbon capture and storage, microgrids and energy efficiency.The baseline funding for the Australian Renewable Energy Agency (Arena) will be supplemented by a transfer of funds from the government’s emissions reduction fund and a new grants program worth $193.4m – but that represents a funding cut to the agency which was established by the Gillard government in 2011. The significant overhaul will be unveiled by Scott Morrison on Thursday ahead of the government outlining its next steps in the technology roadmap, which is the government’s emissions reduction strategy. The energy minister, Angus Taylor, is expected to unveil the government’s inaugural low emissions technology statement during a speech at the National Press Club early next week…….. The Morrison government will continue to fund Australia’s renewable energy agency to the tune of $1.43bn over a decade but overhaul its mandate so there will be less investment in solar and wind, and more focus on investment in hydrogen, carbon capture and storage, microgrids and energy efficiency……… The government will also continue to plough more taxpayer funds into carbon capture and storage through a $50m fund, while $70.2m will be allocated for an export hydrogen hub. ……. The overhaul of Arena follows the government outlining first steps in its much vaunted “gas-led recovery” from the economic shock caused by the coronavirus. Morrison on Tuesday pointed to new commitments in the October budget, including funding of $52.9m to unlock more gas supply and boost transport infrastructure. As well as flagging that the government would back the construction of a new gas-fired power station in the Hunter Valley if the energy company AGL failed to replace Liddell, Morrison held open the option of taxpayer underwriting for priority gas projects, streamlining approvals or creating special purpose vehicles for new investment. While Morrison and Taylor have been muscling up about the importance of new generation to replace Liddell, the government’s proposition has not been backed by a taskforce report commissioned to assess the impact of its closure. Morrison said this week the government had estimated 1,000 megawatts of new dispatchable electricity generation capacity would be needed to replace Liddell, which owner AGL has announced will close in early 2023. But the taskforce does not find that 1,000MW of additional dispatchable electricity would be needed. It listed a range of energy committed and probable projects that it found would be “more than sufficient” to maintain a high level of power grid reliability as Liddell shut.https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/sep/17/coalition-to-divert-renewable-energy-funding-away-from-wind-and-solar |
|
In tropical areas, increasing heat and humidity will make life almost unbearable
These impacts will be stronger in the seasonally wet tropics (such as the Northern Territory of Australia), where more extreme warming is expected than in the equatorial zone.
Predictions for Darwin, in northern Australia, suggest an increase in days with temperatures above 35℃ from 11 days a year in 2015 to an average of 43 days under the mid-range emission scenario (IPCC’s RCP4.5 scenario) by 2030 and an average of 111 (range 54-211) days by 2090. Under the higher emission scenario (IPCC’s RCP8.5), an average of 265 days above 35℃ could be reached by 2090.
|
Climate explained: will the tropics eventually become uninhabitable? https://theconversation.com/climate-explained-will-the-tropics-eventually-become-uninhabitable-145174 James Shulmeister, Professor, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Canterbury 16 Sept 20, What is the impact of temperature increases in the tropics? How likely is it that regions along the Equator will be uninhabitable due to high wet bulb temperatures such as 35℃ and more in places like Singapore? Do we have models that suggest how likely this is and at what time frames?More than 3.3 billion people live in the tropics, representing about 40% of the world’s population. Despite some areas of affluence, such as Singapore, the tropics are also home to about 85% of the world’s poorest people and are therefore particularly susceptible to the impacts of climate change.
The tropics are expected to experience rising temperatures and changes to rainfall, and the question is whether this could make this region uninhabitable. How would this happen? Heat stressHumans regulate their body temperature in warm conditions through sweating. The sweat evaporates and cools the skin. But if conditions are humid, sweating and evaporation are much less effective. Humans can survive and function in quite high temperatures if humidity is low, but as humidity increases our ability to function decreases rapidly. This effect is measured by a heat stress index which shows the apparent temperature you feel under different relative humidity conditions. From a human health point of view, the wet bulb temperature is critical. This is the temperature a thermometer covered in a wet cloth would measure, and it reflects the maximum amount of cooling that can be achieved by evaporation. High wet bulb temperatures are more problematic to human health than high absolute temperatures. Wet bulb temperatures above 35℃ are life-threatening because they cause hyperthermia, which means the body cannot cool down and the internal body temperature exceeds 40℃. Climate modelling predictions used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) for the period from 2080-2100 suggest warming in the tropics of about 1.6℃ under mid-range emissions scenarios and up to 3.3℃ under high emissions scenarios, with error margins of about 0.5℃ on both predictions. Continue reading |
Australian government never intended to follow the advice of the review on environmental law
 Coalition began writing landmark environment bill before receiving review it had ordered, Guardian, Lisa Cox, Wed 16 Sep 2020 Review of EPBC Act was delivered to government 11 days after process of drawing up legislation had begun, The Morrison government started preparing controversial legislation to amend Australia’s environmental laws before it had received a report from a formal review into whether the act was working.The environment department instructed the Office of Parliamentary Counsel to begin drafting the changes to the legislation on 19 June, 11 days before the government received the interim report of the review of Australia’s national environment laws.Labor, the Greens and environment groups say the evidence, provided in answers to a Senate committee, suggests the government never intended to adopt the expert advice of the review, chaired by the former competition watchdog head Graeme Samuel. Samuel delivered his interim report, a once-in-a-decade statutory review of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act, to the government on 30 June. It found Australian governments had failed to protect Australia’s unique wildlife and habitats and recommended an overhaul of the laws to make the country’s systems of environmental protection more effective. Samuel recommended the devolution of approval powers to the states along with the introduction of national environmental standards and an independent regulator to enforce the law.
But the bill introduced in August was a near replica of failed “one-stop-shop” legislation introduced under former prime minister Tony Abbott. It contained no reference to any of Samuel’s other recommendations, including national standards. It passed the lower house last month after the government gagged debate…………. Basha Stasak, from the Australian Conservation Foundation, said Samuel’s report had warned against the approach adopted by the Abbott government in 2014, in part because it lacked legislated national environmental standards. “Yet before the federal government had even received Prof Samuel’s interim report, it was already drafting legislation to hand over environmental responsibility to weaker state regimes without national standards,” she said. Crossbench senators have indicated they will not support the proposed changes, in part because they include nothing to improve the protection of Australia’s ailing wildlife and natural heritage. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/sep/16/coalition-began-writing-landmark-environment-bill-before-receiving-review-it-had-ordered |
|
‘Gas-led recovery’ may actually deter energy investment: Experts
|
‘Gas-led recovery’ may actually deter energy investment: Experts, The New Daily, Josh Butler, 16 SEp 20, Climate change and clean energy campaigners were left dismayed at the
federal government’s plans to spearhead a “gas-led recovery” from COVID-19, saying it will be ineffective and damage the prospects of meeting international emissions reduction commitments. Independent MP Zali Steggall claimed the Prime Minister’s announcement was “blackmailing private companies”, while even energy companies said the announcement – however well meaning –could actually lead to further uncertainty and less investment in the market. On Tuesday, PM Scott Morrison announced plans to lean heavily on the gas sector in the nation’s recovery from the pandemic, talking up the fuel’s potential to lower power prices and shore up reliability in the electricity grid. He also flagged the possibility of the commonwealth helping foot the cost for a new gas-fired power station in NSW, if the soon-to-be-closed Liddell plant is not replaced. But climate experts and clean energy campaigners are up in arms over the plan, which they say will be far more expensive and far worse for the environment than renewables. ….. Mr Bourne, a former regional president with BP Australasia, said gas was better for the environment than coal – but only marginally, when emissions linked to its extraction, production and transmission were factored in. “It’s not that much better than coal,” he said. The Australian Energy Council, representing major investors in power generation, said the government’s announcement may actually create more uncertainty and less investment in the sector – saying “even discussions and threats of intervention act as a deterrent”…… Labor’s shadow energy minister Mark Butler slammed gas as “the most expensive way to build new energy”……… https://thenewdaily.com.au/news/2020/09/15/gas-led-recovery-climate/ |
|
Liddell report shows Morrison and Taylor exaggerated case for gas intervention — RenewEconomy
Modelling for the Liddell Task Force reveals that Angus Taylor and Scott Morrison exaggerated the price impacts used to justify their extraordinary gas intervention. The post Liddell report shows Morrison and Taylor exaggerated case for gas intervention appeared first on RenewEconomy.
Liddell report shows Morrison and Taylor exaggerated case for gas intervention — RenewEconomy
September 16 Energy News — geoharvey
Opinion: ¶ “US West Coast Fires: Is Trump Right To Blame Forest Management?” • President Trump has sought to highlight forest management rather than climate change as the key factor explaining the wildfires burning across California, Oregon, and Washington. But most of the forests in those states are owned by the federal government. [BBC] ¶ […]
September 16 Energy News — geoharvey
Are Cannon-Brookes and Elon Musk about to team up for big battery plans? — RenewEconomy
Cannon-Brookes says he is talking to Musk again. Is this just about a Newcastle battery, or plans for the world’s biggest solar and battery project in the NT? The post Are Cannon-Brookes and Elon Musk about to team up for big battery plans? appeared first on RenewEconomy.
Are Cannon-Brookes and Elon Musk about to team up for big battery plans? — RenewEconomy
Antinuclear 