Australian taxpayers now splurging bigtime on weapons
 “Mind-boggling” waste revealed in the record rise in weapons spending, Michael West Media, by Brian Toohey | Nov 30, 2020 Australian governments and their defence leaders, with help from lobbyists, choose immensely complex, overpriced and overmanned weaponry. Wasteful spending has to end, writes Brian Toohey.
With the blow-out in the budget expected to hit nearly $1 trillion by 2023-24 as a result of the pandemic, one would think the Federal Government would crack down on wasteful spending. But when it comes to defence spending, too much is never enough. Budget papers show defence funding will grow by a staggering 9.1% in real terms to $42.7 billion this current financial year. But much of the extra money will be wasted – yet again. There’s the official cost to build nine Hunter class frigates, which has gone from $30 billion in 2016 to $45.6 billion in 2020. Then there’s the army’s new Infantry Fighting Vehicles, estimated to cost a “mind-boggling” $18–27 billion. The mid-point estimate for the cost of each vehicle is $50 million………. But the worst financial and capability disaster is the building of 12 ludicrously expensive Attack class submarines. Changes to the unique French design are not finished; the first boat is unlikely to be operational until the late 2030s and the last until well after 2050; and they will be obsolete before delivery. The costs do not stop there. Because the existing Collins class is due to start retiring in 2026, these delays will create a capability gap that will have to be closed by spending $15 billion to $30 billion to keep subs going. The current plan is to integrate Australia’s new submarines with US submarines in the South China Sea where an accidental, or deliberate, incident could spark a full-scale war, unless all sides make a strenuous effort to ease tensions. Australia would be better off scrapping the $90 plus billion Attack class and getting a version of the advanced medium-sized submarines the Singapore Navy is buying from Germany, the world’s biggest maker of quality conventional submarines. https://www.michaelwest.com.au/mind-boggling-waste-revealed-in-the-record-rise-in-weapons-spending/ |
|
|
No uranium or thorium mining for Victoria
Victoria blocks prospect for uranium mining, Australian Mining, Salomae Haselgrove
According to the report, the current Australian market for uranium or thorium products is receiving enough supply via international imports and the Lucas Heights open-pool Australian lightwater (OPAL) reactor in Sydney.
“In this report, the committee makes no recommendations and does not take a strong position on nuclear power as an alternative energy source in Australia and particularly in Victoria,” the committee stated…..
The committee is not convinced that uranium and thorium exploration activities are economically or technologically viable in Victoria.
This was backed up by comments from the Medical Association for Prevention of War (Australia) infectious diseases physician Tilman Ruff, who said export earnings did not even cover employment costs for miners.
“The industry has for over a decade never cracked close to $1 billion a year in export income,” Ruff said.
“They are a relatively small cohort. It employs, on the most recent estimates I have seen, a maximum of about 700 people.”
From the three operational uranium mines in Australia – Olympic Dam and Four Mile in South Australia and Ranger in the Northern Territory, which is closing in January – all uranium products are exported.
At present, the assessment and approval process for ministerial permission to develop a uranium mine takes at least three years.
With Victoria’s solid uranium mining ban, the Minerals Council of Australia stated that “Victoria effectively sends a message there is no point in investors considering Victoria in relation to uranium”…. https://www.australianmining.com.au/news/further-uranium-mining-unlikely-to-be-taken-up-in-australia/
The Australian government”s intimidation of whistleblowers – the torture of Julian Assange
Torture of Julian Assange by Australian governments sends powerful message to whistleblowers, Michael West Media by Lissa Johnson | Nov 26, 2020
Australia has used a range of torture techniques against Julian Assange, writes Dr Lissa Johnson. Governments have isolated and demonised him; flatly rejected evidence of ill-treatment; refused to respond to specific allegations; and divested themselves of any responsibility. Leaders can’t, or won’t, accept the difference between psychological torture and ‘a legal matter’.
Julian Assange has set a number of firsts for Australia, including:
- The first Walkley award winner whose journalism has attracted a possible 175 years in US prison.
- The first journalist to be prosecuted as a spy by the US government, under its 1917 Espionage Act.
- The first citizen of an ostensibly democratic state (Australia) whom a UN official has found to be the target of a campaign of collective persecution and mobbing by other so-called democratic states.
As the UN Rapporteur on Torture, Nils Melzer, observed:
In 20 years of work with victims of war, violence and political persecution I have never seen a group of democratic states ganging up to deliberately isolate, demonise and abuse a single individual for such a long time and with so little regard for human dignity and the rule of law.
As part of this mobbing and collective persecution, Assange is the first Australian journalist to be tortured for journalism in the UK.
On 9 May 2019, Professor Melzer visited Assange in Belmarsh prison, accompanied by two medical experts specialising in the assessment and documentation of torture. On 31 May, Melzer reported that they had found Assange to be suffering all symptoms typical of prolonged exposure to psychological torture.
On 1 November 2019, Melzer warned that, unless the UK government urgently changed course, it may soon end up costing his life.
What torture?
Julian Assange is being held in ‘Britain’s Guantanamo’, Belmarsh prison, a high-security facility designed for those charged with terrorism, murder and other violent offences. He has been held in solitary confinement for 22 to 23 hours a day.
He knows that US-aligned security contractors have written in emails that he will make a nice bride in prison, and needs his head dunked in a full toilet bowl at Gitmo. He knows he is headed for life in US supermax prisons, where prisoners are held in perpetual solitary and chains.
‘If this man gets extradited to the United States, he will be tortured until the day he dies’, Profesor Melzer has cautioned.
To heighten the torment, Assange has been prevented from preparing his defence against extradition in violation of his human rights as a defendant.
He has been granted negligible access to his lawyers and is prevented from researching his own defence. The only purpose is to render him helpless, intensifying his trauma.
A Message from the Australian Government
Assange’s experience sets an example to anyone thinking of airing the dirty secrets of those in power: the genuinely dirty secrets, such as wantonly slaughtering and torturing innocent people and covering it up.
Like all public torture, it sends a message to onlookers: this could happen to you.
And the message from the Australian government to any Australian journalists looking on? You’re on your own.
The US government is seeking to retrospectively apply its own Espionage Act to non-US citizens in foreign lands, while simultaneously withholding the free speech protections of its Constitution. The upshot would be that non-US citizens, and non-US journalists, would be vulnerable to prosecution wherever they may be, whenever the United States saw fit.
Should a host country oblige, that journalist’s only hope would be the protection of their own government. And the message from the Australian government? Not a chance.
A climate of consent
But can the government do anything to stop the torture of Assange in the UK? Or are its hands tied?
Australia ratified the Convention Against Torture in 1989. It therefore has a positive duty to take ‘effective legislative, administrative, judicial and other measures to prevent acts of torture’ of its citizens. According to the Federal Attorney-General’s website, however, that duty applies to ‘territories within Australia’s jurisdiction’.
So who is responsible for protecting Australian citizens from torture overseas?
Australian officials can raise concerns with their overseas counterparts when they are concerned about gross violations of citizens’ rights as happened in the cases of Melinda Taylor, James Ricketson, David Hicks and Peter Greste.
They could also make a submission to the Committee against Torture that a state is ‘not fulfilling its obligations under this Convention’.
n Assange’s case, however, the government has opted for ‘consent and acquiescence’ under Article 1 of the convention. Consent and acquiescence is listed alongside inflicting and instigating torture as part of the very definition of torture.
‘Standard’ fare
DFAT representatives say repeatedly that Assange’s treatment In the UK is perfectly normal. ‘Standard’. ‘No different’ from the treatment of other UK prisoners. Routine, in other words. Nothing to see here.
When reminded that Assange had been handcuffed 11 times, stripped naked twice and moved between five holding cells after the first day of his extradition hearing, a DFAT representative described this as ‘standard prison to court and court to prison procedure’.
What the official failed to explain is that treatment is only ‘standard’ and normal for prisoners charged with terrorism or other violent offences.
It is not remotely normal for journalists with no criminal history, and no history or risk of violence, to be detained under the most punitive conditions that UK law enforcement has to offer.
As an exercise in “consent and acquiescence” DFAT representatives performed their duties well.
Sanitising, normalising language minimises and trivialises abuse………….
‘Not our responsibility’ has been the Australian government’s refrain. Australian government officials ‘don’t provide running commentaries on legal matters before the courts in other parts of the world’, asserted the Foreign Minister.
Australia is ‘not a party to the legal proceedings in the United Kingdom’, stressed a DFAT official when asked why Australia had not intervened in Assange’s case during Senate Estimates. ‘We have no standing in the legal matter that is currently before the courts.’
Perhaps the Australian government doesn’t understand the seriousness of the abuses taking place in the UK. Perhaps ministers and their advisors are unaware of the difference between psychological torture and a ‘legal matter’. Psychological torture is, after all, not commonly well understood.
It is possible that the Australian government merely fails to grasp the gravity of ignoring Professor Melzer’s warnings. However, when the group Doctors for Assange wrote to the Australian government in December 2019, they detailed the medical and psychological basis of their concerns for Assange’s life and health…………..
New normal in Australia?
Assange is not the first person in Australia to be subjected to torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. Australia’s abuse of asylum seekers and refugees has been found to violate the Convention Against Torture. Aboriginal Australians, among the most incarcerated groups on earth, have been dying in custody, buried under acquiescent consent, for decades, and historically for hundreds of years.
The Human Rights Measurement Index 2019 has given Australia a 5.5 out of 10 rating for ‘freedom from torture’, noting, ‘Torture is a serious problem in Australia … a large range of people [are] at particular risk of torture or ill-treatment, with Aboriginal people and Torres Strait Islanders at the top of the list’…….
Through sending a message to journalists worldwide by torturing Assange, the abusive licence deployed against other persecuted groups is being expanded to take in journalism. The targeting of journalists around the world matters because journalists cut across the acquiescence and consent, remove the deadbolt on the torture chamber door, turn down the music, and expose what is going on inside. Every persecuted and abused group or person needs them, to break the cycle of violence by breaking the silence.
We do torture here. It is our problem. In Julian Assange’s case, the biggest problem appears to be that torturing journalists is becoming the new normal in Australia.
This edited extract is reproduced from A Secret Australia: Revealed by the WikiLeaks Exposés, edited by Felicity Ruby and Peter Cronau, Monash University Publishing, December 2020. https://www.michaelwest.com.au/torture-of-julian-assange-by-australian-governments-sends-powerful-message-to-whistleblowers/
“Traceability” and Nuclear waste on agricultural land?
Kazzi Jai From Keith Pitt’s facebook page today – 28/11/2020...”With more consumers wanting to know where their produce comes from, a new Federal funding round is available to enhance traceability.
Applications are open now for Round 2 of the Traceability Grants Program and close on January 21, 2021.” more https://www.agriculture.gov.au/market-access-trade/traceability-grants-program?fbclid=IwAR2ngI3mkhJIpwfguNAM4rheSiggOmYPgn4BLE34TL76CNFgjCBuuBZErj0
Corrupt spinning of Small Nuclear Reactors -Australia beware – theme for December 2020
With the financial collapse of the nuclear industry, and with the Nuclear Weapons Ban Treaty coming into force soon, the nuclear lobby is pitching a pack of lies, as it desperately promotes Small Nuclear Reactors (SMRs.).
Australia is not immune to this corrupt spin. Indeed, Australia is a sitting duck
Australian children targetted for propaganda by the weapons industry
education https://www.michaelwest.com.au/reputation-laundering-weapons-companies-now-infiltrating-schools-to-promote-education/, by Michelle Fahy | Nov 27, 2020 A Lockheed missile blows up a bus full of Yemeni children; in Australia Lockheed Martin gains kudos by sponsoring the National Youth Science Forum. BAE Systems sponsors underprivileged kids in Australia while being complicit in the killing of thousands of needy children in Yemen. All you see in industry marketing pitches is euphemism, with nary a mention of the word “weapons”. Michelle Fahy reports.
The UK’s largest weapons-maker, BAE, is working inside Saudi Arabia supporting Saudi-United Arab Emirates military operations in Yemen, a war that has killed or injured tens of thousands of civilians, including thousands of children.
Meanwhile in Australia, BAE sponsors The Smith Family’s STEM education program for under-privileged children.
Flagrant hypocrisy? Welcome to the weapons business.
Then there’s Lockheed Martin, the world’s largest weapons-maker, also raking in billions from the Yemen war. A Lockheed missile blew up a bus full of Yemeni school children in 2018, killing at least 29 kids and injuring dozens more. Back in Australia, Lockheed was cultivating kudos with kids as major sponsor of the National Youth Science Forum, a registered charity.
US missile-making giant Raytheon also continues to supply the Saudi-UAE coalition, despite evidence of numerous attacks with Raytheon missiles that targeted and killed civilians, including children. No mention of that in Australia. Instead, Aussie school kids had fun hanging out with the young Australian snowboarding paralympian Raytheon hired to front the launch of its Maths Alive! STEM program.
The French company supplying Australia’s new submarines, Naval Group, is at the centre of multiple corruption scandals globally, some of which involved murder. That hasn’t stopped Naval promoting itself as a model future employer, with the help of Port Adelaide footy heroes, to 90,174 kids in 329 South Australian schools since 2017.
And let’s not forget the list of sponsors of the Australian War Memorial, Legacy, Invictus Games and Soldier On, which include numerous weapons-making corporations.
There’s a name for this cynical behaviour: reputation laundering. And nearly every weapons company is doing it.
Promoted as innovators
The world’s weapons producers have taken with gusto to promoting themselves as innovators in science, technology, engineering and maths (STEM). Military industry has adopted the STEM mantra to target children and young people as future employees, usually with the willing partnership of respected educational institutions. Many, if not most, Australian universities now have joint agreements, strategic partnerships or some other form of collaboration with the weapons industry.
The sales pitch is, join us for an exciting and challenging high-tech career in science. This enthusiastic support of STEM serves two purposes: reputation laundering is one, the other is as a recruitment drive. STEM provides a socially acceptable way to promote the weapons industry to children, and parents, as a potential employer.
There’s nothing wrong with promoting STEM education, or seeking new employees. The issue is the way these companies are now targeting children as young as primary school age, with the full support of government. (eg. The MD of weapons-maker Saab Technologies is on the South Australian education board.) The problem is the spin and glamour applied to increased militarism, with pertinent information omitted from the marketing. Warfare isn’t mentioned, for starters.
There’s nothing about how the kids will use their STEM education to enhance the ‘lethality’ of their employer’s products. Or about a future where employees have eliminated the need for human involvement in the ‘kill chain’ by creating autonomous robotic devices to make those decisions. (This is not science fiction, these research and development programs are already under way.) Working on nuclear weapons isn’t discussed, either.
You won’t find the underlying arms manufacturing realities in the STEM marketing by weapons giants. In fact, you’ll be hard pressed to find the word “weapons” at all.
A world of euphemism
Instead, you’ll enter a world of euphemism: “high end technology company”, “leading systems integrator”, “security and aerospace company”, “defence technology and innovation company”. It’s also a fair bet you’re reading weapons company marketing if you see the phrase “solving complex problems”. Especially if there’s mention of working to make the world safer and more secure.
The following are a few examples of many in which multinational weapons corporations are co-opting organisations of good purpose in Australia.
BAE and The Smith Family
BAE operates inside Saudi Arabia, training Saudi pilots, maintaining Saudi’s BAE-supplied fighter jets, and supervising Saudi soldiers as they load bombs onto the planes. Indiscriminate bombing, a well-known feature of the Yemen war, has killed or injured tens of thousands of civilians, including children.
BAE has earned £15 billion from sales to the Saudis since 2015 when the Yemen war started. A BAE maintenance employee was quoted last year saying, “If we weren’t there, in 7 to 14 days there wouldn’t be a jet in the sky.”
BAE’s role in helping the Saudis prolong the world’s worst humanitarian crisis in Yemen has been pointed out more than once to The Smith Family since news broke of its sponsorship by BAE. Understandably, The Smith Family has responded defensively along the lines that critics are trying to steal an education from needy Australian children.
But what about the tens of thousands of needy children starved, maimed, and killed on the other side of the world? BAE Systems has given The Smith Family a mere $100,000 – about 0.3% of The Smith Family’s $36.3 million in non-government fundraising income.
Cheap reputational PR for a company that has gained tens of billions of dollars in defence contracts in Australia, while facilitating war crimes elsewhere.
Raytheon and Maths Alive!
Raytheon has marketed this program to children across America, the Middle East and Australia. Raytheon’s intention? To reach children at an early age and create a “healthy pipeline” from primary education, through secondary, to tertiary studies, to secure its future workforce.
The then Assistant Minister for Defence David Fawcett lent his support to the 2018 Australian launch of Maths Alive!, telling media: “I welcome the ongoing commitment by Raytheon to engage young Australians by helping them visualise what a career in science or engineering might look like.”
Lockheed Martin and National Youth Science Forum
The National Youth Science Forum was created by Rotary, which remains involved. The forum, now run by a board chaired by former senator Kate Lundy, has several programs, the flagship program being for Year 12 students interested in science.
Each year about 600 students complete the program, which exposes students to various career pathways in science. Since Lockheed started as major sponsor in 2015, students visit Lockheed Martin laboratories and speak with Lockheed staff as part of the program. (Watch a short video here from Lockheed’s website with some students.)
The National Youth Science Forum’s website does not mention Lockheed’s dominant influence as the world’s No. 1 weapons manufacturer or its significant role in producing nuclear weapons. Lockheed’s role in civil sectors is covered, however this work constitutes a minor aspect of its business. The most recent information from Stockholm International Peace Research says 88% of Lockheed’s revenue comes from arms sales.
Lockheed Martin and the Gallipoli Sponsorship Fund
This year Lockheed Martin became the first corporate partner of the Gallipoli Scholarship Fund. This partnership includes the new $120,000 Lockheed Martin Australia Bursary for the educational benefit of descendants of Australian veterans.
One of the aims of the Gallipoli Scholarship Fund is to contribute “to the future security of our nation and our national values of democracy, freedom, and the rule of law”.
Nuclear weapons will become illegal under international law in January 2021 when the new UN treaty prohibiting them comes into force. The world’s nine nuclear-armed countries haven’t signed it – nor their hangers-on, including Australia – so it won’t apply to them. But two-thirds of the world’s countries (including New Zealand) did vote to bring the treaty into being, banning the world’s worst weapons of mass destruction, and setting a new global norm.
Professor Ramesh Thakur, Director of the Centre for Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament at the Australian National University, has said, “The ban treaty embodies the collective moral revulsion of the international community.”
The awkward truth is that the Gallipoli Scholarship Fund’s new corporate partner, Lockheed Martin, is one of the largest nuclear-weapons-producing companies on the planet. Lockheed is all set to provide its 12 bursaries from now through to the end of 2023.
Such are the ethical dilemmas these weapons corporations create for organisations doing good work that are in need of funding.
Morally indefensible positions
Such sponsorships might appear less self-serving if weapons companies behaved consistently, and stopped supplying weapons to war criminals. Claiming they are just doing the bidding of the US or UK governments in supplying the Saudis, as these companies have, is not a morally defensible position, particularly in the face of evidence of ongoing war crimes in Yemen.
Similarly, claims that they are committed to serving the national interest might be more believable if they ceased bribing and scamming their way into the next arms deal, or concocting endless ways to extend and inflate government contracts and invoices for their own corporate financial benefit, blatantly siphoning funds from the public purse.
Victorian Government Inquiry confirms that there is no future in nuclear power
Inquiry confirms there is no future in nuclear, Mirage News 27 Nov 20, The Victorian Greens have said Parliament’s recently tabled report into nuclear power has confirmed what they’ve known all along: that there is no future in nuclear.The Greens say they expect this to be the last time Victorian Parliament has to consider nuclear, and say nuclear power must remain buried in the last century where it belongs.
Leader of the Victorian Greens, Samantha Ratnam, said she had serious concerns about Parliament wasting valuable time and resources on an inquiry into nuclear power, and that those concerns were confirmed today despite the nuclear industry trying to convince the committee otherwise.
She added that nuclear power was expensive and water hungry, and had failed at every attempt to become a viable industry in Australia.
All around the world, nuclear power plant proposals are falling over before they even begin.
It’s clear that nuclear power is the past, and renewable energy is the future. Solar and wind power with storage can meet all our energy needs without the need to dig up and manipulate dangerous nuclear material…… https://www.miragenews.com/inquiry-confirms-there-is-no-future-in-nuclear/
Australian government’s Bill to weaken Environmental Law will be rejected in the Senate
Key crossbench senators say they won’t support bid to change Australia’s environment laws
The Coalition plan to hand development approval powers to the states hits a further roadblock after Senate inquiry, Guardian, Graham Readfearn, @readfearn 27 Nov 20,
A Morrison government plan to change Australia’s environment laws to allow development approval powers to be handed to the states has hit a further roadblock, with three key crossbench senators saying in a report they will not support them.
The crossbenchers’ opposition means that, together with Labor and the Greens, the Morrison government’s laws would be voted down in the Senate.
But one crossbench senator told Guardian Australia he could change his mind once he had seen details in documents that the government has so far withheld.
A rushed Senate inquiry into the controversial changes delivered four reports late Friday, with Labor, the Greens and a crossbench group all confirming their opposition.
The government had gagged debate to push the legislation through the lower house – a move that outraged the Greens and Labor.
A final report from a major review of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act, carried out by Prof Graeme Samuel, was handed to the environment minister, Sussan Ley, in early November.
That report supported a move to devolve powers to the states, even though Guardian Australia has revealed the government was making moves to devolve powers months before the Samuel review.
Samuel’s interim report, released in July, found the environment was in unsustainable decline and the EPBC Act was not fit-for-purpose.
In their dissenting report to the inquiry, the crossbench senators Rex Patrick, Jacqui Lambie and Stirling Griff said they could not support the bill while key information was withheld……… https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/nov/27/key-crossbench-senators-say-they-wont-support-bid-to-change-australias-environment-laws
Victorian Inquiry finds nuclear power costly and risky
Inquiry confirms nuclear energy’s [‘proven risks’] https://www.miragenews.com/inquiry-confirms-nuclear-energy-s-proven-risks/ A Victorian parliamentary inquiry has found nuclear power is ‘significantly more expensive than other forms of power generation’ and remains economically unviable without subsidies.
The inquiry has confirmed nuclear energy’s ‘identified and proven risks’.
The Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) welcomed comments made at the tabling of the inquiry that the Victorian government has an ‘unequivocal commitment’ to retain the state’s long-standing nuclear ban.
The upper house inquiry into the prospects for nuclear power and uranium mining in Victoria has found:
- Nuclear energy is ‘significantly more expensive than other forms of power generation’ (finding 3) and without subsidies, a nuclear power industry is economically unviable in Australia (finding 5).
- Supposed advantages to nuclear energy put forward by nuclear proponents are speculative and do not outweigh the identified and proven risks (finding 9).
“This long-standing protection has served Victoria well and its retention is prudent and positive.
“ACF welcomes comments by inquiry member Nina Taylor that the Andrews Government has an ‘unequivocal commitment’ to retain the nuclear ban.
“Nuclear power is high cost and high risk and a distraction from the real energy choices and challenges we face. Our energy future is renewable, not radioactive.”
Inquiry confirms nuclear energy’s ‘proven risks’
Inquiry confirms nuclear energy’s ‘proven risks’
A Victorian parliamentary inquiry has found nuclear power is ‘significantly more expensive than other forms of power generation’ and remains economically unviable without subsidies.
The inquiry has confirmed nuclear energy’s ‘identified and proven risks’.
The Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) welcomed comments made at the tabling of the inquiry that the Victorian government has an ‘unequivocal commitment’ to retain the state’s long-standing nuclear ban.
The upper house inquiry into the prospects for nuclear power and uranium mining in Victoria has found:
- Nuclear energy is ‘significantly more expensive than other forms of power generation’ (finding 3) and without subsidies, a nuclear power industry is economically unviable in Australia (finding 5).
- Supposed advantages to nuclear energy put forward by nuclear proponents are speculative and do not outweigh the identified and proven risks (finding 9).
“In 1983 the Cain state Labor government introduced the Nuclear Activities (Prohibitions) Act which prohibits uranium mining, nuclear power and waste facilities in the state,” said ACF campaigner Dave Sweeney.
“This long-standing protection has served Victoria well and its retention is prudent and positive.
“ACF welcomes comments by inquiry member Nina Taylor that the Andrews Government has an ‘unequivocal commitment’ to retain the nuclear ban.
“Nuclear power is high cost and high risk and a distraction from the real energy choices and challenges we face. Our energy future is renewable, not radioactive.”
A broad coalition of faith, union, environmental, Aboriginal and public health groups, representing millions of Australians, last year declared nuclear power has no role in Australia’s energy future and is a dangerous distraction from the pressing climate challenges. Their united statement demonstrates widespread community opposition to nuclear power.
Victorian Parliament: Legislative Council Committee finds that nuclear ban should stay
Parliament of Victoria
Inquiry into nuclear prohibition
Legislative Council Environment and Planning Committee
November 2020
Findings
FINDING 1: Regardless of technology development, priority should be given to the security, stability and accessibility of energy supply and the need to lower carbon emissions due to climate change and to ensure affordable energy.
FINDING 2: Current estimates of the cost of nuclear energy in Australia are unreliable and accurately costing the full cost is not possible without a detailed business case being undertaken.
FINDING 3: Notwithstanding the ambiguities of the costings, the Committee received substantial evidence that nuclear power is significantly more expensive than other forms of power generation and it is recognised that, currently, nuclear is at the high end of the cost range across all technologies.
FINDING 4: A business case is unlikely to be undertaken, given its costs and resources required, while a prohibition of nuclear energy activities remains and there is not likelihood of a plant being able to be built.
FINDING 5: Without subsidisation a nuclear power industry will remain economically unviable in Australia for now.
FINDING 6: Discussion about Victorian participation in the nuclear fuel cycle is entirely theoretical while the Commonwealth prohibitions remain in place.
FINDING 7: Until there is a change in the Commonwealth position, detailed discussions about emerging technologies in Victoria related to the nuclear fuel cycle and power generation are unlikely to advance.
FINDING 8: The success of any radioactive waste strategy relies on a level of acceptance and confidence across government, industry and the broader community of its legitimacy, effectiveness and integrity in its ability to deal with all facets of waste management, storage and disposal, including the long-term health and safety of workers, affected communities, particularly First Nations Peoples, and the environment.
FINDING 9: Those who propose a policy shift have not presented any argument, data or proof in support of their position that cannot be nullified by those arguing against. Any advantages are speculative in nature, and do not outweigh the identified and proven risks.
FINDING 10: The nuclear medicine industry is not hindered significantly by the current prohibitions against uranium or thorium exploration and mining. Current legislative prohibitions only prohibit mining and the construction or operation of certain nuclear facilities, such as nuclear reactors. This does exclude Victoria from hosting a nuclear research reactor or other nuclear facilities which could be used to increase supply of radioisotopes for medical or industrial purposes. The Committee notes that if Victoria did seek to establish a research reactor, Victorian and Commonwealth prohibitions would need to be repealed to allow this to happen. Therefore, a repeal of just Victorian legislation would not be sufficient to expand
our involvement in nuclear medicine beyond what is currently permissible.
FINDING 11: The current market for this material is receiving enough supply from international import and the OPAL reactor at Lucas Heights. The Committee does not believe that fully repealing the Nuclear Activities (Prohibitions) Act 1983 would have a material influence on the nuclear medicine sector, as it is unlikely Victoria’s involvement would increase beyond its current capacity.
FINDING 12: The Committee is not convinced that thorium exploration and mining is economically or technologically viable.
Contents…….. https://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/epc-lc/article/4350
Olympic Dam uranium mine’s unlimited water access is killing the Arabana people’s mound springs
South Australia’s disappearing springs raise questions for miner BHP– https://www.smh.com.au/environment/sustainability/south-australia-s-disappearing-springs-raise-questions-for-miner-bhp-20201117-p56f6m.html
Few in big cities know about the ‘mound springs’, but they are of deep cultural significance for the Arabana people who hold native title over Lake Eyre and its surrounds.By Richard Baker November 23, 2020
Dotted around the vast arid harshness of outback South Australia are thousands of small springs fed by ancient waters from the Great Artesian Basin.
Few in big cities know about the “mound springs”, but they are of deep cultural significance for the Arabana people who hold native title over Lake Eyre and its surrounds. They are also a precious source of life for humans, animals and plants in a hostile environment.
A mound spring near the shore of Lake Eyre in South Australia.
But the Arabana people fear the extraction of tens of millions of litres of water from the basin each day by mining, petroleum and pastoral industries threatens the existence of the springs by reducing flow pressure in the aquifer to the extent that the springs dry up.
The federal parliamentary inquiry into Rio Tinto’s destruction in May of 46,000-year-old rock shelters at the Juukan Gorge in Western Australia has given the Arabana people the chance to put the fate of the springs on the national agenda.
“In our country there are over 6000 of these springs and they are of great significance to the Arabana people,” said the chair of the Arabana registered native title body, Brenda Underwood, in a submission to the inquiry.
“The springs themselves can be as small as a cup or large enough that you could swim in them, however, we don’t because of the stories associated with them. To us, and to many Australians, they are a beautiful sight in a harsh environment.
“Unfortunately, our springs are disappearing. How many have disappeared, we are not yet sure, but we are undertaking some research to find out just how many have actually disappeared.”
Rio Tinto’s blasting at Juukan Gorge drew widespread public criticism, prompted the resignation of its chief executive and put a spotlight on state and federal laws that are meant to balance the protection of Indigenous heritage against the commercial interests of miners.
In the case of the springs, another mining giant, BHP, is playing a central role. BHP is licensed by the South Australian government to extract the equivalent of up to 42 million litres of water per day from the Great Artesian Basin to operate the massive Olympic Dam copper, gold and uranium mine near Roxby Downs.
Millions of litres of water are also taken from the basin each day by pastoral stations and various petroleum companies, and more is lost through evaporation from thousands of disused bores that have not been properly capped.
RMIT environmental engineering expert Gavid Mudd has studied the mound springs closely for more than 20 years and said there was no doubt the extraction of so much groundwater had contributed to a reduction in flow pressure. Some had dried up entirely.
Although the Arabana submission to the inquiry acknowledges water users such as pastoralists and petroleum companies, it largely focuses on BHP’s water use and the unique South Australian laws that grant it a virtually unchallenged right to groundwater.
Under the 1982 Roxby Downs Indenture Act, the original Olympic Dam owner Western Mining and present owner BHP are afforded special privileges that trump Aboriginal heritage laws and almost all other state laws and regulations.
“Each day they [BHP] take 35 million litres of water from our springs and the Great Artesian Basin and now they wish to increase that amount to 42 million litres per day,” Ms Underwood’s statement said
“We are told that this will continue for at least the next 60 years. Given the number of springs that have disappeared, in 60 years we have a great fear that there will be none left whatsoever. The Arabana people have tasked me and the board of directors of the corporation to protect the springs. The big question is how?”
Ms Underwood and the 1000-strong Arabana community fear the South Australian government will be reluctant to change the status quo for BHP.
The mining company’s recent announcement to pause a planned $3 billion expansion of Olympic Dam is likely to see its water take remain about the mid 30 million litres per day mark.
The Arabana people have asked their Adelaide lawyer, Stephen Kenny, to advise them if the Commonwealth can get involved. Mr Kenny has said the Commonwealth could act to protect the springs, but previous cases such as that involving South Australia’s Hindmarsh Island suggested it would not.
Exposing the deceptions of Samantha Chard General Manager of the National Radioactive Waste Agency
Peter Remta, 23 Nov 20, As I have mentioned previously this is not the first time that Chard has been untruthful as was established through the questioning of Senator Patrick in the recent Senate enquiry into the legislative changes for the Kimba proposal
At the estimates hearing on 22 February 2019 Chard interrupted her then responsible Minister to claim that the community development package of $30 million (her figure) including a community fund component of $20 million had always been contemplated when the initial enabling legislation was passed in 2012
However members of the committee advising the government on the implementation of the enabling legislation spanning several years in time claim that there was never any mention or even an oblique reference to anything in the way of a community fund as claimed by Chard
There was nothing in the various information released by the government including the official nomination guidelines regarding the community fund until its first mention on 12 December 2018
Moreover to have not remembered 580 documents on such an important issue of national significance as judicial review regarding this situation is completely unacceptable
If this is the best that our country can offer by way of ministerial and administrative capability on such an important issue then what hope do we have for the future
The situation was only exacerbated by the incompetent and unsatisfactory performance of the ANSTO management personnel at last month’s estimate hearing
To qualify myself I probably know more about nuclear waste in a global sense than anyone in Australia and it was through my efforts that the ANSTO personnel faced some of the uncomfortable questions at the estimates hearing last month
Research on the intergenerational impacts of Maralinga nuclear tests
Research on the intergenerational impacts of Maralinga nuclear tests supported by Moran Awardhttps://www.science.org.au/news-and-events/news-and-media-releases/research-intergenerational-impacts-maralinga-nuclear-tests
Henrietta Byrne from the University of Adelaide. Photo: suppliedHenrietta Byrne from the University of Adelaide is the recipient of the Academy’s 2021 Moran Award for History of Science Research.
She receives the award for her proposal entitled ‘Legacies of exposure: Tracing scientific and Indigenous understandings of exposures from the Maralinga atomic testing (1956–84)’.
Ms Byrne will explore how Australian science has responded to the question of intergenerational impacts of environmental exposures on bodies over time, focused around the British atomic testing conducted in Maralinga, South Australia between 1956 and 1968.
The National Archives of Australia and the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies library, as well as interviews with leading anthropologists, will inform her research.
Her work will not only provide an important examination of scientific understandings of environmental exposure, but will also focus explicitly on the Indigenous aspects of this history.
Ms Byrne said that the award will allow her to study the relationships between Indigenous knowledges, settler colonial histories and science and technology studies.
“I’m honoured to have the support of the Australian Academy of Science to undertake this study. It is a great opportunity to engage with the archives in a way that highlights the experiences and ongoing activism of Aboriginal people whose land was exposed to radiation.”
This research is part of her broader PhD project in Anthropology and Gender Studies on environmental exposures and epigenetics in Indigenous Australian contexts.
The Moran Award for History of Science Research is worth up to $5000, and is aimed at postgraduate students and other researchers with expertise in the history of Australian science. Applications for the 2022 award will open in early 2021.
What next as the Senate rejects the mandatory selection of Napandee as nuclear waste dump?
Minister Pitt insists he is not giving up on the legislation. Expert in radiation impacts Dr Tilman Ruff has recently called out Pitt’s recent declaration of ‘the urgent need of this facility’ in ‘saving lives’ as ‘reckless claims.’
A new stage in fight against radioactive waste bill, https://www.eurekastreet.com.au/article/a-new-stage-in-fight-against-radioactive-waste-bill?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Eureka%20Street%20Daily%20-%20Tuesday%2017%20November%202020&utm_content=Eureka%20Street%20Daily%20-%20Tuesday%2017%20Nove– Michele Madigan -17 November 2020
-
- ‘We have spent two very productive days at Parliament House speaking about our concerns regarding the proposed Kimba dump site and the Government’s attempts to pass legislation that intentionally takes away our rights to judicial review. Thank you to all of our supporters who helped get us there, this has been a long and expensive fight, but our voices are being heard.’
- This message from the No Radioactive Waste on Agricultural Land in Kimba or SA group (No Rad Waste) Radioactive Waste Management Amendment Bill 2020 was a good intimation that day to anxious followers that the hoped for blocking in the Senate of the Coalition’s Radioactive Waste Management Amendment Bill 2020 was indeed going to happen. ACF’s progressive checking of the Senate Agenda had already revealed that the Bill, listed as number 8 on Monday 9/11, had by Tuesday 10/11 slipped to number 23. On Wednesday 11/11 it had disappeared off the list.Did this mean the government, knowing it didn’t have the numbers, had given up on the legislation — at least for the present?Hope was confirmed for sure the next day. An Adelaide Advertiser’s 12th November article heading read: ‘Pauline Hanson’s One Nation torpedoes Kimba nuclear waste dump in SA.’
The article confirmed ‘The One Nation leader… has confirmed she will not back legislation to build the nuclear waste storage site at Napandee farm, near Kimba.’ The article then went on to explain that ‘Without One Nation’s two crucial votes — and Labor, the Greens, and independent senator Rex Patrick not backing the Bill — the government does not have enough votes for it to pass parliament without changes.’
- As Senator Hanson had told The Advertiser reporter, she ‘had serious concerns about the process to select Napandee, the level of community support, the waste site being built on farming land, and the facility storing intermediate radioactive waste above ground.’
-
So in the long journey of nearly five years since the Australianfederal government’s renewed search for a national radioactive waste facility, it seems a new stage has been reached.Here’s a question: did the federal Minister for Resources overreach himself? With the power to simply name the government’s preferred site, Minister Keith Pitt went a step further by presenting to Parliament the naming of the site.This meant that a passing of the government’s Amendment Bill would block off the chances for any opponent group ton take the processes leading to that decision to the courts — no judicial review.
I wrote of the progress of the bill in the House and later of the Senate Inquiry hearings.In a style reminiscent of recently ex-Minister, Joel Fitzgibbon, in the inquiry Labor Senators Carr and Gallacher chose to side with government in their questioning, comments and final vote.
However Labor, with their knowledge of community concerns, decided to follow Senator Jenny McAllister’s dissenting report and its unease regarding judicial review. Their resolution was ‘to ask for the amendment of removing the name of the Napandee site with the proviso, “Should our amendment be unsuccessful, we willoppose the Bill in the Senate.”’
The reasons? ‘This is a contentious issue and should have the highest levels of scrutiny to ensure that the principles of procedural fairness and natural justice have been applied given the national significance of this matter.’ This from the leader of the Opposition in the Senate, SA Senator Penny Wong’s Office to the Josephite SA Reconciliation Circle on 26th October.
In the meantime, president of No Radioactive Waste on Agricultural Land in Kimba or SA Peter Woolford had first heard of the Minister’s Pitt’s long awaited visit to Kimba and the Napandee site via an ABC’s North and West reporter on Tuesday October 27th. The Minister eventually confirmed that four of their group were permitted to meet with him. As well, of course, were meetings with the executive of the pro-dump District Council of Kimba and theWorking for Future pro-dump group.
‘A PR box ticking exercise’ was how Woolford named the Minister’s visit with their group. After the event it was harder to be dispassionate: ‘Pitt and Ramsey (the federal Member) certainly know what we think and the impact it’s had… it certainly got a little heated at times… We had 45 minutes and we raised many issues relating to the doubling handlingof ILW (intermediate-level waste), the vote unfairness, jobs, judicial review etc.’
With three crossbench votes needed in addition to the Greens and Labor to defeat the Bill, the Barngarla Determination Aboriginal Corporation (BDAC), headed by Chair Jason Bilney had long planned to travel to Canberra to meet with legislators.
COVID restrictions meant that the vital trip was delayed but perhaps providence meant that it took place at just the right time for the November Senate session. Both key opposition groups have long supported each others’ concerns.
So with the government unable to get the Senate numbers, what will happen next?
Minister Pitt insists he is not giving up on the legislation. Expert in radiation impacts Dr Tilman Ruff has recently called out Pitt’s recent declaration of ‘the urgent need of this facility’ in ‘saving lives’ as ‘reckless claims.’
Independent SA Senator Rex Patrick has long been involved with both BDAC and No Rad Waste groups. The Advertiser November 12th report above continued with the voice representing the other two of the vital No votes: ‘I want to make the right decision, not for the interim, I want to make the right decision for future generations,’ Senator Hanson said. ‘I’m not going to be badgered or pushed into this… It’s about looking after thepeople of SA, but also the whole of Australia.’
The SA Stock Journal’s September survey recorded 70 per cent of respondents were against the federal nuclear dump plan. In Aboriginal Way Spring 2020, Karina Lester, Chair of YNTAC, reported that four Aboriginal groups ‘right across the state’ including the Yankunyjatjara Native Title
Aboriginal Corporation have ‘submitted their concern.’
In November, it’s good to hear that South Australians aren’t alone in actively recognising that simply storing above ground, for at least ‘decades,’ nuclear waste that will be radioactive for 10,000 years is a pertinent national issue.
1 This month.
20 September –National Day of Action in Melbourne on the International Day of Peace
Help Aunty Sue Protect Her Land and Sacred Sites From Destructive Rocket Testing.
.
Australians deserve the truth
about
AUKUS – https://aukuspublicinquiry.com/
PETITION – To: Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and the Australian Labor Government
of the week – Australians for War Powers Reform (AWPR)
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
Antinuclear 