Injustice of UK court process regarding Julian Assange. Assange too sick to attend
2. In addition to other ongoing health concerns, Assange faces the serious risk of exposure to Covid in Belmarsh prison, and has been advised that even going to the video room to take part in hearings is unsafe. This is another reason he should be immediately released.
3. Assange’s lawyers have long complained they have had insufficient access to him in prison. Under lockdown conditions, they have had no access to him at all. They have repeatedly flagged that this lack of access seriously impacts their ability to prepare his defence.
4. One of the next steps agreed today is that psychiatric reports on Assange from the prosecution and defence will be due to the court on 31 July. Remember that UN Special Rapporteur @NilsMelzer has expressed alarm many times that Assange shows symptoms of psychological torture.
5. It is a welcome step that the continuation of the full extradition hearing was adjourned, as lockdown conditions present clear barriers to open justice – but 7 September may not be late enough to make a meaningful difference. Also the court is still struggling to find a venue.
6. It remains extremely frustrating that the court does not adequately accommodate NGO observers. I have never experienced so much difficulty accessing a trial in any country as at Woolwich Crown Court in February, and the teleconference option we now have is far from sufficient.
7. The press are also facing severe restrictions. Only 6 journalists have been allowed to attend in person the past 2 hearings, with others limited to the awful phone line. This case is of high public interest and a better solution must be found before the full hearing resumes.
8. Assange’s next callover hearing has been scheduled for 29 June at 10 am. We urge the court to find workable solutions to enable his safe attendance and ensure the press and observers are able to properly monitor proceedings. /END
COVID-19 Commission stacked with fossil-fuel bigwigs. Surprise surprise -they find gas is the answer
Transparency called for in fossil fuel-stacked COVID-19 Commission, Independent Australia, Martin Hirst | 2 June 2020 Who’s running the country and where are they taking us? Dr Martin Hirst thinks the Canberra bubble is filling with gas.
IN THE LAST WEEK of March, right at the start of Australia’s response to the coronavirus pandemic, Prime Minister Scott Morrison announced the formation of the National COVID-19 Coordination Commission (NC-19CC). He said it would “solve problems” so “we all get through to the other side”.
Now, at the start of June, we have some idea of what the “other side” looks like according to the leading figures on the Coordination Commission. From what we can glean from the cheap seats in the bleachers, the future is going to be a gas — literally gas……
For a start, the NC-19CC is an energy sector lovefest.
The Commission chair is Neville (Nev) Power and he’s well connected to the Australian energy and mining industries. He is Deputy Chairman of Strike Energy Ltd and for nearly a decade was managing director and CEO of Fortescue Metals Group.
Catherine Tanna is the managing director of Energy Australia, ‘one of Australia’s leading electricity and gas retailers’ according to the helpful but rather anodyne biographies provided on the commission’s website.
The commission’s “special advisor” is the American chemical industry leader, Andrew Liveris, a former CEO and chairman of the Dow Chemical Company and on the board of a major Saudi oil company.
There are two other important members of NC-19CC: the head of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, Phil Gaetjens and the head of Home Affairs, Mike Pezzulo. These are also political appointments — Gaetjens is a loyal fixer for Morrison and Pezzulo is Home Affairs Minister Peter Dutton’s lieutenant.
Who does the Commission report to?
Australians first heard of the Coordinating Commission when Morrison announced it at a media event on 25 March, but he didn’t tell us how the members were selected, or why, or by whom.
Presumably, it was a “captain’s pick” by Morrison……
In mid-May, the Senate select committee that is holding an ongoing inquiry into the Government’s response to the pandemic requested Mr Power come and chat with it, but he didn’t show up. Instead, the PM’s protector, Phil Gaetjens and Peter Harris, the CEO of the Commission, came to block any real scrutiny of the Commission.
All that the senators were able to learn was that there are no rules in place for managing conflicts of interest and that the Commission’s members and advisors were being handsomely paid for their time and service. According to the transcript, almost every other question was stonewalled.
Apparently, the commissioners are also recruiting other people “through their own networks” according to Phil Gaetjens, but who remain largely unknown to the public — to help across various things to do with the economy re-opening.
Greens Senator Peter Whish-Wilson grilled Phil Gaetjens about the advice the commissioners might provide, but the PM’s advisor would only say that most advice would be confidential.
This has not satisfied a coalition of public interest watchdog groups who collectively issued a statement calling for greater transparency round the discussions and decisions of the NC-19CC………
I should mention that many environmental groups are concerned that the COVID-19 Commission is stacked with fossil fuel advocates, and with good reason. …… https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/transparency-called-for-in-fossil-fuel-stacked-covid-19-commission,13954
National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment Bill aims to prevent Bangarla people from legal action against the nuclear dump
Schedule 1 of the Bill is a blatant and indisputable attempt to prevent any judicial review proceedings which would have been initiated by the Barngarla people (and potentially other members of the Kimba Community)
There is clearly no broad community support and such material suggesting there is, was manufactured by gerrymandering the ballot to exclude the Barngarla.
The Barngarla Determination Aboriginal Corporation to Senate Committee on National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment (Site Specification, Community Fund and Other Measures) Bill 2020 [Provisions]
Submission 25 The Barngarla Determination Aboriginal Corporation RNTBC ICN 8603 (BDAC) is the
registered native title body corporate for the Barngarla native title holders.1 As the determined native title holders for the Kimba area, which includes the site of Napandee, the Barngarla people seek to make a submission to the Senate Standing Committees on Economics (the Committee) as part of the Committee’s inquiry…….
………….., once the pandemic is resolved, BDAC consider it important that the Committee should attend on Country and hear from the Barngarla people directly. BDAC would welcome this opportunity and may seek to provide supplementary submissions at this time.
4. The Committee would be aware that members of BDAC were excluded from participating in a community ballot, facilitated by the District Council of Kimba between 3 October 2019 and 7 November 2019, to gauge support for the nominated sites of Napandee and Lyndhurst at Kimba.2 As the First Peoples for the Kimba area, this exclusion was alarming to our community given the permanent impact that the National Radioactive Waste Management Facility (NRWMF) would have on Country.
The Barngarla people also hold many parcels of native title land very close to the NRWMF location, and have the right to live on and use this land. That native title land was, and is in many cases, closer to the proposed site than the town of Kimba to the site. To be excluded from the ballot on the technicality that the land was not rateable,
was terrible for the Barngarla community. The ballot returned a yes vote whilst excluding over 200 Barngarla persons who would likely have voted no. Clearly the entire legitimacy of the site selection process is, at best, highly questionable in these circumstances. It is Barngarla’s position that the site selection process has entirely miscarried. There is clearly no broad community support and such material suggesting there is, was manufactured by gerrymandering the ballot to exclude the Barngarla. We are also aware that community consultation was not consistent with processes used for the Wallerberdina site and, as a result, also excluded members of the farming
community living and working in the Kimba area from the community ballot.
However, we respectfully submit to the Committee that the introduction of this Bill (in particular Schedule 1 of the Bill) presents a significantly more disturbing issue which goes beyond the exclusion of voters, seeking to have a voice on the NRWMF, from a community ballot.
6. We respectfully state that the issues raised in our submission, outline such a significant matter of principle that it will become evident to the Committee that Schedule 1 of the Bill should not be passed. We understand that Schedule 1 of the Bill seeks to directly legislate Napandee, as the specified site for the NRWMF, following
the policy decision (which was mischaracterised as a declaration) of the former Minister for Resources and Northern Australia on 1 February 2020. BDAC make clear that the Bill is in no way supported by the Barngarla people and is of the greatest concern to us, not only as the First Peoples for the Kimba area but as Australians in general, given that it effectively removes our right to seek judicial review .
Summary of Submission Continue reading
Southern Australia to be among the worst-hit by global heating
Australia among global ‘hot spots’ as droughts worsen in warming world, The Age, By Peter Hannam, June 1, 2020 The world’s major food baskets will experience more extreme droughts than previously forecast as greenhouse gases rise, with southern Australia among the worst-hit, climate projections show.
Scientists at the Australian National University and the University of NSW made the findings after running the latest generation of climate models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Future drought changes were larger and more consistent, the researchers found.
“Australia is one of the hot spots along with the Amazon and the Mediterranean, especially,” said Anna Ukkola, a research fellow at the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate Extremes and lead author of the paper published in Geophysical Research Letters.
For southern Australia, the shift to longer, more frequent and more intense droughts up to 2100 will be due to greater variability in rainfall rather than a reduction in average rainfall. For the Amazon, both mean rain and variability changes…….
One reason for the prediction of worse droughts is that the latest models assume the climate will respond more than previously understood to increased atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.
Australia’s vulnerability to big shifts in annual rainfall already challenge the country’s farming sector, while also leaving much of the country’s south more at risk of bad bushfire seasons – such as last summer’s – as forests dry out.
The CSIRO has long forecast a large reduction in stream flows in the Murray-Darling Basin, for instance, as reduced cool-season rainfall combines with higher temperatures. Such a trend appears to have already begun.
While a more moderate emissions trajectory will still produce more intense, frequent and longer lasting droughts in most of the world’s mid-latitude regions than current conditions, the shift will be less than if carbon emissions remain near the top of forecasts. ……..https://www.theage.com.au/environment/climate-change/australia-among-global-hot-spots-as-droughts-worsen-in-warming-world-20200601-p54ydh.html
Sebastian Tops: National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment Bill uses vague unspecified term “controlled material” FOR SECRET REASONS? “
Sebastian Tops to Senate Committee on National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment (Site Specification, Community Fund and Other Measures) Bill 2020 [Provisions] Submission 22
Argument: This Bill involves possible Mutiny or even Treason. My argument here is that this Bill proposal is most disrespectful in several ways. To me this (amendment) Bill does involve democratic mutiny, Federal but also
State.
The Bill has ignored fundamental recommendations and Verdicts from S.A.’s Citizen’s Jury (2016) entirely. Great disloyalty to Australian lands and citizens is also still optionally hidden inside this Bill, for ‘non-Commonwealth’ entities can also be ‘doing their thing’. That disrespectful proposal possibility presents the idea of treason. If (only) a military land zone is required – please say and do so – but that should follow a different process.
This Bill does state to rely on “The principle of voluntarism” (Explanatory Memo, p.1). This Bill therefore fails because it cannot be found reasonable or legal for only one, or even a few South Australian land owner(s) to decide to sell land for purposes that will impact an entire region’s State future outlook negatively in several ways. Could anyone find it democratically respectful and reasonable for one single landowner’s (temporary life) choice and this Bill, to impact an entire State, here possibly South Australia, to become the proposed nuclear victim, again?
There is no ‘voluntary principle’ apart from the one, or two apparent S.A. landowner(s). There might be an NSW heritage or family history link? It would then involve fraud (false declaration), and or treason, at least against S.A.. These are matters relating directly to ethics which have failed fundamental (Australian) morals.
The Bill here proposes to introduce possibly new payment categories for NAW, in Item 33 par. 34B(1)(b) and (c) (Expl. Memo, p.19) “payable to the Commonwealth”. England is part of the ‘Commonwealth’. Further, only a fee is payable “by non-Commonwealth and non-host State users”. Does this mean England can store their (nuclear active) waste in Australia at no cost? This Bill continues to be unspecific on proposals related directly to nuclear most hazardous topics.
With anything nuclear; any relevant information should have been part of, and timely provided to each of the applicable eligible voter prior a vote on the matter. That officially presented voter information determines what could only possibly be stored in an appropriately ‘selected’ region. Not what is possibly proposed in the Bill here, after the actual vote. Otherwise, again, no proper political processes have been applied in this matter (2015 – 2019).
Neither the AEC, nor the District Council of Kimba seem to be willing or able to inform the public what printed information was provided to each of those limited few local voters, prior considering their vote. It could explain why ballots were
not returned. Likely due to a lack of trust in the applied political processes.
Vague unspecified term uses regarding anything nuclear. Who considers that ethical? The term use of “controlled material” is extremely vague, and can involve “all types of waste” (Expl. Memo, Schedule 3, Other Amendments, point 132, p.25). It has unspecified additional unknown liabilities and outcomes, and involves other unspecified responsibilities. Within the JCV (1997). The term use of “controlled material” amends the Object of Act (Expl. Memo, p.12). Controlled
material remains secretive for dubious reasons, and did admittedly under Schedule 3, point 132 not form part at all of the applied vote processes. Were voters made timely aware of any “controlled material” involving “primarily” from “State and Territory Governments, industry, hospitals and universities” (Expl. Memo, part 6A, p.3) to which even “laws cannot apply to regulate, hinder or prevent the doing of a thing” (Expl. Memo, point 94, p.20)?
This Bill fails to specify a clear set of criteria, full accountabilities, appropriate specifications of various necessary kinds, or responsibilities for all parts of this proposal. The proposed long-distance transport of highly hazardous (nuclear active) waste products produced in another State is entirely unnecessary
The Bill proposes for the EPA to not be able to report on environmental matters regarding the proposals inside the Bill put. What is generally known is the necessity to protect life against any poison’s hazard life duration. NAW is supposed to be safely ‘managed’ to protect vital sources like water, esp. in drought affected regions. The lifetime involvement of the EPA would be an absolute minimum requirement as such for any Australian NAW proposal. By not explicitly stating any poison responsible needs for its still unknown hazard life duration, and all its necessary more costly safety requirements, seems rather unprofessional. This Bill presents its disregard for another’s (State or Territory) land, by meaning to apply intentional disrespect to another by not demanding compliance with fundamental NAW safety requirements.
Any hazardous material is to be maintained closest to its source (for safe containment reducing wider risk exposures), minimize handling, introduce future monitoring and re-packing facilities in NSW etc.. Otherwise, if this Bill was to pass then more fully operational regional hospitals would be needed prior commencement of introducing the spread of any hazardous substances etc.. No new strategically located regional fully operational hospitals are proposed in this Bill.
Democratic Human Rights – Self-Determination (not to ever have to endure another State’s own produced (nuclear active) wastes to at least prevent image impairment and future economic opportunity losses.)……
To claim that “The specification of the site … is supported by a comprehensive consultation process” (Explanatory Memo, p.4), is incorrect, as a similar (also foreign) NAW proposal was considered earlier in the process. That process did receive an official S.A. Citizens Verdict, stating: “Under no circumstances do we pursue the disposal of nuclear waste because the potential brand damage is too great a risk to the state”. “It is a threat to a $17.5billion/year (1) income to the state generated from tourism, international students, agriculture, food, wine, seafood, livestock, and this is just the beginning. This is a risk we are not willing to take”. One can suggest that related to foreign (nuclear active) wastes only but, RCNCJ reasons go much deeper into their debated, wider considered, and broader researched nuclear related findings than this Bill seemingly has.
The RCNCJ expressed the need to prevent a lasting State or Territory ‘image impairment’. Storing another’s (nuclear) wastes would have ramifications to South Australia’s economy and negatively impact future opportunities like trade. That particular finding received 82% support. That economic Verdict finding alone relates directly to this Bill amendment proposal. Like “The jury felt it was it was important for environmental impact studies to include impacts beyond radiation”. The reasons state that overall, no economic benefits are sufficient to lose or damage one’s clean and safe image which South Australia still has. The Gawler Ranges are still brilliant. Several other “No” reasons are expressed within that RCNCJ verdict. Another such example: “The project will have significant social costs. Particularly, through the divisiveness of the issue”. How true is that finding alone, and who did dictatorially decide to allow politicians to totally ignore those Citizens Verdict findings?
The (Two-third or three-quarter) majority requirement has not been achieved………
At least two non-compliant issues are present within this Bill as it fails:
1. The JCV (66.6% majority), respecting dubious vote result (under 55%).
2. The Consultation paragraph of the explanatory memo (K. Pitt), as well the Bill ignore South Australian RCNCJ (2016) Verdict. Misrepresentations regarding NAW, “controlled material”, or “doing a thing” do involve inappropriately controlled voting processes, contrary to a controlled RCNCJ (2016) “No” Verdict(s). Non-compliant issues described are to have immediate political ramifications for this (Amendment) Bill and should be denied any further considerations in its
entirety. I elaborate on (also other) reasons in the Appendix “No Because”.
References………..
Appendix “No Because”
Other additional reasons to stop this (Amendment) Bill entirely:
As this amendment Bill relates directly to (anything) nuclear,
1. it would be logical to be very specific, clear, and state exactly what will be included and excluded.
2. full professional and personal accountabilities are to apply at all times, under any of the applicable Laws (State or Federal), otherwise nuclear should finally admit that (anything) nuclear is actually the least regulated industry………
ERA’s focus is now on rehabilitating the Ranger uranium mine site.
ERA, operator of Jabiru’s Ranger uranium mine, has held its last AGM as shutdown date looms
The company behind a contentious uranium mine in Jabiru has held its final AGM before production grinds to a halt, telling shareholders its focus is now on rehabilitating the site.
MADURA MCCORMACK, NT News, 31 May 20 https://www.ntnews.com.au/business/era-operator-of-jabirus-ranger-uranium-mine-has-held-its-last-agm-as-shutdown-date-looms/news-story/ad7601dd3ed45def1a63d8286e4b1b6c
THE company behind a contentious uranium mine in Jabiru has held its final annual general meeting before production grinds to a halt, telling shareholders its focus is now on the “successful rehabilitation” of the site. Energy Resources Australia, which has run the Ranger uranium mine since 1980, has seven months left to process remaining ore before it is legally required to shut down the site and commence a rigorous five-year rehabilitation program.Mining giant Rio Tinto, which this week made headlines for legally blasting an ancient Aboriginal heritage site in WA to expand a mine, owns a controlling 86.3 per cent stake in ERA. ERA chief executive Paul Arnold told shareholders on Friday the company had spent $92 million rehabilitating the mine in 2019, made $6 million in profit after tax, and $210 million from the sale of uranium oxide. In February, ERA finalised an offer from Rio Tinto to tip $476 million toward mine rehabilitation obligations in return for a larger shareholding slice, a deal that prevented ERA from collapsing financially.
“Expenditure on rehabilitation will only increase in coming years and this is a major Northern Territory project in its own right,” chairman Peter Mansell said in his address to shareholders. “The strategic priority for ERA now is the successful rehabilitation of the Ranger Project Area.”
Australian Conservation Foundation nuclear free campaigner Dave Sweeney said the rehabilitation standard set for Ranger mine was one “never previously attempted or achieved”, warning mining giant Rio Tinto and ERA that all eyes were on them to get this right. “The challenge is how to rehabilitate the heavily affected mine site and larger Ranger Project Area in a way that reduces adverse impacts and provides confidence that the living and peopled landscape of Kakadu is well protected, now and into the future,” Mr Sweeney said.
Rehabilitation of the mine must conclude in January 2026 and, according to ERA, it will include treating more than 16.5 gigalitres of water and planting 1.1 million trees on site.
Australia’s national environment laws ‘actually allow extinction to happen’
Australia’s national environment laws ‘actually allow extinction to happen’
Carnaby’s black-cockatoo, the grey range thick-billed grasswren and the swift parrot just three species in deep trouble after laws fail them, Guardian, Lisa Cox, Sun 31 May 2020 Scientists and conservationists are calling for changes to Australia’s national environment law to urgently address failures in how it is protecting native wildlife, including bird species that have declined significantly over the past decade.
Samantha Vine, the head of conservation at BirdLife Australia, says: “Our laws are actually allowing extinction to happen.”
With the Environment Protection and Biodiversity (EPBC) Act under review by the businessman Prof Graeme Samuel, environmentalists have pointed to several bird species as examples of the inadequate protection provided by the legislation…….https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/may/31/australias-national-environment-laws-actually-allow-extinction-to-happen
Megan Johnson: National Radioactive Waste Act – not democratic, not transparent, a hasty inadequate plan
I urge you to reject the bill until the community is presented with a transparent, democratic, comprehensive, long-term plan.
Megan Johnson to Senate Inquiry on National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment (Site Specification, Community Fund and Other Measures) Bill 2020 [Provisions]Submission 41
- Democratic Process
The Community Consultation process has not been adequate. This is a matter that affects all South Australians,
and all South Australians should have the democratic right to vote on it.
It is particularly concerning that the Barngarla were excluded from the vote – traditional landowners should be
entitled to a vote, just as residents of Kimba District were entitled to a vote.
The proposed facility is for permanent disposal of low-level waste and temporary storage of intermediate-level
waste. These are two very different concerns, but there has been a down-playing of the role of intermediate-level
waste at the facility. The term ’gloves-and-gowns’ waste has become common parlance in the discussion. This is
not an accurate description of intermediate-level waste, which will not decay to an acceptable level
“during the time for which institutional controls can be relied upon”.
waste. Therefore, intermediate level-waste should be given at least equal discussion.
into service only 5 years ago at Lucas Heights. No-one has been able to adequately explain what purpose is
served by moving intermediate-level waste from the Lucas Heights location to temporary storage at Napandee.
facility. However, the Aube facility is for permanent disposal of low-level waste only. It is not at all comparable
to the proposed facility at Napandee, and is therefore misleading. In the interest of balance, DIIS should have
brought representatives from a community that lives near a temporary storage facility for intermediate-level
waste.
be removed from Napandee between 50-100 years after it is installed. At this stage, the waste will be nowhere
near its half-life. There is no plan and no funding allocated for this re-location.
unintentionally. The community has not been given enough information to make an informed decision.
There are circumstances under which a nuclear waste facility could be the right deal for a community and a
permanent solution to our national waste management. However, the current offering is very poor – I urge you to
reject the bill until the community is presented with a transparent, democratic, comprehensive, long-term plan.
Today’s News Corp cuts represent an enormous threat to Australian democracy
Dark day for journalism as Murdoch’s global empire sells democracy down the river
Today’s News Corp cuts represent an enormous threat to Australian democracy — and a grim reminder of the power of a single family. ERIC BEECHER AND PETER FRAY, MAY 28, 2020
Australian news journalism has never seen a day as black as today — and not just because News Corp has closed 12 of its 17 regional daily newspapers, leaving Australia with just 20 remaining.
Today also demonstrates the grotesque power of
one company — and one family — to decimate a large slice of a country’s
news in a single media release.
A company worth $16.3 billion, run from New York, has wielded a knife through large swathes of Australian democracy….. (subscribers only) https://www.crikey.com.au/2020/05/28/rupert-murdochs-global-empire-sells-democracy-down-the-river/?utm_campaign=Weekender&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&wkndr=VWI3bngzTjl0a0V6UEhQbEJJeTFxUT09
Australia must not forget – the plutonium abuse of an Australian child, by Argonne National Laboratory
Paul Langley, https://www.facebook.com/paul.langley.9822/posts/10213752429593121CAL-2, 14 Aug 17, 5 yr-old Simon Shaw and his mum. Simon was flown from Australia to the US on the pretext of medical treatment for his bone cancer. Instead, he was secretly injected with plutonium to see what would happen. His urine was measured, and he was flown back to Australia.
Though his bodily fluids remained radioactive, Australian medical staff were not informed. No benefit was imparted to Simon by this alleged “medical treatment” and he died of his disease after suffering a trip across the world and back at the behest of the USA despite his painful condition. The USA merely wanted a plutonium test subject. They called him CAL-2. And did their deed under the cover of phony medicine.
“Congress of the United States, House of Representatives, Washington, DC 20515-2107, Edward J. Markey, 7th District, Massachusetts Committees, [word deleted] and Commerce, Chairman Subcommittee on Telecommunications and Finance, Natural Resources, Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe] MEMORANDUM To: Congressman Edward J. Markey From: Staff Subject: The Plutonium Papers Date: 4/20/94
Staff Memo on Plutonium Papers
The medical file for Cal-2 also contains correspondence seeking follow-up from Argonne National Laboratory in the 1980s. Cal-2 was an Australian boy, not quite five years old, who was flown to the U.S. in 1946 for treatment of bone cancer. During his hospitalization in San Francisco, he was chosen as a subject for plutonium injection. He returned to Australia, where he died less than one year later.
Document 700474 is a letter from Dr. Stebbings to an official at the Institute of Public Health in Sydney, Australia, in an attempt to reach the family of Cal-2. This letter reports that the child was “injected with a long-lived alpha-emitting radionuclide.” Document 700471 is a letter from Dr. Stebbings to New South Wales, Australia (names and town deleted), inquiring about recollections of the boy’s hospitalization in 1946. The letter notes that, “those events have become rather important in some official circles here,” but provides few details to the family.
A hand-written note on the letter reports no response through October 8, 1987. Considering the history on the lack of informed consent with these experiments, it is surprising that the letters to Australia failed to mention the word “plutonium.”
The Australian news media has since identified Cal-2 as Simeon Shaw, the son of a wool buyer in New South Wales, and information on the injection created an international incident. The information in the medical file does indicate that at a time when Secretary Herrington told you that no follow-up would be conducted on living subjects, the Department of Energy was desperately interested in conducting follow-up on a deceased Australian patient.
In an effort to determine the full extent of follow-up by the Department after 1986, your staff has requested, through the Department’s office of congressional affairs, the opportunity to speak with Dr. Stebbings, Dr. Robertson, and any other officials who may have been involved in the follow-up. So far, that request has been unsuccessful. It remains an open question as to what was the full extent of follow-up performed in the 1980s, and whether the efforts then would facilitate any further follow-up on subjects now. It seems appropriate for the Interagency Working Group to address these questions as its efforts continue.”
Source: National Security Archives, George Washington University, http://www.gwu.edu/…/…/mstreet/commeet/meet1/brief1/br1n.txt
See also ACHRE Final Report.
NO MORE DUAL USE ABUSE OF AUSTRALIANS MR PRESIDENT. STOP FUNDING SYKES AND FLINDERS UNIVERSITY IN THE DOE QUEST FOR CHEAP CLEANUP OF URANIUM CONTAMINATED SITES.
Mr. President, you are wrong if you think you can do the same again re hormesis funding in Australia as the USA did with CAL-2. We have not forgotten and do not trust you or your paid agents in Australian universities such as Flinders.
Friends of the Earth condemns shameful Radioactive Waste Management Bill, offers positive alternatives
Friends of the Earth,. to Senate Committee on National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment (Site Specification, Community Fund and Other Measures) Bill 2020 [Provisions] Submission 54
The National Radioactive Waste Management (NRWM) Amendment Bill is deeply flawed and should be rejected. Further, the existing Act is deeply flawed and should be repealed.
The proposal to proceed with the nuclear waste facility despite the unanimous opposition of the Barngarla Traditional Owners is unconscionable and must not be allowed to stand. Shamefully, the federal government excluded Barngarla Traditional Owners from a ‘community ballot’ held in 2019. Therefore the Barngarla Determination Aboriginal Corporation initiated a separate, confidential postal survey of Traditional Owners, conducted by Australian Election Company. This resulted in 100% of respondents voting ‘no’ to the proposed nuclear facility. If the results of the two ballots are combined, the overall level of support falls to just 43.8% of eligible voters (452/824 for the government-initiated
ballot, and 0/209 for the Barngarla ballot) ‒ well short of the government’s benchmark of 65% for ‘broad community support’.
committed the SA Labor Party to “support communities opposing the nomination of their lands or region for a dump site, and any workers who refuse to facilitate the construction and operation or transport and handling of radioactive waste material destined for any contested facility or sites including South Australian Port communities.”
committed the SA Labor Party to “support communities opposing the nomination of their lands or region for a dump site, and any workers who refuse to facilitate the construction and operation or transport and handling of radioactive waste material destined for any contested facility or sites including South Australian Port communities.”
Illegal under SA law: The proposed nuclear waste facility is illegal under South Australia’s
Nuclear Waste Facility (Prohibition) Act, introduced by the SA Liberal Government in the
year 2000 and strengthened by the SA Labor Government in 2002. The federal government is expected to take the draconian and unacceptable step of using regulations to specifically override the SA Nuclear Waste Facility (Prohibition) Act. South Australians are opposed to the proposed nuclear waste facility: a 2015 survey found just 15.7% support for a nuclear waste dump, and a 2018 survey found that those who strongly agreed with stopping the dump outnumbered those who strongly disagreed by a factor of three (41:14).
1 https://www.transcontinental.com.au/story/6454080/state-labor-party-weighs-in-on-nucleardebate/?
cs=1538
2 https://phys.org/news/2020-02-tribal-vote-nixes-radioactive-storage.html
in a region which has no known significant natural resources, including potentially valuable mineral deposits, and which has little or no potential for agriculture or outdoor recreational use”.
waste currently stored at ANSTO’s Lucas Heights site in NSW accounts for an overwhelming majority (>90%) of the waste destined for the nuclear waste facility in SA. There is no logic behind the proposal to move intermediate-level waste from interim abovegroundstorage at Lucas Heights to interim above-ground storage at the Kimba site. The proposed double-handling is illogical, it exposes communities to unnecessary risk, and ARPANSA’s Nuclear Safety Committee has indicated that it is not consistent with international best practice.
from Industry, Innovation and Science to another minister and department (e.g. health) who might do a better job.
Friends of the Earth Australia wishes to emphasise that not only is the NRWM Amendment Bill deploy flawed, the existing National Radioactive Waste Management Act 2012 (NRWMA) is undemocratic in many respects. The Act should either be repealed or radically amended to remove clauses which disempower Australians and in particular First Nations.The current Bill does the exact opposite..
The NRWMA gives the federal government the power to extinguish rights and interests in land targeted for a radioactive waste facility. In so doing the relevant Minister must “take into account any relevant comments by persons with a right or interest in the land” but there is no requirement to secure consent from Traditional Owners.
Muckaty in the Northern Territory.
Previous, failed attempts to establish a Commonwealth radioactive waste facility (repository and store) assumed the need for off-site, centralised facilities. This assumption continues with the current project configuration. However, a closer examination indicates both that this assumption may not be warranted and that there are major information gaps that need to be addressed before informed decisions can be made.
the adequacy/inadequacy of existing storage sites. The failure to actively address these basic issues has worked against progression to the resolution of this contentious public issue in recent decades.
that ANSTO is likely to be operating at its current site for many decades to come.
they significantly raise public-acceptance obstacles. The current co-location proposal would mean double handling i.e. transport to the interim national store then future transport to a currently non-determined disposal site. Such an approach would be likely fail the net benefit test that ARPANSA would need to apply in response to any license application
• Dr Clarence Hardy, Australian Nuclear Association: “It would be entirely feasible to keep storing it [radioactive waste] at Lucas Heights …”7
• Then ARPANSA CEO John Loy: “Should it come about that the national approach to a waste repository not proceed, it will be necessary for the Commonwealth to devise an approach to final disposal of LLW from Lucas Heights, including LLW generated by operation of the RRR [Replacement Research Reactor]. In the meantime, this waste will
have to be continued to be handled properly on the Lucas Heights site. I am satisfied, on the basis of my assessment of the present waste management plan, including the license and conditions applying to the waste operations on site, that it can be.”8
• Department of Education, Science and Tourism: “A significant factor is that ANSTO has the capacity to safety store considerable volumes of waste at Lucas Heights and is unlikely to seek the holding of frequent campaigns to disposal of waste holdings generated after the initial campaign.”9
“ANSTO is capable of handling and storing wastes for long periods of time. There is no difficulty with that. I think we’ve been doing it for many years. We have the capability and technology to do so.”5
3 Friends of the Earth, Beyond Nuclear Initiative, Australian Conservation Foundation, November
Commission Of Inquiry’, https://nuclear.foe.org.au/wp-content/uploads/Responsible-Radioactive-
http://web.archive.org/web/20040610143043/http://www.arpansa.gov.au/reposit/nrwr.htm#for
um
6 September 2008, www.abc.net.au/news/2008-09-22/new-nuclear-waste-site-for-sydney/517372
7 ARPANSA forum, Adelaide, 26 February 2004,
http://web.archive.org/web/20040610143043/http://www.arpansa.gov.au/reposit/nrwr.htm#for
6 September 2008,
7 ARPANSA forum, Adelaide, 26 February 2004,
Reactor at Lucas Heights. Reasons for Decision”, p.30.
9 Application to ARPANSA, 2003, Vol.iii Ch.9 Waste – Transfer and Documentation p.5.
Maurice Blackburn: nuclear waste Bill Amendment is against natural justice, excludes Aboriginal community and concerns
the proposed bill removes the right of judicial review and greatly narrows the review rights of an administrative decision, after the site selection process is underway.
The removal of a fundamental right should only be considered in extreme circumstances,
such as in the case of an emergency. It is clear that the expansion of land for the site is not an emergency, and such, the removal of further review mechanisms is at odds with the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness.
Maurice Blackburn and Co. Submission to the Economics Legislation Committee, National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment (Site Specification, Community Fund and Other Measures) Bill 2020 [Provisions] Submission 76
include any protection or consideration for cultural heritage or the protection for Aboriginal culture as part of this section.
community) and reinforces a perception that the Commonwealth does not take Aboriginal culture and concerns seriously.
Further, while sections 34GA and 34GB are also transitional and replicate current provisions in the Act, we are concerned that the Bill simply replicates these provisions and does not include any explicit protection of consideration of Aboriginal culture or heritage. This is concerning to our clients and other Aboriginal communities (particularly the Barngarla
community) and reinforces a perception that the Commonwealth does not take Aboriginal culture and concerns seriously.
The addition of section 19C in its proposed form purports to provide for procedural fairness, but it is limited in scope and does not prescribe any real requirements to the Minister to meaningfully consider community views or submissions.
The requirement that the Minister must invite any person who has a right or interest to the land to comment and to take into account those comments is a broad concept. It is not clear who will have a right or interest in the land. In our experience Native Title Holders and Traditional Owners are often excluded from consultation and community is often given a narrow interpretation. As we have seen from the community ballots conducted by the Flinders Ranges Council and the Kimba Council, many Native Title holders were precluded from voting in the ballot. This provision, and whether members of the Aboriginal community may comment is left ambiguous.
The requirement that the Minister must ‘take into account any relevant comments’ under subsection 19C(1)(b) is vague and does not prescribe any requirements for the Minister. It does not require the Minister to do anything with the comments or take any action, and minimises the community engagement and consultation paramount to any additional
acquisition or expansion of land.
We submit that the proposed provision places a proactive requirement on the Minister to:
1. Publish any relevant comments on a public forum; and
2. The Minister publish a response showing the consideration given to these comments.
Further, section 19C(4) provides that:
“This section is taken to be an exhaustive statement of the requirements of the
natural justice hearing rule in relation to the following:
(a) a decision about the making of regulations under subsection 19A(1);
(b) the Minister’s decision whether to make an instrument under subsection 19B(1)”.
Maurice Blackburn considers such an exhaustive provision to be draconian in nature, as it limits the ability for community members to challenge and appeal the decisions of the Minister, and submit that this be reconsidered.
In its current form, the proposed bill removes the right of judicial review and greatly narrows the review rights of an administrative decision, after the site selection process is underway.
The removal of a fundamental right should only be considered in extreme circumstances,
such as in the case of an emergency. It is clear that the expansion of land for the site is not an emergency, and such, the removal of further review mechanisms is at odds with the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness.
We submit that section 19C be amended to include meaningful community engagement and mechanisms to challenge and appeal the regulations and decisions by the Minister that accordance with Natural Justice. We propose that this take the form of a mandatory request for submissions from the relevant community and a public response by the Minister within a specified timeframe.
Finally, in recognition of the special connection Aboriginal people have with the land, this provision should make it clear that members of the Aboriginal community are included in this process irrespective of whether they are local residents or title holders.
Brett Pike: The overwhelming majority of South Australians do not want a nuclear waste dump in their State
Brett Pike to Senate Committee on National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment (Site Specification, Community Fund and Other Measures) Bill 2020 [Provisions] Submission 67
I am writing today to register my concern and frustration at the continued reoccurring proposals of a Nuclear Waste Dump here in my home state of South Australia.
From the devastating environmental impacts with being so close to National Parks, the long term prolonged economic impact of the local Kimba region due to the stigma associated with hosting a Nuclear Waste Dump, the already vocal disapproval from the local indigenous authority and the cherry picking of voters in the local ballot all suggest that the shadiness of the operation to clout the public’s best interest and render the land useless for the rest of time.
To put it plainly, we don’t want any Nuclear Waste Dumps here in South Australia. We never have and we never will. The overwhelming majority of South Australian’s do not want it here. This bill has to go.
Nancy Lennon:: ensure that key environmental laws are applied to National National Radioactive Waste Management Act
Nancy Lennon National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment (Site Specification, Community Fund and Other Measures) Bill 202 [Provisions] Submission 66
I respectfully request your rejection of the federal governments proposed changes to the National Radioactive
Waste Management Act.
The government has not made a clear case about the need for the planned national facility at Kimba. Moving
radioactive waste across long distances is extremely hazardous and completely unnecessary. This waste is
presently managed near the site it is generated at Lucas Heights, and it should remain stored in that area.
In particular, I am requesting you to remove options for judicial review of the government’s site selection
under current laws. Rather, please ensure that the key environmental and cultural heritage protection laws are
applied to any future changes in the NRWM Act.
The coronavirus pandemic and the uranium industry
The coronavirus pandemic and the uranium industry
Jim Green, 25 May 2020, Nuclear Monitor #885, www.wiseinternational.org/nuclear-monitor/885/nuclear-monitor-885-25-may-2020
The uranium industry has been harder hit by the coronavirus pandemic than other sectors of the nuclear fuel cycle. Major producers have sharply cut production.
First, a quick summary of the past 15 or so years to put the current turmoil in context. Uranium mine production increased by 50% from 2007 to 2016.1 But the expected nuclear renaissance didn’t eventuate so increased uranium production has resulted in ever-growing stockpiles. Those stockpiles alone would suffice to keep the entire global reactor fleet operating for roughly eight years.2
Surplus production and stagnant demand have put persistent downward pressure on uranium prices. AMP Capital estimated in 2018 that around half the world’s uranium mines are losing money.3 The World Nuclear Association acknowledged in September 2019 that oversupply in recent years has led to a sizable reduction in uranium production levels at existing mines and a sharp decrease in investment in the development of new and existing mines.4 In 2011, according to a uranium company executive, there were about 420 companies around the world exploring for or mining uranium; now, the number is 62, of which 27 have “limited to non-existent resources”.5
Even before the recent pandemic-related cutbacks, numerous mines had been put into care-and-maintenance or production was reduced:6
- In Australia, the Beverley, Beverley North and Honeymoon mines were put into care-and-maintenance (and at the Ranger mine, mining has ceased and the processing of stockpiled ore will be soon be completed).
- Cameco has put several uranium mines into care-and-maintenance in recent years: McArthur River (and the Key Lake mill) and Rabbit Lake in Canada, and the Crow Butte and Smith Ranch-Highland in-situ leach mines in the US.7 Plans to expand Crow Butte were abandoned in 2019.
- Kazakhstan’s (mostly) state-owned uranium producer Kazatomprom cut uranium production by 20% in late 2017. Kazatomprom announced last year that the 20% curtailment of production will be extended until 2021, and its statement left plenty of wriggle-room for curtailment beyond then.8
- In Africa, the Langer Heinrich and Kayelekera mines were put into care-and-maintenance (and Paladin has since sold the Kayelekera mine).9
1 This month
Chernobyl: The Lost Tapes – A good documentary on Chernobyl on SBS available On Demand for the next 3 weeks– https://www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/tv-program/chernobyl-the-lost-tapes/235274195556
21 April Webinar: No Nuclear Weapons in Australia
Start: 2026-04-21 18:00:00 UTC Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney (GMT+10:00)
End: 2026-04-21 19:30:00 UTC Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney (GMT+10:00)
Event Type: Virtual
A virtual link will be communicated before the event.
Host Contact Info: australia@icanw.org
of the week – Australians for War Powers Reform (AWPR)
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
Antinuclear 