Resources Minister Matt Canavan changes his tune – now REJECTS nuclear power !
What a waste: Minister’s question for nuclear inquiry, Courier Mail, 21 June 19, RESOURCES Minister Matt Canavan has shied away from backing an inquiry into nuclear power in Australia, as he warns a permanent home would need to be found for high-level waste first.
He said a facility to store low-level radioactive waste from medical facilities had not been agreed on, despite a 40-year search.
Some of his Queensland LNP colleagues, led by Member for Hinkler Keith Pitt and Senator James McGrath, are pushing for a two-year inquiry into nuclear power
Senator Canavan said he did not believe it stacked up financially and it could cost more to generate power than existing energy sources.
He said the British Government had recently underwritten a nuclear power station, guaranteeing a price of $140/megawatt hour, which is higher than the $100/megawatt hour price currently paid in Australia.
“I don’t think it’s the right choice right now for Australia, mainly from a financial and cost perspective,” Senator Canavan said.
“The Government’s focus has been on getting prices down in Australia.
“That’s why right now I don’t think the current technology of nuclear technology is a solution to that.”
Senator Canavan also warned that a facility for storing high-level radioactive waste would need to be found. “We have been trying for 40 years to find a long-term repository for radioactive waste that is produced at Lucas Heights (nuclear reactor in Sydney) and some legacy waste we have from other activities,” he said.
“If we can’t find a permanent home for low-level radioactive waste associated with nuclear medicines, we’ve got a pretty big challenge dealing with the high-level waste that would be produced by any energy facilities.”
But he said he welcomed his colleagues bringing forth significant policy issues, and would speak to them seeking further detail.
Senator McGrath and Mr Pitt said this week they would write to the Prime Minister seeking his support for an inquiry into nuclear power to go ahead, given it has been more than a decade since the previous investigation.
Australian Nuclear Association lobbies government with its “nuclear vision”
Australians urged to adopt nuclear power, World Nuclear News, 20 June 2019 The 
Australian Nuclear Association (ANA) has appealed to Australians to understand that nuclear energy is ready to make a valuable contribution to low emission dispatchable generation for Australia…… Although it is home to the 20 MWt Opal research reactor, nuclear power has been prohibited in Australia since 1998 under two Acts of Parliament: the Australian Radiation and Nuclear Safety Act and the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act.In a declaration yesterday, signed by ANA President Dr Mark Ho, ANA noted that nuclear energy supplies 10% of the world’s electricity “safely, reliably, cleanly and economically”…….
To achieve these benefits, Australia needs to do nine things, the declaration says.
These are: repeal long-outdated federal and state legislation preventing its proper consideration; initiate informed public debate towards achieving social licence while acknowledging concerns of safe waste disposal and radiation protection; commit to a genuinely technology-neutral long-term energy policy; focus on affordability, reliability and sustainability, accounting for total system costs in establishing the optimal mix of low emission technologies; enhance Australia’s internationally respected nuclear regulatory regime; facilitate supportive international technology exchange linkages; invite proposals to establish the business case; enhance research and development, drawing on ANSTO’s facilities and expertise; and support every level of education and training needed by emerging industries.
ANA “strongly encourages” the governments of Australia and its states and territories and industry to deliver this vision. “We will contribute to balanced and open public education and communicate constructively with the media on the benefits of nuclear power to help Australia develop a safe, reliable and cost-effective energy sector,” it adds.
ANA is an independent incorporated scientific institution made up of people from the professions, business, government and universities with an interest in nuclear topics. http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Australians-urged-to-adopt-nuclear-power
Extinction Rebellion activists occupy four Australian cities protesting Adani,
Extinction Rebellion activists occupy four Australian cities protesting Adani, Protesters are ramping up anti-Adani demonstrations – tonight taking over four major CBDs – as works on the controversial mine get underway.
SBS BY CHARLOTTE LAM
The Carmichael Coal Mine received its final environmental approvals to begin work on the central Queensland project, after nearly a decade of opposition and debate.
Queensland’s Environment Department last week approved the mine’s groundwater management plan, ultimately giving it the final go-ahead.
Around 60 people have begun construction activity that includes work on the mine access road……https://www.sbs.com.au/news/extinction-rebellion-activists-occupy-four-australian-cities-protesting-adani
“Chernobyl” miniseries is scary, but the dis-economics of nuclear power for Australia is scary, too
What’s more chilling: watching Chernobyl or cogitating on the cost of going nuclear? Michael West Investigative Journalism Jun 20, 2019, The sudden push by the Murdoch media and Coalition right-wingers to overturn Australia’s nuclear power ban ignores the chilling economic cost — huge public subsidies, storing radioactive waste for thousands of years, the heavy costs of decommissioning and, potentially, radiation-related health costs. Veteran nuclear writer Noel Wauchope reports on the popular TV series, Chernobyl, and the economics of nuclear power.
THE frightening TV miniseries “Chernobyl” could put a few Australians off the idea of nuclear power but nuclear economics might turn out to be the bigger scare.
It is bad news for the Minerals Council of Australia and nuclear lobbyists, that Chernobyl has now arrived on some Australian TV screens, but pro-nuclear advocates are continuing to push their campaign anyway.
The miniseries “Chernobyl” has just finished in Europe and USA, outdoing “Game of Thrones” in popularity. HBO’s Chernobyl topped film and TV database IMDB’s list of the greatest 250 TV shows of all time. The first episode was screened on 12 June, 2019 in Australia, on Foxtel.
The series has had a big impact. It was highly praised by numerous reviewers but criticised by pro-nuclear lobbyists, and infuriated some Russian politicians. ………
The Coalition’s renewed push for nuclear power
In March this year, 11 Coalition MPs (Andrew Broad, James Paterson, Tony Pasin, Tim Wilson, Chris Back, Craig Kelly, Eric Abetz, Andrew Hastie, Warren Entsch, Bridget McKenzie and Rowan Ramsey) urged then Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull to put nuclear power on the table as an electricity source for Australia. That call is now repeated by Queensland and Coalition MPs calling for an inquiry into the feasibility of nuclear power in Australia.
Prime Minister Scott Morrison said he is open to considering nuclear power if it can stand on its own two feet. Energy Minister Angus Taylor told The Guardianon 12 June 2019 he wouldn’t rule out revising Australia’s nuclear ban “when there is a very clear business case which shows the economics of this can work”. Two days later, Environment Minister Sussan Ley also told TheGuardian she was open to the review considering a removal of the ban.
But — are the economics of nuclear power viable for Australia?
When even Australia’s former top nuclear promoter has doubts, it doesn’t look promising……….
How viable is nuclear power elsewhere?
Nuclear economics in America is really a tale of woe. You hardly know where to start, in trying to assess how much this industry is costing communities and tax-payers. There are the attempts to save the nuclear industry via subsidies. There are the continuing and ever-increasing costs of radioactive wastes. There are the compensation payments to workers with radiation-caused illnesses, $15.5 billion and counting, and the legal battles over where to put the wastes. Needless to say, really, America is not initiating any new nuclear “big build”. The much touted “Small Modular Nuclear Reactors” are turning out to have no market and little prospect of being economically viable……
The UK nuclear industry is in the doldrums with repeated postponement of new projects – Hinkley Point C, Wylfa Newydd, Moorside, Sizewell C, Oldbury B and Bradwell B……The 2018 forecast for future clean-up of Britain’s aging 17 nuclear power stations has blown out to £121 billion which has had to be spread across the next 120 years……
France’s Flamanville nuclear project is taking years, remains bogged down with costly problems. Electricite de France (EDF) has financial woes but hopes to save itself by switching from nuclear to renewables. France’s former nuclear giant AREVA went bankrupt and has changed its name to Orano and Framatome — and French tax-payers are still caught up in Areva/Orano costly legal corruption scandals.
Canada is up for increasing costs for managing its nuclear wastes. Interestingly, Canada abandoned its nuclear project for producing medical radioisotopes and now leads in non nuclear production of these isotopes.
India had grand plans for nuclear power, but has cut these back, and recently cancelled 57 reactors. It continues to have problems and many outages, at its huge Kudankulam nuclear station. ….
Russia keeps offering “generous” funding to the buyer countries. But will those countries end up with big debts? Reuters reports that in China, “No new approvals have been granted for the past three years, amid spiralling costs” ………….. https://www.michaelwest.com.au/whats-more-chilling-watching-chernobyl-or-cogitating-the-cost-of-going-nuclear/
Liberal and National party MPs mistaken. Nuclear power WAS investigated in 2015, and found to be uneconomic
Robyn Wood, 20 June 19, The Liberal and National party MPs are mistaken when they say that nuclear power hasn’t been investigated since nuclear physicist Ziggy Switowski. They need to be aware that the South Australian government had a Nuclear Royal Commission in 2015/6. The majority pro nuclear power members found that nuclear power was not economic compared to renewables. Renewable technology is rapidly improving and the price dropping, while nuclear power plant costs are rapidly escalating and plants being shut down across the world. The report is available online. Even Mr Switkowski said in 2018 “the window for gigawatt-scale nuclear has closed”. Now is not the time to waste precious taxpayer’s money but to get on building renewables that are cheaper than even coal.
GOLD Coast-based Federal MP Karen Andrews OK with nuclear power, but exactly where on the Gold Coast?
Gold Coast nuclear plant in the mix: but where would you put it on the tourist strip? , Gold Coast Bulletin, 19 June 19
GOLD Coast-based Federal MP Karen Andrews has been challenged on where she would want a nuclear plant on the Glitter Strip after not ruling out the energy option.
Ms Andrews, the Member for McPherson, was on Sky News today when asked about nuclear energy following the release of CSIRO’s Australian National Outlook report.
The report compares two versions of the Australia in 2060, and predicts the nation will enter a “slow decline” if challenges are not met head on.
The Industry, Science and Technology Minister was asked about the findings including that Australia could reach zero emissions by 2050.
But she admitted coal would be “part of the energy mix for some time in the future”.
Asked about nuclear energy, Ms Andrews replied: “I don’t have an issue with it being considered.”
Opposition climate change and energy spokesman Mark Butler seized on the comments saying it was another senior Liberal backing nuclear.
“We know nuclear power plants need to be built near water so would Minister Andrews, the Member for McPherson, like the nuclear power stations in her electorate, lining the Gold Coast,” he said.
“Would the Minister prefer the nuclear plant in Coolangatta, Robina, Burleigh Heads or Palm Beach? Scott Morrison needs to make his position clear.”
Mr Butler said the Prime Minister last year had indicated “where something can stack up and can actually bring the prices down, well I’m all for it.”
“Just last week, Energy Minister Angus Taylor told would not rule out nuclear power either saying, ‘If there is a clear business case there is a clear business case’,” Mr Butler said.
“The pressure is now on Scott Morrison to take real action to end the energy crisis that emerged under the Liberal Government. “So far, all the Liberals are promising in energy is expensive new coal-fired power stations and a growing pressure from Morrison’s backbench for Australia to pursue even more expensive nuclear power.”
The Northern Territory’s opportunity – clean energy found a ‘pathway to prosperity’
 Clean energy found to be a ‘pathway to prosperity’ for Northern Territory, Renewable energy is not only a money-spinner for the NT, it can also help mining industries expand, a new report says, Guardian, Adam Morton@adamlmorton 20 Jun 2019 Energy development in the Northern Territory is a typically Australian story: it is backing fossil fuels – in this case gas – when it could, as one of the sunniest places on Earth, be reaping economic and environmental benefits from renewable energy.
|
|
New explorer for rare earths in W.A. – doesn’t mention processing, or radioactive wastes
Australians’ support for nuclear plants rising – but most don’t want to live near one
Essential poll finds 44% of Australians support nuclear power plants and 40% oppose them
Australians are slightly more inclined to support nuclear power plants than oppose them, but a clear majority of voters do not want to live near one, according to new polling.
With nuclear power making a return to the national political agenda, a new survey from Essential finds 44% of Australians support nuclear power plants, up four points since the question was last asked in November 2015, and 40% oppose them.
But asked whether respondents agreed or disagreed with the statement “I would be comfortable living close to a nuclear power plant”, only 28% agreed and 60% disagreed.
The new survey comes as some members of the Coalition are pushing for an inquiry into the viability of nuclear energy and the federal energy and environment ministers have left the door open to lifting Australia’s ban on nuclear power as part of a review of environmental regulations.
During the recent election campaign Scott Morrison insisted he had no plans to reverse the current ban on nuclear energy, after earlier suggesting he could be open to it if proposals stood on their own two feet.
While the internal positioning within the Coalition is nascent, influential industry groups such as the Minerals Council of Australia have been lobbying to overturn the ban. In the event the Morrison government ultimately proceeds with a legislative effort to end the prohibition, it is possible it could get the numbers in the new Senate even if Labor and the Greens oppose the shift.
The Australian Conservatives senator Cory Bernardi told Guardian Australia: “I’m all for it” – although he said he was not supportive of either a carbon price or government subsidies to make nuclear technology economically viable.
Bernardi said parliament should remove the ban and then let proponents determine whether power plants were viable or not.
The Centre Alliance senator Stirling Griff said it was possible the micro-party, which has two Senate votes, could support ending the nuclear ban. “We don’t have a closed mind on this, but we are a long way from having an open one,” he said. “I’m not there yet, but that’s not to say we won’t get there in the future.”
Griff said if any change was to be made it would need to be accompanied by appropriate safeguards and regulations to ensure safety and public confidence, and he said he was not sure Australian voters favoured the change.
The returning Tasmanian senator Jacqui Lambie is yet to flag her position publicly on a range of issues but in 2015 said: “Apart from hydro, the only way to decarbonise energy is to move very quickly to nuclear. And it’s about time we move to that option.”
The Switkowski review concluded that Australia could establish a nuclear industry, and nuclear power plants – which don’t emit carbon pollution – could make a useful contribution to Australia’s abatement task, but setting up the industry would take between 10 and 15 years. That review also concluded nuclear energy would not be viable without a carbon price.
A more recent inquiry in South Australia, while supportive of the industry, said a nuclear power plant would not be viable in the state even under carbon pricing policies consistent with achieving the well below 2C target agreed in Paris in December “because other low-carbon generation would be taken up before nuclear”.
Separate to the renewed nuclear debate, the mining giant BHP has submitted a plan to build a new tailings dam at South Australia’s Olympic Dam uranium mine within months.
Dave Sweeney, nuclear campaigner for the Australian Conservation Foundation, said: “Any increase in the footprint of Olympic Dam would mean an increase in the complexity and cost of future clean-up and rehabilitation.
“Cleaning up a uranium mine is never easy and always costly. BHP must be required to ensure there is the dedicated financial capacity to fund this clean-up work. It cannot be allowed to become a future burden to the SA community.”
The new survey from Essential says a majority of the sample 54% believe nuclear energy would be a reliable energy source for the future (28% disagree) and almost half the people in the survey, 47%, think nuclear would before better for the environment than coal-fired generation (30% disagree).
A majority, 63%, think having a nuclear industry in Australia would create skilled jobs, with 22% disagreeing. Even though nuclear energy is expensive, just over half the sample, 51%, think nuclear would help lower power prices (26% disagree).
John Howard established a review of nuclear power in the run-up to the 2007 election.
Rare earths processing – a dirty business, as Lynas has found out
Ores containing these rare earths typically contain radioactive material like thorium. To be useful for industrial purposes, rare earths must be isolated from raw ore through a complex chemical process that leaves behind radioactive waste. “Other countries have been fairly happy to let China take on all that processing,” Rasser says. “It’s a dirty business.”
One of the few rare earth processing facilities outside of China is the Australian owned Lynas Advanced Materials Plant in Malaysia. The facility has long been controversial, though the Malaysian government recently said it will renew Lynas’ license to operate. A prior processing facility shuttered in 1992 due to health and environmental concerns.
|
ARE RARE EARTHS THE NEXT PAWN IN THE US-CHINA TRADE WAR? https://www.wired.com/story/rare-earths-next-pawn-us-china-trade-war/ 17 June 19, SINCE THE TRUMP administration blocked sales by US companies to Chinese telecom giant Huawei last month, the world has waited for Beijing to retaliate.Previously, the trade conflict between the US and China centered on escalating tariffs. While tariffs make things more expensive; they don’t cut off supplies entirely. But when the US Department of Commerce effectively forbade US companies from providing US-made technologies, including chips and crucial software like the Google Play app store, to Huawei, it was a major blow to one of China’s highest-profile companies.
One possible arena for retaliation, in the minds of analysts: rare earth elements. China is the leading producer and processor of rare earths, with about 37 percent of the world’s reserves, according to a US Geological Survey report. The substances are used in a wide range of products including smartphones, airplanes, and medical devices, as well as military gear such as stealth technologies, radar, and night vision goggles. Neodymium, for example, is used to make magnets found in smartphone speakers and haptic feedback devices, while terbium is used to make solid state hard drives. There’s not a lot of money in the rare earth trade. The Geologic Survey report put the value of US imports at $160 million in 2018. But their key role in many products means China could strike a blow against the US without great harm to its own economy. “From a purely dollar standpoint, these exports don’t generate a lot of revenue, so Beijing might be calculating that they could do some harm to the US economy,” says Martijn Rasser, a senior fellow at the think tank Center for a New American Security. Continue reading |
Victorian Liberal Democrat David Limbrick gets it wrong about nuclear power
Denmark: 1985 law passed by the Danish parliament, prohibiting power production from nuclear energy in Denmark.
Austria has no nuclear power plants. As a result of a public referendum in 1978,Austria follows a strictly non-nuclear energy policy.
Greece has no nuclear power plants
Iceland has no nuclear power plants
Victorian crossbenchers go nuclear, SBS 17 June 19, A couple of Victorian crossbenchers want to explore lifting the state’s bans around uranium and nuclear power in an effort to tackle climate change.
Two of Victoria’s crossbench want the parliament to explore lifting the state’s bans on nuclear activities in an effort to tackle climate change.
The Liberal Democrats this week in the upper house will table a motion to establish a parliamentary inquiry expand the nuclear industry including uranium mining, exploration and exports, power generation, waste management, industrial and medical applications.
“If we have these issues with climate change we need to look at all the options available to us and at the moment we’ve got laws prohibiting certain options and we think that those options should be on the table,” Liberal Democrats MP David Limbrick told AAP….The minor party is still working to garner support for their inquiry, but would hope if it gets up it would be completed in about 12 months. https://www.sbs.com.au/news/victorian-crossbenchers-go-nuclear
Queensland can expect catastrophic heat waves (but then coal is more important than climate, isn’t it?)
|
The ‘catastrophic’ effect of increasing heatwaves on Queensland, https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/queensland/the-catastrophic-effect-of-increasing-heatwaves-on-queensland-20190616-p51yaf.html Stuart Layt, June 17, 2019 Queensland’s emergency services are planning for more catastrophic weather events – including 30-day heatwaves and 43-degree peak temperatures – as the effects of climate change turn up the heat on regional parts of the state.
The state government commissioned the Queensland State Heatwave Risk Assessment 2019 following the extended heatwave over much of the state in late 2018, which culminated in “catastrophic” fire conditions. “Over the last few summers we have experienced record-breaking heatwaves and seen how their impacts are intensified when they coincide with another natural disaster,” Health Minister Steven Miles said in his foreword to the report. “We only need to look to the October 2018 bushfires, or the February 2019 North Queensland flooding, to see how heatwaves can cause further distress during times of crisis.” The summer of 2018-19 was the hottest on record for Australia. The report, made public this month and running over 100 pages, comprehensively lays out the various impacts the predicted increases to the length and severity of heatwaves would have on Queensland. It was developed using long-term climate modelling provided by the climate science division of the Department of Environment and Science, and is intended to be used by emergency services and related agencies to develop disaster management plans. The state is staring down the barrel of sweating through 15 per cent of the year in heatwave conditions by 2090, up from 3 per cent in 2018, as well as an increase in the duration of individual heatwaves from four days to nearly 30. The average temperature of heatwaves is predicted to rise from 32.5 degrees to 36 degrees, and the average temperature of the peak of the heatwaves will rise from 34 degrees to 43 degrees.
That extra heat is expected to have a range of effects on everything from people’s personal health and the environment to the multiple industries which would be affected, potentially costing the state billions of dollars. The expected effect on individual Queenslanders is “major to catastrophic”, with increased mortality rates among older people and those with pre-existing conditions. That would have a flow-on effect for hospital and health services, which would be under increasing pressure under this scenario. The report notes heatwaves already result in lost productivity to industry across Australia to the value of $8.8 billion, a figure expected to increase accordingly as heatwaves get longer and hotter. Heatwaves over a certain temperature also bring concerns about the effect on infrastructure, in particular the power grid being overloaded, as well as interruption to transport systems. Livestock is also set to be adversely affected by sustained periods of extreme heat, along with crops. The report offers a range of suggestions to mitigate the effects of heatwaves, while specifically not dealing with the underlying effects of climate change. It recommends electricity providers put measures in place to reduce network demand during periods of system stress, and for future infrastructure projects to take extreme heatwaves into account for their design and planning. It also urges industries to develop clear policies for managing workers’ health and safety during extreme heatwaves and more generally across the warmer months of the year. Between 1900 and 2011, extreme heat was the cause of death for at least 4555 people across Australia, more than the number of deaths attributed to all other forms of natural disaster combined. |
|
Australian government’s own data shows that its greenhouse gas emissions policy is failing
 Australia’s Emissions Reduction Fund is failing to deliver, government data shows, ABC News
Key points:
The Emissions Reduction Fund also appears to be failing in its mission to lower emissions, Government data shows. In 2014, the Abbott government allocated $2.55 billion to the newly established Emissions Reduction Fund, mostly to pay polluters to emit less greenhouse gas. The Morrison Government has extended the program with an additional $2 billion and rebranded it the Climate Solutions Fund. Twice a year, the Clean Energy Regulator holds reverse auctions, where companies bid to win the emissions reduction work. The cheapest good-quality bids win and are awarded Emissions Reduction Fund contracts. Those contracts are for a range of projects, including planting trees, stopping tree-clearing and installing energy efficient appliances. Data shows flatlining of emissions reductionThe ABC examined figures from 10 different datasets published by the Government’s Clean Energy Regulator — a series of auction results published in separate PDFs, as well as two spreadsheets containing information about the status of Emissions Reduction Fund contracts and projects…….. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-06-17/australian-emissions-reduction-fund-data-analysis/11164476 |
|
‘Stop-Adani’ protest to go global: Brown
Protesters will gather outside the Indian high commission in Canberra on Saturday as the campaign to stop Adani’s Carmichael mine continues.
Queensland’s environment department on Thursday signed off on the company’s plan to manage groundwater on and around its Galilee Basin mine site – the final approval the company needs to begin construction.
Former Australian Greens leader Bob Brown is expected to join the peaceful demonstration to “highlight the Adani company’s appalling record of environmental destruction and corruption overseas”. A vigil is also expected to be held outside India’s consulate general in Sydney.
Adani is not about jobs, and never really was,
|
Adani is not about jobs, and never really was, https://www.smh.com.au/national/adani-is-not-about-jobs-and-never-really-was-20190614-p51xu0.html, By Matt Holden June 16, 2019 So Adani gets its final environmental approval from the Queensland government, and central Queensland gets the jobs it voted for in the federal election: “an enormous win for regional jobs”, according to Queensland LNP Opposition Leader Deb Frecklington.What that amounts to is about 1500 jobs in the construction phase – which at two years won’t even get us to the next federal election – and maybe 100 when the mine is operating, at least according to University of Queensland economist Professor John Quiggin. It feels like you can believe whatever you want about Adani, or at least whatever suits your world view. But Adani was never really about jobs. “Adani” is a litmus test in Australian politics: you are either for Adani, which means you are for economic prosperity and development of Australia’s regions, or you are against Adani, in which case you are against prosperity, against people who need jobs, even against central Queensland itself. The simplistic dualism suits politicians whose business it is to squabble over political power and to mediate that squabble through culture wars (this one over coal, the next one over religious freedom, who knows what after that) rather than the work of making real policy. It also suits the interests that will benefit from Adani – mining companies, fossil-fuel investors, construction and mining unions. Adani has become more than a coal mine (although it’s not even that yet, and maybe never will be). It’s part of a narrative in Australian politics that poses a false choice between jobs and the environment, framed as the difference between living in the real world and living in the inner-city bubble, Continue reading |
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
20 May – Webinar – The dangerous world of AUKUS, US, military occupation and suppression of dissent
National Webinar, 20th May, 2026, 6.30pm AEST. Confronting laws restricting/suppressing protest speech and action
Speakers: Former Sen. Rex Patrick, Lawyer Nick Hanna ,Arthur Rorris ,Jorgen Doyle, Sen David Shoebbridge,
Facilitator Kelley Tranter.
of the week – Australians for War Powers Reform (AWPR)
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
Antinuclear 