Adani’s attack on Aboriginal leader morally reprehensible
Traditional Owners support leader, Adrian Burragubba
Adani’s bankruptcy petition is corporate bullying, abuse of process
W&J call on Qld Government to investigate Adani’s sham dealings
Adani are out to punish the Traditional Owner leading the fight against their Carmichael Mine and the opening up of the Galilee Basin. In a show of abject moral failure and corporate bullying, Adani has instituted bankruptcy proceedings against W&J leader and spokesperson Adrian Burragubba, simply for retribution, said W&J Traditional Owners Family Council chairperson Linda Bobongie.
“Our people will stand with Mr Burragubba at this trying time. He is a courageous leader who has put our people, country and cultural heritage before his own and his families personal needs. He speaks for many of the rightful Traditional Owners of Wangan and Jagalingou Country and we will not be frightened by Adani’s latest abuse of power.
We have enormous support for our Federal Court appeal against Adani’s rent-a-crowd ILUA. Over 128,000 people have signed our petition and millions of Australians who oppose the Carmichael Mine continue to back our campaign because they also care about Aboriginal rights in this country.
We will prosecute Adani to the limit and make sure they wear their illegitimate claims as a burden upon their brief corporate history in Australia. But we cannot rely on the legal system alone for justice.
We call on the Queensland Government to urgently inquire into the corruption of process that led to the disputed land deal. We demand that the Queensland Government refrain from any action to support Adani and from extinguishing our native title while investigating this grave injustice.
Queensland Labor has said they recognise that the registration of the Adani ILUA is contested and they acknowledge and respect our right to have our complaints considered and determined by a court. They should underwrite this process to ensure that Adani cannot bankrupt any of the appellants before the matter is heard, and they make proper inquiries of their own.
Adani are trying to prevent justice and hide behind a veil of supposed charity. Nothing could be more sickening than to have this corporate bully lecture us about our own people. They never have the courage to front up. It’s always done through anonymous media spokespeople or high priced lawyers.
We demand to know the Adani bosses who initiated this action. Was it Lucas Dow, the new CEO of Adani Mining, or was it Jeyakumar Janakaraj, CEO & Country Head Australia, or was it Gautam Adani himself who authorised this shameless attack on our people?
We are seeking the assistance of the UN Special Rapporteurs for Indigenous Peoples Rights and for Human Rights Defenders. The heads of corporations like Adani have a responsibility to respect human rights that are protected under international law. These responsibilities exist independently of a country’s abilities or willingness to fulfil its own obligations with respect to the rights of Indigenous peoples. We expect Adani’s bosses to answer for their actions.
Adani has no moral claim over us, and no legitimate claim for money. Their deceit is practiced. From the hollow protest about a vote of 294 – 1, as though this is believable, and Traditional Owners property rights and human rights can be wiped out forever by a one-off stacked meeting; to employing or contracting with people who oversaw the collapse of our $1m trust fund, such as Ms Irene Simpson and Mr Patrick Malone, directors of Cato Galilee, which entered into an unauthorised Memorandum of Understanding with Adani; to the PR exercises on jobs and partnership with ‘fake W&J people’. (Tony Johnson who appears in this Adani video is from the Gooreng Gooreng Nation on the Port Curtis Coast).
Adani claims to have a valid ILUA with the W&J people yet have failed to engage the authorised native title party at any time in more than two years, and have not paid $1.3m they are obligated to under the terms of their own contract.
Adani would bankrupt our people, prop up those who would breach our trust, and withhold what they owe just to score a cheap political point.
Our people will continue to seek justice in the face of this profound inequity. We will call on all First Nations people, and members of the Australian and international communities for support. And we will challenge the decision of Justice Reeves because we know the Adani ILUA is a gross distortion of the will of the W&J People”, Ms Bobongie concluded.
| Source Document: wanganjagalingou.com.au/adanis-attack-on-aboriginal-leader-morally-reprehensible/ |
Over 20 years of Australian governments failure to act on climate change
Climate warnings ignoredTwenty years on, only the names have changed, The Age 1 January 2019 The annual release of the federal Cabinet papers is usually a chance to reflect on issues long since settled. … the release today by the National Archives of Australia of the papers from John Howard’s cabinet deliberations of 1996 and 1997.
The most obvious is climate change and finding a way to reduce Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions.
The Cabinet papers reveal how the Howard government clearly rejected the advice of its most senior ministries that the most effective and efficient method to deal with the issue was via a price signal with an emissions trading scheme.
Howard government started the hypocrisy on climate change
Howard government told without a carbon price, emissions would rise, The Age, By Shane Wright, 1 January 2019 The Howard government was urged more than 20 years ago to consider an emissions trading scheme, while its signature plans to deal with Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions were considered by its own departments to be merely aimed at deflecting global criticism.
As the Morrison government continues to fight a debilitating internal battle over how to deal with climate change, previously secret papers from the 1990s reveal a suite of major government departments said the most effective and efficient way to deal with greenhouse gases was to impose a carbon price.
Cabinet papers from 1996 and 1997 released on Tuesday by the National Archives reveal the beginnings of the Howard government’s drawn-out response to the threat posed by rising greenhouse gas emissions and the way some of those issues are still playing out in the Morrison government.
Ahead of the expected adoption of the Kyoto Protocol in December 1997, there were deep concerns within the government about how it may affect Australia with its large coal exports, heavy dependence on coal-fired power stations and increasing LNG production.
Government departments headed by Prime Minister and Cabinet, Treasury and Foreign Affairs fleshed out the details of a series of proposals backed by the government in September 1997 in a bid to deal with Australia’s emissions.
The co-ordinating document produced by the departments, which were aiming to finalise a package discussed at cabinet earlier in the month, made clear the bureaucracy did not believe the government’s plans would go nearly far enough in cutting emissions but may be sufficient to deflect international criticism.
“None of the packages presented here would achieve the stabilisation of emissions at 1990 levels,” they said.
“Rather, they are aimed at deflecting criticism that Australia is not fully committed to reducing its emissions.”
The departments costed a series of proposals which would ultimately become part of the government’s official response to climate change…….
But the departments, which acknowledged the government’s opposition to a price signal, said these would ultimately be expensive initiatives which would not deliver a real impact on the nation’s overall emissions profile.
“The most effective way to reduce emissions would be to combine significant price signals (either general or sectoral increases in taxes on greenhouse producing activities), information so firms and individuals can reduce greenhouse production, opportunities to invest in carbon sinks and some degree of compulsion to address areas where markets cannot be made to work effectively,” they said…….
While a small number of Coalition MPs have backed subsidies for new coal-fired power stations, the cabinet documents from 1997 canvassed ways to use emission standards to effectively end brown coal-fired stations and encourage more gas into the system.
Last month, official figures showed Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions increasing to their highest level since 2011. Projections suggest Australia will fall well short of its stated aim of reducing emissions by between 26 and 28 per cent by 2030. https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/howard-government-told-without-a-carbon-price-emissions-would-rise-20181227-p50og9.html
Dave Sweeney reflects on the achievements of Australia’s nuclear-free movement in 2018
The days roll on and 2018 is about to be in the past tense.
As ever the year saw highs, lows and flatlines. It also saw sustained and successful resistance to the nuclear industry in Australia.
This note is a snapshot, not a definitive list, but I wanted to capture some of our collective efforts and achievements so in a quiet moment we can reflect and recharge – and know that we are making a real difference.
Thanks and solidarity to all – and best wishes for a good break and time with people and in places that freshen the spirit. I look forward to working with you all in season 2019.
Uranium: Less is being ripped and shipped
- Kakadu: the clean-up of the Ranger site is underway – Mirarr native title of the region was formally recognised – Rio Tinto have accepted their responsibility to clean up – there was a calendar and a series of events around the country to mark twenty years since the Jabiluka blockade
- uranium remains stalled and actively contested in WA: 2018 saw a decade since then Premier Barnett announced a fast tracked uranium sector that would be “iron ore on steroids” – there are no mines but there is a major legal challenge to the Yeelirrie project, procedural challenge to Mulga Rock and community resistance to the four proposed projects with actions at AgMs, project critiques, Walkatjurra Walkabout and more
- Qld Labor reaffirmed its opposition to uranium mining at its state conference
Radioactive waste: Under pressure and delayed
the federal plan for a national waste facility in regional SA is highly contested, behind schedule and increasingly uncertain
- the issue was pushed ahead of the state election and SA Labor has subsequently adopted a good policy position
- there is growing civil society awareness and engagement with the issue – especially through our trade union partners
- the Barngarla people were formally awarded native title over the Kimba sites in June and have taken legal action over deficiencies in the Feds consultation processes
- Adnyamathanha resistance to the proposed Flinders Ranges site is strong and they have lodged a complaint on the plan with the Australian Human Rights Commission
- community resistance at both sites is sustained and strong with high levels of engagement and regular actions, events and media profile
- Federal Labor policy has a long way to go but at its national conference in December Labor moved from a policy position dominated by sites and place to one of standards and process
- Standing Strong – the story of the successful community fight against the earlier plan for an international radioactive waste dump in SA was launched and learned from
- there was early and strong opposition to chatter around other potential radioactive waste sites – especially at Brewarrina (NSW) and Leonora (WA)
Nuclear weapons: the cold war is reheating and support for a weapons ban grows
ICAN – the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons – has continued to build on its 2017 Nobel Peace Prize profile
- there was sustained outreach and awareness initiatives, including a bike ride from Melbourne to Canberra
- there is growing international support for the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons with more nations signing and ratifying the ban
- federal Labor committed to sign and ratify the ban treaty at its national conference in Adelaide in December – a major step forward
- the Peace Boat visited Australian waters and cities in January/February and the Black Mist, Burnt Country Maralinga exhibition continued touring
Broader nuclear free efforts
ANFA – the Australian Nuclear Free Alliance – had a good gathering in the Adelaide Hills in October and there was clear recognition of the role of First Nation people in the atomic resistance with awards to crew in WA, Aunty Sue in SA and Jeffrey Lee gaining the German based Nuclear Free Future award in the global Resistance category
- anniversaries were marked with actions, events and reflection – including Fukushima, Chernobyl, Hiroshima and Maralinga
- people engaged in state and federal processes including Senate Estimates, Senate Inquiries into radioactive waste siting and mine rehabilitation, ARPANSA Codes of Practice and more
- folks engaged with ALP state and federal conferences, the ACTU Congress, many union forums, SoS, the Sustainable Living Festival and more
- we remained connected and updated via the efforts of Christina Macpherson, Maelor at ACF, Jim Green at WISE, KA at CCWA and Walkatjurra, WGAR news, 3CR’s Radioactive Show, Understory and more
Looking ahead to 2019 – Another big year ahead folks – and one where we consolidate, defend and grow
- Challenges include:
- the forever struggle of resourcing and capacity
- pro-nuke voices pushing small modular reactors (SMRs) and seeking to overturn the ban on domestic nuclear power
- Mineral Council of Australia and others seeking the removal of uranium mining as a ‘trigger’ action in the federal EPBC Act
- We need to:
- better braid the uranium story and struggle into the wider dirty energy-fracking- fossil fuel narrative
- keep Rio Tinto and the regulators focussed and genuine re the best possible rehab outcomes at Ranger and keep the door shut to the uranium sector in WA
- support affected communities facing radioactive waste dump plans and push federal Labor to adopt a different approach
- pressure and support federal Labor to follow through on its commitment to sign and ratify the nuclear weapons ban
- make Australian uranium companies operating overseas – often in jurisdictions with low governance – accountable for their impacts
Scientists refute the nuclear lobby’s paper “Burden of Proof”
Christina’s note: “Burden of Proof”comes from a very small, but very vocal, Australian pro nuclear shill.
Response to ‘Burden of proof: A comprehensive review of the feasibility of 
100% renewable-electricity systems’ Science Direct Volume 92, September 2018, Pages 834-847 lT.W.BrownabT.Bischof-NiemzcK.BlokdC.BreyereH.LundfB.V.Mathieseng 847 lT.W.BrownabT.Bischof-NiemzcK.BlokdC.BreyereH.LundfB.V.Mathieseng https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.04.113
Highlights
- •We respond to a recent article that is critical of the feasibility of 100% renewable-electricity systems.
- •Based on a literature review we show that none of the issues raised in the article are critical for feasibility or viability.
- •Each issue can be addressed at low economic cost, while not affecting the main conclusions of the reviewed studies.
- •We highlight methodological problems with the choice and evaluation of the feasibility criteria.
- •We provide further evidence for the feasibility and viability of renewables-based systems.
-
Abstract
A recent article ‘Burden of proof: A comprehensive review of the feasibility of 100% renewable-electricity systems’ claims that many studies of 100% renewable electricity systems do not demonstrate sufficient technical feasibility, according to the criteria of the article’s authors (henceforth ‘the authors’). Here we analyse the authors’ methodology and find it problematic. The feasibility criteria chosen by the authors are important, but are also easily addressed at low economic cost, while not affecting the main conclusions of the reviewed studies and certainly not affecting their technical feasibility. A more thorough review reveals that all of the issues have already been addressed in the engineering and modelling literature. Nuclear power, which the authors have evaluated positively elsewhere, faces other, genuine feasibility problems, such as the finiteness of uranium resources and a reliance on unproven technologies in the medium- to long-term. Energy systems based on renewables, on the other hand, are not only feasible, but already economically viable and decreasing in cost every year…………..
-
5. Conclusions
In ‘Burden of proof: A comprehensive review of the feasibility of 100% renewable-electricity systems’ [73] the authors called into question the feasibility of highly renewable scenarios. To assess a selection of relevant studies, they chose feasibility criteria that are important, but not critical for either the feasibility or viability of the studies. We have shown here that all the issues can be addressed at low economic cost. Worst-case, conservative technology choices (such as dispatchable capacity for the peak load, grid expansion and synchronous compensators for ancillary services) are not only technically feasible, but also have costs which are a magnitude smaller than the total system costs. More cost-effective solutions that use variable renewable generators intelligently are also available. The viability of these solutions justifies the focus of many studies on reducing the main costs of bulk energy generation.
As a result, we conclude that the 100% renewable energy scenarios proposed in the literature are not just feasible, but also viable. As we demonstrated in Section 4.4, 100% renewable systems that meet the energy needs of all citizens at all times are cost-competitive with fossil-fuel-based systems, even before externalities such as global warming, water usage and environmental pollution are taken into account.
The authors claim that a 100% renewable world will require a ‘re-invention’ of the power system; we have shown here that this claim is exaggerated: only a directed evolution of the current system is required to guarantee affordability, reliability and sustainability. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032118303307
ANSTO’s worrying history of covering up releases of radioactive gases from Lucas heights nuclear reactor
New nuclear reactor spark cover up claims, PUBLIC not told about potentially dangerous gases spread over hundreds of kilometres for fear of causing alarm. https://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/poison-gas-leak-from-sydney-nuclear-reactor-spark-cover-up-claims/news-story/7a2bea7f047cf87f997ad7aff5646213?fbclid=IwAR3YTUCw81aekayba61OSWLYkemq6Eb0u9rlPYnej5B3EUHc9iE0n50_B7I#.s3vdk By Linda Silmalis, The Sunday Telegraph, AUGUST 29, 2010 POTENTIALLY dangerous radioactive gases have been secretly pumped into the atmosphere from Lucas Heights and have spread hundreds of kilometres from the nuclear reactor – but the public have never been told.
The release of the highly volatile radioxenon over several months last year was so concentrated that the plumes were detected in Melbourne up to two days later.
Other plumes were dragged out to sea by winds before drifting back over Sydney.
The Sunday Telegraph understands the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) decided against releasing a public statement at the time to avoid causing alarm.
Scientists at a nuclear testing station in Melbourne traced the source of the radioactive gases to Sydney after they picked up 10 specific events between November, 2008 and February last year.
The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Organisation International Monitoring System site in Melbourne contacted Lucas Heights after detecting the radioxenon isotope Xe-133.
They were told that 36 hours earlier the first “hot commissioning trials” at ANSTO’s Lucas Heights radioisotope facility for Molybdenum-99 had taken place.
Molybdenum-99 is produced by the fission technique – the intense neutron-bombardment of a highly purified uranium-235 – and is used in nuclear medicine.
While the nuclear reactor – and the government body that oversees it – insists the release of the radioxenon by-product were no threat to public safety, no one, including neighbours of the suburban Sydney plant, were informed.
“Xenon gases are highly volatile and, being inert, they are not susceptible to wet or dry atmospheric removal mechanisms,” a scientific report obtained by The Sunday Telegraph says.
“Consequently, once released to the atmosphere they are simply transported down-wind while radioactively decaying away.”
Significant amounts of the main gas detected – Xenon-133 – can be released during a nuclear reaction or a nuclear explosion.
While it is used in medical procedures, specialists are urged not to administer it to pregnant women and children.
Side effects of its use in medical procedures can include allergic reactions such as itching or hives, swelling of the face or hands, swelling or tingling in the mouth or throat, chest tightness, and trouble breathing.
The report into the release from Lucas Heights says the doses were “well below the annual limit for public exposure”.
Officials from the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency said it was notified at the time and that the emissions were within public safety guidelines.
In 2006, ANSTO was forced to allay public fears after a leaked memo revealed xenon and krypton were released into the atmosphere following the rupture of a pipe.
The biggest porky pies: How fake news has shaped our history
Read more at the Source: www.theage.com.au/national/the-biggest-porky-pies-how-fake-news-has-shaped-our-history-20181227-p50ohq.html By Julia Baird host of The Drum on ABCTV & a journalist and author 29 December 2018
“We can fact check lies – but who will tell the stories of those who have been ignored, stereotypes and scrubbed out of history? First Nations people have been fed fake news and lies about their history and their present for centuries. As have we all. And the impact of this endures.
Myths like: there is only one Aboriginal culture, voice, or viewpoint.. That Aboriginal people are inherently violent, lazy, drunk. That the impact of colonisation has long passed. That the first inhabitants of this land were simply hunter-gatherers. That Australia was just a wilderness before Europeans arrived.
The truth is starkly different. In his brilliant book Dark Emu, Indigenous historian Bruce Pascoe documented how Aboriginal peoples lived here for millennia before Cook arrived, establishing a sophisticated, cultivated form of land management, carefully tended irrigation and extensive farming and fish-trapping practices – with villages with wells, dams, permanent buildings made of clay-coated wood and elaborate cemeteries – operating as a cluster of distinct but connected democracies. A land carefully tilled, a land built upon, a land that sustained an economy, a land that was theirs. … ”
Read much much much more at the Source: www.theage.com.au/national/the-biggest-porky-pies-how-fake-news-has-shaped-our-history-20181227-p50ohq.html
Review of ‘DarkEmu by BrucePascoe’
‘Required re-education readings’ BookReview by BenCourtice
groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/wgar-news/WH0DXuU9ntk/8XeB5QOuAAAJ;context-place=forum/wgar-news
astherivergoesby.wordpress.com/2017/12/27/required-re-education-readings-dark-emu/
Why Labor is taking the right course on nuclear disarmament
|
Labor sets the right course on nuclear disarmament, https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/labor-sets-the-right-course-on-nuclear-disarmament-20181224-p50o22.html, By Gem Romuld, 27 December 2018 On the final afternoon of the recent 48th Labor national conference, Anthony Albanese took to the podium to announce that a future Labor government will sign and ratify the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. He declared that “people who change the world are ones that are ambitious”, after three days of intense negotiations on nuclear policy among senior Labor parliamentarians.The Coalition government has not only refused to join the treaty, but boycotted the negotiating conference and opposed the process leading up to it. While claiming to wholeheartedly seek a world free of nuclear weapons, foreign affairs ministers Julie Bishop and Marise Payne have failed to act. Their preferred path is one that doesn’t challenge the nuclear-armed states, especially our powerful ally, and protects the status quo.
After words of caution from Senator Penny Wong and MP Richard Marles in October, supporters of the nuclear ban treaty within Labor had to move a mountain to get the leadership on side. Even with former foreign minister Gareth Evans warning against the treaty, out of deference to the United States, on the eve of the resolution the supportive majority won out. With 78 per cent of the federal caucus signed up to support the ban, 83 per cent of Labor voters on side, and two dozen unions adding their voice, Labor has a clear mandate. Soon after the resolution passed unanimously, commentators rushed to dismiss the resolution as aspirational, ineffective and conditional upon whether nuclear-armed states join the treaty. This is not true; there are no binding caveats to the resolution. Labor must only “take account of” various factors ahead of signing and ratifying. Conservatives within Labor tried to attach binding preconditions, but their attempts failed. As for whether the resolution is aspirational, in fact it is binding. Therefore, it is no longer a matter of whether a Labor government will join the TPNW – only when. A recently published paper by Harvard Law School’s International Human Rights Clinic is clear that Australia joining the ban treaty would advance its stated goal of supporting nuclear disarmament without creating insurmountable legal obstacles to ongoing military relations with the United States. Australia signed up to the landmines and cluster munitions treaties when the United States did not, and still has not, signed on. The alliance relationship doesn’t bind us to include weapons of mass destruction in our defence policies. Further, the ANZUS Treaty contains no obligation to accept the policy of nuclear deterrence. The threat posed by nuclear weapons is real and urgent. More than ever, our security depends on an effective rules-based international order and strong multilateral institutions. No nuclear-armed states have yet joined the treaty, but this will change. No treaty, whether on disarmament or human rights or climate change, has ever enjoyed universal support at the outset. Support is always built up over time. Monumental strides forward in human history rarely begin with all parties coming together to agree on a common course of action. The majority of the world’s nations negotiated the TPNW based on their firm belief that it would have a profound impact on the behaviour of nuclear-armed states and their allies, even if its provisions would not, at the outset, be binding on those states. Treaties prohibiting other inhumane, indiscriminate weapons demonstrate this process; for example, the landmine ban treaty is widely regarded as a success, with massive reductions in use and production worldwide. Within the nuclear weapon ban treaty’s first year of existence, money is moving. The Norwegian sovereign wealth fund and the largest Dutch pension fund have decided to exclude nuclear-weapon-producing companies from their investment portfolios, citing the treaty as their reason. The Australian Medical Association and the Australian Red Cross have urged the Australian government to sign and ratify the treaty as a humanitarian imperative. Cities within countries opposed to the treaty are also joining the call for national action, including Los Angeles, Toronto, Manchester, Melbourne and Sydney. The ban treaty is a powerful new tool for advocacy, and nuclear disarmament is back on the political agenda. Since the treaty opened for signature in September 2017, 69 states have signed on and 19 have ratified. The 50th nation to deposit its instrument of ratification will enable the treaty to enter into force and become permanent international law. With dozens of nations currently undergoing domestic processes to sign and ratify, entry- into-force is expected by 2020. It is beyond time for Australia to quit our role as nuclear enabler for the United States. The nuclear weapon ban treaty presents us with a persistent question; will we join the global majority and contribute to the consensus against these WMDs, or remain implicated in the nuclear threat? Labor’s commitment clears a pathway forward for the next Government. Gem Romuld is the Australian director of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear |
|
Labor is right to support a nuclear ban treaty
The cold war is back. Labor is right to support a nuclear ban treaty https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/dec/28/the-cold-war-is-back-labor-is-right-to-support-a-nuclear-ban-treatyLabor’s pledge to commit to nuclear disarmament puts the alternative party of government on the right side of history.
The gulf between the shenanigans of way too many politicians, and the growing urgency of grave and looming threats has rarely seemed wider. Action on crucial issues languishes while parliamentarians make naked grabs for power, acting in the interests only of themselves. Poor personal behaviour seems endemic. On the two unprecedented dangers looming over all humanity – nuclear war and climate disruption – Australia has been not just missing in action, but actively on the wrong side of history, part of the problem rather than the solution.
The government’s own figures demonstrate that our country, awash with renewable sun and wind, is way off track to meet even a third of its greenhouse gas emissions reduction target by 2030 – itself nowhere near enough.
Not only is nuclear disarmament stalled, but one by one, the agreements that reduced and constrained nuclear weapons, hard-won fruit of the end of the first cold war, are being trashed. All the nuclear-armed states are investing massively not simply in keeping their weapons indefinitely, but developing new ones that are more accurate, more deadly and more “usable”. The cold war is back, and irresponsible and explicit threats to use nuclear weapons have proliferated. Any positive effect that Australia might have on reducing nuclear weapons dangers from the supposed influence afforded us by our uncritical obsequiousness to the US is nowhere in sight. Our government has been incapable of asserting any independence even from the current most extreme, dysfunctional and unfit US administration. The US has recently renounced its previous commitments under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT); we have said nothing.
The one bright light in this gathering gloom is the 2017 UN treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons. For its role in helping to bring this historic treaty into being, the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (Ican) was awarded the Nobel peace prize for 2017 – the first to an entity born in Australia. This treaty provides the first comprehensive and categorical prohibition of nuclear weapons. It sets zero nuclear weapons as the clear and consistent standard for all countries and will help drive elimination of these worst weapons of mass destruction, just as the treaties banning biological and chemical weapons, landmines and cluster munitions have played a decisive role in progressing the elimination of those other indiscriminate and inhumane weapons. The treaty lays out a clear pathway for all states, with and without nuclear weapons, to fulfil their binding legal obligation to accomplish nuclear disarmament. It is currently the only such pathway.
Regrettably, the Australian government was the most active “weasel” in opposing the treaty’s development at every step and was one of the first to say it would not sign, even though we have signed every other treaty banning an unacceptable weapon.
Hence the Labor party’s commitment at its recent national conference in Adelaide that “Labor in government will sign and ratify the Ban Treaty” is an important and welcome step. It is a clear commitment, allowing no room for weaselling.
The considerations articulated alongside this commitment are fairly straightforward and consistent with the commitment. First, recognition of the need for “an effective verification and enforcement architecture” for nuclear disarmament. The treaty itself embodies this. Governments joining the treaty must designate a competent international authority “to negotiate and verify the irreversible elimination of nuclear weapons” and nuclear weapons programmes, “including the elimination or irreversible conversion of all nuclear-weapons-related facilities”. Australia should also push for the same standard for any nuclear disarmament that happens outside the treaty.
Second, the Labor resolution prioritises “the interaction of the Ban Treaty with the longstanding Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty”. The treaty has been carefully crafted to be entirely compatible with the NPT and explicitly reaffirms that the NPT “serves as a cornerstone of the nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation regime”, and that its full and effective implementation “has a vital role to play in promoting international peace and security”. All the governments supporting the treaty support the NPT, and the NPT itself enshrines a commitment for all its members to “pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament”. The UN secretary general, Antonio Guterres, and the International Committee of the Red Cross are among those who have affirmed that the treaty and the NPT are entirely consistent, complementary and mutually reinforcing. Even opponents of the treaty recognise that prohibition is an essential part of achieving and sustaining a world free of nuclear weapons.
Third, the Labor resolution refers to “Work to achieve universal support for the Ban Treaty.” This too is mirrored in one of the commitments governments take on in joining the treaty, to encourage other states to join, “with the goal of universal adherence of all States to the Treaty.”
An Australian government joining the treaty would enjoy wide popular support in doing so – an Ipsos poll last month found that 79% of Australians (and 83% of Labor voters) support, and less than 8% oppose, Australia joining the treaty.
Australia would also stop sticking out like a sore thumb among our southeast Asian and Pacific Island neighbours and be able to work more effectively with them. Brunei, Cook Islands, Fiji, Indonesia, Kiribati, Laos, New Zealand, Malaysia, Myanmar, Palau, Philippines, Samoa, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Tuvalu, Vanuatu and Vietnam have already signed the treaty.
Most importantly, joining the treaty and renouncing nuclear weapons would mean that Australia would become part of the solution rather than the problem of the acute existential peril that hangs over all of us while nuclear weapons exist, ready to be launched within minutes. Time is not on our side. Of course this crucial humanitarian issue should be above party politics. The commitment from the alternative party of government to join the treaty and get on the right side of history when Labor next forms government is to be warmly welcomed. It is to be hoped that the 78% of federal parliamentary Labor members who have put on record their support for Australia joining the treaty by signing Ican’s parliamentary pledge will help ensure Labor keeps this landmark promise.
• Dr Tilman Ruff is co-founder of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (Ican) and Nobel peace prize winner (2017)
Despite 47.5 degrees Celsius heat, Senator Rex Patrick drove to Kimba to explore the question of “community consent” for nuclear waste dump
VISIT TO KIMBA TO DISCUSS NRWMF PROCESS
Today I drove to Kimba to meet with local residents about the ongoing process to determine where Australia’s National Radioactive Waste Management Facility will be located. I spoke with those ‘in favour’ of a local facility and those ‘against’.
Australia needs to take responsibility for its own low/intermediate level radioactive waste. We need a new national facility, but I don’t want to see it located anywhere where there is not ‘broad community support’. Actually, that’s the Government’s stated position too, but unfortunately they have not set a criteria for ‘broad community support’.
Imagine voting in the next Federal election without knowing how the winner will be determined. Even worse, imagine the current Prime Minister deciding the result of the election AFTER he had been told by the AEC what the voting outcome was.
This has to be fixed. So too does the fact that alternate Commonwealth sites have not been properly assessed. I had something to say about this in this morning’s The Australian newspaper https://www.theaustralian.com.au/…/fd851b6cefd7c5701d354c7e…
I talked to the locals about the need to have an alternate plan for the growth of Kimba in the event the facility is located elsewhere (e.g. Woomera, Leonora etc.). That’s a dialogue I want to continue.
Despite the mercury reaching 47.5 degrees, I took some time out after the meetings to have a look at a few Kimba tourist sites – have a look at their silo art. It’s worth spending some time in Kimba if you’re passing by. https://www.facebook.com/groups/344452605899556/
Flinders Ranges Traditional Owners take radioactive waste concerns to Australian Human Rights Commission
18 December 2018
The complaint, also being provided to the Australian Government, demonstrates the Traditional Owners’ continuing opposition to the nomination of Wallerberdina Station as a place to both dispose and store federal radioactive waste.
The complaint has been prepared on a pro-bono basis by Maurice Blackburn Lawyers on behalf of the Adnyamathanha Traditional Lands Association (ATLA).
It alleges that both the ballot to assess community support for the waste facility, which excludes many traditional owners, and the damage done to significant cultural heritage sites by Commonwealth contractors constitutes unlawful discrimination.
Maurice Blackburn lawyer Nicki Lees, acting for ATLA, said the nomination process for the Hawker site has been fundamentally flawed from its inception and the AHRC complaint is necessary to seek independent insight into the adequacy of the process.
“From day one this process has shown a complete lack of regard for the Traditional Owners and for the significance of this site to the Adnyamathanha people,” Ms Lees said.
Vince Coulthard, CEO of ATLA and proud Adnyamathanha man, said that “ATLA remains strongly opposed to any nomination of their land for a future radioactive waste dump site and the lodging of an AHRC complaint is important in seeking a fair hearing for our deep concerns”.
There are also serious probity questions to be answered about this process – including the nomination of the site by senior South Australian Liberal Party figure Grant Chapman, without prior consultation with the Traditional Owners.
A separate application challenging the lawfulness of a ballot to assess community support in the Kimba region by the Barngarla people for the proposed waste facility is also currently before the Federal Court of Australia.
Maurice Blackburn Lawyers previously acted pro-bono on behalf of Traditional Owners who successfully overturned the nomination of Muckaty Station as a radioactive waste dump in the Northern Territory.
Australian government promoting Australia’s secret weapons deals to Saudi Arabia and UAE for murderous war in Yemen
|
Documents reveal Australia’s secret arms deals with nations fighting Yemen’s bloody war, ABC News
Internal Defence Department documents obtained under Freedom of Information (FOI) and from parliamentary hearings reveal since the beginning of 2016, Canberra has granted at least 37 export permits for military-related items to the United Arab Emirates, and 20 to Saudi Arabia. They are the two countries leading a coalition fighting a war against Houthi rebels in the Middle East’s poorest nation, Yemen. The four-year war in Yemen has killed tens of thousands and an air-and-sea embargo has led to more than 85,000 Yemeni children under five dying from hunger, according to one children’s agency. Australia’s burgeoning exports to the UAE and Saudi Arabia may be connected to a plan announced by then-Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull in January to drastically increase defence sales over the next decade. Australia will spend $200 million between now and 2028 in order to make Australia the 10th-largest arms exporter in the world. It is currently the 20th largest. The strategy states the Middle East is a “priority market” for defence exports. The Government has tried to keep details of the exports secret, but New South Wales lawyer and human rights activist Kellie Tranter has spent a year trying to shed light on the sales. Continue reading |
Why did Sir Mark Oliphant not speak out about nuclear bombs radioactively contaminating Maralinga?
My own research has been into why Sir Mark Oliphant, Australia’s premier nuclear physicist and a prime mover in the Tube Alloys group that showed the Americans how to build atomic bombs in time to use in the second world war, never spoke out about the contamination (from H-bomb tests) of his beloved home state of South Australia and further eastward just weeks before the 1956 Olympic Games took place in Melbourne.
He told me in 1993: “The Brits thought they could ensure any fallout or contamination was not too big. They were very pigheaded about it. The people in control were very haphazard about the estimates.” Why didn’t he speak out about the residual radioactive contamination at Monte Bello, Maralinga and Emu Field, even when he was governor of South Australia? He replied: “You can really decontaminate Maralinga by leaving it alone. Plutonium alpha particles contamination, I think, is grossly overplayed. The Aborigines are using it to the full. At the same time it was very naughty of the British to leave it, and to think of spreading it that way in the first place was very nasty. The British people were very reticent about revealing contamination, especially regarding food contamination. They hugged that to their chests very closely.”
I suggest that Sir Mark Oliphant was Australia’s – and Britain’s – J Robert Oppenheimer. The evidence is set out on my website www.rabbittreview.com and was mostly found in the files I accessed in the UK National Archives.
Defence Department accused of deception over Woomera radioactive wastes
Defence under attack on nuclear waste dump https://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/defence/defence-under-attack-on-nuclear-waste-dump/news-story/fd851b6cefd7c5701d354c7ed1adf09d LUKE GRIFFITHS @_LukeGriffiths DECEMBER 27, 2018
Woomera must be revisited as a potential site for Australia’s first nuclear waste dump, says Centre Alliance senator Rex Patrick, who accuses the Defence Department of deception over claims the site is unsuitable.
Senator Patrick said he would question Defence officials at Senate estimates hearings over why the department dismissed Woomera as a potential site because of an “intolerable risk” and its “impracticability” — a position since backed by Resources Minister Matt Canavan.
The 122,000sq km Woomera Prohibited Area, located in the South Australian outback 450km northwest of Adelaide, is a military testing range under federal government control.
Senator Patrick said significant nuclear waste materials had been stored there since 1994, including 10,000 drums of low and intermediate-level waste from a CSIRO research facility at Fishermans Bend in Melbourne.
In a report published on its website last week, the CSIRO said tests had found the material posed no threat to health or the environment. Tests in May found radiation levels adjacent to the storage had “natural background values” for Australia, as would be found in typical soil and rock.
“The report findings make a mockery of Defence claims there’s no way a national radioactive waste management facility could be located anywhere in the enormous expanse of the WPA,” Senator Patrick said.
“The reality is radioactive waste has been safely stored at Woomera for a quarter of a century. Defence can expect considerable scrutiny in the new year over the bureaucratic obfuscation and deception on this issue. It seems Defence is never stronger in defending territory than when it comes to defending its own.”
Senator Canavan has short-listed two sites near Kimba, 465km northwest of Adelaide, and one site near Hawker, in South Australia’s mid-north, for the waste facility.
The process, which has divided both communities, stalled after a Kimba ballot scheduled for August 20 was delayed by court action from an Aboriginal group that believes traditional owners should vote, despite not living within the shire’s boundaries.
In a similar move, traditional owners at Hawker last week lodged an Australian Human Rights Commission complaint, prepared by Maurice Blackburn Lawyers, that alleged a “fundamentally flawed process”.
Labor has not said how it would proceed should it form government after the election, which must be held by mid-May.D The Department of Defence did not respond to questions.
Scorching temperatures sweep across Western Australia
|
|
|
|
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 