Anti-Nuclear Coalition South Australia antinuclearcoalition@gmail.com 24 Jan 18The Federal Government proposes to establish a National Radioactive Waste Management Facility in SA. This ‘repository’ would co-locate:
Various low-level and hazardous but short lived intermediate level wastes requiring isolation for 300 years in a shallow ground repository.
An above-ground store designed to operate for 100 years to house used reactor fuel from Lucas Heights. This intermediate-level long-lived waste requires isolation from the environment for over 10,000 years.
No plans have been made available for structures or maintenance for the first 100 years of this above-ground store. Plans for the ensuing 10,000 years are unavailable.
There are no plans available to establish a ‘permanent’ solution for this waste. It is not currently known how to safely store such higher level nuclear waste in isolation from the environment for such a long period of time.
Nuclear waste is currently stored at Lucas Heights where it is securely monitored.
Lucas Height’s ‘Interim Waste Store” has been identified by ANSTO as capable of safely storing reprocessed nuclear fuel waste and intermediate-level waste has been stored at Lucas Heights since the 1950s. Lucas Heights has been identified as the best resourced and secure facility to responsibly manage the extended storage of Australia’s nuclear waste.
A national radioactive waste dump could be used as a “foot in the door” to establish an International Radioactive Waste dump at the same site or another site in the future. This was advocated as an objective by state Liberal Party adviser Richard Yeeles who advised that “…as a first step in such further development, the
S A Govt. offers to host a national facility for storage and disposal of Australia’s own low and intermediate-level radioactive waste with the ultimate aim of securing Federal Govt. support for hosting an international radioactive waste management facility in SA.”
Although plans for an international waste dump in SA have been rejected by the public at this time advocates for an international waste dump and the nuclear industry continue to lobby and work towards the establishment of such a dump. If a national waste dump was established with higher-level radioactive waste stored above ground at the same site, pressure could be brought to bear to establish a deep-level below ground facility to store both this waste and international radioactive waste from overseas.
‘Hallelujah’ moment: Revised TPP to be signed in March Radio New Zealand, 23 Jan 18The revised Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement is to be signed in March, the Trade Minister has confirmed. Australia’s Trade Minister, Steve Ciobo, said the 11 nations, including New Zealand, are “finally at the finish line” following talks between officials in Tokyo………
The rebranded the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), covers nearly 500 million people and the 11 countries involved make up 14 percent of global economic activity, or about $US10 trillion.
If the trade pact is successfully concluded, lower barriers and standardised rules are expected, making it easier for businesses to sell their goods and services in these markets.
Speaking at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, Canada’s Prime Minister Justin Trudeau called the agreement the “right deal”.
The country’s trade minister said it included an improved arrangement on autos with Japan and the suspension of intellectual property provisions that had been a concern…….
Trade specialist Stephen Jacobi said it was a less problematic deal than the initial one.
“It suspends a number of the more problematic areas of TPP, particularly intellectual property provisions and some aspects of the investor state settlement that was very controversial in New Zealand.
“It’s taken the hard edge off TPP … in those areas.”
Minerals Council steps up coal advocacy despite BHP call for neutrality, MCA publicises report asking governments to commit similar resources to carbon capture and storage as to renewables, Guardian, Michael Slezak@MikeySlezak, The Minerals Council of Australia has stepped up its advocacy for coal power in spite of its biggest member, BHP, saying it will leave the group unless it shifts its stance to become technology-neutral.
On Tuesday the MCA publicised a report by the Coal Industry Advisory Board that called for governments to commit similar resources to carbon capture and storage as they do to renewable energy.
The report was written by representatives of some of the world’s biggest coalminers, including Anglo American, Glencore and Peabody, as well as by Peter Morris of the MCA.
In a section directly aimed at Australia, the report called for a public campaign to promote carbon capture and storage, and for governments to support so-called “high-efficiency low-emissions coal” (HELE) among other technologies……
In December a report from the Australian National Audit office sharply criticised the federal government’s investments in carbon capture and storage. It found that despite a commitment of more than $2bn, little had been achieved…….
Following a move by its own shareholders, BHP agreed to review its membership of industry and business groups such as the Minerals Council. That review, published in December, concluded that unless the MCA adapted its advocacy activities within a year, it would cancel its almost $2m yearly membership, which makes up about 17% of the MCA’s revenue from memberships.
But the latest attack goes beyond the sector and threatens democracy itself. The government is proposing to classify most major charities as “political campaigners”, allowing it to audit their advocacy work and their sources of income. It suggests an impurity of motive, yet nothing could be further from the truth.
This is because a new amendment to the Electoral Act would force any group to register as a political campaigner if it has spent more than $100,000 on “political expenditure” in a three-year period.
Political expenditure is defined as: “The public expression of any views on an issue that is, or is likely to be, before electors in an election (whether or not a writ has been issued for the election).”
In other words, this would apply to any comment on any policy issue at any time. Every charity that employs someone to analyse issues like aged care, homelessness, disability, living costs and virtually any other issue is likely to end up classified as a political campaigner.
The end result will be a set of requirements so complicated that some charities will be forced to hire staff simply to manage their compliance. Any charity would rather spend this money on their core mission. Others might stop speaking out altogether, deterred by the new requirements and huge penalties for getting it wrong – miscalculating the date that you become a “political campaigner” could cost up to $50,000 per day in fines.
So why, when almost everyone would agree that the most corrupting influence on public debate comes from lobbyists and big donors, is civil society being targeted?
Charities already enter the public debate with a huge disadvantage compared to moneyed interests. They are barred from endorsing candidates, donating to parties, or advocating outside their charitable purpose.
The big influencers in Australian politics can do all of this and more. Charities now have their DGR status threatened regularly, while business spending on advocacy and lobbying can be written off as a legitimate cost. Membership fees that companies pay to their own advocacy bodies are tax deductible. Even donations to political parties, from both businesses, unions and individuals, can be taken from pre-tax income. Just this week, the Minerals Council admitted that its donations are designed to buy access to decision-makers.
On top of that, big business and vested interests can afford to spend millions on lobbyists to help them secure important meetings, on advertising before elections, and on airspace to set the political agenda.
All of this is known to have a major impact on public debate, yet none of it would be curbed by the new rules. In light of that, attacking the groups who speak up for the public good, a purpose that goes beyond their own self-interest, seems perverse. Unless it was the point all along.
Maybe it simply suits governments these days for charities to provide essential services (work that many Australians would rather see done by government itself), without ever questioning the root causes of poverty, inequality, and homelessness. It serves the dual purpose of turning charities into an arm of government while also silencing the poor and protecting an unfair system from scrutiny.
The charity sector is uniting against the proposed changes. But seeing off the Electoral Act amendments won’t end the attacks. One of Gary Johns’ first major tasks as commissioner will be to review the ACNC, and there is every reason to be concerned that community advocacy will be threatened yet again.
It seems to us that all of these attacks are driven by an agenda to exclude the least powerful members of society, and those who speak up on their behalf, from public debate. By attacking charities and their ability to advocate, we’re creating a society where only those with power and access to start with have the ability to influence policy.
Community advocacy has proven to be one of the only ways we can balance the coordinated, self-interested, and privileged forces that drive decision making and policy in Australia. It is in everybody’s interests to protect it.
About the author: Kasy Chambers is executive director of Anglicare Australia. Anglicare Australia is a network of 40 agencies, more than 20,000 staff and volunteers, working with over 900,000 clients annually across Australia.
Perth Now Lisa Martin with Reuters | AAP January 24, 2018 The Trans-Pacific Partnership trade pact, which had been on life support since America’s withdrawal, has finally been resuscitated.
The 11 remaining countries are expected to sign a tweaked agreement on March 8 in Chile, Trade Minister Steve Ciobo has confirmed.
Canada threw a spanner in the works at the APEC summit in Vietnam last year derailing efforts to finalise the deal.
Ottawa has since been coaxed back to the fold following lobbying efforts from Tokyo and Canberra……….The TPP 11 is made up of:
Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam……..
Some opponents of the TPP fear it opens doors for companies to sue governments for changing policies if it harms their investments. The deal has a controversial investor state dispute settlement clause.
* China is not part of the TPP and is trying to get up a rival deal with seven TPP countries, including Australia, and eight others.
Among policy positions to be revealed in greater detail in coming weeks are the scrapping of the Safe Schools program, capping the premier’s tenure to two terms, and developing a nuclear fuel cycle industry.
Senator Bernardi said the direction of preferences would be “subject to negotiation between the major parties”.
Cory Bernardi’s conservative party will run at least 20 candidates in lower house seats at the South Australian election, mirroring the plans of Nick Xenophon’s SA Best and heightening the critical role of preferences in determining the outcome of the March 17 poll.
The move comes after the Australian Conservatives ran candidate Joram Richa in the federal seat of Bennelong, in Sydney’s north, in a key by-election last month, polling 4.5 per cent of the vote and directing preferences to Liberal John Alexander, who retained the seat. Continue reading →
Paul Waldon Fight To Stop Nuclear Waste Dump In Flinders Ranges SA, 20 Jan 18,
John Wayne died of cancer, as did 46 members of the crew of “The Conqueror,” which was shot in nuclear contaminated environment in Nevada. Not so long ago at a Quorn anti-nuclear meeting one person submitted a written statement from hopefully a up coming film producer that they will cease all ideas of film production within the areas of Hawker and surrounding towns, if the promotion of a radioactive waste dump was to come to fruition. “Nuclear and its waste Kills all life and business.” https://www.facebook.com/groups/344452605899556/
In this Centre of Gravity paper, Professor Hugh White explores the potential and risks of an alliance between Japan and Australia. Japan is one of Australia’s most important economic partners, a close ally of the US and might be prepared to sell Australia a highly advanced submarine fleet. Yet, for all the overlap of values, Professor White cautions that there is not necessarily an overlap of interests. In particular the rise of China poses difficult questions for the long term potential for the relationship, and for Australia’s desire to avoid having to choose between the US and China.
SA heatwave will not affect power supply, Treasurer says, as TDU amateur cyclists ignore warnings, ABC News 19 Jan 18, By political reporter Nick Harmsen and staff The South Australian Government is not expecting to use the state’s new backup diesel power generators despite temperatures well into the mid-40s forcing a tight power supply balance.
The Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) has issued a level two lack of reserve notice for the state late this afternoon, meaning there is a small buffer of surplus generation available.A level three notice means unexpected load shedding blackouts are likely.
The power supply situation is even tighter in Victoria — with AEMO flagging the possibility of curtailing power to some industrial customers who have volunteered to be part of a demand management scheme.
SA’s hottest temperature so far recorded today was a scorching 47.4 degrees Celsius at Wudinna on Eyre Peninsula.Port Augusta hit 46.5C, Whyalla reached 46.4C and Lameroo and Tarcoola both had tops of 46C.SA Treasurer Tom Koutsantonis said while the state’s temporary generators were ready, they were unlikely to be used this afternoon.
“In terms of supply we should be okay,” he said.
“Victoria I understand is about to load shed industry. So they’re not coping with the power supply.
“They are a coal-dependent state and they are having to take industry offline to support their households. In South Australia we’re not having to do that today.”
In Adelaide today, the mercury climbed to 42.2C just after 12.30pm, after reaching a top of 41C yesterday and 38C on Wednesday……… State Emergency Service volunteers have handed out water at Adelaide Airport today and provided advice to international visitors to help them cope with extreme temperatures. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-01-19/sa-heatwave-will-not-affect-power-supply/9342306
BYTHE WIRE STAFFON19/01/2018The Ministry of External Affairs hopes India’s ‘credentials’ are taken into account as and when a decision is taken (on its NSG application). New Delhi: India on Friday joined the Australia Group which aims to stop the development and acquisition of chemical and biological weapons, a move that may take the country an inch closer to joining the Nuclear Suppliers’ group (NSG).
This is the third multilateral export control group – after the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) and Wassenaar Arrangement – that India has become a member of.
In a press release, the 42-member Australia Group said there had been “very strong support” for India’s membership at its plenary meeting in June 2017. Following that, “consensus was reached intersessionally” to admit India to the club. “India then reaffirmed its intention to join the group,” said the announcement.
The Ministry of External Affairs said that the series of multilateral export control groups that India has joined “helps in establishing our credentials” for joining the NSG. India joined the MTCR in June 2016, followed by the Wassenaar Arrangement in December 2017.
The bomb for Australia? (Part 2) https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/bomb-australia-part-2/, 19 Jan 2018|Ramesh Thakur As we consider whether Australia should obtain nuclear weapons, we need to ask who might subject us to nuclear blackmail. In the authoritative statement of China’s strategic vision in President Xi Jinping’s address to the 19th Communist Party Congress on 18 October last year, the three core elements of China’s vision of the new world order were parity in China–US relations; growing Chinese influence in writing the underlying rules and in designing and controlling the governance institutions of the global order; and more assertive Chinese diplomacy in that new international system.
The world therefore should prepare for a surge in Chinese international policy activism. It seems reasonable to conclude that—regardless of who may be at fault in initiating hostilities—the possibility of a future conflict with China can’t be ruled out. At the same time, Paul Dibb and Richard Brabin-Smith argue in their recent ASPI report, Australia’s management of strategic risk in the new era, that ‘it’s difficult to imagine any other major power … attacking Australia’. And there, for ASPI’s Andrew Davies, lies the rub, because ‘China is a nuclear power’.
But it does not follow that Australia must prepare for Chinese military or political use of nuclear weapons. For eight years or so, China has indulged in bellicose rhetoric and engaged in assertive behaviour against several neighbours, stoking their fears about its motives and intentions with growing capabilities. That said, of the nine leaders with fingers on the nuclear button, whose quality of nuclear decision-making is likely to be more responsible than Xi Jinping’s? Certainly not those who boast about the size of their button.
China’s nuclear stockpile is below 300, compared to nearly 7,000 warheads each for Russia and the US. Fan Jishe argues in an APLN policy brief that—notwithstanding its massively growing economy—China has consciously refrained from engaging in a sprint to nuclear parity with Russia and the US because its governing doctrine envisages only one role for nuclear weapons: to prevent nuclear blackmail.
Despite the total transformation in China’s economic fortunes since the 1960s, its nuclear doctrine, acquisitions program, and deployment and employment policies have remained essentially unchanged. It’s the only one of the nine possessor countries to be committed fully to an unequivocal no-first-use policy. Conversely, of the nuclear nine, only the US can be suspected of harbouring designs to shift from mutual vulnerability (the basis of deterrence) to nuclear primacy (which would enable use without fear of nuclear retaliation).
Of course, we can’t simply rely on the word of a potential adversary. But there are two further considerations. On the one hand, the international reputational cost to the next country to use nuclear weapons would be very high for breaking the global taboo. The cost would be even greater for a power that has a firm no-first-use policy. And the costs have been raised still higher by the new UN nuclear ban treaty. The treaty’s primary impact is intended to be normative, not operational, as I argue in the current issue of The Washington Quarterly, through moral stigmatisation and legal prohibition. It specifically prohibits the threat of use, along with banning any actual use of nuclear weapons. Instead of welcoming the treaty as a contribution to our national security, Australia has opposed and rejected it. On the other hand, an Australia reduced to a post-nuclear-attack atomic wasteland would be of no commercial, strategic or any other value to China, so the reputational cost would come with no compensating material or geopolitical gain.
According to a careful statistical analysis of 210 militarised ‘compellent threats’ from 1918 to 2001 by Todd Sechser and Matthew Fuhrmann (Nuclear weapons and coercive diplomacy, 2017), nuclear powers succeeded in just 10 of them, and even then the presence of nuclear weapons may not have been the decisive factor. Non-nuclear states were more successful at coercion than nuclear-armed states (32% of cases versus 20%) and nuclear monopoly gave no more assurance of success. In a different dataset of 348 territorial disputes between 1919 and 1995, possessor and non-possessor states won territorial concessions at almost the same rate (35% and 36%, respectively).
Lacking compellent utility against non-nuclear adversaries, nuclear weapons can’t be used for defence against nuclear-armed rivals either. Their mutual vulnerability to second-strike retaliatory action is so robust for the foreseeable future that any escalation through the nuclear threshold really would amount to mutual national suicide.
The only purpose and role of nuclear weapons, therefore, is mutual deterrence. They are credited with having preserved the long peace among the major powers in the north Atlantic (the argument that holds NATO to have been the world’s most successful peace movement) and deterred attack by the conventionally superior Soviet forces throughout the Cold War. Yet that too is debatable. How do we assess the relative weight and potency of nuclear weapons, West European integration and West European democratisation as explanatory variables in that long peace? No evidence exists to show that either side had the intention to attack the other at any time during the Cold War but was deterred from doing so because of the other side’s nuclear weapons.
Paul took that further in The Australian, canvassing the idea of investing in capabilities that would reduce the lead time for getting the bomb to give us more options for dealing with growing strategic uncertainty. North Korea’s nuclear advances and diminishing confidence in the dependability of US extended nuclear deterrence add to the sense of strategic unease.
In reply, Hughpolitely, gently but firmly rejected the implication that he’s a closet supporter of Australia taking the nuclear weapon path. He neither advocates nor predicts that Australia should or will go nuclear. He professes uncertainty about the role of nuclear weapons in shaping Asia’s emerging strategic landscape, highlights the importance of getting the decisions right on conventional capabilities first, and points to the choices and trade-offs that would then have to be made between the security benefits and risks of a weaponized nuclear capability.
Who will call out the nuclear emperor for being naked? Nuclear weapons haven’t been used since 1945—Hiroshima was the first time and Nagasaki the last. Their very destructiveness makes them qualitatively different in political and moral terms, to the point of rendering them unusable. A calculated use of the bomb is less likely than one resulting from system malfunction, faulty information or rogue launch.
On the other hand, the non-trivial risks of inadvertent use mean that the world’s very existence is hostage to indefinite continuance of the same good fortune that has ensured no use since 1945.
Curiously, Hugh, Paul and Andrew don’t explore the roles that nuclear weapons might play, the functions they would perform, and the circumstances and conditions in which those roles and functions would prove effective. This is a crucial omission. The arguments I canvassed in a review of the illusory gains and lasting insecurities of India’s nuclear weapon acquisition apply with equal force to Australia, albeit with appropriate modifications for our circumstances.
In short, the nuclear equation just does not compute for Australia.
Consistent with the moral taint associated with the bomb, the most common justification for getting or keeping nuclear weapons isn’t that we’d want to use them against anyone else. We’d only want them either to avert nuclear blackmail or to deter an attack. Neither of those arguments holds up against the historical record or in logic.
The belief in the coercive utility of nuclear weapons is widely internalised, owing in no small measure to Japan’s surrender immediately after Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Yet the evidence is surprisingly clear that the close chronology is a coincidence. In Japanese decision-makers’ minds, the decisive factor in their unconditional surrender was the entry of the Soviet Union into the Pacific war against Japan’s essentially undefended northern approaches, and the fear that the Soviets would be the occupying power unless Japan surrendered to the US first. Hiroshima was bombed on 6 August 1945, Nagasaki on 9 August. Moscow broke its neutrality pact to attack Japan on 9 August and Tokyo announced the surrender on 15 August.
There’s been no clear-cut instance since then of a non-nuclear state having been bullied into changing its behaviour by the overt or implicit threat of being bombed by nuclear weapons.
The normative taboo against the most indiscriminately inhumane weapon ever invented is so comprehensive and robust that under no conceivable circumstances will its use against a non-nuclear state compensate for the political costs. That’s why nuclear powers have accepted defeat at the hands of non-nuclear states (for example, Vietnam and Afghanistan) rather than escalate armed conflict to the nuclear level. Non-nuclear Argentina even invaded the Falkland Islands in 1982 despite Britain’s nuclear arsenal.
Australia’s nuclear breakout would also guarantee the collapse of the NPT order and lead to a cascade of proliferation. Each additional entrant into the nuclear club multiplies the risk of inadvertent war geometrically. That threat would vastly exceed the dubious and marginal security gains of possession. The contemporary risks of proliferation to, and use by, irresponsible states in volatile conflict-prone regions, or even by suicide terrorists, outweigh realistic security benefits. A more rational and prudent approach to reducing nuclear risks to Australia would be to actively advocate and pursue the minimisation, reduction and elimination agendas for the short, medium and long terms identified in the Report of the International Commission on Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament—an Australian initiative that was co-chaired by distinguished former Australian and Japanese foreign ministers.
In this three-part series, I examine the counter-arguments that proponents of Australia obtaining nuclear weapons need to address before the nation contemplates such a move.
Independent media: Our democracy depends on it, Independent Australia. Cathy McQueen“………It is hard to open a newspaper of the mainstream media (MSM) or indeed watch a television “report” today without seeing content littered with the journalistic opinion of the person writing or reporting it — even if it purports to be “straight” news.
I hate to think of what Keating would think of the Australian MSM now. We have a good 70 per cent of it — the Murdoch press — that only publishes far-right propaganda most of the time and blatant lies the rest of the time.
The Honourable Paul Keating – The Privacy Imperative in the Information Age Free for All
The remainder of the MSM does its best to do their jobs – I am talking Fairfax and The Guardianand the ABC – but even they are not immune from serving the far-right agenda of the Liberal Party at times. The African gangs outrage in Victoria provides the perfect example in recent times. The ABC and Fairfax both fell into the trap of pushing Minister for Home Affairs Dutton and Prime Minister Turnbull’s divisive agenda with this, instead of calling power to account and debunking it as the myth it was.
The Guardian is another great example of a publication that is less than perfect on this front at times. While its content is usually truthful and could even be said to be somewhat left-leaning, its headlines make the whole idea of language intelligence pointless.
Every day The Guardian’s Australian edition serves us up a slew of headlines that not only reinforce the far-right by directly quoting the latest outrage from a Turnbull Government minister – as in, ‘Victorians are scared to go to restaurants because of African gang violence: Peter Dutton ‘ – but they almost seem to glory in it. Headline after headline does this. Are they just being lazy or are they deliberately trying to confuse?……….
My disgust with my former profession extends to the entirety of News Corp’s workforce.
How do they sleep at night, I often wonder? Apparently, a lot of News Corp journalists, vote Labor, which begs the question:How on earth do they get through a day at the office?………
What I wonder about these people is this: How can anyone who cares about journalism – a profession whose main role is to call power to account, to uncover corruption and act as society’s democracy watchdog as well as informing and educating – write far-right propaganda and lies every single day? Every single day. They obviously believe it but how can seemingly intelligent people believe this dangerous rubbish? Are they sociopathic? You have to wonder.
And it is not just the aforementioned [the Andrew Bolts, Miranda Devines and Niki Savvas ] who are the offenders. The ordinary, everyday journalists at Murdoch publications are frequently called on to rabble rouse about “dole bludgers”, or “Kooris”, or African “gangs” or you name it. They attack the very working class and middle-class people that read their publications and write stories that push the agendas of the one percenters and Malcolm Turnbull’s Liberal Party mates — the banksters and Big End of Town.
It must be either soul-destroying or they must be so desperate for money that they have no choice. I could not live with myself — which is why I am studying law now. I have two years to go and I am hoping the ethics of my future profession is not going to be besmirched like the ethics of my former one. It is safe to suggest that many Australian journalists have forgotten that ethics even exist.
So is there any hope left for journalism in this country? Will we ever see reporting that is free from opinion, like Keating encouraged, or that actually does the job a member of the Fourth Estate should do — call power to account, uncover corruption and act as a watchdog on our democracy?
I remain positive. Publications like Independent Australia are leading the charge against the right-wing propaganda that has crept into our MSM — and they are doing a great job. Every time I click on an IA story I am so grateful that journalists like David Donovan and Martin Hirst still exist and are brave enough to carry on a tradition that has kept democracies healthy all over the Western world.
By only writing right-wing propaganda thanks to the Murdoch Press and the rest of the MSM, we lost a decent ALP government under Rudd and Gillard. We have been left with the current travesty of far-right ideology that governs only for its mates and the one per cent — the banksters and big business. The rest of us, along with health, education and the social safety net and, indeed, the greater good of the country can go to hell. Throw in a little racism and lack of humanity in the treatment of asylum seekers and refugees for good measure. And don’t even start me on the egregious way the MSM have dealt with climate science and climate change.
Australians should think long and hard about their media and what it serves up to them. We have a lot of talented journalists in this country who I know would like to write the truth, be independent and not serve up right-wing propaganda, constantly. We need to encourage independent media like IA as much as possible by republishing its stories on social media like Twitter and Facebook, by telling our friends and family about it and generally supporting it with our clicks every single day. We need to thank people like David Donovan and Martin Hirst, personally, for what they do.
If we don’t, we risk the only decent journalism – The Guardian and Fairfax press sometimes excepted – left in the country. The ABC has moved so far to the right it is almost unrecognisable.
Next time you open an MSM paper read it and its headlines critically; remember most are serving the far-right agenda of Murdoch and his cronies, the IPA and the Liberal Party.
Tell your family and friends to be sceptical and read your independent media and press as much as possible.
How a planned nuclear waste dump in the tiny SA town of Kimba impacts us all, Independent Australia, Should a remote farming community in South Australia be charged with the momentous decision of storing radioactive waste?Noel Wauchope reports.
THE AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT’S drive for a national radioactive trash dump continues.
It is being depicted by the Federal Government and the media as not a national matter. Indeed, it’s now not even a State matter concerning South Australia. It is now portrayed as just a local matter for small rural areas such as Kimba — population 1,100.
However, an opinion poll in Adelaide Nowshowed strong rejection of the plan for a nuclear waste dump at Kimba.
At the moment, Kimba is well in the running to host the national radioactive trash dump. In 2017, a Kimba town vote favouring this was 396 to 294 in favour. Not an overwhelming endorsement from this small community, but enough to keep enthusiasm for the project going, seeing as the matter is apparently of little concern to the rest of the State or the nation.
How come that Kimba is such a likely place for the dump?
Australia’s nuclear lobby has for decades been pursuing its plan for importing nuclear waste. In more recent years, this nuclear push has also turned its focus towards a dump for Australia’s own nuclear waste. The Australian Government, directed by its statutory body Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO), joined in this because ANSTO is obligated by contract to deal with the high-level waste returning to Australia from processing in France and the UK. This waste is currently stored in containers at Lucas Heights in Sydney……….
in 2018, ANSTO and the ever-persistent nuclear lobby are going for what appears to be a moderate aim — the same old “low level” nuclear waste dump that Howard sought in 1998. TheNational Radioactive Waste Management Act 2012stressed the idea that the selection of a site should be “consent-driven” — though, in fact, it gives the Federal Government extraordinary powers to override state/territory governments, councils, communities, traditional owners and, indeed, anyone else.
With the emphasis on landowners volunteering sites – and with financial inducements offered – rural South Australians were encouraged to come forward.
The Turnbull Government claimed it had:
‘ … widespread support from direct neighbours of the nominated properties.’
Farmer Jeff Baldock nominated his property – and will be paid four times its value – if his offer is successful. Wallerberdina Station, near Hawker, has volunteered. Both communities can expect $2 million in government grants plus a $10 million fund for community development for the chosen site.
Because the discussion has been confined to communities in the region, there is little input from experts other than those provided by ANSTO. Farming community members have been transported to Lucas Heights at ANSTO’s expense and given reassuring technical information on nuclear waste storage in canisters. ANSTO medical and nuclear experts have been running science lessons in schools and offering hopes of scholarships to ANSTO.
A very problematic area, indeed, is the fraudulent story about storage of “low-level medical wastes” being the purpose of the facility. The practice of nuclear medicine has in no way been adversely affected by the absence of a national repository and it won’t in any way benefit from the establishment of a repository thousands of kilometres away from Lucas Heights. The real need is to store the processed spent fuel rod waste returning to Lucas Heights from France and the UK. This is classified by the French Nuclear Safety Authority (ASN) as “high level” waste.
An equally problematic area is in the temporary nature of the planned waste storage. This long-lasting radioactive trash will require burial for its thousands of years of toxicity. Kimba – or whichever area ends up with this facility – is facing the risk of “stranded” nuclear waste.
An Adelaide Now article (no longer available online) quoted a local teacher, Meagan Lienert, assuring us that she has done the research and that the waste facility would not affect the local farming environment. This illustrates a major problem with the way that this issue is being pitched to the locals.
As food produce marketing expert Kristen Jelk discussed in community discussions last year on the South Australian Government site, ‘Your Say’ the perception of clean, green South Australia is all-important. The presence of a nearby nuclear waste dump would ruin that market.
Similarly, Kimba farmer Justine Major wrote to the Eyre Peninsula Tribune, concerned about the image of the local agricultural produce if the radioactive dump should go ahead.
While some in Kimba, including its Mayor, are keen for further investigation of the project as a promising boost for the local economy, are they aware of the irony in that Kimba was, in 2017 State winner of KESAB’s Sustainable Communities top town? This award honours the community that does the most to protect the environment and embrace sustainability.
Mining body says contributions ‘provide additional opportunities for the MCA to meet with members of parliament’, Guardian, Paul Karp @Paul_Karp, The Minerals Council of Australia has conceded it makes political donations and pays to attend fundraisers to gain access to members of parliament in a submission to a Senate inquiry.
graph above goes back a few years, but illustrates the continuing trend
The frank admission – which reflects a commonly held belief about the role of money in politics – sticks out because major corporations and lobby groups by and large said they made donations to support democracy.
The Senate select committee into the political influence of donations, led by the Greens leader, Richard Di Natale, asked significant entities why they made political donations.
In its response to the committee, the MCA said that it made donations amounting to $33,250 in 2015-16 and $57,345 in 2016-17, which were declared to the Australian Electoral Commission. The majority in both years went to the Liberal or National parties and associated entities.
The MCA said it paid $25,000 each to the Federal Labor Business Forum and the Australian Business Network for membership subscriptions and its staff “occasionally attend fundraising dinners hosted by individual Members of Parliament.
“The MCA makes the political contributions detailed above because they provide additional opportunities for the MCA to meet with members of parliament,” it said. “The MCA uses these opportunities to update members of parliament about conditions in the Australian minerals industry and the policy priorities of the MCA.”
Di Natale said: “Our democracy is broken when a major mining lobby group feels comfortable publicly saying they pay for access to the old parties without fear of any consequences.”
The Australian Southern Bluefin Tuna Industry Association – which donated $320,000 to the Liberal Party in 2013 – described the decision as an “impulsive mistake” made out of frustration due to an alleged broken promise by a minister…….
Di Natale said cash-for-access dinners “are being used to hide millions of dollars” and laws should be changed to require they be declared as political donations.
The joint standing committee on electoral matters is also looking at political donations through inquiries into the 2016 federal election and the government’s bill to ban foreign political donations.
Policy paper
Antinuclear 