Australia on the wrong side of nuclear disarmament history
As the world pushes for a ban on nuclear weapons, Australia votes to stay on the wrong side of history, The Conversation, Associate Professor, International Education and Learning Unit, Nossal Institute for Global Health, School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne November 16, 2016 “………Australia’s role in fighting a nuclear weapon banIn voting “no”, Australia stuck out like a sore thumb among Asia-Pacific nations in at October’s UN committee meeting. All of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) members – including Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore and Thailand – as well as New Zealand and ten out of 12 Pacific island countries voted yes.
Australia is signatory to all the key international treaties banning or controlling weapons. On some, like the Chemical Weapons Convention, Australia was a leader. Australia’s active opposition and efforts to undermine moves towards a treaty banning nuclear weapons stand in stark contrast.
Australia’s stated arguments for opposing a ban treaty have varied, including that there are no “shortcuts” to disarmament; that only measures with the support of the nuclear-armed states are worthwhile; that a ban would damage the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, causing instability and deepening divisions between states with and without nuclear weapons; that it wouldn’t address North Korea’s threatening behaviour; and that it does not take account of today’s security challenges.
Perhaps the most extraordinary justification of Australia’s position came from Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade’s first assistant secretary, Richard Sadleir, who said at a Senate estimates hearing on October 20, 2016:
it is not an auspicious time to be pushing for a treaty of this sort. Indeed, in order to be able to effectively carry forward disarmament, you need to have a world in which there is not a threat of nuclear weapons and people feel safe and secure.
Can anyone seriously imagine Australian officials arguing that we need to keep stockpiles of sarin nerve gas, plague bacteria, smallpox virus, or botulism toxin for deterrence, just in case, because we live in an uncertain world?
Yet that is what Australia continues to argue about nuclear weapons. Sadleir is saying that disarmament is only possible after it has happened, when we live in an impossibly perfect world. It’s a nonsensical argument that puts off nuclear disarmament indefinitely.
As revealed in Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade internal documents, released through a Freedom of Information request, the real reason that Australia opposes a ban treaty is that it would jeopardise our reliance on US nuclear weapons.
How Australia can help with disarmament
It’s 71 years since the Hiroshima bombing, and 46 years since the nuclear non-proliferation treaty came into force, committing all governments to bring about nuclear disarmament. But that treaty is too weak: no disarmament negotiations are underway or planned.
Instead, every nuclear armed state is investing massively in keeping and modernising their nuclear arsenals for the indefinite future. The US alone has said it plans to spend about US$348 billion over the next decade on its nuclear arsenal.
Nations like Australia cannot eliminate weapons they don’t own. But they can prohibit them, by international treaty and in domestic law. And they can push other nations to do more to reduce threats to humanity – just as Australia has done with every other weapon of mass destruction.
An overwhelming majority of Australians have said in the past that they support a treaty banning nuclear weapons: 84% according to a 2014 Nielsen poll commissioned by the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, with only 3% opposed.
This is an issue that should be above party politics. In 2015, the Labor Party adopted a new national policy platform committing to support the negotiation of a global treaty banning nuclear weapons. At a public meeting in Perth last month, Bill Shorten said that a Labor government would support the UN resolution for a ban treaty.
In October 2016, our government let us down by voting to be counted on the wrong side of history. Thankfully, we can still expect to see the United Nations ratify the move towards a new treaty banning nuclear weapons in December, with negotiations set to begin in March 2017 in New York. It’s still not too late for Australia to change its vote, and participate constructively in the negotiations next year. https://theconversation.com/as-the-world-pushes-for-a-ban-on-nuclear-weapons-australia-votes-to-stay-on-the-wrong-side-of-history-68337
South Australian Premier Weatherill – apolitical martyr for the nuclear lobby
Stubborn Weatherill risks fallout from nuclear referendum, Crikey, 15 Nov 16
Significant opposition from all sides hasn’t been enough to deter the Premier, write InDaily journalists Tom Richardson and Bension Siebert. South Australian Premier Jay Weatherill has dramatically stared down his cabinet waverers and laid down the gauntlet to the Liberal opposition, vowing to continue down the nuclear path — with the question to be determined by a referendum……..
“I believe continued public debate about SA’s role in the nuclear fuel cycle is important and ultimately it is a matter that the people should decide, not political parties,” Weatherill said…….
The move effectively returns serve to Marshall, whose Liberals expected Labor to be backed into a corner by the public reaction to the divisive waste dump proposal.
However, it also means Weatherill will now become a key advocate, having resisted the overwhelming pressure to remove the issue from the political agenda altogether.
Crucially, Weatherill said local indigenous groups would be given a “right of veto” over any proposed dump “if a proposed facility would impact upon their lands” — a key factor in the citizens’ jury’s rejection……
The Premier said he had “reached out to the Liberal Party” to re-establish a bipartisan approach, saying: “There’s no point in promoting a referendum that has no chance of success.”
[Citizens’ jury decision spells nuclear disaster for Weatherill]
However, Marshall poured cold water over the prospect at a late afternoon media conference, saying: “Jay Weatherill is a desperate man trying to cling to some tiny shred of an economic framework.”
“Jay Weatherill’s entire leadership is on its last legs … I think we’re seeing the last weeks, the last months of [his premiership],” Marshall said.
“The people of SA don’t want this project, the Liberal party room in SA is against this.” Marshall emphasised that despite his unilateral move last week to “dump the dump”, the position was “passed without dissent” at yesterday’s party room meeting.
“The Liberal Party is 100% behind me,” he said.
“We do not support a referendum … if Jay Weatherill is so wedded to this, he can take it to the next election.”
The referendum proposal will need crossbench, if not opposition, support to pass Parliament, but Weatherill has indicated it can only proceed as a jointly sponsored proposal — a move that will now ramp up the political brinkmanship ahead of the state election in March 2018.
The Premier’s gambit will be met with incredulity from conservation campaigners who had all but declared the dump a dead issue.
“Most of state Parliament have said ‘no’, the Citizens’ Jury have said ‘no’, economists have said ‘no’, ordinary South Australians have said ‘no’, and most importantly, traditional owners have very clearly said ‘no’,” Conservation SA chief Craig Wilkins said today.
“There is clearly no support or consent for this investigation to continue.”
Greens MLC Mark Parnell said the “remarkable announcement … defies belief and shows a government completely out of touch with the public”.
“What the experience of the last few months shows is that if you give citizens more facts and allow them access to all sides of the debate — they vote no … that’s what the citizens’ jury delivered,” he said.
“With almost every other political party in state parliament declaring they are opposed to a nuclear waste dump, it is hard to see how the necessary legislation for a referendum would get through both houses of Parliament … a statewide referendum would be throwing good money after bad.
“The government has already wasted more than $10 million on this project and a referendum would cost tens of millions more … if the Premier wants this to be an issue for all South Australians, then he should go to the March 2018 state election with a nuclear waste dump as part of Labor’s platform — that would test public opinion.” https://www.crikey.com.au/2016/11/15/weatherill-referendum-on-sa-nuclear-dump/
South Aust Premier Weatherill wants a nuclear referendum – but no-one else does
Karina Lester from the No Dump Alliance said Aboriginal people simply did not support the proposal and it was time the Premier stopped wasting time and money on an idea that most people were opposed to.
“I will certainly stand my ground and really say to our Premier that you are not listening to what Aboriginal people are saying and you need to be aware of this,” she said.
“Why continue to pursue this crazy idea?”.
SA nuclear referendum won’t happen before 2018 election, Premier Jay Weatherill says 891 ABC Adelaide , 15 Nov 16
Premier Jay Weatherill yesterday announced he wanted a referendum, with bipartisan support, held on the issue.
Last week Opposition Leader Steven Marshall said the Liberal Party would not support a waste facility, and earlier this month a citizen’s jury voted against the state pursuing a future in nuclear waste storage.
Its report outlined concerns with economics, along with issues of trust, safety and a lack of consent, particularly from Aboriginal elders.
Mr Weatherill said a referendum would give people a final say, which could be trusted.
Democracy is messy, especially when you take the time and effort to ask ordinary everyday citizens to get involved in these big decisions,” he said.
“I think what most people do want is greater say over the decisions that affect their lives and that’s what we’re trying to do, but we’ve never said that we’re abdicating our responsibility for making decisions.”
But Mr Weatherill told 891 ABC Adelaide a referendum would not be called before the next election.
“Obviously you wouldn’t promote a referendum unless you believed it had some prospects of success so as things presently stand you would not be presenting a referendum anytime soon,” Mr Weatherill said.
“Well, not in the life of this Parliament.”
Mr Weatherill has also pledged that if the referendum goes ahead and is successful, Aboriginal communities will have the right to veto the selected site. Continue reading
South Australia’s Weatherill govt still allout for the nuclear industry
Nuclear royal commission: Uranium exploratory drilling flagged by SA Government http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-11-15/sa-government-to-support-uranium-exploration/8027168 Drilling for new uranium deposits across South Australia will be pursued by the State Government as it declares its support for increased participation in the nuclear industry.
The Government said it would support nine of 12 recommendations made earlier this year by former SA governor, Rear Admiral Kevin Scarce, when he released his Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission report.
They include developing a “state-wide mineral exploration drilling initiative to support the discovery of new deposits”.
They also include collaborating with the Federal Government on commissioning feasibility work focussed on the commercialisation of new, economically viable, nuclear reactor designs.
One of Mr Scarce’s most discussed recommendations included pursuing an intermediate to high-level nuclear waste dump to dispose of international waste for a fee.
But a 300-strong citizens’ jury set up by Premier Jay Weatherill to debate the proposal has since announced it had deliberated against the idea of a dump.
Mr Weatherill responded yesterday by announcing he wanted a state-wide referendum on the issue, provided he could get bipartisan support.
The Government’s announcement today, however, did not support a recommendation to pursue a legislative change that would actually allow for a nuclear waste dump to be established in SA.
“Having considered all of the community feedback, the Government has decided that discussion should continue on a proposed nuclear waste facility,” Mr Weatherill said.
“Continued public debate about SA’s role in the nuclear fuel cycle is important and ultimately it is a matter that the people should decide, not political parties.”
The announcement prompted feisty scenes during question time in Parliament today, with many members of the Opposition, including leader Steven Marshall, being kicked out of the House of Assembly.
In a tweet, the SA Liberal Party accused Mr Weatherill of “flip flopping” because he “won’t change policy or legislation to create his nuclear dump”.
“Weatherill only wants a nuclear referendum if it’ll give him the result he wants. He never wants to listen to South Australians,” @SaLibMedia tweeted.
Other recommendations accepted by the Government included promoting and increasing the use of nuclear medicine at the SA Health and Medical Research Institute.
It also wanted to work towards a national energy policy to create a low carbon electricity network using all technologies, including nuclear.
“We can position ourselves as leaders in developing a national energy policy, playing a greater role in transforming Australia’s energy sector towards a low carbon energy sources, such as exploring emerging renewable technologies and advancements in nuclear energy,” Mr Weatherill said.
Nuclear waste plebiscite “AFTER EVERYTHING HAS BEEN WORKED OUT”
Presumably “everything” means after the government and nuclear lobbyists had negotiated secretly with overseas nuclear companies and defence industries?
and
after they have as quietly as possible (with bipartisan support?) amended or scrapped the South Australian Nuclear Waste Storage Facility (Prohibition). Act 2000, and the federal Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act)?
Mr Weatherill refused to expand on when the referendum would be held or how the question would be 
phrased, saying only that it would be held be “at the end of the process”, after everything had been worked out.
South Australian referendum to be a plebiscite on nuclear 
waste http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/south-australian-referendum-to-be-a-plebiscite-on-nuclear-waste-20161114-gsp54x.html Peter Martin, 15 Nov 16,
South Australian Premier Jay Weatherill has committed his state to a referendum on whether to host Australia’s first nuclear waste dump, saying he will push ahead despite lukewarm public support.
The referendum will effectively be a plebiscite, because it will seek an opinion rather than change the state’s constitution. Mr Weatherill’s announcement comes ahead of the Labor state government’s formal response to its royal commission on the nuclear industry and after a “citizens’ jury” appointed by the government rejected the idea two to one, saying the dump should not be built under any circumstances.
Liberal Opposition Leader Steven Marshall has abandoned his earlier tentative support for the idea, saying the jury verdict rendered it “all but dead and buried”.
A report prepared for the royal commission found the dump would cost $145 billion to build and operate, but bring in $257 billion in revenue, boosting budget income by a third.
But two of the report’s authors have been named by the ABC as lobbyists, serving as president and vice-president of the Association for Regional and International Underground Storage, which promotes the underground storage of nuclear waste.
The report said the waste would be stored above ground in the outback for 17 years while the permanent underground repository was being built, and much would remain above ground while the repository was expanded with the income that would come from holding fees. Only after 120 years would all the waste be permanently stored.
South Australian independent senator Nick Xenophon was scathing of the findings, saying they assumed that no other countries would compete with Australia to provide cheaper underground storage and that any extra income received by the state would be kept rather than shared with the rest of Australia through the Grants Commission process.
“I supported a referendum when it looked as if both sides of politics wanted the dump, but now that they don’t there is no point,” Senator Xenophon said. “The next state election will be in 2018 and will itself be a referendum if Labor continues to pursue the idea.”
Mr Weatherill refused to expand on when the referendum would be held or how the question would be phrased, saying only that it would be held be “at the end of the process”, after everything had been worked out.
“I could have easily come here and said it’s all over,” he said on Monday. “We will not pursue a change to our policy, but if the mood in the community shifts and bipartisanship is re-established we will remain open to the question.”
Premier Weatherill’s vague promise of a nuclear waste “referendum”
Premier Jay Weatherill effectively buries nuclear waste dump proposal with vague promise of statewide referendum
, Adelaide Now Adam Langenberg, Political Reporter, The Advertiser, 14 Nov 16 PREMIER Jay Weatherill has effectively mothballed his plan to establish a high-level nuclear waste storage facility in the state, announcing nothing would happen without bipartisan support.Nuclear enthusiast Jay Weatherill angry with Liberal Opposition, calls for referendum
Nuclear dump in SA still on the cards as Premier calls for referendum, ABC News 14 Nov 16 The nuclear debate is not over yet in South Australia, with Premier Jay Weatherill saying he wants to hold a statewide referendum on the issue.
Mr Weatherill said the only path forward was through the restoration of bipartisanship “and a broad social consent secured through a statewide referendum”.
“Ultimately this is a matter for people to decide, not politicians,” he said.
“If broad social consent were to be achieved through a referendum, a local Aboriginal community would also be given a final right of veto on any future facility on their land…….
Mr Weatherill accused Opposition Leader Steven Marshall of withdrawing his support for a nuclear waste dump before the consultation process had been completed.
“The royal commission was clear bipartisanship is essential,” Mr Weatherill said…….http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-11-14/sa-government-announces-nuclear-waste-dump-future-decision/8022924
Premier Weatherill persists in his pro nuclear dream
Nuclear referendum as Jay stares down dissent InDaily, Tom Richards , 14 Nov 16 Jay Weatherill has dramatically stared down his cabinet waverers and laid down the gauntlet to the Liberal Opposition, vowing to continue down the nuclear path – with the question to be determined by a referendum. Weatherill told media a short time ago the Government had determined “that discussion should continue” on the divisive question of high-level nuclear storage, which was dramatically rejected last week by a citizens’ jury before Opposition Leader Steven Marshall withdrew Liberal support.
However, the Premier said, “the only path forward is the restoration of bipartisanship and broad social consent”, which he hopes to achieve through a referendum at an unspecified future date.
Weatherill was widely expected to drop any further pursuit of the nuclear option in the face of significant opposition – including within his own party. However, as forecast in InDaily today, he has opted to forge ahead in a move that will put his leadership – and his party’s re-election hopes – dramatically on the line.
“I believe continued public debate about SA’s role in the nuclear fuel cycle is important and ultimately it is a matter that the people should decide, not political parties,” he said………
The move effectively returns serve to Marshall, whose Liberals expected Labor to be backed into a corner by the public reaction to the divisive waste dump proposal.
However, it also means Weatherill will now become a key advocate, having resisted the overwhelming pressure to remove the issue from the political agenda altogether.
Crucially, he said local indigenous groups would be given a “right of veto” over any proposed dump – a key factor in the citizens’ jury’s rejection……His gambit will be met with incredulity from conservation campaigners who had all-but declared the dump a dead issue.
“Most of State Parliament have said ‘no’, the Citizens’ Jury have said ‘no’, economists have said ‘no’, ordinary South Australians have said ‘no’, and most importantly, Traditional Owners have very clearly said ‘no’,” Conservation SA chief Craig Wilkins said today.
“There is clearly no support or consent for this investigation to continue.” http://indaily.com.au/news/local/2016/11/14/breaking-nuclear-referendum-as-jay-stares-down-dissent/
South Australia’s ‘Community Views Report’ reinforces a resounding “NO” to nuclear waste storage
Regarding plans to import nuclear waste to South Australia, Friends of the Earth Australia notes that the Community Views Report released today is overwhelmingly negative and calls on SA Premier Jay Weatherill to abandon the proposal.
The Community Views Report follows major developments over the past week:
- Two-thirds of the members of the Citizens’ Jury concluded that the proposal should not be pursued “under any circumstances”.
- SA Liberal Leader Steven Marshall has clearly stated his opposition to the proposal and said it will be the “defining issue for the 2018 state election” if the Premier refuses to dump the dump.
- Business SA chief Nigel McBride acknowledges that the proposal is “dead”.
- Aboriginal communities across the state have repeatedly voiced their strong opposition to the proposed nuclear dump and their views are clearly reflected both in the Citizens’ Jury report and in the Community Views Report released today.
Dr Jim Green, national nuclear campaigner with Friends of the Earth Australia, said: “The Community Views report reinforces the deep scepticism and opposition revealed by the Citizens’ Jury process. The 53 percent opposed to importing nuclear waste far outnumber the 31 percent supportive of the proposal. Far more people oppose further consideration of the proposal than support further consideration. Opposition from Aboriginal people is overwhelming. Only 20 percent are confident that nuclear waste can be transported and stored safely. An overwhelming majority of people lack confidence in the SA government’s ability to regulate any new nuclear industry activities. Sixty-six percent are not confident that a nuclear waste dump would bring significant economic benefits to SA.”
“The people of South Australia have spoken. Aboriginal Traditional Owners ‒ who have always borne the brunt of the nuclear industry ‒ have spoken. Opposition Leader Steven Marshall has spoken. The Citizens’ Jury has spoken. Jay Weatherill must listen. It is time to dump the dump,” Dr Green concluded.
Community Views Report released by Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission Consultation and Response Agency
Key Findings of the ‘Community Views Report’.
Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission Consultation and Response Agency, November 2016, ‘Community Views Report’.
Jim Green, 13 Nov 16 Page 19: The report states: “Over thirty per cent (31%) of South Australians interviewed in the three rounds of telephone surveys supported the storage and disposal of nuclear waste from other countries in the state, while 53% opposed the proposal and 16% were unsure or didn’t know enough.”
Page 18: The report distinguishes ‘representative feedback’ (participation in telephone surveys and focus groups by random selection) from self-selected feedback (feedback forms, online survey, conversation kit). In the representative feedback (4016 people), 43% of people supported or strongly supported continuing to explore the nuclear waste dump proposal, while 37% were opposed or strongly opposed. In the self-selected feedback (4499 people), 64% of people opposed or strongly opposed continuation, more than double the 29% who supported or strongly supported continuation.
Adding the figures together (which the report does not do):
1727 + 1305= 3032 people support continuing to explore the proposal
1486 + 2879 = 4365 people oppose continuing to explore the proposal
Page 34: Within the structured channels of feedback forms and telephone and online surveys, 198 people who identified as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander provided feedback. In terms of support for continuing to explore the establishment of a nuclear storage facility for international waste in SA, 34% of Aboriginal people in the representative sample (total 56 people) were supportive and 50% were opposed, compared to 16% supportive and 73% opposed in the self-selected feedback (total 138 people).
Combining the figures (which the report does not do):
Support continuing to explore the proposal: 19 + 22 = 41 people
Oppose continuing to explore the proposal: 28 + 101 = 129 people
The report states (page 9): “Many [Aboriginal] participants expressed concern about the potential negative impacts on their culture and the long-term, generational consequences of increasing the state’s participation in the nuclear fuel cycle. There was a significant lack of support for the government to continue pursuing any form of nuclear storage and disposal facilities. Some Aboriginal people indicated that they are interested in learning more and continuing the conversation, but these were few in number.”
Page 22: How confident are you that nuclear waste can be transported and stored safely?
Confident or very confident 20%
Not confident or not at all confident 70%
In four places the report produces survey results regarding what the next steps should be. In all cases the most common response was that the nuclear waste dump proposal should be stopped. In three of the four cases, stopping the proposal was vastly more popular than the second most common response:
p.23: 28% stop the proposal vs next most common response 7%
p.26: 18% stop the proposal vs next most common response 17%
p.29: 25% stop the proposal vs next most common response 8%
p.31: 28% stop the proposal vs next most common response 8%
Page 24: Self-selected feedback channels showed that confidence that the government would consider community views in its decision was low at 20%, with 70% not confident.
Page 28: Asked about confidence in government’s ability to regulate any new nuclear industry activities in South Australia, 43% of the representative sample (total 4016 people) said they were not confident, compared with 38% who were confident. Of the self-selected feedback (total 3330 people), 74% were not confident and 18% were confident.
Combining the figures (which the report does not do):
Confident: 1526 + 599 = 2125
Not confident: 1726 + 2464 = 4190
Page 30: On the question of confidence that a nuclear waste disposal facility would bring significant economic benefits to SA, 66% of the people who submitted online surveys, feedback forms and conversation kits (self-selected feedback) were not confident.
Senator Nick Xenophon- nuclear waste dump “a stinker of an idea” – bury it forever.
Nuclear waste storage industry in SA ‘dead for eternity’, Senator Nick Xenophon says
, Adelaide Now State Political Editor Daniel Wills, The Advertiser November 13 INDEPENDENT Senator Nick Xenophon has declared nuclear waste storage in SA “a stinker of an idea” which should be “buried for eternity” as political support for the project collapses.Queensland government gives Adani coal mine special privileges
Qld Labor exempts Adani mine from public submission and appeals on groundwater http://www.edoqld.org.au/news/qld-labor-exempts-adani-mine-from-public-submission-and-appeals-on-groundwater/ Environmental Defenders Office (EDO) 9 November 2016:
“The Queensland Labor government last night passed the Environmental Protection (Underground Water Management) and
Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2016 (EPOLA Bill) and Water Legislation Amendment Bill 2015 (WLA Bill).
““The Queensland Parliament has passed last minute amendments to the Labor Government’s groundwater protection laws.
The effect is that the public, be they conservation groups or local landholders, won’t have any submission or appeal rights
on groundwater licences relating to the Adani Carmichael mine,” said Jo Bragg, CEO of Environmental Defenders Office (EDO) Queensland.
“Adani will still be required to obtain an associated water licence, introduced through the EPOLA Bill.
However, an exemption has been explicitly carved out for Adani
which removes the public and the Court’s power to undertake normal scrutiny of this licence. … ”
Water reforms passed
– exemption from public scrutiny for Adani and retrospective dewatering approval
demonstrate regulatory capture by mining industry
http://www.edoqld.org.au/news/water-reforms-passed-exemption-from-public-scrutiny-for-adani-and-retrospective-dewatering-approval-demonstrate-regulatory-capture-by-mining-industry/ Environmental Defenders Office (EDO) 10 November 2016:
” … two last minute amendments are highly concerning as to their impact on proper management of our water resources
in Queensland from mining impacts, and suggest regulatory capture:
“X Exemption for Adani from public and Court scrutiny of groundwater impacts of Carmichael coal mine …
“X Retrospective approval of dewatering activities for many mines in Qld! … ”
Green groups fume over Adani’s water licence exemption
http://www.dailymercury.com.au/news/green-groups-fume-over-adanis-water-licence-exempt/3110429/
http://www.qt.com.au/news/green-groups-fume-over-adanis-water-licence-exempt/3110429/
Urgent need for public education and action on fluoridation of Queensland’s water
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/disappearing-fluoridation-schemes-take-toll-on-childrens-dental-health/news-story/42ba0a46d78f96e5bbdd92f01e9657cc
New Queensland Health data shows 3223 children aged 10 and under required hospital treatment in 2013-14 for dental caries (the scientific term for tooth decay or cavities).
More than 51 per cent of Queensland five to 10-year- olds who attended public dental clinics in 2014-15 had decay in their baby teeth. On average, four teeth were affected.
Decay in Queensland children aged five to 10 was 20 per cent higher than national averages to 2012-14 and 33 per cent higher in the permanent teeth of nine to 14-year-olds.
Queensland’s Chief Dentist Dr Mark Brown said he was concerned by the “high level of tooth decay” in children, describing it as “a significant problem”.
In terms of population, about three-quarters of the state has water fluoridation – up from less than 5 per cent before the Bligh government made fluoridated water supplies mandatory for communities of more than 1000 people in 2008.
But since 2012, changes made under former premier Campbell Newman have allowed councils to pull out of fluoridating water supplies.
“My concern is for the quarter of the population in regional and rural Queensland who don’t have access to fluoridation,” Dr Brown said. “That community is being left behind when most Australians now have access to water fluoridation.”.
Australian Dental Association state fluoride spokesman Dr Michael Foley said there was no doubt water fluoridation reduced the risk of decay.
Dr Foley said he would like to see the State Government take control of fluoridating drinking water, rather than local councils. Continue reading
SOUTH AUSTRALIA’s RENEWABLE ENERGY IS UNDER ATTACK!
Victoria’s Yes2Renewables campaign is expanding to South Australia. Individuals and renewables campaign groups such as Friends of the Earth Adelaide’s Clean Futures Collective, Solar Citizens, Climate Emergency Action Network, and Australian Youth Climate Coalition are joining together to defend renewables in SA.
South Australia is a renewable energy success story. The state is fast approaching 50% renewables and has booming solar, energy storage, and wind power sectors.
This success has made South Australia public enemy #1 for the fossil fuel lobby, who will do anything to stop our transition to 100% renewables.
In July, the fossil fuel lobby and their boosters in the media blamed renewable energy for price spikes caused by big coal and gas copanies gaming the market. And in September they blamed a blackout on renewables rather than the obvious cause: a one-in-fifty-year storm.
The fossil fuel lobby is prepared to sacrifice South Australian jobs, investment in regional communities, and our climate to protect their own interests.
In Novermber, community members met up at The Joinery in Adelaide to kick off a grassroots campaign to defend South Australia’s renewable energy leadeship. For more info, visit https://yes2renewables.org/
Taiwan will NOT be sending its nuclear waste to South Australia
Today’s Advertiser (South Australia’s mouthpiece for the nuclear lobby) has an article promoting the idea of Taiwan sending its nuclear wastes to Australia.
But here’s what’s really happening
Taiwan organising to dump its nuclear wastes on Orchid Island https://nuclear-news.net/2016/08/14/tawian-organising-to-dump-its-nuclear-wastes-on-orchid-island/
1 This month.
PETITION – To: Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and the Australian Labor Government
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
19 May – Webinar- Webinar: No Nuclear Weapons in Australia
Start: 2026-05-19 18:00:00 UTC Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney (GMT+10:00)
End: 2026-05-19 19:30:00 UTC Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney (GMT+10:00)
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 