Call for Parliamentary vote required before Australia goes to war.

https://au.news.yahoo.com/call-vote-aussies-sent-war-051054745.html 10 Dec 22, Top secret information wouldn’t be compromised if Australia opened up debate on sending troops to war, a parliamentary inquiry has been told.

Giving evidence before a committee into international armed conflict decision-making, former diplomat Dr Alison Broinowski said the decision to go to war should be more transparent and be voted on by the lower and upper houses of parliament.

The prime minister and cabinet decide when the country should go to war, without the approval of the parliament.

The president of the Australians for War Powers Reform organisation said highly classified information, which might relate to military strategy, would not need to be disclosed to all parliamentarians during a debate on making the decision to join a conflict.

“What we seek is for Australia not to repeat the mistakes that we have made in the past when troops were sent to war, without any clear understanding of why,” Dr Broinowski said.

“The process should be open, transparent and public, not private.

“The national security committee of cabinet and the prime minister can discuss it, but it needs to be brought to the parliament for a debate and a vote before the commitment to war is made.”

In a submission, the Defence Department has argued against making any changes to the decision-making process, warning a shift would “risk significant adverse consequences for Australia’s national security interests”.

The Greens remain committed to introducing war powers legislation, which would require the upper and lower houses of parliament to vote in favour of deploying defence force personnel overseas.

December 12, 2022 Posted by Christina Macpherson | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, politics | Leave a comment

Dangerous radiation mishaps surge across NSW hospitals and medical centres

SMH Carrie Fellner, December 12, 2022 ,

Radiation accidents have surged across NSW hospitals and medical diagnostic imaging centres as the state records a dangerous upswing in rates of equipment malfunctions and human errors.

In one incident, which has been referred to the healthcare watchdog, a cancer patient’s radiation treatment was bungled, resulting in their healthy tissue being dosed with radiation four times instead of their tumour.

In the past financial year, there were 263 accidents across the state, or an average of five a week, according to the annual report of the NSW EPA’s Radiation Advisory Council.

“This total represents a 26 per cent increase on the total accidents reported in the previous year (209) and reaffirms the strong year-on-year upward trend in reporting,” said the report, published without fanfare last week.

“Human error is the primary cause of reported accidents, with the majority due to failure to follow procedures and protocols or incorrect interpretation of patient information,” it said.

Equipment failures had also “increased substantially” on previous years, the report noted.

The council requested “a further breakdown of equipment failures to establish if the same brand of equipment has the same errors across different sites”.

The council also recommended the EPA raise the increase in preventable accidents with health authorities in NSW and emphasise the appropriate ordering of medical imaging procedures.

In response to questions on Sunday, an EPA spokeswoman attributed the rise in accidents to increased reporting……………………..

“The EPA is investigating reports of equipment and software malfunctions, and is contacting manufacturers.”

Of the total number of incidents, 172 involved exposure to more than one millisievert of radiation.

The average person in Australia is exposed to about 1.7 millisieverts of radiation a year from natural sources, according to the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency……….

The accidents fell into three categories: medical imaging procedures such as X-rays and CT scans, radiation treatments in hospital oncology wards and nuclear medicine procedures such as PET scans.

There was a steep rise in the number of accidents reported involving radiation oncology, which jumped from three in 2017-18 to 57 logged last financial year.

Equipment failures accounted for 30 per cent of all accidents last financial year, up from 20 per cent in the previous financial year.

The second most common cause was a patient’s paperwork not being interpreted or read correctly by staff, with 49 people affected.

……………. “These incidents are rare in the context of the number of procedures performed in public and private facilities, but it is important that any incident is reviewed through appropriate channels, including the Radiation Advisory Council,” the spokesperson said.

A spokeswoman for Environment Minister James Griffin said he was pleased to see increased reports to the regulator by radiation oncology workers….. https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/dangerous-radiation-mishaps-surge-across-nsw-hospitals-and-medical-centres-20221211-p5c5eo.html

December 12, 2022 Posted by Christina Macpherson | New South Wales, safety | Leave a comment

Undue influence of the arms industry

Michelle Fahy, IPAN National Conference, 23 November 2022

Undue influence of the arms industry in Australia

Most stories I do end up being about two things: transparency and accountability. More accurately, the lack thereof, in this industry.

Today I’ll give you a snapshot of the intersection between the arms industry and the Australian government – the power and influence on one hand, and the secrecy and lack of accountability on the other. It’s hard to do simply and in a short space of time, so I have chosen a particular example from my work so far – as a case study which typifies how it works – to shine a spotlight on the undue influence of this industry. It’s by no means the only example, but it’s a really good one for illustrating how this industry can manipulate and control government decision-making to undermine the public interest to serve its own private interests. We know a fair bit about this one thanks to the Australian National Audit Office and its report.

This undermining of the public interest to serve private interests, when it becomes entrenched, is called state capture. The World Bank describes it like this: “State capture is the exercise of power by private actors — through control over resources, threat of violence, or other forms of influence — to shape policies or implementation in service of their narrow interest.”

First, a bit of context showing how the arms industry here fits in with the global arms industry.

You don’t need to read the chart. The simple point I’m making is the number of names in red – on both sides.

At left is a list of the top 15 global arms manufacturers. At right is a list of the top 15 contractors to Defence in Australia. The names in red are those that appear in both lists – showing a large amount of crossover. This is not surprising, but it’s useful to get a visual sense of the overlap.

The left column shows where those foreign companies rank globally. All of Australia’s 11 foreign-owned top defence contractors are global top 40-ish companies (KBR = 43rd), seven of them are in the global top 15.

I’m making this point, using the top 15 in particular, because the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) did a study in 2017 that found, on average, in the 20 years to 2015, the top 15 contractors in Australia took 91% of the revenue.

Along with this quick look at the extensive presence of the global arms industry here, I’ll mention a 2020 report from SIPRI (the respected Stockholm International Peace Research Institute which tracks global arms sales and military expenditure). The report is called Mapping the international presence of the world’s largest arms companies.

The report took the world’s top 15 arms manufacturers and systematically investigated how many subsidiaries and joint ventures they had dotted around the globe. To be included, the subsidiaries had to be involved in arms production and military services activities and they had to be selling their products or services to military clients. They couldn’t just be sales or marketing shopfronts, or shell companies: those types of entities were excluded.

SIPRI found 400 subsidiaries of these 15 companies spread across at least 49 countries. They are mostly in countries that have two features:

1. the country is a large arms importer

2. it’s trying to establish a local arms industry.

Makes sense, right? You can see why a foreign arms-maker would move in.

And – you guessed it – Australia ticks both those boxes. Australia is currently the world’s 4th largest arms importer, and we are one of America’s biggest clients. In the five years from 2016-20 Australia was the United States’ second biggest arms customer, after Saudi Arabia. Even before that, we have been a top 5 US arms industry customer for a long time. It’s worth bearing that in mind when the US calls us its very good friend.

We are also BAE Systems’ (UK) fourth largest market. After the Turnbull government announced its massive planned spend on weaponry, BAE’s director of international markets said in 2017: “We are really in … exciting times in the Australian market. The government procurement plans are hugely ambitious. There aren’t too many countries who have that scale of defence procurement ambition in the next 15 years.”

And that was before AUKUS came along!

This is the Australian summary from SIPRI’s report:

1. Australia is now the largest military manufacturing hub outside the two major hubs of North America and Western Europe.

2. Australia ranks second in the world for the number of foreign subsidiaries of the top 15: we have 38 subsidiaries of those 15 companies here. The UK has most with 56, Saudi Arabia is third with 24.

So, that sets the scene. It’s obvious there’s a significant presence in Australia of the topmost echelons of the global arms industry: a lot of power and influence.

The Thales Hawkei vehicle procurement is a strong example of undue influence. How the company came from nowhere to win this $1.3 billion contract is a complex and highly political story that beggars belief, frankly. It contains many elements of undue influence that pop up across other procurements, yet here they are all in one story, so it’s a great example.

It also shows, starkly, how industry bent both sides of politics to its will – that’s state capture……………………………………

The Thales Hawkei vehicle procurement is a strong example of undue influence. How the company came from nowhere to win this $1.3 billion contract is a complex and highly political story that beggars belief, frankly. It contains many elements of undue influence that pop up across other procurements, yet here they are all in one story, so it’s a great example.

It also shows, starkly, how industry bent both sides of politics to its will – that’s state capture.

So – there you have it – it’s a big story and a great example of the undue influence of the arms industry in Australia, bending both political parties to its will, against the public interest, which fits in with the World Bank’s definition of state capture – not as the only example of course. If you Google “Confronting State Capture” you will see the report I contributed to, which includes this story and a lot of other examples, alongside similar material from the fossil fuels industry. It was published earlier this year by the Australian Democracy Network.

Further reading: my November 2020 series (Part 1 and Part 2) contains additional disturbing details about the Thales Hawkei procurement. https://undueinfluence.substack.com/p/speech-undue-influence-of-the-arms?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=297295&post_id=89729647&isFreemail=true&utm_medium=email

December 10, 2022 Posted by Christina Macpherson | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, secrets and lies, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Nuclear power does not stack up for Australia – PM Albanese

Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has shut down calls for the
country to consider nuclear power options despite rising electricity
prices.

The prime minister recently declared that proponents of nuclear as
a carbon-neutral energy source in Australia are wrong. His comments came
after Peter Malinauskas, the premier of South Australia, urged both sides
of politics to be more mature on the nuclear question, saying the debate
has become “consumed by culture wars” rather than based on evidence.

In response, Albanese told radio station FIVEaa on Monday that the case for
nuclear power in Australia does not stack up, citing waste storage as a key
problem.

Xinhua 6th Dec 2022

https://english.news.cn/20221206/e6558b077e90438e977ac388f850f859/c.html

December 10, 2022 Posted by Christina Macpherson | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, politics | Leave a comment

War veterans call for Parliamentary vote on going to war, but most politicians OK with Prime Minister’s power to alone make that decision

Reform, say vets who know the horrors of war, yet most politicians say status quo

Michael West Media, by Zacharias Szumer | Dec 9, 2022

The senate hearing on War Powers Reform starts today. Of the over 100 submissions made to the government’s “Inquiry into international armed conflict decision making”, the most compelling come from Australian veterans themselves. Zacharias Szumer reports.

As far as can be surmised from the submissions, those who have experienced the horrors of war generally support war powers reform. However, some veterans in parliament remain opponents of major changes to the status quo.

Two Vietnam War veterans have called for further democratisation of the way Australia goes to war, saying that the “poor decisions and dire unintended consequences” of Australia’s involvement in foreign wars have led to “many veterans suffering moral injury” and a wider “loss of faith in the integrity of Government”. In their submission to the inquiry, John Phillips and Noel Turnbull state:

“Australia’s involvement in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan was based on justifications which were expedient politically rather than militarily necessary” and in all three conflicts “the commitment, loss of life, ongoing costs and economic and social impacts far outweighed any perceived benefits.”

All commitments were the result of a Prime Minister alone making a decision – a captain’s call in effect – without proper reflection, debate or analysis of consequences,” say Phillips and Turnbull, who were both deployed to Vietnam. Turnbull was conscripted and served as an artillery officer and Phillips was a career infantry officer.

The two veterans said that “the direct and indirect impacts of moral injury on veterans are ultimately a significant cause of veterans’ mental health”, which had led to the “the enormous cost of treating and supporting veterans and their families”. This moral injury, Phillips and Turnbull write, had led to “profound feelings of guilt or shame —and in some cases a profound sense of betrayal and anger…” among some veterans.

They join other former servicemen and MPs Rex Patrick, Andrew Wilkie and Bob Katter in calling for reform to war powers, where one person decides to take Australians to war.

Phillips and Turnbull recommend that a parliamentary vote on military deployments should be required, with limited powers remaining “with the Prime Minister and the Executive only in national emergencies where there is a direct threat to Australia”. According to the two, there hasn’t been any direct threat to the nation in any of the wars we have been involved in since the Korean War in the early 1950s.

Other veterans have also made submissions to the inquiry supporting war powers reform. Richard Jones, who served 20 years in the Royal Australian Navy, writes:

“Those sent to war, and their loved ones, should be able to do so in the knowledge that this action has the backing of the majority of the Parliament, and that there are clear political and diplomatic goals.”

……… A submission made by Retired Major Cameron Leckie similarly argues that “Australia’s long-term best interests are best served by a legislative requirement for both houses of the Parliament to vote on the decision to commit to armed conflict overseas prior to any deployment of troops.”

…….. People who went to Iraq are still suffering the ill-effects of that and will probably continue to do so for the rest of their lives, so at the very least the parliament should be making those decisions,” said Leckie in a recent radio interview.

Other veterans support reform

Leckie’s name was among 158 other veterans who signed an open letter to the parliament on ANZAC Day this year, urging politicians to “change Australian law so that our armed forces cannot be sent to an overseas conflict without the approval of our parliament.”

………That letter also had the backing of former Navy Admiral Chris Barrie, who served as Defence Force Chief between 1998 and 2002. Barrie recently reiterated his support on ABC radio, saying that he supports “the basic notion of having the parliament decide to send Australian troops to a war or conflict in other countries.”

………………………………….. Parliamentary veterans divided

Three other servicemen and current or former federal parliamentarians—Bob Katter, Rex Patrick and Andrew Wilkie—are also supportive of a greater role for the parliament. Wilkie, who served in the ADF for 21 years, has also made a submission to the inquiry, reiterating his support for war powers reform.

However, some veterans in the parliament are staunchly opposed to parliamentary war powers. They include Liberal party Senators Jim Molan, Linda Reynolds and David Fawcett, who are all members of the defence subcommittee handling the Inquiry into international armed conflict decision making…………………………..more https://michaelwest.com.au/reform-say-vets-who-know-the-horrors-of-war-yet-most-politicians-say-status-quo/

December 10, 2022 Posted by Christina Macpherson | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, politics, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Pursuing Assange in a US court could cause even more embarrassment than the WikiLeaks’ publications.

It’s possible that pursuing Assange in a US court could cause even more embarrassment than the WikiLeaks’ publications. As the years have passed, we have learned that a Spanish security firm recorded his every move and those of his visitors and legal counsel in the Embassy of Ecuador. This was passed to the CIA, and was used in the US case for his extradition. The trial of Daniel Ellsberg for leaking the Pentagon Papers failed because his psychiatrist’s records were stolen by investigators, and this should set a precedent for Assange.

Enough is enough for Albanese on Assange: our allies may respect us if we say this more. https://johnmenadue.com/enough-is-enough-for-albanese-on-assange-our-allies-may-respect-us-if-we-say-this-more/ By Alison Broinowski , Dec 2, 2022

The Prime Minister’s surprise revelation that he has raised the case against Julian Assange with US officials and urged that charges of espionage and conspiracy be dropped opens up many questions.

Mr Albanese thanked Dr Monique Ryan for her question on Wednesday 31 November, giving what appeared to be a carefully prepared and timed answer. The Independent MP for Kooyong sought to know what political intervention the government would make in the case, observing that public interest journalism is essential in a democracy.

The news flashed around between Assange supporters in and outside Parliament, and reached the Guardian, the Australian, SBS, and Monthly online. Neither the ABC nor the Sydney Morning Herald carried the story, even the next day. SBS reported that Brazil’s president-elect Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva expressed support for the campaign to free Assange.

But two days earlier, on Monday 29 November, the New York Times and four major European papers had printed an open letter to the US Attorney-General Merrick Garland, deploring the assault on media freedom which the pursuit of Assange represented.

The NYT, the Guardian, Le Monde, Der Spiegel and El Pais were the papers which in 2010 received and published some of the 251,000 classified US documents provided by Assange, many revealing American atrocities in Afghanistan and Iraq.

US Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning gave them to Assange, who redacted names of people he considered could be harmed by publication. A senior Pentagon serving officer later confirmed that no-one had died as a result. Manning was imprisoned, and then pardoned by Obama. Assange spent seven years in diplomatic asylum in the Embassy of Ecuador in London before British police removed him and he was imprisoned for breach of bail condition.

Assange has been in Belmarsh high security prison for three years, in poor physical and mental health. Court proceedings against him over extradition to face trial in the US have been farcical, biased, oppressive, and excessively prolonged.

In Opposition, Albanese said ‘Enough is enough’ for Assange, and he has at last done something about it in Government. What exactly, with whom, and why now, we don’t yet know. The PM’s hand may have been forced by the major dailies’ letter to Attorney-General Garland, which made Australian politicians and media appear to be doing nothing. Or he may have raised the Assange case in his recent meetings with Biden, at the G20 for example.

Another possibility is that he was talked into it by Assange’s barrister, Jennifer Robinson, who met with him in mid-November and spoke about the case at the National Press Club. When I asked if she could say if she and Albanese discussed Assange, she smiled and said ‘No’ – meaning she couldn’t, not that they didn’t.

Monique Ryan made the point that this is a political situation, requiring political action. By raising it with US officials, Albanese has moved away from the previous government’s position that Australia couldn’t interfere in British or American legal processes, and that ‘justice must take its course’. That wasn’t the approach Australia took to secure the freedom of Dr Kylie Moore-Gilbert, imprisoned for espionage in Iran, or of Dr Sean Turnell from jail in Myanmar. It isn’t Australia’s approach in China either, where a journalist and an academic remain in detention.

By taking up Assange’s case, Albanese is doing nothing more than the US always does when one of its citizens is detained anywhere, or than the UK and Canada quickly did when their nationals were imprisoned in Guantanamo Bay. Australia allowed Mamdouh Habib and David Hicks to spend much longer in US custody before negotiating their release. We might gain more respect from our allies if we adopted their speedy approach to these cases, than we do by subservience to British and American justice.

It’s possible that pursuing Assange in a US court could cause even more embarrassment than the WikiLeaks’ publications. As the years have passed, we have learned that a Spanish security firm recorded his every move and those of his visitors and legal counsel in the Embassy of Ecuador. This was passed to the CIA, and was used in the US case for his extradition. The trial of Daniel Ellsberg for leaking the Pentagon Papers failed because his psychiatrist’s records were stolen by investigators, and this should set a precedent for Assange.

Even though Biden once called Assange a ‘hi-tech terrorist’, as President he is now an advocate of human rights and democratic freedoms. This might be a good time for him to put them into practice. Doing so would make both Biden and Albanese look better than their predecessors.

December 9, 2022 Posted by Christina Macpherson | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, legal, politics international | Leave a comment

Nuclear submarines will be ‘massively expensive’ – (even Australia’s right-wing is waking up to this!)

Nuclear submarines will be ‘massively expensive’ https://www.skynews.com.au/opinion/peta-credlin/nuclear-submarines-will-be-massively-expensive/video/0cd71d146d5b824255a40e9a2ce6c56b

Former ASPI Executive Director Peter Jennings says Australia’s nuclear submarines will be “massively expensive”.

“I’ve said for the whole thing including training and bases and weapons, as well as the submarine itself, think of about one per cent of gross national product, so something like AU$20 billion a year forever,” he told Sky News host Peta Credlin.

December 9, 2022 Posted by Christina Macpherson | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, business, politics international, weapons and war | Leave a comment

South Australia’s premier, Peter Malinauskas, is in ‘furious agreement’ with PM that nuclear power would not work for Australia

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-12-06/peter-malinauskas-says-hes-in-agreement-with-pm-on-nuclear-power/101740942?fbclid=IwAR2AajPe6nGkHskgd0XWzR84heLMYylh1VFQGmOxmtPE5ZkoZthzzhIpw5w 7.30 / By James Elton, Tue 6 Dec 2022

South Australia’s premier has comprehensively rejected the future use of nuclear power generators in Australia, saying the “completely uneconomic” technology had already been thoroughly investigated and dismissed.

Key points:

Peter Malinauskas says he did not “seek to suggest that nuclear power should be part of the mix in our nation”
He says nuclear power is not a viable option because it would make energy more expensive
Mr Malinauskas says price caps on gas and coal are “worthy of consideration”

In an interview with ABC’s 7.30, Peter Malinauskas recast comments he made earlier in the week in a News Corp interview, that were widely interpreted as pro-nuclear energy and were labelled a mistake by the Prime Minister.

“I didn’t seek to suggest that nuclear power should be part of the mix in our nation,” the South Australian premier told ABC’s 7.30 host, Sarah Ferguson.

“I think we should acknowledge that nuclear power would make energy more expensive in our nation and [we should] put it to one side, rather than having a culture war debate around nuclear power.”

In his earlier remarks, Mr Malinauskas reportedly said he “always thought the ideological opposition that exists in some quarters to nuclear power is ill-founded”. He said people should be “open-minded” about the technology.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese responded by telling an Adelaide radio station he had a “great deal of respect for Mali, but everyone’s entitled to get one or two things wrong”.

However, in his ABC’s 7.30 interview, the South Australian premier said his only intention had been to say the nuclear power debate should be contested solely on the evidence.

“I was simply saying: ‘We’ve got people who are advocating that position without any reference to what the implications would be of the price on energy in our nation at the moment’. And that strikes me as being rather foolhardy,” he explained.

He said he had spoken with the Prime Minister on Monday evening and said they were in “furious agreement” on nuclear energy.

December 9, 2022 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics, South Australia | Leave a comment

Nuclear off table as states seek power fix

Alex Mitchel, AAP December 5, 2022 https://www.perthnow.com.au/news/world/nuclear-off-table-as-states-seek-power-fix-c-9061484 Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek were quick to shoot their Labor colleague down, each pointing out nuclear energy wouldn’t work out financially.

The discussion comes as Australia desperately seeks a fix for soaring power bills, the PM labelling talk around nuclear energy as a distraction.

“I have a great deal of respect for ‘Mali’, but everyone’s entitled to get things wrong,” he told FiveAA radio.

“Every five years or so we have economic analysis of whether nuclear power stacks up and every time it’s rejected.”

Ms Plibersek was similarly strong, saying nuclear power was “slow to build and really expensive”.

“All this nonsense about small-scale nuclear reactors in every suburb, I don’t know if there’s people up your street who want a nuclear reactor in the local park … I really don’t think that’s the case,” she told Seven.

Adelaide is expected to build at least eight submarines under the AUKUS arrangement, which Mr Malinauskas said would show safety concerns around nuclear energy were misplaced.

“In respect of my position on nuclear power for civil consumption, or use, I’ve always thought the ideological opposition that exists in some quarters to nuclear power is ill-founded,” he told News Corp.

“Nuclear power is a source of baseload energy with zero carbon emissions. For someone like myself, who is dedicated to a decarbonisation effort, we should be open-minded to those technologies and it would be foolhardy to have a different approach.”

The PM will meet with state premiers at national cabinet on Wednesday, with a cap on coal and gas prices expected to be a priority agenda item in an attempt to get power bills down.

It is important that the price of gas is reasonable and can make a profit, but the idea that you have super profits being made at the same time as businesses going out of business … is not on,” Mr Albanese said.

“We will act before Christmas and I don’t think there is a premier or chief minister who will sit back and say ‘yep this is all ok’ as prices continue to rise.”

Deputy Liberal leader Sussan Ley said Labor’s “messy” power fix was coming too late.

You can’t just clumsily wade in and put price caps in place when you don’t understand the commercial realities, the investment horizons of the companies that are onshore producing the gas, as well as the international agreements they’ve made,” she told 2GB.

“We have the state governments saying, ‘well this looks like a good idea, but the Commonwealth, you will have to stump up billions of dollars in compensation because we’re certainly not going to’.”

December 9, 2022 Posted by Christina Macpherson | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, politics | Leave a comment

Parking Lot B-52: does the escalation of US troops and installations make Australia a bigger target?

we are particularly concerned about what’s going on now and the speed with what’s going on now. As well as about how little we know or are being told.”

Then there is the matter of what is a base, when is a base a base, and whether Australian authorities are kept in the dark about what their US allies are doing.

“If our objective is to be a deputy sheriff to the US, as the 51st state of the Union, then eight nuclear submarines is the answer.”

Michael West Media, by Callum Foote | Dec 5, 2022

The Department of Defence is refusing to confirm how many American troops are stationed in Australia, who pays for it, or even why. The rising deployment of troops and B-52 bombers however, and Pine Gap, make Australia a target in event of war between China and the US. Callum Foote reports.

The Department of Defence has refused to reply to inquiries into how many US military personnel are currently stationed in Australia. It’s not just soldiers, it’s weapons too.

An ABC Four Corners investigation recently revealed that the US is preparing to develop the Tindal air base near Katherine, 320kms south of Darwin, to host up to six nuclear-capable B-52 bombers. Today it was revealed the US is trying to sell Australia the latest American bomber, the B-21 Raider, and rotate the aircraft through Australia.

Experts fear that the stockpiling of US weaponry in the Northern Territory would make Australia a target in the event of war between China and the US.

Despite the escalating presence of US troops and military hardware on Australian soil however, the Department of Defence has refused to reply to inquiries into how many US military personnel are currently stationed in Australia. Refused to reply full-stop.

We don’t even know who is funding it.

And as Chinese satellites could pick up the deployment of troops and US military installations, the secrecy is unwarranted.

B-52s here for the long haul

According to independent think tank Lowy Institute, B-52s have been deployed in the Northern Territory since at least the 1970s and military personnel training regularly in Australia since 2005.

The federal government has yet been unclear about the purpose of the deployment of the bombers in Australia. However, experts believe that the rising tensions between China and the US in the South China Sea is cause for alarm.

Alison Broinowski, the president of Australians for War Powers Reform, an anti-war advocacy group, says her network is concerned about the rising militarisation of the Northern Territory.

“We’re all very concerned about this,’’ Broinowski told MWM. ‘’It’s not new of course – the signs of it being planned go back for years. But we are particularly concerned about what’s going on now and the speed with what’s going on now. As well as about how little we know or are being told.”

Broinowski is a former diplomat, academic and author. A significant amount of her opposition to the militarisation of the NT comes down to secrecy.

“The very fact that it was undertaken in secret and would remain secret were it not for revelations from journalists we still wouldn’t know because they are doing this in secret,’’ Broinowski said.

Political commentator and former diplomat Bruce Haigh suspects the oft-cited number of 2500 rotating US troops stationed in Australia doesn’t paint the full picture.

“They give the official figure at 2500 and say that they rotate but I understood that those troops are becoming more permanent.”

To the purpose of the thousands of US marines stationed in Darwin, Haigh says, officially, it’s for joint training exercises with the Australian Defence Force but we don’t know”.

“A lot of money being spent on upgrading these bases hasn’t yet gone through the parliamentary committee system so we don’t know where in the Defence budget this money is coming from.”

Between Pine Gap, Tindal Air Force Base and thousands of US marines deployed in Darwin the exact figure is unknown. The US also has access to almost all Australian military bases with US naval personnel also coming in and out of the Stirling Naval Base in Fremantle, according to Haigh.

Then there is the matter of what is a base, when is a base a base, and whether Australian authorities are kept in the dark about what their US allies are doing.

Broinowski says the government has little oversight of many of the facilities that the US has interested in “although we call them Australia joint facilities they are for all intents and purposes American bases. About which our government knows as little as it used to know in the olden days about Pine Gap”……………………………

According to former submariner and senator, Rex Patrick, government is captured by the Defence Department which is in turn captured by the US. The post-AUKUS treaty decision to jettison the French submarine deal and agree to a bigger program to buy submarines from the US or UK reflects an Australian subsidy for the struggling submarine industries in those countries.

“If our objective is to be a deputy sheriff to the US, as the 51st state of the Union, then eight nuclear submarines is the answer. “If our objective is ‘‘defence of Australia’’, with the ability to forward deploy boats to operating bases in Singapore, Malaysia, Guam or Japan, in support of our allies and friends, then 20 AIP boats is the answer.” https://michaelwest.com.au/b-52s-in-australia-unknown-american-troops/

December 6, 2022 Posted by Christina Macpherson | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, politics international, weapons and war | Leave a comment

U.S. weapons firm Northrop Grumman no doubt salivating as Australia looks to buy its nuclear-capable B-21 stealth bomber

“I’m pretty sure you will see Australia ask for the B-21, and the United States I can tell you, is very interested in selling them to Australia,”

RAAF Chief Robert Chipman’s visit to United States sparks renewed speculation Australia could purchase nuclear-capable B-21 Raiders ABC News, 6 Dec 22

Regular rotations of America’s newest nuclear-capable stealth bomber, and even a possible future Australian purchase of the B-21 aircraft, are expected to be discussed during high level talks between both nations this week.

Key points:

The Defence Department hasn’t confirmed whether US officials have discussed deploying their new stealth bomber to Australia
Defence Minister Richard Marles and Foreign Minister Penny Wong will meet with their US counterparts this week
The US Air Force plans to build 100 of the B-21 raiders to replace their aging fleet

At a tightly controlled ceremony in California on Friday, the United States Air Force publicly unveiled the B-21 Raider, in front of an audience that included the Chief of the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF).

The B-21 Raider is the first new American bomber aircraft in more than 30 years, designed to carry both conventional and nuclear weapons, with each plane believed to cost around $1 billion (AUD).

Specific details of the in-development aircraft remain shrouded in secrecy with six currently being produced by US arms company Northrop Grumman and the first flight expected to take place next year…………………………………..

The Defence Department is yet to confirm whether Air Marshal Chipman discussed future deployments of the B-21 to Australia with American officials while in the United States, or an eventual purchase of the long-range aircraft by the RAAF.

Defence Minister Richard Marles, who has previously suggested the B-21 is being examined by Australia in the Defence Strategic Review, has just arrived in the United States for talks with Secretary Austin……………………..

“I’m pretty sure you will see Australia ask for the B-21, and the United States I can tell you, is very interested in selling them to Australia,” says Sydney-based American military author Colin Clark, who writes for the Breaking Defense publication.

“Regardless of whether they are armed with nuclear weapons or are under Australian command, I am almost certain, emphasis on almost, that B-21s will at least rotate regularly through Australia and they may well be based here permanently.”

Retired Air Commodore John Oddie, a former RAAF director-general of aerospace development, also believes the B-21 is eventually destined for Australia……….

The US Air Force plans to build 100 of the B-21 Raiders which will replace the ageing B-1 and B-2 aircraft, and could eventually be used with or without a human crew.

Both the US Air Force and Northrop Gruman have heralded the Raider’s relatively quick development, progressing from contract award to public debut in seven years. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-12-06/b21-nuclear-stealth-bomber-australian-military/101735190—

December 6, 2022 Posted by Christina Macpherson | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Albo nukes nuclear energy idea

Crikey, 6 Dec 22 Anthony Albanese says nuclear energy is off the table……

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has said SA Premier Peter Malinauskas is wrong to argue in favour of nuclear energy. Labor right-leaning Malinauskas said the eight AUKUS nuclear submarines expected to be built in his state should open our minds to the “zero carbon emissions” power source — Albo was like, I respect you, Mali, but everyone can get “one or two things wrong” sometimes.

The PM countered that the economic analysis of nuclear energy has proven it a dead end, time and time again. Why? Nuclear reactors take ages to build, they’re really bloody expensive, and where would we put the waste? Albanese asked. It comes as Coalition MP Ted O’Brien is running a “grassroots” survey facilitated by a company that works with nuclear projects in the US, Guardian Australia reports. Consulting company Helixos developed O’Brien’s website, but the MP says he paid for the grassroots community campaign himself. https://www.crikey.com.au/2022/12/06/nuclear-albanese-malinauskas/

December 6, 2022 Posted by Christina Macpherson | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, politics | Leave a comment

MP Ted O’Brien’s “grassroots” survey linked to a firm that promotes NuScam’s small nuclear reactors

Coalition MP’s ‘grassroots’ nuclear power survey linked to consulting firm: Ted O’Brien’s Time to Talk Nuclear website was registered by business that helps US reactor company, Guardian, Daniel Hurst, 4 Dec 22,

A Coalition frontbencher conducting a “grassroots” survey about nuclear power is using a website registered by a business that helps an American small modular reactor company, records reveal.

Ted O’Brien, the shadow minister for climate change and energy, issued a statement on Friday saying he was “launching a grassroots community engagement program” under the banner “Time to Talk Nuclear”.

He urged Australians to “join the conversation” by completing a short survey on the website, with the first question being: “What do you think could be the benefits of nuclear energy in Australia?”

Guardian Australia can reveal the web domain was registered by Helixos Pty Ltd, a Sydney-based consulting company whose projects include “supporting the commercialisation of new nuclear energy technology”.

Helixos lists the US company NuScale Power as one of its clients.

Helixos says on its own website that NuScale Power “is reinventing nuclear energy and Helixos is helping them bring it to market”. It adds: “Helixos also provides training for employees to become technology ambassadors and engage with stakeholders and the public.”

A search of domain records for O’Brien’s website shows the contact name for the domain registration is Lenka Kollar, a nuclear engineer who co-founded Helixos in 2020. She previously held the role of director of strategy and external relations for NuScale Power.

In that previous role, Kollar was “working to bring NuScale’s small modular reactor to market through business plan development and clean energy outreach”, according to a profile published in 2017.

Kollar addressed a Global Uranium Conference in Adelaide last month on the topic “reaching net zero with nuclear energy”.

In tweets summarising her speech, Kollar said: “The time is now for Australians to have a conversation on nuclear energy and potentially overturn the ban.”…………………………………………..

Helixos’s projects are listed openly on its own website.

It works with the Energy Policy Institute of Australia “on editing public policy papers to promote progressive, technology-inclusive energy policy”, including one focusing on “the ability of small modular reactors (SMRs) to support a ‘just transition’ for coal communities in Australia”.

Helixos states it worked with SMR Nuclear Technology Pty Ltd “to develop a proactive stakeholder engagement strategy” to “help achieve the main goal of having nuclear energy considered as part of Australia’s future energy mix”.

Robert Pritchard, who is both chair of SMR Nuclear Technology and executive director of the Energy Policy Institute of Australia, declined to comment…………………………….

The survey has only three mandatory questions, starting with views on the benefits of nuclear energy in Australia.

It then asks what concerns, if any, the participant holds about nuclear energy, followed by any questions they might have. There is an optional section to “stay informed” by submitting an email address and postcode to O’Brien’s team.

O’Brien’s website also sets out frequently asked questions such as: “Is nuclear energy clean?”

The answer states: “Yes! Nuclear power’s total life-cycle carbon emissions and raw material requirements are the lowest among other energy sources, even lower than wind and solar.”

The climate change and energy minister, Chris Bowen, has previously accused the Coalition of pushing the nuclear debate as a “rearguard attempt to undermine and deny the transition to renewables”……………. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/dec/04/coalition-mps-grassroots-nuclear-power-survey-linked-to-consulting-firm

December 6, 2022 Posted by Christina Macpherson | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, politics, spinbuster | Leave a comment