Unlike Britain,Australia is, at present, easily able to avoid a very bad nuclear deal
Secret deals: Australia’s nuclear waste plan and the UK’s Hinkley project, Independent Australia 21 March 2016, The South Australian Government scheme to import international nuclear waste has a major flaw in common with the UK’s Hinkley Point C project — secret contracts with foreign organisations, writes Noel Wauchope.
THESE TWO PLANS have something in common. Both the UK’s Hinkley Point C plan and South Australia’s nuclear waste plan are grandiose and very expensive to set up.
But, more than that, they both require the involvement of foreign governments and companies, in secret arrangements.
The South Australian Nuclear Royal Commission‘s plan for importing international wastes already involves confidential communications from foreign companies. Put into operation, the plan will mean secret contracts — South Australia being beholden to the provisions of foreign laws regarding disclosure, shipping and transport security, insurance and other matters relating to a client nation’s high level nuclear wastes (HLNW).
Plans have been suggested for foreign companies paying up front towards the setting up of the waste facility, in exchange for “ironclad contracts”to later set up “Generation IV” nuclear reactors. With foreign governments and companies involved, South Australia is very likely to become locked in to a deal from which it cannot escape. A later decision to pull out of the scheme would certainly entail heavy compensation payments to foreign companies.
Britain’s Hinkley Point C nuclear project is thoroughly embroiled in complicated negotiations with the government-owned companies of China and France. The major backer, Electricite De France(EDF) is in grave financial trouble and its financial director Thomas Piquemal has resigned, over this Hinkley project. EDF is being bailed out by the French government, so that the £18bn plan can go ahead. UK has had to agree to a contract with EDF, amounting to about £40bn in real terms, and providing State guarantees on insurance, among other matters. The plan locks the UK in, with compensation costs in the event of it being shut down, as shown in an unpublicised departmental “minute“:…….
Professor Catherine Mitchell, an energy policy expert at the University of Exeter, comments in The Guardian:
The £22bn “poison pill” effectively reduces the risk to zero for EDF and its backers, which is great for them. But from an outside perspective, it smacks of desperation.
There could be so many reasons over 35 years that you would want to close the plant, including rising costs, changes to the UK’s energy system or loss of public confidence……..
However, in two important ways, the Australian situation is very different from that of the UK.
Firstly, although the UK Hinkley project is big, the South Australian nuclear waste plan is ginormous. Potentially sourcing high level nuclear wastes (HLNW) from around the world – USA, Canada, Europe, Asia – would be a massive operation, many decades in the setting up, many thousands of years in carrying it out. The money involved would be not dozens of billions of dollars in costs but hundreds of billions.
Secondly, for all the millions in dollars now being spent on the Royal Commission project – the trips abroad, forums, research, public relations and so on – the plan is nowhere near the point of agreement, whereas the UK plan is well advanced…….
It is vitally important for Australia to pay attention to the Royal Commission plan and to the scrutiny of South Australian radiation expert Paul Langley. and others. Unlike Britain, Australia has the opportunity to prevent this plan, while it’s still only a gleam in the eyes of Royal Commissioner Kevin Scarce and the nuclear lobby. https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/secret-deals-australias-nuclear-waste-plan-and-the-uks-hinkley-project,8797
Record heat: renewable energy key to slowing climate changge
Record-breaking autumn temperatures points to a hotter future, environmentalists warn http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-20/hot-autumn-weather-across-australia-may-have-consequences/7261312?section=environmentRecord-breaking hot weather across Australia in autumn could have long-ranging consequences, the Climate Council says, with warmer conditions set to continue.
Key points:
- March temperatures in south-eastern Australia up by 12C, report says
- Perth recently had more 40-degree days than ever before
- Environmentalists say high temperatures point to human-driven climate change
In the first week of March, temperatures in parts of south-eastern Australia were 12 degrees Celsius warmer than average, the report titled The Heat Marches On said.
The Climate Council’s Tim Flannery said El Nino weather patterns had caused Australia to heat up, and that hotter conditions were expected in future.
“As long as El Nino persists, we will see these very hot conditions,” he said.
“Once El Nino fades, we will go back to less extreme conditions.
“But the next El Nino will bring a higher spike again, because the background level of greenhouse gases that is capturing ever more heat just continues to grow.”
Mr Flannery said the heat was having consequences around the world.
“The fact that we have seen record high temperatures over the Arctic ocean through this winter … means that we are looking towards a summer with potentially very low ice volumes,” he said.
“That will have a global impact. These warm conditions throughout the earth now are really having an impact on humanity in so many ways.
“Droughts, enhanced fire conditions, changed rainfall patterns, shrinking glaciers. We are now living in a new climate.”
Renewable energy is key: environmentalists
The Climate Council report said Perth had suffered through more 40-degree days in 2015-2016 than ever before, and Sydney recorded 39 consecutive days over 26C this year.
The first nine days of March in Victoria were about 10C above average, the report said, and Echuca sweated through eight days in a row above 38C. Climate Council chief executive Amanda McKenzie said extreme heat had a big impact.”As it gets hotter, fire risk is exacerbated. We saw that in Tasmania with the extreme fire in the World Heritage Area,” she said.
The report said the unusually high temperatures pointed to human-driven climate change.
Ms McKenzie said extreme conditions would continue unless Australia moved away from fossil fuels and towards more renewable energy.
“We have moved from a period of climate change concern where scientists have been warning us about the consequences of climate change, to now an era of climate change consequences,” Ms McKenzie said.
“We are seeing extreme heat, hot days; heatwaves are longer, they are hotter, they are happening more often. We will see that accelerate if we don’t do anything more.”
On the sidelines of last year’s climate talks in Paris where leaders struck a deal to slow the pace of global warming to well below 2C, Foreign Minister Julie Bishop said fossil fuels still had a future in Australia.
Ms Bishop said long-term change would come through new energy technologies.
NO TO NUCLEAR WASTE DUMP – say women and Labor voters
Women and Labor voters opposed to international nuclear waste dump in South Australia, poll finds Adelaide Now, March 21, 2016 PREMIER Jay Weatherill will need to win the support of women and his own Labor voters if the State Government decides to back the construction of an international nuclear waste storage facility in South Australia.
The results of a new opinion poll show almost 60 per cent of women and most Labor voters are opposed to a global nuclear waste facility being located in the state.
The ReachTEL Poll of 1077 SA residents conducted on March 10 found that 37 per cent of voters supported of voters supported an international nuclear waste dump, 48.5 per cent were opposed and 14 per cent were undecided.
The poll was commissioned by left-wing think tank The Australia Institute, which will tomorrow release a report critical of the international nuclear waste proposal.
Australia Institute executive director Ben Oquist said South Australians were increasingly aware of the risks posed by the project, including the damage it could do to the state’s reputation.
“I think people are increasingly wise to the projects that are jobs-rich, versus those that are expensive, likely to involve a large upfront government subsidy and won’t produce long-term jobs,’’ Mr Oquist said.
Those industries that are jobs-intensive are potentially put at risk by South Australia’s brand being threatened by a global nuclear waste dump.’’
Almost 49 per cent of Liberal, 28 per cent of Labor, 12 per cent of Greens voters backed the proposal.
But 52 per cent of Labor, 38 per cent of Liberal and 71 per cent of Greens were opposed……http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/women-and-labor-voters-opposed-to-international-nuclear-waste-dump-in-south-australia-poll-finds/news-story/35d4ad38cadbaae4798ca89e91c74f5f
Movement for a treaty with Australia’s First Nations gathers momentum
Tony McAvoy, The Point with Stan Grant, NITV:
Tony McAvoy: The time to push for a treaty is right now
‘Australia’s first Indigenous Senior Counsel, Tony McAvoy is a strong advocate
for treaty over recognition.
He addressed the ‘Need for Treaty’ forum in Sydney on Tuesday night.’
http://www.sbs.com.au/nitv/the-point-with-stan-grant/article/2016/03/15/tony-mcavoy-time-push-treaty-right-now
15 Mar 16:
“KEY POINTS
* A treaty is achievable
* There must be an acknowledgment that Australia was not settled
* The assertions of sovereignty by the British Colonies, and now by
the Commonwealth of Australia, are flawed
* We need an Assembly of First Nations
* There must be land reform
* There must be changes to the land tenure arrangements
* There must be reparations, compensation and equitable benefit sharing
* Structural reform needs to take place at many levels
* There needs to be guaranteed representation in Parliament … ”
Redfern forum: ‘Treaty framework achievable within next few years’
15 Mar 16:
“Over one-hundred people attend a landmark meeting to discuss a way forward for treaty in the next few years. In front of a packed crowd in Sydney’s Redfern Community Centre, Wirra man and Australia’s first Indigenous Senior Counsel Tony McAvoy opened the night with a decisive plan for treaty. “It is achievable that within the next few years, that we will have set a
framework for treaties to be entered into by First Nations,” says Mr McAvoy. “I think the time is now and I don’t think we should defer it,” he said to applause front the audience. … “
The ethics of burdening future South Australians with nuclear wastes?
A high-level nuclear waste dump for SA What is our moral obligation?
The argument goes: surely SA has a moral obligation to import nuclear waste…
…because we mine uranium?
…because we are more geologically and politically stable than other places?
…because we benefit from x-rays?
If we want this decision to include moral considerations (as it should), we might ask ourselves about the ethics of burdening thousands of generations of future South Australians with the cost and risk of managing highly radioactive waste, when any economic benefits are long gone.
Indigenous opponents of Adani’s Carmichael mine to intensify court battle
‘
Wangan and Jagalingou people vow to ‘take the fight up a notch’
after mine’s endorsement by Queensland parliament’ Joshua Robertson, The Guardian Australia: http://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/mar/17/indigenous-opponents-of-adanis-carmichael-mine-to-intensity-court-battle
“Indigenous opponents of Adani’s Carmichael mine have vowed to ramp up their legal fight against the project despite fresh progress by the miner and its endorsement by the Queensland parliament.
Representatives of the Wangan and Jagalingou people, the traditional owners of the site of Australia’s largest proposed coalmine, are considering a series of high court and federal court actions to broaden their unfolding battle against the Indian miner.
Adani’s failure to secure an Indigenous land use agreement (ILUA) with the Wangan and Jagalingou continues to pose a key obstacle for the project, … “
High Court challenge to Tasmania’s controversial anti-protester laws
here are environment ministers Groom and Hunt backing the arrest and punishment of Australians who make a modest stand for threatened species that they, the ministers, should be protecting.
In an age of the accelerating and irreversible destruction of our Earth’s biosphere, the untoward and often unseen influence of its exploiters is eroding Australia’s time-honoured rights to peaceful protest.
It was inevitable that somewhere, some time, some citizens would face the repressive Tasmanian laws. That stand has now been made among the stately ferns of Lapoinya and will move to the High Court of Australia where the consequences are enormous for every environmental, social, cultural and Indigenous issue in Australia’s future
Bob Brown’s arrest in Lapoinya under new anti-protestor laws, The Saturday Paper, BOB BROWN, 19 Mar 16 A 
follows their use to arrest conservationists in the Lapoinya forest. “…….The logging at Lapoinya torpedoed any hope Forestry Tasmania had of winning Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certification, the internationally recognised green accreditation increasingly sought by global markets. FSC depends on respectful relationships with local communities………
Through all of this, the nation’s most powerful potential guardians of Australia’s forests and threatened species, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and the federal minister for the environment, Greg Hunt, failed to lift a finger.
The right to protest under threat
In Australia, the option of choice for setting back conservation is the strangling of environmental protest. As the resource-extraction industries come under fire for increasing encroachments on farmland and places of high natural or cultural heritage value, a key strategy is to have governments outlaw effective political protest…….. Continue reading
Royal Commission comment period ends but Aboriginal resistance to radioactive dump grows ever stronger
18 Mar 16 Traditional Owners and members of the Aboriginal-led Australian Nuclear Free Alliance (ANFA) have today reaffirmed their opposition to the suggestion that South Australia should host a high level international nuclear waste dump. This announcement comes as the submission period closes for comments on the tentative findings of South Australian Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission
A major recommendation of the Commission to date has been that South Australia could host an international waste storage and disposal facility. This suggestion is strongly rejected by Aboriginal people across the state because of the risks posed to country and culture. Several Aboriginal communities throughout South Australia live with the negative impacts of the nuclear industry through uranium mining and nuclear weapons testing and are committed to resisting any further nuclear proposals.
“We have long memories; we remember the atomic weapons tests at Maralinga and Emu Fields and the ongoing denial around the lost lives and health impacts for Aboriginal people. We don’t want any nuclear projects here in South Australia and we won’t become the world’s nuclear waste dump,” said Arabunna elder and Australian Nuclear Free Alliance president Kevin Buzzacott.
Enice Marsh, senior Adnyamathanha woman and Australian Nuclear Free Alliance member said:
“Any kind of radioactive waste dump would put our groundwater at risk. Groundwater is about survival; we don’t want to be faced with another huge risk like this.”
Sue Coleman-Haseldine is a Kokatha-Mula woman and co-chair of the Australian Nuclear Free Alliance. She has recently travelled to Vienna to share her family’s experience with the nuclear industry: “They’ve poisoned us once and there’s no way in the world they’re going to do it again.”
“This problem doesn’t stop at South Australia’s border, there is nowhere that should be designated an international waste dump,” Ms Coleman-Haseldine concluded.
For comment contact: Sue Coleman-Haseldine: 0458 544 593
Kevin Scarce dodges the vital questions of debt & safety from #NuclearCommissionSAust plan
NuclearCommissionFerret, 18 Mar 16 A meeting was organised by ALP MPs Frances Bedford and Tom Kenyon for their constituents in the north east suburbs of Adelaide. Royal Commissioner Kevin Scarce was the only speaker, there was no balance with a nuclear critic speaker.
Kevin Scarce was asked the question:
” what happens if we accept high level nuclear waste for interim storage, then don’t have enough money when it comes time to build the deep geological dump. We’ll either end up with waste we can’t store to the safest extent possible, or a debt.”
A South Australian Labor MP has the guts to speak out against nuclear waste dump plan
“I don’t want nuclear dump”: Labor MP http://indaily.com.au/news/local/2016/03/18/i-dont-want-nuclear-dump-labor-mp/, Tom Richardson, 18 Mar 16
Jay Weatherill could face a divided party if he forges ahead with a proposal to establish a high level nuclear waste dump in South Australia, with a long-time Labor MP telling InDaily the idea is “quite worrying” – and suggesting several colleagues share the same view.
The tentative findings of Kevin Scarce’s nuclear royal commission handed down last month found an unambiguous economic case to establish a repository, with the Premier already moving to amend the law to facilitate broader debate on the issue.
But the debate is heating up in the corridors of parliament, with former Labor minister and Ashford MP Steph Key joining Greens MLC Mark Parnell – a vocal opponent of increasing SA’s nuclear involvement – in sponsoring a briefing for interested MPs by a noted critic of the waste dump push.
An email went out to all MPs this week, reading: “Dear colleagues, there’s been so much said about an economic bonanza from building a global nuclear waste facility – but what if the economics don’t stack up?”
“Come and hear from Dr Richard Denniss, Chief Economist, The Australia Institute,” it concluded.
The briefing will be held on Tuesday, after a public briefing by Denniss together with economist and InDaily columnist Richard Blandy, both of whom have argued against the economic case for a waste dump.
“I think it would be fairly well known that I’m an anti-nuclear person,” Key said when contacted by InDaily. “I have been for the last 40 years, and I still am.” She said she was “interested to know what [Denniss and Blandy] have to say about the costings that have been put forward so far”.
“People are saying it could help us economically [but] I don’t actually want to have a dump at all,” she said. “I’m just interested to know whether these billions of dollars cited actually stack up – Mark and I decided we’d try and offer something to people that can come along.”
Key says she believes SA should “store our own waste [and] I do have some sympathy for low level or intermediate level repository”, but she has grave misgivings about a high-level global storage facility.
“I want to know all about it… the study I have done, I think it’s quite worrying,” she said, citing concerns over transportation. “We keep getting things across the sea and then by train, presumably, and truck… what does all that mean? What’s the risk analysis of all that? There’s quite a bit to consider.”
Labor right-winger Tom Kenyon has argued passionately in favour of the repository, but Key – a Left-faction stalwart – says: “I want to have a look at all the facts before I come out and argue in a very public way about this issue.”
“And I want to talk to my colleagues, but I get the impression that quite a few of them have a lot of sympathy for my way of thinking,” she said. “I’ve spoke quite passionately at both convention and state council – and national conference – over the years, so I don’t think anyone would be surprised that I don’t think this is a good idea.
“I just remember Fukushima – five years on and there’s still just people helping with the cleanup, let alone the natural disaster that it was… it just seems like a very big risk to me, and if it doesn’t stack up financially I think people are starting to run out of arguments.”
Greens call on Nuclear Royal Commission to “get real”
The Greens SA’s submission to the Nuclear Royal Commission’s Tentative Findings rejects the suggestion that an economic bonanza awaits our State if South Australians would only resign ourselves to becoming the world’s nuclear garbage bin.
“The Royal Commission has been blinded by imaginary wealth and sucked into believing that a project that has never succeeded anywhere else in the World is South Australia’s for the taking”, said Greens SA Parliamentary Leader, Mark Parnell MLC.
“The most obvious question is being ignored: If this is such a great deal, how come no other country has grabbed it before now?
“The Greens are urging the Royal Commission to “get real” and critically examine the supposed economic benefits alongside the ongoing economic, social, environmental and reputational costs.
“Washing your hands of responsibility for a toxic legacy left to future generations is just immoral.
“The solution to South Australia’s current unemployment problems won’t be solved with mythical jobs that are decades into the future with the creation of toxic liabilities that last hundreds of thousands of year.
On releasing the “Tentative Findings” Report to the media on 15th February 2016, Commissioner Kevin Scarce stated, “The community needs to understand the risks and the benefits.” The Royal Commission’s “Tentative Findings” highlights many purported benefits but is scant on detail when it comes to the profound risks.
According to the Greens’ submission, the “Tentative Findings” suffer from:
1.Unrealistic expectations of the magnitude of the project;
2.Failure to appreciate 6 decades of international failure to solve the nuclear waste problem;
3.Missing costs, unfunded liabilities, missing contingencies and failure to recognise inevitable cost blow-outs
4.Heroic assumptions of other countries’ willingness to pay for SA to take their nuclear waste;
5.Lack of recognition of the potential for irrecoverable sunk costs and unlimited future liabilities;
6.Failure to address reputational damage and impact on other sectors of the economy; and
7.Naïve expectations that South Australia would get to keep all the profits from a nuclear waste dump in our State, without having to share them with other States.
“The Commission’s final report due on 6th May should recommend that the folly of South Australia’s increased involvement in the nuclear industry be abandoned.
“In relation to the other Terms of Reference, increased uranium mining, uranium processing or nuclear power were never really an option for SA and the Royal Commission was an expensive way to tell us what we already knew”, concluded Mark Parnell.
Is there REALLY profit in nuclear waste importing industry?
Conservation Council South Australia 18 Mar 16 A high-level nuclear waste dump for SA
Should we do it for the money?
The Nuclear Royal Commission claims some eye-popping revenue figures to take the world’s high-level nuclear waste.
Labor, Liberal unite to support high-level nuclear waste dump in South Australia
Labor, Liberal unite to support high-level nuclear waste dump in South Australia February 16, 2016 Paul Starick and Daniel Wills The Advertiser UNPRECEDENTED political support is being thrown behind South Australia becoming the global storage facility for high-level nuclear waste in return for a $445 billion bonanza.
Forging a historic united front on a decades-old issue of bitter division, Labor Premier Jay Weatherill and Liberal federal Resources and Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg are encouraging debate on a Royal Commission proposal, unveiled on Tuesday, for SA to store and dispose of hundreds of thousands of tonnes of spent nuclear fuel and waste…….http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/labor-liberal-unite-to-support-highlevel-nuclear-waste-dump-in-south-australia/news-story/683296ab45e53c73432c66bbe0358e34
Senate tables over 6,000 signatures against Hill End nuclear waste dump
18 Mar 16 NSW Greens Senator Lee Rhiannon today tabled 6,282 signatures calling on the government to drop plans for a nuclear waste dump at Hill End. “Over 6,000 people have signed three petitions saying no to a nuclear waste dump at Hill End,” Senator Rhiannon said.
“The Hill End community has voted at three separate community meetings to unanimously oppose a nuclear waste dump and are strongly supported by their neighbouring towns, local councils and business groups.
“The Minister and the Department keep repeating that the nuclear waste dump won’t be imposed on communities that don’t want it.
“Yet the government has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars of public money sending glossy packages promoting the dump to residents in Bathurst and Mudgee, after promising the Hill End community meetings that they had heard the message it wasn’t wanted.
“They’re now following up their promotional package blitz with survey phone calls and face to face visits to Hill End , Bathurst and Mudgee residents fishing for support. “It’s time the Government acknowledges that no one wants nuclear waste at Hill End,” Senator Rhiannon said.
South Australia Nuclear Waste Dump Plan – Future Safety Is Unknown!
A high-level nuclear waste dump for SA Can it be done safely?
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 