Nuclear power is now redundant: dispelling the “baseload” myth
Dispelling the nuclear ‘baseload’ myth: nothing renewables can’t do better! Ecologist 10th March 2016 The main claim used to justify nuclear is that it’s the only low carbon power source that can supply ‘reliable, baseload electricity’, writes Mark Diesendorf – unlike wind and solar. But not only can renewables supply baseload power, they can do something far more valuable: supply power flexibly according to demand. Now nuclear power really is redundant.We have all heard the claim. We need nuclear power because, along with big hydropower, it’s the only low carbon generation technology that can supply ‘reliable baseload power’ on a large scale……
Underlying this claim are three key assumptions. First, that baseload power is actually a good and necessary thing. In fact, what it really means is too much power when you don’t want it, and not enough when you do. What we need is flexible power (and flexible demand too) so that supply and demand can be matched instant by instant.
The second assumption is that nuclear power is a reliable baseload supplier. In fact it’s no such thing. All nuclear power stations are subject to tripping out for safety reasons or technical faults. That means that a 3.2GW nuclear power station has to be matched by 3.2GW of expensive ‘spinning reserve’ that can be called in at a moments notice.
The third is that the only way to supply baseload power is from baseload power stations, such as nuclear, coal and gas, designed to run flat-out all the time whether their power is actually needed or not. That’s wrong too.
Practical experience and computer simulations show it can be done……… Continue reading
Until 18 March, South Australia Nuclear Fuel Chain Royal Commission will accept responses to its Tentative Findings
It’s a well kept secret from the whole of Australia, but the nuclear lobby plans to invite in the world’s most toxic nuclear trash – to poor old South Australia – the State with the greatest potential to be a world – leading renewable energy hub.
This plan can be stopped – as it has been before.
One step in exposing and stopping this noxious plan by a few greedy people is to RESPOND TO the ROYAL COMMISSION’S TENTATIVE Findings. their Guidelines are here
It’s not that difficult. The Commission put up fewer obstacles this time. Say what you really think.
You can find good advice on sending a response at Action Australia
By the way, the COVER SHEET has to be signed, which implies that the comments should be posted. I am posting mine, but because of concerns about the postal service these days, I am sending it by email, too. It’s not as hard as last time – much as the Royal Commission would probably like to intimidate us all into not bothering. Please bother! Comments can be lodged via email to: enquiries@nuclearrc.sa.gov.au
What does the Australian govt REALLY plan about long-lived intermediate-level nuclear waste
What should the government do about LLILW?
First, the government needs to carry out a thorough audit/inventory of LLILW, considering the following issues:
- volume/mass and radioactivity of LLILW at each current storage site;
- whether waste production is ongoing at each particular site and if so, whether storage capacity has been reached or is approaching and if so, whether increasing storage capacity is an option;
- nature and adequacy/inadequacy of current storage conditions;
- nature and adequacy/inadequacy of institutional control.
Second, the government should initiate a thorough, transparent process to consider all options for management of LLILW. There is no logical reason for the initiation of that process to wait until “the National Facility Project is underway” as the government now states. The delay is not only illogical, it also feeds uncertainty and suspicion.
What does the government plan to do with long-lived intermediate-level waste (LLILW)?
Jim Green, Friends of the Earth, 8/3/2016. Here is the government’s formal position (8/3/16 email from Department of Industry, Innovation and Science):“Australia’s current management approach toward long-lived intermediate-level waste is for long-term above ground storage pending future disposal. The preferred option for the National Radioactive Waste Management Facility, as identified in the Initial Business Case, provides for the centralised management of intermediate-level waste in a purpose-built storage facility. The Department of Industry, Innovation and Science will undertake a detailed consideration of disposal pathways for Australian generated intermediate level waste once the National Facility Project is underway.”
What is the government really planning?
1. The government is already considering deep borehole disposal of LLILW. It might be at intermediate depth, perhaps 200 metres underground.
2. Deep borehole disposal of LLILW could possibly be pursued at the same site as a shallow repository for lower-level radioactive waste. That option is floated in an ARPANSA document (see below).
3. Or the government could go in a very different direction – a stand-alone shallow repository for lower-level wastes without co-location of a LLILW store (or a deep borehole for LLILW disposal). Government representatives have said in public meetings that ILW would not be moved to the shallow repository site (for above-ground storage) for 10-20-30 years after the shallow repository is established, and presumably the reason for that is that the government is considering alternative options (borehole disposal at a different site, or perhaps above-ground storage at a different site). Or perhaps the statement that ILW wouldn’t be moved to the site for 10-20-30 years isn’t true, or at least it certainly isn’t locked in, and it is simply designed to quell public opposition.
4. Even if the government does decide that borehole disposal of LLILW is the best way forward, it would likely take decades to progress that project. So above-ground storage of LLILW for many decades at the same site as the shallow repository remains a distinct possibility.
5. The government must be considering the potential to reduce opposition to a shallow repository for lower-level wastes by separating that project completely from its half-baked plans for LLILW. That separation could be enshrined in the MoU that the government plans to establish with the host community for the shallow repository. It could also be enshrined in legislation.
That separation might indeed reduce public opposition, although it wasn’t effective in SA in the early 2000s. From 1998–2003, the Howard government planned co-location, and by the time it reversed that position and decided to separate management of lower level wastes from LLILW, opposition was so entrenched and widespread that it made little difference. The Howard government established a National Store Committee to develop plans for LLILW disposal, but it was disbanded in 2004, at the same time as the government abandoned its plan to impose a repository for lower-level wastes in SA……… Continue reading
Joint civil society groups comment to the National Radioactive Waste Management Project.
(please note that this comment refers to the ANSTO radioactive waste, which Australia is bound to accept back from its processing overseas. It is a separate issue from the South Australian Royal Commission’s purpose to invite in the world’s radioactive trash, as a supposedly profit-making industry)
Recommendation:
We believe that extended interim storage of radioactive waste at ANSTO – which is already the site and source of most of Australia’s higher level radioactive waste – would provide the time and opportunity required to build on the foundation work of the NRWMP and Detailed Business Case process.
Coupled with an independent and robust assessment of the full range of radioactive waste management options, we would also support a joint federal-state process to audit the adequacy of existing waste storage facilities and address any deficiencies, identify legacy sites that may be retired and provide an accurate analysis of current and future waste streams and volumes.
The vast majority of Australia’s radioactive waste is currently stored at secured and defined Commonwealth facilities at Lucas Heights (NSW) and Woomera (SA).
Both of these facilities have confirmed they have the capacity to continue appropriate storage of this material for many years, providing an opportunity to revisit this policy arena in order to realise the most effective, equitable and lasting outcome.
Joint civil society groups comment to the National Radioactive Waste Management Project. March 11, 2016
Our groups represent many Australians across different regions and sectors who share a common desire to advance and realise responsible radioactive waste management in Australia.
We write to provide formal comment on the approach taken to facility siting in the revised National Radioactive Waste Management Project (NRWMP) that was established following the end of the protracted and fiercely contested plan to develop a national radioactive waste facility at Muckaty in the Northern Territory.
For over two decades, successive Australian governments have sought to manage Australia’s radioactive waste inventory through the development of a co-located remote central dump and store at locations chosen by the Commonwealth without adequate consultation or clear community consent.
This approach has repeatedly failed to win social license and has been characterised by division, contest and the inability to realise a site.
Our organisations welcome the commitment repeated through the course of the NRWMP to date not to impose a facility without broad community support.
It is our view that this essential project pre-condition has not been realised at any of the six sites currently being considered. Continue reading
Community struggle against government plans for nuclear waste dump
The Government should scrap these sites, admit they got it wrong, and then apologise to the people this has affected. They should then start a responsible and correct process to decide what to do with the waste- not just pushing it on regional and rural communities with promises of financial gain. They need to find out a way to stop making more nuclear waste and research what we can do or use instead.
We’re under a nuclear cloud but we’re not backing down, Beyond Nuclear March 11, 
2016/ By Robyn Rayner. Farmers contend regularly with fire, flood and drought, but fine wool producer Robyn Rayner never expected to be fighting off plans for a radioactive waste dump across the road from her property
How would you feel if you woke up one morning and was told via a media report that you could be living next door to a nuclear waste dump?
On November 13 last year the Federal Government announced a shortlist of six sites, from twenty eight volunteered properties around Australia, for a proposed national radioactive waste dump. A property at Hill End was named. Since then our lives have been turned upside down. My husband Geoff and I, along with our family, own and run Pomanara Merino Stud directly across the road from the proposed site. It is just 1.5km from our family home. We are second-generation woolgrowers and our son James would like to be the third. This may not be important to Government Departments, but it is to us. This nuclear waste will also be around for generations to come, wherever they put it.
We have worked long and hard to achieve the clean, green and sustainable label that we have today. Our region is renown for growing the best superfine wool in the world and we have won many major awards for the sheep we breed. At no time did the landowner who nominated his property consult with neighbours, nor did he take into consideration the environment or the village of Hill End, located nine kilometres away. Hill End is a historic precinct that host 5000 school children a year and over 100 000 other visitors. The nominated property backs onto the Turon River, a major waterway for the food bowl of Australia. Continue reading
South Australia to weaken Aboriginal Heritage Act -(nice for the nuclear industry)
Aboriginal Heritage Act changes give traditional owners less say: Indigenous groups ABC News By Nicola Gage 10 Mar 16 Proposed changes to South Australia’s Aboriginal Heritage Act will reduce powers of traditional owners, according to Indigenous groups.
Amendments to the act were introduced to Parliament a fortnight ago and today passed the Legislative Council.
South Australian Native Title Services chief executive officer Keith Thomas believed amended language in the act would give traditional owners less say over their heritage. “This is going to help people who want to access lands and destroy heritage, rather than improving the protection of Aboriginal heritage,” he said.
There are tens of thousands of sacred Indigenous sites across South Australia, from ancient song lines and springs to burial grounds.
The act is in place to protect them from different activities, including mining operations. Mr Thomas said the proposed changes would make it harder to prosecute companies if they had disturbed a site without approval.
“At the moment they’re very concerning, because it’s diluting Aboriginal rights, whereas the Aboriginal Heritage Act should be strengthening Aboriginal rights to protect their heritage,” he said. Mr Thomas said the changes would also remove clause 6-2 in the act, which stipulates the minister must delegate his or her powers to the traditional owners of a site.
Aboriginal groups from Lake Torrens have been trying to use that clause over recent years to stop a mining operation from going ahead. “I think the amendments are being rushed through for some reason,” he said. “It means that the minister doesn’t have to delegate his powers and it paves the way for the miners to come back and have another go.”
Some Aboriginal groups said they had not been properly consulted over the amendments.
Traditional owner Karina Lester grew up on South Australia’s Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara Lands and did not know the bill was in Parliament. “That was quite concerning for us as native title [holders] because we hadn’t been informed,” she said.”Therefore, we didn’t know what changes were being proposed.”…..http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-10/changes-aboriginal-heritage-act-give-traditional-owners-less-say/7236302
Australian uranium fuelled Fukushima nuclear reactors at time of the catastrophe
Fukushima five years on, and the lessons we failed to learn, Guardian, Dave Sweeney, 11 Mar 16 “…….In October 2011 it was formally confirmed to the Australian parliament that not only was Australian uranium routinely sold to the corner-cutting Tepco but that a load of true blue yellowcake was fuelling the Fukushima complex at the time of the disaster. Australian radioactive rocks were the source of Fukushima’s fallout.
Surely after directly fuelling disaster Australia would have taken some steps to review and possibly reconsider our role in the global nuclear trade?
The UN thought so. In September 2011 the UN secretary-general called on Australia to conduct “an in-depth assessment of the net cost impact of the impacts of mining fissionable material on local communities and ecosystems”.
This has never happened. It needs to, and Australia’s uranium sector deserves some long overdue scrutiny.
The most recent independent assessment of the Australian uranium industry – a Senate inquiry in October 2003 – found the sector characterised by underperformance and non-compliance, an absence of reliable data to measure contamination or its impact on the environment and an operational culture focussed on short term considerations…….http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/11/fukushima-five-years-on-and-the-lessons-we-failed-to-learn
Genetic damage to later generations from Maralinga radiation fallout
New generations of Australian families suffering deformities and early deaths because of ‘genetic transfer’,news.com.au MARCH 10, 2016 [EXCELLENT PHOTOS] PEOPLE who worked at Australian atomic bomb test sites claim they have produced generations of children with severe deformities and suffered a high number of stillbirths.
Documents obtained exclusively by news.com.au show hundreds of children and grandchildren of veterans exposed to radiation were born with shocking illnesses including tumours, Down syndrome, cleft palates, cerebral palsy, autism, missing bones and heart disease.
One veteran, who was posted to the Maralinga nuclear test site in South Australia in the 1950s as part of the British Nuclear Test (BNT) program, says the radiation contaminated his sperm and is to blame for the death of a child he never got to know.
But he is not alone, with the documents detailing a litany of miscarriages and stillbirths that has allegedly passed the devastation from generation to generation.
Australian ex-servicemen and their families originally made submissions to a Federal Government review in 2003 over deaths and disabilities they believe were caused by exposure to radiation from nuclear testing in South Australia and Western Australia in the 1950s and 60s.
The submissions were later compiled to use in a class action against the British Ministry of Defence, but the case was not allowed to proceed because it was deemed impossible to prove radiation caused their illnesses. Continue reading
Australia’s uneconomic and declining uranium industry
Fukushima five years on, and the lessons we failed to learn, Guardian, Dave Sweeney, 11 Mar 16 “…….As home to around 35% of the world’s uranium reserves, Australia has long been a significant player in the global nuclear trade.
Since the 1980s Australian uranium mining has been dominated by two major operations – Ranger in Kakadu and Olympic Dam in northern South Australia. Both operations and their heavyweight owners have been voting with their feet and their finances since 2011. Processing of stockpiled ore continues at Ranger but mining has ended and parent company Rio Tinto is now preparing to commence costly and complex rehabilitation work.
At Olympic Dam the world’s biggest mining company BHP Billiton stunned the South Australian government in 2012 when it shelved an approved and long planned multi-billion dollar mine expansion.
Smaller mines like Honeymoon in South Australia have been placed on extended care and maintenance, junior companies have abandoned the field and the sectors prevailing business model is to get the paperwork in order and wait in hope for better times.
Historically the sector has been constrained by political uncertainty, restrictions on the number of mines, a consistent lack of social license and strong Aboriginal and community resistance.
Recent years have seen fewer political constraints but a dramatic decline in the price of uranium and popularity of nuclear power following Fukushima.
Australia now accounts for approximately 11% of global uranium production, down from over 18% a decade earlier. Australia’s uranium production of 5,000 tonnes in 2014 was the lowest for 16 years.The industry generates less than 0.2% of national export revenue and accounts for less than 0.02% of jobs in Australia. Less than one thousand people are employed in Australia’s uranium industry.
In an attempt to jump start the flat-lining uranium trade, successive federal governments have preferred enthusiasm to evidence. They have failed to conduct the requested industry review and instead fast-tracked increasingly irresponsible uranium sales deals, most recently with India.
Approvals are fast-tracked, regulators are complacent, community concerns are air-brushed away and all for a sector that never really made sense and now doesn’t even make dollars.
In short, Australia’s uranium sector is high risk and low return. It leaves polluted mine sites and home and drives nuclear risk and insecurity abroad. And it fuelled Fukushima – a profound environmental, economic and human disaster that continues to negatively impact lives in Japan and far beyond.http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/11/fukushima-five-years-on-and-the-lessons-we-failed-to-learn
AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT DENIES LINK BETWEEN RADIATION EXPOSURE AND ILLNESS
New generations of Australian families suffering deformities and early deaths because of ‘genetic transfer’, news.com.au MARCH 10, 2016 [EXCELLENT PHOTOSlifestyle/health/health-problems/new-generations-of-australian-families-suffering-deformities-and-early-deaths-because-of-genetic-transfer/news-story/5a74b7eab2f433402aa00bc2fcbcbea4 “…….. But the link between exposure to radiation at the test sites and subsequent illness of the BNT veterans and their descendants has never been accepted by the Australian Government.
Those who can prove they sustained an injury or disease related to their service are eligible for compensation under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (SRCA), and its antecedent Acts.
But BNT veterans told news.com.au they are continually rejected on the grounds that the levels of radiation they were exposed to were “too low” to cause their illnesses.
It’s a stark contrast to a 1999 study for the British Nuclear Test Veterans Association, which found that 30 per cent of the nuclear test veterans had died, mostly in their 50s, from cancers or cancer-related illnesses.
In addition, a 2007 New Zealand study found that New Zealand sailors who had been exposed to the nuclear testing had three times the level of genetic abnormality and notably higher rates of cancer than the general population.
Following a British decision in 1988, the Australian Government negotiated compensation for a small group of Australian servicemen suffering from two specific conditions — leukaemia (except lymphatic leukaemia) and a rare blood disorder known as multiple myeloma.
But the bulk of BNT Australian veterans have never been compensated over radiation exposure during the atomic bomb tests in the 1950s and 60s. Nor have their medical conditions been officially linked to their exposure.
While BNT service personnel have had access to disability pensions and health care under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (VEA) since July 1, 2010, and cancer treatments, many of them say they are not entitled to full benefits.
Mr Batchelor said he wasn’t even entitled to a veteran’s gold card despite all he has suffered, sacrificed and lost.
“Those (veterans) that are left could desperately do with a gold card,” he said.
“I don’t think that’s asking for too much.” http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health/health-problems/new-generations-of-australian-families-suffering-deformities-and-early-deaths-because-of-genetic-transfer/news-story/5a74b7eab2f433402aa00bc2fcbcbea4
Greens plan for solar shade in Brisbane’s King George Square
Brisbane council election: Greens promise ‘solar shade’ in 
, Brisbane Times March 9 2016 Cameron Atfield It’s long been the civic centre of Brisbane, but now King George Square has again found itself at the centre of Brisbane’s council election campaign.
Greens lord mayoral candidate Ben Pennings has unveiled a plan to cover the square in solar shading, which would come equipped with sockets for people to charge their phones in the shade. Below – solar shade , Arizona University
The Greens want to introduce solar shade, similar to this at Arizona State University, to Brisbane’s King George Square
Mr Pennings said the solar panels would generate 100,000 kilowatt hours a year to help charge City Hall, which he said would save Brisbane City Council $20,000 in annual electricity bills.
“The Greens’ plan for King George Square embraces this century rather than looking to the past of roped-off grass,” he said. “A one-off investment of $2.5m will shade King George Square with solar panels.”Residents can relax in the shade and use the power to charge their phones, tablets or laptops.
“New seating will allow people to recharge on their own or connect under the shade in small groups.”………http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/brisbane-council-election-greens-promise-solar-shade-in-king-george-square-20160309-gneylr.html
Nuclear Royal Commission findings agree with French report: Nuclear power is prohibitively expensive
The Nuclear Industry Prices Itself Out Of Market For New Power Plants, Climate Progress, BY JOE ROMM MAR 8, 2016 “……… in newly-released findings, South Australia’s nuclear royal commission found that the price of electricity from new nukes greatly exceeded not only business-as-usual projections for electricity prices but also prices in a “strong climate action” case. The Commission concluded “it would not be commercially viable to generate electricity from a nuclear power plant in South Australia in the foreseeable future.”
The Commission explicitly looked at plausible electricity prices for a new reactor in 2030 based on both current designs and possible fourth-generation ones, such as small modular reactors (SMRs). The Commission estimated the cost for the most viable nukes at US$7 billion for a typical large 1125-megawatt reactor and $2.8 billion for two 180-megawatt SMRs. The smaller SMRs would be providing electricity for a whopping US$0.17 a kilowatt-hour!
A study done for the Commission found that both large nukes and SMRs “consistently deliver strongly negative NPVs” (net present values) for both 2030 and 2050 — even for the strong climate action scenario. The Commission Chair noted that given how Australia’s National Electricity Market works, renewables are “the first energy that goes into the market” because they have the lowest costs.
The Commission’s findings are consistent with a 2014 Energy Policy study, “The cost of nuclear electricity: France after Fukushima.” Using cost data released by the French government after the Fukushima disaster, the study found the cost of French nuclear plants steadily escalated over the past four decades. Further, it projects “the future cost of nuclear power in France to be at least 76€/MWh (US$0.084/KWh) and possibly 117€/MWh (US$0.129/KWh),” which “compares unfavorably against alternative fuels,” such as wind……..”http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2016/03/08/3757281/nuclear-industry-prices/
Capping of Ranger open cut uranium mine
Ranger uranium mine open cut pit capped as part of ongoing site rehabilitation ABC Radio NT Country Hour By Daniel Fitzgerald 10 Mar 16 An open cut pit at the Ranger uranium mine in the Northern Territory has been capped after 20 years of rehabilitation work.
Energy Resources Australia (ERA) began filling in Pit 1 after mining in the pit ceased in 1996, with work continuing intermittently around other activities at the site, which is surrounded by Kakadu National Park. AUDIO: Tim Eckersley speaks about rehabilitation works at ERA’s Ranger mine (ABC Rural)
Leftovers from the processing operations at the mine, known as tailings, were dumped into the large pit and left to settle. General manager of operations at the Ranger mine, Tim Eckersley said the tailings were a “sandy, muddy mixture so it has taken quite some years to consolidate.”………..
Since 2012 ERA said it had spent more than $400 million on rehabilitation works at the mine.
Environmental management of the mine site had been marred by several incidents in recent years.Last year, a fire on the site burnt into Kakadu National Park and threatened nearby Indigenous cultural sites.ERA avoided charges over a 2013 incident when 1,400 cubic metres of radioactive slurry was spilt after a tank collapsed.
The mine has an uncertain future after traditional owners said they would not support mining operations after the mining lease ended in 2021. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-09/disused-open-cut-pit-at-ranger-uranium-mine-capped-era/7221720
Australia’s Liberal Party Wants National Debates on whether or not Climate Change is happening!
NSW Liberals call for national debates on climate change science
The NSW Liberals have formally called on the Turnbull government to conduct public debates about climate change – including as to whether the science is settled – in a stark reminder of the deep divisions within the party over the issue.
http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/nsw-liberals-call-for-national-debates-on-climate-change-science-20160307-gnd3zn.html
The Sorry History of the Liberal Party’s Religious Conversion to Climate Denialism
Lest anyone assume that this is an issue only for the Liberals, it should be noted that the Australian Labor Party’s climate policies have hardly been consistent, veering from indifference under Paul Keating, to grave moral challenge under Rudd, and finally the “art of the possible” under Julia Gillard. Meanwhile, the arcane accounting rules around the Kyoto Protocol have allowed both Labor and Liberal governments to draw a veil over the true progress.
As economist Ross Garnaut warned in 2008, it may be that the problem is simply too wicked for our democratic system to cope.
How climate denial gained a foothold in the Liberal Party, and why it still won’t go away, The Conversation, Marc Hudson, March 10, 2016 It seems the Liberal Party is still having trouble letting go of climate denial, judging by the New South Wales branch’s demand that the Turnbull government arrange a series of public debates on climate science.
Leaving aside the fact that this kind of town hall debate would only entrench opposing viewpoints rather than making scientific headway (a task best left to peer-reviewed journals), it is not the only recent example of Liberal Party members seeking to stoke doubts over the reality of climate change.
Last September, Liberal National Party senator Ian Macdonald told the federal parliament that Australia’s children have been “brainwashed” about human-induced climate change, which he described as “a fad or a farce or a hoax” and “farcical and fanciful”.
Two months earlier, Macdonald’s fellow LNP MP George Christensen attended the Heartland Institute’s climate sceptic conference. There he described climate concerns as “hysteria” and the stuff of science fiction.
And a month before that, rural Liberals called for a parliamentary inquiry into climate science, while urging Australia not to sign any binding agreement at December’s Paris climate talks.
This pervasive climate scepticism might make it look like this is a longstanding position within the Liberal Party. But history tells rather a different story.
The forgotten history of Liberal climate positions
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 