With nuclear-capable B-52 bombers in Australia, USA could make lethal nuclear attack on mainland China.
The ability to deploy the long-range bombers to Australia sends a strong message to adversaries about Washington’s ability to project lethal air power, the US Air Force was quoted as saying in the report.
China slams report US to deploy nuclear-capable B-52 bombers in Australia amid Taiwan tensions, SCMP 31 Oct 22
The US Air Force said deploying long-range bombers to Australia sends a message to adversaries about Washington’s ability to project lethal air power
As the B-52s could reach and potentially attack mainland China, they will serve as a warning to Beijing over a Taiwan assault, a defence analyst said
The United States is planning to deploy up to six nuclear-capable B-52 bombers to an airbase in northern Australia, a source familiar with the matter said on Monday, amid heightened tensions with Beijing.
Dedicated facilities for the bombers will be set up at Australian air force’s remote Tindal base, about 300km (190 miles) south of Darwin, the capital of Australia’s Northern Territory, said the source, who declined to be identified because they are not authorised to speak publicly on the issue.
The development was first reported by the Australian Broadcasting Corp (ABC)‘s Four Corners programme, citing US documents………………………..
Australia’s Northern Territory is already host to frequent military collaborations with the United States. Thousands of US marines rotate through the territory annually for training and joint exercises, first started under President Barack Obama.
Australian Defence Minister Richard Marles’ office did not immediately respond to a request seeking comment…………………
The ability to deploy the long-range bombers to Australia sends a strong message to adversaries about Washington’s ability to project lethal air power, the US Air Force was quoted as saying in the report.
Last year, the US, Britain and Australia created a security deal that will provide Australia with the technology to deploy nuclear-powered submarines, riling China.
Becca Wasser, senior fellow at the Washington-based Centre for a New American Security, told the ABC that putting B-52s that could reach and potentially attack mainland China in Australia will be a warning to Beijing, as fears grow of an assault on Taiwan.
Asked about US nuclear bombers being positioned in Australia, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Zhao Lijian said defence and security cooperation between countries should “not target any third parties or harm the interests of third parties.”
“The relevant US behaviours have increased regional tensions, seriously undermined regional peace and stability, and may trigger an arms race in the region,” Zhao told reporters at a regular briefing in Beijing
“China urges the parties concerned to abandon the outdated Cold War and zero-sum mentality and narrow-minded geopolitical thinking, and to do something conducive to regional peace and stability and enhancing mutual trust between the countries,” Zhao added. https://scmp.com/news/asia/australasia/article/3197806/amid-taiwan-tensions-us-deploy-nuclear-capable-b-
Australia’s slack journalists – mindlessly regurgitate handouts from military-industrial-corporate complex – especially re nuclear submarines
Captive media: what does the submarine scandal tell us about our “defence correspondents”?
The Washington Post documentation of the compromising of the Australian submarine procurement program is a devastating example of Australian state capture by foreign influences – state and corporate – in the case of Australia’s planned largest-ever defence spend.
But the Australian media are missing in inaction.
By Richard Tanter. Oct 26, 2022,
Why did no Australian media outlet tell us the easily discovered truth about the compromising of the integrity of the Australian submarine decision process revealed by US journalists last week?
On October 18th the Washington Post published a closely documented article by Craig Whitlock and Nate Jones titled “Former U.S. Navy Leaders Profited From Overlapping Interests On Sub Deal”.
In unarguable detail Whitlock and Jones laid out the role played by a veritable squadron of retired US admirals and former senior US defence officials in the Australian decision to acquire nuclear-powered submarines.
The opening paragraphs of the Washington Post article make clear the extent to which the Australian submarine procurement decision has been hopelessly compromised and indeed corrupted:
“Two retired U.S. admirals and three former U.S. Navy civilian leaders are playing critical but secretive roles as paid advisers to the government of Australia during its negotiations to acquire top-secret nuclear submarine technology from the United States and Britain.
“The Americans are among a group of former U.S. Navy officials whom the Australian government has hired as high-dollar consultants to help transform its fleet of ships and submarines, receiving contracts worth as much as $800,000 a person, documents show.
“All told, six retired U.S. admirals have worked for the Australian government since 2015, including one who served for two years as Australia’s deputy secretary of defense. In addition, a former U.S. secretary of the Navy has been a paid adviser to three successive Australian prime ministers.
“A Washington Post investigation found that the former U.S. Navy officials have benefited financially from a tangle of overlapping interests in their work for a longtime ally of the United States. Some of the retired admirals have worked for the Australian government while simultaneously consulting for U.S. shipbuilders and the U.S. Navy, including on classified programs.”
Former Defence official Mike Scrafton responded by calling for an urgent public review, saying:
“On the evidence it appears that the nuclear powered submarine decision process was heavily influenced by a clique of former US Navy Admirals with potential conflicts of interest, and who were generously paid by the Australian government. What confidence can Australians have in the soundness of this opaque, overpriced, strategically unjustifiable, and massively underspecified project?”
Scrafton’s excoriating and incisive assessment missed one important aspect of the explosive Washington Post story.
Why was this extraordinarily important story about the compromising of Australian sovereignty and the integrity of Defence procurement discovered by two American journalists and published in a US newspaper?
The documentation of the Washington Post article is complex and detailed, but almost wholly based on documents obtained under the US Freedom of Information Act.
The journalists’ work must have been assiduous over a long period, and would have required funding and editorial support from Post management.
But on the face of it, it was a straightforward, albeit brilliant, use of FOIA materials.
Nothing would have stopped our correspondents in Canberra doing the same thing.
Non-US citizens can use the US FOIA, and distance from Washington is no barrier.
Moreover, as Whitlock and Jones indicate, much of the story was lying about the Canberra landscape in plain sight.
Why then did no defence correspondents for the Australian media majors beat the Post to the story? Or have a go at even a small part of it?
The various parts of the News Corp Australia, the sometime Fairfax-now Nine Entertainment, and Seven West Media commercial media companies, as well as the ABC News division, all have dedicated “defence correspondents”, all filing frequently.
Most in reality do little more than rehashing media releases from the bloated Defence and ADF media units and their better-funded military industry corporate suppliers.
It is a long time since any Australian media major has had a proper and well-supported defence or national security correspondent. It is over a decade since the then Fairfax group laid off the best national security journalist of his generation, Philip Dorling.
The failure of our national media to reach even minimal standards of scrutiny of our massive defence spending programs and the lobbying networks of retired politicians, officials and ADF senior officers on the books and boards of multinational arms companies is effectively another case of state capture.
Other Australian instances have been well documented by studies such as the Australian Democracy Network’s Confronting State Capture, and Michelle Fahy and her colleagues in the Undue Influence group.
With well documented and carefully argued studies, both groups have demonstrated the vulnerability of Australian democracy and sovereignty to undue, illegitimate, and unacknowledged influences – especially in defence.
The Washington Post documentation of the compromising of the Australian submarine procurement program is a devastating example of Australian state capture by foreign influences – state and corporate – in the case of Australia’s planned largest-ever defence spend.
But the Australian media are missing in inaction.
Rather than an endlessly reheated nuclear debate, politicians should be powered by the evidence
[Liberal Coalition opposition leader Peter] Dutton was mostly dismissive of batteries in his budget reply, and implied small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs) – a commercially unproven technology that has been repeatedly delayed and more expensive than promised – could be the answer that ensures cheap energy.
No evidence has been presented to suggest Small Modular Nuclear Reactors are needed to meet demand in Australia, given the country’s wealth of renewable options. Never mind that no independent evidence has been offered to suggest it could compete on price.
Guardian Adam Morton, 31 Oct 22, A renewable-dominated system is comfortably the cheapest form of power generation, according to research.
We should be wary of simple declarations about the increasingly rapid transformation of the electricity grid.
The government has been given a sharp reminder of this after leaning too heavily on pre-election modelling that suggested its policies to boost renewable energy could lead to a $275 cut in bills by 2025. You never know when a Vladimir Putin-shaped villain might disrupt international fossil fuel markets, wreck your assumptions and leave you accused of breaking an election pledge.
Peter Dutton doesn’t have this excuse. The most generous thing that can be said about his foray into the debate over electricity last week is that he might want to get a broader range of advice.
Giving his budget reply speech, the opposition leader said the Coalition wanted more renewable energy, but it just wasn’t possible yet, and it was a mistake for the government to allow ageing and expensive fossil fuel power to be phased out now.
More specifically: “The technology doesn’t yet exist at the scale that is needed to store renewable energy for electricity to be reliable at night, or during peak periods. That is just the scientific reality.”
To put it mildly, this is not the consensus opinion of experts in the field.
David Osmond, a Canberra-based engineer with the global energy developer Windlab, is among those with a markedly different, evidence-based take. For more than a year, he has been posting weekly results from a live simulation tracking what would happen in Australia’s main electricity grid if it relied primarily on renewable energy.
Using a live stream of electricity data from Opennem, he adjusted inputs to see what would happen if there was enough wind and solar energy to supply 60% and 45% of demand respectively. He added enough short-term storage, likely to be in the form of batteries, to supply average demand for five hours.
The results are encouraging. They suggest close to 100% of demand – 98.9% over a 61-week period – could be delivered by solar and wind backed by existing hydro power and the five hours of storage. Nearly 90% of demand was met directly by renewable energy and 10% had to pass through storage. Achieving it would require a major expansion of transmission, as proposed by Labor under its Rewiring the Nation policy………………………………………………………
Plenty of other studies have reached similar conclusions. The big one is the Australian Energy Market Operator’s integrated system plan, a roadmap for the optimal future grid that was released in June. It backed an accelerated build of available technology to reach 83% of renewable generation by 2030, 96% by 2040 and 98% by 2050 as the best, most likely option.
Presented with this evidence, Dutton and the Coalition continue to opt for none of the above.
They appear to have joined a small band, including many in the usual right-wing media echo chambers, convinced that the evidence presented is wrong. Dutton was mostly dismissive of batteries in his budget reply, and implied small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs) – a commercially unproven technology that has been repeatedly delayed and more expensive than promised – could be the answer that ensures cheap energy.
No evidence has been presented to suggest SMRs are needed to meet demand in Australia, given the country’s wealth of renewable options. Never mind that no independent evidence has been offered to suggest it could compete on price.
If SMRs prove economically viable and safe elsewhere there is nothing to stop Australia considering their use, perhaps at remote off-grid industrial sites. It will be a good thing if they are viable, given not every country has ample alternatives to fossil fuels. But they are not designed to do the job needed here – to turn on occasionally and fill gaps in a system running on cheaper, renewable energy.
Rather than an endlessly reheated debate about nuclear – the Coalition is holding another review, so expect plenty more of this – Australians would be better served if its politicians had a close look at a major report last week by the International Energy Agency.
For the first time, the IEA forecast that fossil fuel use across the globe would peak in the next few years as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine accelerated a shift to clean fuels. It found existing policies would soon lead to coal use falling and demand for gas would plateau by the end of the decade. The declines will be much faster if, as expected, climate action continues to ramp up.
Australia has one of the world’s largest fossil fuel export industries. It is supporting massive developments expected to last until late into the century as though nothing much is going to change.
The significant climate impact of these developments is still routinely overlooked by the major parties on the grounds the gas and coal are burned overseas, and therefore somehow not Australia’s problem. But what about the economic and social impact of their potentially rapid decline?
Now there’s an issue truly worthy of more parliamentary debate and action. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/oct/30/rather-than-an-endlessly-reheated-nuclear-debate-politicians-should-be-powered-by-the-evidence
US Air Force to deploy nuclear-capable B-52 bombers to Australia
The US Air Force is preparing to deploy up to six nuclear-capable B-52 bombers to northern Australia in a show of “nuclear deterrence” to China.
news.com.au Frank Chung @franks_chung, October 31, 2022 ,
The US Air Force is preparing to deploy up to six nuclear-capable B-52 bombers to northern Australia in a show of “nuclear deterrence” to China, amid growing fears of an invasion of Taiwan.
According to an investigation by the ABC’s Four Corners airing on Monday, Washington has drawn up plans to build a dedicated a “squadron operations facility” at the Tindal air base south of Darwin that will house “six B-52s”.
The giant aircraft, with wingspan of 56 metres, have a combat range of more than 14,000 kilometres and are capable of delivering both nuclear and conventional weapons.
Documents obtained by Four Corners show the planned facilities, which will include a parking area and adjoining maintenance centre, will be used for “deployed B-52 squadrons”.
“The ability to deploy US Air Force bombers to Australia sends a strong message to adversaries about our ability to project lethal air power,” the US Air Force told the program.
The Defence Department has been contacted for comment.
According to the program, the Tindal air base plan — expected to cost up to $US100 million and be completed by 2026 — is part of a much larger upgrade of defence assets across northern Australia, including the Pine Gap spy base.
Anti-nuclear activist Richard Tanter from the Nautilus Institute told Four Corners the move greatly expanded Australia’s commitment to any US war with China.
“It’s a sign to the Chinese that we are willing to be the tip of the spear,” he said.
“It’s very hard to think of a more open commitment that we could make. A more open signal to the Chinese that we are going along with American planning for a war with China.”
The plans were hinted at in last year’s annual Australia-United States Ministerial (AUSMIN) meetings, which agreed for “enhanced air co-operation” which would see “rotational deployment of US aircraft of all types in Australia”, although B-52s were not explicitly mentioned……………………..
NSW Greens Senator David Shoebridge slammed the “dangerous escalation”.
“It makes Australia an even bigger part of the global nuclear weapons threat to humanity’s very existence — and by rising military tensions it further destabilises our region,” he said……………………………………………………. more https://www.news.com.au/technology/innovation/military/us-air-force-to-deploy-nuclearcapable-b52-bombers-to-australia/news-story/dd7cc13dc270dbabb332cc200e279b7c
Government Confirms No Nuclear for Australia, At Least Any Time Soon
https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2022/10/australia-nuclear-energy/ Asha Barbaschow, October 31, 2022 “……………………………… Addressing Senate Estimates on Friday, representatives from the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet put this to bed.
Summarising the government’s position, the department’s acting deputy secretary for the economy, industry and G20, James Chisholm, said the cheapest form of new energy for investment is renewable energy. We’ve got too much sun and wind to not make the most of it.
That is because it has zero marginal cost,” he said.
“By that I mean there’s a cost associated with building it, seeking approval for it and its initial construction, but once that happens it doesn’t have the same costs associated with it that traditional base-load generation, whether it’s coal-fired or nuclear, has.”
There are a lot of costs associated with those forms of energy, with the CSIRO forecasting that small nuclear modular reactors would have a levelized cost of energy of between $136 and $326 per megawatt hour in 2030. Whereas the levelized cost of energy such as renewable energy is a lot lower.
“It would be estimated to cost between something like $53 to $82 per megawatt hour,” Chisolm explained.
“Really importantly, that includes firming costs.
“Often what happens is people look at these figures and say, ‘Yes, but with renewables you’re not factoring in firming and integration costs.’ But the CSIRO work does factor that in. According to CSIRO, and this is consistent with other analyses, it comes in way cheaper. And that flows through to bills.”
Although this report was published a few months ago, Chisholm said as time goes on, that cost comparison becomes more stark.
“We’re seeing it play out in other markets. If you look at those markets where nuclear power is a significant proportion of the generation mix, nuclear is experiencing the same challenges that coal-fired generation has experienced, simply because of how high the cost is. When it comes to competitive markets for energy, it is difficult for those forms of energy to compete with renewables, particularly for firmed renewables,” he said.
Well, there you have it.
The Pentagon builds a network in our Australian Department of Defence amidst media silence
https://johnmenadue.com/pentagon-takes-over-australias-defence-policies-amidst-media-silence/ By John MenadueOct 29, 2022,
It is more than inter-operability and inter-changeability with the US military. Anthony Albanese and Richard Marles need to break up the American network in our Department of Defence that the Washington Post has exposed.
The Washington Post has found that a retired US Admiral is ‘now a Deputy Secretary of Defense for Australia’.
I wonder how the Admiral handles ASTEO documents- for Australian eyes only?
In the last few days in Pearls and Irritations, Mike Scrafton and Richard Tanter have exposed how retired US Admirals have been employed as highly paid consultants to shape our policies on submarines.
At the same time our media has shown no interest or concern. This is more than ‘foreign influence’. It looks more like foreign control.
As Paul Keating recently put it,‘our strategic sovereignty is being outsourced to another country, the US’.
It was the Washington Post, not our Corporate Media that has given us an insight into the abdication of responsibility of our politicians, public officials and journalists who have been on a Washington drip feed for so long. They have been captured by American interests, particularly the US military and industrial complex that former President Eisenhower warned us about.
Following the first Washington Post exposures, the authors then ran a webinar from which the Post has printed a Q and A.
The webinar includes the following:
“In court papers, the Justice Department and Pentagon officials were very clear about this: They argued that disclosing the documents might subject retired generals, admirals and others to embarrassment and/or harassment, and would be an invasion of their privacy.”
“We have more stories we’re working on – stay tuned. Congress has taken some half-steps in recent years to require the Pentagon to disclose more details about retired generals and admirals working for foreign governments. But the Pentagon hasn’t been very forthcoming. Maybe that will change now.”
Q: “What was something which personally shocked you during your investigation?
From Nate Jones:
“I was surprised to learn Admiral Stephen Johnson is now a deputy Secretary of Defense for Australia.”
From Craig Whitlock:
“I was surprised by how many retired U.S. generals went to work as advisors and consultants to the Saudi Crown Prince AFTER he approved the assassination of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi in 2018. I mean, hello?”
Q: “Do they have to disclose anything about what they do?
From Nate Jones:
“Here is a sample of former national security advisor James Jones’s application. You can see he discloses some things in a page or two.”
From Craig Whitlock:
“The war in Yemen is a good example of a terrible, unintended consequence. The Pentagon and State Dept have authorized more than 300 retired US military personnel to work as contractors or consultants for Saudi Arabia and UAE since 2015. During that time, KSA and UAE have bombed the heck out of Yemen, turning their civil war into a far worse humanitarian disaster. US has enabled that to a significant degree by allowing so many veterans to build up the KSA and UAE armed forces.”
From Craig Whitlock:
“With one exception, there were no instances of retired US personnel seeking to work for nations that the US govt categories as “foreign adversaries” eg., China, North Korea, Iran, Cuba or Venezuela. The lone exception was a retired US Air Force officer who sought – and received – approval to work for a satellite launch company owned by the government of Russia.”
The Washington Post revealed that one of the American consultants was (probably still is) being paid $6000 a day for his consultancy to Prime Minister Morrison, plus whatever he might have been receiving from Peter Dutton, plus presumably a fee for participating in a longer running US Defence project. No doubt he was also on some sort of “compensation” from the US Defence Industry. Presumably he was the mystery source when Dutton persisted in claims that he could get a couple of US submarines much earlier.
The inclusion of the UK in AUKUS was only a cover for the US/Australia deal.
But all the $10m of funding to US Admirals is of lesser concern than the peddling of US interference in our national security debate. We have known all along that the need for the submarines stemmed from concerns in the US defence community years ago about the so-called “submarine gap” in the containment ring around China – which they intended Australia to fill. And we would pay for it!
And all of that has been borne out by the relentless pressure applied recently by US service chiefs and Pentagon officials to promote so shamelessly major new Australian defence procurement in advance of the Smith/Houston review.
While Morrison and Dutton created the astonishing network, it appears that Albanese and Marles have not moved to break it up. They should do so quickly.
This has all the makings of a major can of worms which both major parties will be keen to keep the lid on.
This is not just a national disgrace. It is positively dangerous.
Malcolm Fraser called the US a dangerous ally.
I have written many times about how we are joined at the hip to an ally that is almost always at war. And we keep tagging along in one US defeat after another. The US is now goading China.
Our future is not to be a spear carrier for the US in our region. Our future is learning to live securely in our own region.
China is not going away but the US ultimately will.
Our captured corporate media will not examine the offence to our national dignity that the Washington Post has exposed. Our media has abandoned all pretence of independence and professionalism.
Can our Parliament rouse itself and help restore some trust in our institutions and expose what is going on?
John Menadue is the Founder and Editor in Chief of Pearls and Irritations. He was formerly Secretary of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet under Gough Whitlam and Malcolm Fraser, Ambassador to Japan, Secretary of the Department of Immigration and CEO of Qantas.
TODAY. Limits to Albanese’s autonomy – we need a new Gough!
Well, Australia has decided to walk away from previous policy – and now will abstain from voting on the U.N. Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.
That’s not that much, but it’s something.
Except for Gough Whitlam, I can’t recall any Australian Prime Minister diverging from our standard subservience to the USA. And look what happened to Gough!
I think that you can safely bet, that before this new decision about abstaining from voting, Anthony Albanese had a little chat with Joe Biden – along the lines of – “Are you sure that this OK, Joe?” Presumably Joe said “OK, but don’t make a big fuss about it”
You see, ever since World War 2, Australia has feared attack from someone – Russia? China? (It used to be Japan – but now we’re doing military exercises with them) And the USA would save us. Heck they’re saving us so thoroughly thaqt now we’ve got targets all over the place – Pine Gap, Western Australia, Darwin, – and before long – nuclear submarine bases.
Gough Whitlam saw what was happening, and wanted to ask uncomfortable questions about Pine Gap.
Ever since then, it’s been toe the U.S. line on everything military – Iraq, Afghanistan, Ukraine …. China.
The most significant obsequiousness is Australia’s cringing silence on the fate of our courageous citizen – Julian Assange.
We are expected to believe that Albanese is working quietly behind the scenes to free Julian Assange.
Well, I don’t believe that. I think that Albanese will do some deal with Biden that Assange will get home to Australia only if he has been humiliated, made to plead guilty, and eventually returned, a completely broken man, to his homeland.
Well, that would be a pretty gutless effort on Albanese’s part. But – a tad better than the Liberal’s fulsome adoration of America.
Alas, like the Australian Labor Party as a whole, Albanese is pretty limited. We need a new Gough.
Australia changes policy tack – moves in the direction of supporting the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.
Australia drops opposition to treaty banning nuclear weapons at UN vote
After former Coalition government repeatedly sided with US against it, Labor has shifted position to abstain
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/oct/29/australia-drops-opposition-to-treaty-banning-nuclear-weapons-at-un-vote— Daniel Hurst, 29 Oct 22,
Australia has dropped its opposition to a landmark treaty banning nuclear weapons in a vote at the United Nations in New York on Saturday.
While Australia was yet to actually join the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, the shift in its voting position to “abstain” after five years of “no” is seen by campaigners as a sign of progress given the former Coalition government repeatedly sided with the United States against it.
The foreign affairs minister, Penny Wong, said through a spokesperson that Australia had “a long and proud commitment to the global non-proliferation and disarmament regime” and that the government supported the new treaty’s “ambition of a world without nuclear weapons”.
The previous Coalition government was firmly against the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, a relatively new international agreement that imposes a blanket ban on developing, testing, stockpiling, using or threatening to use nuclear weapons – or helping other countries to carry out such activities.
Australia voted against opening negotiations on the proposed new treaty in late 2016 and did not participate in those talks in 2017. Since 2018 it has voted against annual resolutions at the UN general assembly and first committee that called on all countries to join the agreement “at the earliest possible date”.
That changed early on Saturday morning when Australia shifted its voting position to abstain. Indonesia, New Zealand, Malaysia and Ireland were among countries to co-sponsor this year’s supportive UN resolution.
Australia traditionally argued the treaty would not work because none of the nuclear weapons states had joined and because it “ignores the realities of the global security environment”.
It also argued joining would breach the US alliance obligations, with Australia relying on American nuclear forces to deter any nuclear attack on Australia.
But the treaty has gained momentum because of increasing dissatisfaction among activists and non-nuclear states about the outlook for disarmament, given that nuclear weapons states such as the US, Russia and China are in the process of modernising their arsenals.
The treaty currently has 91 signatories, 68 of which have formally ratified it, and it entered into force last year.
The Nobel peace prize-winning International Campaign Against Nuclear Weapons (Ican) had been urging Australia to vote in favour of the UN resolution on Saturday – or at least abstain in order to “end five years of opposition to the TPNW under the previous government”.
Three in four members of the Labor caucus – including Anthony Albanese – have signed an Ican pledge that commits parliamentarians “to work for the signature and ratification of this landmark treaty by our respective countries”.
Labor’s 2021 national platform committed the party to signing and ratifying the treaty “after taking account” of several factors, including the need for an effective verification and enforcement architecture and work to achieve universal support.
These conditions suggest the barriers to actually signing may still be high. But Gem Romuld, the Australia director of Ican, said the government was “heading in the right direction” and engaging positively with the treaty.
Romuld said it “would be completely self-defeating to wait for all nuclear-armed states to get on board” before Australia joined.
“Indeed, no disarmament treaty has achieved universal support and Australia has joined all the other disarmament treaties, even where our ally – the US – has not yet signed on, such as the landmine ban treaty,” Romuld said.
In 2017 the US, the UK and France declared that they “do not intend to sign, ratify or ever become party” to the new treaty, and the Trump administration actively lobbied countries to withdraw.
Wong told the UN general assembly last month that Australia would “redouble our efforts” towards disarmament because Russian president Vladimir Putin’s “weak and desperate nuclear threats underline the danger that nuclear weapons pose to us all”. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/oct/29/australia-drops-opposition-to-treaty-banning-nuclear-weapons-at-un-vote—
‘Small but important step’: Australia’s shift on treaty banning nuclear weapons applauded
Australia abstained from voting on the UN treaty banning nuclear weapons for the first time in five years. Previously, the country had opposed the treaty.
SBS News 29 Oct 22,
Anti-nuclear campaigners welcomed the shift in the Australian government’s position on a UN treaty banning the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
Australia was among 14 nations to abstain from voting. There were 43 nations who voted against the UN resolution co-sponsored by New Zealand, Indonesia, Malaysia and Ireland. A total of 124 nations voted in favour of the motion.
The Australian branch of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) described the move as “a small but important step forward”.
“ICAN looks forward to a formal decision by the Albanese government to sign and ratify the TPNW (the treaty) – in line with its pre-election pledge,” the group said.
The overwhelming majority of Australians support joining this treaty, and progress towards disarmament is more urgent than ever.”
ICAN said it was encouraging to see that the majority of nations stood united on the risks of nuclear war, particularly “in light of the war in Ukraine”.
It ends years of Canberra siding with the United States by actions on the treaty to ban the deadly weapons and comes as Australia looks to nuclear submarines to boost its navy…………………………………
Australia also recently faced criticism from nuclear powers for joining a Pacific push to help deal with the consequences of nuclear testing.
New Zealand, a signatory to the nuclear weapons ban, has previously pushed for Australia to join.
A total of 93 countries have signed the treaty, including 68 nations that have formally ratified it. https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/small-but-important-step-australias-shift-on-treaty-banning-nuclear-weapons-applauded/j3cz2yr7l
Flaps up and blinkers on: politicians happy with the unknown unknowns of fighting war
the system had “failed utterly” when former prime minister John Howard “alone decided and authorised ADF lethal force elements to be joined with the US-led coalition invasion of Iraq … preceding the public announcement on March 18, 2003, only to be followed by the bombing of Iraq in the early hours of the following morning.
“Howard’s decision has since been revealed to have been based on false and misleading intelligence. History has also revealed serious defects in the decision to commit Australian forces to war in Vietnam, to Afghanistan, to Syria not to mention other secret clandestine intelligence collection operations in the post-WW2 period,”
Michael West Media by Zacharias Szumer | Oct 27, 2022,
When it comes to the powers vested in politicians to send Australians into foreign conflicts, the major parties stand by the cliche: if it ain’t broke don’t fix it. But the system is broken, as war reform advocates have told Zacharias Szumer.
For advocates of war powers reform, Labor’s recently announced Inquiry into International Armed Conflict Decision Making hasn’t got off to a promising start. The defence minister and defence subcommittee deputy chair have already come out against parliamentary approval for overseas military deployments, the desired reform that advocates are seeking.
The Minister of Defence, Richard Marles, has said he is “firmly of the view” that the current system is “appropriate and should not be disturbed”. In a letter referring the Inquiry into International Armed Conflict Decision Making to the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, Marles said the current arrangements “enable the duly elected government of the day to act expeditiously on matters of utmost national importance in the interests of the safety and security of our nation and its people.”
Greens senator Jordon Steele-John, the party’s spokesperson for foreign affairs, peace and nuclear disarmament, told MWM that “Marles’ comments reflect a Labor Party that is self-conflicted. We see Richard Marles endorsing the current system, meanwhile many members of the Labor caucus are pushing for an inquiry.”
Labor MPs Julian Hill and Josh Wilson put forward the resolution at the last ALP conference that got the inquiry added to the party’s policy platform. The defence subcommittee, which is handling the inquiry, is chaired by Hill and also includes Wilson. However, the subcommittee doesn’t feature anyone from the Greens, who have long championed requiring parliamentary approval before overseas deployment of troops.
Liberal MP Andrew Wallace, the deputy chair of the defence subcommittee, recently told the Guardian that he was “surprised that the Labor Party is even contemplating” a change to a system that had “stood us in good stead for many many years.”
“The executive has got to be given the power to govern the country and particularly in relation to national security issues. I don’t care whether it’s Labor or Liberal – they can’t be hamstrung by the parliament,” he added.
Steele-John said that it was “sad to see Andrew Wallace and the Liberals so adamantly opposed to an inquiry on this matter, but transparency, investigating and making decisions based on that investigation are not the attributes of the party that thought invading Iraq was a good idea.”
Greens senator David Shoebridge, the party’s spokesperson for defence and veterans’ affairs, echoed Steele-John’s sentiments. “This is a disturbingly accurate insight into the attitude of the Coalition and many in Labor – they don’t want parliamentary democracy to get in the way of their ‘parties of government’ club. Imagine letting government be ‘hamstrung by parliament’,” the senator tweeted earlier in October.
“Seeing a democratically elected politician so readily reject oversight by parliament on “national security” issues should worry us all. Democracy is not optional in times of crisis or when the drumbeats of war start,” Shoebridge added.
Steele-John also questioned Marles and Wallace coming out against reform so soon after the inquiry was announced. “I hope to see all political parties and MPs approach this committee in good faith,” he said. “The ability for all MPs and parties to scrutinise the decision of ADF deployment will add a level of transparency and accountability designed to avoid repeating the catastrophic mistakes the executive government has made in the last 20 years,” he said.
Beyond the halls of parliament
Peter Hayes, a former RAAF group captain and Vietnam War veteran, told MWM that he was “disappointed” by Marles’ statement, which he said “seemed to pressure the Inquiry rather than to await with an open mind its conclusions and recommendations.”
“The inquiry could have accepted submissions from the Defence Department and others without any need for Minister Marles to make his personal views public,” said Hayes, who has also previously served as Director of Information Warfare at Australia’s Air Command Headquarters.
Hayes also took issue with Wallace’s argument that the current system had “stood us in good stead for many many years”, saying that the system had “failed utterly” when former prime minister John Howard “alone decided and authorised ADF lethal force elements to be joined with the US-led coalition invasion of Iraq … preceding the public announcement on March 18, 2003, only to be followed by the bombing of Iraq in the early hours of the following morning.”
“Howard’s decision has since been revealed to have been based on false and misleading intelligence. History has also revealed serious defects in the decision to commit Australian forces to war in Vietnam, to Afghanistan, to Syria not to mention other secret clandestine intelligence collection operations in the post-WW2 period,” Hayes added………………………………….
if the aim is to minimise threats against Australia or its citizens, Fernandes does not believe the system has kept us in “good stead”:
In Afghanistan, the real objective was to show Australia’s relevance to the United States. We stayed because of US domestic politics rather than the military situation on the ground. After the Taliban’s comeback in 2008, the Obama administration did not want to be attacked in domestic elections for being unable to defeat the Taliban. And we can see the results – in 2001, Islamic terrorists were based in Kabul, Kandahar, Jalalabad and a few pockets of rural Afghanistan. Twenty years later, the Taliban is back in power, and US wars – enabled by the intelligence facility at Pine Gap – have resulted in a massive expansion of terrorist activity across the globe.
Fernandes’ book Island Off the Coast of Asia contains a proposal for a new system under which the Australian parliament would have greater control over military deployments. He will reportedly be making a submission to the inquiry based on this proposal.
Public submissions to the inquiry are open until November 18. https://michaelwest.com.au/flaps-up-and-blinkers-on-politicians-happy-with-the-unknown-unknowns-of-fighting-war/
Wong, Marles schedule US trip as nuclear submarine deadline nears
Financial Review, Andrew TillettPolitical correspondent, 26 Oct 22,
Annual top-level foreign affairs and defence talks will be held in Washington in December, allowing senior officials to lock down final details over Australia’s planned purchase of nuclear-powered submarines before the Albanese government publicly outlines its plans for the multibillion-dollar project.
With this year’s federal budget eschewing major funding decisions in the defence portfolio, The Australian Financial Review understands the US will for the third year running host the annual AUSMIN talks between the Australian and US governments………..
One defence source suggested that holding talks in the US would result in the ministers being accompanied by a bigger-than-usual cohort of Australian officials to speak to US counterparts from the Defence and Energy departments about the submarine project.
The nuclear submarine taskforce, which is examining the best options for Australia to acquire nuclear submarine technology from the US and UK under the AUKUS partnership, is due to report to the Albanese government in March after an 18-month study on what submarine to acquire, where it will be built, delivery timetable, cost and any interim measures required to avoid a capability gap.
Separately, former defence minister Stephen Smith and former Defence Force chief Angus Houston are conducting a Defence Strategic Review looking at the military’s weapons needs in light of deteriorating regional security. That review is also due in March.
Both reviews will outline billions of dollars in new spending for Defence that will need to begin to be accommodated when the next budget is handed down in May.
This year’s budget papers fail to reflect the significant increase in funding required for existing projects as construction gets under way in earnest…………………………….. more https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/wong-marles-schedule-us-trip-as-nuclear-submarine-deadline-nears-20221026-p5bsyp
Rex Patrick: has the Australian Senate lost its mojo?
Michael West Media, by Rex Patrick | Oct 25, 2022, “Powerful” or “piss-weak”? The Senate has greater powers than a royal commission yet in recent years its authority has declined amid refusals by the likes of the Defence Department, the Tax Commissioner and the government itself to cooperate with Senate orders. Former senator Rex Patrick on responsible government. ……………………….
Accountability in the Australian parliament
Both houses of parliament are empowered under Section 49 and Section 50 of the constitution to conduct oversight of government and to throw the light of publicity on its acts.
The powers are significant allowing MPs and senators to ask questions of ministers (as occurs at question time and through questions on notice) and to inquire, compel witnesses, order the production of documents and to deal with contempt. The strict powers of each house of the federal parliament are greater than those of a royal commission…………………………………………….
the appetite for dealing with contempt by the Houses has died, rendering the inquiry power impotent. Exercising a power when it shouldn’t be is inappropriate, but so too is not exercising the power when it should.
Yes minister, no senator
Of course, the House of Representatives doesn’t conduct government oversight. The powers of the houses are exercised through a vote of the majority of its members and the government, by definition, controls the house. It can suppress information or inquiries which are to its disadvantage, sometimes by refusing to supply information, sometimes by using its numbers to stop inquiries altogether.
It is the Senate that is the grand inquest of the nation. Or at least it should be. But it isn’t. It fails dismally.
The Senate seems satisfied with answers to question on notice that are both untimely and unsatisfactory. Most senators seem to just accept non-answers from officials at Senate estimates or politically infected and erroneous answers.
All too often, orders for the production of documents have been met with contempt, with the government trumping up untested and often bogus public interest immunity claims. In those cases where the Senate arguments are strong for the documents to be produced, the Senate does nothing except weaken itself.
Across my time in and around the Senate I witnessed contempt after contempt.
- On November 17, 2014, the Senate ordered the production of an economic modelling report into the impact of the future submarine project on the Australian economy. The Senate was refused access to it. I later obtained it using Freedom of Information (FOI) laws.
- On October 9, 2016, the Senate ordered the production of the French submarine design and mobilisation contract. The Senate was refused access to it. I later obtained it using FOI.
- On September 4, 2017, the Senate ordered the production of the Future Frigates. It had been given to overseas shipbuilders, but the Senate was refused access to it. I later obtained it under Freedom of Information laws.
- On November 16, 2017, the Senate ordered the production of information relating to Murray-Darling strategic water purchases. The government withheld crucial valuation information which, wait for it, was later released to me under FOI.
……………………………………. No privileges, thanks
The privileges committee, often erroneously characterised by the media as “very powerful”, is impotent. It’s made up of senators, who thanks to their weakness and partisan loyalties, are a disgrace compared to their British counterparts who have for centuries battled to ensure Parliament is supreme over the executive.
The committee’s two most recent reports say it all.
For two years the Department of Defence withheld documents from the Senate’s economics reference committee’s inquiry into naval shipbuilding. It unquestionably interfered with the progress of the committee’s inquiry, but the privileges committee failed to find this was a contempt. It’s finding weakened the Senate. Once can expect the government to do more of the same in the future……………………………..
Mojo lost
We often hear people call for a royal commission to get to the bottom of something. This is a strange call for two reasons.
Firstly, a royal commission is established by letters patent issued by the governor-general on the advice of government. Royal commissions are always for investigations in which the government is interested, not the people.
Secondly, the Senate has greater powers than a royal commission.
eople either subconsciously or consciously turn away from the Senate because they know it is weak. They know it has lost its mojo. And governments and bureaucrats know this better than anyone. So, it’s a vicious cycle in which the authority and power of the Senate continues to decline.
Its weakness is not the fault of the government and it’s not the fault of the Senate staff who do their best to support inquiries. It is exclusively the fault of senators.
The powers of the Senate have been established by convention. Unexercised, those conventions will turn into points of interest for historians. That would be a tragedy, because securing accountability of government is the very essence of responsible government. https://michaelwest.com.au/rex-patrick-has-the-australian-senate-lost-its-mojo/
A Political Solution for Assange: Jennifer Robinson at the National Press Club
The teeth in Robinson’s address lay in the urgency of political action. Assange is suffering a form of legal and bureaucratic assassination, his life gradually quashed by briefs, reviews, bureaucrats and protocols. “This case needs an urgent political solution. Julian does not have another decade to wait for a legal fix.”
https://theaimn.com/a-political-solution-for-assange-jennifer-robinson-at-the-national-press-club/ October 23, 2022, by: Dr Binoy Kampmark
It was telling. Of the mainstream Australian press gallery, only David Crowe of the Sydney Morning Herald and The Age turned up to listen to Jennifer Robinson, lawyer extraordinaire who has spent years representing Julian Assange. Since 2019, that representation has taken an even more urgent note: to prevent the WikiLeaks founder from being extradited to the United States, where he faces 18 charges, 17 confected from the archaic Espionage Act of 1917.
In addressing the Australian National Press Club, Robinson’s address, titled “Julian Assange, Free Speech and Democracy,” was a grand recapitulation of the political case against the WikiLeaks founder. Followers of this ever darkening situation would not have found anything new. The shock, rather, was how ignorant many remain about the chapters in this scandalous episode of persecution.
Robinson’s address noted those blackening statements from media organisations and governments that Assange was paranoid and could leave the Ecuadorian embassy, his abode for seven years, at his own leisure. Many were subsequently “surprised when Julian was served with a US extradition request.” But this was exactly what WikiLeaks had been warning about for some ten years.
In the Belmarsh maximum security prison, where he has resided for 3.5 years, Assange’s health has declined further. “Then last year, during a stressful court appeal hearing, Julian had a mini stroke.” His ailing state did not convince a venal prosecution, tasked with “deriding the medical evidence of Julian’s severe depression and suicidal ideation.”
The matter of health plays into the issue of lengthy proceedings. Should the High Court not grant leave to hear an appeal against the June decision by Home Secretary Priti Patel to order his extradition, processes through the UK Supreme Court and possibly the European Court of Human Rights could be activated.
The latter appeal, should it be required, would depend on the government of the day keeping Britain within the court’s jurisdiction. “If our appeal fails, Julian will be extradited to the US – where his prison conditions will be at the whim of intelligence agencies which plotted to kill him.” An unfair trial would follow, and any legal process citing the First Amendment culminating in a hearing before the US Supreme Court would take years.
The teeth in Robinson’s address lay in the urgency of political action. Assange is suffering a form of legal and bureaucratic assassination, his life gradually quashed by briefs, reviews, bureaucrats and protocols. “This case needs an urgent political solution. Julian does not have another decade to wait for a legal fix.”
Acknowledging that her reference to the political avenue was unusual for a lawyer, Robinson noted how the language of due process and the rule of law had become ghoulish caricatures in what amounts to a form of punishment. The law has been fashioned in an abusive way that sees a person being prosecuted for journalism in a hideously pioneering way. Despite the UK-US Extradition Treaty’s prohibition of extradition for political offences, the US prosecution was making much of the Espionage Act. “Espionage,” stated Robinson, “is a political offence.”
The list of abuses in the prosecution is biblically lengthy. Robinson gave her audience a summary of them: the fabrication of evidence via the Icelandic informant and convicted embezzler and paedophile Sigurdur “Siggi” Thordarson; the deliberate distortion of facts; the unlawful surveillance of Assange and his legal team and matters of medical treatment; “and the seizure of legally privileged material.”
Much ignorance about Assange and the implications of his persecution is no doubt willed. Robinson’s reference to Nils Melzer, the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, was apt. Here was a man initially sceptical about the torture complaint made by Assange and his team. He had been convinced by the libel against the publisher’s reputation. “But in 2019, he agreed to read our complaint. And what he read shocked him and forced him to confront his own prejudice.”
Melzer would subsequently observe that, in the course of two decades working “with victims of war, violence and political persecution, I have never seen a group of democratic States ganging up to deliberately isolate, demonise and abuse a single individual for such a long time and with so little regard for human dignity and the rule of law.”
The concern these days among the press darlings is not press freedoms closer to home, whether they be in Australia itself, or among its allies. The egregious misconduct by Russian forces in the Ukraine War or China’s human rights record in Xinjiang are what counts. Villainy lies elsewhere.
The obscene conduct by US authorities, whose officials contemplated abducting and murdering a publisher, is an inconvenient smudge of history best ignored for consumers of news down under. The Albanese government, which has continued to extol the glory of the AUKUS security pact and swoon at prospects of a globalised NATO, has shelved any “political solution” regarding Assange, at least in any public context. The US-Australian alliance is a shrine to worship at with reverential delusion, rather than question with informed scepticism. The WikiLeaks founder did, after all, spoil the party.
On a cheerier note, those listening to Robinson’s address reflected a healthy political awareness about the tribulations facing a fellow Australian citizen. The federal member for the seat of Kooyong, Dr. Monique Ryan, was present, as were Senators Peter Whish Wilson and David Shoebridge. As Ryan subsequently tweeted, “An Australian punished by foreign states for acts of journalism? Time for our government to act.”
Others were those who have been or continue to be targets of the national security state. The long-suffering figure and target of the Australian security establishment, Bernard Collaery, put in an appearance, as did David McBride, who awaits trial for having exposed alleged atrocities of Australian special service personnel in Afghanistan.
Such individuals have made vital, oxygenating contributions to democratic accountability, of which WikiLeaks stands proud. But any journalism that, as Robinson puts it, subjects “power to scrutiny, and holding it accountable,” is bound to incite the fury of the national security state. Regarding Assange, will that fury win out?
No Nuclear Waste Dump in SA” Motion passed South Australia Labor Conference Sat 22 Oct 2022
Federal ALP should start to act in accordance with the SA Labor State Conference “No Nuclear Waste Dump in SA” Motion passed Sat 22 Oct 2022
Motion full text:
TITLE: No Nuclear Waste Dump in South Australia
In 2020 the former Liberal Federal Government announced that a Nuclear Waste Facility would be established in Napandee, outside the town of Kimba, South Australia. This decision was made without prior community consultation and was met with mixed reception.
In response to criticisms of the consultation process the previous Liberal government gauged community support for the project with a survey. This survey was only available to ratepayers and all other community members were excluded. This meant that renters, transient people and most egregiously Native Title holders were excluded from even this meagre attempt at consultation. There is a strong concern that the facility would negatively impact the health of the surrounding environment, farming areas and the nearby human populations. The paltry consultative process has done little to assuage these concerns.
The Barngarla People have openly expressed their concern towards the facility and are currently fighting a legal battle to have this project abandoned on the basis of the poor planning and consultative processes. Despite the ongoing legal case the earthworks for this project have been approved and are set to go ahead regardless of the outcome. SA Labor Caucus supports a veto right for the Barngarla community on this facility.
This aligns with the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, stating that no storage or disposal of hazardous materials shall take place in the lands or territories of Indigenous Peoples without their free, prior and informed consent. More recently Premier Peter Malinauskas reaffirmed that the South Australian Labor party strongly opposes this facility and still supports the right of the Barngarla people to have veto powers. This sentiment is consistent with the current Federal Labor government’s commitment to reconciliation. Continuing with this project, including anciliary earthworks outside of current legal injunctions, despite the opposition of the Barngarla people undermines efforts toward reconciliation.
Motion: Therefore – SA Labor calls on the Federal Labor government to listen to the Barngarla people and ensure their voices are heard.
Just like the Liberal Party, the Australian Labor Party appoints a pro-nuclear stooge (Madeleine King) as Resources Minister.
New Resources Minister backs Kimba nuke dump, https://vanguard-cpaml.blogspot.com/2022/06/new-resources-minister-backs-kimba-nuke.html?fbclid=IwAR0KRK5heMT8KlqDSY7WetXJhJrwMTqeMDwaLrzET6p-SQYA29j87DAp03Q by Nick G, June 6, 2022
The ALP’s new Resources Minister Madeline King has wasted no time in showing her support for the proposed nuclear waste dump at Napandee, near Kimba on Eyre Peninsula.
In response to an appeal to herself and PM Albanese from the disenfranchised and ignored Barngarla traditional owners, King has today stated that the nuclear waste dump was “a step forward” in the management of nuclear waste.
Background
Napandee was one of three sites proposed by the former Coalition government for the storage of intermediate and low-level nuclear waste. Two, including Napandee, were at Kimba, whilst a third was at Wallerberdina in the Flinders Ranges.
The operation of any of the three sites in SA was illegal under SA law.
Under state legislation introduced by the Olsen Liberals and strengthened by Rann Labor, it is illegal to operate a nuclear waste facility in SA or to import or transport nuclear waste in SA.
The legislation is quite clear and states:
8—Prohibition against construction or operation of nuclear waste storage facility. A person must not construct or operate a nuclear waste storage facility. Maximum penalty: In the case of a natural person—$500 000 or imprisonment for 10 years. In the case of a body corporate—$5 000 000.
9—Prohibition against importation or transportation of nuclear waste for delivery to nuclear waste storage facility. A person must not— (a) bring nuclear waste into the State; or (b) transport nuclear waste within the State, for delivery to a nuclear waste storage facility in the State. Maximum penalty: In the case of a natural person—$500 000 or imprisonment for 10 years. In the case of a body corporate—$5 000 000.
This legislation came about largely through the actions of the Kupa Piti Kungka Tjuta (the Anangu women of Coober Pedy) who led a campaign against a 1998 Howard Government proposal for a nuclear waste dump in SA.
In 2004, following Howard’s conceding defeat on the issue, three of those women, Eileen Kampakuta Brown, Ivy Makinti Stewart and Angelina Wonga issued a statement that began: “People said that you can’t win against the Government. Just a few women. We just kept talking and telling them to get their ears out of their pockets and listen. We never said we were going to give up. Government has big money to buy their way out but we never gave up…money doesn’t win.”
In 2016, SA Labor Premier Jay Weatherill set up a Royal Commission into SA’s nuclear energy future which included a proposal for a dump for high level overseas nuclear waste. Massive protests were held and a “citizen’s jury” effectively knocked all talk of nuclear waste dumps on the head.
The resurrected SA site proposals were met with further protests. The Adnyamathanha peoples led opposition to the Wallaberdina site and were successful in winning the vote in a community consultation of people in the Flinders Ranges.
The initial Kimba sites were rejected by former Minister Josh Frydenberg in 2016 due to a lack of broad community support; however in 2017 his replacement Matt Canavan revived the proposal and accepted Napandee as the site for the dump.
Barngarla Pushed Aside
Approval for the Kimba site required broad community support through a community consultation. In preparation for a local vote, millions of dollars of federal funds were poured into Kimba for “social and economic development” during the consultation process. Community facilities were upgraded, footpaths and gutters put in, and the town generally given a face lift.
No definition of “broad community support” exists in legislation, but Canavan mentioned a figure of “around 65%”. Kimba Council defined those eligible to vote as ratepayers living within a prescribed area and excluded the Barngarla native title holders on the grounds that they lived in other towns on Eyra Peninsula.
The Barngarla appealed to the Federal Court which upheld the Council’s decision on the grounds that the Barngarla would be “too difficult to identify”. A vote was held, resulting in a 61.5% vote for the dump with a majority of 70 in favour.
The Barngarla commissioned the Australian Election Company to poll people identified as Barngarla by the Barngarla Determination Aboriginal Corporation and identified 209 eligible voters. There were no votes for the dump, and 89 against it.
Had those 89 Barngarla votes been included in the Kimba Council “consultation”, the outcome would have been a “no” vote carried by a small majority.
Labor Opposition facilitates Napandee declaration
In Opposition, Labor had the opportunity to block the declaration of the Kimba site. However, Madeline King did a deal with the Coalition in June 2019 that allowed new Resource Minister Keith Pitt to declare Napandee as the site for the dump. Under the original federal legislation, an aggrieved party to the declaration had no right of judicial appeal. King negotiated to provide the appeal right and withdrew Labor opposition to the declaration despite saying that Labor would not pass the bill unless traditional owners were comfortable with it.
They clearly were not, and neither did they have the resources to properly fund a judicial appeal, although that process has now begun in the Federal Court.
Who is Madeline King?
Madeline King is a right-wing Labor politician with close ties to the mining industry and pro-US lobbyists.
She is a commercial lawyer who immediately prior to entering parliament was the chief operating officer of the Perth USAsia Centre, a think tank based at the University of Western Australia.
King was a ministerial adviser to federal Labor MP Gary Gray from 2011 to 2012. Gray had been National Secretary of the ALP from 1993 to 2000, but resigned to take up a position with fossil fuel giant Woodside Petroleum. As its Director of Corporate Affairs, he was an executive at the time when, in 2004, Foreign Affairs Minister Alexander Downer ordered the bugging of the East Timorese government during negotiations aimed at depriving the island nation of desperately needed revenue from underwater gas deposits. Gray was part of the Woodside negotiating team.
In 2007, Gray contested the WA seat of Brand and became part of Rudd’s Labor team. He retired in 2016 to take up a position with Mineral Resources, but was appointed Australian Ambassador to Ireland by Scott Morrison in 2020 in what some people have said was a move to prevent him having to testify in the case against Bernard Collaery and possibly incriminating Downer under cross-examination.
King’s employment as advisor to Gray has made her no stranger to the interplay between the corporate world and the benefits that accrue to Labor politicians who do their bidding.
No need for a Kimba dump
Opponents of the Kimba dump point out that much of the low-level waste (some of which needs to be stored for up to 300 years) is already safely stored at Woomera in SA. Some of it is stored at facilities at which it is produced. Medical nuclear waste accounts for only around 1% of the total and is short-lived and decays quite safely at the hospitals and treatment centres at which it is generated.
Intermediate level waste is generated at Lucas Heights in Sydney. Its decay time is far longer and needs to be kept from contact with humans for 10,000 years. A 2020 federal parliament inquiry confirmed that ANSTO, the operator of Lucas heights, has the ability to manage its waste onsite for “decades to come”. Ultimately, it will need to be stored in an underground repository. The government says this will take decades while the federal nuclear regulator says it could take a century to identify and construct.
If intermediate level waste is transported the 1700 kilometres from Lucas Heights to Kimba, it will be stored there as a temporary measure, in drums above the ground, pending its removal at some future stage to a permanent underground facility.
It therefore makes no sense to move these drums of intermediate level waste across the continent when there is storage capacity at Lucas Heights. Kimba is a temporary solution to a non-problem.
The issue of nuclear waste storage is one that must be referred to nation-wide community consultation. It is not a matter to be placed on the shoulders of this or that “remote” community to decided. We are all involved and we should all decide.
SA Unions made their position clear on March 15 when they unanimously supported a motion standing with the traditional owners. SA Unions Secretary Dale Beasley said “South Australian unions are completely united in their support of the Barngarla Traditional Owners and their opposition to the proposed nuclear waste site at Kimba”.
Let’s make this year’s Hiroshima Day (August 6) a day for concerted action against nuclear energy, nuclear waste dumps and nuclear-powered submarines.
Let’s keep alive the spirit of the Kupa Piti Kungka Tjuta.
1 This month.
Help Aunty Sue Protect Her Land and Sacred Sites From Destructive Rocket Testing.
.
Australians deserve the truth
about
AUKUS – https://aukuspublicinquiry.com/
PETITION – To: Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and the Australian Labor Government
of the week – Australians for War Powers Reform (AWPR)
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
Antinuclear 