Scott Morrison has been urged to act over fears Australian uranium could be used to fuel Russia’s nuclear arsenal.
Fears Australian uranium could be seized by Russia for nuclear weapons arsenal
Scott Morrison has been urged to act over fears Australian uranium could be used to fuel Russia’s nuclear arsenal. news.com.au, Alex Blair 9 Mar 22.
The Electrical Trades Union of Australia has called on Scott Morrison to take immediate action over Australian uranium in Ukraine, which analysts believe could be seized by Russia and used to fuel its nuclear weapons arsenal..
In a letter sent to the Prime Minister this week, the ETU highlighted its concerns over Australian obligated nuclear material (AONM) which has been transferred to Ukraine under the Australia-Ukraine Nuclear Cooperation Agreement.
The ETU is urging the Prime Minister to reveal details on any contingency plans set in place following Russia’s invasion, as the Australian government has an “obligation to create a plan for the removal of nuclear material if it is at risk of a loss of regulatory control”.
The ETU has also requested information on whether uranium that was transferred to Ukraine is still stored in the besieged nation.
“Amongst many other horrors, the war in Ukraine is painfully highlighting the inherent problems with nuclear power,” ETU National Assistant Secretary Michael Wright said.
“If Russia is able to gain control of Australian uranium in Ukraine, the fallout could be catastrophic.
“Australians have a right to know if Australian uranium is at risk and what our nation’s obligations are in the event of an incident.
“We not only have an obligation under our own agreement with Ukraine but we owe it to the global community to ensure these materials are protected – preferably by leaving them in the ground.”
It came as Russian President Vladimir Putin was accused of using nuclear “blackmail” to keep the international community from interfering in his Ukraine invasion.
“This is one of the scariest moments really when it comes to nuclear weapons,” Beatrice Fihn, who leads the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, told AFP in an interview on Tuesday.
The 40-year-old, who has spearheaded the group’s global efforts to ban the weapons of mass destruction since 2013, said she had never in her lifetime seen the nuclear threat level so high.“It is incredibly worrying and overwhelming.”
Just days after Russia launched its full-scale invasion of its pro-Western neighbour on February 24, Putin ordered his country’s nuclear forces to be put on high alert, sparking global alarm…………………………… https://www.news.com.au/world/europe/fears-australian-uranium-could-be-seized-by-russia-for-nuclear-weapons-arsenal/news-story/565ae8e823834435ad1846798f4066d4
Directors net $3.7 million in selling off their Paladin Energy uranium shares, then uranium stocks plummet
Paladin directors narrowly avoid nuclear sell-off https://www.afr.com/rear-window/paladin-directors-narrowly-avoid-nuclear-sell-off-20220308-p5a2u3Joe AstonColumnist, Uranium miner Paladin Energy advised the Australian Securities Exchange on Monday that chairman Cliff Lawrenson and non-executive director Peter Watson had, between them, sold 4.5 million, or 55 per cent, of their shares in the company between February 28 and March 3, netting proceeds of $3.7 million.
Lawrenson’s broker secured an average out price of 84¢ while Watson had to settle for 81¢.
It was certainly an auspicious moment for the pair. That very evening, of March 3, Russian forces seized the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant in Ukraine, but not before their shelling set it on fire, and uranium stocks dutifully plummeted across global markets.
On March 4, 154 million Paladin shares changed hands, crunching the share price down 15 per cent to 74¢. At one point in intraday trading, they were down 26 per cent.
Timing is everything, the old truism goes, and you can safely say about Lawrenson and Watson that their timing is the opposite of radioactive.
Lawrenson still has 2.1 million Paladin shares to his name while Watson has 1.6 million.
Sydney ruled out as nuclear submarine base – despite topping list of sites in Defence study
Sydney ruled out as nuclear submarine base – despite topping list of sites in Defence study https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/mar/09/sydney-ruled-out-as-nuclear-submarine-base-despite-topping-list-of-sites-in-defence-study
Questions raised about how Coalition settled on its three potential locations Daniel Hurst Foreign affairs and defence correspondent, @danielhurstbne, Wed 9 Mar 2022
Sydney Harbour has been ruled out as a site for the proposed new base for Australia’s nuclear-powered submarines, with officials insisting it was not viable because of “limitations on berth space and shore facilities”.
Questions have been raised about how the Morrison government settled on the three potential sites it announced this week – Port Kembla in Wollongong, Newcastle and Brisbane – given that these were not among the top five options listed in a previous Defence review.
A 2011 Defence report ranked potential options for a new east coast home port for submarines. The top three options were in Sydney Harbour, followed by two options in Jervis Bay, south of Sydney.
The same study said it “would be impractical” to develop a future submarine basing capability at Port Kembla, noting it had previously been found to be “a small and congested harbour with little space for substantial expansion”.
When asked by Guardian Australia to explain what had changed since that review, a Defence spokesperson said changes in commercial activity at Port Kembla had released a large pocket of land which was “now potentially suitable for creation of a new naval base”.
Jervis Bay had been “discounted as it is a gazetted marine park”, the spokesperson said.
The Garden Island defence precinct in Sydney Harbour, which already serves as the navy’s key operational base on the east coast, was also “not considered a viable long-term solution” for a permanent submarine base.
“The site is constrained with limitations on berth space and shore facilities and suffers considerable encroachment,” the Defence spokesperson said. “Construction of dedicated submarine facilities at GIDP would exacerbate existing pressures and further limit expansion options.”
Scott Morrison announced the three potential sites in a national security speech on Monday, even though the selection process will not be complete until next year. That sparked Labor accusations of a pre-election marketing “ploy”.
Both the prime minister’s speech and the government’s subsequent press release contained ambiguous language about who precisely had settled on the three final sites, after Defence did “significant work” to review “19 potential sites”.
“Three preferred locations on the east coast have been identified,” Morrison said. He did not explicitly state whether it was the department or cabinet ministers who had done the identifying, or whether the government’s decision was in line with Defence’s recommendations.
The employment minister, Stuart Robert, told Sky News on Tuesday: “The national security committee of cabinet has worked through a range of options and narrowed it down to three.”
That committee is chaired by Morrison and includes senior ministers, including the defence minister, Peter Dutton, and the foreign affairs minister, Marise Payne. Robert is not listed as a member.
But the Defence spokesperson told Guardian Australia each site had been “assessed against Defence’s evaluation criteria”.
The factors included “access to exercise areas and proximity to industrial infrastructure and significant population centres to support personnel and recruitment”.
The three options would be “subject to further review and consultation”, the spokesperson said.
In Defence’s 2011 future submarine basing study, Newcastle port was ranked sixth and the Port of Brisbane eighth. That review said Newcastle’s strengths were “compromised by its isolation from any other naval infrastructure, its susceptibility to flooding, and its sometimes difficult harbour entrance”.
Dutton was asked on Tuesday whether a Chinese state-owned corporation’s part-holding of the long-term lease over the port would affect the eventual decision on where to build the submarine base.
“All of that would be taken into consideration,” he told the ABC.
He bristled at any suggestion he and Morrison were at odds on the timeframe for deciding which submarine design Australia would adopt under the much-trumpeted Aukus partnership with the US and the UK.
Dutton had said on Sunday the government would announce the selected boat “within the next couple of months”, sparking speculation this may occur before the federal election due in May.
But Morrison ruled out making a decision before the election, noting that caretaker conventions were due to begin by April.
The defence minister told the Nine Network: “I didn’t say it would be before the election. Of course the ABC and the Guardian and others have tried to spin it into that but that’s not the case.”
The Labor party has offered its support for the Aukus, saying it accepts advice that the deteriorating strategic environment in the Indo-Pacific justifies the need for less easily detectible nuclear-propelled submarines.
That committee is chaired by Morrison and includes senior ministers, including the defence minister, Peter Dutton, and the foreign affairs minister, Marise Payne. Robert is not listed as a member.
But the Defence spokesperson told Guardian Australia each site had been “assessed against Defence’s evaluation criteria”.
The factors included “access to exercise areas and proximity to industrial infrastructure and significant population centres to support personnel and recruitment”.
But Labor’s defence spokesperson, Brendan O’Connor, said the party was seeking a briefing on the east coast base plans. He said Morrison had “taken a leaf out of his marketing playbook by making an announcement about a decision that will be made in 2023”.
Officials from the US and the UK have visited Australia in recent weeks. It is understood the three governments are examining the full set of requirements to allow for the delivery of at least eight nuclear-propelled submarines under Aukus.
These include the submarine design, construction, safety, operation, maintenance, disposal, regulation, training, environmental protection, installations and infrastructure, industrial base capacity, workforce and force structure.
While Morrison has previously said the first submarine was expected to be in the water by about 2040, Dutton has since argued the may be achievable sooner.
The government has also foreshadowed a likely increase in visits by British and US nuclear submarines in the meantime.
Australian government’s bungling incompetence over the record floods in Queensland and New South Wales
Government incompetence and lack of planning: it never rains but it pours
Michael West Media, By Callum Foote|March 9, 2022 The skies opened and the rains fell, hammering communities up and down the east coast. So how good is Australia in another time of tragedy? An FOI reveals that the government was warned about the increased likelihood of floods in November last year, and failed to properly prepare for the disaster, writes Callum Foote.
Better late than never. Two weeks into the floods that have devastated Queensland and NSW, Scott Morrison has announced a state of emergency. If only it was a problem of tardiness. In fact, the government knew for three months that this catastrophe was coming, and failed to act.
The Department of Home Affairs was given a briefing by the Director-General Emergency Management Australia, Joe Buffone, on November 5 warning that widespread flooding, severe storms and tropical cyclones are “more likely” than previous decades.
All the premiers and the PM were given this briefing, yet even today we still have Morrison talking about a once in 500-year event. Deputy PM and Minister for Infrastructure, Barnaby Joyce, has said that this is a “one in 3500 years” event and the New South Wales premier, Dominic Perrottet described the torrential rain in the north of the state as a “one-in-1000-year event”.
The presentation, released by the Department of Home Affairs under a freedom of information request by independent Senator Rex Patrick, also pointed to the effects of the La Nina weather pattern and a negative Indian Ocean Diapol (IOD) which both contribute to a wetter than average northern Australia………….
The report did not forecast regional hazards into autumn, but its mid-late summer predictions were that the eastern seaboard would experience flooding as a result of tropical cycles and widespread rain.
MWM has put questions to the Department of Home Affairs about what steps it took to prepare Australians for these hazards. We have not yet received a reply.
The agency responsible for addressing emergencies such as the current floods is the National Recovery and Resilience Agency. The NRRA’s $4.7 Emergency Response Fund has up to $50 million set aside to spend on disaster preparedness measures every year. Until Labor senator Murray Watt challenged Shane Stone, the co-ordinator general of the NRRA, in Senate estimates last year for not spending a cent of this money set aside, measures had not been taken.
Fifty million dollars was given out to fund flood mitigation infrastructure last May under the National Flood Mitigation Infrastructure Program 20-21. None of the three projects funded in Queensland was in the state’s south.
Applications for the 2021-22 program closed on February 4 and it has not announced any funding.
When did authorities know flooding was occurring?
The NRRA is housed within the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet and overseen by the Minister for Emergency Management and National Recovery and Resilience, currently Bridget McKenzie.
The first reports of severe storms and flooding in South-East Queensland occurred on February 1, with the first reports of flooding in NSW occurring on February 11.
Morrison first issued a statement of support to the victims of the Queensland floods on February 27, almost a full month after the floods began. He followed it up the following day to include NSW flood victims also.
McKenzie addressed the floods on February 15, offering “disaster assistance” to Queensland Local Government Areas affected by the ongoing floods.
What money is on offer now?
The Australian Government Disaster Recovery Payment provides one-off financial assistance to eligible Australians adversely affected by the floods in Queensland and NSW. The rate is $1,000 per eligible adult and $400 per eligible child…………………….
Shane Stone: disaster fighter
Shane Stone stepped into the role of Coordinator-General of the super-agency after serving as coordinator-general of one of its subordinates, the former National Drought and North Queensland Flood Response and Recovery Agency.
Labor has called on Stone to resign over comments appearing to blame people who “want to live among the gum trees” for the cost of recovering from catastrophic floods.
Failure to spend
Watt uncovered in Senate Estimates late last month that zero-funding had been allocated to the now $4.7 billion Emergency Response Fund. This was despite the fund being cleared to allocate up to $50 million a year on preventive measures such as flood barriers, cyclone shelters and bushfire prevention works.
It appears from answers given to questions asked by MWM by an NRRA media spokesperson that since then, $50 million has been allocated to build flood mitigation infrastructure.
As coordinator-general. Stone also has considerable influence on the unutilised $4.7 billion Emergency Response Fund as the Ministers funding decisions are made following Stone’s advice. pours https://www.michaelwest.com.au/government-incompetence-and-lack-of-planning-it-never-rains-but-it-pour
 | |||
$10b plan for nuclear submarine base under fire over timing, potential site
$10b plan for nuclear submarine base under fire over timing, potential site, The Age, By David Crowe, March 7, 2022 . A federal plan for a $10 billion nuclear submarine base on Australia’s east coast has sparked Labor claims that the move is a ploy to get a headline while others say Sydney would be a better location than the official options of Brisbane, Newcastle or Port Kembla.
Labor has backed the plan to build a fleet of nuclear-powered submarines under the AUKUS alliance signed last year with the United Kingdom and United States but has demanded a briefing on the new base after being promised regular briefings last year.
Independent Senator Rex Patrick, a former submariner, also questioned the timing of the government move and said the Department of Defence had favoured Sydney in previous plans, questioning whether election factors had influenced the new proposal.
Prime Minister Scott Morrison outlined the options for the new base in a speech to the Lowy Institute on Monday that said Defence had reviewed 19 potential sites and estimated a $10 billion cost for the base at one of the preferred east coast sites to add to an existing base near Perth.
While Defence Minister Peter Dutton said on Sunday the government would bring forward a decision on whether to choose British or American nuclear submarines for construction in Australia, Mr Morrison said on Monday this did not mean an announcement before the election.
The timelines for the vast project suggest a decision on the east coast base should be made in 2023 and the first submarine would be in the water by around 2040.
Senator Patrick said a process to choose the new submarines began in 2009 but the government had failed to deliver since coming to power in 2013.
“We’re 13 years and $3 billion into a future submarine project and what do we have to show for it? We’ve got a study into getting a nuclear submarine and, now, a study into where we might put them,” he said.
“Call me cynical, but this is another Scott Morrison announcement designed to gloss over his government’s disgraceful national security failures that have left our country vulnerable.”
Senator Patrick gained documents from the Department of Defence under freedom of information law that showed the search for an east coast base canvassed locations including Jervis Bay on the south coast of NSW and Western Port Bay in Victoria as well as Sydney…….
Mr Patrick said Sydney should remain the leading option but appeared to be dropped for political reasons.
“The fact that Sydney is the only city in Australia with a nuclear reactor, and the experienced personnel that maintain and operate it, only strengthens Sydney’s case,” he said.
……………………… Labor candidate Alison Byrnes, who is aiming to replace sitting Labor MP Sharon Bird in the seat of Cunningham around Wollongong and Port Kembla, called for a full briefing from the government rather than being asked to respond to a government “drop” to the media.
With a decision not likely until 2023, critics of the government questioned the timing of Mr Morrison’s announcement and the need for a swift response to his proposal.
“The suggestion for a base for nuclear-powered submarines is just another ploy from the Prime Minister to get a headline without providing any detail of how this will be implemented or even when it will be delivered,” Labor defence spokesman Brendan O’Connor said.
“It seems like Scott Morrison is trying to divert attention from the fact the nuclear-powered submarines won’t come into effect for more than a decade, leaving Australia with a significant capability gap. https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/10b-plan-for-nuclear-submarine-base-under-fire-over-timing-potential-site-20220307-p5a2bi.html
Morrison’s selected sites for nuclear submarine base were not the Defence Dept choices – and opposed by the local towns.
Coalition shortlist for nuclear submarines base were not in Defence’s top five in 2011 review, https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/mar/08/coalition-shortlist-for-nuclear-submarines-base-were-not-in-defences-top-five-in-2011-reviewDaniel Hurst and Royce Kurmelovs. 8 Mar 22, ‘We are not getting lumped with their mess’, Newcastle mayor says of prospect of basing nuclear fleet in city while Wollongong mayor also concerned.
The mayors of Newcastle and Wollongong have expressed unease at the Morrison government naming their cities as a potential base for nuclear-powered submarines, with one describing the Aukus plans as a “fantasy”.
Questions have also been raised about the government’s process for shortlisting Newcastle, Port Kembla in Wollongong and Brisbane for a new east coast base, given that a previous Defence review had not backed them as most-preferred sites.
The South Australian independent senator Rex Patrick, a former submariner, said Scott Morrison’s announcement on Monday was “thick with political fog” with an election looming, noting the final site would not be selected until 2023.
Patrick said: “Why pork barrel in one electorate when you can – for the same price – pork barrel in three?”
Morrison said the government had “provisioned more than $10bn to meet the facilities and infrastructure requirements” for the transition from Australia’s existing Collins-class submarines to the nuclear-powered submarines to be acquired under the Aukus pact with the UK and the US.
He said Defence had looked at 19 potential sites and narrowed them down to the three preferred locations. Defence would now discuss the plans further with state and local governments and “begin negotiations on what will be an enormous undertaking”.
The moves come amid continuing uncertainty about when the first of the nuclear-powered submarines will be operating. Morrison originally estimated it would be by about 2040 but the government now insists it may be sooner.
The new base – which the Coalition wants to build in either Brisbane, Newcastle or Port Kembla – would “enable the regular visiting of US and UK nuclear-powered submarines”, Morrison said in a virtual address to the Lowy Institute.
However, the mayors of Newcastle and Wollongong both said they were not consulted about the decision. With both cities historically home to anti-war movements they expected considerable community opposition.
Both cities have passed official resolutions to make them nuclear-free zones.
There is also believed to be opposition to nuclear power, particularly where it is used to propel a weapon of war – although spent fuel rods from the Lucas Heights reactor have passed through Port Kembla on their way for processing in France.
Wollongong’s lord mayor, Gordon Bradbery, an independent, said he was waiting for more detail about the proposal before he would consult the local community.
“It’s not only nuclear power and nuclear-powered submarines, but it’s the location of a strategic defence asset and that would make anyone who gets this particular facility a target,” Bradbery said.
“International tensions now are playing on a lot of people’s minds and there would be concerns about our city as a location for nuclear-powered submarines.”
Bradbery said Wollongong city council had previously worked with Regional Development Australia to make a submission to the federal government to relocate naval activities from Garden Island in Sydney Harbour to Port Kembla, but this was for conventional submarines only.
“It just disappeared into the ether at the time,” Bradbery said. “Many suggested it was pie in the sky as the navy wasn’t keen on relocating from Garden Island.”
Newcastle’s Labor lord mayor, Nuatali Nelmes, said the city had no intention of giving up its nuclear-free status over a “fantasy”.
“The whole deal is a fantasy,” Nelmes said.
“This announcement, the Aukus decision and the absolutely hopeless way they have handled this submarine contract – we are not getting lumped with their mess.
“It is also typical of the federal government to have unilateral decision making where cities like Newcastle, which have been for many decades, a nuclear-free zone, would even be considered.”
But the Liberal premier of New South Wales, Dominic Perrottet, welcomed the inclusion of Port Kembla and Newcastle on the federal government’s shortlist , saying the world faced “very uncertain times”.
“Defence protection for our country is paramount and we have worked very closely with the federal government to identify these sites for our state,” Perrottet told the Nine Network.
A spokesperson for the Queensland Labor government said it was “yet to receive any detailed information from the commonwealth”.
Study found Port Kembla ‘impractical’
A 2011 Defence report ranked potential options for a new east coast home port for submarines. The top three options were in Sydney Harbour, followed by two options in Jervis Bay, south of Sydney.
“Newcastle has its strengths, but the slight edge that it has with respect to positive people factors is compromised by its isolation from any other naval infrastructure, its susceptibility to flooding, and its sometimes difficult harbour entrance,” the future submarine basing study said.
Newcastle Port was sixth on the list and the Port of Brisbane was eighth.
The report included the caveat that detailed costing and environmental impact analysis “may generate a different outcome”. It placed a priority on the proximity to fleet assets in Sydney.
Brisbane, Newcastle and Port Kembla shortlisted for nuclear submarine base on Australia’s east coast
Brisbane, Newcastle and Port Kembla shortlisted for nuclear submarine base on Australia’s east coast, ABC By defence correspondent Andrew Greene 7 Mar 22, A new submarine base will be built on Australia’s east coast to support the future nuclear-powered fleet being acquired under the AUKUS partnership, with Defence identifying Brisbane, Newcastle and Port Kembla as the most suitable locations.
Key points:
- The Prime Minister will announce a new “future submarine base” for Australia’s east coast to accommodate a nuclear fleet
- Defence believes Port Kembla in NSW is the best option, but the Commonwealth will also consider Brisbane and Newcastle
- The government is playing down the Defence Minister’s suggestion of a submarine design announcement ahead of this year’s election
Prime Minister Scott Morrison will unveil the plan in a national security speech today, when he will warn the strategic, political, economic and social implications of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine will “inevitably stretch to the Indo-Pacific”.
Australia’s fleet of six Collins-class submarines are currently based at Perth’s HMAS Stirling (Fleet Base West), while the ageing boats also regularly operate out of Sydney’s Garden Island Naval base (Fleet Base East).
During an address to the Lowy Institute, Mr Morrison will confirm the government has decided to establish “a future submarine base on the east coast of Australia to support basing and disposition of the future nuclear-powered submarines“. ……..
Australia’s fleet of six Collins-class submarines are currently based at Perth’s HMAS Stirling (Fleet Base West), while the ageing boats also regularly operate out of Sydney’s Garden Island Naval base (Fleet Base East).
During an address to the Lowy Institute, Mr Morrison will confirm the government has decided to establish “a future submarine base on the east coast of Australia to support basing and disposition of the future nuclear-powered submarines“.
The new facility would be the first new major defence base built in Australia since the Robertson Barracks in Darwin in the 1990s, with initial works expected to be completed by next year ahead of a final decision on the location.
Early estimates from Defence suggest more than $10 billion will be needed for facilities and infrastructure requirements to transition from Collins submarines to the future nuclear-powered fleet.
With the Coalition continuing to push national security as a major election issue against the backdrop of growing worldwide military tensions, Mr Morrison will declare Australia faces its most difficult and dangerous security environment in 80 years.
In his Monday speech, he will accuse Russia and China of aligning to try and reshape the international order to create a “transactional world, devoid of principle, accountability and transparency”.
A new arc of autocracy is instinctively aligning to challenge and reset the world order in their own image,” Mr Morrison will say, invoking President George W Bush’s 2002 declaration that Iran, North Korea, and Iraq formed an “axis of evil”.
Decision on sub design in ‘next couple of months’
On Sunday, Defence Minister Peter Dutton told the ABC’s Insiders program the government would decide “within the next couple of months” what submarines it would acquire under the AUKUS partnership
He said the nuclear-powered boats would be in Australia “much sooner” than 2040 and there would be a plan to provide capability in the interim, although the government later played down suggestions a design would be announced before the election.
Mr Dutton’s initial suggestion of a pre-election decision on Australia’s choice of nuclear-powered submarines caused shock among officials from AUKUS partners the United Kingdom and the United States.
“A lot of effort has gone into taking partisan politics out of the whole process – hopefully, this doesn’t derail it,” one diplomatic official told the ABC, speaking on the condition of anonymity. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-03-07/nuclear-submarine-base-shortlist-brisbane-newcastle-port-kembla/100887204
Peter Dutton enthuses – weapons to Taiwan, nuclear submarines ASAP
Peter Dutton flags Australia sending weapons to Taiwan, acquiring nuclear submarines before 2040, ABC 6 Mar 22
By political reporter Henry Belot and Jane Norman Defence Minister Peter Dutton has indicated Australia may send weapons to Taiwan in response to any future Chinese military aggression, drawing a direct comparison to support currently being sent to Ukraine in its fight against Russia.
Key points:
- Mr Dutton said China was acquiring nuclear weapons and amassing “huge” forces
- Labor said it was wrong for the Defence Minister to answer hypotheticals about military action
- Mr Dutton said Australia could acquire nuclear submarines earlier than 2040
Mr Dutton also revealed Australia might acquire nuclear submarines earlier than the expected 2040 timeline, with details on design and construction to be announced “within a couple of months” and possibly before a federal election.
Federal Labor has criticised Mr Dutton for previously saying it would be “inconceivable” for Australia not to join military action if the US defended Taiwan.
“It would be completely wrong and wrongheaded for us to be answering such hypotheticals, and we think the Defence Minister made a mistake in that regard,” Shadow Defence Minister Brendan O’Connor said on Sunday.
“I don’t recall any defence minister in our history, certainly recent history, that would ever answer a question in the positive about a hypothetical question about whether we would find ourselves engaged in a full-blown war with a nuclear superpower.”……………….
Mr Dutton confirmed that missiles and ammunition supplied by Western nations – including Australia – had now arrived in Ukraine.
Submarine timeline condensed
Mr Dutton also revealed the government would announce “within a couple of months” which nuclear-powered submarines it planned to acquire as part of the new AUKUS alliance with the United States and United Kingdom.
When AUKUS was unveiled in September last year, torpedoing Australia’s $90 billion submarine contract with France, the government said it would take 18 months to identify the best way to acquire and build the new fleet, using either US or UK technology.
However Mr Dutton is now indicating that timeline has been dramatically condensed, raising the prospect of a pre-election announcement.
“We will have an announcement within the next couple of months about which boat we are going with, what we can do in the interim,” he said……….. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-03-06/peter-dutton-flags-australian-military-support-for-taiwan/100886412
Australian companies’ uranium shares plummet
ASX uranium shares plummet amid Ukraine power station attack. Motley Fool, A fire at Europe’s largest nuclear power station has uranium investors on edge… Mitchell Lawler 6 Mar 22, ASX-listed uranium shares are tumbling on Friday following reports of a fire at Ukraine’s largest nuclear power station ……..
The S&P/ASX 200 Index (ASX: XJO) is suffering a red session on Friday amid an intensification of the situation in Ukraine. However, ASX uranium shares are showing up as some of the hardest-hit companies of all on the Australian share market.
At present, many uranium producers and explorers are trading 10% to 20% lower. This follows reports that one of Ukraine’s nuclear power stations — the largest in Europe — is on fire as a consequence of Russian attacks.
………. with years of unattractive prices for the commodity, investments in creating new a new supply had been dampened.
However, with expectations of nuclear energy becoming a piece in the green transition puzzle, investors were willing to take a punt on ASX uranium shares.
That was until the latest development in the Ukraine-Russia conflict.
Companies copping the brunt of bad news
Currently, ASX uranium shares are being sold off hard. Here’s how some of these companies are tracking:
- Boss Energy Ltd (ASX: BOE) down 13.7%
- Paladin Energy Ltd (ASX: PDN) down 12.2%
- Deep Yellow Limited (ASX: DYL) down 14.9%
- Peninsula Energy Ltd (ASX: PEN) down 14%
Peter Dutton’s war machine cult
Independent Australia, By Binoy Kampmark | 19 January 2022, The Federal Government has spent billions on defence equipment, ignoring issues such as the climate crisis and pandemic, writes Dr Binoy Kampmark.
THE OPERATING DOCTRINE of many a defence ministry is premised on fatuity. There is the industry prerogative and need for employment. There are the hectoring think tanks writing in oracular tones of warning that the next “strategic” change is peeking around the corner.
Purchases of weapons are then made to fight devils foreign and invisible, with the occasional lethal deployment against the local citizenry who misbehave. This often leads to purchases that should put the decision maker in therapy.
Australia’s war-wishing Defence Minister Peter Dutton may be in urgent need of such treatment, but he is unlikely to take up the suggestion, preferring to pursue an arms program of delusional proportions. His mental soundness was not helped by last year’s establishment of AUKUS and the signals of enthusiastic militarism from Washington.
Having cut ties with the French defence establishment over what was a trouble-plagued submarine contract, Dutton has been an important figure in ensuring that Australia will continue its naval problems with a future nuclear-powered submarine.
Submarines are seaborne phallic reassurances for the naval arm of defence. Stubbornly expensive and always stressing celebrated potential over proven reality, they stimulate the defence establishment. The land-based forces, however, will also have their toys and stimulants, their own slice of make believe. And Dutton is promising them a few, including tanks.
This month, the Minister announced that Australia will be spending $3.5 billion on 120 tanks and an assortment of other armoured vehicles, including 29 assault breacher vehicles and 17 joint assault bridge vehicles. All will be purchased from the U.S. military machine. This will also include 75 M1A2 main battle tanks, which will replace the 59 Abrams M1A1s purchased in 2007 and kept in blissful quarantine, untouched by actual combat.
Reading from the script of presumed military relevance, Dutton declared that:
“Teamed with the Infantry Fighting Vehicle, Combat Engineering Vehicles and self-propelled howitzers, the new Abrams will give our soldiers the best possibility of success and protection from harm.”
………….. To dispel any notion that this purchase simply confirmed Australian deference and obedience to U.S. military power, the Defence Minister also claimed that the new Abrams:
“…will incorporate the latest developments in Australian sovereign defence capabilities, including command, control, communications, computers and intelligence systems, and benefit from the intended manufacture of tank ammunition in Australia.”
In other words, once Australia finishes with these cherished, dear imports, adjusted as they are bound to be for the ADF, they are more likely to be extortionately priced museum pieces rather than operable weapons of flexible deployment…………
The last time Australia deployed tanks in combat was during the Vietnam War, that other grand failure of military adventurism. They were never used in Australia’s engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan, despite being lauded as being a necessary vehicle in beating down insurgency movements…………………….
Critics of the purchase have included otherwise hawkish pundits such as Greg Sheridan of The Australian, who spent some of last year shaking his head at the proposed acquisition after it was announced by the U.S. Defence Security Cooperation Agency. The decision, he opined unleashing his talons, was one of ‘sheer idiocy’, an ‘anachronistic frivolity’. Tanks and other heavy, tracked vehicles would ‘never be of the slightest military use to us’……………………..
The tank fraternity, a gathering of near cultic loyalty, are swooning in triumph. As Peter J Dean, director of the Defence and Security Institute at the University of Western Australia remarked last year, their membership has never proven shy. Cults tend to show that utility is secondary to the importance of st https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/peter-duttons-war-machine-cult,15952
Friendlyjordies allegations against Dutton met with silence.
Friendlyjordies allegations against Dutton met with silence, Independent Australia,
By Victoria Fielding | 7 March 2022 An exposé on Peter Dutton by independent journalist Friendlyjordies has been ignored by the mainstream media, writes Dr Victoria Fielding.
On Friday last week, independent investigative journalist, Jordan Shanks (Friendlyjordies), released an explosive video about one of the most powerful Ministers in the Morrison Government. Since then, the story has sunk without a trace. What is going on?
Is this the mainstream news media refusing to admit Friendlyjordies has beaten them to a scandal, or is Defence Minister Peter Dutton being protected from scrutiny by his mates in the media?
As of writing, over 300,000 people have watched the Friendlyjordies piece. The investigation intricately maps out some very specific allegations about the business dealings of Dutton’s friends, including sources alleging sex scandals, drugs and dodgy dealings in lucrative government contracts.
One of the people involved in the web of intrigue exposed by Shanks is Ryan Shaw, who up until Wednesday was the Liberal National Party’s candidate for the marginal seat of Lilley. Shaw, an Army veteran, has been campaigning in the seat for months, including with Prime Minister Scott Morrison.
The seat is held by Labor MP Anika Wells by the wafer-thin margin of 0.64 per cent. Not just any candidate gets placed in a must-win marginal seat. Shaw’s withdrawal, citing family and mental health issues, is a big loss to the L-NP considering they are left without a candidate weeks out from the Election and after the much-wasted investment of time and resources.
Although it is impossible to know exactly why Shaw withdrew, it is more than a little coincidental that the decision was made at the exact same time as Shanks and his team were questioning Shaw about his involvement with people in the incredibly suspect chain of events detailed in the video.
I’ve spent a lot of time around politics and I know a candidate doesn’t withdraw their cand
I’ve spent a lot of time around politics and I know a candidate doesn’t withdraw their candidacy over any small thing. The Friendlyjordies allegations, if they could be batted away, no doubt would have been to save Shaw’s position. Yet they weren’t.
But it isn’t just Shaw who had questions to answer over his association with people directly implicated by allegations in the explosive story. Peter Dutton is also associated with key players.
Not only does Dutton hold the powerful position of Minister for Defence, but he is also a contender for leader of the Liberal Party, should Morrison choose to step down after the Election. This scandal therefore has all the ingredients you would think the mainstream media would need to make it top priority for journalist follow up.
Senior Minister in the Morrison Government — check. A high profile candidate stepping down seemingly for no reason weeks out from the Election — check. Allegations of government contracts being used to enrich Liberal Party donors — check. Allegations of drug-fueled parties and drug-taking — check…………..
On Sunday, by chance, Peter Dutton was interviewed at length by David Speers on ABC’s Insiders program. It is true that there is much on the Defence Minister’s agenda, what with the war in Ukraine and the Queensland and NSW floods, but there was plenty of time for at least one question about the Shanks allegations in the video. The Minister is not meant to define the agenda of the interview; the whole point of such questioning is to hold the Minister to account. This opportunity was missed.
So, what makes this story so untouchable by mainstream journalists?…………………
Whatever role Dutton has played in this scandal, he should be answerable to the public. And if the news media refuses to even mention the story, let alone pressure Dutton to explain his involvement, then it is a very sad day indeed for democracy. https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/friendlyjordies-allegations-against-dutton-met-with-silence,16122
Australian Security Policy Institute – funded by weapons corporations, and federal govt – drumming up the frenzy for war with China
Guns still point to China: Ukraine a backdrop for national security panic merchants https://www.michaelwest.com.au/guns-still-point-to-china-ukraine-a-backdrop-for-national-security-panic-merchants/, Michael West Media, By Marcus Reubenstein, March 4, 2022
After a two-decade wait, Australia’s ”defence and strategic policy think tank” ASPI finally has a new war, one that will be a financial boon for its murky weapons maker backers. Backed also by Scott Morrison and Peter Dutton, this “independent” think tank is a key player in drumming up a pre-election China threat, writes Marcus Reubenstein.
The Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) is busy not so much with a conflict on the other side of the globe but finding a way to spin the misery of the people of Ukraine into anti-China propaganda. It’s just the kind of propaganda Scott Morrison wants, and the prime minister clearly thinks he needs, in the run up to a likely May federal election.
For years ASPI has suckled at the teat of the weapons industry; but far and away the most generous of ASPI’s benefactors is the Morrison government.
That makes sense because ASPI is not an independent research group. It is an Australian Commonwealth company, which reports directly to Defence Minister Peter Dutton and the appointment of its executive director must be ratified by cabinet.
When Morrison replaced Malcolm Turnbull as prime minister in 2018, ASPI was receiving around $1.6 million in annual government contracts over and above its core Defence Department funding of $3.5 million.
Faced with the real prospect of losing the 2019 election, Morrison and then defence minister Christopher Pyne changed the funding agreement to lock in $4 million of Defence funding for each year over five years.
What both ASPI and the government failed to mention was the Morrison government was about to embark on a gargantuan funding top-up strategy through the awarding of numerous government contracts.
Department of Finance figures show ASPI was awarded $9,497,783.88 in Commonwealth contracts in the 2020-2021 financial y
The 500 per cent increase in Commonwealth contracts awarded to a group parroting, and amplifying, the key national security message of the Morrison government suggests ASPI has been politically shifted from strategists to propagandists.
Prior to a detailed examination of ASPI’s funding sources published by Michael West Media in 2020, there had been zero disclosure as to the level of funding ASPI received from its benefactors.
These amounts are not insubstantial; in total ASPI has generated more than $100 million in revenue.
With a light shining on its finances ASPI now discloses the payments it gets from its funders. Outside Australia, that is principally a handful of foreign governments, weapons makers, and tech companies with a vested interest in crippling China’s rise as a global technology provider.
Buried on page 152 of the latest ASPI annual report is the claim that it received $2,620,978.73 in funding from government contracts. This does not reconcile with the Department of Finance’s figure of almost $9.5 million.
According to the Department of Finance, ASPI racked up 25 Commonwealth contracts while ASPI claims the figure is 21 contracts. ASPI’s accounts are audited by the Australian National Audit Office and there is no suggestion of impropriety in its reporting of income.
Three substantial contracts, two from Defence and one from the Department of Foreign Affairs, were multi-year agreements totalling $8,969,783.80. For reporting purposes, it appears there’s no requirement for disclosure of these specific payments in that reporting period.
One oddity is a contract of $1.5 million (CN3757203) awarded to ASPI in March 2021. Outside Defence, it is far and away the biggest single Commonwealth contract ever awarded to ASPI, yet there is not a single mention of it in the 2020-2021 annual report.
Transparency has never been ASPI’s strong suit.
Putin, payments and propaganda
No sooner had Prime Minister Scott Morrison announced Australian taxpayers were doling out $70 million to NATO for weapons to be sent to Ukraine, the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) jumped in with its comprehensive analysis.
n line with its constant drone of “independence” from Canberra policy thought, ASPI challenged the wisdom of Defence Department policy. However, the main tenet of its criticism was that the Australian government has not bought enough missiles.
And who makes the shoulder-launched anti-tank Javelin missiles, en “kangaroo” route to Kyiv? Long-time ASPI sponsors Lockheed Martin and Raytheon.
The latter for years was the world’s biggest manufacturer of child-killing cluster munitions. Though they stopped making them in 2016, Raytheon cluster bombs have been stockpiled and reportedly are still being launched on civilian targets in the forgotten war in Yemen.
Raytheon is no longer an ASPI sponsor but there was zero disclosure in the ASPI missile piece that it took money from Raytheon between 2013 and 2019. Annual reports reveal Lockheed Martin – which makes the dud F-35 Strike Fighters which have soaked up billions in Defence spending – has been pouring money into ASPI’s coffers for the past 18 years.
ASPI presumably justified its non-disclosure of these sponsors because it had not identified they manufactured the Javelin missile in the report.
In late January, independent US website In These Times reported the CEO’s of Raytheon and Lockheed Martin both “boasted” on conference calls with Wall Street analyst that conflict between Russia and Ukraine was a “boom for business.”
One analyst reported Raytheon CEO Greg Hayes had said, in reply to a question about arming US allies: “Obviously we have some defensive weapons systems that we could supply which could be helpful, like the patriot missile system”. While commenting on rising geopolitical tensions, including both Ukraine and China, he said: “I fully expect we’re going to see some [financial] benefit from it.”
Spike in spruiking
When ASPI criticises Australia’s armed forces for the purchase of one type of weapons system it usually suggests an alternative — often the alternative just happens to be made by an ASPI sponsor.
In this case, ASPI’s Marcus Hellyer argued Australia’s shoulder-launched Javelin missile largesse had missed the mark. According to Hellyer, Australia has the wrong missile; instead we should be armed with Israeli-built Spike missiles, which were ordered two years ago by the ADF. There’s no sign of them yet.
And who makes the Spike? Another ASPI sponsor, Rafael. ASPI did disclose this at the end its article, in rather meek terms, that Rafael had hosted a workshop for the think tank in the previous year.
One thing ASPI has consistently never publicly discussed is the money its weapons industry sponsors get from the Australian government. In its 2018-19 annual report, ASPI boasted that it facilitates access to highly placed government officials for its sponsors. Between ASPI’s establishment and 2020, its sponsors collected more than $80 billion in Defence Department contracts.
ASPI’s China syndrome
ASPI’s analysts have been all over this latest conflict running two familiar lines: Western nations need more weapons and China is the real threat.
On February 24, ASPI executive director Peter Jennings, who is a columnist at Murdoch’s The Australian, wrote an opinion piece in which he asserts “China wins from this conflict.” Clearly there are geopolitical ramifications for China that will concern Australia, but to effectively put China front and centre in an eastern European conflict is straight out of the ASPI playbook.
In that same article Jennings argued that the failure of the Afghan military forces against the Taliban boiled down to one crucial factor — a lack of military hardware.
Imagine the price tag on hardware needed to fight a war with China that some of our politicians and security establishment as apparently salivating for.
The Kimba nuclear waste dump was NEVER about the supply of nuclear medicine.
Kazzi Jai Fight to Stop a nuclear waste dump in the Flinders Ranges 4 Mar 22, https://www.facebook.com/groups/941313402573199
“Time is running out, but we’re not going away. Our community is committed to our part in providing surety of supply for nuclear medicine provision for the benefit of every Australian, who, on average, will use nuclear medicine at least once in their lifetime.
The irony that neither federal nor state governments can provide our town and our community with base-level GP and emergency medical access is, quite frankly, unforgiveable and unacceptable to our community…..”* Mayor Dean Johnson opening remarks…
Wow!! So the “promises” are disappearing now Mayor Johnson??
Here’s a heads up – The Nuclear Waste Dump was NEVER about surety of supple of nuclear medicine!!!
Matt Canavan said so…ANSTO said so….DIIS said so – NEVER ABOUT SURETY OF NUCLEAR MEDICINE!
*Transcript excerpt from “General practitioner and related primary health services to outer metropolitan, rural and regional Australians” – Senate Inquiry Whyalla Session March 1st 2022
Caitlin Johnstone: Freedom & Democracy Via Censorship. Australian government and media join in
You’d think a free society would have no objection to people trying to learn about the other side of a war in which NATO powers very plainly had a hand in starting. By Caitlin Johnstone 4 Mar 22, Consortium News
CaitlinJohnstone.com Kremlin-backed media outlets have been banned throughout the European Union, both on television and on apps and online platforms. RT has lost its Sky TV slot in the U.K., where the outlet is also blocked on YouTube.
Australian TV providers SBS and Foxtel have dropped RT, and the federal government is putting pressure on social media platforms to block Russian media in Australia.
In the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Latvia, speaking in support of the Russian invasion of Ukraine will get you years in prison.
Twitter, historically the last of the major online platforms to jump on any new internet censorship escalation, is now actively minimizing the number of people who see Russian media content, saying that it is “reducing the content’s visibility” and “taking steps to significantly reduce the circulation of this content on Twitter.” This is exactly what I speculated might emerge after former Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey resigned in November, due to previous comments supporting the tactic of censorship-by-algorithm by his successor Parag Agrawal.
Twitter is also placing warnings labels on all Russia-backed media and delivering a pop-up message informing you that you are committing wrongthink if you try to share or even “like” a post linking to such outlets on the platform. It has also placed the label “Russia state-affiliated media” on every tweet made by the personal accounts of employees of those platforms, baselessly giving the impression that the dissident opinions tweeted by those accounts are paid Kremlin content and not simply their own legitimate perspectives. Some are complaining that this new label has led to online harassment amid the post-9/11-like anti-Russia hysteria that’s currently turning western brains into clam chowder
(Many Tweets quoted here)
This is all on top of all the other drastic escalations in censorship which came roaring in at the beginning of the Ukraine war, and I personally find it a bit scary how fast it’s all happening, how fine people are with it, and how much worse it seems likely to get.
Others agree.
“The purge of RT and other Russian media outlets in the US and Europe is 100% censorship,” tweets journalist Michael Tracey. “Go ahead and argue it’s justified, but at least don’t be a coward and admit you are advocating censorship.”
“The western world believes that it has a monopoly on what constitutes ‘political truth’ and that their ideological worldview is the only correct, valid and authoritative one,” writer and analyst Tom Fowdy observed. “They preach freedom of speech and the press to other countries, but exempt themselves from it.”
And I can’t help but find it odd that the fight for freedom and democracy should require such copious amounts of censorship. You’d think a free society would have no objection to people trying to learn the other side of the debate about a war which NATO powers very plainly had a hand in starting, rather than being forced to consume only Western mass media narratives which tell us this is happening exclusively because Russian President Vladimir Putin is evil and Hitlery and hates freedom…………..
It makes you wonder if we have foolishly consented to a reality where the most powerful people in the world get to control the information people consume in order to shut down dissent against a murderous and oppressive globe-spanning oligarchic empire.
And it kind of makes you wonder, as we watch the same empire that just destroyed Iraq, Libya, Syria and Yemen being entrusted to carefully navigate extremely delicate nuclear brinkmanship escalations without ending the world, if we might perhaps be better off with a lot more dissent, rather than a lot less. https://consortiumnews.com/2022/03/03/caitlin-johnstone-freedom-democracy-via-censorship/
Uranium miner BHP under criticism for guzzling precious artesian water, and for not keeping its word to Aboriginal native title holders
Environment campaigner and consultant David Noonan, who provided submissions to the Juukan Inquiry, is sceptical of the desalination plant announcement.
Mr Noonan says even if it was built, BHP could be taking GAB water until the end of the decade. He wants to hear a formal commitment about alternative water sources.
Why BHP is facing a minefield, CHRIS MITCHELL, Adelaide Now, 4 Mar 22,
AUSTRALIA’S biggest company and the world’s secondbiggest miner, BHP, may disappoint conservationists and Aboriginal native title holders who had hoped for commitments to reform of heritage issues and underground water use at its Olympic Dam mine before the March 19 state election BHP, the Big Australian, with market capitalisation of $230bn, paid the state government royalties of $136m last year. Its Olympic Dam project 560km north of Adelaide is South Australia’s largest mining venture and the world’s biggest uranium mine, a global top-four copper mine and producer of gold and lead. BHP is powerful in SA.
Premier Steven Marshall is Aboriginal Affairs Minister but it would be fair to say native title holders do not wield the sort of power in Adelaide that big miners do.
Yet BHP has flagged some changes to the way it operates that could reduce its own power over its own asset.
Under the 1982 Roxby Downs (Indenture Ratification) Act signed with former mine owner Western Mining, BHP, which bought the mine in 2005, has almost unprecedented powers over resources and water within its 12,000sq km Stuart Shelf exploration lease.
BHP has been criticised by conservation groups and Aboriginal interests in last year’s report into rival Rio Tinto’s destruction of Juukan Gorge in Western Australia. The report includes criticism from the Arabana tribe of the mine’s heavy reliance on water from the Great Artesian Basin (GAB), and particularly from the so-called “Mound Springs” Aboriginal heritage sites north of the mine.
On February 15, The Advertiser revealed BHP would back a new $15m study, partly funded by state and federal governments, into a Spencer Gulf desalination plant to pump water to SA’s northern mines. But BHP is still far short of publicly committing to end its use of GAB water.
Conservationists say BHP is trying to control the water agenda, to maintain its privileges under the Indenture Act. But some hope it will be pragmatic enough to cut water demand from the GAB if it eventually decides to proceed with its Oak Dam copper-gold-uranium mine 65km southeast of Olympic.
Asked last week if BHP was formally committed to ending GAB water use, a spokesman said: “We continuously monitor and publicly report our water draw under a program approved by the SA government.”
BHP is not just under pressure for environmental reasons.
It is in discussion with three native title groups about the Olympic Dam Agreement it settled in 2008 with the Kokatha, Barngarla and Kuyani.
Of these, only the Kokatha have been granted formal native title over parts of BHP’s Stuart Shelf.
BHP’s problem now is how to balance the very valuable 40-year-old legal rights it has under the indenture with rights found in a native title determination in favour of the Kokatha in 2014……….
The Kokatha fought a long, 18-year battle to win their native title in 2014. Kokatha directors say dealing with BHP on the ODA before and after their native title court win has been challenging.
At this point, they are not receiving mining royalties and are unhappy with employment opportunities for Kokatha people.
Michael Turner, a former Kokatha director and current adviser on the Kokatha Native Title Compensation Settlement and Kokatha Charitable trusts, says he has been dealing with BHP for much of his adult life.
At this point, they are not receiving mining royalties and are unhappy with employment opportunities for Kokatha people………
negotiations on BHP’s Olympic Dam Agreement had been disappointing.
“We have been calling for a review of the ODA for many years and it has constantly been deferred,” he said.
“They’re refusing to move forward. It would be great if BHP could keep to its word and respect the wishes of the Kokatha people and review the ODA for the benefit of generations to come.”…………….
The final report into the May 24, 2020 destruction by Australia’s second-biggest miner, Rio Tinto, of the Juukan Caves in Western Australia’s Pilbara was released in October. In it, Arabana chair Brenda Underwood says: “Unfortunately, our springs are disappearing. The cause … is water taken from the GAB by BHP’s mine at Roxby Downs.”
BHP and the state government believe the springs remain healthy but environmentalists fear a possible expansion to the Oak Dam could take daily GAB water use well beyond 50 million litres a day. BHP says it is averaging 34 million litres a day.
Environment campaigner and consultant David Noonan, who provided submissions to the Juukan Inquiry, is sceptical of the desalination plant announcement.
Mr Noonan says even if it was built, BHP could be taking GAB water until the end of the decade. He wants to hear a formal commitment about alternative water sources.
BHP’s Aboriginal engagement team is mindful expectations have changed across the industry since Juukan and BHP will need to be seen to be engaging seriously with traditional owners. Some believe an ODA negotiated before the Kokatha achieved native title should be written off and a new agreement established………………………………………
| |||
1 This month.
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 