Australian Conservation Foundation comments to Parliamentary Committee on nuclear submarine agreement.
Australian Conservation Foundation comment on the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties review of the Agreement between the Government of Australia, the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the Government of the United States of America for the Exchange of Naval Nuclear Propulsion Information (ENNPIA)
November 2021
- Unreasonable time frame
ACF maintains that the focus of the proposed Treaty action – the planned acquisition of nuclear powered submarines – has profound security, diplomatic, environmental and economic implications. The plan has been described by the RAN’s Head of Navy as one that “will shape the direction of our navy forevermore, and will no doubt change the shape of our nation”.
In this context the scarcity of time given to the consideration of this proposed action is neither justified nor acceptable.
To provide less than one working week for invited comment is not consistent with the credible and comprehensive consideration of the many and complex issues.
This truncated approach undermines community confidence and procedural credibility. There is a risk JSCOT be perceived not as a respected and effective review mechanism, but rather an eviscerated rubber stamp.
ACF seeks to formally record our concern and disappointment that the first piece of policy architecture being used to advance such a significant change has been approached in this fashion.
If part of the rationale for the planned action is to ensure “Australia is a responsible and reliable steward of this technology” this cavalier approach is a counter-productive one.
- Limited consultation
The consultation process for the proposed Treaty action mirrors the compressed timeline as it both unnecessarily restrictive and limited.
Only federal government agencies – DFAT, PMC and AGs – were consulted.
There has been no consultation with wider nuclear related agencies including the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency, the Australian Radioactive Waste Agency or any environmental experts.
State governments and state agencies were not consulted, despite these jurisdictions being the host sites for activities directly related to the Treaty action.
The comment that no public consultation was undertaken “as the ENNPIA relates to national security and operational capability matters” ignores the fact that there is a legitimate and high level of community interest and concern with the wider AUKUS proposal and further undermines community confidence in these politicised decision making processes.
In light of this, ACF would welcome clarification through the JSCOT review of the nature of the proposed “18 month consultation period” Who is going to be consulted? Will there be a public or wider stakeholder aspect to these consultations? Are they genuine consultations or top-down information updates?
ACF also notes that the NIA (in particular NIA point 5) contains assumptions on the benefits of nuclear submarines that underpin the wider AUKUS plan that have not been openly tested. The clear focus of this process is to advance a pathway to operationalise a decision that has already been made, rather than have an open examination of the issues to inform evidence-based decision making.
- Non-proliferation concerns
Should AUKUS be advanced, Australia would be the only non Nuclear Weapon State to have nuclear powered submarines. This unhelpful exercise in Australian exceptionalism and the proposed use of weapons grade highly enriched uranium (HEU) has clear proliferation sensitivities and has understandably been the focus of deep concern from nations in the region.
This has also attracted attention and concern from the International Atomic Energy Agency which has stated that “with Australia, with the United States and with the United Kingdom, we have to enter into a very complex, technical negotiation to see to it that as a result of this there is no weakening of the nuclear non-proliferation regime.”
The current approach to fast-track this Treaty action utterly fails to recognise or reflect the complexity and significance of the non-proliferation concerns related to the AUKUS plan.
The proposed use of a designated non-explosive military use, facilitated by direct military transfer, in order to place weapons grade HEU outside of IAEA safeguards is a disturbing development that could increase pressure on the already strained global non-proliferation framework. It raises the likelihood of other nations seeking similar exceptions and HEU safeguard exemptions.
ACF notes and welcomes that the “ENNPIA does not authorise and will not support the sharing or transfer of any information related to nuclear weapons”. ACF further notes that a comparable commitment that AUKUS does not involve nuclear weapons was made by the Prime Minister when the plan was announced in mid-September.
This pivotal commitment needs to be given a firmer basis than a political assurance. ACF has called on the PM and federal government to send an unequivocal signal that Australia will not countenance or consider nuclear weapons by moving to sign and ratify the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons
- Nuclearisation by stealth
ACF has previously expressed concern that the AUKUS nuclear submarine plan could lead to increased pressure for a domestic nuclear industry: https://www.acf.org.au/dont-turn-nuclear-powered-subs-into-nuclear-power-subsidies and https://www.acf.org.au/nuclear-submarines-australia
ACF notes and welcomes that both the Prime Minister and Opposition Leader have explicitly ruled out a domestic nuclear power industry and stated that the AUKUS plan is not a forerunner to any such activity.
ACF notes that the NIA (12) limits the scope of the planned action to naval nuclear propulsion and states that the ENNPIA “does not support the transfer of any equipment or technology, nor does it support the sharing or transfer of any information on civil nuclear matters”. This is a welcome but insufficient specification.
Since the mid-September AUKUS announcement a range of voices, including within the federal government, have made calls for Australia to embrace domestic nuclear power. The Prime Minister needs to act decisively to give effect to his clear statements that AUKUS is not linked to and will not propel any domestic nuclear industry by explicitly referencing and re-affirming the two key legislative prohibitions on nuclear power in the EPBC and ARPANS Acts.
ACF notes with concern the potential for opaque expansion of the proposed Treaty action, including in Article 2 which states that parties will “provide support to facilitate such communication or exchange, to the extent and by such means as may be mutually agreed”.
This provides considerable latitude and given the AUKUS process to date has been characterised by surprise announcements, non-inclusion and fast-tracking there is no basis for community confidence that mutual agreement might see an expanded set of activities. Could UK or US nuclear submarines be hosted routinely or permanently in Australia as part of this critical skills and information exchange?
In a similar vein, the approach taken with this ENNIPA process reinforces community unease over the nature and speed of AUKUS related decision making and the risk that this approach will become the standard. In relation to further Treaty actions ACF notes that the “agreement can be changed subject to all party agreement and subject to Australia’s domestic treaty-making requirements”. Given the current truncated approach there is no assurance in this statement and no confidence that any future changes will be openly and robustly scrutinised.
- Recommendations:
- JSCOT not recommend advancing the current Treaty in the absence of sufficient time to credibly review key aspects of the proposed action, especially in relation to the “very complex, technical negotiation” needed to ensure there is no weakening of the nuclear non-proliferation regime.
- JSCOT recommends Australia sign the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) both as a regional assurance mechanism and to give effect to PM Morrison’s clear statements that AUKUS is not related to any Australian ambition to acquire a nuclear weapons capability
- That greater detail on the proposed AUKUS submarine plan be presented to the Australian Parliament and people, including but not limited to issues around cost, rationale, the 18 month “consultation” process and emergency and waste management concerns.
- That the Prime Minister give effect to his repeated commitment that naval nuclear propulsion will not lead to increased moves for an Australian nuclear power industry by explicitly referencing and re-affirming the two key legislative prohibitions on domestic nuclear power in the EPBC and ARPANS Acts.
To discuss or clarify any aspect of this submission please contact Dave Sweeney, ACF nuclear policy analyst via dave.sweeney@acf.org.au or 0408 317 812
CSIRO study proves climate change driving Australia’s 800% boom in bushfires.
CSIRO study proves climate change driving Australia’s 800% boom in bushfires, The Age, By Mike Foley, November 26, 2021 Climate change is the dominant factor causing the increased size of bushfires in Australia’s forests, according to a landmark study that found the average annual area burned had grown by 800 per cent in the past 32 years.
The peer-reviewed research by the national science agency, CSIRO — published in the prestigious science journal, Nature — reveals evidence showing changes in weather due to global warming were the driving force behind the boom in Australia’s bushfires.
Lead author and CSIRO chief climate research scientist Pep Canadell said the study established the correlation between the Forest Fire Danger Index – which measures weather-related vegetation dryness, air temperature, wind speed and humidity – and the rise in area of forest burned since the 1930s.
“It’s so tight, it’s so strong that clearly when we have these big fire events, they’re run by the climate and the weather,” Dr Canadell said.
Prime Minister Scott Morrison went to the COP26 climate talks in Glasgow to commit Australia to reach net zero emissions by 2050, and to upgrade his expectations for Australia’s 2030 carbon cuts, but he defied a global push to commit to phasing out fossil-fuel use. Instead, the Coalition government is backing a significant expansion of the gas industry, which it predicts will be 13 per cent larger in 2050 than it is now.
Under the federal government’s gas industry strategy, taxpayers will support the private sector to develop viable new gas fields and develop an extensive network of new pipelines and related infrastructure.
The bushfire royal commission identified climate change as a key risk to ongoing bushfire catastrophe but did not make recommendations about reducing greenhouse emissions to curb the threat.
The CSIRO report found other factors have an impact on the extent and intensity of bushfires such as the amount of vegetation or fuel load in a forest, the time elapsed since the last fire, and hazard reduction burning. But Dr Canadell said the study showed the link between weather and climate conditions and the size of bushfires was so tight, it was clear these factors far outweighed all other fire drivers…………….
oyal c
Mega-fires, which burn more than 1 million hectares, have “markedly” increased with three of the four recorded from 1930 occurring since 2000, while the gap between big blazes has had a “rapid decrease”, the study says.
Last year, the bushfire royal commission reported fuel-load management through hazard reduction burning “may have no appreciable effect under extreme conditions” that typically cause loss of life and property. https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/csiro-study-proves-climate-change-driving-australia-s-800-percent-boom-in-bushfires-20211126-p59cgr.html
French nuclear submarines a better choice for Australia
We’re repeating all the same Collins mistakes, THE AUSTRALIAN 27 Nov 21, Why we should turn AUKUS into FAUKUS and buy our nuclear-powered submarines from France.By JON STANFORD
”…………………unfortunate decision is to effectively eliminate competition in selecting Australia’s SSNs. The likelihood is that our AUKUS partners will decide which of them – probably the British – will provide Australia with SSNs. Without a competitor – and the French Suffren is the only option – we will again be negotiating with a monopolist on a “take it or leave it” basis.
In addition, the prospect of acquiring a US or British SSN takes us back to the third problem with the Attack program – overambition. Both the British and US navies operate large submarines – around three times the size of Collins – that may be too much for the smaller RAN to digest.
Defence has stated that Australia should acquire a mature submarine design. This will be difficult to achieve within AUKUS. With production of its PWR2 reactor now terminated, there will be no further construction of the British Astute-class after delivery of the seventh boat. The next British SSNs will use the new PWR3 reactor, largely an American design, and the platform will need to be bigger in order to accommodate it.
Were we able to acquire an American submarine, this would also probably be a new design. The US is already planning for the first SSN(X) to replace the Virginia-class in the early 2030s.
In both the British and American options, therefore, all the risks of a new design, including late delivery, will be present.
Both these new platforms will be bigger than the submarines they replace and require even larger crews. The Virginia-class has a crew of 135, 80 more than Collins, while Astute’s complement is 98. Would we be able to populate these very large submarines? Even the British, with a much bigger population than Australia, have difficulty in recruiting and retaining crews for their submarines.
The latest French SSN, Suffren, has some advantages for the RAN. It is a relatively recent design with only the first of class in commission. Reputedly, it has superior stealth characteristics. It has a crew of 60, only five more than Collins. Given the progress already made on Attack, whose reference design was Suffren, Australia should be able to acquire a mature French SSN in a shorter timeframe than a new American or British design.
French SSNs also have the advantage of using low enriched uranium (LEU) rather than the weapons grade, highly enriched uranium (HEU) that fuels American and British boats………
The government’s story that Australian industry cannot refuel nuclear reactors is also pure fiction. ……. Our 20MW nuclear reactor is located in Lucas Heights, a leafy Sydney suburb in Sutherland Shire, adjacent to the Prime Minister’s electorate of Cook. The Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation has been refuelling nuclear reactors there for more than 60 years
Unlike its predecessor, which was designed for HEU, the current OPAL reactor uses LEU fuel…….
It is difficult to see any benefit in scrapping our strategic partnership with France. While a Barry McKenzie-style of diplomacy may trigger political resonance for the government, it has needlessly damaged an important relationship and constrained our options for acquiring nuclear submarines……..
The US administration, blindsided by the unprecedented recall of the ambassador of its oldest ally, may already be thinking of extending an olive branch to France. Time for FAUKUS, anyone?
Jon Stanford is principal of the think tank Submarines for Australia and a former senior official in the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet. https://www.theaustralian.com.au/inquirer/were-repeating-all-the-same-collins-mistakes/news-story/eaeff234940e33bec455dab9ead8ed3b
China calls on the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) to make Southeast Asia a nuclear-weapons-free zone
China pushes for nuclear-weapon-free Southeast Asia, KhmerTimes, Aandolu Agency ISTANBUL 22 Nov 1 – China on Monday said it is ready to work with the members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) towards a nuclear-weapon-free region besides ensuring stability in the disputed South China Sea.
“China supports ASEAN’s efforts to build a nuclear-weapon-free zone, and is prepared to sign the Protocol to the Treaty on the Southeast Asia Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone as early as possible,” President Xi Jinping told the China-Asia summit marking 30 years of the relations between two sides.
Beijing’s demand for a nuclear-free Southeast Asia comes as the US and UK empower their ally Australia with nuclear-armed submarines under a deal called AUKUS signed in September………..
The bilateral trade between China and ASEAN has skyrocketed by 85 times to $684.6 billion in 2020 from less than $8 billion in 1991, making the two sides each other’s largest trading partners. https://www.khmertimeskh.com/50975461/china-pushes-for-nuclear-weapon-free-southeast-asia/
I MAY VOMIT
Australia, the United States and the United Kingdom officially signed the Exchange of Naval Nuclear Propulsion Information Agreement in Canberra, giving Australia access to nuclear-powered submarines technology.
Kimba Consultative Committee draft Minutes reveal what a mess the Federal Radioactive Waste dump project is in.
The most important part the draft minutes is the first item relating to the nature and activity of the radionuclides in the immediate level waste proposed to be stored at Kimba but there was no discussion recorded on this issue.
This should have probably been the main item of business of the meeting considering it is the major aspect of community safety but received scant attention
Peter Remta, 22 Nov 21, I was recently asked to comment on the draft minutes of the Kimba joint community meeting held on 24 October 2021 and attach them for your reference
The draft minutes are available on https://www.industry.gov.au/sites/default/files/2021-11/kimba-consultative-committee-kimba-economic-working-group-meeting-minutes-oct-2021.pdf?fbclid=IwAR3Ej8KsyWH8KtvfRlL5JXc8C3mubLJ5K5tThB1HMZfIfpI2c2M9_QO3Mdg
Suffice to say that the federal government is ill prepared to choose and pursue the Napandee site near Kimba and as I have previously shown it is a grossly unsuitable and highly expensive exercise
It tests common sense to continue with the plans for the facility as it will surely not be approved for the required licences
KIMBA COMMUNITY MEETING COMMENTS
I cringe when I read the draft minutes of the joint meeting at Kimba on 14 October 2021 and the explanations and reasons by the federal government’s personnel as recorded in those minutes relating to the proposed nuclear waste management facility at Kimba.
In most instances they are unconvincing and inconsistent explanations even bordering on the nonsensical considering that this is a most important and serious issue for this country deserving far better attention than has been given to it over the past few years.
From all of this is it is quite obvious that the radioactive waste management facility at Kimba is still in its infancy of planning and prematurely unprepared for its objectives which is hard to understand as the government has been assessing the various locations at Kimba for over five years and has so far spent up to $100 million for that purpose.
It is also a gross indictment on the competence of the government and its various agencies all of which has been aided and abetted by the responsible ministers involved which should be gauged in the light of
the imminent ministerial declaration of Napandee near Kimba as the site for the management facility as mentioned in section 2 of the draft minutes
The most important part the draft minutes is the first item relating to the nature and activity of the radionuclides in the immediate level waste proposed to be stored at Kimba but there was no discussion
recorded on this issue.
This should have probably been the main item of business of the meeting considering it is the major aspect of community safety but received scant attention.
I have pointed out previously that based on the best available scientific and technical information internationally the details and levels of the radionuclide activity in any nuclear waste to be stored (as that at Kimba) is of prime importance since it becomes the determining factor for the selection of an appropriate site for storage and the manner in which the storage is undertaken.
This means that there can be no realistic designs – however conceptual of any storage facility until that information on the radionuclides is fully disclosed and understood and hence the conceptual designs for
Kimba so far put out by the government are nothing more disingenuous and misleading promotional material to try and convince a rather sceptical public.
What is more the details of the radionuclides inventories and activity should have been given to the community at Kimba when the various locations were initially identified as possible sites for the facility
but this has still not been done to this day
The endless civil war among conservatives over nuclear power
https://johnmenadue.com/the-endless-civil-war-among-conservatives-over-nuclear-power/ Pearls and Irritations, By Jim GreenNov 22, 2021
The case for nuclear power in Australia is overwhelmingly weak, but that doesn’t deter the culture warriors in the Morrison government or the Murdoch media.
Wars usually have a beginning, a middle and an end. Not so the nuclear power culture wars which just keep rolling on and on and on.
Australia’s nuclear culture war is best thought of as a civil war: conservative politicians — and to a lesser extent Murdoch/Sky media loudmouths — are at each other’s throats while the rest of us watch on in bemusement. Ironically, attempts to wedge the Labor Party and the environmental movement are at the heart of the conservative nuclear push, but those efforts have been singularly unsuccessful and the culture warriors succeed only in wedging themselves.
The Murdoch media’s recent pivot towards accepting climate science and the need for action immediately degenerated into a push for nuclear power. Sky News can’t get enough of it. In addition to dozens of news stories promoting nuclear power, Sky produced a “documentary” called Going Nuclear: The Clean Energy Debate aired on October 25.
Academic Barry Brook opined in the Sky “documentary” that nuclear power was the “silver bullet” to tackle climate change. A decade ago, Brook was insisting “there is no credible risk of a serious accident” at Fukushima even as multiple nuclear fuel meltdowns were in progress.
Brook told the “documentary”: “We are not ever going to get beyond about 50 per cent renewable energy and continue to have the type of energy use in a modern society that we have today.” Brook lives in Tasmania, fully powered by renewable electricity thanks to the state’s wind and hydro projects.
And he used to live in South Australia, where, according to a new report by the Australian Energy Market Operator, wind and solar has delivered 62 per cent of local power generation in the past 12 months, wholesale sales were the lowest on the mainland at an average of $48 per megawatt-hour MWh, and grid emissions have fallen to a record low. South Australia is on track to comfortably meet the state government’s target of 100 percent net renewables by 2030.
Pro-nuclear environmentalists
The Sky “documentary” also featured one pro-nuclear environmentalist, Zion Lights, to prove the point that environmentalists are falling in love with nuclear power. Lights was recruited to the pro-nuclear cause by the notorious Michael Shellenberger.
A 2013 article in Grist summed up the nonsense about pro-nuclear environmentalists:
“There is no budding environmentalist movement for nukes… This handful of converts is always cited with the implication that it’s the leading edge of a vast shift, and yet it’s always the same handful. Shellenberger says, ‘I have a sense that this is a beautiful thing… the beginning of a movement.’ I fear he has once again mistaken the contents of his navel for the zeitgeist.”
The same could be said for Australia: you could count the number of pro-nuclear environmentalists on the fingers of one hand, and still have fingers left over to organise your next Zoom call or to pick your nose.
Zion Lights told Sky that climate change “could be solved overnight” with nuclear power. But an analysis by economist Professor John Quiggin concludes that it would be “virtually impossible” to get a nuclear power reactor operating in Australia before 2040. Quiggin notes that, in practice, support for nuclear power in Australia is support for coal. The promotion of nuclear power muddies the energy debate and helps to delay the transition from fossil fuels to renewables. Presumably that is the goal of at least some of those supporting nuclear power.
An Australian Workers Union representative featured on Sky’s pro-nuclear “documentary”. No mention was made of the unions opposing nuclear power, i.e. pretty much all of them: the ACTU, Unions ACT, Unions WA, Unions SA, Victorian Trades Hall Council, Unions NT, Tasmanian Unions, United Voice, AEU, AMWU, ANMF, ASU, CWU, ETU, IEU, MUA, NUW, and the UFU firies who would prefer not to have to fight nuclear fires.
No space for critical voices
The Murdoch/Sky media empire has made almost no space for critical voices. There are a couple of notable exceptions, however — recent commentaries by former NSW premier Bob Carr in The Australian and on Sky, and Paul Kelly’s column in The Australian on November 10. Carr, a former supporter of nuclear power, notes that “nuclear is lumbering, subject to breakdowns and cripplingly expensive” and that “the contrast with the surge to renewables is stark”.
He’s right, the comparison is indeed stark. Last year, 256 gigawatts of new renewable capacity were installed around the world (that’s four times greater than Australia’s total capacity) compared to just 0.4 gigawatts of nuclear power.
Kelly’s column in The Australian points to the “popular pull of renewables” and their falling costs. He notes that “nuclear plant construction remains poor in advanced OECD nations, the main reason being not safety but its weak business case”. Kelly also questions the rhetoric around small modular reactors given that “none has so far been built in developed nations”.
On the politics, Kelly writes:
“The populist conservatives have form. Before the 2019 poll, they campaigned on the mad idea that Morrison follow Donald Trump and quit the Paris Agreement. Now they campaign on the equally mad but more dangerous idea that he seek to split the country by running on nuclear power… As for those conservatives who say Morrison’s job is to fight Labor, the answer is simple. His job is to beat Labor. That’s hard enough now; vesting the Coalition with an unnecessary ideological crusade that will crash and burn only means he would have no chance.“
Coalition wedging itself
The Coalition’s civil war over nuclear power reached its zenith just before the COP26 climate conference in Glasgow, with media reports that the repeal of laws banning nuclear power might be a requirement for the Nationals to support a net-zero-emissions policy. But if such a demand was made by the Nationals, it was quickly retracted.
Prime Minister Scott Morrison spoke bluntly to Sky: “Right now, there’s a moratorium on nuclear power here in Australia and the Labor Party are totally opposed to it. I’m just not going to put Australia through the argument which doesn’t get us anywhere… and for the Labor Party to run around at the next election and get themselves elected on the basis of a scare campaign.”
An interesting feature of the 2019 federal parliamentary nuclear inquiry was that a number of state Coalition governments and parties made submissions opposing nuclear power while none made submissions supporting it.
The South Australian Liberal government’s submission said that “nuclear power remains unviable now and into the foreseeable future”. The Tasmanian Liberal government’s submission said that “Tasmania will not pursue nuclear energy … and considers that Australia’s energy needs are best met by pursuing renewable energy options, such as pumped hydro, with additional firming capacity supported through greater grid interconnection.”
The Queensland Liberal-National Party’s submission said that “the LNP does not support lifting the bipartisan ban on nuclear energy generation”, citing “unacceptably high health and safety risks” and “significant negative consequences for the environment”. The submission said that “Australia’s rich renewable energy resources are more affordable and bring less risk than the elevated cost and risk associated with nuclear energy”.
Likewise, the NSW government isn’t interested in nuclear power. Treasurer Matt Kean recently said that nuclear power was like “chasing a unicorn” and “doesn’t stack up at the moment on practical grounds or on economic grounds”. Kean said that nuclear is several times more expensive than renewables backed up with energy storage — a claim supported by CSIRO research.
Former prime minister Malcolm Turnbull described nuclear power as the “loopy current fad … which is the current weapon of mass distraction for the backbench”.
Still, the Murdoch/Sky culture warriors continue to promote “the idiot’s choice“. As do culture warriors within the Coalition. Senator Matt Canavan campaigned furiously against a commitment to net zero emissions by 2050. He opposes policies that will drive up power prices but supports nuclear power even though he has himself noted that nuclear power would increase power bills.
Confused? So is Matt Canavan.
New files expose Australian govt’s betrayal of Julian Assange and detail his prison torment
The documents obtained by Tranter and provided to The Grayzone provide an unobstructed view of the Australian junior ally’s betrayal of one of its citizens to the imperial power that has hunted him for years. As Julian Assange’s rights were violated at every turn, Canberra appears to have been complicit.
New files expose Australian govt’s betrayal of Julian Assange and detail his prison torment https://thegrayzone.com/2021/11/17/files-australian-julian-assange-prison/ KIT KLARENBERG· NOVEMBER 17, 2021
Documents provided exclusively to The Grayzone detail Canberra’s abandonment of Julian Assange, an Australian citizen, and provide shocking details of his prison suffering
Was the government of Australia aware of the US Central Intelligence Agency plot to assassinate Julian Assange, an Australian citizen and journalist arrested and now imprisoned under unrelentingly bleak, harsh conditions in the UK?
Why have the country’s elected leaders refused to publicly advocate for one of its citizens, who has been held on dubious charges and subjected to torture by a foreign power, according to UN Special Rapporteur on Torture Nils Melzer? What does Canberra know about Julian’s fate and when did it know it?
The Grayzone has obtained documents revealing that the Australian government has since day one been well-aware of Julian’s cruel treatment inside London’s maximum security Belmarsh Prison, and has done little to nothing about it. It has, in fact, turned a cold shoulder to the jailed journalist despite hearing his testimony of conditions “so bad that his mind was shutting down.”
Not only has Canberra failed to effectively challenge the US and UK governments overseeing Assange’s imprisonment and prosecution; as these documents expose in stark detail, it appears to have colluded with them in the flagrant violation of an Australian citizen’s human rights, while doing its best to obscure the reality of his situation from the public.
Continue readingKimba, South Australia, as a nuclear ”sacrifice zone”
Below is an article from the Port Lincoln Times. Like most articles from the region, it appears to be written with breathless delight over the joys of Kimba, South Austraklis getting a ? temporsry nuclear waste dump.
It was the headline that got me.
What do they mean – ”SACRIFICE ZONE’? Does it simply refer to what everyone knows – that the dump will be a financial white elephant, trashing the area’s previous clean green agricultural reputation?
Or does it carry the more sinister meaning, of damage to health and environment, as Rusdsia’s Mayak site, and Fukushima, have been labelled as ”sacrifice zones”?
Grants recognise Kimba’s sacrifice Bianca Iovino, 17 Nov 21,
The Kimba region will benefit from another $2 million in grants, acting as a recognition of the strain the anticipated National Radioactive Waste Management Facility has had on the community.
Kimba Mayor Dean Johnson said the grants rewards community engagement in what’s been a long and difficult conversation about the facility.
“I think there’s a real air of excitement and expectation in the community at the moment, but the truth is not everyone agrees on this, there are people who strongly appose it and that hasn’t changed,” he said.
“But to have another $2 million to spend in our community is really exciting, and I can’t wait to see the projects that get put forward.”
Resources and Water minister Keith Pitt said the program recognises the significant amount of time, effort and disruption caused to the town following an over five years consultation process regarding the facility….. The official location of the site is yet to be confirmed, but a Notice of Intention to Declare has been lodged and and an announcement is imminent. https://www.portlincolntimes.com.au/story/7511178/grants-recognise-kimbas-sacrifice/?cs=1500&fbclid=IwAR3qWas_23kw_rcX6yKFSUePG8zM1WydYsVXgV8CN2Rz-KGaiz0AoJWnG5Q
Australian TV blatantly advertises weapons sales, in absurd claims about China invading Australia
Australian War Propaganda Goes Off the Rails https://consortiumnews.com/2021/11/17/australian-war-propaganda-goes-off-the-rails/ November 17, 2021 In a blatant advert for arms sales masquerading as news, 60 Minutes tries to tie Taiwan to the fantasy of China randomly invading a continent of white foreigners thousands of miles away, writes Caity Johnstone. By Caitlin Johnstone
CaitlinJohnstone.com
60 Minutes Australia has churned out yet another fear-mongering war propaganda piece on China, this one so ham-fisted in its call to beef up military spending that it goes so far as to run a brazen advertisement for an actual Australian weapons manufacturer disguised as news reporting.
This round of psychological conformity-making features Australian former major general Jim “The Butcher of Fallujah” Molan saying that in three to ten years a war will be fought against China over Taiwan and that Australians are going to have to fight in that war to prevent a future Chinese invasion of the land down under.
He argues Australia will need to greatly increase its military spending in order to accomplish this, because it can’t be certain the United States will protect it from Chinese aggression.
“Australia is monstrously vulnerable at the moment; we have this naive faith that American military power is infinite, and it’s not,” says Molan, who is a contributor to government/arms industry-funded think tanks Lowy Institute and Australian Strategic Policy Institute.
Decrying what he calls “panda huggers” (meaning people who aren’t China hawks), Molan claims that “the Chinese Communist Party’s aim is to be dominant in this region and perhaps dominant in the world.” Asked when war might break out, he claims “Given the power that they have in their military they could act any time from now on, and that’s what frightens me more than anything.”
“The next war is not going to be ten or twenty years away, it’s going to be in the next three to ten years,” Molan asserts.
“My estimate is that in a serious fight the Australian Defense Force only has enough missiles for days. This is not going to be resolved in days. And of course we’re not big enough. We should expand the defense force significantly… We should fund defense now based on our assessment of the national security strategy which is based on the war that we want to win.”
“In short do you think Australia needs to prepare for war tomorrow?” the interviewer asks Molan.
“Absolutely,” he replies.
Molan makes the ridiculous argument that if Australia does not to commit to defending Taiwan from the mainland then it won’t be long before they can expect a Chinese invasion at home, as though there’s any line that could be drawn between the resolution to a decades-old Chinese civil war and China deciding to invade a random continent full of white foreigners thousands of miles away.
Suppose we said okay Taiwan you’re on your own up there and the Chinese snapped it up, and the Chinese started looking around the world and they might snap up other liberal democracies like Australia,” Molan argues. “And we might then turn to America and say America well could you give us a bit of a hand here? And the Americans might say what we said to Taiwan. Where do you draw the line? This situation that is developing now is an existential threat to Australia as a liberal democracy.”
Incredibly, the 60 Minutes segment then plunges into several minutes of blatant advertising for Australian defense technology company Defendtex which manufactures weaponized drones designed to be used in clusters, saying such systems could handily be used to defeat China militarily in a cost-effective manner.
The segment also promotes bare-faced lies which have become commonplace in anti-China propaganda, repeating the false claim that Chinese fighter planes have been “breaching Taiwanese airspace” and repeating a mistranslation of comments by Xi Jinping which it used in a previous anti-China segment made to sound more aggressive than they actually were.
This segment follows a cartoonishly hysterical fear porn piece on China put out by the same program this past September which featured Australian Strategic Policy Institute ghouls insisting that Australians must be prepared to fight and die in defense of Taiwan and that a Chinese invasion of Australia is a very real threat. That 60 Minutes segment was preceded by an equally crazy one in May which branded New Zealand “New Xi-Land” for refusing to perfectly align with U.S. dictates on one small foreign policy issue.
To be perfectly clear, there is no evidence of any kind that China will ever have any interest in an unprovoked attack on Australia, much less an invasion, and attempts to tie that imaginary nonsense threat to Beijing’s interest in an island right off its coast which calls itself the Republic of China are absurd.
As we’ve discussed previously, anyone who’d support entering into a war against China over Taiwan is a crazy idiot. In the unfortunate event that tensions between Beijing and Taipei cannot be resolved peacefully in the future there is no justification whatsoever for the U.S. and its allies to enter into a world war between nuclear powers to determine who governs Taiwan.
The cost-to-benefit ratio in a conflict which would easily kill tens of millions and could lead to the deaths of billions if it goes nuclear makes such a war very, very, very far from being worth entering into, especially since there’s no actual evidence that Beijing has any interest in attacking nations it doesn’t see as Chinese territory.
There’s so much propaganda going toward generating China hysteria in westerners generally and Australians in particular, and it’s been depressingly successful toward that end.
Watching these mass-scale psyops take control of people’s minds one after another has been like watching a zombie outbreak in real time; people’s critical thinking faculties just fall out their ears and then all of a sudden they’re all about cranking up military spending and sending other people’s kids off to die defending U.S. interests in some island.
Please don’t become a zombie. Keep your brain. Stay conscious.
Australian Parliament should urgently review the potentially dangerous AUKUS deal
 | |||
Australian Federal Parliament Should Urgently Review the Potentially Dangerous AUKUS Deal https://worldbeyondwar.org/australian-federal-parliament-should-urgently-review-the-potentially-dangerous-aukus-deal/
By Australians for War Powers Reform, November 17, 2021
On September 15 2021, with no public consultation, Australia entered into a trilateral security arrangement with Britain and the United States, known as the AUKUS Partnership. This is expected to become a Treaty in 2022.
At short notice, Australia cancelled its contract with France to purchase and build 12 submarines on 16 September 2021 and replaced it with an arrangement to buy eight nuclear submarines from either Britain or the United States or both. The first of these submarines is unlikely to be available until 2040 at the earliest, with major uncertainties in relation to cost, delivery schedule and the ability of Australia to support such a capability.
Australians for War Powers Reform sees the public announcement of AUKUS as a smokescreen for other undertakings between Australia and the United States, the details of which are vague but which have major implications for Australia’s security and Independence.
Australia said the United States had requested increased use of Australian defence facilities. The US would like to base more bomber and escort aircraft in the north of Australia, presumably at Tindale. The US wants to increase the number of marines deployed in Darwin, which would see numbers rise to around 6,000. The US wants greater home porting of its vessels in Darwin and Fremantle, including nuclear-powered and armed submarines.
Pine Gap is in the process of significantly expanding its listening and war directing capabilities.
Acquiescing to these requests or demands considerably undermines Australian sovereignty.
The US is likely to want oversight, amounting to control, of northern air space and shipping lanes.
If the US deploys Cold War tactics against China, for that is what this military build-up is all about, it is likely to conduct aggressive flight missions up to the edge of Chinese air space with nuclear armed bombers, just as it did against the USSR. The US will patrol shipping lanes with greater frequency and intensity, knowing it has secure home bases only a short distance away, protected by surface-to-surface and surface-to-air missiles which are soon to be installed.
Any one of these flights or naval patrols could trigger a warlike response directed against Australian and US defence facilities and other assets of strategic value, such as oil, fresh water and infrastructure, or a cyber-attack on Australian communications and infrastructure.
Australia could be at war before most Australian politicians are aware of what is happening. In such an event, Parliament will have no say on going to war nor on the conduct of hostilities. Australia will be on a war footing as soon as these arrangements are in place.
AUKUS will be detrimental to national security. The ADF will lose its capacity to act independently.
Australians for War Power Reform believes these arrangements should not come into force, and that AUKUS should not become a Treaty.
We deplore the lack of consultation with neighbours, friends and allies, particularly relating to the storage and home porting of nuclear weapons and other US arms, ammunition and materiel.
We deplore the hostile profile adopted against our recent friend and major trading partner China.
We deplore the activities of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI), funded by foreign arms manufacturers and the US State Department, in blind-siding the Australian people with its advocacy for such a deleterious outcome.
Morrison’s tactless belligerence towards China, while USA moves to mend relationship to China
Morrison didn’t mention China – he didn’t have to, https://www.afr.com/policy/foreign-affairs/morrison-didn-t-mention-china-he-didn-t-have-to-20211117-p599t4
Scott Morrison is selling the broader and immediate technology benefits of the AUKUS deal as he campaigns on national security.Jennifer HewettColumnist he Morrison government’s blueprint for critical technologies is supposed to demonstrate the immediate benefits of much broader research and technology exchange as a result of the AUKUS deal on nuclear submarines.
After all, it’s not just France’s Emmanuel Macron expressing savage criticism about the “fantasy” of the decades-long timetable for Australia’s new submarine strategy to be realised.
So the Prime Minister wants to sell the national security significance of advanced technology co-operation with allies in protecting Australia from urgent, increasing threats in the Indo-Pacific region, including cyber attack.
A first step is $70 million for a quantum commercialisation hub to co-ordinate industry and research in quantum computing and partner with equivalent bodies in “like-minded countries”, starting with a joint co-operation agreement with the US.
“Our trilateral efforts in AUKUS will enhance our joint capabilities and interoperability with an initial focus on cyber capabilities, artificial intelligence, quantum technologies and additional undersea capabilities,” Morrison told the inaugural Sydney Dialogue.
Even though he didn’t specifically name China, Morrison’s primary target might as well have had blinking red lights around it. It wasn’t just that the government partnered for the dialogue with the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, regularly condemned by Beijing for overt antagonism towards China.
Morrison’s repeated references to the importance of trust, shared values and like-minded countries are all supposed to buttress the image of an Australian government in lockstep with other leading democracies against aggression and interference from governments that don’t “see technology the same way”.
“To state the obvious, AUKUS is about much more than nuclear submarines,” he said.
“The simple fact is that nations at the leading edge of technology have greater economic, political and military power. And, in turn, greater capacity to influence the norms and values that will shape technological development in the years to come.”
But the timing of Morrison’s address, right after US President Joe Biden held his virtual summit with China’s Xi Jinping, is an awkward reminder of Australia’s uniquely isolated status in China’s diplomatic deep freeze.
Even the government’s relatively modest $111 million “down payment” on quantum computing as one of nine priority critical technologies demonstrates the limits of Australia’s attempts to harness revolutionary global trends in technology as well as in geopolitics.
China’s leadership is clearly willing to punish Australia’s supposed transgressions with punitive trade measures and a refusal to engage indefinitely. Beijing’s blanket attitude will not soften and may yet harden, especially given the propensity of various government ministers to emphasise Australia’s determination to confront China.
US-China relationship reset
Beijing certainly paid furious attention to recent comments by Defence Minister Peter Dutton, for example, that it would be “inconceivable” for Australia not to support the US in defending Taiwan if the US chose to take that action. So much for the attempt at maintaining deliberate diplomatic nuance with a long-term policy of “strategic ambiguity” on this sensitive topic.
It will become yet another marker making it hard for Australia to retreat on its rhetoric and easy for China to berate with its own. While it is certainly China under Xi that has changed most – and made no friends in the region by doing so – Australia’s challenges to China’s approach can never add up to an argument between economic and power equals.
That’s why most other governments are more cautious in their wording unless their borders or direct interests are threatened.
And now the Biden administration is also keen to at least partially reset its relationship with China after the open hostility of the past few years.
That is despite continuing US ire over China’s behaviour translating into rare bipartisanship in Congress about the need to aggressively counter China as a military and economic threat.
Despite his confidence in the West’s steady decline and China’s inevitable ascendance, Xi also wants to improve the connection with the US.
Unlike its rejection of Australia, China can’t afford to ignore the potential moves and countermoves of another great power. With the erratic Donald Trump no longer in office and Xi seemingly in office for as long as he wants, talks have become more feasible.
The US President declared it to be the responsibility of both leaders to “ensure that the competition between our two countries does not veer into conflict, whether intended or unintended”.
The most obvious flashpoint is Taiwan with the virtual summit not producing any breakthroughs or much evidence of the “commonsense guardrails” that Biden had suggested could help manage tensions.
But beneath the litany of grievances reiterated by both leaders on a range of issues, the three-and-a-half-hour meeting demonstrated a desire to keep lines of communication open and encourage potential co-operation in discreet areas of mutual interest.
That was evident in their agreement on climate change – however vaguely worded – that was unexpectedly announced in Glasgow. After the summit, the two sides have also tentatively agreed to explore the possibility of arms control talks – spurred by China’s rapid acceleration of its nuclear weapons capability.
In contrast to the treatment of Australian journalists, there is also an apparent easing of current restrictions on journalists following China’s expulsion of some US reporters during the Trump Administration.
How much all this will alter the substance as well as the tone of the strategic rivalry and disputes between two great powers asserting themselves in the Indo-Pacific is even less clear.
But for all the talk of trusted partners, the importance of alliances of democracies and the US not “leaving Australia on the field” in terms of China’s economic coercion, the Biden administration will be heavily focused on its own national interest in dealing with China.
Caveat emptor.
”.
Australia needs independent Inquiry on nuclear production and wastes. Kimba nuclear dump plan is not supported by facts.
Nuclear waste and nuclear medicine in Australia
Jim Green, Online Opinion, 16 Nov 2021, https://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=21721&page=0
Claims that the Australian government’s proposed national nuclear waste storage and disposal ‘facility‘ near Kimba in South Australia is required to support nuclear medicine are not supported by the facts.
Australia’s radioactive waste arises from the production and use of radioactive materials in scientific research and industrial, agricultural and medical applications. The Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO), operator of the research reactor at Lucas Heights, south of Sydney, is the main source of waste destined for a national nuclear waste facility. (Other waste streams ‒ such as those generated at uranium mines, and wastes from nuclear weapons testing ‒ would not be disposed of at the national facility.)………….
Scare-mongering
Regardless of the outcome of the current push for a national waste facility ‒ and bearing in mind that all previous plans have been abandoned ‒ there will be an ongoing need for hospitals to store clinical waste. After nuclear medicine is used in a patient, the vast majority is stored on site while it decays. Within a few days, it has lost so much radioactivity that it can go to a normal rubbish tip. There will always be multiple waste storage locations even if a national facility is established.
The government’s claim that a national waste facility is urgently required lest nuclear medicine be affected amounts to scare-mongering………….
health professionals noted in a joint statement in 2011: “The production of radioactive isotopes for nuclear medicine comprises a small percentage of the output of research reactors. The majority of the waste that is produced in these facilities occurs regardless of the nuclear medicine isotope production. Linking the need for a centralised radioactive waste storage facility with the production of isotopes for nuclear medicine is misleading.”………..
ANSTO’s Lucas Heights site
ANSTO’s Lucas Heights site cannot be used for disposal of nuclear waste. It is unlikely that the site would meet relevant criteria, and in any case federal legislation prohibits waste disposal there.
But nuclear waste can be (and is) stored at Lucas Heights; indeed much of the waste destined for a national facility is currently stored there.
Claims that storage capacity at Lucas Heights is nearing capacity and that a national waste facility site is urgently needed have been flatly rejected by Dr Carl-Magnus Larsson, CEO of the federal nuclear regulator, the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA). Dr Larsson stated in parliamentary testimony in 2020: “Waste can be safely stored at Lucas Heights for decades to come”.
Similar comments have been made by ANSTO officers, by the federal government department responsible for radioactive waste management, and by the Australian Nuclear Association. ANSTO officers have noted that “ANSTO is capable of handling and storing wastes for long periods of time” and that waste is stored there “safely and securely”.
Long-lived intermediate-level waste
Of particular concern is long-lived intermediate-level waste (ILW) including waste arising from the reprocessing of irradiated nuclear fuel from the OPAL research reactor at Lucas Heights as well as earlier research reactors. The government plans to move this ILW to the Kimba site for above-ground storage while a deep underground disposal site is found. (Lower-level wastes will be permanently disposed of at Kimba if the project proceeds.)
But the process of finding an ILW disposal site has barely begun and will take decades; indeed ARPANSA has flagged a timeline of 100 years or more.
The vast majority of ILW is currently stored at Lucas Heights. Why not leave it at Lucas Heights ‒ described by an ANSTO officer as “the most secure facility we have got in Australia” ‒ until a disposal site is found? The government doesn’t have a good answer to that question ‒ indeed it has no answer at all beyond false claims about storage capacity limitations and scare-mongering about nuclear medicine supply.
Until such time as a disposal site is available, ILW should be stored at Lucas Heights for the following reasons:
* Australia’s nuclear expertise is heavily concentrated at Lucas Heights;
* Storage at Lucas Heights would negate risks associated with transportation over thousands of kilometres;
* Security at Lucas Heights is far more rigorous than is proposed for Kimba (a couple of security guards); and
* Ongoing storage at Lucas Heights avoids unnecessary costs and risks associated with double-handling, i.e. ILW being moved to Kimba only to be moved again to a disposal site.
Conversely, above-ground storage of ILW in regional South Australia increases risk, complexity and cost ‒ for no good reason.
Need for an independent inquiry
The current plan for a waste facility at Kimba should be scrapped. It is unacceptable to be disposing of nuclear waste against the unanimous wishes of Barngarla Traditional Owners, and ILW storage at Kimba makes no sense for the reasons discussed above.
Australia needs a thorough independent inquiry of both nuclear waste disposal and production. We need a long-term disposal plan that avoids double-handling and unnecessary movement of radioactive materials and meets world’s best practice standards.
An inquiry should include an audit of existing waste stockpiles and storage. This could be led by the federal nuclear regulator ARPANSA in consultation with relevant state agencies. This audit would include developing a prioritised program to improve continuing waste storage and handling facilities, and identifying non-recurrent or legacy waste sites and exploring options to retire and decommission these.
An inquiry would also identify and evaluate the full suite of radioactive waste management options. That would include the option of maintaining existing arrangements until suitable disposal options exist for both ILW and lower-level wastes.
Radioisotope production options
We also need to thoroughly investigate medical radioisotope production options with the aim of shifting from heavy reliance on reactor production in favour of cyclotrons (a type of particle accelerator). Among other advantages, cyclotrons produce far less radioactive waste than research reactors…………. https://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=21721&page=0
America’s relentless pursuit of Australian Julian Assange is a threat to any journalist who might expose a USA massacre of civilians
Julian Assange currently sits in Belmarsh Prison waiting to find out if British judges will overturn a lower court’s ruling against his extradition to the United States to be prosecuted under the Espionage Act for journalistic activity which exposed U.S. war crimes. War crimes not unlike those that were just exposed by The New York Times in its reporting on the Baghuz massacre.
The precedent the U.S. government is trying to set with its persecution of Assange will, if successful, cast a chilling effect over journalism which scrutinizes the U.S. war machine, not just in the United States but around the world.
Syria Massacre Coverup Shows Danger of Assange Precedent, https://consortiumnews.com/2021/11/15/syria-massacre-coverup-shows-danger-of-assange-precedent/ November 15, 2021 The precedent the U.S. government is trying to set with its persecution of Assange will, if successful, cast a chilling effect over journalism which scrutinizes the U.S. war machine, writes Caity Johnstone. By Caitlin Johnstone
CaitlinJohnstone.com The New York Times has published a very solid investigative report on a U.S. military coverup of a 2019 massacre in Baghuz, Syria which killed scores of civilians. This would be the second investigative report on civilian-slaughtering U.S. airstrikes by The New York Times in a matter of weeks, and if I were a more conspiracy-minded person I’d say the paper of record appears to have been infiltrated by journalists.
The report contains many significant revelations, including that the U.S. military has been grossly undercounting the numbers of civilians killed in its airstrikes and lying about it to Congress, that special ops forces in Syria have been consistently ordering airstrikes which kill noncombatants with no accountability by exploiting loopholes to get around rules meant to protect civilians, that units which call in such airstrikes are allowed to do their own assessments grading whether the strikes were justified, that the U.S. war machine attempted to obstruct scrutiny of the massacre “at nearly every step” of the way, and that the Air Force’s Office of Special Investigations only investigates such incidents when there is “potential for high media attention, concern with outcry from local community/government, concern sensitive images may get out.”
“But at nearly every step, the military made moves that concealed the catastrophic strike,” The New York Times reports. “The death toll was downplayed. Reports were delayed, sanitized and classified. United States-led coalition forces bulldozed the blast site. And top leaders were not notified.”
Journalist Aaron Maté has called the incident “one of the U.S. military’s worst massacres and cover-up scandals since My Lai in Vietnam.”
Asked by the Times for a statement, Central Command gave the laughable justification that maybe those dozens of women and children killed in repeated bomb blasts were actually armed enemy combatants:
“This week, after The New York Times sent its findings to U.S. Central Command, which oversaw the air war in Syria, the command acknowledged the strikes for the first time, saying 80 people were killed but the airstrikes were justified. It said the bombs killed 16 fighters and four civilians. As for the other 60 people killed, the statement said it was not clear that they were civilians, in part because women and children in the Islamic State sometimes took up arms.“
I mean, how do you even address a defense like that? How do you get around the “Maybe those babies were ISIS fighters” defense?
Reading the report it becomes apparent how much inertia was thrown on attempts to bring the massacre to light and how easy it would have been for those attempts to succumb to the pressure and just give up, which naturally leads one to wonder how many other such incidents never see the light of day because attempts to expose them are successfully ground to a halt.
The Times says the Baghuz massacre “would rank third on the military’s worst civilian casualty events in Syria if 64 civilian deaths were acknowledged,” but it’s clear that that “acknowledged” bit is doing a lot of heavy lifting there.
And it really makes you appreciate how much work goes into getting information like this in front of the public eye, and how important it is to do so, and how tenuous the ability to do so currently is.
Julian Assange currently sits in Belmarsh Prison waiting to find out if British judges will overturn a lower court’s ruling against his extradition to the United States to be prosecuted under the Espionage Act for journalistic activity which exposed U.S. war crimes. War crimes not unlike those that were just exposed by The New York Times in its reporting on the Baghuz massacre.
The precedent the U.S. government is trying to set with its persecution of Assange will, if successful, cast a chilling effect over journalism which scrutinizes the U.S. war machine, not just in the United States but around the world.
If it can succeed in legally establishing that it can extradite an Australian journalist for publishing information in the public interest about U.S. war crimes, it will have succeeded in legally establishing that it can do that to any journalist anywhere. And you can kiss investigative reporting like this goodbye.
This is what’s at stake in the Assange case. Our right to know what the most deadly elements of the most powerful government on our planet are doing. The fact that the drivers of empire think it is legitimate to deprive us of such information by threatening to imprison anyone who tries to show it to us makes them an enemy of all humanity.
COP 26, especially Australia, has failed First Nations people
At this supposedly historic event, I saw a conference that relied on dated colonial constructs and ignored Indigenous people. I watched the Australian pavilion used to promote gas and carbon capture and storage, sponsored by corporations such as Santos. Outnumbered by fossil fuel lobbyists, First Nations people witnessed an aggressive big business approach to climate negotiations, hardly the turning away from and permanent closure of extractive, polluting industries that we are all calling for.
Guardian 15th Nov 2021
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 