Need for a USA”no first use” of nuclear weapons policy – the concern of regional U.S. allies
In our lead article this week, Van Jackson makes a compelling case for the United States to establish a no-first use policy on nuclear weapons. This would entail a pledge from Washington that its nuclear arsenal would not be used as a means of warfare except in the event that it was first subject to a nuclear attack by an adversary. While there is already some momentum behind such a policy amongst Democrats, Biden has taken no concrete steps towards implementing it and it has yet to be legislated by Congress.
No-first use nuclear policy. https://www.eastasiaforum.org/2021/07/05/no-first-use-nuclear-policy/ Author: Editorial Board, ANU, 5 July 21,
Since the election of Joe Biden in 2020, much of the world has breathed a collective sigh of relief as we have witnessed what appears to be a return to ‘pre-Trump normalcy’ in the United States. One of the greatest foreign policy challenges that faces the Biden administration, however, is recovering US credibility in Asia, which was severely undermined by his predecessor Donald Trump.
From the standpoint of US allies in the region, a concerning aspect of Trump’s rise to the presidency was his loose talk about nuclear weapons and apparent openness to utilising them against adversaries. While most allies have long emphasised the immense benefits of the US security guarantee and its attendant nuclear umbrella, Trump’s rise to power rendered alliance relationships potential liabilities.
These concerns among allies in the region were significantly elevated in 2017, when Trump began to entertain the prospect of launching a pre-emptive — albeit non-nuclear — strike against North Korea. He supposedly even went so far as to order an evacuation of US servicemen and their families from Seoul — an injunction that was ultimately not carried out by US officials in South Korea. His apparent willingness to engage in conflict with a nuclear-armed North Korea was reinforced rhetorically as he threatened ‘fire and fury’ against Kim Jong-un’s regime.
These developments had US allies (and non-allies alike) in the region beleaguered by the prospect of nuclear war in the region. Their concerns were reinforced by Trump’s predilection to appoint family members — with little to no foreign policy expertise — as official advisors. The notion that a US-initiated conflict with North Korea, entailing probable commitment by American allies, might be informed in part by the likes of Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner was a severe indictment of alliance management.
The election of Joe Biden allayed some of the concerns of US allies. But the fact that Trump received over 70 million votes in the election and may run again for president in 2024 means that his tenure cannot be easily viewed as an unfortunate aberration.
What can Biden do during his presidency to restore confidence among American allies in the region, and restore US credibility in the aftermath of the Trump administration?
In our lead article this week, Van Jackson makes a compelling case for the United States to establish a no-first use policy on nuclear weapons. This would entail a pledge from Washington that its nuclear arsenal would not be used as a means of warfare except in the event that it was first subject to a nuclear attack by an adversary. While there is already some momentum behind such a policy amongst Democrats, Biden has taken no concrete steps towards implementing it and it has yet to be legislated by Congress.
Jackson outlines three common arguments that are cited against a non-first use nuclear policy: China, Russia and North Korea would never believe in the veracity of no-first use declarations; it would encourage uncertainty among adversaries as to whether the United States could use nuclear weapons against them; and there would also be concerns among American allies about the implications of a no-first use policy for US extended nuclear deterrence and Washington’s ability to deter threats on their behalf.
Yet Jackson argues that, ‘ … the world is no longer unipolar. The old bargain — Washington does arms-racing so allies don’t — makes no sense in a world where US politics is depressingly awry. Allied nuclear proliferation poses its own risks, but it may be a better alternative to US nuclear preponderance and presidential first-use launch authority’.
As the region becomes increasingly volatile, a policy of US restraint on the use of nuclear weapons has acquired new urgency. The advent of the Biden administration has done little to alleviate US–China tensions; Biden’s China policy so far appears to be a continuation of that of the Trump administration. Meanwhile, prospects of a cross-Strait crisis continue to rise and progress on the denuclearisation of North Korea remains elusive. These political tensions have been aggravated by economic destabilisation in the region that has been fuelled by the COVID-19 crisis.
These developments have spawned new concerns about conflict and the role of US alliances in the region. Some analysts believe that such conflict would have potential to evolve into nuclear war. Given that the US-led alliance network is premised on the maintenance of regional peace and security, it behoves Washington to clarify that it will not employ first use of nuclear weapons.
This is important for the Biden government. It is also important for the future US administrations that could see the likes of Trump with a finger back on the nuclear button.
The EAF Editorial Board is located in the Crawford School of Public Policy, College of Asia and the Pacific, The Australian National University.
THE AUSTRALIAN newspaper sinks to a new low in pro nuclear propaganda.
at left Zion Lights
Today’s THE AUSTRALIAN carries this article ”Savvy activists cast nuclear benefits in a fresh green light”. The article is by Claire Lehmann, who must be a real sucker to fall for such purile pro nuke spin, or , more likely, knows where the money is, in writing for News Corpse.
Claire Lehmann would appear to have swallowed the spin of Zion Lights. Zion Lights is certainly a talented self-propagandist, and is loved by the nuclear industry, because she pitches her pro nuke spin to young people, using popular media – Tok Tok and Instagram etc.
Below, on today’s Antinuclear, I’m republishing 2 articles which give some context to the background of Zion Lights.
Bob Hawke – his allegiance to USA was geater than to the union movement
Secret embassy cables cast the Bob Hawke legend in a different light, Guardian,Jeff Sparrow 4 July 21,
Papers show Hawke as a unionist said one thing to his members, and something quite different to his US embassy friends….
The documents uncovered by Coventry date from 1973 to 1979, a period of bitter industrial and political conflict during which Hawke, as leading trade unionist, often featured in the press as a stalwart militant……..
In public, he backed an “independent non-aligned Australia” (a popular stance in the aftermath of the Vietnam war); in private, he told US officials he wanted the Anzus co-defence pact extended beyond a “purely military alliance”.
Coventry says the Americans valued their relationship with Hawke because he “helped protect [US] defence installations, provided information about union disputes and warned officials that installations could be targeted”…….
In 1973, the American Labour Attaché (a figure quite probably connected to the CIA) contacted Hawke about a potential union dispute at the joint American-Australian facility at North West Cape. The cables record that Hawke “volunteered to intervene informally”, saying he felt “concern and surprise at the militancy” of the workers.
The Americans particularly appreciated Hawke’s willingness to deradicalise the labour movement. As Coventry puts it: “Hawke proved useful in pre-empting and pacifying union disputes.”…………
the context in which it has emerged makes the material particularly significant. The high court recently upheld the constitutional legitimacy of Australia’s new foreign interference laws.
One challenge came from John Shi Sheng Zhang, a political adviser to NSW Labor MP Shaoquett Moselmane. The second challenge, however, came from a rightwing US group called LibertyWorks, which objected to the new legally requirement to register a conference featuring Tony Abbott and Nigel Farage.
That’s because, on paper at least, the new laws criminalise the kind of meddling in which the Americans have gleefully engaged for decades………
Had today’s foreign interference laws been in place in the 1970s, Hawke’s conduct would certainly have invited legal investigation……. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/jul/03/secret-embassy-cables-cast-the-bob-hawke-legend-in-a-different-light
Australian government’s unnecessary crackdown on charities and on peaceful protest
The government is clamping down on charities — and it could have a chilling effect on peaceful protest, The Conversation, Krystian Seibert
Industry Fellow, Centre for Social Impact, Swinburne University of TechnologyJuly 2, 2021 The Australian government introduced new regulations last week that could have a major chilling effect across Australia’s diverse charities sector.
The government’s aim was clear: the regulations are intended to target “activist organisations”, and specifically crack down on “unlawful behaviour”.
Despite this rhetoric, there is no evidence unlawful behaviour by charities is a problem of any significance. By clamping down on charities in this way, the government is not only curtailing their ability to organise peaceful protests, it is imposing more unnecessary red tape on an already highly-regulated sector.
What would the regulations do?
The regulations would give the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission (ACNC) new powers to take action against a charity if it commits, or fails to adequately ensure its resources aren’t used to commit, certain types of “summary offences”.
These are generally a less serious type of criminal offence, and can include acts such as trespassing, unlawful entry, malicious damage or vandalism.
If the ACNC commissioner believes a charity is not complying with the regulations, they would be able to take enforcement action, which may include deregistering the charity. This would lead to the charity losing tax concessions — one of the incentives for people to donate to them.
In effect, the regulations mean that if a charity organised a protest in front of a government department and initially refused to leave, this could be considered trespassing. And this could then be grounds to have the charity deregistered.
Are these regulations necessary?
There is little, if any, evidence of a need for the regulations.
First, a comprehensive review of the ACNC legislation commissioned by the government in 2018 did not identify any issues with unlawful behaviour by charities.
In fact, the review recommended removing the ACNC’s existing power to take action against charities that commit serious breaches of the law. It pointed out that charities must already comply with all laws that they are subject to, and it is not the ACNC’s responsibility to monitor compliance or impose sanctions for breaches.
Despite this, the new regulations would extend the reach of the ACNC and expand its existing powers even further.
And importantly, there is no evidence charities — or their staffs or volunteers — are engaging in widespread unlawful activity. When questioned at a recent Senate Estimates hearing, ACNC Commissioner Gary Johns said the commission’s data did not indicate this was a problem.
Even the government’s own regulatory impact assessment asserts only a “small number” of charities have engaged in unlawful behaviour. However, even this claim is not backed up by solid evidence, with the assessment saying it is based on.
Charities are already highly regulated
Charities in Australia are already highly regulated and subject to a broad range of obligations. They must also abide by any number of laws, for example, occupational health and safety and criminal laws.
And the ACNC already has extensive investigation and compliance powers. If charities breach any of the laws they are subject to, they can be sanctioned just like other organisations — and the same applies to their staff.
In addition, charities are already required to take steps to ensure their directors comply with duties, such as acting with reasonable care and diligence. This includes monitoring and managing risks arising from a charity’s activities.
Drafted in a vague way
Perhaps most concerningly, the proposed regulations are worded in a very vague manner, and although improvements were made in response to public consultation on a draft version, major problems remain……………….. https://theconversation.com/the-government-is-clamping-down-on-charities-and-it-could-have-a-chilling-effect-on-peaceful-protest-163493
Premier Marshall should stand up for South Australia: Reject the federal Liberal’s unlawful, unfair, unsafe and unnecessary nuclear waste dump plan for SA
Premier Marshall should stand up for our State: Reject the federal Liberal’s unlawful, unfair, unsafe and unnecessary nuclear waste dump plan for SA
David Noonan, July 2021 Premier Stephen Marshall must stand up for South Australia’s interests and push back on federal Liberal government imposition of an unlawful nuclear waste dump in our State.
Premier Marshall should stand up for our State: Reject the federal Liberal’s unlawful, unfair, unsafe and unnecessary nuclear waste dump plan for SA
David Noonan, July 2021 Premier Stephen Marshall must stand up for South Australia’s interests and push back on federal Liberal government imposition of an unlawful nuclear waste dump in our State.
- The objects of this Act are to protect the health, safety and welfare of the people of South Australia and to protect the environment in which they live by prohibiting the establishment of certain nuclear waste storage facilities in this State.
- As Premier you should give all South Australian’s a Say and take action to instigate a required public inquiry into the impacts of a nuclear waste storage facility on the environmental and socio-economic wellbeing of this State. The NUCLEAR WASTE STORAGE FACILITY (PROHIBITION) ACT 2000, Section 14 states:
- If a licence, exemption or other authority to construct or operate a nuclear waste storage facility in this State is granted under a law of the Commonwealth, the Environment, Resources and Development Committee of Parliament must inquire into, consider and report on the likely impact of that facility on the environment and socio-economic wellbeing of this State.
The Port of Whyalla is targeted for shipments of ANSTO nuclear fuel waste and communities along proposed nuclear waste transport routes across our State all have a right to have a Say.
Nuclear waste dumping is a Human Rights issue for our fellow Indigenous South Australian’s. As Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Stephen Marshall should support the Barngarla People’s right to say No to nuclear waste storage on their country:
- The “United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People” (2007) Article 29 calls on States “to ensure that no storage or disposal of hazardous material shall take place in the lands or territories of indigenous peoples without their free prior and informed consent.”
- The federal Liberal government proposes to ship and truck nuclear waste across SA into indefinite above ground storage in a fancy shed at Napandee on Eyre Peninsula – without any capacity or even a plan for its eventual permanent disposal.
- SA’s clean green reputation, and our prime agricultural lands and farming communities, deserve better than untenable imposition of toxic nuclear wastes in a shoddy reckless federal plan to park and dump wastes that require isolation from the environment for 10,000 years.95 per cent of Intermediate Level Waste (ILW) in Australia are owned by Commonwealth government agencies, the vast majority is produced and held at ANSTO’s Lucas Heights reactor facility in Sydney – where it should stay in secure extended storage.
- The federal Budget provided $60 million for further decades of extended storage capacity for ILW at ANSTO Lucas Heights, building onto the operation of existing stores to 2026.
- In 2015 a separate Interim Waste Store for ANSTO nuclear fuel waste was built at Lucas Heights with a design capacity for 40 years. This store received a shipment of reprocessed nuclear fuel waste from France in 2015 and is intended to now receive a shipment from the UK in 2022, and is safety rated to 2055.
- The CEO of the federal nuclear regulator ARPANSA stated in evidence to a Senate Inquiry in 2020: “Waste can be safely stored at Lucas Heights for decades to come.”
- The federal Liberal government proposes to bring all these nuclear wastes to SA, along with decades of ANSTO’s further proposed nuclear waste production and future shipments of ANSTO reprocessed nuclear waste from France.
Premier – Stand up for our State!
Barnaby Joyce is back as Deputy PM – pushing for nuclear and coal
Barnaby Joyce says Australia needs low-emission coal stations and backs nuclear power
Joyce said small modular reactors could “power the city of Tamworth, the city of Armidale and a lot of other towns beside” with technology you could transport “on the back of a truck”
Deputy prime minister also blasts banks for managing carbon risk and supports coal exports in Sky News interview, Guardian, Katharine Murphy and Amy Remeikis 29 June 21
The newly returned Nationals leader and deputy prime minister Barnaby Joyce says Australia needs high-efficiency, low-emission coal power stations, as well as revenue from continuing exports of thermal coal, to bankroll social services.
While metropolitan Liberals have made it clear they will not support new coal-fired power, and the International Energy Agency has advised wealthy countries to phase out coal power plants by the end of the decade, Joyce used an interview on Sky News to champion modern coal plants, and declare he was in favour of nuclear reactors………..
Joyce told Jones he was a supporter of Australia adopting nuclear power if people wanted zero-emission power generation. But he said whether the nation went down that road was ultimately a matter for voters.
“I can’t change the nuclear position,” the Nationals leader said. “I believe we should have nuclear power and, and I believe that anything to make our nation a stronger place, this is the path we should be going down,………
Joyce said small modular reactors could “power the city of Tamworth, the city of Armidale and a lot of other towns beside” with technology you could transport “on the back of a truck”.https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/jun/29/barnaby-joyce-says-australia-needs-low-emission-coal-stations-and-backs-nuclear-power
Australia’s failed nuclear front group bites the dust.
Ben Heard’s lobby group is closing down, June 2021: Heard’s ‘Bright New World’ group — which received secret corporate donations from the Nuclear Industry — is closing down.
Concerted efforts to have state and federal laws banning nuclear power have failed in recent years. At a guess, the corporate donors have given up and will no longer fund Bright New World.
A stocktake on Heard’s 10 years of pro-nuclear, anti-renewables campaigning: renewable capacity grew by an incredible 1500+ gigawatts worldwide and renewables now account for 30% of global electricity generation. Nuclear generation was stagnant and nuclear’s contribution to global electricity generation fell to 10%.In Heard’s home state of South Australia, renewables have grown to 60% of electricity generation and the conservative state government is enthusiastically committed to 100% net renewables by 2030.Heard’s efforts to turn South Australia into the world’s nuclear waste dump were equally unsuccessful.Good riddance to Bright New World. https://nuclear.foe.org.au/ben-heard-secret-corporate-donations/
Australian Local Gov Association support Mount Isa nuclear weapons ban motion
Australian Local Gov Assoc pass Mount Isa nuclear weapons motion https://www.northweststar.com.au/story/7316487/australian-local-gov-assoc-pass-mount-isa-nuclear-weapons-motion/
Derek Barry ocal Government Association has supported Mount Isa City Council’s letter to the federal government looking for a nuclear weapons ban……..(subscribers only)
Portrait of a pro nuclear shill – Ben Heard
Ben Heard and the nuclear lobby group ‘Bright New World’ that accepts secret corporate donations
For factual rebuttals of the misinformation promulgated by other nuclear advocates, please visit: https://nuclear.foe.org.au/propaganda/
Ben Heard founded the South Australia-based ‘Bright New World’ nuclear advocacy group that accepts secret corporate donations from the nuclear industry.
Like so many other nuclear advocates, Heard very rarely or never says or does anything about the problems of the nuclear industry such as its systemic racism (abundantly evident in his home state, South Australia) or the inadequate nuclear safeguards system and the associated WMD proliferation risks.
A big part of Heard’s schtik is his conversion from a nuclear critic to a supporter. It is a back-story built on slender foundations. A mining industry magazine article said Heard was “once a fervent anti-nuclear campaigner” but in fact he never had any involvement whatsoever in anti-nuclear campaigning. Heard made no effort to correct the error in the magazine article — indeed he put the article, uncorrected, on his own website and only corrected it after the falsehood was publicly exposed. Likewise, Heard made no effort to correct an ABC article which described him as a “former anti-nuclear advocate”.
Heard has a recurring disclosure problem. He rarely disclosed his consulting work for uranium company Heathgate when spruiking for the nuclear industry. He said the reason he rarely disclosed his consulting work with Heathgate was that it was mentioned on his website. So any time you hear anyone speaking about anything in the media, it’s your responsibility to do a web-search to see if they have a financial interest! More recently, he rarely discloses corporate funding — indeed his lobby group has a policy of accepting secret corporate donations. Moreover, Heard rarely if ever discloses his connection to nuclear power company Energy. https://nuclear.foe.org.au/ben-heard-secret-corporate-donations/rrestrial Energy.
Napandee still the targeted site for nuclear waste? South Australia’s radioactive nightmare.
The Senate’s nuclear waste dilemma, Pearls and Irritations, By Noel Wauchope, Jun 27, 2021 ”……….. Australia’s obligations mount – to have some credible plan for long term management of its nuclear waste from its present Opal, and previous HIFAR nuclear reactors.The new amendment made this very significant change – and a real career-on -knife edge situation for Keith Pitt. Instead of specifying Napandee as the site for – let’s face it – just another temporary nuclear waste dump – the Bill now says that a selection is to be made from one of the listed sites. …
Well this seems to boil down to just one site anyway……… after all the promotional activity, and significant funding already granted to Kimba, it looks as if Napandee is still the targeted site….
Legal challenges to this site selection ? …….. the first consideration will be the Barngarla Native Title Owners………. [There] are farmers, local residents and business leaders, who are asking the government for funding for an independent review and assessment of the dump project. Up till now, information on the project has been confined to government and ANSTO promotion of the dump as a ”medical necessity” for Australia.
Then there are residents of the wider Eyre Peninsula, who have had no say in the Kimba decision. There are the various communities whose residents are likely to object to having radioactive waste transported through their area. There’s South Australia, too, which has clear laws prohibiting the establishment of a nuclear waste dump in that State, the Nuclear Waste Storage Facility (Prohibition) Act 2000.
But even those who have no ”local” interest in this project have been raising objections, with that rather old-fashioned motivation – the greater good. Thirteen of Australia’s top non government organisations rejected the Napandeed plan and the original Act as deeply flawed There were many submissions to the Senate Committee’s Inquiry into the plan, raising well-argued doubts about economic problems with the plan, about geological unsuitability of the location, environmental risks, and the likely outcome of Kimba being burdened with ”stranded wastes”
It is an issue of national concern, but it has been pitched by the government as a matter only for the 824 eligible voters of the Kimba Shire.
Looking at this in the wider and historical context, the plan is not so new. The federal government and ANSTO have been aiming for years to transfer the responsibility of the reactor wastes to some distant location, preferably out of New South Wales. ANSTO, under the recently departed CEO Dr Adi Paterson had grand plans for expanding its operations, to build a marketing empire for medical radioisotopes, This is a dubious plan, as now these isotopes are being produced in a safer, more practical way, using non nuclear cyclotrons.
A greater dream, (or perhaps nightmare) lies behind the nuclear lobby’s push for a radioactive waste dump. It’s the idea, promoted by the company PANGEA, in 1999, of Australia becoming the importer of international nuclear waste – the world’s nuclear waste hub. PANGEA has been reborn as ARIUS, with the same dream. In 2016, that dream was pushed by the South Australian Nuclear Fuel Cycle Commission, which failed to convince South Australians. Two Citizens Jury processes rejected the plan, and the South Australian Premier Steven Marshall announced that it was definitely axed.
There’s still more. The dream of plutonium and other end products of nuclear reactors coming to Australia was tied to the aspirations for an Australian nuclear future, first with the goal of the full nuclear fuel cycle, with advanced nuclear reactors, small nuclear reactors, thorium reactors, (that need plutonium to kick-start the fission process), nuclear submarines, nuclear-propelled spacecraft and so on……..
[Ed. note – the Bill was passed by the Senate on 22nd June]
Australian Conservation Foundation Nuclear Free Campaigner David Sweeney said “The return of legal review is important but it is extraordinary that the Minister ever thought its removal was reasonable,” Mr Sweeney said.“A day in court is a fundamental right and to seek to remove this was deeply flawed – as is the government’s wider plan.”
The ACF along with other peak environmental, health and community organisations, has spelt out its objections in a document on its website, stating that the plan for the Kimba waste dump is unnecessary and deeply flawed. More importantly, they are calling for what is instead really needed . They demand a properly funded and expert independent review of Australia’s radioactive waste management, based on evidence and global best practice.
https://johnmenadue.com/the-senates-nuclear-waste-dilemma/
South Australian Minister Dan van Holst Pellekaan shuns Supreme Court Justice’s ruling to release Kimba nuclear documents
Senator Rex Patrick (at left) 27 June 21, MIN It’s an extremely disturbing state of affairs when a Minister of the Crown simply ignores a Supreme Court Justice’s ruling.
You might recall late last year, Minister Dan van Holst Pellekaan denied me access to documents related to the Kimba National Radioactive Waste Management Facility in what I thought was an incompetent Freedom of Information (FOI) decision.
When I made an application to the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (SACAT) to challenge his decision, I was unbelievably threatened with costs. I ignored the Ministerial bullying. The challenge was heard by Supreme Court Justice Judy Hughes (sitting as the President of SACAT) who found the document I was after was NOT exempt from release under FOI. Orders to that effect were issued on 17 May 2021.I did not expect the document to be provided to me until the appeal time (1 month from the making of the decision) had expired.
It has now expired, and I have made a demand for the documents, but the Minister is refusing to abide by Her Honour’s decision.It looks like I’ll have to go to court to enforce the order.
Senator Rex Patrick explained how the government’s nuclear waste process was a botched job.
there were a number of people who were quite close to the facility who were unable to express their view in the vote because they lived outside the council area—the voting area—so they were excluded. Lots of people were excluded from the vote. We ended up with a completely flawed process.
Senator McAllister did a fantastic job drawing out in the committee stage that this bill, as it originally entered the Senate, was about ousting the jurisdiction of a court to deal with a botched process. This bill now, as a ruse, says that it’s about maybe three sites, again, when we know the government is going to select Napandee. That’s what’s going to happen as a result of this.
Senator PATRICK (South Australia) Senate 21 June 21, (18:26): I rise to speak on the National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment (Site Specification, Community Fund and Other Measures) Bill 2020. I want to go back a bit in history so that the chamber’s aware of how we got to where we are today, because the bottom line is that this bill is a bit of a ruse, a facade. I need to ground that properly in order for people to understand exactly what I’m talking about.
We’ll go back to 2012, the bill where we’re seeking to establish a national radioactive waste management facility. I might point out that I’m in favour of such a facility. I think we need a facility. We do need to take responsibility for our own radioactive waste. In terms of the safety aspects and the philosophy,………….
Firstly, the concept behind the whole process is fundamentally flawed. Instead of selecting the best site for a facility in Australia, we kind of had a raffle and said, ‘Who wants to have a site in their backyard?’ or ‘Who wants to have a site on their land?’ Of course people put up their hand, but that’s not the best way to select the best location. It’s like trying to say, ‘Let’s build a highway, and we’ll go out and see who wants to have their house knocked down to have the highway run somewhere.’ That’s not the way in which you tackle a project. You work out the best route and then you deal with the issues along the way. That’s not what we’ve done in this process. We’ve just said, ‘Anyone who wants to stick up their hand, we’ll have a look at your property and see if it fits.’ It’s not the best way to do it.
……….what we should have done is look around the country and ask, ‘Where is the best site? What are the best characteristics for a site for a radioactive waste management facility?…..
Continue readingSenator Hanson-Young outlined the shambles that the nuclear waste siting process has been
This bill is a disgrace. It is an affront to community consultation, it is an affront to the best available science and it is an affront to the promise, the long-held promise, that this country would get serious about a long-term permanent solution to dealing with the waste that we have. Of course we have a responsibility. We create nuclear waste; we need to store it properly. It is of course incredibly toxic. That’s why it is difficult to do. It is also why you don’t see the Prime Minister advocating that they build a nuclear waste dump in his electorate, where Lucas Heights actually is.
This bill is a disgrace. It is an affront to community consultation, it is an affront to the best available science and it is an affront to the promise, the long-held promise, that this country would get serious about a long-term permanent solution to dealing with the waste that we have. Of course we have a responsibility. We create nuclear waste; we need to store it properly. It is of course incredibly toxic. That’s why it is difficult to do. It is also why you don’t see the Prime Minister advocating that they build a nuclear waste dump in his electorate, where Lucas Heights actually is.
This has been a disgraceful process, and still the South Australian community are left in the dark. How is this going to be transported? How often are we going to have trucks and ships full of nuclear waste coming into our state, coming into our towns? What are the people of Whyalla meant to do—not to mention the towns and communities where this dump is built?
We’re not going to. We’re going to fight this. We want a proper process. We want independent expert advice, not special favours from national ministers, and we want our state’s reputation for having a clean, green, food, wine and tourism industry protected. It’s only the Greens who are standing up for this in our state of South Australia.
HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) Senate 21 June 21, (12:28): I rise today to speak on the National Radioactive Waste Managemn Greens and my constituents in South Australia, who, of course, are outraged that once again we see the two big parties working together to dump on our state.
This is an example of what happens when Labor and Liberal get together: they’ve got more votes on the eastern seaboard than they do in South Australia, so they dump on SA. That’s what they’re doing here today.
Continue readingSenator Rex Patrick explained why the Woomera prohibited area would be a more suitable site for a nuclear waste dump
Senator PATRICK (South Australia) Senate 21 June21, (19:50): I think Industry did make inquiries to the Department of Defence. In a two- or three-page submission, they sought to rule that out. You’ll be aware that the committee that examined this piece of legislation took a trip to Woomera and had a look at the site. I note in your speech in the second reading debate you said that Woomera was not suitable; it’s a test range. Just to inform you, Minister—you may already know this—Woomera is 13 per cent of the area of South Australia. It is twice the size of Tasmania. It’s beyond comprehension that anyone would accept from the Department of Defence the idea that you can’t fit a facility there. It is a massive area. If you look to the north-eastern corner of the Woomera prohibited area, you will find there’s a uranium mine at Roxby Downs. It’s something like 20 or 30 kilometres inside the WPA. There is a community that clearly doesn’t have any particular issue with radioactive material, noting that their livelihoods depend on that. I’m sure you’ve been up there, as I have, to Roxby and the Olympic Dam.
I also heard during your speech in the second reading debate the idea that we were going to mix a radioactive waste site with a missile firing range. This has all been dealt with by the committee. The Department of Defence advises that, whenever they conduct a missile firing, they have a safety template. So they lay out the area for which there is a danger so that if a missile, aerial vehicle or drone goes rogue it will actually most likely land in that particular safety template. The Department of Defence provided the committee with an overlay map of all of the safety templates that have been used since 2014, and there are massive areas of the Woomera prohibited area that, in actual fact, do not overlap with any test sites. It’s an area that is remote. It’s not on prime agricultural land. There is quite a thick study that shows that it’s quite feasible. It’s done all of the geological work and all of the safety work. On the idea that you can’t find a location there, this is Defence defending Defence land like no other. This is the department that came to the government in 2009 and said, ‘Let’s have a $12 billion Future Submarine project,’ and then that project got estimated up to $50 billion and then grew to $89 billion and now we have to pay an extra $10 billion to extend the life of the Collins class in order to get it to the point where it can last until the future submarines arrive sometime after 2035. This is the same department you’re talking about. It’s clearly incompetent in relation to these sorts of projects.
Any person could reasonably go up to Woomera, have a look at the sites and have a look around the airfield up there. You’ll see that there are ammunition areas and fuel storage areas, all of which are manageable from an aircraft perspective well away from the range. We’ve got the road to Roxby Downs that’s a stone’s throw from the airfield. It’s never been shut, under the various rules. There’s lots and lots of space up there. You’ve got a list of three sites that appear to be face-saving sites. Why wouldn’t you simply accept the possibility that Woomera is not a bad facility? Remember, at the start of this we ended up with the three sites that you have named in your table, in the amendments, by asking people whether they’d want to have their land as a radioactive waste management site—not by looking and asking, ‘What’s the best place to put it?’ but simply, ‘Who wants to have one—which landowner wants to sell their land at four times the market rate to have a facility?’ So they can move on and go somewhere else and leave behind a facility.
I’ve got an amendment on the sheet, and that amendment includes consultation with Indigenous parties and indeed the community. It beggars belief that the government doesn’t want to add another potential site where there could well be broad community support, where in the past proper studies have been done that say that this can go
there. It’s a government that seems to be scared of the Department of Defence and takes a two- or three-page submission to rule out something—afraid of the brass, afraid of the shiny uniforms—and basically takes at face value what they’ve said yet doesn’t listen to the community in Kimba and what their concerns are. That doesn’t seem to matter.
I’m left flabbergasted as to why it wouldn’t be considered, particularly in circumstances where there are two radioactive waste sites up in the Woomera Prohibited Area. Hangar 5 has 10,000 CSIRO drums sitting there that will have to be moved at cost. Koolymilka has defence waste that includes intermediate-level waste. That’s somehow managed to survive for 20 years—longer, actually—without causing interruption to the operations up in the Woomera Prohibited Area. So, I wonder, Minister: how do you reconcile the fact that we’ve had radioactive waste up there since the 1990s, yet Defence have been able to operate perfectly well with the two facilities that we have up there? I wonder whether you can reconcile that.
Senator PATRICK: I don’t mean to ambush you, Minister, but I have two amendments on the table that look at Woomera as a site. I don’t think it’s an unreasonable question to ask, noting that in your second reading speech you said that a radioactive waste site is not consistent with the operations at Woomera, when in fact we’ve had radioactive waste stored at Woomera since about the mid-nineties. It may well be that it will continue to be stored there, because the waste at Koolymilka is not suitable to be shifted, in which case the whole thing becomes a bit of a shambles with Defence saying, ‘We can’t have it here,’ knowing full well that it’s going to stay there. That’s the burden of my question. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to ask that question, noting I have a couple of amendments on the table that look at Woomera, which you’re knocking out for what appears to be quite shallow reasons. If you’ve gone through the process completely—not you personally, Minister—if the department has gone through the process or the minister has gone through the process properly, when that advice came back from Defence you would think that you might have challenged some of it, particularly to get an understanding of whether or not that waste will go to, presumably, Kimba. Maybe we can start with hangar 5. Hangar 5 has 10,000 drums of low-level radioactive waste that is stored very close to the range head. Perhaps you can say whether it’s the intention that that material, noting it’s in a pretty perilous state—I know CSIRO is working to tidy that up—go from hangar 5 at Woomera to the new facility? ………….
Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (20:04): In some sense, the question is as much about Woomera as it is about Kimba because if the circumstances are that you can’t store that particular type of waste—as I said, there are small amounts of plutonium stored there—then, in fact, you’re going to be in a situation where you have a facility at Kimba, presumably, but you still have a radioactive waste storage area in the very place that Defence says it can’t exist, because it’s not consistent with their operations. I wonder if that question was ever asked of Defence in order to test their assertions in relation to the claim that you can’t put this waste there. Is it the intention of the government to close the Koolymilka site at Woomera and in what time frame?
Senator Pauline Hanson was scathing in condemning the government’s nuclear waste siting process
No-one has seen a list of the radioactive waste materials to be stored in the national radioactive waste facility, opening the real possibility of mission creep over time. There is no safety case. The minister says it will be safe. How would he know?
The proposed cost of this above-ground radioactive waste dump site is estimated to cost about a third of a billion dollars, all of which will have been wasted because it’s a temporary solution. I am annoyed. The hard decision, which is the permanent dump site, has been kicked down the road like a can instead of being picked up and dealt with.
Is the movement of radioactive waste minimised for public safety by keeping the dump site close to the site of production? No. Large volumes of radioactive waste will be transported hundreds of kilometres by road into South Australia, contrary to section 9 of South Australia’s Nuclear Waste Storage Facility (Prohibition) Act 2000. Has the government resolved the conflict with section 8 of South Australia’s Nuclear Waste Storage Facility (Prohibition) Act
Where is the Marshall government in South Australia on this issue? Its silence is deafening. The next state election in South Australia is on 19 March 2022. Premier Marshall has said nothing and has not repealed South Australia’s Nuclear Waste Storage Facility (Prohibition) Act 2000. I note that the 2021-22 budget provides South Australia with $3.4 billion in new commitments, compared with $2 billion for Queensland and $377 million for Tasmania. Has the federal government bought the Marshall state government? I will let the voters in South Australia work that one out for themselves.
Is the proposed dump site near Kimba a geologically stable area? No.
Senator HANSON (Queensland—Leader of Pauline Hanson’s One Nation) Senate, 21 June 21, (18:51): I rise to speak to the National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment (Site Specification, Community Fund and Other Measures) Bill 2020. One Nation will never support the removal of judicial review from legislation. This position means One Nation has and will continue to resist pressure from the government to legislate a site in Kimba in South Australia for radioactive waste management. One Nation will always stand up for the freedoms past generations have passed on to us.
In the next 12 months there will be a general election to elect a new federal government. If Australians act like sheep, voting for the two parties and their sidekicks who want to take away their judicial rights, they are going to get wolves in government. If the two big parties had their way, a radioactive nuclear waste facility would now be under construction on the Eyre Peninsula in the middle of prime cropping land in South Australia. Just four per cent of the land in South Australia is suitable for wheat, barley and canola, but the government wants to use the prime land to build a radioactive waste facility. Up until recently, Labor agreed to the removal of judicial review in relation to site selection for a national radioactive waste storage facility. Now they champion judicial review? I ask: what grubby deal has Labor done with government to get this bill through the Senate? No wonder voters are leaving Labor and turning to One Nation.
The government has ticked every wrong box to arrive at its decision to impose a national dump site for radioactive waste on unwilling communities in South Australia.
Continue reading1 This month.
20 September –National Day of Action in Melbourne on the International Day of Peace
Help Aunty Sue Protect Her Land and Sacred Sites From Destructive Rocket Testing.
.
Australians deserve the truth
about
AUKUS – https://aukuspublicinquiry.com/
PETITION – To: Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and the Australian Labor Government
of the week – Australians for War Powers Reform (AWPR)
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
Antinuclear 