Antinuclear

Australian news, and some related international items

“Your Say” Has Jay Weatherill the right to spend #millions promoting nuclear waste dump?

text-your-sayPeter Lazic 16 Sept 16 What consent does Jay Weatherill have to spend $600 million dollars of taxpayer money to plan a nuclear waste dump, when the proposed dump may never get approved. This and the money spent to date on the Royal Commission, the road show, now TV advertisements, etc, is obscene and immoral

Noel Wauchope > Peter Lazic 16 Sep 2016

Especially as the SA Law says:

13—No public money to be used to encourage or finance construction or
operation of nuclear waste storage facility Nuclear Waste Storage Facility (Prohibition) Act 2000https://www.legislation.sa.gov.au/LZ/C/A/NUCLEAR%20WASTE%20STORAGE%20FACILITY%20(PROHIBITION)%20ACT%202000/CURRENT/2000.68.UN.PDF

and the link http://yoursay.sa.gov.au/discussions/nuclear-community-conversation-community-discussion-consent

September 23, 2016 Posted by | legal, South Australia, wastes | Leave a comment

Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) lodges appeal against Federal Court’s approval of giant Adani coal mine

coal CarmichaelMine219 September 2016  “The Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) has lodged an appeal to the Federal Court’s decision which found the approval of Adani’s Carmichael coal mine to be lawful.

“ACF disputes the Environment Minister’s argument in court that the burning of coal from Carmichael mine will not have an impact on global warming and the Great Barrier Reef.

““This is a profound moment in the history of protecting Australia’s environment, as we attempt to stop a coal mine that would create 4.6 billion tonnes of climate pollution if it is allowed to proceed,” said ACF’s President Geoff Cousins.

““Australia’s system of environment laws is broken if it allows the Federal Environment Minister to approve a mega-polluting coal mine – the biggest in Australia’s history – and claim it will have no impact on the global warming and the reef.

““If our environment laws are too weak to actually protect Australia’s unique species and places,they effectively give companies like Adani a licence to kill.

““Be in no doubt, Adani’s Carmichael proposal is massive and will lock in decades of damaging climate pollution if it goes ahead, further wrecking the reef. … “

September 21, 2016 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, climate change - global warming, legal, Queensland | 1 Comment

Your Say: Immoral and illegal for Jay Weatherill to spend taxpayer money to promote nuclear waste dump

Weatherill,-Jay-wastesPeter Lazic 12 Sep 2016 What consent does Jay Weatherill have to spend $600 million dollars of taxpayer money to plan a nuclear waste dump, when the proposed dump may never get approved. This and the money spent to date on the Royal Commission, the road show, now TV advertisements, etc, is obscene and immoral

Ed note : Especially as the SA Law says:
13—No public money to be used to encourage or finance construction or
operation of nuclear waste storage facility Nuclear Waste Storage Facility (Prohibition) Act 2000https://www.legislation.sa.gov.au/LZ/C/A/NUCLEAR%20WASTE%20STORAGE%20FACILITY%20(PROHIBITION)%20ACT%202000/CURRENT/2000.68.UN.PDF


http://nuclear.yoursay.sa.gov.au/get-invol…/statewide-survey

September 16, 2016 Posted by | legal, South Australia, Submissions to Royal Commission S.A. | 1 Comment

Australian Conservation Foundation ordered to pay costs for Adani case

coal CarmichaelMine2September 8, 2016. ENVIRONMENTALISTS have been hit with a massive bill after a Federal Court ruling in just one of many cases against the Adani coal project, while a second group has launched yet another attempt to derail the project….. (subscribers only) 
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/crime-and-justice/australian-conservation-foundation-ordered-to-pay-costs-for-adani-case/news-story/20a030d675a2edb873a9888fd1e152ea

September 10, 2016 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, legal, Queensland | Leave a comment

Poll shows broad support for green groups using ‘lawfare’ to challenge mining ventures

legal actionMajority support green groups using ‘lawfare’ to challenge mining ventures: poll, The Age, Peter Hannam 4 Sept 16   The Turnbull government should make saving the Great Barrier Reef “an absolute priority”, and green groups should be able to use existing laws to protect the environment, new polling has found.

The ReachTEL survey of 2636 respondents commissioned by the Australian Conservation Foundation found broadbased backing for the reef and the use of the courts to challenge new mines, even among self-described as Liberal-National Party supporters.

The poll was taken Tuesday, a day after an ACF challenge failed in the Federal Court against the federal government’s approval of the giant Adani coal mine in Queensland. Some conservative politicians have accused green groups of using “lawfare” to delay major projects by testing approvals in court………Larissa Waters, the deputy Greens leaders, said the poll’s findings underscored the political risks for the Coalition.

“Last time the Coalition government tried to roll back our national environment laws, attack the voices of our environment and stop ordinary Australians from enforcing them in the courts, they got walloped,” Senator Waters said. “I’d be surprised if the government was out of touch enough to try the same attacks again.”

Sean Ryan, principal solicitor for the Environmental Defenders Office Queensland, said there already exists “a massive disparity” in financial resources available to the community compared with the mining sector……..http://www.theage.com.au/environment/majority-support-green-groups-using-lawfare-to-challenge-mining-ventures-poll-20160902-gr74v3.html

September 5, 2016 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, legal | Leave a comment

Appeal lodged against Western Australia’s Mulga Rock uranium mine project

legal actionAppeal against WA Mulga Rock uranium mine Sky News, Tuesday, 30 August 2016 An appeal has been lodged against the Environmental Protection Authority’s recommendation to approve the proposed Mulga Rock uranium mine in Western Australia’s Goldfields region.

The appeal was lodged on Monday by the Conservation Council of WA, the Australian Conservation Foundation, The Wilderness Society, Friends of the Earth Australia and the Anti Nuclear Alliance of WA.

The grounds for appeal include environmental factors for flora and fauna, mine closure, tailings management and impacts to water……

Following the EPA’s recommendation with 14 conditions, including having environmental and Aboriginal heritage management plans in place, it is now up to state and federal environment ministers to decide if the project will go ahead.

But CCWA campaigner Mia Pepper says the proposed mine sits in the Yellow Sand Plain Priority Community, which supports rare and endangered species.

‘If this mine were to proceed it would take 15 million litres of water a day from the environment and clear over 3000 hectares of native bushland and important habitat for 93 reptile species, 28 bird species and 10 mammal/marsupial species,’ she said.

‘This uranium mine would leave behind a legacy of 30 million tonnes of radioactive tailings and mine waste that would pose a threat to the environment for thousands of years.’

Earlier this month, the EPA rejected Cameco’s plan to mine uranium at its Yeelirrie project, 70km southeast of Wiluna, because the project posed unacceptable risks to subterranean fauna. – See more at:http://www.skynews.com.au/business/business/company/2016/08/30/appeal-against-wa-mulga-rock-uranium-mine.html#sthash.qqOmAFyx.dpuf

September 2, 2016 Posted by | legal, Western Australia | Leave a comment

Adani court decision: Traditional Owners say fight to stop QLD’s Carmichael mine continues

19 August 2016

legal actionCourt decision:

Traditional Owners say govt acted shamefully,

fight to stop Adani’s Carmichael mine continues

Defence of rights and country still has a long way to run

http://wanganjagalingou.com.au/adani-court-decision-traditional-owners-say-fight-to-stop-qlds-carmichael-mine-continues/

Senior Traditional Owner and spokesperson for the Wangan and Jagalingou (W&J) traditional owners family council, Mr Adrian Burragubba, says he is not surprised  by the decision handed down in the Federal Court in Brisbane today, while reiterating that they stand strong together and will continue to defend their human rights, and protect their traditional lands from Adani’s destructive Carmichael mine.

““The issuing by the Palaszczuk government of the mining leases, in support of Adani running roughshod over our right to say ‘no’ to this mine, was a shameful episode. We will continue to pursue all legal avenues, Australian and international, to defend our rights and stop this massive coal mine going ahead,” Mr Burragubba said.

“Wangan and Jagalingou council representatives, including Mr Burragubba, are currently challenging the leasesthat have been issued by the Palaszczuk government for the Adani Carmichael coal mine ina Judicial Review in the Queensland Supreme Court. The matter will be heard in November; and further legal actions are underway. …

Lawyer for Mr Burragubba, Mr Benedict Coyne said: “My client will take some time to review the reasons for judgment, and consider his appeal options in the context of numerous other legal avenues he is pursuing for justice for his people, both domestically and internationally.” …

August 19, 2016 Posted by | aboriginal issues, legal, Queensland | Leave a comment

Indigenous challenge to Adani Carmichael coal mine dismissed by Federal Court

coal CarmichaelMine2http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-08-19/indigenous-challenge-to-adani-carmichael-coal-mine-dismissed/7765466~ Andrew Kos 19 August 2016

“The Federal Court has dismissed a challenge from a Queensland traditional owner to mining leases for Adani’s Carmichael coal mine.

“A member of the Wangan and Jagalingou people was trying to put a stop to the multi-billion-dollar Galilee basin project.

Senior traditional owner for the Wangan and Jagalingou traditional owners, Adrian Burragubba argued that a determination made in April 2015 by the National Native Title Tribunal, relating to the proposed granting of two mining leases, was made incorrectly.

“He argued the approval of mining leases would extinguish native title over parts of the group’s lands.

“Mr Burragubba made the application for judicial review against the Queensland Government, Adani and the National Native Title Tribunal. …

“In his judgement, Justice John Reeves concluded that none of Mr Burragubba’s grounds of review had merit. “Justice Reeves said the tribunal did not fail to observe the rules of natural justice or constructively fail to exercise its jurisdiction. …

“While I respect the judgement of Justice Reeves, we will seek advice from our legal team on an appeal,” Mr Burragubba said. … “

August 19, 2016 Posted by | aboriginal issues, legal, Queensland | 1 Comment

Whitsunday residents take expansion of Adani’s Abbot Point Terminal to court

justice EDO Qld
The following statement is from our client 
Whitsunday Residents Against Dumping (WRAD)

http://www.edoqld.org.au/news/wrad-media-release-whitsunday-residents-take-expansion-of-abbot-point-terminal-to-court/ 24 June 2016:

“Local community group, Whitsunday Residents Against Dumping,
which aims to protect the Great Barrier Reef from damage,
is asking the QLD Supreme Court to scrutinise whether the QLD Department of Environment
properly considered legislative tests when granting authority for
Adani’s controversial Abbot Point Terminal 0 expansion to go ahead.
The first directions hearing is taking place today in the Queensland Supreme Court.
Local grandmother, former tourism worker and spokesperson for Whitsunday Residents Against Dumping, Sandra Williams said,
“Our precious Great Barrier Reef is already in poor health, and Adani’s controversial port project,
which will cause irreparable damage, has raised significant concern in our community.
“Residents in our group have never taken legal action before,
but we were forced to because of our worry that the approval of the port expansion,
which will require damaging dredging and see hundreds of extra ships through the Reef each year, was not lawful.
“There is a question mark over whether the Department of Environment and Heritage Protection
properly assessed the project, as required by law, before it gave this billion dollar proposal the green light.
“It is critically important that the decision, which has such grave implications for the Reef, is properly scrutinised. … ”
To continue reading the full statement, click on this link:
http://www.edoqld.org.au/news/wrad-media-release-whitsunday-residents-take-expansion-of-abbot-point-terminal-to-court/

June 26, 2016 Posted by | environment, legal, Queensland | 1 Comment

Indigenous and several other groups, nut just Greens, taking Adani to court

justicecoal CarmichaelMine2Green groups not the only ones taking Adani to court, Daily Mercury   | 20th Jun 2016 GREEN groups may be copping the blame for Carmichael coal project delays, but Adani is tied up in three times as many court cases with resources groups.

It’s a point Mackay Conservation Group’s Peter McCallum highlighted following a statement put out by Queensland Resources Council’s Michael Roche last week, that said it was a “relentless barrage of ‘lawfare'” from green acitivsts holding up the $16 billion coal mine.

Out of the 12 cases Adani is fighting in the Queensland courts at the moment, nine are with resources companies, two are with environmental groups and one is with an indigenous group.

Adani is also involved in another Federal Court case with the Australian Conservation Foundation.

“It shows the Queensland Resources Council and the company are just focussed on making us the bad guys,” Mr McCallum said.

“Really, the company is just as litigious as everyone else.”

Politicians have also called for government to introduce a time limit on how long environmental groups have to launch these court cases.

However, Mr McCallum believes new legislation would only make the approvals process “even more convoluted and entangled” than now, because rather than simply initiating a case, groups would first fight for the right to litigate.

“There will be even more litigation as people try and establish themselves as a litigate,” he said…..http://www.dailymercury.com.au/news/resources-companies-taking-adani-court/3048386/

June 21, 2016 Posted by | climate change - global warming, legal | Leave a comment

Legal battle ahead for The Australian govt’s plan to impose nuclear waste dump on sacred Aboriginal land

justicePlan for Flinders Ranges nuclear waste dump faces legal battle MEREDITH BOOTH, VERITY EDWARDS THE AUSTRALIAN MAY 5, 2016  Environmentalists and trad­itional owners say eight years of legal wrangling, which saw the withdrawal of Muckaty Station in the Northern Territory as a site for a nuclear waste dump, is a precedent for the fight they are prepared to wage against a dump planned in South Australia.Wallerberdina Station, part-owned by former Liberal senator Grant Chapman and adjoining Adnyamathanha sacred sites in the northern Flinders Ranges more than 550km north of Adelaide, has been chosen ahead of five others as the preferred site for a national low-level nuclear waste dump.

The decision was made independently of the state’s ­Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission, which hands down its findings tomorrow and is expected to recommend that the state stores high-level radio­active waste from overseas.

Conservation Council of South Australia chief executive Craig Wilkins said he hoped the fight to stop the Wallerberdina dump did not reach court, but he was prepared to support a legal battle. “Muckaty Station was an eight-year campaign. We’re deeply hopeful that we don’t need to do that again,’’ he said yesterday. “Not only is it incredibly sacred country for the Adnyamathanha people, the land is subject to flash flooding and frequent earthquake activity.’’

Elder Regina McKenzie, who lives next to the station, said she was prepared to go to court to prevent a nuclear waste dump being built on burial areas and through a 70km storyline that was particularly sacred to indig­enous women.

“It’s desecration on all fronts, it’s an attack on our ­religion, it’s cultural genocide,” she said. “There are Aboriginal bones that have calcified and turned to stone and what right do they have to move those?”

Tweedle-NuclearThe Greens have slammed Labor and the Liberals for “teaming up” to defeat a ­motion calling on the government to acknow­ledge traditional owners’ oppos­ition to the dump.

Federal Resources Minister Josh Frydenberg said that a final decision had not been made.

May 6, 2016 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, legal, South Australia, wastes | Leave a comment

Approval of Adani’s Queensland coalmine faces another legal challenge

text-relevant‘Conservationists claim the state government failed to ensure the planned Carmichael mine was ecologically sustainable’

Joshua Robertson | The Guardian Australia
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/apr/27/approval-of-adanis-queensland-coalmine-faces-another-legal-challenge

coal CarmichaelMine2“Adani’s plan for Australia’s largest coalmine faces yet another snag, with a conservation group mounting what is now the eighth legal challenge to the  contentious project. …

The Coast and Country spokesman, Derec Davies, said the decision to grant environmental authority to the Galilee basin mine “ignored climate change totally and failed to properly take account of the true jobs figures – 1,464 net jobs not the 10,000 advocated”. …

The federal court  is yet to rule on an Australian Conservation Foundation appeal against federal
environmental approval of the mine. … representatives of the mine site’s  traditional owners, the Wangan and Jagalingou people, have several legal actions under way to challenge a land use deal with Adani … “

April 29, 2016 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, climate change - global warming, legal, Queensland | Leave a comment

South Australian Laws to be repealed to allow tax-payer funding for nuclear activity

South-Australia-nuclearThe State Government will move this week to repeal laws that prevents it from consulting on the merits of a nuclear waste storage facility once the Royal Commission hands down its final report to Government due in May.

Section 13 of the Nuclear Waste Storage Facility (Prohibition) Act 2000, states: “Despite any other Act or law to the contrary, no public money may be appropriated, expended or advanced to any person for the purpose of encouraging or financing any activity associated with the construction or operation of a nuclear waste storage facility in this State.”

March 7, 2016 Posted by | legal, politics, South Australia | Leave a comment

UN report finds in favour of Julian Assange

Assange also remains fearful of a potential future extradition to the US, where a secret grand jury has been looking into whether to prosecute him over WikiLeak’s publishing activities……..

 the former chair of the UN working group, Mads Andenas, defended its finding, saying: “There is no doubt that the normal course of action for the Swedish authorities would have been to interview Assange in London. The extradition request was disproportionate

flag-UN.Julian Assange: ‘sweet’ victory soured by British and Swedish rejection
No release in sight despite UN panel deciding WikiLeaks founder is being arbitrarily detained at Ecuador embassy,
Guardian, ,, in Gothenberg, and   5 Feb 16 A UN panel may have found that Julian Assange is subject to “arbitrary detention” and called for him to be allowed to walk free, but the WikiLeaks founder remains exactly where he has been for the past 44 months – inside Ecuador’s London embassy and locked in a three-nation war of words.

Britain and Sweden immediately rejected the UN report, which declared that Assange had been “arbitrarily detained” since his arrest in 2010 and during his lengthy stay in the embassy, where he sought asylum in June 2012. The British foreign secretary, Philip Hammond, described the findings as “ridiculous” and the Australian as a “fugitive from justice”.

However, the panel’s findings, leaked on Thursday and published in full on Friday morning, were a welcome victory for Assange, and a moment he intended to savour fully. At 4.01pm he emerged on to the balcony of the west Londonembassy to greet a crowd of several hundred supporters and journalists, pausing first, just briefly, to glance at the sky he has rarely seen for more than three years.

“How sweet it is,” said Assange, holding aloft a copy of the UN report while supporters shouted: “We love you, Julian!” It had been, he said, “a victory of historical importance”, and a decision reached after a process to which both Britain and Sweden had made submissions. “They lost. UK lost; Sweden lost.”

The Swedish government, however, has insisted the report changes nothing, and that it cannot interfere in an independent prosecutor’s ongoing attempt to extradite Assange for questioning over an allegation of rape dating from 2010, which he denies.

Meanwhile, for Ecuador – the Australian’s (mostly) willing host – the findings meant it was time for the two countries to allow Assange to walk free, and to compensate both him and them for the lengthy period he has been holed up in one of its few rooms……

After exhausting all his legal options in the UK and Sweden some time ago, there is no question that the report represents a boost for Assange’s legal team. Continue reading

February 5, 2016 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, civil liberties, legal, politics international | Leave a comment

Total Environment Centre’s legal challenge to South Australia solar tariff proposal

Solar penalty tariff proposal for SA households subject of Federal Court challenge, ABC News  By Candice Marcus, 16 Nov 15, An environment group wants the Federal Court to uphold the energy regulator’s decision to reject a penalty tariff on South Australian households with solar power.

The Total Environment Centre has intervened in a court case in which SA Power Networks is challenging the Australian Energy Regulator.

The regulator rejected a pricing proposal for households to face a solar tariff and a social tariff, which SA Power Networks said would have been directed toward helping low-income earners facing hardship in paying their bills.

It was estimated the solar tariff could cost the average solar-powered household about $100 annually.

The Total Environment Centre lodged submissions with the Federal Court urging it uphold the regulator’s rejection of the penalty pricing proposal.

Extra tariffs would be solar ‘disincentive’

Mark Byrne from the environment group said imposing additional tariffs would be a disincentive for people to install and use solar power.

“We’ve got half a million people living under solar roofs in South Australia already though and it’s going to negatively impact on them as well as making it less advantageous for new customers to install solar,” he said.

“Obviously in the long run we want to see more solar because it helps reduce greenhouse emissions as well as household electricity bills.”

He said SA Power Networks had a flawed argument.

“Their argument effectively is that solar customers should be paying more because they use less energy and the network is entitled to a fixed amount of revenue,” he said.

“The unfortunate thing about that is it discriminates against solar customers and will result in them paying about another $100 a year.

“What the network should be doing is introducing a tariff that affects everyone equally and recovers more of their revenue during those peaks, when they’re worried about the impact on prices because they have to build more to meet peak demand.”……..http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-11-16/court-hears-challenge-on-sa-solar-penalty-tariff-proposal/6944870

November 18, 2015 Posted by | legal, solar, South Australia | Leave a comment