Australian government is rushing to weaken Environmental Laws
David Noonan, 18 Nov 20, The Federal Liberal gov has called a rushed Committee of Inquiry into Federal Environment and Nature Laws.
But limited the scope of their Inquiry to their Abbott era untenable ‘One Stop Shop’ Bill to divest EPBC Act Approval powers to the States & Territories…
Public submissions close tomorrow Wednesday 18th, and only one day of Hearings is to be allowed.
New Inquiry: Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Streamlining Environmental Approvals) Bill 2020
Date Referred: 12 November 2020 to the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee,
Reporting Date: 27 November 2020
see Inquiry homepage:
My 3-page input of concern at a rushed Inquiry & a flawed Bill itakes a national interest focus on ‘nuclear actions’,
Extracts:
Due process and the national interest responsibility to the protection of Matters of National Environmental Significance (NES) are compromised by this deeply flawed Bill and rushed Inquiry. …
It appears reckless that a core pre-requisite audit of State resourcing and capacity to undertake EPBC Approvals and enforcement roles has not been undertaken at this late stage of events. …
Community confidence requires the EPBC Act to retain Approval powers at a Federal level, and to retain the “whole of environment” scope of Assessment and Protection of the Environment in ‘nuclear actions’ as has been required in our national EPBC Act laws since 1999.
This Inquiry should take up the Arabana People’s call for Federal protection of their GAB Springs.
Contacts: The Committee Secretary
Senate Standing Committees on Environment and Communications
Phone: +61 2 6277 3526
Fax: +61 2 6277 5818
ec.sen@aph.gov.au
Note the ACF has provided a proforma sign on letter option to this Inquiry – which you may wish to avail of,. (see sidebar at right.)
Corporate vested interests win as Australian Government weakens Environmental Laws
This Bill is fundamentally flawed in the core untenable proposal to divest national environmental responsibilities to States & Territories. State Approvals of major resource, mining and development projects are mired in ‘conflict of interest’, corporate influence and vested – not public – interests.
David Noonan, Full Submission to the Federal Environment Inquiry, 18 Nov 20, To: The Inquiry Chairperson Senator the Hon David Fawcett, , Senate Environment and Communications Legislative Committee , By email: ec.sen@aph.gov.au
Concern regards this rushed Inquiry into the flawed Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Streamlining Environmental Approvals) Bill 2020
Dear Secretary
This Inquiry is an unacceptably rushed process, and the Bill takes a pre-emptive and flawed approach to the EPBC Act. The public and the Parliament have a right to see and consider the Samuels Final Report, and the full suite of proposed EPBC Act Reform, National Standards and Amendments.
This Bill is fundamentally flawed in the core untenable proposal to divest national environmental responsibilities to States & Territories. State Approvals of major resource, mining and development projects are mired in ‘conflict of interest’, corporate influence and vested – not public – interests.
Due process and the national interest responsibility to the Protection of Matters of National Environmental Significance (NES) are compromised by this deeply flawed Bill and rushed Inquiry.
State control of EPBC Approvals is proposed through use of unenforceable “Bilateral Approval Agreement” instruments that are not fit for purpose, with little or no State law in place across Australia to even reflect the Objects, obligations and requirements of the EPBC Act.
The Bill unacceptably provides for ‘National Standards’ to be added to Bilateral Agreements with States, rather than legislated in the national interest in the EPBC Act and subject to national consultation and enforcement, with required national resourcing – rather than State paucity. The proposed accreditation process for States to take up federal EPBC powers is not even transparent.
It appears reckless that a core pre-requisite audit of State resourcing and capacity to undertake EPBC Approvals and enforcement roles has not been carried out at this late stage of events.
The Federal government is trying to expedite relinquishing national roles to Protect the Environment while declining to fund States to do so. This is a disrespectful indifference to Matters of NES.
Existing Cth-State Bilateral Assessment Agreements are not enforceable instruments and are not fit for purpose. For instance, no legislative or other mandated changes having been made in South Australia since taking up EPBC Act Assessment roles and responsibilities some years ago.
The non-statutory “EPBC Act Condition-setting Policy” further aligns the Commonwealth to defer to State Conditions of Approval and not set warranted Federal Conditions to properly protect MNES.
I have made a submission to the Independent Review of the EPBC Act, focusing on operation of the Act in protection of MNES under the “nuclear actions” trigger, and Discussion Paper Q.14 on failings of State roles through a case study on BHP Olympic Dam copper-uranium mine public interest issues.
******************
In the case of EPBC “nuclear actions”, including EPBC Act Section 21 & 22 controlled actions in uranium mining and milling, the EPBC Act protected Matter of NES is “the environment” – requiring “whole of environment” scope of impact assessments, and Protection of the Environment such that authorized actions do not have unacceptable or unsustainable impacts.
******************
The Samuel Review, Box 12 Nuclear activities (p.52) states: “To be able to ensure community confidence in these ‘nuclear’ activities, the Commonwealth should maintain the capacity to intervene. To achieve this, the key reform directions proposed by the Review are:
The National Environmental Standards for MNES should include one for nuclear actions. To provide community confidence, the Standard should reflect the regulatory guidelines and protocols of all relevant national laws and requirements.”
**************
However, the Samuel Review (p.110) specifies inadequate ARPANSA Codes as a ‘National Standard’ for nuclear action assessments; OR use of State frameworks judged compliant with these Codes.
********************
In addition, “graded” (limited) assessments as set out in ARPANSA Codes are to replace the scope of “whole of environment” impact Assessments for ‘nuclear actions’ – including for uranium mining.
******************
ARPANSA Codes can reflect vested nuclear industry practices rather than best scientific evidentiary standards. For instance, applying outdated 1991 era ionising radiation occupational exposure limits.
******************
Australia already has a failing record in regulation of uranium mining, in environmental protection and mine rehabilitation issues. Transferring Approvals to States and use of ARPANSA Codes in graded assessments will further compromise environmental protection standards and practise.
******************
By January 2021 South Australia will be the only Australian jurisdiction conducting uranium mining. A case study of BHP Olympic Dam provides a cogent context to evaluate this Bill & Samuel proposals.
******************
Importantly, “whole of environment” scope of uranium mining impact assessment encompasses social, economic, cultural and spiritual impacts, and not just environmental & radiological impacts.
******************
Outdated BHP Olympic Dam legal privileges that override Indigenous Heritage are now under scrutiny before Parliament’s Juukan Caves Inquiry, see Submission No.73 and 73.1 by David Noonan.
******************
It is typical that uranium mining disproportionately affects Indigenous People. ARPANSA Codes do not provide an appropriate basis to assess or respect Indigenous and Cultural Heritage issues.
******************
State governments in SA have failed to revoke BHP’s untenable Olympic Dam legal privileges.
******************
It is a travesty that BHP has deliberately retained 1982 era over-rides of Aboriginal Heritage across the 12,000 km2 “Stuart Shelf Area” around the Olympic Dam mine, and retains outdated legal rights to take excessive volumes of GAB waters affecting the integrity and very survival of GAB Springs.
******************
BHP’s influence in excessive mining of Great Artesian Basin water for Olympic Dam mine shows a State’s inability,
and given real ‘conflict of interest’, a State’s unwillingness to reform such issues.
******************
This scope is necessary to respect Indigenous rights and interests to protect their country & culture.
******************
It is a warning to this Inquiry that the State of SA has failed to protect the unique and fragile Mound Springs. The integrity of Springs relies on continued natural flows and pressure of GAB waters.
These Springs are a protected Matter of NES under the EPBC Act as a listed Endangered Ecological Community and are of significant ongoing cultural and spiritual importance to Aboriginal traditional owners, the Arabana People, who have called for real effective Federal protection of the Springs.
I commend the strong Arabana Aboriginal Corporation Submission No.92 (11 August) to the federal Juukan Caves Inquiry and the Arabana Chairperson’s call for protection of their GAB Springs: ……
“Unfortunately, our springs are disappearing. … The cause of the disappearance of our springs, is water that is being taken from the Great Artesian Basin by BHP’s mine at Roxby Downs. … Unless something is done by the Commonwealth, our springs will disappear… It is unsustainable, destructive of nature, and destructive of our culture to allow the springs to die. Will you please enact laws that ensure our mound springs and culture are recognised, respected and protected?”
This Inquiry must not condemn the GAB Springs to State control of EPBC Act Approval powers.
Pre-conditions to protect GAB Springs from BHP water extraction were set by the Labor Federal government in 2011 but were not applied as BHP abandoned a proposed open pit mine expansion.
If this Bill were to go ahead, the State of SA’s ‘conflict of interest’ role and BHP’s influence in mining GAB waters will combine to continue the exploitation of underground water reserves and the decline in the integrity and very survival of the unique and fragile GAB Springs.
Community confidence requires the EPBC Act to retain Approval powers at a Federal level, and to retain the “whole of environment” scope of Assessments and Protection of the Environment in ‘nuclear actions’ as has been required in our national EPBC Act laws since 1999.
The Inquiry should take up the Arabana People’s call for Federal protection of their GAB Springs.
This brief summary of input is based on my experience: Including some sixteen years as an Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) Environment Campaigner 1996-2011; as lead author consultant on Joint ENGO submissions (ACF, Conservation SA, and Friends of the Earth Australia) to three BHP EPBC Act Olympic Dam Referrals in 2019; and with 25 years involvement across public interest issues in Olympic Dam mine operations and in matters of environment protection legislation.
Please feel free for the Secretary, Members of the Committee and any of their staff, to contact on any aspect of these issues, for further information, clarification or discussion.
Australia’s Department of Defence captured by foreign weapons makers Thales, BAE,
|
Department of Defence captured by foreign weapons makers Thales, BAE, Michael West Media, by Michelle Fahy | Nov 17, 2020 Department of Defence secretly investigates itself, does not make public the review’s existence or its terms of reference, and keeps any resulting report secret. Defence recommends buying hundreds of vehicles from Thales, despite no need for them, just so Thales can keep its factory open. Houston, we have a problem, writes Michelle Fahy. The culture of cosiness; the revolving door; and undue influence. The relationship between government and military industrial companies is just one strand of the evidence showing the urgent need for a national anti-corruption commission. “Undue influence” is a noted marker for corruption. In a recent investigation we examined how the then $50 billion (now $80 billion) submarine contract was awarded to Naval Group, despite it being under investigation in numerous countries over probity issues, including bribery and corruption concerns. The multinational weapons maker Thales has also exerted influence on successive governments. There has been considerable coverage of how Thales pressured federal Attorney General Christian Porter to censor key parts of the auditor general’s report into the procurement process for the Thales Hawkei vehicle. There is more to that story than the censored sections. Then there is yet another key supplier to Defence, the UK multinational BAE Systems, which in 2018 won the $35 billion future frigate contract to build the navy’s nine new anti-submarine warships. The new contract was awarded even though there had reportedly been “long-running concerns” inside Defence about alleged inflation of invoices by tens of millions of dollars by BAE for its work on the navy’s elderly Adelaide-class of frigates (now decommissioned). An internal audit by Defence reportedly found BAE’s Adelaide contract “riddled with cost overruns, with the British company consistently invoicing questionable charges”. By May 2019, Defence had launched a fresh investigation. Thales and the Hawkei: “Extensive industry lobbying”A 2018 Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) report details the acquisition process for the Thales Hawkei vehicle, which was ultimately selected as the ‘light’ vehicle within a multi-phase procurement started in 2003 to replace Australian Defence Force field vehicles and trailers………. In September 2013 the Coalition defeated Labor in the federal election. In March 2015 Thales appointed Brendan Nelson – Liberal defence minister prior to Labor’s 2007 election win – to its “advisory board”. Five months later, the Coalition government approved the Thales Hawkei acquisition and in October the contract was signed. The ANAO report contains many significant revelations; the following are just some of the concerns raised:
|
|
Doctors call for an open independent review of nuclear waste production and disposal
One of the first principles of toxic waste management is to reduce production.
Non-reactor production of nuclear medicine is increasing, and produces very little radioactive waste. Australia should be partnering with countries like Canada, to research non-reactor production of the commonest nuclear medicine isotope Technetium.
16 Nov 20, The Medical Association for Prevention of War is calling for an open independent review of nuclear waste production and disposal in Australia, to create a careful evidence based long term best practice plan.
The recent deeply flawed proposal for a federal nuclear dump and store at Kimba now looks unlikely to get support in the Senate.
It was a cheap storage plan for highly radioactive waste that stays radioactive for more than 10,000 years- an interim facility with no longer term plan. It effectively dumps the problem on future generations of South Australians.
The Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency chief executive Dr Carl-Magnus Larsson, at a Senate inquiry in June 2020, said: “Waste can be safely stored at Lucas Heights for decades to come.”
MAPW Vice-President Dr Margaret Beavis said, “We have plenty of time to properly review and plan a disposal facility that meets international best practice standards. The recent proposal did not meet those standards.
Contrary to disgraceful and dishonest government scaremongering, there is no threat to nuclear medicine in Australia. I and other MAPW members regularly rely on nuclear medicine in our clinical practice.”
We call on the government to commit to an open independent review of both production and disposal of nuclear waste.
One of the first principles of toxic waste management is to reduce production.
Non-reactor production of nuclear medicine is increasing, and produces very little radioactive waste. Australia should be partnering with countries like Canada, to research non-reactor production of the commonest nuclear medicine isotope Technetium.
Planned nuclear waste dump at Kimba has absolutely nothing to do with the production of nuclear medicine
Peter Remta, 16 Nov 20, Referring to Minister Keith Pitt’s media release of 9 November 2020 regarding the round table conference on nuclear medicine – it still fails to answer and explain how precisely will nuclear medicine be affected by not having a national waste management facility at Kimba.
It is well known that nuclear waste is currently stored in over 100 different locations throughout Australia most of which has been generated through nuclear medical treatment and is classified as low level waste. However as Minister Pitt has himself acknowledged it would be very doubtful if the national facility managed to get 30% of that waste for storage and
disposal.
How will the production of nuclear medical material by ANSTO at Lucas Heights be affected by the failure to have the waste facility at Kimba?
The proposed facility at Kimba has nothing to do with and will not affect the production of nuclear medicine by ANSTO and to suggest otherwise is totally false and deliberately misleading.
It is no more than clutching at straws in order to convince senators who are opposed to the Bill for the waste facility presently before the Senate to change their minds. It is an insult to their intelligence.
The only thing that will affect the production of nuclear medicine by ANSTO is its own inherent problems with the nuclear medicine facility plant at Lucas Heights which keeps breaking down and having trouble despite the
huge cost of planning and building it.
Again that has nothing to do whatever with the proposed waste facility at Kimba other than perhaps to demonstrate the inefficiency of ANSTO and confirm the dangerous nature of the reactor waste which is completely unsuitable for storage at Kimba before ultimate disposal.
Despite many repeated requests, Senator Pitt has not explained how nuclear medicine will be affected should the waste facility not to be built at Kimba,
I
Julian Assange ‘targeted as a political opponent of Trump administration and threatened with the death penalty’
|
Julian Assange ‘targeted as a political opponent of Trump administration and threatened with the death penalty’ Evening Standard. By Tristan Kirk. @kirkkorner
09 September 2020, Wikileaks founder Julian Assange has been targeted as a “political opponent” of President Trump’s administration and threatened with the death penalty, the Old Bailey heard today.
Professor Paul Rogers, a lecturer in peace studies at Bradford University and specialist on the ‘War on Terror’, said Assange’s opinions put him “in the crosshairs” of Trump’s top team. Giving evidence to Assange’s extradition hearing this morning, he said he believes the prosecution case is part of a drive in the United States to target “dissenters”. “In my opinion Mr Assange’s expressed views, opinions and activities demonstrate very clearly ‘political opinions’”, he told the court. “The clash of those opinions with those of successive US administrations, but in particular the present administration which has moved to prosecute him for publications made almost a decade ago, suggest that he is regarded primarily as a political opponent who must experience the full wrath of government, even with suggestions of punishment by death made by senior officials including the current President.”………
Professor Rogers, in his witness statement, said Assange’s work involved exposing secrets that the US government wanted to keep hidden, he had been in conflict with the Obama administration, but there was “no question” that Assange had been targeted as a political opponent by Trump’s officials. “The opinions and views of Mr Assange, demonstrated in his words and actions with the organisation WikiLeaks over many years, can be seen as very clearly placing him in the crosshairs of dispute with the philosophy of the Trump administration”, he said. Assange’s legal team argue that a decision was taken under President Obama not to prosecute the Wikileaks activist, but that move was overturned under Trump. https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/julian-assange-donald-trump-administration-old-bailey-hearing-a4543656.html?fbclid=IwAR3Rj4n0Lzlt5GmE1lXZXoMVDsOS5BdT9sEKgj82SCmMnpNLFQ6ZfEzVUOI |
|
Minister Pitt on Kimba nuclear waste dump plan – inept, badly briefed, or just plain lying?
Peter Remta, 14 Nov 20, THE HON KEITH PITT MP Minister for Resources, Water and Northern Australia Member for Hinkler MEDIA RELEASE 12 November 2020
NATIONAL RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITY
‘‘The National Radioactive Waste Management Facility is a vital piece of national infrastructure, which will support the ongoing development of our nuclear medicine and research industries.”
He still fails to explain how and why
All of this waste is classified as intermediate level waste although when France returned the reprocessed spent fuel to Australia it classified it as high level waste
There has not been any suggestion by either ANSTO or ARPANSA that this waste is causing any lack of storage space or other problems at Lucas Heights.
What difference does that make?
Australian government completely inept in selecting Kimba nuclear waste dump
Relief in Kimba, that Labor and crossbench Senators want a fair process on nuclear wastes
No Radioactive Waste Facility for Kimba District– 14 Nov 20 · We are reassured by this week’s events that there are still many in Australian politics who believe in a fair process. The lack of support from Labor and crossbench Senators for the Government’s proposed Bill to legislate Kimba as the chosen site for the national radioactive waste dump is certainly a relief to us.The Australian government can still bully its way to imposing a Kimba nuclear waste dump
Today the Advertiser reports that the federal government does not have the numbers to get the draconian, racist National Radioactive Waste Management Bill passed in the Senate. Labor and most or all of the crossbench Senators oppose the Bill.Senate dumps on the Australian government’s radioactive waste plan
Senate dumps on government’s radioactive waste plan
The federal government should drop its plans for a national radioactive waste facility in regional South Australia after One Nation joined Labor, the Greens and others on the Senate crossbench in rejecting the government’s proposal for a site near Kimba.
One Nation confirmed it will not support the federal government’s bill to remove the right of affected communities to legally contest the decision to make Kimba the site for a radioactive waste facility and is instead seeking ‘to make the right decision for future generations’.
With Labor, the Greens, other crossbenchers and now One Nation opposed, the government appears to lack the numbers in the Senate to advance the plan.
“The federal plan is politically divisive, technically deficient and increasingly uncertain,” said the Australian Conservation Foundation’s nuclear campaigner Dave Sweeney.
“It has failed the test in the broader community and now also in Canberra.
“The government’s proposal is based on excluding people from consultation and review processes. It is based on the heavy handed overriding of legal principles and the unnecessary double handling of long-lived intermediate level waste.
“Access to a day in court is a fundamental democratic right that should not be jettisoned – especially on an issue with such significant and lasting impacts as radioactive waste.
“Many state and national civil society groups, Aboriginal and professional groups, the South Australian Upper House, SA Labor and Unions SA opposed the government’s approach.
“The government should now stop playing politics and start paying attention.
“This waste lasts longer that any politician and needs to be responsibly managed.
“We need a new approach that is based on evidence, inclusion and respect.”
Further information, context or comment: Dave Sweeney on 0408 317 812
Read ACF’s 3-page background brief on the federal radioactive waste plans
Australian govt’s Kimba nuclear waste dump plan will be torpedoed in the Senate
Pauline Hanson’s One Nation torpedoes Kimba nuclear waste dump in SA, Claire Bickers, Federal Politics Reporter, The Advertiser, November 11, 2020
Pauline Hanson will torpedo the Federal Government’s bid to build a radioactive waste dump in regional South Australia.
The One Nation leader, who aims to win a seat in SA at the next federal election, has confirmed she will not back legislation to build the nuclear waste storage site at Napandee farm, near Kimba.
Without One Nation’s two crucial votes – and Labor, the Greens, and independent senator Rex Patrick not backing the Bill – the government does not have enough votes for it to pass parliament without changes.
Senator Hanson told The Advertiser she had serious concerns about the process to select Napandee, the level of community support, the waste site being built on farming land, and the facility storing intermediate radioactive waste above ground.
“I want to make the right decision, not for the interim, I want to make the right decision for future generations,” Senator Hanson said.
“I’m not going to be badgered or pushed into this.
“It’s about looking after the people of SA, but also the whole of Australia.”
Senator Hanson said One Nation wanted to win a seat in SA at the next election, and she hoped South Australians would take into account her strong stance on the waste site.
One Nation adviser Jennifer Game, who ran as the party’s SA Senate candidate at the 2019 election, has been leading research and consultation on the Kimba site.
“I think the government has rushed the decision to have it there,” Senator Hanson said.
Almost 62 per cent of 734 Kimba residents supported the facility in a postal vote in 2019 but Senator Hanson said locals had indicated to the party that closer to half of the town did not support the facility.
The region’s native title holders, the Barngarla people, were also not given a say in the official vote.
Senator Hanson was concerned other locations that may be suitable were not investigated, such as an old mining site in Leonora, in Western Australia, which may be able to store the waste underground.
“We don’t know what the future is going to hold, we don’t know if war is going to touch our shores,” she said.
“Do we really want a facility that is above ground that could be problems further down the track, if anything happens?”…https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/pauline-hansons-one-nation-torpedoes-kimba-nuclear-waste-dump-in-sa/news-story/9043c46fa44ecd8a1b4e46be111745f3
Karina Lester speaks out: ”Traditional owners’ voices not heard and rights stripped over nuclear waste dump”
”Traditional owners voices not heard and rights stripped over nuclear waste dump”
Extract:
Chairperson of Yankunytjatjara Native Title Aboriginal Corporation (YNTAC) Karina Lester says, “The two key issues that I’m quite concerned about are the lack of consent from the traditional owners; and that they want to take away judicial review. No Barngarla person or anyone in that Kimba region can take it to the courts for it to be properly heard. That’s a given right for any Australian; to take an issue through a judicial process and they’re now trying to shift the goalposts away from Aboriginal people and people from the Kimba region so it can’t be challenged.”
Four Aboriginal groups submitted their concern about the lack of Indigenous community engagement in the consultation and selection process, as well as potential violation of those communities’ rights, these were the Yankunytjatjara Native Title Aboriginal Corporation (YNTAC), Tjayuwara Unmuru Aboriginal Corporation (TUAC), De Rose Hill-Ilpalka Aboriginal Corporation (DRHIAC) and the First Nations of South Australia Aboriginal Corporation (FNSAAC).
They acknowledged that the specified site has significance for a wider group of Aboriginal People than just the Barngarla, and that the proposed use is a matter of significance for Aboriginal People right across the state.
“They’ve been saying that this is just a Barngarla issue, just a Kimba issue – but it’s not. No, this is an issue for First Nations people everywhere. We need to stand in solidarity and send a strong message as the First Nations people of South Australia to say that no dump is wanted in our state,” said Ms Lester, who is the daughter of anti-nuclear and Indigenous rights advocate, Yami Lester.
“We have been pressured to be the ‘solution’ to waste management; it’s not been clear why the Federal Government keeps coming back to our state. I think that’s part of the problem.
“The process has been flawed from the very beginning. The risk is that if we open the door to this, we could well be opening the door to a permanent solution here in SA. Why put a temporary solution here when the facility says they can keep storing it at Lucas Heights in Sydney?
“There’s so much history of Aboriginal people’s activism against this in South Australia. For it to come back to our state, after leaving our state so many years ago, it feels like an ongoing generational battle for us to put an end to this issue in South Australia.”
Sneator Sam McMahon going all out for Small Nuclear Reactors
Senator McMahon is looking beyond currently commercialised nuclear technology, to Small Modular Reactors (SMRs). None of these exist in service anywhere in the world and as the WNISR2020 report points out, will cost more per kilowatt than conventional nuclear energy – and beyond a few prototypes SMRs are unlikely to come into play.
So, as renewables are perceived to be expensive when backed by storage, the solution is to shoot for a technology that may never hit prime time and even if it does, will be even more expensive than conventional nuclear, push up energy prices and erode carbon mitigation outcomes?
Perhaps channelling Senator Matt Canavan, this is some of what the senator had to say about renewables in late October:
“Renewables are the dole bludgers of the energy mix,” said Senator McMahon. “They are a great hoax perpetrated by the industry on the gullible.” Continue reading
Previous Chief Scientist not a fan of Small Nuclear Reactors
Dr Finkel said it was “hard to see” small nuclear modular reactors being ready before 2040, and even after that Australia would have to monitor commercial installations overseas before allowing the technology.“So, is it something we should be looking at hard at the moment? I am certainly not looking at it intensely at the moment,” he said. https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/gas-critical-for-renewable-energy-future-chief-scientist-says-20200212-p54026.html?fbclid=IwAR00ucWlw1Lsq_gNEPkPQ8ru301_hEmu9gXMxdG3CunZHBXyf_zE4E9QB3E
1 This month
Chernobyl: The Lost Tapes – A good documentary on Chernobyl on SBS available On Demand for the next 3 weeks– https://www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/tv-program/chernobyl-the-lost-tapes/2352741955560
15 April – Zoom –Nuclear Power is Not the Solution
Apr 15, 2026 01:00 AM in Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney
Join the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW) on Tuesday, April 14th for a timely webinar exploring the risks associated with nuclear power and challenging the myth that it offers a simple, safe, carbon-free solution to the climate crisis
21 April Webinar: No Nuclear Weapons in Australia
Start: 2026-04-21 18:00:00 UTC Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney (GMT+10:00)
End: 2026-04-21 19:30:00 UTC Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney (GMT+10:00)
Event Type: Virtual
A virtual link will be communicated before the event.
Host Contact Info: australia@icanw.org
of the week – Australians for War Powers Reform (AWPR)
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
Antinuclear 