Labor challenge to nuclear power fan MP Keith Pitt – where would you put nuclear reactors?
|
The LNP Party in Queensland is considering to open a nuclear plant
By SAHAR MOURAD FOR DAILY MAIL AUSTRALIA, 5 October 2019 A chilling warning has been issued of a ‘Fukushima-style’ disaster in Australia as the LNP continue to push to explore nuclear power. Nuclear power is currently a banned source of power in Australia despite the country having the world’s biggest uranium reserves, but the Queensland Government is looking to open a nuclear power plant in Maryborough. Bruce Saunders, the Labor member for Maryborough in Queensland’s Legislative Assembly, has slammed Keith Pitt – the LNP member for the federal seat of Hinkler – for his push to open the ‘Fukushima-style’ nuclear plant. ‘Mr Pitt – the man behind it all – owes it to our community to declare where he sits in the widening rift that is LNP energy policy,’ Mr Saunders told The Chronicle. …….. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7540527/Chilling-warning-Fukushima-style-nuclear-disaster-Australia-government-pushes-forward.html |
|
Australia’s drought disaster a political disaster too, for its climate-sceptic Morrison govt?
Inadequate drought preparation may prove to be political disaster too, Brisbane Times, Tony Walker 4 Oct 19
Panicky. That’s a word to describe the Morrison government’s response to a national drought emergency. Lack of rain, arid conditions, scorching winds and higher temperatures are contributing to an evolving disaster against the background of a contentious climate change debate.
This is a challenge that will become increasingly difficult for the governments, federal and state, to ignore as water supplies run down in New South Wales towns such as Dubbo and Queensland towns such as Stanthorpe. Risks of bushfire will be further elevated.Judging by Bureau of Meteorology forecasts, drought over much of eastern Australia is set to surpass all others in living memory going back to the beginning of record keeping. In other words, things may get a lot worse before they get better. What is left unspoken by government officials and farm representatives is this aridity will prove to be the new normal. Let’s repeat these words in capitals: NATIONAL DROUGHT EMERGENCY.
It might also be observed that no less than a drought emergency, this is a POLITICAL EMERGENCY for the Morrison government. Governmental responses, both federal and state, to a catastrophic dry across central and northern New South Wales and southern Queensland have been unfocused, according to farm representatives. Tony Mahar, chief executive of the National Farmers’ Federation, the peak body for Australian farmers, awards federal and state governments a “fail” when it comes to developing a national drought strategy to deal with emergencies. “No government, red or blue, has successfully nailed drought policy,” Mahar tells me.
Government inattention may well reflect agriculture’s diminishing share of the national economy at just three per cent of Gross Domestic Product. On the other hand, 1.6 million jobs reside in the complete agricultural supply chain. Prime Minister Scott Morrison’s dash – on his return to Australia from a state visit to the United States – to Dalby in the heart of drought-stricken southern Queensland to announce a $100-million relief package as part of an overall $7-billion allocation reflects government political concerns.
Morrison himself would not need reminding that the 2001-2010 millennium drought contributed to John Howard’s undoing, given he was perceived – rightly or wrongly – to be indifferent to climate change. At least six Coalition seats are at risk in the face of seething local anger over water mismanagement, or no management at all. In all of this, what tends to be overlooked is that the government has a wafer-thin majority of one after the Speaker is excluded……….
Finally, the latest Bureau of Meteorology bulletin provides little encouragement to believe that drought conditions will ease in the short term. The BOM reports the lowest rainfall on record extending from the Great Dividing Range as far as Dubbo and Walgett in central NSW. This is a huge swathe of the country under some of the most extreme drought conditions in the history of white settlement. Only the peak of the terrible 1900-02 “Federation Drought” was worse.
This is bad enough but meteorologists at the BOM are also reporting that a phenomenon known as sudden strategic warming above the South Pole risks contributing to a further deepening of the drought. The SSW effect would cause warmer westerly winds to track north, intensifying drought conditions in southern Queensland and northern New South Wales. If those forecasts prove correct, distinctions between a natural disaster and a national emergency will certainly become moot. Regardless, in a cloudless sky, these weather conditions will constitute an accelerating political emergency. https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/governments-scandalously-little-drought-preparation-is-accelerating-disaster-20191004-p52xmv.html
With temperatures heading for 40C, New South Wales and Queensland at bushfire risk
Large swathes of NSW at bushfires risk as temperatures set to reach 40Cm Bourke and Brewarrina brace for 40C day as dust storms set to sweep western parts of state, Guardian, Australian Associated Press, Sun 6 Oct 2019 The Bureau of Meteorology says an unseasonal heatwave hitting western and north-western New South Wales could demolish October heat records and place large swathes of the state at bushfire risk.While Sydney’s top temperature was expected to reach a mild 23C on Sunday, Bourke and Brewarrina braced for their first 40C day since March.
Wilcannia, Cobar and Dubbo were also set to exceed 37C while dust was forecast for most parts west of Griffith and Bourke.
The BoM warned the fire danger rating in almost every NSW/ACT region was high or very high for Sunday, prompted by heat, high winds and low humidity.
By early afternoon, no bushfires were rated higher than “advice” alert level.
Meteorologist Jake Phillips said the bureau was particularly concerned by conditions to the west of the Great Dividing Range. “It’s quite unusual to see temperatures this warm,” Phillips said.
“In large areas of the state we’re seeing daytime temperatures between 8C and 12C above average for this time of the year, and in some places more.
“As we move into tomorrow, it’s quite likely we will see some places getting pretty close to or maybe breaking October records, the most likely areas being the northern tablelands and north-west slopes.”
Very high fire danger was forecast in ACT and 10 NSW regions: greater Hunter, central ranges, southern ranges, Monaro alpine, lower central west plains, upper central west plains, far western, New England, northern slopes and north western. On Sunday afternoon none were yet subject to total fire bans.
All other regions except eastern Riverina had a high fire danger rating…..
The BoM said Queensland was also set to scorch through another heatwave this week, with hot, dry and windy conditions increasing fire danger, particularly in the south-east….. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/oct/06/bushfire-danger-soars-as-parts-of-nsw-forecast-to-reach-40c
Tasmanian renewable energy projects tipped to pour $6.5 billion in state’s economy
Premier Will Hodgman says the state will benefit from an economic injection of $6.5 billion through two key renewable energy projects.
Mr Hodgman said the business case for a second interconnector was stronger after new analysis from TasNetworks showed the Marinus Link project would be able to transport a higher amount of energy to the mainland as previously anticipated……. https://www.examiner.com.au/story/6423824/states-energy-potential-better-than-anticipated/?cs=95
Energy Efficiency the FIRST FUEL – a top Submission from Brenda Hugget
Submission to the Inquiry into the prerequisites for nuclear energy in Australia Brenda Huggett Submission 235
My submission will mainly focus on these two terms of reference:
- energy affordability and reliability
- Economic feasibility
The invitation to make a submission to this inquiry is headed by this statement:
The Australian Government supports an energy system which delivers affordable and reliable energy to consumers while fulfilling Australia’s international emissions reduction obligations.
I thoroughly endorse this aim, but would like to ensure that the Committee of Inquiry draws into this‘energy system’ a serious effort towards ENERGY EFFICIENCY – what the international Energy Agency and the G7 Ministers at their 2016 Japan meeting called the ‘first fuel’ – with its massive potential to power industry and homes cheaply, incrementally and with zero risks or cost blowouts.
At the same time the National Electricity Market is seeing a significant increase in capacity in intermittent low emissions generation technologies…
I believe this sentence should have been followed with “However the dramatic developments in a range of options to store PV and wind energy for ‘when the sun don’t shine and the wind don’t blow’ (the folksy way to refer to the ‘intermittency’ of renewables!) just may – over the coming decade or so – show Australia that it really can rely on renewables so we can truly phase out the last of our fossil fuel energy generation altogether, dodging nuclear power entirely.
Meanwhile our nuclear science academics and their grad students can keep a watching brief on nuclear developments overseas, in case we do find around 2030 that there is a real need for the nuclear option. A real need is totally different from a ‘niche’ where some industrialist (eg a Bill Gates, a Gina Rinehart or an Andrew Forrest) could build a nuclear power facility ‘just because they can’ (ie if there is no prohibition) because they have a passion to give it a go and a spare billion for the land, the plant, the phenomenally expensive insurance that presumably our Government would surely insist upon so that the venture can ‘stand on its own two feet’ (as PM Morrison wants!) and a workforce of eager nuclear engineering graduates.
The SA Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission
Although Commissioner Kevin Scarce recommended lifting the prohibition (which I strongly oppose at this time) the modelling for the Commission suggested that ‘a nuclear power plant would not be viable in South Australia even under carbon pricing policies consistent with achieving the ‘well below 2 °C’ target agreed in Paris because other low-carbon generation would be taken up before nuclear. p62
However Commissioner Scarce did recommend that the SA government collaborate with the Australian Government to ‘commission expert monitoring and reporting on the commercialisation of new nuclear reactor designs that may offer economic value for nuclear power generation.’ This sounds like a very sensible thing to do at this stage!
Small Modular Reactors
I appreciate that there must be no-one left in Australia who harbours a desire to see a huge ‘traditional’ nuclear power plant built anywhere. Rather the attention of nuclear enthusiasts has been diverted to SMR’s. There are many and varied types of Small Modular Reactors on drawing boards around the planet, reactors that can be factory-made, niftily deployed (only a couple of years, not decades, of work) and because they are small (producing only 300MW or less) the number of reactors at any plant can be scaled up or down according to demand. These drawing board SMR’s utilise a range of differing technologies some of which can be classified as ‘Generation IV’ initiatives and some which are just scaled down versions of earlier technology. Inquiry into the prerequisites for nuclear energy in Australia
These developments can and undoubtedly are all being monitored by Australian nuclear scientists, who can be presumed to also be monitoring ongoing developments in the quest for fusion pow
Tony Irwin of Sydney-based SMR Nuclear Technology complains (p. 14 of his submission)
that ‘serious consideration of the merits of N-power generation in Australia is precluded by our legislative prohibitions’. This is spurious at best! Nuclear Engineering is taught in Australian universities ANU and UNSW and probably more. Yes of course students and graduates will be champing at the bit to apply their learning on their home turf. But they can easily make themselves useful by either monitoring what is happening overseas and/or gaining experience elsewhere. With PhD scholarships, they can like their professors, even be paid by Australian taxpayers to watch and learn.
Mr Irwin goes on to complain ‘SMR vendors not treating Australia as a potential market while prohibitions remain.’ Of course these vendors would be fools to do so! We are not a market for any further nuclear technology (except for OPAL at Lucas Heights) while our legislative prohibitions remain in place – which will be until we as the Australian community have come to a conclusion that this new eg NuScale SMR technology has been truly proven up, has overcome all the safety concerns directed at previous nuclear technology, and that the costs are less than renewables+ batteries and moreover that it really is NEEDED!!! (not just ‘wanted/desired/wished for’)
The NuScale SMR project
Mr Irwin refers several times to the NuScale SMR project, based in Oregon. A little Googling shows that the 3 year review by the US Nuclear Regulatory Commissions of this 12000 page proposal should conclude by Sept 2020. One big – and controversial – ask by the company is that the normal requirement for a 32 km wide emergency evacuation zone be waived, because the company is so confident that their SMR will be safe and they would like to promote their technology as suitable for installing on the sites of decommissioned coal-fired power plants. NuScale has indeed lined up its first customer, Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems, for a plant at Idaho Falls, aiming to open it in 2027.
There is, predictably, local opposition with opponents arguing that it is more expensive than renewables with batteries, it will still produce nuclear waste (for which the US still has no real solution!) and local authorities don’t have the resources to adequately vet a nuclear plant. NuScale may live up to its (admittedly impressive) promise re safety, use of less water, etc. Australia can wait and see!
During these Watch and Learn years, there should absolutely be no lifting of our moratorium on the development of nuclear energy – a moratorium that has no doubt frustrated some, but has clearly satisfied an overwhelming majority of Australians as poll after poll has shown.
If… around 2030 Australia still has a demonstrable shortfall in energy production from renewables + storage AND cutting edge nuclear developments with concomitant waste elimination have been truly proved up then the Australian government would have a much more realistic chance of gaining much-needed ‘social licence’.
However, it may be just too late….
“Solar PV and onshore wind have won the race to be the cheapest sources of new ‘bulk generation’ in most countries. But the encroachment of clean technologies is now going well beyond that, threatening the balancing role that gas-fired plant operators, in particular, have been hoping to play.” Tifenn Brandily, Energy Economics Analyst at BloombergNEF. https://about.bnef.com/blog/battery-powers-latest-plunge-costs-threatens-coal-gas/#_ftnref1
ENERGY EFFICIENCY as the FIRST FUEL
The Energy Ministers of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the UK, the USA, and the European Commissioner for Climate Action and Energy, met in Kitakyushu in May 2016, to discuss developments since the Hamburg meeting held in 2015, against the background of volatile energy prices and the COP21 Paris Agreement. They issued a joint statement for Leaders’ consideration including, under Improving Energy Efficiency:
- We affirm that improving energy efficiency is key to decarbonisation of our economies, enhancing energy security and fostering economic growth and should be regarded as the “first fuel.” We aim to strengthen our efforts to further improve energy efficiency and also call on other countries to follow suit.
We emphasize the importance of the strong interconnection between, and simultaneous improvement of, energy efficiency and resource efficiency
More to ‘Watch and Learn’ for Australia
In June this year, the International Energy Agency’s held its biggest ever Global Conference on Energy Efficiency in Dublin, attended by over 400 energy efficiency leaders from governments and corporations. The gathering aimed to identify how to unlock the vast potential of energy efficiency, bringing a wide range of important benefits, from greenhouse gas emissions reduction, to improved energy security and supporting economies to grow while delivering environmental and social benefits.
At this Conference a new Global Commission for Urgent Action on Energy Efficiency was launched, comprising government and industry leaders, chaired by Mr Richard Bruton, Ireland’s Minister of Communications, Climate Action and Environment.
It notes that energy efficiency policy implementation has slowed and progress is weakening. Global energy-related CO2 emissions increased last year at their highest rate sin The Commission will produce a concise list of clear, actionable recommendations next year.
“No meaningful energy transition can take place without energy efficiency,” the CEO of the IEA, Dr F. Birol said. More than any single fuel, energy efficiency has a central role to play in meeting global sustainable energy goals.
As a keen exponent and part-time worker in the field of energy efficiency education, I am dismayed but not surprised by Australia’s performance vis a vis the regard paid to this ‘first fuel.’
The AEEEC The American Council for an Energy-efficient Economy rates 20+ nations for their efforts towards energy efficiency. Australia is currently ranked at 18th, between Indonesia and the Ukraine. I BELIEVE WE CAN DO SO MUCH BETTER THAN THIS!!!!!!!
The point about Energy Efficiency, seen as a first fuel, and given commensurate support by Federal, state and local governments is that it could replace the 11% of world energy that is currently nucleargenerated and alongside renewables+storage can probably totally displace fossil-fuelled energy generation. I say probably because just maybe in 10 or 20 years we may have to consider whatever is then proved up to be the best nuclear option, to complement efficiency/renewables/storage in some locations in our wide brown land…
INCIDENTS RELATED TO TRANSPORT OF RADIATION INSTRUMENTS IN AUSTRALIA
Kim Mavromatis No Nuclear Waste Dump Anywhere in South Australia, October 2
INCIDENTS RELATED TO TRANSPORT OF RADIATION INSTRUMENTS IN AUST (ARPANSA Aust Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Authority website identifies transport accidents) : “The most common incidents include vehicles carrying the source (radioactive material) being involved in a road accident or the source falling from the vehicle carrying the source. On other occasions containers may be damaged in transit and subsequently sources (radioactive material) may be dislodged from internal packing and shielding. CAUSES : Human Error, speed, alcohol, fatigue, loose fittings, maintenance, inadequate systems, training, oversight”.
Transport accidents of nuclear waste have occured in Aust, because of human error :
THE DAILY TELEGRAPH / THE ADVERTISER (2012) : TOXIC HIGHWAY : “Why radioactive materials, a banned pesticide and food were on the same truck that crashed on the New South Wales Pacific Highway in 1980 is a mystery. But the political fallout of its roadside burial and discovery 32 years later – which left five contractors vomiting and exposed another 13 workers to possibly lethal toxic waste – will be nothing short of nuclear”.https://www.facebook.com/groups/1314655315214929/
Climate change the essential factor in planning about droughts
Drought plan must factor in climate change, https://www.smh.com.au/
business/small-business/drought-plan-must-factor-in-climate-change-20191003-p52xfn.html Lisa Davies, 4 Oct 19, As country towns across the inland run out of drinking water, the federal government has started to show its concern for farmers affected by the drought.
Prime Minister Scott Morrison went to Dalby in Queensland last week to announce a $100 million drought package and Treasurer Josh Frydenberg has taken time off his day job for a three-day tour of NSW and Queensland.
On one hand, country people will be comforted that the government is paying attention to their plight. On the other, they will ask whether another parade of politicians putting on moleskins and fronting a press pack in the dust will make any difference.
As country towns across the inland run out of drinking water, the federal government has started to show its concern for farmers affected by the drought.
Prime Minister Scott Morrison went to Dalby in Queensland last week to announce a $100 million drought package and Treasurer Josh Frydenberg has taken time off his day job for a three-day tour of NSW and Queensland.
On one hand, country people will be comforted that the government is paying attention to their plight. On the other, they will ask whether another parade of politicians putting on moleskins and fronting a press pack in the dust will make any difference.
Everyone says the government needs to do something but for now the government’s basic approach is to dribble out more money and hope that it rains.
That is probably all that can be done in a crisis.
But it is not the whole answer. It ignores the crucial issue of what to do if the scientists are right and droughts are becoming longer and more frequent.
This question should not be conflated with the equally important issue of whether Australia should have a stronger climate change policy.
Deeper cuts in Australia’s carbon emissions are needed to help slow the rise in global temperatures but it will not solve the farmers’ problems overnight. Scientists say droughts will get worse for decades.
The Herald backs drought assistance to help farmers cope but it should be fair and efficient and it should be designed to encourage farmers to adjust to the new climate conditions.
In fact, the Productivity Commission says a lot of money is already being spent. Sheep, cattle and grain farmers in 2017-18 received about $1.3 billion in state and federal government subsidies. Those farmers now receive 5.8 per cent of their income as subsidies from the government, compared with just 3.7 per cent five years ago, a higher rate of subsidy than any industry sector.
Farmers also receive lots of other indirect help such as state subsidies on freight for fodder as well as generous household payments worth up to $37,000 per couple, far more than age pensioners or single parents.
Yet many people who receive drought relief are not poor. The latest drought package has allowed people with assets up to $5 million to apply.
Mr Morrison says this is not welfare but it is still taxpayers’ money and it should be spent prudently.
Sometimes it seems it is not. The government was left red-faced this week when it emerged that Moyne Shire in western Victoria that got $1 million under Mr Morrison’s announcement was not actually affected by the drought. Equally, it appears that former “drought envoy” Barnaby Joyce was was not required to produce a report to justify his salary and expenses.
Farmers groups sometimes call for more dams as a panacea. But it is often hard to produce a long-term business case for them. Fans of dams also often ignore the risk that they will reduce water flows to surrounding farms and the environment.
Unfortunately, even with the best government plan, climate change will reshape Australia’s rural society.
Some farmers will adjust their methods and succeed. Some will decide to sell up their farms to big businesses and do something else. Governments should help those in need but rural Australia must accept that the times are changing
Black swans – the bushfires of the future are already here.
Australia is not prepared to fight the bushfires of the future, experts warn, Background Briefing Oct 5 19, An investigation by Background Briefing, ABC Regional and Landline The bushfires of the future are already here. They burn earlier in the season, and more ferociously, and can interact with extreme weather events to create fires we don’t know how to fight.
Key points
- The national aerial firefighting centre, which two years ago flagged the need for an $11m funding boost, still has not received a decision from the Federal Government
- The Government has not guaranteed funding for the only national body researching the future of bushfires
- Twenty-three emergency services experts calling on the Government to consider the threat of climate change in fire planning have not received a response
This year, the bushfire season began with the worst September in recorded history, with 55 homes destroyed.
The Australian winter was only just in the rear-view mirror when 130 bushfires ripped through southern Queensland and northern NSW in one day.
Australia’s former chief scientist, Ian Chubb, said it was clear the climate was changing.
“It’s not just some passing phase that it didn’t rain this decade,” he said. “The implications of that for fire are pretty obvious.”
Former New South Wales fire and rescue commissioner and Climate Council member Greg Mullins said unprecedented conditions could give rise to so-called Black Swan fire events.
“We’re going to have fires that I can’t comprehend, and I’ve been in the game for nearly half a century,” he said.
A Black Swan is something without precedent and thought to be impossible, until it happens.
When it comes to bushfires, these Black Swans happen as our environment changes, creating conditions firefighters have never seen before.
Emergency experts and senior scientists have told a joint ABC investigation that a comprehensive national plan is needed to tackle the fires of the future, and they are concerned about the lack of financial commitment from the Federal Government for resources and research.
“This is a national issue that all people in Australia, regardless of whether they are left or right, have a right to expect that we will face up to challenges that are ahead,” Professor Chubb said.
Inside a Black Swan fire event
When an unprecedented heatwave swept New South Wales in 2017, it set the conditions for a Black Swan fire event.
The Sir Ivan fire began east of Dunedoo and would burn through 55,000 hectares……….
Australia: NSW fires out of control and the temperatures nears 50C
The blaze was unlike anything the NSW RFS had ever dealt with, according to Commissioner Shane Fitzsimmons.
“It was unprecedented in New South Wales,” he said……..https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-10-04/the-bushfires-of-the-future-are-here-black-swan/11559930
A nuclear industry for Australia would be a huge cost to taxpayers
Nuclear inquiry hears cost, health h risks https://www.9news.com.au/national/environment-groups-front-nuclear-inquiry/79884d6e-f161-4624-9bac-b6f283d96598 By AAP Oct 1, 2019 Taxpayers would be bear the brunt of a potential nuclear energy industry in Australia, a parliamentary committee has been told.
Environment groups began the inquiry on Tuesday in Melbourne, a day after the committee was told the potential economic benefits of more uranium mining.New involvement of Attorney General in press freedom
The order could shield News Corp’s Annika Smethurst and the ABC’s Dan Oakes and SamClark who were named in Australia Federal Police (AFP) warrants used during raids in June and have not yet been cleared of any criminal charges. The move, however, has ignited debate about an elected politician’s direct involvement in police matters and press freedom.
Now, Smethurst, Oakes and Clark can only be charged if the Attorney-General gives written consent to the charges. A directive was signed to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (CDPP) in September, the details of which have only come to light this week. The decision follows legal challenges from both the ABC and News Corp Australia over the legitimacy of the raids and the warrants used.
“The direction means where the CDPP independently considers that there is a public interest in a prosecution for one of the relevant offences involving a journalist, the consent of the Attorney-General will also be required as a separate and additional safeguard,” Porter said in a statement.
“This will allow the most detailed and cautious consideration of how an allegation of a serious offence should be balanced with our commitment to freedom of the press.
“I have previously said that I would be seriously disinclined to approve prosecutions of journalists except in the most exceptional circumstances and would pay particular attention to whether a journalist was simply operating according to the generally accepted principles of public interest journalism.”
Porter hasn’t yet commented on the cases regarding Smethurst, Oakes or Clark.
An ABC spokesperson called the directive a ‘welcome step’, but said the organisation continues to look forward to the results of the two press freedom inquiries which have been triggered by the raids.
“The Attorney General’s directive is a welcome step. It is one plank in a raft of legislative reform that the ABC identified in its submissions to the two concurrent media freedom parliamentary inquiries,” said the spokesperson.
“The ABC looks forward to seeing the recommendations from those inquiries as well as an expeditious conclusion to the current AFP investigation into ABC journalists.”
“The direction issued by The Attorney General is unremarkable. They make the Commonwealth Department of Public Prosecution seek the Attorney General’s consent to take legal action against journalists in a few more instances but they offer no comfort for journalists disclosing information in the public interest that they are safe from prosecution for doing their job,” said Reid.
“This so-called safeguard falls a long way short of what media organisations are seeking to recognise the role of journalists to keep the public informed.”
The Law Council of Australia has also weighed in on the move, with president Arthur Moses SC citing grave concerns over the Attorney General’s involvement with press freedom.
“I have grave concerns that this sort of direction undermines the independence of the CDPP by requiring her to obtain the consent of the Attorney General before prosecuting an offence,” Moses said.
“What will enhance press freedoms in this country is a proper review of our laws to ensure that the actions of journalists doing their job as a watchdog of government are not criminalised and put at risk of prosecution.
“I have no doubt the Attorney General would act in good faith. But it puts the Attorney General – a politician – in the position of authorising prosecutions of journalists in situations where they may have written stories critical of his government.
“It creates an apprehension on the part of journalists that they will need to curry favour with the government in order to avoid prosecution. The media must be able to lawfully report on matters of public interest without fear or favour.
“Journalists should not need to fear prosecution because of a story that embarrasses government.”
The government seeks to intimidate the media
The national security bureaucracy doesn’t want a police state. It is more ambitious than that. The hope is to return Australian culture to the conformity and political quietude of the 1950s.
Now the government seeks to intimidate the media through laws and criminal prosecutions into a deferential posture once more, with editors becoming habituated to asking permission before they publish.
Clinton Fernandes, The Witness K case and government 
secrecy https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/opinion/topic/2019/09/28/the-witness-k-case-and-government-secrecy/15695928008833 In recent months, I have sat in court as an observer as Canberra lawyer Bernard Collaery has faced charges over disclosing information about the Australian Secret Intelligence Service (ASIS). On Thursday, Collaery’s case was back before the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory. It is a good time, then, to consider this case and the national security state’s assault on Australia’s democratic culture more generally.
In 2004, ASIS installed listening devices in the government offices of newly independent Timor-Leste to eavesdrop on its internal discussions during oil and gas negotiations with Australia. The espionage operation occurred while Alexander Downer and John Howard, who were respectively foreign minister and prime minister at the time, said they were deploying Australia’s resources against extremist Muslim terrorism in Indonesia.
But the Timor operation diverted precious ASIS resources away from the war on terror. On September 9, 2004, Jemaah Islamiyah terrorists succeeded in bombing the Australian embassy in Indonesia. To make matters worse, the Timor bugging occurred under cover of an aid project, jeopardising the safety of Australian aid workers everywhere.
A senior ASIS officer, known only as Witness K, expressed concerns about the Timor bugging operation. His career is believed to have suffered as a consequence. He approached the inspector-general of intelligence and security and obtained permission to speak with a lawyer – Bernard Collaery. Both men are now on trial: Collaery in the ACT Supreme Court, where he will exercise his constitutional right to a jury trial, and Witness K in the ACT Magistrates Court……. Continue reading
Ballot dates confirmed for Flinders Ranges on nuclear waste dump issue
Flinders Ranges Council confirms ballot dates for waste facility, Transcontinental, Amy Green, 1 Oct 19
Communities in the far north are one step closer to finding out if they will have a radioactive waste management facility in their backyard with ballot dates confirmed by both councils in contention.
Voting commences in the District Council of Kimba next week, while the Flinders Ranges Council have confirmed that it will hold a community ballot between November 11 and December 12.
- Notes banned during committee meetings
- Closed meeting sparks secrecy concerns
- Barngarla group loses out in legal battle
“In addition to the ballots, anyone can have their say through the submissions process.”
But the Australian Conservation Foundation’s Dave Sweeney said the ballots are divisive and are raising tensions in otherwise cohesive communities.
“The ballot is important and essential obviously for communities in the affected areas to have a say and voice their opinion,” he said.
“But this is not a decision just for Kimba or just for Hawker, it’s a national radioactive waste management facility and the government has turned it into a bidding war or a how much are you prepared to fight struggle between two regional communities.
“The ballot and the government’s entire approach has been divisive, unnecessarily divisive. They are consistently asking people to make decisions and take positions on the basis of completely insufficient evidence.
“You wouldn’t buy a secondhand car on the basis of what we know about this project, yet they are asking communities to sign off yes or no about radioactive waste that will need to be managed for 10,000 years.”https://www.transcontinental.com.au/story/6412542/flinders-ranges-council-confirms-ballot-dates-for-waste-facility/
Queensland Liberal National Party opposes nuclear power
Queensland LNP breaks with federal branch to oppose nuclear power, Amy Remeikis, 3 Oct 2019 Queensland LNP says it supports a greater focus on energy efficiency measures
One of the biggest detractors of the federal Queensland Liberal National party’s push to investigate nuclear energy as a potential power source for Australia has come from within its own house.
The state LNP opposition has publicly declared its opposition to making any changes to the current bipartisan ban on nuclear energy generation, declaring the government would be better served in its goals by focusing on renewable energy sources, in a marked split from their federal state colleagues.
Australia is once again looking at nuclear energy as a potential solution to its power woes, after a group of Coalition MPs, led by a cohort from Queensland, pushed the federal party room into investigating the prospect, through a parliamentary inquiry.
But in a move which has surprised their federal counterparts, the Queensland state LNP spokesman for energy, Michael Hart, made a written submission to the inquiry, announcing his arm of the party’s opposition to any attempt to allow nuclear energy generation, citing the risks to the communities and the environment.
Instead, Hart said the Queensland LNP supports “greater focus” on “energy efficiency measures, along with encouraging investment in renewable energy options like wind and solar, in combination with battery storage when it is technologically and economically feasible to do so”.
“It is considered that Australia’s rich renewable energy resources are more affordable and bring less risk than the elevated cost and risk associated with nuclear energy,” Hart submitted.
“The LNP encourages additional jobs and investment in Queensland’s renewable energy industry, while also supporting resource jobs and exploration which provides baseload power and employment for thousands of Queenslanders.
“In addition to the possibility of accidents and operational failure, nuclear facilities can be a potential target for terrorists. Securing insurance around such possibilities would be virtually impossible.
“In conclusion, the commercial, as well as the political risks, associated with nuclear energy are substantial. To this end, the LNP is strongly committed to an energy policy that delivers safe, affordable and reliable energy to consumers, while fulfilling Australia’s international emissions reduction obligations.
“We believe this can be achieved without lifting the moratorium on nuclear energy generation. Accordingly, we would encourage the committee to ensure an increased emphasis is placed on measures to encourage investment in renewable energy that creates green jobs and lowers electricity bills, for both consumers and industry, which does not (underlined) include nuclear energy”.
The state Labor government established a 50% renewable energy target by 2030 upon winning power in 2015.
The federal inquiry was established after a group of Coalition MPs, led by Hinkler LNP member Keith Pitt and Queensland LNP senator James McGrath, pushed for an investigation into whether nuclear power should be considered as part of the mix, as the government hunts for a long term solution to Australia’s surging energy prices.
Not wanting to reignite the war that led to the downfall of the national energy guarantee, and ultimately, Malcolm Turnbull’s leadership, the government acquiesced to calls for an investigation, which was established after a recommendation from Angus Taylor.
The state LNP position stands in stark contrast to their federal colleagues, including conservative senator Amanda Stoker, who said that “Australia must develop a nuclear energy industry”, as well as her Queensland colleague Gerard Rennick.
McGrath has publicly pushed for the nuclear discussion in numerous interviews and his own social media, as well as within the party room. Pitt, who describes himself as “technologically agnostic”, said the discussion had to be had.
“The first priority for the nations future energy needs will always be reliability and affordability,” he said. “As technology changes I expect our energy mix will also change over a period of time. I am completely technology agnostic in terms of the fuel types that might be utilised. Currently Queensland has the country’s youngest fleet of coal fired generators and I expect they will continue to be a critical part of Queensland’s energy mix into the future.”
He demurred from any questions on the split between state and federal lines, saying the state arm could “speak for themselves”, but attacked the state Labor government for its price management of the state owned power assets.
But the submission did give Queensland Labor senator, Murray Watt, a late week boost.
“This submission shows the LNP’s state MPs have had enough of their federal counterparts’ pointless culture war against renewable power,” he said. “Even the LNP’s state MPs acknowledge that renewables are a cheaper and safer way of meeting our future energy needs.
“They have also slammed their federal counterparts’ pursuit of nuclear power as a massive waste of time and resources.
“The Queensland LNP’s federal representatives should stop wasting everyone’s time by pursuing their obsession with nuclear power and get behind cheaper and safer means of meeting our energy needs.”
A Kimba resident says there’s no going back: a plea to vote NO to nuclear dump
Kimba residents to vote on waste facility, RACHEL YATES, 30 Sept 19, https://www.eyretribune.com.au/story/6412750/kimba-residents-to-vote-on-waste-facility/While I would really like to see an extra 45 jobs in our community, this ‘process’ has made me very sceptical and I have very little trust in the government to keep their word, especially when we don’t even know who will actually be running the ‘facility’.
There are still so many unknowns in regards to the dump and yet we are being asked to vote on something that will be here forever.
We won’t be able to change our minds once it is here.
No matter what has been promised or how safe they say it is, this facility will be forced onto people in this community.
I am a neighbour and my family and I still do not want to live anywhere near it.
Nuclear waste should not be dumped on agricultural land.
I can live with being blamed for losing this ‘opportunity’ if we are not chosen but, if we are, and I have to live near this, I will never ‘get over’ feeling like the government and my community has forced this on me and my family.
So far, the government has broken numerous promises and continually change the rules to suit themselves.
Can you truly trust them?
The upcoming vote is our final chance to have a say.
This is it!
There is no going back.
Please, please make sure you are absolutely certain before casting your vote.
If you have even the slightest doubt, please vote no.
Nuclear waste dump for Kimba? Residents to vote soon
This is supported by the reality that the Palmer/federal Liberal agreement on preferences at the last federal election saw a overwhelming victory for the Liberals.
Importantly, the Palmer policy was strong advocacy for nuclear power in Australia, which saw the strong Liberal victory, so to me the wheels are rolling and the only impediment ironically is the large and increasing investment in South Australia in renewable energy.
As far as Kimba accepting the international nuclear waste the circumstantial evidence is overwhelming, once the decision to accept the higher level waste was made and confirmed prior to the last federal election.
After 60 years of nuclear reactors at Lucas Heights, Kimba is political heaven for our national Parliament.
A yes vote at Kimba means a $300 million investment by the federal government almost immediately, or they could have their ‘facility’ at Leonora in Western Australia for no cost to taxpayers and in a much more isolated area without the risks and without breaching their own guidelines.
So next week Kimba may well be going in to the history books for different reasons to their up-to annual $80 million export agriculture.
Good luck with whatever their decision.. I don’t have a vote even though I am a partner in a farming business of almost 100 years, near a preferred site.
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/235274195556
20 May – Webinar – The dangerous world of AUKUS, US, military occupation and suppression of dissent
National Webinar, 20th May, 2026, 6.30pm AEST. Confronting laws restricting/suppressing protest speech and action
Speakers: Former Sen. Rex Patrick, Lawyer Nick Hanna ,Arthur Rorris ,Jorgen Doyle, Sen David Shoebbridge,
Facilitator Kelley Tranter.
of the week – Australians for War Powers Reform (AWPR)
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
Antinuclear 