Media coverage of Dutton’s nuclear ‘plan’: Scrutiny, stenography or propaganda.
By Victoria Fielding | 28 January 2025, https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/media-coverage-of-duttons-nuclear-plan-scrutiny-stenography-or-propaganda,19
Unsurprisingly, the conservative media has failed to scrutinise Peter Dutton’s nuclear plan, once again displaying bias towards the Coalition, writes Dr Victoria Fielding.
WHEN OPPOSITION LEADER Peter Dutton snuck his dodgy nuclear energy “plan” out just before Christmas, it was an important moment for Australian news media to demonstrate the quality of journalism they produce: scrutiny, stenography or propaganda.
It was also their opportunity to be honest with the public about why Dutton is backing nuclear power, an opportunity they unsurprisingly did not take.
I analysed 37 news reports published by the ABC, The Guardian, News Corp and Nine newspapers on 13 December 2024, the day Dutton released his long-awaited “plan” for nuclear power. I categorised each article as either scrutinising the plan (a useful form of journalism that critically assesses the viability of the nuclear policy), as stenography (just repeating Dutton’s plan without scrutiny), or as propaganda (news presented to look like news but what is actually a form of political advocacy, aiming to persuade readers to support Dutton’s nuclear plan).
Here are the results.
In what will not be surprising to anyone, propagandistic content made up the majority of News Corp’s 20 articles about Dutton’s nuclear plan, with 14 out of 20 enthusiastically supporting nuclear power as a viable energy solution for Australia.
One notable example of this propagandistic approach by News Corp was in The Australian’s editorial on the subject which clearly gave away the views of the masthead.
‘…the Opposition Leader has taken an important and brave step, setting out the economics of the issue in a context relevant to concerns about living costs, especially power bills… Frontier’s modelling shows that the Coalition’s plan, incorporating nuclear and renewables, would cost $331 billion across 25 years, 44 per cent less than Labor’s renewables approach.’
Just like much of News Corp’s propagandistic content advocating for right-wing policies and politicians, the implied suggestion that nuclear is cheaper than renewables is manipulatively deceiving.
According to Climate Council reports using CSIRO’s analysis:
‘…the cost of electricity generated from nuclear reactors by 2040 would be about $145-$238 per MWh, compared to $22-$53 for solar, and $45-$78 for wind. So that’s at least twice as much for nuclear, or up to ten times as much when comparing with the lowest-cost solar.’
Dutton and his News Corp collaborators never let facts get in the way of manipulating voters.
Next, we have stenography. Stenography is the laziest form of journalism. Rather than doing the difficult work of analysis and being a watchdog to ensure only credible information is relayed to voters, stenographers just repeat what a politician has said, uncritically.
This has the effect of allowing manipulative politicians like Dutton to put information in the public domain which is false and/or misleading. Stenography is actually the opposite of what of journalism is meant to be.
Nine’s newspapers published six articles which just lazily repeated Dutton’s nonsensical nuclear plan, giving it undue credibility and failing to adequately scrutinise it.
For example, Phillip Coorey in the Australian Financial Review authored a piece originally titled ‘New costings signal war over energy’, which starts with the sentence:
‘The Coalition’s nuclear power plan will cost up to $263 billion less than Labor’s renewable rollout between now and 2050, translating into cheaper electricity over the long run, its long-awaited economic modelling purports.’
Coorey would no doubt claim that he is not responsible for any manipulative or misleading content he has included in his article, because he is just reporting what Dutton said. But that is exactly the problem with stenography. Although it is not as bad as News Corp’s overt propagandist style, it still gives Dutton a platform to mislead the newspaper’s audience.
The only useful form of journalism out of the three categories is scrutiny. Indeed, the whole point of political journalism is to scrutinise politicians and policies to ensure voters are not misled and have useful information in which to make an informed decision when voting. All four outlets included at least some articles with extensive scrutiny of Dutton’s nuclear plan. News Corp had five and Nine published three.
The ABC (four articles) and The Guardian (three) were the only two outlets to only present Dutton’s nuclear policy alongside critical analysis.
One shining example of scrutiny from The Guardian’s Graham Readfearn and Josh Butler’s explainer, titled ‘The glaring gaps and unanswered questions in the Coalition’s nuclear plan and costings’, methodically lays out the facts and problems with Dutton’s plans — including the true higher cost comparison with renewables and the huge amount of time it would take nuclear to come online.
The ABC and The Guardian’s useful critique of Dutton’s plan is exactly the information that voters need to accurately appraise whether Dutton’s nuclear policy is beneficial to them and their community. No doubt News Corp and Nine would claim that this scrutiny just shows the ABC and The Guardian are “left wing”, but it shows no such thing. The ABC and The Guardian are doing a public service in scrutinising a major policy announcement and providing factual analysis comparing the real costs of nuclear and renewable energy.
If a left-wing party announced a different energy policy, they would do exactly the same thing. It is called public interest journalism.
Unfortunately, however, this is not the end of the story. There was one major element of Dutton’s nuclear policy which was only included in one of the 37 news reports I analysed — the motive behind Dutton’s nuclear push. This was included in The Guardian’s Readfearn and Butler explainer, albeit only in two after-thought quotes at the end of the piece.
Under the sub-title ‘How have critics responded?’ The Greens’ Adam Bandt was reported to have said “the nuclear strategy relied on extending the life of fossil fuels”. The Australia Institute’s Rod Campbell similarly said the nuclear plan was a “distraction to prolong fossil fuel use and exports”.
Disappointingly, no articles overtly pointed out to the public that the whole point of Dutton’s nuclear policy was to undermine investment in renewable energy, unsettling the transition to a low carbon economy, to slow down efforts to address climate change, all in aid of fossil fuel and mining billionaires. This exclusion is not just a small part of the story of Dutton’s nuclear policy, it is the story.
This truth, unfortunately, is the story journalists collectively have failed to tell.
Geoscience Australia declares Darwin, Latrobe Valley high-risk earthquake zones
The Age By William Howard, 29 Jan 25
In short:
Darwin and Victoria’s Latrobe Valley have been identified as high-risk earthquake zones.
The National Seismic Hazard Assessment has been updated for the first time since 2018.
What’s next?
The Coalition has earmarked the Latrobe Valley as a potential site for a nuclear reactor if it wins the election, which is a concern for some residents.
…………………………………….In an update to the National Seismic Hazard Assessment, Geoscience Australia identified the Latrobe Valley and Darwin as the only two areas in Australia with a “higher risk of strong ground shaking”.
The Woods Point quake, centred about 130 kilometres east of Melbourne and 125km south of Ms Cox’s Traralgon South home, was the largest onshore event of its kind in the state’s modern history.
There were more than 43,000 reports from the public and the earthquake was felt in parts of New South Wales, South Australia, Tasmania, and the Australian Capital Territory. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-01-30/darwin-and-latrobe-valley-high-risk-earthquake-zones/104873178
Dutton’s atomic power bill for a ‘nuclear family’ could be nearly $39K
By Steve Bishop | 28 January 2025, https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/duttons-atomic-power-bill-for-a-nuclear-family-could-be-nearly-39k,19381
The Dutton nuclear power plan will cost about $264 billion if the type of reactor extolled by Shadow Energy Minister Ted O’Brien is adopted.
That’s equivalent to more than $9,700 for every man, woman and child in Australia — and $38,800 for the proverbial “nuclear family”.
The costings are simple.
Opposition Leader Peter Dutton announced on 13 December:
‘By 2050, our plan will deliver up to 14 GW of nuclear energy, guaranteeing consistent and stable electricity for all Australians.’
O’Brien even produced a video highlighting the virtues of the Bill Gates-backed Natrium reactor, which provides 345 megawatts of power and is costing US$4 billion (AU$6.45 billion) for the first one being built in Wyoming by TerraPower.
Forty-one of the reactors would be needed to produce the promised 14GW of nuclear power at a cost of $264.45 billion.
Australia has an estimated population of 27.2 million, giving a total of $9,724 for every man, woman and child.
Mr Dutton has made it plain he is opposed to big nuclear facilities and the Natrium small modular reactor (SMR) reactor meshes with his pledge to ‘place the latest zero emission nuclear technologies on the sites of seven retiring coal-fired power plants’.
Another reactor that falls within his pledge to use the latest technologies is the Rolls Royce UK SMR 470 MWe which could cost between £3 billion and £4 billion (AU$5.9-7.9 billion) apiece.
Even the lower estimate of £3 billion equates to $5.9 billion. Thirty of them would be needed to meet the 14GW target, at a cost of $176.7 billion.
But Nuclear Consulting Group chairman Paul Dorfman has warned that because the Rolls Royce reactor is more than 50 per cent bigger than an SMR it “will need big sites, standard nuclear safety measures, exclusion zones, core catchers, aircraft crash protection and security”.
Ontario and the Tennessee Valley Authority are planning to use the innovative GE Hitachi BWRX-300 reactor but it has been reported that planning documents reveal a cost of around US$5.4 billion (AU$8.6 billion), amounting to a cost of $369 billion for the 43 needed to produce 14KW of power.
Another new SMR is the Westinghouse AP300 SMR.
An order for four of the reactors has been placed in the UK for the Tees Valley with the Daily Express reporting:
‘The four reactors would cost £10 billion and generate 1.2 gigawatts of power, enough for 1.6 million homes.’
That’s £2.5 billion each, or AU$4.91 billion. Forty-three would be needed to meet the LNP target of 14GW — costing $211 billion. But this does not factor in the sort of cost blow-out experienced with other SMRs.
Mr Dutton was asked by ABC journalist Bridget Brennan in June:
“So, surely Australians need to know right now how much this is going to cost? Is it going to be as much as $16 billion per site?”
The answer is very much more expensive — more than $35 billion for each of the seven sites if Ted O’Brien’s preferred Natrium reactor is adopted.
Former Miss America’s Australian nuclear tour clouded by Chinese AI blow to her employer
Royce Kurmelovs, Jan 30, 2025, https://reneweconomy.com.au/former-miss-americas-australian-nuclear-tour-clouded-by-chinese-ai-blow-to-her-employer/
Miss America 2023 winner Grace Stanke has begun her Australian tour to promote nuclear power, just as the US energy giant that employs her has taken a big market hit after Chinese company DeepSeek claimed to have found a cheaper way to make AI.
Stanke, who flew into Perth on Wednesday, is a nuclear engineer who works in public relations for Constellation to promote nuclear technology, and has been brought out for an Australian tour by campaign group Nuclear For Australia in an attempt to drum up local support for the technology.
Nuclear For Australia is nominally headed by 18-year-old Will Shackel. But Stanke’s tour has reportedly been bankrolled by Australian businessman Dick Smith, who also provided the funding to establish the group.
The tour comes amid an aggressive expansion drive by Constellation, which holds a suite of nuclear and fossil fuel assets. According to the company’s 2024 Sustainability Report, nuclear makes up 67% of its generation capacity, with natural gas and oil making up 25% and renewables and storage accounting for 8%.
Constellation has increasingly been looking to capitalise on the development of AI as a driver in future electricity demand that it hopes to meet with nuclear power.
In September last year the company announced it would buy the Three Mile End nuclear facility under a deal to supply Microsoft with power to run its AI data centres.
Earlier in January, Constellation bought out rival Calvine for $US 27 billion, a move that meant it acquired the company’s gas-plants.
As gas-peaking plants currently help smooth out spikes in the wholesale electricity market by turning on during periods of high demand — at the expense of nuclear generators — the acquisition potentially gives Constellation greater influence over wholesale prices.
Late last week, President Donald Trump announced the US would pour $US 500 billion into AI development in what has been described as an “arms race” with China, a decision welcomed by Constellation CEO Joe Dominguez.
“President Trump is right that sustaining and enhancing America’s global AI dominance goes hand in hand with reliable, abundant American electricity,” he said. “Data center developers, generators, utilities, and other stakeholders should continue to work together to accomplish the President’s goals on behalf of the American people.”
On Tuesday, however, the assumption that power-hungry chipsets needed to train and run AI data centres would continue to drive demand for “clean” nuclear power ran into a wall.
Chinese firm DeepSeek announced it developed an open large-language model (LLM) that provides roughly the same service as ChatGPT with a smaller team and a fraction of the hardware as their US counterparts.
With the Chinese market subject to sanctions that limit access to the full-power graphics processing units (GPUs) needed to build their own models, the company was forced to find a workaround to do more with less.
These GPUs perform the calculations needed to drive LLMs and are manufactured by chipmaker Nvidia that was, until Wednesday, considered the world’s most valuable publicly-traded company with a market cap of $3.45 trillion. That changed with the latest news from DeepSeek.
In December, DeepSeek claimed it cost (USD) $5.6m and two months to develop its V3 model – a portion of what it cost to create ChatGPT. The accuracy of this figure, however, is questionable as the price of electricity is unknown.
Last week the company released the full version of its R1 model that it said is 30-times cheaper to run than equivalent models produced by US competitors such as OpenAI. The company has not released the training data, but has published papers outlining its methods, effectively allowing anyone to take DeepSeek work and expand upon it for free.
The announcement of a cheaper, less-demanding model triggered a massive 17% drop in Nvidia shares — wiping off $USD593bn, and knocked 20 per cent off the price of Constellation shares. By Thursday Constellation’s performance had partially recovered but not nearly enough to make up for Tuesday’s losses.
These events coincide with the arrival of 22-year-old Stanke, now a pro-nuclear influencer, in Australia to help local campaigns sell the technology to the Australian public.
Her tour includes appearances in Perth, Brisbane, Melbourne, Adelaide and Sydney, a parliamentary briefing and appearances at private events, including a community meeting in Lithgow, New South Wales.
The town selection is interesting as it has been a flashpoint for an anti-wind and anti-renewables campaign and has traditionally been a strong Nationals stronghold.
Lithgow falls within the federal seat of Calare which is currently held by federal independent Andrew Gee, who resigned from the National Party in 2022 over its opposition to the Indigenous Voice to Parliament.
Australia’s new chief scientist open to nuclear power but focused on energy forms available ‘right now’
Prof Tony Haymet says nuclear industry will need to ‘rebuild their social licence’ while noting solar and wind are ‘incredibly cheap’.
Josh Butler, Guardian 28th Jan 2025 –
Australia’s new chief scientist has said he is open to the prospect of nuclear power playing a role in the country’s energy mix, but remained focused on forms of energy that were “available to help us right now”.
On his first day in the job, Prof Tony Haymet said new energy-intensive technologies like artificial intelligence could be powered by renewables, but that he thought serious discussions about nuclear in Australia were likely to be years away.
“If you go back and look at Chernobyl and Three Mile Island and so on, there wasn’t enough transparency and openness. I think the nuclear industry has accepted the fact that they have to rebuild their social licence to operate,” Haymet told a press conference when asked about small modular reactors (SMRs).
“You know, for the next chief scientist in 2030 or 2040, I think you can re-ask your question.”
Haymet said Australia shouldn’t “rule out any energy source” but said new technologies, like AI datacentres, would require much more power in the short term.
“So I’m looking at the slate of energies that are going to be available to help us right now. If we wait until we perfect wave energy or nuclear fusion, or some other source of power, we’re going to miss the bus,” he said……………………………………….
The CSIRO’s GenCost report in December reaffirmed that electricity from nuclear energy in Australia would be at least 50% more expensive than power from solar and wind, backed up with storage. Electricity from SMRs would be significantly more expensive again, with the report rejecting opposition claims that nuclear power plants could be developed in Australia in less than 15 years.
The former chair of the Antarctic Science Foundation and high-level working groups on climate change, Haymet has also held senior roles at the CSIRO, with a particular focus on oceans.
Amid a heated debate on nuclear energy, sparked by the Coalition’s pledge to build conventional large reactors and SMRs – a developing technology that does not exist anywhere on a commercial basis – Dutton and his shadow ministers have been strongly critical of scientific reports and experts who have cast doubt on the viability of an Australian nuclear power industry.
Energy experts have noted the Coalition’s modelling forecasts much lower consumption of energy in Australia than Labor’s renewables-focused energy policy, which the treasurer, Jim Chalmers, claimed would see a $4tn hit to Australia’s economy. The Coalition modelling does not forecast a reduction in power bills and the Coalition senator Matt Canavan admitted the plan was “unachievable”.
At the press conference alongside the science minister, Ed Husic, Haymet strongly backed his former colleagues in the CSIRO.
“You may not be surprised to hear that I think the CSIRO report is a very fine piece of work. I don’t know of any mistakes in it, and if you do, please let me know. Having been inside CSIRO, I see the care and the diligence that goes into these reports,” he said. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2025/jan/28/australia-nuclear-power-plan-tony-haymet-chief-scientist
Miss America and nuclear engineer Grace Stanke will be travelling around Australia with a host of other nuclear experts as a part of the National Nuclear Tour.
COMMENT. As I have predicted, the media emphasis is on “Miss America”, and the propaganda is so shallow as to be laughable. (Despite her obvious intelligence, Ms Stanke is not asked to say anything really sensible).
The tour is hoping to improve the public perception around nuclear science.
Grace Stanke told Peter Fegan on 4BC Breakfast, “I think nuclear energy and nuclear science as a whole is seen as some weird, unknown science that you have to spend 20 years in school to even so much as break into the industry, but that’s not the case.”
“Nuclear science is all around us, it’s in our homes. If you like bananas, you’re actually ingesting some radiation, smoke detectors use some nuclear technology.”
“All of these things that are part of our daily lives, so imagine how much more good nuclear science could do if we fully embrace this technology.”
The Atlas Network talking about itself
The MPS and its Atlas Network have conscientiously worked to change university campuses from places of free inquiry and critical thinking. Those beachheads in universities are matched by opportunities to find and promote “conservative” students. The idea is to shape them and potentially promote their careers in politics, the law, media, policy, academia and business.
January 26, 2025, Lucy Hamilton , https://theaimn.net/the-atlas-network-talking-about-itself/
There is much to learn about the Atlas Network from one of Ron Manners’ Mannkal Economic Education Foundation newsletters. This Mannkal newsletter was issued in April 2015. The project continues unabated.
The Atlas Network is a global interconnection of over 500 faux “thinktanks” (or junktanks), dedicated to reinforcing and propagandising the “free market” message. The Mont Pelerin Society (MPS) is considered its steering committee. The Atlas Network was designed from 1981 to metastasise similar bodies to sell “business” ideas. It finds local enthusiasts and donors around the world to eliminate obstructions to profit for American corporations and local fellow-travellers. The MPS is secretive: its membership is only rarely leaked.Ron Manners, with mining money, founded Mannkal in 1997. He is currently a life member and on the board of the MPS. He was appointed to the Advisory Council for the Atlas Economic Research Foundation in 2010. In 2020, he was awarded Atlas’s Sir Antony Fisher Achievement award. The newsletter explains that the name Mannkal originated in the cable/telex address of the company he inherited.
The Mannkal newsletter illustrates the connection to the MPS which first met in 1947. It brought together Austrian School economists such as Friedrich von Hayek and Ludwig von Mises together with the Chicago School’s Milton Friedman. The MPS, through Hayek, began the process of creating plutocrat-serving law and economics institutes in universities around America.
It also took the model provided by bodies such as the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE), founded in 1946, to create the mirage that a chorus of genuine policy experts supported the political economy that the donors desired. Friedman did much of the public relations for the project before the junktanks became more organised.
In the 1950s, Brit Antony Fisher, inspired by The Road to Serfdom, visited Hayek for advice. One of the UK junktanks in the Network explains that Hayek “told him bluntly to forget politics. Politicians just follow prevailing opinions. If you want to change events, change ideas.” He instructed Fisher to found thinktanks to help shift the prevailing mood away from the consensus that government, labour and capital all had a say in how society should operate towards a world where capital could dictate all including directing the government for its own ends.
When the co-founder of the Atlas Network Heritage Foundation, Ed Feulner, visited Australia in 1985 to conduct a workshop, he contrasted Friedman’s role marketing supply side economics, privatisation and the flat tax with the need for bodies to “set the terms and agenda of public policy.” The intent was to propagandise or “market an idea.” There must be “permanent saturation campaigns with multi-pronged, longterm strategies.” Proctor and Gamble, he explained, sell Crest toothpaste by “keeping the product fresh in the consumers’ minds.” That was to be the junktanks’ role. (These are a combination of Dr Jeremy Walker’s summaries and Feulner’s own words. The essay is well worth your time to see the history and people of Atlas in Australia.)
That Adam Smith Institute essay continues to boast that the Atlas Network had grown at the time of writing to 450 bodies. Now, the essay boasts, “They are changing events all over the world – from land reform in Peru, through privatization in Britain, public debt control in Pakistan, to low-cost education in India. And spreading the ideas of liberty in even the most unlikely places, in the Muslim world from Morocco through Turkey to Yemen and Kazakhstan; in Africa from Mali and Ivory Coast to Ethiopia; in Europe and the Far East.”
The MPS and its Atlas Network have conscientiously worked to change university campuses from places of free inquiry and critical thinking. Those beachheads in universities are matched by opportunities to find and promote “conservative” students. The idea is to shape them and potentially promote their careers in politics, the law, media, policy, academia and business.
One of Mannkal’s primary roles is the selecting of libertarian students in Western Australia for scholarships to Atlas Network junktanks around the world. In this edition of the newsletter, two report back on attending an MPS conference. One celebrated attending “networking events with prominent intellectuals and businesspeople from around the world.” Another was dazzled by, “Having dinner alongside a mining magnate, the chairman of a prominent think-tank, a famous TV presenter and an ex-CIA agent”. He continued, “I was exposed to a network rich in knowledge and influence, including a plethora of world-class academics, Nobel laureates and senior political figures.” (Nafeez Ahmed’s Alt Reich shows the significance of the CIA – and their former Nazis – in the shaping of the Atlas Network.)
Melbourne’s Institute of Public Affairs (IPA), a 1943 creation, was absorbed into the Atlas Network in the era of the Liberal Party’s battle between the Wets and the Dries. It was reportedly “hijacked” by “radicals” after people senior in the body attended an MPS conference.
The newsletter report of a third scholarship holder illustrates the Cold War dread of communism that continues to motivate the MPS and its Atlas junktanks. Former Czech president Vaklav Klaus, then a member of the MPS for 25 years, spoke at a lunch. People who have suffered under communist and socialist governments are often rolled out to warn audiences of the continuing threat of authoritarianism. The offspring of refugees who have had awful experiences in such countries provide some of the enthusiastic recruits for Mannkal.
Neoliberalism was always a bunk economics that trumpeted itself as superior because it was driven by theory and rejected evidence. In fact it was an ideology – and a network of activists – that functioned to serve the rich donors. As the project became our new normal, it created ever more dramatic inequalities, resulting in the fury and pain that drives sadopopulism. Youthful interest in social democracies has been a more productive response. In 2024, the IPA was sharing American Atlas junktank Cold War 2.0 propaganda to address the risk that youth might turn away from the “freedom” they sell.
Those of us watching the Atlas Network’s Heritage Foundation plans come to fruition in the first week of Trump’s second term see where authoritarianism lurks right now. Heritage’s Mandate for Leadershiphas come a long way since its first iteration set out the Ronald Reagan economic revolution’s steps. Now it combines its ultra-libertarian positions with authoritarian social policy and autocratic governance.
In this newsletter, Mannkal boasts of 154 scholarships available. Many are to conferences. Fifteen are “midyear internships abroad.” Another 45 are “3-month internships abroad.” The students are sent to Atlas junktanks around the world with 12 partners in particular listed. They include the inspiration for Mannkal, the FEE in Atlanta mentioned above. The Institute of Economic Affairs in London is another. That’s the body that helped create Maggie Thatcher’s economics after she was inspired by The Road to Serfdom. She co-founded another Atlas junktank, the Centre for Policy Studies.
One of the interns celebrates Maggie Thatcher’s certainty of the importance of Atlas: “It started with Sir Keith and me, with the Centre for Policy Studies, and Lord Harris at the Institute of Economic Affairs. Yes, it started with ideas, with beliefs. That’s it. You must start with beliefs. Yes, always beliefs.” Thatcher and Reagan make repeat appearances as Atlas heroes in the newsletter.
Another intern went to the New Zealand Institute, where the Chief Economist is Eric Crampton, MPS director.
The intern who was sent to Atlas headquarters in Washington was delighted to attend events at several of the Atlas junktanks including the Cato Institute (where Rupert Murdoch was a board member in the 1990s) and the Leadership Institute (party to Project 2025 and, like Heritage, to the Christian Nationalist Council for National Policy). She was impressed by Tom Palmer: Atlas’s Executive Director for International Programs. His patronising speeches at the Friedman Conference over the years can be found online.
Another of the interns was deeply grateful to spend time in Melbourne at the IPA with John Roskam. Two went to the Menzies Research Centre (MRC). One was thrilled to sit in on “meetings with high-level politicians and policy-advisors.” Mathias Corman, then Finance Minister, spoke at an MRC event about “shrinking government” in New Zealand and Australia. The Atlas Network’s Project 2025 shows how brutal the cuts to government are ultimately intended to be.
The Executive Director of the Liberal Party-affiliated MRC Nick Cater has just spent the European summer with Viktor Orbán’s junktanks in Budapest.
Scholarship donors are listed in the newsletter as Manners, Gina Rinehart, Willy Packer and Toby Nichols.
One public figure who shows the path and now models the Atlas policy influence is David Seymour, Deputy Prime Minister of New Zealand/Aotearoa. He was recruited on his university campus by the Atlas Association of Consumers and Taxpayers (ACT). The ACT is the now the political party that he leads. Seymour was awarded an Atlas “MBA” after a fortnight’s training at Atlas headquarters. He went on to work in the Canadian Atlas Frontier Center before returning to Atlas work in NZ. He is far from the only political leader with deep Atlas Network ties.
Austrian School economics is largely dead these days, although Atlas partners continue to try to resuscitate them. One of the intern reports in the newsletter says the “highlight of my experience was learning about Austrian economics, a stream of economics that is not taught in Australian high schools or universities.” There is a cogent reason why she was freshly discovering the contribution from “economists such as Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, Joseph Schumpeter and Frederic Bastiat – important economists whose ideas or names have never once been mentioned in my four years of studying economics.” Several interns mention this inculcation of Austrian School truthiness as part of their experience.
One of the most ebullient floggers of Austrian thought in America has been Rand Paul. The intern sent to Canada’s Fraser Institute was excited to report that he met the man.
The newsletter discusses its links to the then highlight of the Atlas Network calendar in Australasian region, the Friedman Conference. In 2024, the conference was reduced to a rabble-rousing event called the Triple Conference that gave a day to libertarianism, a day to Christian Nationalism and a day to conspiracy theory nonsense.
The Mannkal newsletter also links to the History of Economic Thought Society Australia (HETSA), which hosts a Young Scholars Initiative (YSI) conference. HETSA is, anecdotally, a host to MPS figures. In 2024, this event took place at the Alphacrucis University College in NSW. Alphacrucis is the official training college of the Pentecostal Assemblies of God network, Australian Christian Churches reshaped under Hillsong’s Brian Houston. Notre Dame University, also a Catholic force in reactionary politicking and culture wars, provided the YSI organiser.
A third conference series mentioned is the “Freedom to Choose” conference, hosted by Notre Dame University and “supported” by Mannkal. The 2024 conference focused as its theme on the “enduring relevance” of Hayek’s Road to Serfdom, the book that inspired so many of the big money donors in the early history of neoliberalism.
Ron Manners pontificates on Public Choice Theory in the newsletter. This is a core aspect of Atlas’s history.
One of the key details to be gleaned from the newsletter is that this project is lifelong and often intergenerational for the donors. One of the interns at the IEA considered herself lucky to meet Hayek’s daughter who allowed the interns to “gain insight into the workings of her father first-hand!” Antony Fisher’s daughter, Linda Whetstone, was president of the MPS, chair of the Atlas Network and on the board at the IEA. Rupert Murdoch’s father Keith co-founded the IPA with Charles Kemp. Rupert was an official board member at Cato, and an unofficial conduit of the IPA, Centre of Independent Studies and MRC, whose people are regularly found on his platforms. The Kemp sons, Rod and David, were key figures in the thinktanks and the Atlas Americanisation of Australian politics.
Charles Koch has been a prime force financially and strategically at Atlas for decades.
It is hard to know how much of the change from Keynesian balanced economy to neoliberal brutality is attributable to the MPS and the Atlas Network, compared to how much might be due to the general impact of the donors and ideologues. Industry lobbies and the direct power of the plutocrats intermix with the marketing of the Atlas Network and its soft power impact for American corporations around the world.
The plutocrats ventriloquised through Atlas operations, but do not seem to feel the same compulsion to separate their goals from their faces any longer. Whether it’s Elon Musk or Gina Rinehart, they seem to feel comfortable now dictating oligarch policy for themselves.
Regardless, it’s worth watching Atlas talking about itself: the freedom it declares it fights for was always anti-democratic.
Peter Dutton’s nuclear energy policy is unclear policy
January 18, 2025 Michael Taylor, https://theaimn.net/peter-duttons-nuclear-energy-policy-is-unclear-policy/
Peter Dutton’s signature nuclear energy policy has rightly been subject to significant criticism and analysis, highlighting several key issues:
- The policy has been criticised for its potential high costs. Reputable sources suggest that nuclear energy is likely to be significantly more expensive than renewable energy alternatives. For instance, the Climate Council estimates that it could increase household electricity bills by $665 annually, and the CSIRO’s GenCost report indicates that nuclear power is at least twice as expensive as renewables.
- The timeline for establishing nuclear power in Australia is considered overly ambitious. It’s estimated that it would take at least 15 years to get reactors up and running, which means significant delays in addressing immediate energy needs. This delay could lead to continued reliance on fossil fuels, thus increasing emissions rather than reducing them.
There are substantial environmental concerns related to nuclear power, including the management of nuclear waste, the risk of accidents, and the overall environmental footprint (which the industry says is nil) when considering the lifecycle of nuclear facilities. Dutton’s policy doesn’t adequately address these risks, particularly in a country such as ours with no prior nuclear energy infrastructure.- Implementing nuclear power requires overcoming significant political and regulatory hurdles. Opposition from state governments, along with existing federal bans on nuclear energy, presents legal and political obstacles. The need for new legislation and the potential for compulsory land acquisition further complicates the policy’s execution.
- The policy could deter investment in renewable energy by creating uncertainty about the future energy landscape. Investors might be reluctant to commit to long-term renewable projects if there’s a possibility that the energy market will shift towards nuclear, potentially leading to higher energy costs and less economic growth.
There are valid doubts about public support for nuclear power in Australia, particularly given historical opposition. The proposed choice of sites for nuclear reactors raises questions about community consent.- The policy focuses on nuclear at the expense of more immediately deployable and cost-effective renewable solutions (Sydney Morning Herald, paywalled). The argument is that renewable energy can be scaled up more quickly to meet current and future energy demands without the risks associated with nuclear.
- There has been a noted absence (Sydney Morning Herald, paywalled) of comprehensive costings from the Coalition for their nuclear plan, leading to skepticism about the economic claims made by Dutton. This lack of transparency has been highlighted as a major flaw.
- In summary, the policy is economically risky, environmentally questionable, and politically contentious, potentially leading to higher energy prices, slower adoption of clean energy, and increased reliance on fossil fuels in the interim.
- It looks as though Dutton is on a loser with his nuclear energy policy. He pursues it at his political peril.
Dutton’s nuclear plan to wipe out Australia’s aluminium smelters
Australian Financial Review, Chris BowenMinister for Climate Change and Energy, 19 Jan 25
The Coalition’s costings are predicated on large industrial facilities in the southern and eastern states of Australia halving their energy use by the end of 2030, and keeping it there.Chris BowenMinister for Climate Change and Energy
Of all the problems with Peter Dutton’s nuclear energy costings released in the dying days of 2024, probably the biggest is that the entire policy assumes much of Australian heavy industry closes over the next few years.
This is particularly ironic as Mr Dutton claims with a straight face that nuclear power is necessary for industrial growth.
The details of his so-called policy costings reveal the only way the Coalition can make nuclear energy appear cheaper than it is – even Ted O’Brien admits he’s not predicting nuclear will bring power bills down – is to assume Australia will need a lot less power.
It indicates an extraordinary degree of pessimism about Australia’s manufacturing future, specifically for electricity-hungry industries like aluminium smelting.
In releasing those figures, the Coalition has tied themselves to a future scenario predicated on large industrial facilities across the southern and eastern states of Australia halving their energy use by the end of 2030 – and keeping it there.
Specifically, the model Peter Dutton has adopted as the basis for his energy policy, shows a material drop and then permanent flatlining in industrial electricity demand for Victoria, Tasmania, Queensland and NSW.
That is, less than half the energy we need to power our biggest industrial users right now – let alone to enable growth in the future.
We need to be planning an energy system for economic growth.
Peter Dutton says he supports the aluminium industry, but his own nuclear costings rely on shutting it down.
Analysis of the timing of large loads coming off, shows it coinciding with the end dates of existing power purchase agreements for each of Australia’s four aluminium smelters across those states.
It shows a Liberal Party either cavalier about, or comfortable with Tasmania’s Bell Bay smelter closing in less than 12 months by January 2026, Portland’s smelter winding down in July 2027, plus NSW’s Tomago and Queensland’s Boyne smelter gone by July 2029…………………………………………………………………
As someone who wants to lead a country, why would Dutton be planning for an economy that’s smaller and an industrial sector that’s worse off with no growth opportunities, before he’s even begun? Why bank on job losses to bring down the cost of his electricity system?
And if you’re not planning for a contracting economy, then where’s your credible energy policy to meet growing demand in the next five, 10 and 20 years?
We need to be planning an energy system for economic growth. We need to be planning an energy system for the future, one that has bigger industry, ………………………………………………………. more https://www.afr.com/policy/energy-and-climate/dutton-s-nuclear-plan-to-wipe-out-australia-s-aluminium-smelters-20250119-p5l5l4
Lack of detail Dutton Launches Much to Do About Nothing campaign
January 17, 2025 John Lord Australian Independent Media
You might remember the relentless scrutiny that Peter Dutton applied during the Voice referendum regarding Labor’s proposal. He would challenge the Prime Minister each day, demanding more specifics when many felt the key points were already apparent. Like Tony Abbott or Donald Trump, Dutton seems poised to adopt a campaign strategy that embraces a lack of detail in the upcoming election. He plans to present broad, sweeping outlines of potential policies and actions he might pursue in office rather than delving into the intricacies and specifics many voters desire.
A prime example of the shortcomings in leadership is Peter Dutton’s vague and often frustrating approach to nuclear policy, which raises more questions than it answers. The most effective leaders possess a vast reservoir of accurate information, readily available for reference at any moment. John Howard exemplified this quality, as did Kim Beazley and Peter Costello. In recent times, however, there have been few who can match this standard. Julia Gillard stood out for her sharp insights, while Kevin Rudd’s exceptionally agile mind distinguished him from his peers. Anthony Albanese, in particular, demonstrates an extraordinary ability to recall even the slightest of details; a skill honed during his tenure as Minister for Infrastructure, where he developed an almost uncanny depth of knowledge.
It is precisely in this area that Peter Dutton is likely to struggle. During the frenetic pace of an election campaign, when rapid-fire questions bombard a candidate at their most vulnerable, his lack of depth in detail will become apparent. In politics, it is always the meticulous attention to detail that can make or break a leader…………………………………………….
Dutton emerged from a long yawn to play catch-up politics on Sunday, 12 January, to launch the Coalition’s unofficial election campaign.
During a 38-minute hastily put-together address at a rally in Melbourne, he depicted the forthcoming election as a pivotal “sliding doors moment” for the future of Australia. At this event, he unveiled the Coalition’s rallying cry, “Let’s get Australia back on track,” which resonated with the audience eager for detail. Alongside this slogan, Dutton introduced a new brochure that detailed twelve key governing priorities designed to steer the country in a different direction. In his speech, he strongly criticised the current Labor government, labelling it one of the most “incompetent governments” Australia has ever seen (after only three years, he had forgotten his own) and described the leadership of Prime Minister Anthony Albanese as among the weakest in the nation’s history……..
So, with little detail, Dutton launched his Much to Do About Nothing campaign.
Michelle Grattan wrote about Dutton’s launch:
“What it wasn’t, though, was detailed. The specifics of what a Dutton government would do, and how it would do it, remain unclear.”…… https://theaimn.net/lack-of-detail-dutton-launches-much-to-do-about-nothing-campaign/
Nukes kill kids
Dr Tony Webb, 17 Jan 25
One moment from my work in the USA in the early 1980s stands out in my memory. I’d driven from Chicago to Cleveland at the invitation of the Health and Safety Officer of the US Boilermakers Union to speak to the members meeting held on the night ahead of the recruitment of members for work on the annual ‘clean-up’ of the local Nuclear Power plant. The hired workers would be ‘radiation sponges’ – short-term casuals recruited for the ‘dirty jobs’ that would result in significant radiation exposures sometimes up to the permitted annual exposure limit and ‘let go’ if they reached that limit. The practice offered some protection to the company’s full -time employees whose skills would be needed on an ongoing basis and whose exposures needed to be kept below the limit. The meeting was well attended , rowdy, with a lot of questions and discussion which spilled over into the carpark after the meeting closed. I noticed one man hanging back from the circle and invited him to join and share his thoughts. As I recall them the essences was:
“I will be going in to apply for work tomorrow. I understand what you shared about the risks . . . no safe level of exposure and chance of getting cancer perhaps 20 years from now . . . It will put a roof over my family’s heads and food on the table . . . BUT my wife and i have had all the family we want. If we hadn’t, what you shared about the genetic risks, the damage to our children and future generations . . . no I wouldn’t be going . . . “
It is a sad fact that workers, both men and women will choose, often from necessity, to put their health at risk from the work environment. What is however consistent in my experience of working on radiation and other occupational health and safety issues is that they are far more concerned, cautious and likely to prioritise safety when it comes to risks to their children.
We now have solid evidence that workers in nuclear power plants routinely exposed to radiation face significantly increased cancer risks, risks of cardiovascular disease including heart attacks and strokes, dementia and potentially other health effects. There is also an increased risk of genetic damage that can be passed on to their children and future generations. But perhaps most significant of all there is now solid evidence of increased rates of leukaemia in children living close to nuclear power plants.
To put it simply and in language that will resonate with workers and their families in the communities around the seven nuclear power plant sites the federal Liberal-National Coalition proposes to build if elected to government; nuclear kills kids. It matters little whether or not these nuclear plants can be built on time, within budget, make a contribution to climate change, reduce electricity prices, or secure a long-term energy future; these nuclear power plants will kill kids who live close by. They cannot operate without routine releases of radioactive material into the environment and our young will be exposed and are particularly susceptible to any exposure that results.
Now add to that if you care that women are more susceptible than men, that workers in these plants face greater exposure and health risks than adults in the community, that nuclear plants have and will continue to have both major accidents and less major ‘incidents’ resulting in radiation releases, community exposures and consequent health damage. Add also that quite apart from the workers and others exposed when these plants need to be decommissioned, the radioactive wastes resulting from perhaps 30-50 years life will need to be safely stored and kept isolated from human contact for many thousands of years longer than our recorded human history. And, again if you care, also add in the concerns around proliferation of nuclear weapons which historically has occurred on the back of, enabled by and sometimes concealed by countries’ developing so called peaceful nuclear power.
All these arguments add weight to the absurdity of Australia starting and the world continuing down this nuclear power path. But if we want a single issue that strikes at the heart of human concerns it is this – and forgive me saying it again, it needs to be repeated many times until the electorate in Australia hears it loud and clear – Nuclear Kills Kids
Submarine nuclear core project faces ‘challenges’
The Core Production Capability programme, tasked with delivering safe
nuclear reactor cores for the UK’s submarine fleet, remains under pressure
as highlighted in the latest Infrastructure and Projects Authority (IPA)
Annual Report.
Maintaining its Red rating, the programme faces critical
challenges in achieving key milestones crucial to sustaining the Continuous
At Sea Deterrent (CASD). According to the report, the programme is
fundamental to providing the Royal Navy with the capability to propel the
Dreadnought-class submarines and a “modern, safe, and sovereign
capability to manufacture further cores” for a future fleet of attack
submarines.
This capability is also essential for fulfilling the UK’s
commitments under the AUKUS defence partnership.
UK Defence Journal 17th Jan 2025 https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/submarine-nuclear-core-project-faces-challenges/
Dutton’s new nuclear nightmare: construction costs continue to explode
The latest massive cost blowout at a planned power station in the UK demonstrates the absurdity of Peter Dutton’s claims about nuclear power in Australia.
Bernard Keane and Glenn Dyer. 16 Jan 25, https://www.crikey.com.au/2025/01/16/peter-dutton-nuclear-power-construction-costs/?utm_campaign=daily&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter
Peter Dutton’s back-of-the-envelope nuclear power plan has suffered another major hit, with new reports showing the expected cost of the newest planned UK nuclear power plant surging so much its builder has been told to bring in new investors.
The planned Sizewell C nuclear plant in Suffolk, to be built by French nuclear giant EDF in cooperation with the UK government, was costed at £20 billion in 2020. According to the Financial Times, the cost is now expected to double to £40 billion, or $79 billion.
The dramatic increase in costs is based on EDF’s experience with Hinkley Point C, currently being built in Somerset, which was supposed to commence operations this year but will not start until at least 2029. It was initially costed at £18 billion but is now expected to cost up to £46bn, or $90 billion.
So dramatic are the cost blowouts that EDF and the UK government have been searching, with limited success, for other investors to join them in funding Sizewell.
Meanwhile across the Channel, France’s national audit body has warned that the task of building six new nuclear reactors in France — similar in scale to Peter Dutton’s vague plan for seven reactors of various kinds around Australia — is not currently achievable.
The French government announced the plan in 2022, based on France’s long-established nuclear power industry and its state-owned nuclear power multinational EDF, with an initial estimate of €51.7 billion. That was revised up to €67.4 billion ($112 billion) in 2023. It is still unclear how the project will be financed, with little commercial interest prompting the French government to consider an interest-free loan to EDF.
The cour de comptes also noted the “mediocre profitability” of EDF’s notorious Flamanville nuclear plant, which began producing electricity last year a decade late and 300% over budget. It warned EDF’s exposure to Hinckley was so risky that it should sell part of its stake to other investors before embarking on the construction program for French reactors. The entire program was at risk of failure due to financial problems, the auditors said.
That France, where nuclear power has operated for nearly 70 years, and where EDF operates 18 nuclear power plants, is struggling to fund a program of a similar scale to that proposed by Dutton illustrates the vast credibility gap — one mostly unexplored by a supine mainstream media — attaching to Dutton’s claims that Australia, without an extant nuclear power industry, could construct reactors inside a decade for $263 billion. Based on the European experience — Western countries that are democratic and have independent courts and the rule of law, rather than tinpot sheikhdoms like the United Arab Emirates — the number is patently absurd.
Backed by nonsensical apples-and-oranges modelling by a Liberal-linked consulting firm that even right-wing economists kicked down, the Coalition’s nuclear shambles is bad policy advanced in bad faith by people with no interest in having their ideas tested against the evidence. The evidence from overseas is that nuclear power plants run decades over schedule and suffer budget blowouts in the tens of billions — and that’s in countries with established nuclear power industries and which don’t suffer the kind of routine 20%+ infrastructure cost blowouts incurred by building even simple roads and bridges in Australia.
But good luck finding any of that out from Australian journalists.
Peter Dutton’s “always on” nuclear power is about as reliable as wind and solar – during a renewables drought
France’s nuclear fleet has particularly struggled in recent years. According to the World Nuclear Industry Status Report, its 55 reactors were subject to outages lasting between five days and a year in 2023 and only one reactor, Saint Alban-2, produced all year round.
Renew Economy, Royce Kurmelovs, Jan 14, 2025
One of Peter Dutton’s key selling points for nuclear power, its “always on” reliable generation of electricity, has been put to the test in a new analysis, which found that a fleet of modern nuclear plants is, on balance, about as reliable as a fleet of wind and solar farms – if those wind and solar farms were in the midst of a very bad renewable energy drought.
The analysis by David Osmond, a senior wind engineer who runs weekly simulations of Australia’s main electricity grid, compared outages experienced by solar and wind during renewables droughts – known as “dunkelflaute” – to outages in nuclear energy generators.
For the renewable energy side of the equation, Osmond draws on Griffith University modelling of 42 years of synthetic wind and solar data quantifying the risk of renewable energy droughts to Australia’s future energy supply.
The nuclear side of the equation is based on Osmond’s own analysis of seven years of daily nuclear fleet data since 2018 from European countries with four or more reactors.
Noting there has been more investigation into renewable droughts and the reliability of solar and wind in Australia than nuclear, Osmond sought to examine the “worst case scenario” for nuclear – periods with simultaneous issues with multiple reactors.
Using fleet data grouping outage periods into peak and off-peak months, Osmond found that during its “worst week” in any month, nuclear experienced a reduction to 8% to 70% of average output, and 44% to 77% in peak months – comparable to the “worst week” experienced by renewable energy over the modelled 42 years.
Nuclear isn’t 100% reliable,” Osmond writes on BlueSky. “Multiple outages can occur simultaneously, even during peak demand months.
“Analysis of European nuclear data suggests weekly fleet output during peak season can drop below 60% of average levels. This is comparable to the effect of a bad renewable drought on wind+solar generation in Australia.”
Osmond says that when it comes to wind and solar, the data shows “the worst week for wind and solar is likely to be about 50 percent of the long-term average” making the two technologies roughly comparable.
“I found for the countries that I studied, most of the nuclear outages in the last eight years of data I looked at was equivalent to a renewable drought in Australia,” Osmond said.
“When I looked at the data for nuclear, the worst week for nuclear in peak season, for most countries, seemed to be about 60 percent of average.”…………………………………………………………
Nuclear outages can occur either on a schedule where maintenance needs to be carried out, or may be “forced” either through the discovery of a problem, a technical fault, an emergency or an external factor that knocks one or several reactors offline, sometimes simultaneously.
Some reactors like Finland’s new Olkiluoto 3 – a reactor that took 18 years to build and forced its French developer to be bailed out – have experienced technical faults that have periodically sent it offline. And According to Professor M.V. Ramana, a physicist from the University of British Columbia and author of the book Nuclear is Not the Solution, says that nuclear plants are also vulnerable to climate impacts.
“Nuclear plant operations are being challenged by hurricanes, forest fires – things of that sort,” Professor Ramana says. “But that trend has not led to as dramatic declines in power capacity as was the case in France.”
In August 2022 a combination of drought and heatwaves forced half the reactors offline as the water in rivers warmed to the point where it could not be used for reactor cooling.
“Nuclear plans will need an external source of water for cooling,” Professor Ramana says. “The challenge is much more for nuclear power plants that are inland where they have to rely on lakes or rivers, where the temperature can go up much more in summer.
“And that’s what we’re seeing in the case of countries like France and Western Europe in general. Even the French authorities expect that this problem is going to get worse, so they are making plans for that.”
France’s nuclear fleet has particularly struggled in recent years. According to the World Nuclear Industry Status Report, its 55 reactors were subject to outages lasting between five days and a year in 2023 and only one reactor, Saint Alban-2, produced all year round.
The report found that on any given day, at least 11 units were offline across all of France with the highest number of reactors shut down on the same day reaching 28. When it came to partial days offline, 19 or more units were offline for least part of the day for 252 days, or 69% of the year.
Though nuclear has a higher capacity factor – the ratio of energy output over a given time – than solar and wind, Osmond says much of the discussion of nuclear in Australia has falsely assumed it is 100% reliable.
These assumptions will skew any modelling, he says, as they do not account for what it takes to manage the variability of both technologies.
“If you want a solution that doesn’t rely on gas, you can overbuild renewables,” Osmond said. “If you build renewables to cover twice your annual needs, that means even on your worst year, you’ll have enough generation.”
“Likewise, if you wanted to rely entirely on nuclear you’d need to overbuild your nuclear so that if you have multiple simultaneous outages, you can make sure you’ll have enough power during those occasions or where power is extreme.”
“Of course having 50% overbuild of nuclear is far more expensive than 100% overbuilding of renewables.” https://reneweconomy.com.au/peter-duttons-always-on-nuclear-power-is-about-as-reliable-as-wind-and-solar-during-a-renewables-drought/
Destroyed Assange Files: Why Judge’s Rebuke Against Crown Prosecution Service Was So Significant.
“This is a significant victory in a long battle to get the truth out on the involvement of CPS in keeping Julian in arbitrary detention that later turned into political imprisonment, according to UN bodies and the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.”
An unknown number of emails were apparently deleted after one of the U.K.’s lead prosecutor in the case, Paul Close, retired from the CPS. The deletions occurred despite the fact that the case against the award-winning journalist and publisher of the news and transparency website WikiLeaks was still active.
the dissenter, Mohamed Elmaazi, 14 Jan 2025,
A British judge issued an unusually critical rebuke against the Crown Prosecution Service of England and Wales.
A British judge issued an unusually critical rebuke against the Crown Prosecution Service of England and Wales (CPS) for its handling of freedom of information requests related to Sweden’s failed attempt to extradite WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange.
The decision by the United Kingdom’s information rights tribunal was made public on January 10. It followed an appeal by Italian investigative journalist Stefania Maurizi, who argued that the CPS failed in its duty to properly explain why a senior prosecutor’s emails were allegedly deleted or destroyed.
In writing the decision for the three-member tribunal, First-Tier Tribunal (FTT) Judge Penrose Foss pierced the veil of deference that is often shown to governmental bodies in England and Wales by the U.K.’s data protection regulator, the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). Foss was quite blunt in her criticism of the CPS’s handling of multiple Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests that Maurizi had submitted as early as 2015.
It is uncommon for the CPS to be a respondent in FOIA appeals. A review of FTT decisions regarding information rights cases since 2009 shows the CPS as a respondent in 16 out of 3,167 cases (0.5 percent). This includes two appeals filed by Maurizi.
The decision establishes a precedent that may make it easier for future FOIA requests to be successful in the long run, according to Estelle Dehon KC of London’s Cornerstone Barristers, who represented Maurizi.
When the information rights tribunal comes across instances of a public authority’s failure to comply with FOIA obligations it “has been known to be quite trenchant in its criticism,” Dehon, told The Dissenter. But it is “unusual in the run of cases that are specific to Stefania’s FOIA requests” for the tribunal to be as critical as it was last week, she added.
“What we can do now is say to the ICO, look at the quality of the search process [conducted by a public body when a FOIA request is made]. If the search process was poor, then that is an indication that the information is being, or might be, held despite the public authority’s claims to the contrary,” Dehon said.
Kristinn Hrafnsson, WikiLeaks’ editor-in-chief, told The Dissenter, “This is a significant victory in a long battle to get the truth out on the involvement of CPS in keeping Julian in arbitrary detention that later turned into political imprisonment, according to UN bodies and the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.”
The tribunal ordered the CPS to confirm whether it holds information as to “when, how and why” it destroyed or deleted any “hard or electronic copies of emails” with the Swedish Prosecution Authority by February 21 at 4 p.m. If they have any such information they must provide it to Maurizi or otherwise explain why they are exempt from doing so.
‘Unfounded’ Assumptions Prevented Adequate Search For Records
“Overall, based on the evidence before us, our concern is that over a number of years the CPS has not properly addressed itself at least to recording, if not undertaking, adequate searches in relation to the CPS lawyer’s emails, with the result that, in 2023, when it has purported to answer [Maurizi’s] 2019 [FOIA] Request, it has not been able to give a clear and complete account,” the Tribunal stated in its decision.
The tribunal noted that the CPS’s approach “appears to have been informed by a combination of unfounded and incorrect assumptions or speculation, flawed corporate memory, and unreliable anecdotal instruction, much, but not all, of that resting inevitably in the natural succession of employees through the organisation over time.”
“The cumulative effect of those things, taken together with what we find to be (1) imprecisely worded questions and a failure to drill down into answers, and (2) the absence of any clear and complete audit trail of enquiries and responses at each stage, has very likely prevented adequate searches and has certainly prevented a full and satisfactory account of matters.”
An unknown number of emails were apparently deleted after one of the U.K.’s lead prosecutor in the case, Paul Close, retired from the CPS. The deletions occurred despite the fact that the case against the award-winning journalist and publisher of the news and transparency website WikiLeaks was still active.
…………………………………………………………………….. Taking Aim At the UK’s Data Protection Regulator
The tribunal was quite critical of the ICO for its willingness to accept that every reasonable step had been taken by the prosecution to search for the information Maurizi requested.
…………………………………………………………………. The tribunal found that claims made by the government were contradictory and lacking in evidence to support them and even found “no evidence as to what searches were undertaken” in relation to Maurizi’s earlier FOIA requests.
……………………………………….The tribunal’s decision represents the latest victory for Maurizi who has filed multiple FOIA requests and appeals over the U.K. and Swedish governments’ handling of Assange’s extradition case. Dehon summarized the decision succinctly, “The tribunal concluded the CPS likely still holds some information explaining what took place. Hopefully that will finally be disclosed.”
“So far we have learned that the CPS overstepped and dictated how the Swedish prosecutor’s office handled the case with the obvious intent to keep Julian in limbo and maintain for years his unlawful detention,” Hrafnsson said. “The world needs to know who dictated CPS staff to handle the case in this manner both inside the U.K. establishment at its initiative and with input from other governments. It is unacceptable that government files in the U.K. are disappeared in an effort to hide the truth from the public.”
Hrafnsson believes that the missing files, or “at least their fate,” will ultimately “shed light on the real story behind the political persecution of Julian Assange.”
………………………………………………………………………………………. more https://thedissenter.org/destroyed-assange-files-why-judges-rebuke-against-crown-prosecution-service-was-so-significant/
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
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 