Labor politicians and candidates: question them on nuclear policy!
SAMPLE EMAIL 
It is best to send emails or letters in your own words. However, here’s an example anyway.
- Labor will:
- Vigorously and totally oppose the ocean dumping of radioactive waste;
- Prohibit the establishment of nuclear power plants and all other stages of the nuclear fuel cycle in Australia;
- Fully meet all Australia’s obligations as a party to the NPT; and
- Remain strongly opposed to the importation and storage of nuclear waste that is sourced from overseas in Australia.
Hon Anthony Byrne MP – MP for Holt Anthony.Byrne.MP@aph.gov.au (03) 9796 7533
Hon Ms Lisa Chesters MP – for Bendigo Lisa.Chesters.MP@aph.gov.au (03) 5443 9055
Hon Michael Danby MP – Melbourne Ports – Michael.Danby.MP@aph.gov.au (03) 9534 8126
Hon Mark Dreyfus QC, MP – for Isaacs – mark.dreyfus.mp@aph.gov.au
Hon David Feeney – for Batman david.feeney@australianlabor.com.au
Hon Andrew Giles for Scullin – Andrew.Giles@vic.alp.org.au (03) 9404 1911
Hon Catherine King MP for Ballarat Catherine.King.MP@aph.gov.au 03) 5338 8123
Hon Jenny Macklin – for Jagajaga no email.(03) 9459 1411Richard Marles- for Coria richard.marles.mp@aph.gov.au 03) 5221 3033
Brendan O’Connor for Gorton Brendan.O’Connor.MP@aph.gov.au (03) 8390 6166
Clare O’Neil – for Hotham Clare.ONeil.MP@aph.gov.au (03) 9545 6211
Ms Joanne Ryan- for Lalor – no email (03) 9742 5800
Ms Maria Vamvakinou MP – for Calwell Maria.Vamvakinou.MP@aph.gov.au (03) 9367 5216
Mr Tim Watts MP for Gellibrand http://www.timwatts.net.au/Contact/Contact-Info (03)9687 7661
SENATORS VICTORIA
Senator the Hon Kim Carr senator.carr@aph.gov.au (03) 9639 2798
Senator the Hon Jacinta Collins https://www.aph.gov.au/Senators_and_Members/Contact_Senator_or_Member?MPID=GB6
03) 9890 7022
Senator the Hon Stephen Conroy senator.conroy@aph.gov.au (03) 9391 4952
Senator Gavin Marshall senator.marshall@aph.gov.au (03) 9348 9699
CANDIDATES VICTORIA
Chris Buckingham for McMillan Chris.Buckingham@vic.alp.org.au 0405 518 057
Paul Klisaris – for Ashton paul.klisaris@vic.alp.org.au 0412 516 026
Hovig Melkonian – for Casey hovigmelkonian@australianlabor.com.au 0459 959 095
Stefanie Perri – for Chisholm stefanie.perri@australianlabor.com.au (03) 9544 2192
Shashi Bhatti – for Gippsland https://www.facebook.com/search/str/Shashi%2BBhatti/keywords_top
Carl Katter – for Higgins carl@carlkatter.com 0432 507 140
Libby Coker, for Corangamite, libby.coker@libbycoker.com.au 0400 267 288
Matthew Coote – for Goldstein matthew.coote@vic.alp.org.au 0435 496 625
Tony Clark – for Deakin (03) 8819 0398 http://tonyclark.net.au/Contact
Simon Curtis for Latrobe simon.curtis@vic.alp.org.au 0400 174 155
Marg D’Arcy marg@margdarcy.com 0409859046
Sophie Ismail for Melbourne sophie4melbourne@gmail.com 0474 014 540
Eric Kerr – for Indi Eric.Kerr@vic.alp.org.au
Peta Murphy – for Dunkley 0468 778 143 peta.murphy@vic.alp.org.au
Carolyn Gleixner – for Flinders carolyngleixneralp@gmail.com (03) 5989 0537
Adam Rundell for Menzies Adam.Rundell@vic.alp.org.au
Lydia Senior – for Mallee lydia@lydiasenior.com.au 0447 133 893
Alan Williams for Murray Alan.Williams@vic.alp.org.au
Government MPs push for stifling environmental protests
Ministers push for laws to make it harder for greenies to mount environmental challenges on major developments, June 6, 2016 Steven Scott The Courier-Mail SENIOR Government ministers are planning to ramp up pressure on Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull to make it harder for green groups to challenge major developments.
The Courier-Mail can reveal several senior MPs have already canvassed options to discourage legal challenges to projects such as mines and dams, including by imposing time limits on appeals.
Mr Turnbull will face increased pressure from his own MPs should he win the July 2 election. Ministers have discussed ways to make it easier for courts to impose costs orders against funders of court cases, to prevent green groups using shelf organisations to limit their financial risk.
The move would revive former prime minister Tony Abbott’s controversial plans to restrict environmental challenges.
Mr Abbott wanted to change the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act to limit green groups’ challenges after the Mackay Conservation Group last year used the law to hold up the approval of Adani’s central Queensland mine.
The plan is still Coalition policy but it has been quietly shelved because there was not enough support to pass the changes through the Senate and some ministers held concerns about the proposed changes……http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/ministers-push-for-laws-to-make-it-harder-for-greenies-to-mount-environmental-challenges-on-major-developments/news-story/9cf9f552fb112db47058f3f72d24cb9d
Hi-tech renewable energy jobs reviving south-west Victoria’s economy
High-tech, clean energy jobs key to future of Geelong, south-west Victoria, ABC News, 5 June 16 By Cameron Best Steve Garner understands how important his wind farm manufacturing business is for the town of Portland in south-west Victoria.
As the state’s traditional manufacturing base continues to decline, jobseekers and the wider economy are looking for the jobs of the future.
Six months ago, Mr Garner’s Keppel Prince Engineering facility lay idle under the Federal Government’s freeze on new wind energy investment and former prime minister Tony Abbott’s desire to reduce the growth rate of what he labelled as “visually awful” wind farms.
Now, under a new Clean Energy Finance Corporation mandate, the production line at Keppel Prince is back up and running with about 300 workers making towers for a project near Ararat.
It has come just in time for Portland, which is facing the possibility of life without its major employer……
“the stronger we can grow something like this [facility], that actually does create a lot of jobs, the better off we’re going to be.
“And if we get government support to do that, we’ve then got a sustainable business for a long period of time.”…
New-wave tech replacing manufacturing of old
High-tech industries are springing up to utilise some of the skilled workers coming out of the automotive industry but in order to remain globally competitive, this new wave of advanced manufacturers cannot afford to be as labour-intensive as the companies of old…….http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-06-05/high-tech,-clean-energy-jobs-the-key-to-geelong-future/7476816
Fantastic news! Port Augusta’s opportunity to become a world class solar energy hub
Revealed: Proposal for $1.2bn solar thermal power plant at Port Augusta June 4, 2016 http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/revealed-proposal-for-12bn-solar-thermal-power-plant-at-port-augusta/news-story/58e18b826e4ecedfb57a9d11dc5fe7ba Sheradyn Holderhead Tory Shepherd A NEW proposal for a $1.2 billion solar thermal plant at Port Augusta, backed by former federal Liberal leader Dr John Hewson, can be revealed by The Advertiser just weeks after the city was hit with the closure of its power station.
Solastor Australia will next week unveil its plans to build a solar thermal power station with a generation capacity up to 170 megawatts and energy storage capabilities, The Advertiser has discovered.
While details of the project remain secret until an official announcement on Tuesday, a similar proposal from US company SolarReserve would create up to 1000 jobs during construction and about 50 permanent jobs.
Solastor Australia chairman Dr Hewson will reveal the company intends to build a fully integrated, solar thermal power station and energy storage system to provide SA with “24/7 base load and peak load generation”.
“We’ll be announcing it all on Tuesday,” he said last night. “This is world-class. We think this is something we can roll out not only across Australia but internationally. It’s Australian technology, it gives Australia a real edge … in actually being able to turn sunlight into effective baseload energy.”
The Advertiser understands behind-the-scenes work on the proposal has been underway for months. The company has a plant in China and has been working in the Middle East.
And Solastor believes that it can produce affordable energy from the plant. In a statement, Solastor Australia said the proposed power station would cost about $1.2 billion and would have a generation capacity of 110mW in winter and 170mW in summer.
“Once completed, it will generate approximately 1.25 billion kilowatt hours of electricity per annum, which is sufficient to provide power to more than 200,000 Australian homes,” the statement said.
Both Federal and State governments are aware of the plans — and consider it to be a legitimate proposal.
Last month, Federal Environment Minister Greg Hunt promised financial support for the 110mW SolarReserve project, which until now was the only publicly known proposal for a solar thermal plant at Port Augusta.
Port Augusta mayor Sam Johnson said the second proposal was “fantastic news” and, along with four other renewable energy projects, was the “saving grace” for the town and the state’s economy.
“This reinforces comments in the past that Port Augusta will be the renewable capital of Australia,” he said. “This would be South Australia and Australia transitioning to a new world and would be a saving grace for Port Augusta and the SA economy.”
Mr Johnson said this proposal was the fifth renewable energy power station plan, which also included two 100mW solar panel farms, and a combined wind turbine and solar panel farm, the approval of which was expected to be announced next week
These projects will support Arrium and the skilled workforce we have, as well as benefiting small business throughout the region,” Mr Johnson said. “All up these projects would replace the generation from the coal-powered plant.” Repower Port Augusta campaigner Dan Spencer said it was great news that more companies were coming forward with proposals.
“Port Augusta really has the opportunity to become a renewable energy hub,” he said.
“More and more proponents are coming forward and saying they want to invest which is really exciting.
“There’s no reason we couldn’t see both these solar projects get built. The more projects, the more investment, the more clean energy.”
In April a Repower Port Augusta-commissioned ReachTEL poll of 1195 people showed that three-quarters believed the Federal Government should help fund the construction of a solar thermal power plant at Port Augusta.
Submission time again – this time to South Australian Parliamentary Committee
JOINT COMMITTEE ON FINDINGS OF THE NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE ROYAL COMMISSION
South Australian ‘Citizens’ Jury’ to kick off expensive nuclear publicity juggernaut
Jay Weatherill launches a nuclear propaganda juggernaut, Independent Australia 1 June 2016, Noel Wauchope examines Jay Weatherill’s elaborate publicity campaign featuring so-called “citizens’ juries” ahead of a nuclear waste dump in South Australia.
SOUTH AUSTRALIAN Premier Jay Weatherill is launching an all out campaign to inform the public about the recent Nuclear Fuel Chain Royal Commission‘s plan for a global nuclear waste importing industry.
This is all going to be terribly democratic, we are told. There will be “citizens’ jury” meetings on 25-26 June and 9-10 July.
I am, in fact, in favour of the citizens’ jury idea. Instead of us being “talked down” to by experts (who are likely to have a vested interest in the nuclear waste import plan), ordinary non-experts hear all the evidence and opposing opinions, discuss these and come up with a sensible verdict……
My first problem with the South Australian citizens’ juries on nuclear waste importing is that the first jury isn’t given a true jury role.
The letter sent to potential jury participants says that their task will be to:
‘… produce an independent guide to help every South Australian understand the recommendations raised by the Royal Commission’s report.’
This jury will not produce a verdict on whether or not the jury thinks that the nuclear waste import plan should go ahead….It is going to provide material for the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission‘s information campaign. And how will this jury gather this information? Well, it will presumably be informed by the newly created Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission Consultation and Response Agency — about which nobody seems to know anything. Who are the members?……
There are other questions as to its role. A citizens’ jury is supposed to have an independent advisory panel. Who will be on this panel? It’s also supposed to have an independent monitor supervising its meetings. Who will this be? The jury will hear expert witnesses. Who will they be? And where will the jury get its documentary information? How transparent will this citizens’ jury be?
One comforting thought is that newDemocracy’s reputation is at stake if their jury process is seen to be unfair. However, will they be able to withstand the pro-nuclear pressure from the Weatherill Government and Kevin Scarce‘s Royal Commission crew?……
Meanwhile, Jay Weatherill has wasted no time in setting out the rest of the process that will follow this first Citizens’ Jury meeting….
This again raises those questions about just who will be informing the public, with what materials and so forth. And there’s another great question that nobody seems keen to answer.
How much is this nuclear publicity juggernaut going to cost taxpayers? https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/jay-weatherill-launches-a-nuclear-propaganda-juggernaut,9055
Globally unprecedented scale of Nuclear waste shipments target Australia:
Nuclear Waste Brief by David Noonan, Independent Environment Campaigner. 3 June 16 An un-declared Australia port is targeted to receive a globally unprecedented scale of high level nuclear waste transport and shipping, facing some 100 000 tonnes of SNF waste over a circa 33 year period of proposed peak Nuclear port operations from project Year 11 to Year 45 (Jacobs MCM, Executive Summary, Figure 3 Timeline of spent fuel transfers, p.5).
This is some 25 per cent higher than the global total of 80 000 tonnes of SNF waste shipped around the world in a 45 year period since 1971 according to the World Nuclear Association report “Transport of Radioactive Materials” (Sept 2015) and the Jacobs MCM consultancy (p.152).
A total of 30 000 tonnes of high level nuclear wastes were shipped to the UK Sellafield reprocessing facility and a total of 40 000 tonnes was shipped to the French La Hague reprocessing facility, by far the world’s largest nuclear ports, in the 45 year period since 1971 (WNA report).
An undeclared Australian port is targeted to take over three times the total tonnage of high level nuclear waste shipped to Sellafield and two and a half times the total tonnage shipped to La Hague.
Some 400 waste ships of high level nuclear waste, totalling 90 000 tonnes SNF waste and requiring 9 000 transport casks, are to be brought into Australia in a 30 year period of peak port operations.
In a comparable 30 year period, there were some 160 high level nuclear waste shipments from Japan to Europe from 1969 to late 1990’s, totalling 7 040 tonnes SNF waste and involving some 4 000 nuclear waste transport casks (WNA report).
Sweden has shipped over 4 500 tonnes SNF waste around the Swedish coast to their CLAB central interim storage facility by mid-2015 (WNA report). Australia is proposed to do so every 18 months.
Questions on the location of a Nuclear port and on the safety of waste shipments:
The SA State government must publicly explain the basis for the farcical claim made by Jacobs MCM (Introduction p.11) of “an abundance of locations” suitable for deep sea Nuclear port sites in SA.
Is a new deep sea Nuclear port and high level SNF waste storage site to be imposed in the coastal region south of Whyalla? Or as reported in The Australian “World’s nuke waste may pass through NT, SA” (12 May 2016): Is the Port of Darwin also in the Nuclear target range?
The Final Report Concludes: “…if a cask was lost at sea and was irrecoverable, there is a potential for some members of the public consuming locally sourced seafood to receive a very small dose of radiation”; and Concludes that terrorist attack scenarios are conceivable and rocket attack has the greatest potential to cause a release of radiation (Appendix L – Transport risk analysis p.312).
A further Jacobs MCM desk top Concludes that radioactivity that escapes from an unrecovered and degrading cask is expected “to be diluted in thousands of cubic kilometres of seawater” (“Safety and risks in the transportation of radioactive material to and from Australia”, April 2016, p.50). see http://www.nodumpalliance.org.au/
New DemocracyCo’s co-CEO Emily Jenke says Citizens’ Jury not about manufacturing nuclear consent
Nuclear jury about the big picture, not manufacturing consent. InDaily, Tom Richardson, 3 June 16 The citizens’ jury beginning this month to debate South Australia’s nuclear future is not an attempt to manufacture the “social consent” alluded to by Royal Commissioner Kevin Scarce, but a bid to establish whether it exists, says one of the architects of the forum.
InDaily can reveal that SA-based startup DemocracyCo has won the tender to deliver the first of the two planned Citizens’ Juries, to be held over two weekends, beginning on June 25.
The company, which also convened last year’s forum on dog and cat management, will oversee a randomly-selected congregation of 50 South Australians to ponder issues surrounding the prospective local establishment of a high-level nuclear waste dump. The jury selection process was conducted by a separate company, the Sydney-based New Democracy Foundation.
New DemocracyCo’s co-CEO Emily Jenke told InDaily the process was part of a broader body of work whose aim was not to engineer public support, but to “get an understanding by the end of the year as to whether the community are comfortable continuing this discussion”.
“This process… is about understanding; it’s not trying to build social consent, but understanding whether it’s there or not,” Jenke said. Continue reading
Senator Jacqui Lambie comes out fully supporting the nuclear industry
NUCLEAR POWER https://twitter.com/JacquiLambie
JLN notes that should the majority of Australians agree to allow the establishment of a home-grown industry of nuclear power generation; this of course will significantly de-carbonise our base-load national energy supply and achieve the same purpose as a carbon tax or ETS for the environment, while keeping the cost of electricity low and competitive with our major trading partners.
JLN notes that Australia has more than 30% of the world’s known uranium resources and has the potential to become the new Saudi Arabia of the 21stCentury, which continues to embrace the rapidly advancing technologies and new safer methods of nuclear power generation.
Labor’s community solar hubs would benefit renters and pensioners
As of February this year, more than 1.5 million Australian homes had rooftop solar panels. But Labor believes gaps exist among households unable to access the technology, such as renters, public housing tenants and apartment dwellers.
The community power hubs would work with communities to develop renewable projects by providing legal and technical expertise and start-up funding.
Projects might include community wind farms, “solar gardens” or shared arrays of solar panels for groups of renters, retrofitting social housing to promote energy efficiency and encouraging solar rooftop installations on social housing and aged-care properties.
The hubs may also provide finance for low-income earners and pensioners, such as by using council rates as financial contributions for projects.
‘Solar revolution’: Labor climate plan warms up to renters, pensioners http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/solar-revolution-labor-climate-plan-warms-up-to-renters-pensioners-20160601-gp8sc8.html June 1, 2016 Nicole Hasham Environment and immigration correspondent Groups of renters could share a “garden” of solar panels and the technology would be encouraged in public housing and aged-care homes in a $98.7 million Labor push to bring the “solar revolution” to those who do not own their homes.
The details came as the Greens announced a plan to double the number of paid firefighters to battle extreme bushfires, saying renewable energy is important but the effects of global warming are already being felt.
Fairfax Media polling this month showed two-thirds of voters believe the federal government is doing “not very much” or “nothing at all” to combat climate change, and Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull’s adherence to policies of the former Abbott administration has been interpreted as a trigger for a fall in his popular appeal ahead of the July 2 election.
In Brisbane on Wednesday, Opposition Leader Bill Shorten spruiked a Labor plan to create up to 10 “community power hubs” to allow more people to access renewable energy. Labor previously flagged the measure in the release of its broader climate election policies in April. Continue reading
Labor’s renewable energy plan won’t cost taxpayers – Shorten
No net cost for renewable plan: Labor, SBS News 2 June 16 Bill Shorten insists his plan to have government departments and agencies run on 50 per cent renewables won’t cost taxpayers. Bill Shorten insists a plan to force commonwealth agencies to run on 50 per cent renewable energy will have no net cost.
But the opposition leader won’t say if the policy has been costed, relying on a government-commissioned report that found renewable energy puts downward pressure on power prices. He’s also banking on technology getting cheaper before 2030. “There’ll be no net cost,” Mr Shorten told reporters in Sydney on Thursday. “I know if you want an economic plan you’ve got to have a plan for climate change.”……..
Mr Shorten referenced an Abbott-government initiated review into the Renewable Energy Target – which recommended the policy be pared back – as proof there would be no net cost.
The RET was subsequently slashed from 41,000 gigawatt hours to 33,500 by 2020, after a lengthy stand-off between the coalition and Labor. Investment in the sector fell 88 per cent last year as a result.
Labor wants half of all Australian energy to come from renewables by 2030, while the coalition is yet to reveal a goal past 2020.
Many commonwealth services were in the ACT, which was already sourcing renewable energy, Mr Shorten said. http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2016/06/02/no-net-cost-renewable-plan-labor
Coalition electorates have highest proportion of solar powered homes
Liberal electorates have the highest proportion of voters who rely on solar power, and Australians using solar power are more likely to be in rural and regional marginal electorates…. (subscribers only)
http://www.afr.com/news/politics/election/coalition-electorates-have-highest-proportion-of-solar-powered-homes-20160601-gp95wc
Labor will not support Adani’s proposed $16 billion Carmichael coalmine
Not up to me to support $16 billion Adani coalmine: Shorten Opposition Leader Bill Shorten says it’s not up to him to support Adani’s proposed $16 billion Carmichael coalmine. SBS News, 1 June 16 Opposition Leader Bill Shorten has refused to throw his support behind the controversial Adani coalmine and says federal Labor would not spend any public money to help the massive project.Mr Shorten said the future of the $16 billion Adani project in Queensland’s Galilee Basin was in the hands of investors.
“When you ask if I support it, it’s not up to me to support a particular business enterprise. Whether or not the Adani coalmine goes ahead will be up to the investors of Adani,” he told ABC radio in Brisbane.
“We won’t be expending any commonwealth resources on the Adani mine.”……
Labor on Wednesday pledged $100 million to help get community renewable energy projects off the ground…….http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2016/06/01/not-me-support-16-billion-adani-coalmine-shorten
Infrastructure Victoria draft report includes nuclear power as an option
‘Bicycle highways’ through Melbourne CBD backed by cycling advocate, ABC News, 2 June 16 “….Infrastructure Victoria has proposed the cycle “highways” at a cost of $100 million, one of more than 200 ideas put forward in an options paper looking at state projects for the next 30 years…..
Nuclear port in Australia to receive and store High level Nuclear Wastes
The first high level nuclear waste shipment imposes untenable & unfunded liabilities on Australia, without a disposal capacity or even a site, and facing proposed decades of above ground storage.
David Noonan, 3 June 16 Nuclear port in Australia to store High level Nuclear wastes and receive waste ships every 24 to 30 days for decades:
The SA Nuclear Royal Commission Final Report (9 May 2016, 16 Mb) recommends a deep sea Nuclear port in Australia to receive an average 3 000 tonnes of high level Spent Nuclear Fuel (SNF) waste per year throughout the first three decades of proposed operations.
“In summary, the report recommends: Management, storage and disposal of waste, Recommendation: Pursue a purpose-built waste storage and disposal facility for used nuclear fuel. … The Commission’s firm conclusion is that this opportunity should be actively pursued, and as soon as possible.” (Nuclear Commission, Report Delivered, 9 May)
The Nuclear Commission report is based on a desk top nuclear waste consultancy “Radioactive waste storage and disposal facilities in SA” (Feb 2016) by Jacobs MCM, stating baseline requirements for:
the proposed Nuclear port is to take a total of 138 000 tonnes of high level nuclear waste (equivalent to 1/3 of total global SNF waste) over some 70 years from Project Year 11;
a “dedicated port facility specifically developed to transfer the canisters from the delivery ship to rail for transportation to the facility site” stating a “greenfield port is proposed”, with an allowance of A$100 million in baseline costs for the development of the port.
(Jacobs MCM, Enabling infrastructure, Port facilities, p.136);
“…estimated receivals of 3,000 tonne of SNF per year. With typical capacity per cask of 10 tonnes , this translates as 300 casks per year, requiring 12-15 sailings (nuclear waste shipments) per annum, meaning one ship each 24-30 days on average.” At 200 – 250 tonnes SNF waste per ship.(Jacobs MCM, Immediate port receival laydown area, p.170);
the proposed Nuclear port is to store high level nuclear waste on site, with a “minimum immediate port storage capacity for casks unloaded from ships suggested as 28 waste casks” required a storage capacity of some 280 tonnes of high level SNF waste, at an average timeline of 10-12 days to clear a shipment of 20 waste casks from the port (p.170). A loaded high level nuclear waste transport cask weighs in range of 100 to 140 tonnes (by type);
In addition, the proposed Nuclear port is required to receive some 390 000 cubic metres of intermediate level nuclear wastes. At a rate of 10 000 m3 per year for the first 28 years of operations (equating to circa 600 x OSO shipping containers per year) stepping down to circa 4 000 m3 per year over the following proposed 24 years of port operations (p.161 and 172).
The proposed Nuclear port is itself to become a high level nuclear waste dump holding SNF wastes (280 tonnes) equivalent to some 14 years operations of a nuclear power reactor. “A typical nuclear power plant in a year generates 20 metric tons of used nuclear fuel” (US Nuclear Energy Institute).
The first high level nuclear waste shipment imposes untenable & unfunded liabilities on Australia, without a disposal capacity or even a site, and facing proposed decades of above ground storage.
1 This month
Help Aunty Sue Protect Her Land and Sacred Sites From Destructive Rocket Testing.
.
Australians deserve the truth
about
AUKUS – https://aukuspublicinquiry.com/
PETITION – To: Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and the Australian Labor Government
of the week – Australians for War Powers Reform (AWPR)
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
