Property values in Kimba? Not so good, since the town agreed to host a nuclear waste dump.
Paul Waldon 23 May 23
When the fear of nuclear waste came to Kimba, the nuclear coterie commission a report.
“Points of claim taken from, The University of Queensland, final report November 2018.”
• Value in the residential housing market has fallen by 30-40% over the past 5 years
• As of July 2018, 35 residential properties were listed for sale compared with an historical average of 10-15.
• Perceptions are that not many people are moving to Kimba from outside the wider region.
• The rental market is currently stagnant, with local landlords indicating a reduction of over 10- 20% in weekly rental rates required to attract tenants
• No new residential housing construction has occurred in the past 3 year
This is a sign of a town floundering, a town dying, a town with no future as long as it embraces the ideal of nuclear waste.
AUKUS may turn out to be the largest financial swindle perpetrated by the United States and the United Kingdom against Australia and other Asia Pacific nations
Now, it appears that Australia is becoming yet another naval base for the deployment of US and British fleets in the Asia-Pacific Region, including the basing of US nuclear submarines in 2026, without any hope of restoring economic ties with China and, consequently, the prior level of welfare in the near future. This is in addition to paying “compensation” under the guise of investing in unfeasible defense plans.
https://journal-neo.org/2023/05/20/aukus-may-turn-out-to-be-the-largest-financial-swindle-perpetrated-by-the-united-states-and-the-united-kingdom-against-australia-and-other-asia-pacific-nations/ 20.05.2023 Author: Bakhtiar Urusov
Equipment for the country’s ground forces “arrives with depressing regularity,” years behind time, and substantially over budget, according to a report issued on April 19 by the British Parliament’s Budgetary Control Committee. For instance, the programs, which provide new Ajax armored fighting vehicles and Morpheus tactical communication and information systems, have faced significant difficulties. According to the MPs’ assessment, the issue is made worse by underfunding of the defense budget expenditures and the pound’s declining purchasing value in relation to the dollar.
Ten days later, on April 28 this year, the Royal Navy informed the public about the decision to decommission the HMS Prince of Wales aircraft carrier, launched just four years ago (in 2019), to be used as a donor for spare parts for the HMS Queen Elizabeth aircraft carrier of the same class. According to the Royal Navy, the $3.72 billion aircraft carrier has docked more frequently than it has participated in naval operations, and the most recent maintenance cost $42 million.
This dispiriting news came just a month after the leaders of the US, the UK, and Australia had disclosed their ambitious long-term plans to build a nuclear-powered submarine fleet for Canberra on the basis of British technology, which will cost the Australian budget $245 billion.
When it comes to extremely sophisticated projects like nuclear submarines, it seems inconceivable that the parties involved would be so irresponsible as to neglect to evaluate the contractors’ capacity to meet their obligations. Still, if you trust the claims made by senior US, British, and Australian officials, the opposite is true in the case of AUKUS. Canberra would never have consented to work together on submarine design and construction with Great Britain’s waning technological strength otherwise. The example of the HMS Prince of Wales aircraft carrier shows that not only is Great Britain unable to complete a big naval project, but it is also facing significant technological difficulties in order to satisfy present ambitions for defense construction and equipment upgrades.
In the realm of economic crime, assigning work to a contractor who is known to be unable to perform is fraud, money laundering, or corruption.
In the context of Anglo-Saxon big politics, this appears to be retaliation against a certain sector of Australia’s elites for Canberra’s departure from a coordinated approach to restrain the PRC back in the day. This is primarily about the carefree era when Australia and China’s trading and economic relations remained unbroken, providing Canberra with significant revenue from exports to the PRC of a wide range of items, from wine and agricultural products to hard coal and other minerals.
Now, it appears that Australia is becoming yet another naval base for the deployment of US and British fleets in the Asia-Pacific Region, including the basing of US nuclear submarines in 2026, without any hope of restoring economic ties with China and, consequently, the prior level of welfare in the near future. This is in addition to paying “compensation” under the guise of investing in unfeasible defense plans.
All nations, including India, Japan, the Republic of Korea, New Zealand, and some ASEAN members that have been invited to participate in the AUKUS, should take a closer look at this alliance.
Bakhtiar Urusov, a political observer, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
‘Extremely difficult’ for nuclear energy to ever have a future in Australia- says Secretary of pro nuclear union
Outgoing Australian Workers Union national secretary Daniel Walton says he has witnessed “the pressures businesses have been under” with energy for the last decade……….
He said he has tried to take a “pragmatic view to finding energy solutions”.
“I think for nuclear, as much as I saw it as a fantastic opportunity, I think it’s genuinely going to be extremely difficult for it to ever have a future in Australia.” https://www.skynews.com.au/business/energy/extremely-difficult-for-nuclear-energy-to-ever-have-a-future-in-australia/video/ca2d728160fae4f6faa9e9956bca5b71
Government gutted as PwC, Big 4 pick up $1.4b a year for giving advice
I did read where Australia’s Defence Minister Richard Marles was actually thanking PWC for their advice in the AUKUS deal to purchase nuclear submarines. But unfortunately now I cannot find that anywhere on the Internet
by Michael West | May 22, 2023 | What’s the scam? https://michaelwest.com.au/government-gutted-as-pwc-big-4-pick-up-1-4b-a-year-for-giving-advice/
The Centre for Public Integrity has published analysis of political donations and government contract work for Big 4 firms EY, KPMG, Deloitte and PwC. What’s the scam?
The scam is legalised corruption on an industrial scale, a $1.4b a year scale. In Booming Business for Big Four Comes At a High Cost, the Centre has issued a tight bit of analysis but nothing we haven’t been rabbiting on about for years: rising donations, surging income from the outsourcing of government.
The Centre labels the return of billions in consulting work in return for millions in donations the “Return on Investment”. Say no more … except that one thing missing is here that the Big4 are partnerships, opaque structures which means they have no responsibility to disclose anything about their financials.
The government could insist they incorporate. It could whack a withholding tax on them which could withhold tax in the event of mischief, it could stop them buying lawyers to use ‘legal professional privilege’ to stonewall the Tax Office in litigation. And much more. It could act decisively on the PwC scandal. Has the Commonwealth DPP been briefed as to charges for the dozens of partners involved in selling Commonwealth secrets to multinational tax avoiders?
Albanese urged to take stand against nuclear weapons during G7 summit in Hiroshima
International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons wants Labor to send a ‘message to the region’ and sign and ratify a treaty to impose a ban on atomic weapons
Guardian Daniel Hurst 19 May 23
Anthony Albanese is being urged to take a firm stand against nuclear weapons when he attends the G7 summit in Hiroshima this weekend.
The prime minister has been invited to attend the summit in Hiroshima, which along with Nagasaki was devastated by the US atomic bombing in the closing stages of the second world war.
Albanese is due to arrive in the city on Friday afternoon and will join the mayor of Hiroshima for a visit to the Peace Memorial Park, including the ruins of the former industrial promotion hall now known as the A-bomb dome.
A Nobel prize-winning group, the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (Ican), has written to Albanese to urge him to make good on Labor’s promise to join a new treaty to impose an outright ban on nuclear weapons.
The party platform said a Labor government would sign and ratify the treaty, after taking account of factors including the need to work to achieve universal international support.
Ican cited Albanese’s speech championing the treaty in 2018 when he denounced nuclear weapons as “the most destructive, inhumane and indiscriminate weapons ever created”.
“At the 2018 National Labor Conference, you showed what strong leadership on this issue looks like,” said the letter from the co-chairs of Ican Australia, Dr Margaret Beavis and Associate Prof Marianne Hanson.
“You now have the unique responsibility to show the world once again what leadership on this critical issue looks like.
“We urge you to take the opportunity to advance Australia’s position on this treaty when you visit Hiroshima.”
The letter argued the acquisition of nuclear-propelled, conventionally armed submarines under Aukus “sharpens the need for a binding and permanent commitment that Australia will not possess, host or assist with the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons now or in the future”.
The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) is a relatively new treaty that imposes a blanket ban on developing, testing, stockpiling, using or threatening to use nuclear weapons – or helping other countries to carry out such activities.
The TPNW now has 92 signatories, 68 of which have formally ratified it. But it is opposed by the United States and other nuclear weapons states, which argue it is out of step with international security realities.
The former Morrison government said the treaty’s terms were inconsistent with Australia’s obligations under the US alliance.
In November, the US embassy in Canberra warned that the TPNW “would not allow for US extended deterrence relationships, which are still necessary for international peace and security”.
Talei Mangioni, 29, who is a PhD candidate at the Australian National University’s School of Culture, History and Language, addressed a youth summit in Hiroshima late last month. She hopes Albanese makes progress on the issue.
The Ican Australia board member said she was touched to hear directly from hibakusha (survivor) Keiko Ogura about the “invisible scars” of the 1945 bombing and about visits to Japan by Pacific activists in the 1980s.
“At the moment Australia is really out of step with the rest of the region,” said Mangioni, who is of Fijian and Italian descent and whose research focuses on the Nuclear Free and Independent Pacific Movement.
“Most Pacific countries have either signed or ratified the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. If he were to commit to the TPNW, I think it would send a great message to the region. The nuclear test legacy is a very serious issue in the Pacific and also for Aboriginal communities in Australia.”
During the Albanese government’s first year in office, Australia has taken some cautious steps to engage with the TPNW, including sending a backbencher as an observer to the first meeting of the parties in Vienna last June.
Australia followed that up by shifting its position at a UN committee in October to “abstain” after five years of actively opposing the treaty under the Coalition.
But Albanese and senior ministers have avoided giving a clear timetable for joining the TPNW……………………………… https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/may/19/albanese-urged-to-take-stand-against-nuclear-weapons-during-g7-summit-in-hiroshima
Coalition clown show on nuclear on full display in Senate inquiry
A Senate nuclear power inquiry held its only public hearing on Monday. For the most part it was an opportunity for Coalition Senators to express their furious agreement with misinformation fed to them by pro-nuclear witnesses.
Jim Green 17 May 2023 2023, https://reneweconomy.com.au/coalition-clown-show-on-nuclear-on-full-display-in-senate-inquiry/
And it was an opportunity for culture warriors Matt Canavan and NSW Senator Hollie Hughes (Shadow Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) to compete with each other to see who could get the most column-inches in the Murdoch tabloids and the most air-time on Murdoch’s Sky TV.
Canavan said he is getting fitted out for a koala suit to protest the loss of habitat due to wind farms. His laptop was adorned with a ‘Proudly powered by Aussie coal’ sticker even though he was in the ACT, which is proudly 100 per cent net renewable powered.
Hughes insisted that federal legislation banning nuclear power is “ridiculous” and “embarrassing”. That would be the legislation introduced by John Howard’s Coalition government and left untouched by the Abbott, Turnbull and Morrison Coalition governments.
The Murdoch media dutifully parroted pro-nuclear nonsense from Monday’s hearing. But to his credit, News Corp’s national weekend political editor James Campbell noted that those “who seem keenest on nuclear energy as a solution to our climate change problems tend in many cases to be exactly the same people who up until five minutes ago were confidently telling us we didn’t need to worry about climate change at all.”
Hughes said last year that climate change is a “luxury issue”, that she opposed stronger emissions reduction targets, and that: “We could shut everything down tomorrow and all go live in trees.” As the Murdoch press noted, this was coming from the Coalition’s second most senior climate change spokesperson.
Public opinion
It was clear from Monday’s hearing that Coalition culture warriors are suffering under the delusion that nuclear power is popular, based on polls with loaded questions and/or tiny sample sizes.
The culture warriors are unaware of, or indifferent to, polls which find that support for nuclear power plummets if the question is posed as a local issue. A 2019 poll found that 28 percent of respondents “would be comfortable living close to a nuclear power plant” while 60 percent would not.
Another 2019 poll found that 19 percent of respondents would agree to a nuclear power plant being built in their area, 58 percent would be opposed and a further 23 percent would be “anxious”.
Inexplicably, Canavan said you “could call nuclear the great unifier”. In fact, the Howard government thought that promoting nuclear would be a great way to divide Labor and to divide the environment movement. It did neither, but it divided the Coalition with at least 22 Coalition candidates publicly distancing themselves from the government’s pro-nuclear policy during the 2007 election campaign.
More recently, Coalition members involved in a 2019 nuclear inquiry had to deal with submissions opposing nuclear power by the SA and Tasmanian Liberal/Coalition governments and the Queensland Liberal-National Party. Labor and environment groups were united in their opposition to nuclear power.
Each new generation of Coalition culture warriors needs to learn afresh that nuclear divides the Coalition, not Labor or the environment movement.
Small modular reactors
Attacking CSIRO for its GenCost nuclear cost estimates was a recurring theme at Monday’s hearing. CSIRO was accused of “cherry picking”, “misleading” the public, research which “doesn’t have much bearing on the real world”, and a “very incomplete process”.
Hughes said it is “misleading and deceptive” for CSIRO to cost small modular reactors (SMRs) but not large reactors. CSIRO doesn’t cost large reactors because the 2019 Coalition-led inquiry recommended retaining legislation banning large reactors. Ted O’Brien — chair of the 2019 inquiry and now the Shadow Minister for Climate Change and Energy — said “Australia should say a definite ‘no’ to old nuclear technologies”.
The Coalition culture warriors weren’t the least bit concerned about the difficulty of costing technologies which have no meaningful existence. Only two SMRs exist, one each in China and Russia, and those reactors don’t fit the SMR definition of serial factory construction of reactor modules.
The culture warriors were insistent that CSIRO should give much greater weight to ‘expert’ cost estimates, by which they mean vendor estimates. So let’s have a look at the track record of vendor estimates. The cost of China’s SMR was 2-3 times higher than early estimates. The cost of Russia’s SMR increased six-fold. The cost of the still-incomplete SMR in Argentina is more than 20 times higher than early estimates.
For large reactors, cost estimates for the only reactors under construction in the US have increased 12-fold. Cost estimates for the only reactors under construction in the UK have increased 8-fold. Cost estimates for the only reactor under construction in France have increased 6-fold. The current cost estimates for reactors under construction in those three countries range from A$25 billion to A$30 billion per reactor.
Yet the Coalition culture warriors think that vendor estimates should be taken as gospel and should underpin public policy making in Australia. CSIRO’s Paul Graham responded drily to the barrage of abuse: “We regard vendor estimates as the lowest quality data.
NuScale
One witness told the Senate committee that US company NuScale estimates a cost of $4,200 per kilowatt for its SMR. In fact, NuScale’s latest estimate is A$30,000 per kilowatt (A$14 billion for a 462 megawatt plant). Despite lavish government subsidies amounting to A$6.3 billion, NuScale is struggling to secure private-sector finance to get the project off the ground.
NuScale’s history can be traced to the turn of the century but it hasn’t even begun construction of a single reactor. Likewise, Argentina’s SMR project can be traced back to the last millennium but it hasn’t completed construction of a single reactor.
In 1990, the Coalition’s energy spokesperson claimed that “new-generation reactors … are now coming into use”. A third of a century later, and we’re still waiting.
James Voss, Managing Director of Ultra Safe Nuclear Australia Pty Ltd, falsely claimed at Monday’s Senate hearing that the company is building SMRs in North America (“our first two plants that we’re building now”). The company still needs licensing approvals and funding before it begins construction.
Voss claimed that the there should be no taxpayer subsidies to facilitate the introduction of SMRs to Australia — but the company would not have made the progress it has in North America without taxpayer subsidies and other forms of government support, and it will grind to a halt without further subsidies and support.
The British government in the mid-2000s insisted that new nuclear plants would not be subsidised. But the UK National Audit Office estimates that taxpayer subsidies for Hinkley Point — the only reactor construction project in the UK — could amount to £30 billion (A$52.5 billion) while other credible estimates put the figure as high as £48.3 billion (A$84.5 billion).
Minerals Council of Australia chief executive Tania Constable told the Senate committee there is no difference between SMRs and nuclear-powered submarine reactors. If that were the case the US and the UK — Australia’s AUKUS partners — would have plenty of SMRs given that they have nuclear-powered submarines. They have none.
History repeating itself
Historically, Coalition leaders have backed off nuclear power in the lead-up to elections. The Howard government wrapped up the Switkowski nuclear inquiry in unseemly haste in late-2006, and tried to avoid the issue in the 2007 election year.
The Morrison government didn’t even bother to respond to the December 2019 Coalition-led nuclear inquiry. Nor did the government act on the inquiry’s recommendation to amend legislation to allow for the construction of “new and emerging” nuclear power technologies.
When announcing the AUKUS agreement, Morrison insisted that nuclear powered submarines wouldn’t lead to a domestic nuclear industry in Australia.
But under Peter Dutton, who was spruiking SMRs in his budget reply speech, the Coalition has gone so far down the nuclear rabbit-hole that it will have little choice but to promise to repeal legislation banning nuclear power if it wins the next election.
The Coalition will lose the election, ditch the nuclear policy and probably ditch the leader as well – 2007 all over again.
Then the next batch of Coalition warriors will come up with the bright idea of dividing Labor and the environment movement by promoting nuclear power. Rinse and repeat.
Dr Jim Green is the national nuclear campaigner with Friends of the Earth Australia and lead author of a detailed submission to the Senate inquiry.
Pentagon seeks authority to transfer nuclear submarines (and costs) to Australia
Finally, the Pentagon is also asking Congress for permission to accept Australian payments to bolster the U.S. submarine industrial base. Australia has offered to make an undisclosed sum of investments in the U.S. submarine industrial base as part of AUKUS.
Defense News, By Bryant Harris and Megan Eckstein 17 May 23
WASHINGTON — The U.S. Department of Defense asked Congress to authorize the transfer of nuclear-powered submarines to Australia as part of the trilateral AUKUS agreement with the U.K.
Three legislative proposals, submitted on May 2 and first posted online Tuesday, would greenlight the sale of two Virginia-class submarines to Australia, permit the training of Australian nationals for submarine work and allow Canberra to invest in the U.S. submarine industrial base………………
“Importantly, the proposals spell out a clear path forward to facilitate the transfer of Virginia-class submarines to Australia while ensuring we have the necessary authorities to accept the Australian Government’s investments to enhance our submarine industrial base capacity and provide training for Australian personnel.” – Rep. Joe Courtney of Connecticut, the top Democrat on the Armed Services Committee’s sea power panel
AUKUS stipulates that Australia will buy at least three and as many as five Virginia-class submarines in the 2030s as part of phase two of the agreement, giving Congress more than a decade to authorize the sale. This year’s proposal, which the Pentagon hopes will become part of the fiscal 2024 National Defense Authorization Act, asks that Congress approve just two of those submarines “without a deadline to consummate the transfers and without specifying the specific vessels to be transferred.”
The proposal argues that this “small amount of flexibility is necessary” since the transfers depend on Australian readiness to operate the submarines, which will involve developing Australia’s submarine industrial base through training and appropriate shipyard infrastructure.
To that end, a second legislative proposal would authorize U.S. defense service exports directly to Australia’s private sector in order to train its own submarine workers……..
Finally, the Pentagon is also asking Congress for permission to accept Australian payments to bolster the U.S. submarine industrial base. Australia has offered to make an undisclosed sum of investments in the U.S. submarine industrial base as part of AUKUS.
The Pentagon states in the legislative proposal that those funds would be used to “add a significant number of trade workers” that will help address “the significant overhaul backlog” for the Virginia-class submarine. Australian monies would also be used for “advance purchasing of components and materials that are known to be replacement items for submarine overhauls” and “outsourcing less complex sustainment work to local contractors.”
Congress is also making its own investments to expand the U.S. submarine industrial base as the Navy ultimately aims to build two Virginia-class and one Columbia-class submarines per year. Courtney helped secure $541 million in submarine supplier development and $207 million in workforce development initiatives as part of the FY 23 government funding bill.
Austal USA, the American subsidiary of Australia-based Austal, plans to open a new facility at its shipyard in Mobile, Alabama to begin construction on nuclear submarine modules for General Dynamics’ Electric Boat shipyard in Connecticut, which produces both Virginia and Columbia-class submarines. Austal expects it will need 1,000 new hires in Mobile to staff that facility.
At Electric Boat, the prime contractor for the Virginia- and Columbia-class submarine programs, the hiring need will be even greater. The company currently employs more than 19,000 people, after hiring 3,700 new workers in 2022, according to local newspaper The Day. But the company needs to hire 5,750 new workers this year, to manage attrition and to help grow the workforce to about 22,000 to handle the increased workload.
The legislative proposal notes that Australian funds “would be applied to recruitment, training, incentivizing, and retention of key skilled trades, engineering and planning personnel in both nuclear and non-nuclear disciplines that are required by the additional AUKUS workload.” https://www.defensenews.com/congress/2023/05/17/pentagon-seeks-authority-to-transfer-nuclear-submarines-to-australia/
Richard Marles and the ‘seamless’ transfer of Australian sovereignty
Deputy PM wants to ‘break down the barriers’ of defence export controls to create ‘seamless’ trilateral industrial base under AUKUS
MICHELLE FAHY, MAY 18, 2023 https://undueinfluence.substack.com/p/richard-marles-and-the-seamless-transfer?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=297295&post_id=122152210&isFreemail=true&utm_medium=email
Speaking at the American Chamber of Commerce on Wednesday, deputy prime minister and defence minister Richard Marles opened with an anecdote praising a former PricewaterhouseCoopers partner. It was an interesting choice given the tax leaks scandal engulfing PwC, which is making headlines globally, and last week forced the resignation of its Australian CEO.
But Marles was amongst friends. ‘I’m thrilled to be among so many great American companies contributing to Australia.’ He said the Defence Strategic Review had recommended the Defence Department become ‘a better customer’ to defence industry by adopting a new approach to acquisition. Furthermore, ‘the intimate relationship between the US and Australia at a government level implies an opportunity for the private sectors of both our countries.’ Christopher Pyne, yet again present with Marles, was approving.
In his speech, Marles talked about creating a ‘seamless’ defence industrial base between Australia, the United States and the United Kingdom. This will match the ‘seamless’ interoperability of Australian and US military forces, to be enabled by changes to Australia’s defence laws.
There are many national and international laws and treaties regulating defence industry and its exports, which get in the way of ‘seamless’. (Certain US senators want to TORPEDO them.) Marles sees these regulations as ‘barriers’ that need ‘breaking down’ to facilitate AUKUS.
He set the scene for his speech by delivering his oft-used lines:
We are seeing the biggest conventional military build-up in the world since the end of World War Two. And it is happening right here in our region.
Some rarely-reported facts are necessary for context when considering that claim.
Global military expenditure in 2022 was $2.24 trillion. Of that, the United States accounted for $877 billion (39%). China was second, spending $292 billion (13%) and Russia third, $86.4 billion (3.9%). (All US$.) The US outspent the next ten countries combined.
The US also dominates the world in major arms exports. For the period 2018-22, the five largest weapons exporters were the USA (40%), Russia (16%), France (11%), China (5.2%) and Germany (4.2%), who together accounted for three-quarters of all exports. Countries in North America and Europe accounted for 87% of all arms exports.
In Australia, there is remarkably little hard data on our defence industry. Australian Defence Magazine’s annual top 40 defence contractor listing provides the only snapshot.
The defence industry in Australia is dominated by some of the world’s largest multinational arms manufacturers: BAE Systems (UK), Thales (France), Boeing (US), Lockheed Martin (US), Rheinmetall (Germany) and Airbus (Europe). For four of the past five years BAE Systems has been the top contractor and Thales has been second. Boeing has been in the top five each time.
In 2017, an analysis by the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (which also used ADM Top 40 data) showed that over the 20 years from 1995-2015, the largest five firms in any given year accounted for, on average, about 65% of total revenue of arms-related contractors. In a chart for 2015, the top 10 took 82% of the revenue and 91% of revenue went to the top 15, leaving less than 10% for the rest, which is where almost all Australian-owned arms companies exist. Updated research is desperately needed, particularly given the significant sums now flowing into this industry.
On the over-hyped subject of jobs, ASPI’s briefing provided useful data: ‘Defence industry accounts for 0.23% of jobs in Australia, and 2.9% of jobs in the manufacturing sector. In terms of annual revenue, defence industry accounts for 0.22% of Australian industry and 1.7% of the manufacturing sector. So, although Australian defence industry is undoubtedly important for our defence force, it represents only a trifling fraction of the overall Australian economy.’ Again, updated research is needed.
In his speech, Marles said the government’s injection of $3.4 billion into a new Advanced Strategic Capabilities Accelerator will ‘help us start delivering advanced, asymmetric capabilities that benefit not just Australia but the US and the UK. And it will start to build a truly trilateral industrial base across our three countries that will see us more seamlessly transfer the skills, workers, and intellectual property we need.’ Australian taxpayers will support the US and UK industries. Why?
He also spoke of ‘breaking down the barriers’ of export controls to facilitate AUKUS.
While there is a shared mission between our countries and an agreement at the highest levels of our governments, there are significant barriers we must break down across our systems… This is particularly true of our export control regimes.
Regulations around transfers of technology, sensitive information and defence materiel are, of course, understandable.
The lip service to regulations being ‘understandable’ was immediately followed by:
But what is really clear is that if we are to realise the ambition of AUKUS, the transfer of technology and information between Australia and the US needs to be seamless…
Australia is committed to breaking down these barriers in our own system while maintaining the robust regulatory and legal frameworks to protect these transfers
The defence minister did not explain how regulatory control could be broken down while concurrently maintaining a robust regulatory framework.
Australia’s defence industry is already dominated by multinational US and UK arms corporations. Local industry (including local subsidiaries of global giants) has been historically lucky if it gained one third of defence acquisition spend, the remainder heading offshore.
If the government removes most of the regulation and creates a ‘seamless’ trilateral industrial base, it is hard to see how anything other than even greater flows offshore to the multinationals will eventuate, despite the political spin.
But what is really clear is that if we are to realise the ambition of AUKUS, the transfer of technology and information between Australia and the US needs to be seamless…
Australia is committed to breaking down these barriers in our own system while maintaining the robust regulatory and legal frameworks to protect these transfers.
The defence minister did not explain how regulatory control could be broken down while concurrently maintaining a robust regulatory framework.
Australia’s defence industry is already dominated by multinational US and UK arms corporations. Local industry (including local subsidiaries of global giants) has been historically lucky if it gained one third of defence acquisition spend, the remainder heading offshore.
If the government removes most of the regulation and creates a ‘seamless’ trilateral industrial base, it is hard to see how anything other than even greater flows offshore to the multinationals will eventuate, despite the political spin.
Labor, Greens & Defence Experts call for AUKUS Parliamentary Inquiry
A range of high-profile politicians, former military leaders and academic experts have signed an open letter calling for a Parliamentary Inquiry into the AUKUS nuclear-powered submarine deal, appearing in full-page ads today in the Australian Financial Review.
The letter is signed by Senior Former Defence personnel, a former Labor Premier, two former Labor frontbenchers, and other politicians and high-profile individuals.
Experts warn that significant questions about AUKUS deal remain unanswered and require parliamentary scrutiny in the national interest.
Key Points:
- Signatories include Former Labor WA Premier the Hon. Carmen Lawrence AO, former Labor Minister the Hon. Peter Garrett AM, Former Shadow Minister Doug Cameron and Former Labor MP the Hon. Melissa Parke
- Senior Defence signatories include Former Chief of the Air Force Air Marshall Ray Funnell AC, and Former Dep. Commander of the UN Peacekeeping Operation in East Timor Major General Michael Smith AO.
- Greens signatories include Senator Penny Allman-Payne, Senator David Shoebridge and Senator Jordan Steele-John
- Signatories include former MPs Tony Windsor AM and Dr. Rob Oakeshott
- Military, political, and academic experts and leaders have called for a parliamentary inquiry into AUKUS, citing a range of concerns including:
- The $268-$368 billion cost to the budget
- The proposed approximate four-decade timeframe for delivery
- The lack of workforce and skills to operate nuclear powered hardware.
- Sovereignty and strategic policy concerns for Australia
- Australia’s nuclear waste and NPT obligations
“For a policy of this magnitude and strategic significance, the AUKUS deal for nuclear-powered submarines has been politically rushed. It requires appropriate scrutiny in the national interest,” said Allan Behm, Director of the Australia Institute’s International & Security Affairs Program.
“At $268-368b this is one of the most expensive spending commitments ever made in Defence, with huge implications for our sovereignty that rightly require appropriate Parliamentary oversight.
“Experts and leaders across military, political and academic spheres hold substantial concerns which remain unanswered. Questions about our sovereignty, Australia’s obligations under the NPT, our ability to manage nuclear waste and our workforce gaps in operating nuclear-powered submarines are all outstanding.
“It’s only appropriate that the Australian people and the Parliament are given the opportunity to have their questions answered.”
Community batteries
To power Australia without fossil fuels will mean using batteries to store
power from solar and wind. We often think this means home batteries – or
large grid-scale installations. There’s another size too: community-scale
or neighbourhood batteries, which are growing rapidly in Australia due to
support from state governments like Victoria and Western Australia and,
more recently, from the federal government.
They seem to solve a lot of
problems we know people are concerned about – such as enabling more
rooftop solar and helping to speed up a transition to renewables. But the
popularity of these batteries shouldn’t be the only factor in decisions
about where they are rolled out. Sometimes – and in some parts of the
grid – they make sense. At other times, they may not be the best
solution.
Renew Economy 17th May 2023
The question of nuclear in Australia’s energy sector
In Australia’s transition to net zero emissions, the energy sector has a major role to play. But does nuclear power have a place in our future grid?
CSIRO, 15 May 23
Key points
- Nuclear power does not currently provide an economically competitive solution in Australia.
- Lead author of Gencost, Paul Graham says the main area of uncertainty with nuclear is around capital costs.
- There is a lack of robust real-world data around small modular reactors (SMRs) due to low global use.
As Australia attempts to hit ambitious emissions reduction targets during the transition to net zero, we know the energy sector has a major role to play. We also know that it makes sense to be informed of and assess a full range of technologies: some new and emerging, some established and proven.
In this context, it’s unsurprising that a debate around nuclear power has been reignited. Nuclear proponents believe there is potential for small modular reactors (SMRs) to be used for low-emissions electricity generation in Australia, providing essential firming capacity to support variable renewables.
However, a review of the available evidence makes it clear that nuclear power does not currently provide an economically competitive solution in Australia – or that we have the relevant frameworks in place for its consideration and operation within the timeframe required. Without more real-world data for SMRs demonstrating that nuclear can be economically viable, the debate will likely continue to be dominated by opinion and conflicting social values rather than a discussion on the underlying assumptions.
GenCost 2022-2023: the cost of electricity generation
Each year CSIRO works with the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) to produce GenCost – a detailed report that provides current and projected costs for electricity generation and storage technology.
The annual GenCost process is highly collaborative and draws on the deep expertise and knowledge of a large number of energy industry stakeholders. There are opportunities for members of the energy community to review the work and provide pre-publication feedback to improve its quality.
Paul Graham, CSIRO energy economist and lead author of the report, says it’s an open, public process that many people can participate in.
“AEMO wants to know that the data they use for planning and forecasting results is from a good level of consultation and lots of quality checking. Everyone in the industry has a fair chance to take part,” Paul says.
On 16 December 2022, the fifth GenCost report was released as a draft for public consultation. It remained consistent with findings from previous years, showing that renewables, led by onshore wind and solar PV, remain the lowest cost power generation technologies………………………………………………………
Using the standard formula for levelised costs plus the additional calculations specific to storage and transmission, wind and solar come in at a maximum of $83 per megawatt hour in 2030. This is a useful point in time for comparison because this is the earliest date at which nuclear SMR could be built in Australia.
In contrast, SMRs come in at $130-311 per megawatt hour. This range allows for nuclear SMR capital costs to halve from where we think they are at present. ………
A lack of real-world data on nuclear
One of the key principles that guides the GenCost process is the need for high quality data to base the report’s calculations on. According to Paul, the lack of robust data has been a challenge when it comes to nuclear – and for SMRs in particular.
…………………………………. Only two SMRs are known to operate in the world, located in Russia and China, and both have experienced cost blowouts and delays.
…………………….. Australian frameworks are not ready
Beyond the unfavourable economics, is the long time to build nuclear capability. The opportunity for the technology to play a serious role in emissions reduction for Australia is fast running out.
According to Renewables 2022, the latest edition of the International Energy Agency’s (IEA) annual report on the sector, renewable energy will surpass coal by early 2025 as the largest source of global electricity. Over the forecast period, their share of power will increase by 10 percentage points, reaching 38 per cent in 2027. Electricity generation from renewables is the only energy source that is expected to grow, while shares for coal, natural gas, nuclear and oil will decline.
………………..in Australia, where there are a range of other considerations at play: not least the fact that that nuclear power is currently not permitted by law. Two separate pieces of Commonwealth legislation – the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Act 1998 and the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 – expressly prohibit the approval, licensing, construction, or operation of a nuclear plant. The only exception to that rule is a research reactor near Sydney, which is used for research and the production of medical isotopes.
“Plenty of other people have made the case against nuclear on the basis of issues like a lack of social licence, or the challenges involved with siting. Those issues are not unique to nuclear – but unlike other technologies, nuclear hasn’t had to go through siting or approval processes before in Australia,” Paul says.
“Taking all that into account and knowing that the longer it takes to build something the more likely it is that real costs will increase rather than decrease, it’s very clear that nuclear is going to find it very challenging to compete against renewables.” https://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/nuclear-power-at-least-15-years-away-says-regulator/news-story/6b8c4ec9c94cd4d05471783678abdb59
‘Dumb idea’: Energy minister fires at Peter Dutton’s nuclear power plan, urging him to ‘come clean’ about the facts
The Climate Change and Energy Minister took aim at the Liberal leader’s “dumb” nuclear power plan, telling him to “come clean” about the facts of the alternate energy source.
Yashee Sharma, Digital Reporter,14 May, https://www.skynews.com.au/australia-news/politics/dumb-idea-energy-minister-fires-at-peter-duttons-nuclear-power-plan-urging-him-to-come-clean-about-the-facts/news-story/c98bcf8500bcc643c93b008b19bc9995
Minister for Climate Change and Energy Chris Bowen has debunked nuclear power statements spruiked by Coalition leader Peter Dutton.
Mr Dutton in his second budget reply on Friday said that “any sensible government must consider small modular nuclear as part of the energy mix”.
He disputed the Labor government’s climate change policies, warning they were putting the country “on the wrong energy path”.
In response, senator Bowen took to social media with an almost 2-minute-long video on “why Peter Dutton’s nuclear plan is a dumb idea for Australia”.
He took aim at the Opposition leader, questioning why the former Liberal government had nine years to introduce the nuclear energy but “never got around” to it.
“Because it’s a very bad idea,” he answered in the video.
The Labor Minister factchecked Mr Dutton with three reasons why nuclear power was not suitable for Australia, with the first being its hefty $400 billion price tag.
He referenced CSIRO findings that detail how renewable energy is the cheapest form of power while nuclear energy the most expensive.
“Wherever nuclear power plants are being built around the world, they are taking longer and costing much more than budgeted for,” he said.
“Even small modular reactors would cost a massive $5 billion each to build and proponents say we need as many as 80 small nuclear reactors spread across the country.
“That’s a whopping $400 billion in cost.”
Mr Bowen then fired at the “huge delays” in nuclear reactor construction, claiming that it would take more than a decade to establish a nuclear power industry.
Minister for Climate Change and Energy Chris Bowen has debunked nuclear power statements spruiked by Coalition leader Peter Dutton.
Mr Dutton in his second budget reply on Friday said that “any sensible government must consider small modular nuclear as part of the energy mix”.
He disputed the Labor government’s climate change policies, warning they were putting the country “on the wrong energy path”.
In response, senator Bowen took to social media with an almost 2-minute-long video on “why Peter Dutton’s nuclear plan is a dumb idea for Australia”.
He took aim at the Opposition leader, questioning why the former Liberal government had nine years to introduce the nuclear energy but “never got around” to it.
“Because it’s a very bad idea,” he answered in the video.
The Labor Minister factchecked Mr Dutton with three reasons why nuclear power was not suitable for Australia, with the first being its hefty $400 billion price tag.
He referenced CSIRO findings that detail how renewable energy is the cheapest form of power while nuclear energy the most expensive.
https://imasdk.googleapis.com/js/core/bridge3.572.0_en.html#goog_1312684880
| SKYNEWS.COM.AU03:37Government must ‘at least consider’ nuclear as part of energy mix: Dutton |
UP NEXT
04:37The budget ‘didn’t go far enough’ on issues which affect all Australia…
07:04Australia should have an ‘open mind’ to nuclear energy
05:41Budget measures ‘left middle Australia behind’: Ley
06:50‘Quarter acre block dream is gone’: Capital cities will have to build …
09:32‘Do this properly’: Ley urges government to ‘start again’ on housing bill
04:13‘Serious constitutional risk’: Liberal MP weighs in on Voice to Parlia…
05:20Don Farrell received ‘visibly warm’ reception during China visit
Government must ‘at least consider’ nuclear as part of energy mix: Dutton
“Wherever nuclear power plants are being built around the world, they are taking longer and costing much more than budgeted for,” he said.
“Even small modular reactors would cost a massive $5 billion each to build and proponents say we need as many as 80 small nuclear reactors spread across the country.
“That’s a whopping $400 billion in cost.”
Mr Bowen then fired at the “huge delays” in nuclear reactor construction, claiming that it would take more than a decade to establish a nuclear power industry.
https://imasdk.googleapis.com/js/core/bridge3.572.0_en.html#goog_2088505775
| SKYNEWS.COM.AU05:29Labor ‘denies’ that Australia is already a ‘nuclear nation’ |
UP NEXT
07:49Prince William and Kate’s royal ‘one-up’ on Harry and Meghan
02:26Meghan Markle missing from King’s coronation was reportedly a ‘blow to…
01:53’Very arrogant’ of sporting codes to suggest they can ‘influence Austr…
05:01’Their bias is on show’: Majority of ABC’s airtime ‘given to those who…
04:36Big Help Out was a ‘huge hit’: Russell Myers
03:49’Nasty and semi-racist’: Media’s spin about Dutton’s ‘obvious point’ o…
04:47‘Big questions’: Prince Andrew wears Garter robes at coronation
Labor ‘denies’ that Australia is already a ‘nuclear nation’
“Even if we started today, the first small reactor wouldn’t be in operation to meet the urgent need to deliver dispatchable power now,” he said.
“We don’t have a nuclear power industry, a regulatory or safety framework, nuclear power expertise or nuclear power workforce.”
The Energy Minister concluded his video, saying Australia is already struggling to store nuclear waste from one small medical reactor and probed Liberals over how they would dispose of waste from 80 reactors.
“If the Liberals want lots of nuclear power plants across Australia, they would need to explain where they’re going to store the nuclear waste,” he said.
“If Mr Dutton and the Liberals want to be taken seriously on their nuclear energy plan, they need to come clean on a few key things.
“Where will these nuclear power plants go? What will they do with the radioactive waste that generate? And when will they be operational? And how on earth are we going to pay for it?”
Former prime minister Malcom Turnbull threw his support behind Senator Bowen after the scathing attack.
“Very good video and absolutely right,” he wrote to Twitter.
Boring new pro nuclear push in Australia – same old excessively optimistic arguments
Bro Sheffield-Brotherton
etnoprSods0ch79hfluh37559ml06c1272a93947f96u8t1220ctltff1gfh ·
On the current unoriginal nuke push from “lovers of science” and “believers in informed public debate”:
If they knew a lot more I would be unsurprised if they even recommended that we should go back in time and watch a vid of Phil Baxter, Ernie Titterton or even “young” Leslie Kemeny to edumacate ourselves?
It is coming up to 47 years since the Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry Commissioners wrote in their first detailed report:
What has surprised us more is a lack of objectivity in not a few of those in favour of [nuclear energy], including distinguished scientists. It seems that the subject is one very apt to arouse strong emotions, both in opponents and proponents.
There is abundant evidence before us to show that scientists, engineers and administrators involved in the business of producing nuclear energy have at times painted excessively optimistic pictures of the safety and performance, projected or past, of various aspects of nuclear production.
There are not a few scientists, including distinguished nuclear scientists, who are flatly opposed to the further development of nuclear energy, and who present facts and views opposed to those of others of equal eminence. We note that a few of the government officials who appeared before us showed reluctance in communicating matters of importance to the Commission.”
Not that any of that surprised me. The claim was made repeatedly in the 1970s [and, of course, is popular in the boring new pro-nuclear push in this country] that any negative views that people may have about brittle power were entirely due to their “ignorance” of the subject matter. It was but one reason why some people felt the importance of participating in a public debate on the subject in Australia – most concentratedly 45-50 years ago.
And the experience and evidence is beyond clear; the more that debate continued the greater was the opposition to the mining and export of Australian uranium AND to the use of inefficient, expensive, dangerous electricity generating nuclear reactors in Australia despite the reverse exhortations of the nuclear club of powerful vested interests.
Nuclear advocates energised despite economic reality
Canberra Times By Jacob Shteyman, May 15 2023
Australia could develop a domestic nuclear energy system within 15 years but it would not be economically competitive, a Senate committee has been told.
A procession of energy experts, and a 16-year-old boy, lined up to give their two cents on a proposal to remove the prohibition on installing nuclear power in Australia on Monday.
Gillian Hirth, chief executive of nuclear regulator ARPANSA, told the committee it would take 10 to 15 years to develop nuclear energy facilities, but regulatory frameworks would need to be established first.
There would also need to be a significant uplift in the capability of the nuclear industry, she said.
While new technologies being developed overseas, like small modular reactors, are safer and produce less radioactive waste [a dubious claim!] than traditional nuclear generation, the committee heard the economics behind nuclear doesn’t stack up in the Australian context.
Department of Energy deputy secretary Simon Duggan said work done by the CSIRO found the abundance of low-cost renewable energy in Australia would make it difficult for nuclear technology to compete financially by the time it was ready to be deployed.
The government’s focus is instead on getting as much renewable energy, firming and transmission infrastructure into the grid as possible to provide more stability for consumers, Mr Duggan said.
Will Shackel, 16, told the committee he created advocacy group Nuclear for Australia because he wants to encourage the country to have an open mind on nuclear energy and a fact-based debate.
“Young people are energised by the prospect of nuclear energy, yet government is not reacting,” he wrote in a submission.
“Despite bids to pander to us with utopian fantasies of a clean energy transition through renewables, young people are calling for the commonwealth government to acknowledge that the only pragmatic solution lies in the tabooed energy generation capability of nuclear energy.”
But Dave Sweeney, nuclear policy analyst at the Australian Conservation Foundation, said radioactive waste remains the achilles heel of the industry.
“We get three years with existing commercial reactors of reliable electricity and then we get 100,000 years of an intergenerational carcinogenic, mutagenic waste burden,” he told the committee.
“We need to back a winner and that winner is the renewable sector.”……………………………
The committee is due to report back by June 15 https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/8196744/nuclear-advocates-energised-despite-economic-reality/
Very bad advice: $368b nuclear submarines and the Federal budget
Although he knows almost nothing about submarines, Albanese gave the go-ahead to acquire nuclear ones without insisting on a cost effectiveness study showing how they compare to modern conventional versions.
An objective study would’ve shown the latest conventional ones are superior – they are much harder to detect and are operationally available far more often because they don’t suffer few serious maintenance problems.
The program cost of twelve high quality conventional subs is only about $18 billion compared to $368 billion for 11 nuclear ones that repeatedly break down
.
By Brian Toohey https://johnmenadue.com/aukus-very-bad-advice/
At a time when the Reserve Bank’s interest rate rise is adding to cost of living pressures and increasing the chances of a recession, Albanese is finding it hard to justify the staggering $368 billion cost of AUKUS nuclear submarines.
Anthony Albanese says it only took him 24 hours to decide to back the AUKUS pact between Australia, the UK and the US. And not much longer, it seems, to decide to get nuclear submarines, if not precisely how. The rush shows. At a time when the Reserve Bank’s interest rate rise is adding to cost of living pressures and increasing the chances of a recession, Albanese is finding it harder to justify the staggering $368 billion cost of these submarines. As explained below, this is 20 times more than 12 superior conventional submarines would cost.
So he’s taken to claiming the job creation benefits of building a handful of subs in Adelaide is just as important as the national security benefits. During his visit to England for the Coronation, Albanese visited Barrow-in-Furness where the Astute class nuclear submarines were built. The shipyard employs 11,000 people, which is due to rise to 17,000. Albanese said, “I see this is being very similar to what the car industry provided for Australia in the post-war period.” In fact, employment in car manufacturing in Australia was much higher at its peak. Employment dropped by 80,000 between 1973 and 1980, yet it was still 45,000 in 2015. Large sums of government funding failed to ensure car manufacturing survived.
Albanese’s government estimates that 20,000 jobs will be created by building seven submarines, called the AUKUS class, at Adelaide. Although sharing the design work for a highly complex product is rarely successful, it will be done in this case between the three AUKUS countries. The construction jobs won’t start to flow at discernible rate until shortly after 2040. Yet Albanese implies the job benefits will be available before the next election. If job creation is the goal, there are much better ways to achieve it.
Given Albanese’s excitement about the quality of the work done at Barrow-in-Furness, it’s worth looking at what actually happened. The National Interest reported in November 2021 that, although the first boat, HMS Astute, had been laid down in 2001, the key design and production facilities had atrophied, resulting in delays and cost overruns that continue to harry the program today. Basic drafting and engineering skills had deteriorated. Problems emerged with software used to design the sub. After HMS Astute entered service in 2014, the crew suffered from excessive heat. It ran aground during sea trials a month after delivery.
Earlier, the Guardian reported in 2012 that during exercises that year a pipe carrying seawater from the back of the submarine to the reactor sprang a leak, forcing the boat to surface. An investigation revealed that a cap was made from the wrong metal, but construction records said the right metal had been installed. The Guardian also said a lead-lined water jacket surrounding the reactor core was fitted with substandard lead, creating a risk that electrical charges in the lead could generate false readings in instruments monitoring the state of the reactor.
A confidential Ministry of Defence memo obtained by the Guardian says extensive corrosion is “a cause for major concern”. The memo said the damage means “severe problems” can be expected in future and warns that the submarines will have to spend more time than planned under repair. All is now supposed to be going well.
Although he knows almost nothing about submarines, Albanese gave the go-ahead to acquire nuclear ones without insisting on a cost effectiveness study showing how they compare to modern conventional versions. An objective study would’ve shown the latest conventional ones are superior – they are much harder to detect and are operationally available far more often because they don’t suffer few serious maintenance problems. The program cost of twelve high quality conventional subs is only about $18 billion compared to $368 billion for 11 nuclear ones that repeatedly break down.
In the circumstances, Albanese’s failure to consider conventional submarines before going nuclear was deeply irresponsible. Perhaps he wasn’t told by his advisors. In any event, no Australian official has publicly mentioned this huge drawback in acquiring nuclear submarines.
Quoting from secret US Navy documents, Newsweek on April 19 confirmed earlier authoritative reports showing that only a quarter of America’s Virginia class submarines are operationally available at any one time, due to highly complex maintenance problems. The highly regarded American defence analyst defence analyst Winslow Wheeler gave the same figure in 2021.
Surely someone in Vice Admiral Jonathan Mead Admiral Mead’s 350 strong advisory team group advising Albanese on nuclear submarines should have stumbled across it.
Mead gave an astonishing interview to the Guardian published on March 8 and 9 this year. Mead wrongly described Australia’s existing Collins class conventional submarines as “the most advanced in the world”. They are certainly not. They lack modern equipment such as fuel cells and advanced batteries that let submarines operate extremely quietly for sustained periods without having to rise to the surface to recharge their batteries every day or two, unlike the Collins class. Modern German, Japanese and South Korean ones are in this category. These submarines have low sustainment costs, unlike the Collins class where this burden has hit almost $700 million a year, not including fuel and crew costs. Taking the Collins out of service would free up billions in funding for new conventional submarines.
Because nuclear subs are significantly bigger than most conventional subs, they are easier to detect as they move through the earth’s magnetic field and the water column. Rapid advances in sensor power and computer processing increase the chances of subs’ detection – and destruction. Mead said he had taken account of the prospect oceans would become more transparent by 2050. His solution is to use underwater drones in places where you don’t want a nuclear submarine to be detected. That would be just about everywhere that the presence of nuclear submarine was supposed to be important. Apparently, the nuclear sub would control a drone at a safe distance. In this case, far cheaper platforms can be used to control the drones.
1 This month
PETITION – To: Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and the Australian Labor Government
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
19 May – Webinar- Webinar: No Nuclear Weapons in Australia
Start: 2026-05-19 18:00:00 UTC Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney (GMT+10:00)
End: 2026-05-19 19:30:00 UTC Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney (GMT+10:00)
20 May – Webinar – The dangerous world of AUKUS, US, military occupation and suppression of dissent
National Webinar, 20th May, 2026, 6.30pm AEST. Confronting laws restricting/suppressing protest speech and action
Speakers: Former Sen. Rex Patrick, Lawyer Nick Hanna ,Arthur Rorris ,Jorgen Doyle, Sen David Shoebbridge,
Facilitator Kelley Tranter.
of the week – Australians for War Powers Reform (AWPR)
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
Antinuclear 