‘Astounded’: former fire chief unloads on politicians over climate change inaction, The Age, By Nicole Hasham, 4 February 2019, Decorated Australian firefighter Greg Mullins says climate change is contributing to bushfires so 
horrendous that homes and lives cannot be protected, and the federal government will not acknowledge the link because it has failed on emissions reduction policy.
The extraordinary comments by Mr Mullins, a former NSW Fire and Rescue Commissioner, coincides with the Tuesday launch of the group Bushfire Survivors for Climate Action, which will lobby the major parties to drastically reduce fossil fuel use and cut greenhouse gas emissions.
Prime Minister Scott Morrison and Opposition Leader Bill Shorten both visited Tasmania on Monday, where catastrophic bushfires had reportedly destroyed eight homes and burnt 190,000 hectares of land as of Monday afternoon. Their visit came on the 10th anniversary of the Victorian Black Saturday bushfires.
The major parties’ pledges on climate change are expected to be a frontline issue at the upcoming federal election, as the public reels from record-high summer temperatures, extreme weather and a long, unforgiving bushfire season.
Fires are a natural phenomenon in the Australian bush, but experts say climate change effects such as heatwaves and changed rainfall patterns mean bushfires are becoming more frequent and extreme.
Mr Mullins said fire seasons “are longer, more severe, and we are getting fires that are much harder to put out”.
“What that means … is there is simply not enough firefighters and fire trucks to do the job, to protect every structure and protect people’s lives,” he said.
“It’s extremely inconvenient for any government that does not have a cogent answer for what they’ll do about climate change, to see the effects of climate change putting more and more people and homes at risk.”
Mr Mullins has 50 years of fire fighting experience, including 39 years with Fire and Rescue NSW and as a volunteer in his youth and in retirement. He has been awarded the prestigious Australian Fire Service Medal and is an officer of the Order of Australia. He is a member of the Climate Council and welcomed the formation of Bushfire Survivors for Climate Action.
Mr Mullins sought to raise the climate change alarm in public comments in 2006 following fires in the Blue Mountains, but says the then-NSW Labor government told him to “pull your head in”.
“They didn’t want public servants coming out saying [the climate change driver] was pretty obvious to us,” he said.
“I feel quite passionately that the word needs to get out about how much the bushfire threat has worsened. I’ve watched it change, and I’ve watched our politicians sit on their hands, from both major parties. I don’t think either of them really have answers or are doing enough.”
NSW Labor has been contacted for comment.
Mr Mullins said he was “astounded” that Prime Minister Scott Morrison on Monday addressed the media at Huonville in Tasmania, the epicentre of the state’s bushfire crisis, but did not mention addressing climate change.
……….A Labor government would reduce carbon emissions by 45 per cent by 2030, based on 2005 levels. The government has pledged to reduce emissions by 26 per cent over the same period, however, the OECD says Australia will miss that target under current policy settings.
GetUp! and the Climate Media Centre are supporting the Bushfire Survivors for Climate Actiongroup.
Black Saturday survivor Ali Griffin lost her home near Yarra Glen during the tragedy, and said: “I don’t want this to happen to anyone else”.
“We know the threat of devastating bushfires is getting worse every year we keep burning coal and heating our planet,” she said.
“Enough is enough, we are sick of the lack of progress on this issue – any politician without a serious plan to tackle climate damage is not fit to hold office.” https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/astounded-former-fire-chief-unloads-on-politicians-over-climate-change-inaction-20190204-p50vl0.html
February 4, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, climate change - global warming, politics |
Leave a comment
The Conversation, Arjuna Dibley, Graduate Fellow, Steyer-Taylor Center for Energy Policy and Finance, Stanford University, February 4, 2019 The tragic recent events on the Darling River, and the political and policy furore around them, have again highlighted the severe financial and environmental consequences of mismanaging climate risks. The Murray-Darling Royal Commission demonstrates how closely boards of public sector corporate bodies can be scrutinised for their management of these risks.
Public authorities must follow private companies and factor climate risk into their board decision-making. Royal Commissioner Brett Walker has delivered a damning indictment of the Murray Darling Basin Authority’s management of climate-related risks. His report argues that the authority’s senior management and board were “negligent” and fell short of acting with “reasonable care, skill and diligence”. For its part, the authority “rejects the assertion” that it “acted improperly or unlawfully in any way”.
The Royal Commission has also drawn attention to the potentially significant legal and reputational consequences for directors and organisations whose climate risk management is deemed to have fallen short of a rising bar.
It’s the public sector’s turn
Until recently, scrutiny of how effectively large and influential organisations are responding to climate risks has focused mostly on the private sector.
In Australia it is widely acknowledged among legal experts that private company directors’ duty of “due care and diligence” requires them to consider foreseeable climate risks that intersect with the interests of the company. Indeed, Australia’s companies regulator, ASIC, has called for directors to take a “probative and proactive” approach to these risks.
The recent focus on management of the Murray-Darling Basin again highlights the crucial role public sector corporations (or “public authorities” as we call them) also play in our overall responses to climate change – and the consequences when things go wrong……….https://theconversation.com/murray-darling-report-shows-public-authorities-must-take-climate-change-risk-seriously-110990
February 4, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, climate change - global warming, politics |
Leave a comment
Excerpt from radio interview
MARK BUTLER MP
SHADOW MINISTER FOR CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY
MEMBER FOR PORT ADELAIDE
E&OE TRANSCRIPT
RADIO INTERVIEW
RN BREAKFAST
TUESDAY, 22 JANUARY 2019
SUBJECT/S: Labor’s $1 billion National Hydrogen Plan, climate change, nuclear power, Liberals plan for new coal.
KELLY: You’re listening to RN Breakfast; our guest is the Shadow Climate and Energy Minister, Mark Butler. Mark Butler, Tanya Constable who is the Chief Executive of the Minerals Council of Australia is today proposing in news.compapers that nuclear energy be allowed to be developed as a zero emissions fuel. She says Australia will only be catching up with the rest of the world, there are new technologies in this area ready to be deployable, they produce zero emissions and thirty other countries around the world use them. Is Labor prepared to exercise or even consider that option?
BUTLER: No, this is not a technology that has any opportunity for Australia. There are legal barriers to it, which we 
reindorsed at our National Conference just before Christmas as Labor Party policy. Where nuclear power is being explored, new nuclear power plants around the developed world in particular, for example the UK, it is extraordinarily expensive power as well. Rather than focus on these sorts of technologies that really are of no practical use to Australia, we want to focus on renewable energy which is going to bring down emissions, bring down power prices, and power thousands and thousands of jobs.
February 3, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, politics |
Leave a comment
Climate change is a burning issue (again) in voters’ minds, Guardian, Katharine Murphy @murpharoo, 2 Feb 19, The Coalition has no choice but to try and fix the self-created disaster that is its climate policy. his piece of backroom intelligence shouldn’t come as a surprise, given the summer we are all still enduring. Record high temperatures, the hottest January on record; storms; floods in some places, droughts in others; mass fish kills in ailing rivers.Climate change is back as a vote-changing issue – top of mind for many Australian voters. Private polling conducted for the environment movement and for the major parties suggests community concern about climate change is currently sitting at levels not seen since the federal election cycle in 2007.
If you can remember the events of 2007, you’ll recall that John Howard was forced into a significant about-face on the issue. Within sight of the election that swept Kevin Rudd into power, Howard signed the Liberal party up to emissions trading, a “world’s best-practice” cap and trade scheme, and declared Australia must prepare for a “low-carbon future”.
he research doing the rounds as the major parties bed down their war rooms for the May contest puts climate change in the top-two issues of concern nationally. Women, particularly, are alarmed by the ongoing policy inaction, and that’s bad for the Liberals because the party’s standing among women is already depressed courtesy of the unhinged shenanigans of the past 12 months.
But there’s some nuance in the research. In marginal seats in outer suburban areas – the seats that often determine the outcome of federal elections – cost of living pressures still rank higher than climate change. But people insist that climate is registering in the top-three concerns in several outer suburban seats, where the issue is normally dormant.
The political consequence of all this is pretty obvious. The strength of community concern about climate change leaves the Morrison government vulnerable. The Coalition’s policy record on climate change is appalling. There is no other word for it. Absolutely, indefensibly, appalling…….
Independents such as Zali Steggall and Oliver Yates are thumping the government on climate change, both as a thing in itself and as a proxy for dysfunction within the Liberal party which is imposing costs on the citizenry……… https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/feb/02/climate-change-a-burning-issue-again-in-voters-minds
February 3, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, climate change - global warming, politics |
Leave a comment
Mark Parnell MLC, 2 Feb 19, The Marshall Liberal Government is planning more cuts to staff and programs in the SA Department of Environment and Water and will transform the Department into an “economic development agency”.
This is outrageous! This Government’s wilful abandonment of the environment will send species extinct and further degrade struggling eco-systems.
The hypocrisy of the Liberals knows no bounds. In opposition, they criticised Labor’s annual budget cuts to the environment, but as soon as they were elected they did the same, with 100 jobs axed last year and more to come. And now they’re going one step further!
The clear message is that if the environment doesn’t make money for someone, it’s not worth protecting. Heaven help our endangered wildlife. If creatures like the Glossy Black Cockatoo or Yellow-footed Rock Wallaby don’t start earning their keep, the Government has made it clear that they are a lower priority. This is not a good time to be a Hooded Plover or an Orange-bellied Parrot in South Australia.
The Marshall Liberal Government’s honeymoon period is now well and truly over. The Government has shown its true anti-environment colours. Any notion that they might care about species, eco-systems, sustainability and the climate, has all but disappeared. Now, they have left us in no doubt that, in their eyes, only those parts of the environment that make money deserve protection.
The Greens are calling on the Liberals to stop the cuts and retain a Department that is focussed on protecting our environment and waterways. They need to stand up for South Australia’s environment and River Murray. The Government should heed the warning of the Royal Commissioner into the management of the River Murray that kow-towing to economic interests upstream only results in further degradation of the environment.
Declaring war on the environment pits this government against everyone who cares about our natural heritage. We must protect the environment for its own sake as well as for future generations.
Our environment and all the species that depend upon it for their survival, deserve better. South Australians deserve better!
Let the Marshall Liberal Government know that you expect the Environment Minister to stand up for South Australia’s environment at all times – not just when there is an economic advantage. Sign our petition and share your concern with family and friends.
February 2, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
environment, politics, South Australia |
Leave a comment
REVEALED: Staff, budget cuts as Environment Dept becomes “new agency” , In Daily, Tom RichardsonThe state’s Department of Environment and Water will become primarily an “economic development agency” that will be forced to operate with “less staff and smaller budgets” under a major restructure announced to staff yesterday.
The timing of the shift is ironic, with today’s release of a scathing Royal Commission report into the management of the River Murray, itself critical of Environment and Water Minister David Speirs.
Chief executive John Schutz – who replaced former boss Sandy Pitcher, one of four top bureaucrats axed by the incoming Marshall Government last March – yesterday wrote to staff telling them they would be “transitioning to a new agency”……….
“We balance environmental protection with economic development – this means we contribute to our state’s economy by driving sustainable economic development, and unlocking the potential of our natural and heritage resources.” …..
The department will be split into five divisions – Boards and Councils; Strategy, Science and Corporate Services; National Parks and Wildlife; Water and River Murray; and Sustainable Economic Development. https://indaily.com.au/news/2019/01/31/revealed-staff-budget-cuts-as-environment-dept-becomes-new-agency/
February 2, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
environment, politics, South Australia |
Leave a comment
Australia is counting on cooking the books to meet its climate targets , The Convesation, Alan Pears, Senior Industry Fellow, RMIT University, January 31, 2019 A
new OECD report has warned that Australia risks falling short of its 2030 emissions target unless it implements “a major effort to move to a low-carbon model”.
This view is consistent both with official government projections released late last year, and independent analysis of Australia’s emissions trajectory. Yet the government still insists we are on track, with Prime Minister Scott Morrison claiming as recently as November that the 2030 target will be reached “in a canter”.
What’s really going on? Does the government have any data or modelling to serve as a basis for Morrison’s confidence? And if so, why doesn’t it tell us?……..
The government is indeed poised to deliver on the “letter of the law” of its Paris commitment if two things play out. First, if it claims credit from overdelivering on Australia’s 2010 and 2020 commitments. And second, if the “low demand” scenario is the one that eventuates.
To reach our Paris target, the government estimates that we will need to reduce emissions by the equivalent of 697 million tonnes of carbon dioxide before 2030. It also calculates that the overdelivery on previous climate targets already represents a saving of 367Mt, and that low economic demand would save a further 571Mt. That adds up to 938Mt of emissions reductions, outperforming the target by 35% – a canter that would barely work up a sweat.
How would this scenario actually eventuate?
Let’s leave aside the technical question of whether it’s legitimate to count past performance towards future emissions targets, and focus for now on how the low-demand economic scenario might become reality.
The government’s report contains no discussion on the basis of the “low demand” scenario. But history suggests the annual baseline estimates of 2030 emissions have overestimated future emissions, with revisions downwards over time. For example, the 2018 projection for 2030 emissions is 28% lower than the 2012 projection for the same date (see figure 2 here).
In the real world, meanwhile, change is evident. Households and businesses are installing solar panels, not least to guard against high power bills. Businesses are signing power purchase agreements with renewable energy suppliers for much the same reason. State and local governments are pursuing increasingly ambitious clean energy and climate policies. Some energy-intensive industries may be driven offshore by our high gas prices.
New technology such as electric vehicles, ongoing improvement in energy efficiency, and emerging business models that break the power of big energy companies are transforming our economy. Investment in low-emission public transport infrastructure means its share of travel will increase. Farmers are cutting methane emissions by installing biogas production equipment.
Other studies also support the idea that Australia may indeed outperform its baseline emission scenario. ANU researchers recently predicted that “emissions in the electricity sector will decline by more than 26% in 2020-21, and will meet Australia’s entire Paris target of 26% reduction across all sectors of the economy (not just “electricity’s fair share”) in 2024-25”.
The government’s baseline electricity scenario uses the Australian Electricity Market Operator’s “neutral” scenario. But AEMO’s “weak” scenario would see 2030 demand in the National Electricity Market 18% lower than the neutral scenario (see figure 13 here).
Of course, many of these changes are happening in spite of the government’s policy settings, rather than because of them. Still, a win’s a win!
Emissions in context
But is hitting the target in purely technical terms really a win? In truth, it would fall far short of what is really necessary and responsible.
This is partly because of the plan to use prior credit for previous emissions targets to help get us across the line for 2030. This may be allowed under the international rules. But we would be leveraging extremely weak earlier commitments.
For example, Australia’s 2010 Kyoto Protocol target of an 8% increase in emissions was laughably weak in comparison with the developed world average target of a 5% cut. Our 2020 5% reduction target is also well below the aspirations of most other countries. What’s more, several major nations have declared that they will exclude past “overachievements” from their 2020 commitments.
The government has obfuscated the issue further by deliberately conflating our electricity emission reductions target, which will be easily met, with our overall economy-wide target, which presents a much tougher challenge.
There’s more. Australia’s Paris pledge to reduce emissions from 2005 levels by 26-28% between 2021 and 2030 is inconsistent with our global responsibilities and with climate science. The target was agreed to by the then prime minister Tony Abbott in 2015 as the minimum needed to look credible. But as the Climate Change Authority pointed out, a 2030 target of 40-60% below 2000 levels is more scientifically responsible. https://theconversation.com/australia-is-counting-on-cooking-the-books-to-meet-its-climate-targets-110768
February 2, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, climate change - global warming, politics |
Leave a comment
Climate key in Olympian’s bid for NSW seat, SBS News 28 Jan 19, Climate change will be one of Olympian Zali Steggall’s main policies as she contests Tony Abbott’s Sydney seat of Warringah in the federal election.The barrister and former world champion skier on Sunday launched her campaign to run as an independent in the upcoming election in a seat she described as socially progressive and caring.
The 1998 Winter Olympics bronze medallist said Sydney’s northern beaches need a voice from “the sensible centre”……..Ms Steggall will make climate change policy a key issue, one which Mr Abbott dismissed saying locals cared about a northern beaches tunnel, lowered living costs, border security and power prices……https://www.sbs.com.au/news/climate-key-in-olympian-s-bid-for-nsw-seat
January 28, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, climate change - global warming, politics |
Leave a comment
NUCLEAR POWER STATIONS ARE NOT APPROPRIATE FOR AUSTRALIA – AND PROBABLY NEVER WILL BE by Climate Council / 23 January 2019
Periodically, as with the changing of the seasons, various individuals appear in the media extolling the virtues of nuclear energy, promising a panacea of clean and reliable electricity to solve Australia’s energy crisis. But the truth is far less rosy.
…….steps involved in producing nuclear power (from mining, to construction, decommissioning and waste management) result in greenhouse gas pollution. Greenhouse gas pollution associated with nuclear power could be similar to a gas power station, with estimates ranging from 80 – 437 kg/MWh.
But nuclear energy is not “renewable”. Uranium is a finite resource just like coal or gas……
Nuclear energy doesn’t make sense in Australia
…..there are a number of reasons why nuclear power is not appropriate for Australia.
- Nuclear power stations are highly controversial, can’t be built under existing law in any Australian state or territory, are a more expensive source of power than renewable energy, and present significant challenges in terms of the storage and transport of nuclear waste, and use of water.
- Nuclear power stations also present significant community, health, environmental, and cost risks associated with potential impacts from extreme weather events and natural disasters, such as occurred in Fukushima, Japan in 2011. Nuclear power stations leave a long-term and prohibitively expensive legacy of site remediation, fuel reprocessing and radioactive waste storage.
- Australia is one of the sunniest and windiest countries in the world, with enough renewable energy resources to power our country 500 times over. When compared with low risk, clean, reliable and affordable renewable energy and storage technology in Australia, nuclear power makes no sense.
Nuclear power stations are expensive
Nuclear power stations are extremely expensive to build. For example, the Hinkley nuclear power station under construction in the UK will cost 20 billion pounds (AU$36 billion). Nuclear cannot compete on a cost basis with wind and solar, which are the cheapest forms of new generation. The cost of energy from the Hinkley Power station is significantly higher than large-scale solar, wind and offshore wind energy in the UK.
On average, nuclear power stations take a decade to build
The Hinkley power station will take nine years to build. The global average is 9.4 years. This would be even longer in Australia given there is currently no nuclear industry here. It is not unusual for nuclear power stations to take over a decade between the start of approvals and coming online. For comparison, wind and solar farms take just one to three years.
Australia cannot wait this long to replace our ageing fleet of coal power stations, which are already struggling to cope with extreme heat.
Nuclear power stations are inflexible and ill-suited to a modern grid
Nuclear power stations are inflexible – that is, they cannot quickly increase or decrease the amount of electricity they produce.
Nuclear power generation is not well suited to modern, fast and flexible electricity grids with large amounts of wind and solar generation. Unlike inflexible nuclear, fast response technologies such as batteries, pumped hydro and solar thermal can be turned on and off, or ramped up and down to balance electricity supply and demand.
In California, where wind and solar provides more than 30% of the state’s power needs, the last nuclear power plant will shut by 2026.
Nuclear power stations need a lot of water
Nuclear power stations require massive quantities of water to operate. In a dry continent like Australia, prone to hot summers and drought conditions which are only likely to get more severe as climate change worsens, it would be reckless to rely on a water-hungry power source like nuclear.
The bottom line is this: it makes no sense to build nuclear power stations in Australia.
For more information on what Australia needs to build a modern electricity grid, read the Climate Council’s report ‘Powering a 21st Century Economy: Secure, Clean, Affordable Electricity’.https://www.climatecouncil.org.au/nuclear-power-stations-are-not-appropriate-for-australia-and-probably-never-will-be/?fbclid=IwAR17owy2q3hjcXz71kId35__kQPL4GZEp1JdN-1UOo4o7iQ0RYCorZKtdWs
January 26, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, politics |
Leave a comment
Response to Warren Mundine, letter published in the Australian Financial Review, Kado Muir, April 2012, http://nuclearfree.wordpress.com/media/?preview=true&preview_id=11&previ…
(at left Kado Muir) It’s time to stop radioactive racism
Globally the nuclear industry is in decline and has been for a long time. The price of uranium was briefly inflated along with false dreams of a nuclear renaissance, in reality the industry is waning. The Fukushima disaster reminded both communities and financial institutions that nuclear power is far too risky for life on this planet.
In Western Australia we have a very aggressive uranium exploration program, sponsored by the State Government, yet deeply opposed by the people. We have a strong history of resistance against uranium mines and a proud history of stopping these mines. In the 1970′s my elders fought against uranium mining at Yeelirrie. In the 1980′s people from the Western Desert marched down St Georges Terrace in the thousands against uranium mining on their lands and we are proud to say we’ve never had a uranium mine in WA. We are going to keep it that way.
Warren Mundine wrote to the Financial Review promoting the nuclear industry. He wants uranium mining, he wants nuclear power and he wants the international community to dispose of its nuclear waste here, all on our lands. Mr Mundine does not speak for us here in Western Australia and has no right to talk about what should or should not happen on our country.
Some of the communities who are being barraged by these wanna be miners have generations of knowledge about uranium ‘poison’. We know better than most, the dangers of uranium. We also have generations worth of experience in dealing with mining companies , of witnessing their broken promises and the deep enduring failures of government to protect our country and people.
We don’t need someone from the East Coast, from Canberra or Canada to tell us what we should or shouldn’t do. Uranium stays in the ground. We have a saying, “Wanti* Uranium, leave it in the ground!” (*leave it)
The nuclear industry across Australia takes it’s toll on Aboriginal communities; from the nuclear weapons testing in Maralinga and Monte Bello island, from the trial mines in Wiluna, Yeelirrie and Manyingee in WA, to the abandoned mines in the NT & Queensland at Rum Jungle and Alligator River and Mary Kathleen, the existing mines at Ranger and Beverley and Roxby Downs in SA. The defeated proposed waste dump in South Australia now proposed for Muckaty Station in the NT. This industry preys on remote Aboriginal communities keeping everything out of sight and out of mind.
Across Australia there has never been a uranium mine that has not leaked radioactive mine waste into the environment, this industry has been tried and consistently failed.
The risk to our lands, to life itself far outweigh the measly rewards, the few jobs on offer, the State government royalties. It is not worth the long term damage to our country and to our water.
These mines will only last for 10 years or 20 years but as custodians we have thousands of years of waste. Long after this State government is a memory, long after the mining companies have gone broke we will be living with the radioactive legacy of their greedy short term ambitions. I and the people of West Australian Nuclear Free Alliance will not sell future generations short.
Kado Muir is the Chairperson of the West Australia Nuclear Free Alliance, he is a Ngalia man and a custodian for Yeelirrie – one of the uranium deposits under exploration by BHP Billiton.
January 24, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
politics, Western Australia |
Leave a comment
Guardian, Paul Karp , 22 Jan 19 Indigenous leader and former Labor boss to be parachuted in as a Liberal in the NSW electorate held by retiring MP Ann Sudmalis
January 24, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, politics |
Leave a comment
Warren Mundine’s nuclear allegiances, Jim Green, Online Opinion, 11 April 2012, more https://nuclear.foe.org.au/warren-mundines-nuclear-allegiances/?fbclid=IwAR32gwKze3jcbZV26e-sqsyRjE0lkFycLcyDj_lVWKVRxac1u4cttGzLeHM
Warren Mundine, a member and former National President of the ALP, and co-convener of the Australian Uranium Association’s Indigenous Dialogue Group, has been promoting the nuclear industry recently. Unfortunately he turns a blind eye to the industry’s crude racism, a problem that ought to be core business for the Indigenous Dialogue Group.
Mundine could have mentioned the legacy of uranium mining in the Wiluna region of WA; to pick one of many examples. Uranium exploration in the region in the 1980s left a legacy of pollution and contamination. Greatly elevated radiation levels have been recorded despite the area being ‘cleaned’ a decade ago. Even after the ‘clean up’, the site was left with rusting drums containing uranium ore. A sign reading “Danger − low level radiation ore exposed” was found lying face down in bushes.
In August 2000, coordinator of the Wiluna-based Marruwayura Aboriginal Corporation Steve Syred said that until 1993, 100−150 people were living three kilometres from the spot where high radiation levels were recorded. Syred told the Kalgoorlie Miner that the Aboriginal community had unsuccessfully resisted uranium exploration in the area in the early 1980s. Since then many people had lived in the area while the Ngangganawili Aboriginal Corporation was based near the contaminated site. Elders still hunted in the area.
Another example ignored by Mundine was in late March when the NSW government passed legislation that excluded uranium from provisions of the NSW Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1983 thus stripping Aboriginal Land Councils of any say in uranium mining.
Yet another example ignored by Mundine was the 2011 amendments to the S.A. Roxby Downs Indenture Act 1982. This is the legislation that governs operations at the Olympic Dam uranium and copper mine and retains exemptions from the S.A. Aboriginal Heritage Act. Traditional Owners were not even consulted in the amendments or exemptions. The S.A. government’s spokesperson in Parliament said: “BHP were satisfied with the current arrangements and insisted on the continuation of these arrangements, and the government did not consult further than that.”
That disgraceful performance illustrates a broader pattern. Aboriginal land rights and heritage protections are feeble at the best of times. But the legal rights and protections are repeatedly stripped away whenever they get in the way of nuclear or mining interests. The Olympic Dam mine is largely exempt from the S.A. Aboriginal Heritage Act and any uranium mines in NSW are to be exempt from provisions of the NSW Aboriginal Land Rights Act. Likewise, sub-section 40(6) of the Commonwealth’s Aboriginal Land Rights Act exempts the Ranger uranium mine in the N.T. from the Act.
Mundine claims that Australia has “a legal framework to negotiate equitably with the traditional owners on whose land many uranium deposits are found”. That claim is disingenuous.
Native Title rights were extinguished with the stroke of a pen by the Howard government to seize land for a radioactive waste dump in South Australia. Aboriginal heritage laws and Aboriginal land rights are being trashed with the current push to dump in the Northern Territory. Federal Resources Minister Martin Ferguson’s National Radioactive Waste Management Act overrides the Aboriginal Heritage Act, sidesteps the Aboriginal Land Rights Act, and allows for the imposition of a dump on Aboriginal land even in the absence of any consultation with or consent from Traditional Owners.
David Ross, Director of the Central Land Council, noted in a March 14 media release: “This legislation is shameful, it subverts processes under the [Aboriginal] Land Rights Act and is clearly designed to reach the outcome of a dump being located on Aboriginal land in the Northern Territory, whether that’s the best place for it or not. This legislation preserves the Muckaty nomination without acknowledging the dissent and conflict amongst the broader traditional owner group about the process and the so-called agreement. The passage of this legislation will further inflame the tensions and divisions amongst families in Tennant Creek, and cause great stress to many people in that region.”
A small number of Traditional Owners support the N.T. dump proposal. However most are opposed and the Northern Territory Government supports that opposition, key trade unions including the Australia Council of Trade Unions, church groups, medical and health organisations, and environmental groups. If push comes to shove, there will be a blockade at the site to prevent construction of the dump.
A pro bono legal team is assisting Traditional Owners with their legal challenge against the nomination of the Muckaty site. At a Federal Court hearing on March 27, a Commonwealth lawyer argued that the government’s legislation allows the nomination of a dump site to stand even if the evidence regarding traditional ownership is false.
These patterns are evident in other countries. North American Indigenous activist Winona LaDuke from the Anishinabe Nation told the Indigenous World Uranium Summit in 2006: “The greatest minds in the nuclear establishment have been searching for an answer to the radioactive waste problem for fifty years, and they’ve finally got one: haul it down a dirt road and dump it on an Indian reservation”.
Here in Australia the situation is scarcely any better than it was in the 1950s when the British were exploding nuclear bombs on Aboriginal land. Which brings us to another of Mundine’s blind spots. He could have mentioned the latest ‘clean up’ of the Maralinga nuclear test site, which was done on the cheap. Nuclear engineer and whistleblower Alan Parkinson said of the ‘clean-up’: “What was done at Maralinga was a cheap and nasty solution that wouldn’t be adopted on white-fellas land.”
Mundine’s claim to support Aboriginal empowerment is contradicted by his consistent failure to speak out when mining and nuclear interests and governments that support those interests disempower Aboriginal people.
January 24, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
aboriginal issues, AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, politics |
Leave a comment
LIFT URANIUM MINING BAN, Pauline Hanson’s ONE NATION, 23 Jan 19, NSW One Nation will end the uranium mining ban which has been in place since 1986.
Across our western border, South Australia has been able to reap the benefits of this billion dollar national industry….. There are too many government regulations holding back the NSW economy, with the uranium mining ban one of the dumbest.
If One Nation holds the balance of power after the 23 March election in the lower and/or upper houses, we will want any new government to free up the uranium mining and nuclear power industries…..The only way to properly develop the industry, creating much needed investment and jobs, is to remove all government restrictions on uranium exploration, mining and power generation..https://nsw.onenation.org.au/policies/lift-uranium-mining-ban/?fbclid=IwAR2gtbjrtk0hCTimeBwT2acb9bOy47LLKHUtpuKrm6EWE-C1AG0V3y-FUNM
January 23, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, politics |
Leave a comment
Mining sector pushes for nuclear option to lowering Australia’s energy costs and emissions, Sheradyn Holderhead, 
January 22, 2019 https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/mining-sector-pushes-for-nuclear-option-to-lowering-australias-energy-costs-and-emissions/news-story/3a38633b287f190b34421522a60d9086
With power prices skyrocketing, the mining sector has called for the nuclear option with hopes a high-level review could end a ban on the prohibited energy source.
The Minerals Council of Australia has seized on the upcoming review of environmental protection laws under which nuclear power is banned.
Chief executive Tania Constable said removing the four words — “a nuclear power plant” — in one section of the law would allow the industry to be considered for development.
Federal Environment Minister Melissa Price said while the extent of the review had not yet been determined it must examine the full operation of the laws.
“The review will involve extensive consultation and will consider all ideas put forward by industry, environment and community groups to improve and strengthen national environmental law,” she said.
Ms Price said under law the review of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act had to be completed by October.
But Opposition leader Bill Shorten ruled out any changes under a Labor government.
“Labor has no plans to build nuclear power plants, full stop. We will deliver more renewables and cheaper power for Australians, and we will do it without building nuclear power plants in our cities and towns,” he said.
Ms Constable said that along with upgrades to existing coal-fired generators, nuclear power was a “commonsense approach” to lowering power prices and also reducing emissions.
In December, Labor signed off on its new national platform which states “Labor will … prohibit the establishment of nuclear power plants and all other stages of the nuclear fuel cycle”.
About 30 countries rely on nuclear power, with France generating nearly 75 per cent of its electricity that way.
The World Nuclear Association lists Hungary, Slovakia and Ukraine as generating more than half from nuclear, while Belgium, Sweden, Slovenia, Bulgaria, Switzerland, Finland and the Czech Republic use it for more than one-third of their power.
Prime Minister Scott Morrison said he was open to changing the law but wanted to be sure of the economic case.
“I’m not too much into an ideological debate about from what source it comes, I just want to make sure it turns up and that it brings power prices down,” he said. “The only work I have seen on that … is that (lower prices) is only achieved with very significant government subsidies.”
January 22, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, politics |
Leave a comment
Antinuclear 