Adani not likely to succeed in its efforts to get tax-payers’ $1b loan for giant coal mine development
Adani $1b loan bid was likely to fail key criteria for NAIF approval, ABC News, By Josh Robertson, 5 Jan 18, Adani’s bid for a $1 billion taxpayer-funded loan may have been doomed even before it was scuppered by Queensland’s Palaszczuk Government, the Productivity Commission has said.
Key points:
- Qld Govt vetoed critical $1 billion loan for Adani mine
- Productivity Commission says mine may have failed loan criteria anyway
- Qld Govt could also veto rail company loan bid
The miner’s proposed Galilee Basin rail line faced rejection by the Northern Australian Infrastructure Facility (NAIF) because it may have failed key hurdles, the commission’s latest bulletin suggested.
However, the commission is yet to analyse a rival NAIF loan bid by rail operator Aurizon, which the State Government will also consider blocking in line with an election promise relating to Adani.
It comes as environmental activists plan to target Aurizon over its rail proposal, which would set up an export route for Adani.
State Labor told lobby group GetUp! during the election campaign in November it would veto “any NAIF loan” that enabled Adani’s coal project.
The Productivity Commission’s December newsletter noted that projects seeking low-interest loans from NAIF must “not otherwise be able attract finance, but would be commercially viable once constructed”.
There must also be “a public benefit from the infrastructure [to justify the cost to the taxpayer of the short-term assistance provided]”.
“Many of the projects suggested in the media as candidates for NAIF funding — such as the rail line to the Galilee Basin and various large irrigation dams — may fail at least one of these criteria,” it said.
This raised the risk of taxpayers throwing good money after bad, the commission suggested.
“If the return on the investment does not cover the operational costs of the infrastructure and the costs of servicing the loan at market rates over the life of the asset, the small initial level of assistance provided by a concessional loan may simply become another case of inefficient resource allocation,” it said……http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-01-05/adani-loan-bid-likely-to-fail-before-palaszczuk-intervention/9305040
Reflecting on 2017 in the Australian nuclear-free movement
DAVE SWEENEY | Nuclear Free Campaigner, Australian Conservation Foundation | www.acf.org.au | @AusConservation
A note to reflect on 2017 which has seen the Australian nuclear free community restrict uranium exports, derail plans for a global high level radioactive waste dump and help advance an international initiative to abolish nuclear weapons and receive the Nobel Peace Prize.
Not too shabby!
The end of the calendar year provides a pause to welcome the entrance of new life and to mark and mourn the passing of old.
It is also a time to reflect on our collective efforts and achievements – the below observations are by no means comprehensive but my sense of gratitude, solidarity and respect is.
With all best wish for a refreshing and recharging break.
I look forward to seeing and working with you in season 18,
Uranium:
A big year of activity that has seen the industry further contested and constrained.
In March the WA state election saw the defeat of the aggressively pro-nuclear Barnett government. WA Labor were elected with a strong no uranium policy but have disappointingly failed to clearly implement this and are allowing four projects to continue to be advanced. All projects remain the focus of community concern and active opposition. The WA Conservation Council and Traditional Owners have taken Supreme Court action to oppose the approval of Cameco’s Yeelirrie project with a decision expected in the first quarter of 2018 and pressure is growing on Vimy Resources, the most enthusiastic uranium hopeful. There are no commercial uranium operations in the West and any wannabe miners face a very tough road.
In November Queensland Labor were returned to government with a strong anti-uranium position and the door remains tightly shut on the uranium sector in the sunshine state.
In the NT further assessment is under way about rehabilitation and clean up options for the contaminated Rum Jungle site and issues around the closure and rehabilitation of the heavily impacted Ranger mine site on Mirarr land in Kakadu moved to centre stage. The era of uranium mining in Kakadu is over: Jabiluka is stopped and stalled, Koongarra is finally and formally part of Kakadu National Park and Ranger has stopped mining and is in the final days of mineral processing. The challenge now is a massive one – to help ensure that the NT and federal governments and Rio Tinto have the commitment, competence and capacity to clean up, exit and transition in the most credible and effective way.
South Australia remains the nations sole uranium mining state but even the pro-nuclear Royal Commission found that there was no justification for increased mining. The global uranium market remains over-supplied and the commodity price remains deeply depressed. Our planets energy future is renewable, not radioactive and Australia is ripping and shipping less uranium oxide each year. In contrast to the continuing column inches and Mineral Council of Australia drumbeats – the market and the community both continue to have little confidence in, or time for, the uranium sector.
International radioactive waste:
One of the best news stories of 2018 was the declaration in June that the plan to ship, store and ultimately bury one-third of the world’s high level radioactive waste into South Australia was dead’.
This result is a massive tribute to the sustained efforts, action and advocacy of so many – especially SA Aboriginal communities and representatives who spearheaded the community resistance. The result is also a real validation of the potency of people power over poisoned power. There was deep and well-resourced political, corporate, media and institutional support for the dump plan and this was stopped by the little people stepping up and doing big things. This result has significant international implications as the absence of an Australian based ‘disposal pathway’ makes it harder for aging reactors overseas to gain license extensions.
This is the second time in as many decades that the Australian community has successfully opposed plans to open a global high level radioactive waste dump with Pangea Resources seeking to advance a plan in WA in the late 1990’s. Some of the same players then were also behind the recent SA push and, like liberty, the price of keeping Australia free from being a global dumping ground is eternal vigilance.
National radioactive waste:
The federal government continues to lurch along an increasingly dry gully in its search to find a site to develop a national radioactive waste dump and store. Three sites in South Australia – one in the Flinders Ranges and two near Kimba on the Eyre Peninsula – remain the focus. All sites are strongly contested by large numbers of locals and in the Flinders Adnyamathanha Traditional Owners are continuing to lead the campaign. There has been lots of activity with publications, films, songs, exhibitions, rallies, actions, speaking tours, gatherings, public meetings, media events, Canberra trips and much more.
The government faces a set of sustained and significant procedural and community roadblocks in advancing this plan. It has had its eyes off the ball and been playing musical chairs over Ministerial responsibility – the song has now stopped with Matt Canavan in the hot seat. A growing range of groups are advocating a revised approach to responsible waste management based on extended interim storage at the two federal sites where 95% of the waste is currently stored and a detailed examination of the full range of future management options, not simply a search for a remote postcode. Hardly rocket science and set to be an area of key movement focus in 2018.
Nuclear weapons abolition:
Viva ICAN!
Against a backdrop of increasing global nuclear tensions an Australian born initiative has provided hope and a pathway to peace. The International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons was formed in Melbourne a decade ago and ICAN was behind the UN’s adoption of a treaty to prohibit nuclear weapons earlier this year. The treaty seeks to make nuclear weapons illegal and to challenge and change the ways these weapons are viewed and valued. It is our shared planets best chance to get rid of our worst weapons. In October ICAN was awarded the 2017 Nobel Peace Prize in recognition of its efforts. Surreal, timely and important. In 2018 work will continue to grow the treaty, including pressuring Australia to sign and ratify.
Along with ICAN’s Nobel there was other external recognition and acknowledgement of the efforts of Australian nuclear free work in 2017 including WA’s Judy Blyth’s commendation in ACF’s Rawlinson Award, respected and beloved Yankunytjatajara elder and prominent anti-nuclear and land rights campaigner Yami Lester was posthumously awarded a SA Environment Award lifetime achievement and the makers of the remarkable Collisions virtual reality film telling a key part of the Martu story won an Emmy Award. And more….congratulations to all.
Of course most of our work is not seeking and does not receive awards. It is done to move Australia away from fuelling and facilitating a trade that disrespects and endangers community and country today and far into the future. It is profound and pivotal – and it is making a real and demonstrable difference and I am proud to work and travel alongside you in this continuing journey.
Very few Australians approve of Turnbull’s climate “policies” – poll shows
Ipsos poll: Only 18 per cent think Turnbull government is doing a good job on climate change, SMH, Matt Wade, 26 Dec 17, One in two Australians believe climate change is already damaging the Great Barrier Reef and causing more extreme storms, floods and droughts.
But only 18 per cent think the Turnbull government is doing a good job tackling global warming, a new poll has found.
An annual survey by Ipsos, which has probed public opinion on climate change for the past 12 years, shows eight in 10 agree human activity is contributing to climate change – 42 per cent say humans are mainly or entirely responsible while 38 per cent believe climate change is caused partly by humans and partly by natural processes.
Just 3 per cent of respondents think there is no such thing as climate change, a share that has hardly shifted during the past decade. ………
Those aged less than 50 are much more likely to think climate change is mostly or entirely caused by human activity than those aged over 50.
Australians are sceptical about letting market forces alone determine how much power is generated from renewable sources. Only 27 per cent supported a deregulated, “market only” approach with no national target for the uptake of renewable energy.
Seven in 10 were in favour of the federal government setting a national target for renewable energy use (32 per cent strongly support this) with just 15 per cent opposed…..http://www.smh.com.au/national/ipsos-poll-only-18-per-cent-think-turnbull-government-is-doing-a-good-job-on-climate-change-20171222-h09e5t.html
Labor and Greens slam Coalition climate review
Guardian, Eleanor Ainge Roy, 20 Dec 17, In the shadow of a cabinet reshuffle yesterday, the government released a long-anticipated review of its climate policies which foreshadows loosening the current safeguard mechanism for pollution levels.
Labor and the Greens blasted the new annual emissions projections, which predict Australia will increase its emissions all the way to 2030 and beyond, and called the Coalition’s action on climate change woefully inadequate. “When you look at those numbers you really do start to understand why [the government] would sneak them out, because they are a shocking set of numbers,” the shadow climate change minister, Mark Butler, said.
Butler also condemned the permissive signal on the safeguards mechanism in the review, as did the Greens’ climate spokesman, Adam Bandt, who noted the government wanted to weaken its “flawed” emissions reduction fund by allowing companies’ pollution baselines to be increased. “The data is devastating and the policy review is a travesty,” Bandt said. “Pollution is going up, we won’t meet even our paltry Paris targets and the government’s only plan is to make matters worse by allowing companies to buy dodgy permits from pig farms in China instead of cutting Australia’s emissions.”…..https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/dec/20/morning-mail-labor-and-greens-slam-coalition-climate-review
Queensland Premier’s first act will be to veto Adani railway line loan
Annastacia Palaszczuk to officially veto Adani railway loan after swearing in
Letter confirming veto will be sent to Malcolm Turnbull as Liberal National party elects new leadership team, Guardian, Amy Remeikis, 12 Dec 17, The Queensland premier, Annastacia Palaszczuk, will move to officially veto any loan to the Indian mining company Adani from the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility, as soon as she and her new government are sworn into office.
After almost two weeks of vote-counting, Labor was declared the winner of the 25 November poll on Friday, returning to parliament with a majority for the first time under Palaszczuk’s leadership.
A letter confirming the Adani veto, which marked a turning point in Labor’s campaign, will be sent to the prime minister immediately after Queensland’s governor swears in the new state government on Tuesday……
The move to veto the Naif loan has frustrated the federal government, particularly the minister for resources and northern Australia, Matt Canavan, who last week told News Corp the Queensland government decision was motivated by “xenophobia” and “racisim”, comments Bill Shorten’s office labelled “unhinged”…….
She further vowed to stop all direct taxpayer funds going to the mine and its associated infrastructure……. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/dec/12/annastacia-palaszczuk-to-officially-veto-adani-railway-loan-after-swearing-in
Any integrity Turnbull ever had is now blown as he kowtows to the Right on energy
Turnbull blows trumpet for right wing idiocy on energy http://reneweconomy.com.au/turnbull-blows-trumpet-for-right-wing-idiocy-on-energy-35004/
After more than two years at the helm, Turnbull has done nothing to change the policies laid out by his predecessor Tony Abbott, and has only added to uncertainty by canning the major recommendation of the Finkel Review and trying to force the likes of AGL to invest yet more money in their ageing coal fired generators.
In an appearance on ABC TV’s Q&A program on Monday night, on the same day as a series of end-0f-year interviews with mainstream media, Turnbull appeared triumphant, cock-sure and combative, and unwavering from the hard right line on climate and energy.
Asked about his warnings – made in 2010 – that failing to address climate change would endanger future generations, Turnbull predicted a long future for fossil fuels, and repeated the usual fear-mongering about wind and solar.
“Energy policy has to be driven by engineering and economics, not by ideology, and as we’ve seen, for example, in South Australia, sheer idiocy.
“You know, where you had an enormous investment in wind power – nothing wrong with that, except they didn’t have anything to keep the lights on when the windmills stopped turning. A catastrophe. So you’ve got to plan it right. There will be a role for fossil fuels for a long time.”
But whether Turnbull likes it or not, the idiocy does not lie with Labor in South Australia; it lies with the mind numbing ignorance and obstinacy of the right wing in Australia’s politics and media, forever holding on to their attachment to coal.
The blackout in South Australia proved one thing, that the country’s ageing dumb grid was no longer fit for purpose, and the solution would not come from last century technologies like coal and gas, but a new system built around wind, solar, smart thinking and new management practices.
The Coalition’s response to wind and solar, and new technologies such as battery storage and smart things like demand response, betray their own ideology and their lack of respect to both engineering and economics.
Turnbull will be buoyed by the fact that the mainstream media has declared the energy policy issue to be “sorted” – the AFR on Tuesday said the energy policy conundrum was “fixed” and even the Guardian has suggested any opposition to the proposed National Energy Guarantee is just “playing politics”.
But energy and climate policy is anything but: stitched up maybe, fixed no.
Turnbull claims, and did so again on Q&A, that the NEG – currently little more than a thought bubble – has widespread support, but that is only among the incumbents and big business players that stand to profit from it, and their lobbyists and boosters.
The support of others is highly conditional, and is on the basis that the NEG must not look like what the modelling suggests it might look like – useless on emissions, inviting no new investment, doing little on prices, and simply reinforcing the market power of the incumbents.
The lack of scrutiny from mainstream media, and its willingness to pursue Coalition and fossil fuel industry talking points about “clean coal” and “base-load”, will make Turnbull’s task easier and take much of the political risk out of his informal treaty with the technology troglodytes on his right.
But his pursuit of these lines is all the more disappointing because he has plenty of evidence say otherwise.
+ The government’s own modelling suggested that more rnewsbles, not less, would lead to the greatest price reductions;
+ The Finkel report on storage reinforced what the CSIRO and the networks had already made clear, that the level of storage required is remarkably small and almost non-existent for the levels contemplated by this government;
+ And numerous reports put emissions at their ever highest level, point out the uselessness of the current Direct Action policy and the growing risks from global warming.
That’s why the AGL decision on Liddell is significant. A combination of renewables, storage, and some gas peaking plant would slash emissions and offer technology 20 per cent cheaper than the Coalition’s preferred option of spend money keeping ageing and unreliable coal generators on line.
But as the Institute of Sustainable Futures points out, emissions could be cut even further, and costs halved (rather than cut by 20 per cent), if an even smarter approach was adopted – a mixture of renewables and energy efficiency and demand management.
However, as ISF’s Chris Dunstan points out, this does require the government to actually do something, and reframe policy so that utilities and consumers benefit.
The sole incentive for the utilities under current market settings is to invest in more generation and continue to extract the monopoly rents from their market dominance that are screwing consumers. This report from the regulator last week underlines exactly how they are doing that.
This makes Turnbull’s latest utterings completely indefensible.
It is no longer good enough to lock himself into the Abbott era policies designed and framed by climate deniers and technology skeptics who sought to do the minimum possible.
(It may be partially explained by the fact that one of his principal climate and energy policy advisors, Sid Marris, used to work for the Minerals Council of Australia. And Patrick Gibbons, the former advisor to environment minister Greg Hunt, is now head of climate and energy at the MCA).
If he wants it, Turnbull has all the evidence he needs to argue that the energy trilemma – emissions, reliability and affordability – is best addressed by wholesale market and policy reform and ambitious renewable and climate targets.
It would lead to a smarter, cleaner, cheaper, and more reliable grid. And in quick time. What’s not to like about that?
The issue over marriage equality showed how reasoned argument, and just a little political and a lot of community leadership, can overcome the fear and loathing of the small but powerful conservative base.
But Turnbull has shown that he has not the courage, nor the political need, to push these through.
Instead, he is likely to push ahead with Snowy 2.0 pumped hydro scheme. Its feasibility study, due to be released soon, will make fascinating reading.
But if climate policies stay as they are, then Snowy 2.0 will not be, as Turnbull claimed on Q&A, “the largest single renewable project in our history since the Snowy Mountains Scheme was built”.
In fact, it won’t be renewable at all, it will simply be using excess coal power at night to push water up hill and then wait for high prices before allowing it to cascade back down again.
And if Snowy 2.0 is built in these circumstances, it will lock in the power of the incumbents, the arrival of zero marginal cost generation from wind and solar will be kept to a minimum, and it won’t just be customers getting screwed, it will be the planet as well.
But that’s the Turnbull we’ve come to know.
Prime Minister Turnbull snubbed Nobel prize winner International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN)
Turnbull Government criticised for not congratulating ICAN on Nobel Peace Prize, ABC News 10 Dec, 17 By Europe Correspondent James Glenday in Oslo, Norway Anti-nuclear activists have attacked the Turnbull Government for not formally congratulating an Australian-born group, which will receive the Nobel Peace Prize in Norway later today.
Key points:
- The UN treaty banning nuclear weapons remains opposed by all nuclear powers and many of their allies
- Anti-nuclear activist Sue Coleman-Haseldine says the Government “should be ashamed” for not congratulating the group
- Australia has long argued banning the bomb outright will not lead to any meaningful reduction in nuclear weapons
The International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) won the prestigious award for successfully securing the backing of 122 countries to set up a controversial UN treaty banning nuclear weapons.
But the document is somewhat symbolic because it remains opposed by all nuclear powers and many of their allies — NATO and Australia, for example, have fought against it.
“The Government should be ashamed of themselves [for not congratulating the group],” South Australian Indigenous anti-nuclear activist Sue Coleman-Haseldine said.
“Australians helped win this.
“They [the Government] could have said ‘Congratulations — even if I don’t agree with you’. They could have said that. But they haven’t………
Karina and Rose Lester, daughters of the late Yankunytjatjara Elder Yami Lester who went blind after British nuclear testing in South Australia in 1950s, said they were proud an Australian organisation would win the Nobel Peace Prize.
ICAN helped bring attention to their community’s struggle, Karina Lester said.
“The British government thought that our country was barren, nothing and nobody was out there,” she said.
“But there were communities, Anangu communities there as well.
“So it was really important for us as Anagu community to get that voice out to the international world to say we’re on that same journey as everybody else.” http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-12-10/nobel-peace-prize-australian-government-accused-of-shame-job/9244194
Traditional Owners fighting Adani make demands of new Labor Govt
New Queensland polling released showing support for mine delay wanganjagalingou.com.au/wj-make-demands-of-new-labor-govt-on-adani/ ‘Brisbane, 8 December 2017.
‘With the announcement of a new majority Qld Labor government, and
with the National Native Title Tribunal set to decide today whether to register Adani’s sham Indigenous Land Use Agreement,
the Wangan and Jagalingou Traditional Owners Council have presented a clear set of demands.
‘Wangan and Jagalingou (W&J) Traditional Owners Council Spokesperson Adrian Burragubba said,
‘“Our fight to protect our country and heritage will continue until Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk acknowledges
that we are the people from that land, and Adani does not have the consent it requires from us for this destructive mine.
‘“We call on the Palaszczuk Government to stand up for our rights and not the interests of Adani.
We have written to our more than 100,000 supporters in the wider community this morning,
asking them to press the Premier and Deputy Premier to demand that the returned Palaszczuk Government –
‘acknowledge that Adani and the Queensland Government do not have the consent of W&J Traditional Owners for the Carmichael mine
remove Queensland’s ‘signature’ from Adani’s contested Indigenous Land Use Agreement
rule out extinguishing Native Title to allow Adani to proceed, even if the ILUA is registered by the NNTT
stop opposing the rightful W&J Traditional Owners in court and wait for all our cases to be heard, and
end Adani’s special treatment – which will enable the destruction of W&J country and heritage – including keeping the Premier’s election promise to veto Adani’s $1BN taxpayer-funded loan”’
‘“This follows an an authorisation meeting of our Claim Group on 2 December at which,
for the fourth time since 2012, our people voted unanimously to reject an Indigenous Land Use Agreement (ILUA) with Adani. … ‘
Call For Senate Inquiry Into South Australia’s Nuclear Dump Sites
Going Ballistic Over “Pathetic” Nuclear Dump response
*Call For Senate Inquiry Into SA’s Nuclear Dump Sites After Minister Squibs on Senate Documents Order
NXT Senator Rex Patrick and SA-Best Leader Nick Xenophon say the only way to get answers for the communities of Kimba and Hawker on the reasons their townships were selected as a potential radioactive waste dump sites is through a Senate inquiry into the consultation and selection process.
Both Senator Patrick and his SA-Best colleague, Nick Xenophon, are gobsmacked at the totally inadequate response by Senator Matt Canavan, the Minister for 
Resources and Northern Australia, to a Senate order to produce all the documents he used to determine there was ‘broad community support’ to continue exploring Kimba as a site for the low-level waste dump.
On Wednesday Senator Patrick successfully moved the motion for the Minister to make public all the information gathered by Government departments.
Earlier in the year the Minister advised he would need a figure in the range of 65% community support to progress plans in Kimba. Three ballots have been run in Kimba and none have reached 60%.Yet despite not hitting the criteria he set himself, the Minister selected two Kimba sites for further assessment.
Senator Patrick sought the Senate order after the Government refused to provide a local community member with a definition of ‘broad community support’ under freedom of information laws.
“When I asked for all the information used by Minister Canavan on how he came to make his determination to proceed to the next phase of consultation, all I got was a disingenuous response saying that there was no threshold which constituted ‘broad community support,” Senator Patrick said.
Nick Xenophon said: “None of the information used to make the decision was provided. We need to see and share with the community what was put to him to make his decision.”
Senator Patrick will move for the Senate inquiry into the contentious issue when parliament resumes next year.
“If I cannot get satisfactory answers, then there’s no choice but to ask the Senate to look into the process undertaken to date and the Government’s reasoning in moving forward to the next stage of the assessment despite the deep division in the community,” he said.
“I made it very clear to the Government during my first speech in the Senate that I had a strong interest in accountability and transparency.
“I want to work constructively with this Government but my enthusiasm to do so is contingent on them embracing a key principle of responsible government – openness and transparency.
“When it comes to decisions made about the people and supposedly for the people, they must be open about them, particularly when it comes to a nuclear dump site, “ said Senator Patrick. Follow links to the response from Minister Canavan and Senator Patrick’s Senate motion
https://www.pdf.investintech.com/preview/437f7094-dbb4-11e7-9f8d-0cc47a792c0a/index.html
Having won the Queensland election, Annastacia Palaszczuk will be vetoing the Adani coal megamine
Annastacia Palaszczuk finally wins Qld election
The veto of a federal loan for Adani’s controversial $16.5 billion Carmichael mine will be one of Annastacia Palaszczuk’s first jobs once her government is sworn in she says…. (subscribers only)
http://www.afr.com/news/politics/annastacia-palaszczuk-finally-wins-qld-election-after-tim-nicholls-concedes-20171207-h015mi
Turnbull govt might still try to restrict environmental groups
Turnbull government drops plans to curb green groups but doubts remain, The Age, 6 Dec 17 Peter Hannam Environment groups have welcomed the Turnbull government’s retreat from plans to curb environmental advocacy but concerns remain about other proposals to restrict the charity sector.
Kelly O’Dwyer, Minister for Revenue and Financial Services, announced the government would drop its intention to require environmental charities spend at least 50 per cent of donation income on “environmental remediation work” to retain their tax-deductible status.
“The government will not mandate a level of remediation by environmental organisations,” Ms O’Dwyer said.
The push for a required level of environmental work lost traction after BHP indicated it would oppose such curbs. The Australian Conservation Foundation welcomed the backdown of the government’s “anti-democratic proposal” to curb environmental advocacy.
The Minerals Council of Australia had sought as much as a 90 per cent requirement for remediation efforts, with only 10 per cent for advocacy for green groups to retain their tax-deductibility status.
Other worries emerge
But other moves by the Turnbull government are fanning uncertainty, including plans released on Tuesday to ban foreign donations to advocacy groups.
Samantha Hepburn, a law professor at Deakin University, said financial reporting requirements under the Annual Information Statement (AIS) collected by the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission could pose other challenges for environmental groups.
Where an environmental group provided an AIS that revealed strong expenditure on political advocacy rather than remediation, it might be investigated by the Australian Taxation Office. The proposed changes increased funding for the ACNC and the ATO to review more groups for their ongoing eligibility for tax benefits, she said.
“This creates uncertainty for environmental organisations,” Professor Hepburn said. “It is unclear whether their public interest imperatives in pursuing political advocacy for such issues, such as climate change and matters of national environmental significance, will actually result in their ongoing eligibility being put at risk.”
‘Undue burdens’
“Charities are already highly regulated and scrutinised, much more so than other groups in public life such as industry lobbies,” Ms O’Shanassy said. “Any reforms should not put undue burdens on charities that would force them to use their limited resources on unnecessary red tape.”……http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/turnbull-government-drops-plans-to-curb-green-groups-but-doubts-remain-20171206-gzzs5s.html
Significant wins by the Greens for the nuclear free cause in South Australia
Mark Parnell MLC , Parliamentary Leader, Greens SA, 6 Dec 17,
The last couple of sitting weeks of the year in State Parliament have been huge, and the Greens have had some significant wins
A win for democracy
My amendment to the South Australian Constitution to make it fairer to all parties and candidates passed both Houses of Parliament. Under the mis-leadingly named “fairness clause” in the Constitution, the boundaries of electorates were required to be rigged so that one of the two major parties would form a government. This is despite the fact that a growing number of South Australians don’t vote for either of the old parties.
For elections beyond 2018, the review of electorate boundaries will have regard to population, one-vote-one-value, geography, communities of interest and other relevant factors but won’t be artificially rigged to favour the old parties. The Greens have ensured that future elections will be more democratic and better reflect the will of the people of South Australia.
No more public money to spruik nukes
A big majority in Parliament passed my Greens Private Members Bill to prohibit the Government spending public money on spruiking the benefits of nuclear waste dumps in SA. We won the campaign against the high level international nuclear waste dump but we still have the national dump proposed for the Flinders Ranges and Kimba. Not only are these dumps illegal in SA, but now it is also illegal to use public money to encourage or finance nuclear waste dumps……..
Biodiversity can no longer be ignored
Another Greens’ Bill that passed last week ensures that biodiversity is properly considered in all planning decisions.
There is a real crisis in biodiversity in South Australia, which is under threat from many sides including loss of habitat and climate change. Whilst passing a law for a new State Biodiversity Planning Policy won’t fix the problem overnight, it sends an important message to State and Local Governments that they can’t ignore the natural environment when making decisions about development or rezoning land.
Can SA be 100% renewable?
Absolutely! Despite attempts by some opportunistic MPs to blame renewable energy for the Statewide electricity blackout last year and other weather-related outages, a Parliamentary Inquiry has found that renewable energy was not to blame. What’s more, there is now a clear pathway to achieving 100% renewable energy in South Australia. The key is to use wind and solar energy backed by batteries, pumped hydro and solar thermal storage. This is achievable without compromising system reliability, security and affordability for consumers. With our State’s national leadership on renewables and our fantastic wind and solar resources, the future is looking bright. My report is at p.42 of the Committee’s Report.
Senator Claire Moore refutes arguments of Australia’s pro nuclear lobby
The far Right in Australia have turned their attention, for the moment, away from efforts to sabotage the Equal Marriage Bill, and on to efforts to sabotage Australia’s laws against the nuclear industry .
In the Australian Senate, Cory Bernardi (Australian Conservatives) introduced the Nuclear Fuel Cycle (Facilitation) Bill 2017 and 3 right-wing senators backed it:
– Ian MacDonald (Liberal)
– David Leyonhjelm (Liberal Democrats)
– Eric Abetz (Liberal)
We surely miss Greens Senator Scott Ludlam. However, Senator Claire Moore (Labor) rose nobly to the defence of Commonwealth bans on nuclear power and on nuclear fuel processing, reprocessing and enrichment. These bans are found in the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, and the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Act.
SPEAKER: Moore, Sen Claire (ALP) 30 Nov 17“…..Over the years, issues around nuclear energy have come before this place and they have been part of the wider community discussion. Through that process, a number of investigations have taken place, and, as our shadow minister, Mark Butler, has said, the simple fact is that nuclear power in Australia simply doesn’t add up. The arguments do not add up now and they didn’t add up in the past. Sometime in the future they may, but at this time they just don’t add up. The Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, which is well skilled and well knowledgeable in this space, noted: ‘It’s difficult to envisage traditional nuclear power plants being established on the NEM given the current grid structure.’…..
Another major issue, if a decision were made to build a nuclear energy facility at a particular point, would be how long would it take for it to be operating on the ground, providing the kind of energy that we, as a nation, require? The CSIRO calculations say that it’s a 10- to 15-year interval from the commencement to the start-up of a reactor. I know that Senator Bernardi gave other figures. I understand that it would be part of a discussion in this area, but the data that we have before us on the current knowledge that’s out there from the CSIRO says that the time frame from commencement to completion and to operation is a 10- to 15-year process, and that, of course, is a very long-term plan, if we’re looking at a transition to another form of energy.
There is also the issue of reactor locations. When we talk about nuclear reactors and nuclear waste facilities, a massive community discussion occurs when proposals are put up for these types of facilities. ….. Our personal experience in Australia has been that when these things are brought out into the open—when finally, after discussions that often take place in secret, I’ll say, and when finally decisions are made public as to where a nuclear reactor or a nuclear waste facility could be located—there does seem to be a reaction from the community that is not positive…..
…water use. CSIRO has done a lot of work generally on the issue of water use in our community. They’ve used that knowledge in the discussion on what would be necessary for nuclear plants or nuclear operations. The indications that they have—and this is available on their website—is that nuclear plants use more cooling water than coal and gas plants. In terms of the sensitivities in our community and also the necessities of our climate and our access to water in Australia, that is a really important issue. Where would you be able to ensure that there were appropriate water sources, that would be safe and that would provide the support that would be necessary for the implementation of nuclear energy?
Even if you were to overcome the community, legal and political barriers to nuclear energy, it’s clear that due to the skills and other technical barriers it would take very many years, over a decade—and that’s the optimistic option—for Australia to be ready to begin construction of a nuclear power plant. That also does not take into account, as I said, the real need existing in our nation, and I am very much aware of strong community opposition to nuclear power…
As I was saying, that remains a major issue within the community in terms of any acceptance of a change to the current position that we have in the country around nuclear power. Senator Macdonald did allude to the ‘issue’ or ‘incident’—I should have written it down—of Fukushima. His dismissal of the significant issues around what happened at Fukushima was, I think, indicative of the lack of genuine understanding of the concerns in the community around this issue. Certainly over a long period of time one of the clear issues that has been raised within the community about anything around the further development of nuclear energy in our country has been a concern around a guarantee for safety and that there not be the kind of environmental, social and serious damage that occurred as a result of a series of nuclear incidents over many years. The most recent of those was in Fukushima, but the Chernobyl situation, of which we’ve just passed a significant anniversary, caused immense damage all across northern Europe and into the Arctic. In parts of Europe and the UK—I know that the UK are probably not referring to themselves as part of Europe any longer—there is still monitoring being done of ongoing issues around environmental damage in that area as a result of an incident that happened well over 20 years ago.
We’ve had Chernobyl identified and national and international reviews of what occurred at Three Mile Island and the significant safety issues that occurred. When something goes wrong in a nuclear energy facility, the resultant impact is much more serious than we see when things go wrong with other forms of power in the power industry. Certainly no-one can ever offer a guarantee. …. http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F676f35b6-5c99-4c03-b7ba-036ffe24360c%2F0023%22
Adani coal mine project headed to be a big issue at next Federal election?
The future of the Adani mine, Overwhelming public opposition to the Adani coalmine in northern Queensland tipped the scales in state election campaigning. But now that’s over, what influence does it have at a federal level and on the mine’s future? The Saturday Paper, By Alex McKinnon. 2 Dec 17,
“……Palaszczuk’s explanation for abandoning her long-time support of the loan was to avoid a potential conflict of interest, arising from her partner’s work on Adani’s Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility (NAIF) loan application as a consultant for PwC. But state treasurer Curtis Pitt admitted during the campaign that the real reason for Palaszczuk’s about-face was the overwhelming public opposition to taxpayers’ money being used to fund a private mine.
Queensland’s Labor government supports the Adani mine going ahead, to provide jobs in struggling regional areas. But GetUp! environmental justice co-director and Stop Adani campaigner Sam Regester points to the huge swings to the Greens in a swath of inner-Brisbane electorates as proof Labor recognised anti-Adani sentiment was hurting them enough to force a response. Counting still under way in Maiwar could lead to the Greens winning their first seat at a general election, and candidate Amy MacMahon came close to knocking over Labor deputy premier Jackie Trad in South Brisbane.
ON THE ISSUE OF THE NAIF LOAN, AT LEAST, PUBLIC OPINION IS EMPHATIC ENOUGH TO PRESSURE PALASZCZUK INTO KEEPING HER WORD.
“The Greens’ strong position on Adani was directly responsible for their strong showing in the inner city,” Regester says. “Labor tried to have it both ways for three years, and they offset some of the damage by deciding to veto the NAIF loan, but voters rewarded the party that had a consistent stance.”
Given Labor will most likely form a majority government, that balancing act appears to have worked for now. What comes next – for the mine, those opposing it, and the government that could make or break it – is less clear. As counting continues and the Palaszczuk government prepares to go back to work with whatever parliament the voters have given it, anti-Adani campaigners are planning their next moves.
The Stop Adani Alliance, the umbrella organisation of environmentalists, climate scientists, traditional owners and civil society groups that formed to campaign against the mine in March, largely regards the election result as a win. Nicholls’ Liberal National Party, which has backed the mine to the hilt, remains in opposition. One Nation’s promised windfall of seats failed to materialise………
Palaszczuk’s Labor government will likely hold 47 or 48 seats in Queensland’s 93-member, single-house parliament. Once it nominates a speaker, the government will have the barest of majorities, provided every Labor MP stays in line. Given the record of Palaszczuk’s previous government, which lost Pyne and former Cook MP Billy Gordon to the crossbench, that may be too much to hope for. If Labor is forced to negotiate with the KAP’s three parliamentarians, One Nation’s Stephen Andrew, or Noosa independent Sandy Bolton, it may find the competing interests over the Adani mine can’t be finessed away.
On the issue of the NAIF loan, at least, public opinion is emphatic enough to pressure Palaszczuk into keeping her word. ReachTel polling conducted for the Stop Adani Alliance during the campaign found 70 per cent of Queenslanders oppose directing public funding towards the Carmichael project, with voters across political lines expressing strong support for the government using its veto power.
Queenslanders are more evenly split on the larger question of the mine itself, but losing the NAIF loan will compound Adani’s difficulties in securing the $3.3 billion it needs to fund the first stage of the project, and could sink the mine altogether. While Adani has made noises about seeking financing from Chinese banks, such a move would likely require construction materials and infrastructure contracts to be sourced from Chinese firms, further souring the project in the public eye and undermining the argument that the mine will bring local jobs.
So much attention has been devoted to Palaszczuk’s manoeuvring, it’s easy to forget how much of Adani’s ultimate fate lies in Canberra. The federal opposition leader, Bill Shorten, stayed far away from Queensland during the campaign, not least to avoid awkward questions about where he stands. Shorten tied himself in knots trying to articulate his various positions on the mine earlier this year, sometimes changing his mind mid-sentence……..
With the state election over, Shorten and federal Labor no longer have the luxury of dithering. Regester says the anti-Adani movement’s top post-election priority, “besides ensuring the veto goes through” and “working to ensure Adani can’t secure funding from anywhere else”, will be recentring the campaign on the national stage.
“Unless a major party moves on Adani, we’ll be making it an issue at the next federal election,” Regester says, highlighting “marginal seats in Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane” where support for Adani could prove costly. Labor’s Terri Butler and the Liberals’ Trevor Evans will be looking nervously at the huge upswing in the Greens’ vote across territory their inner-Brisbane seats cover, while the Stop Adani movement’s large Melbourne presence could see the thumping Greens victory in the Victorian Northcote byelection repeated in Batman, Wills, Higgins and Melbourne Ports…….. https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/news/politics/2017/12/02/the-future-the-adani-mine/15121332005585
Fraud allegations against Adani – review surely means new scrutiny of its coal megamine plan
Adani mining giant likely to face fresh scrutiny over financial fraud allegations https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/dec/01/adani-mining-giant-likely-to-face-fresh-scrutiny-over-financial-allegations
India’s finance secretary has called for decision clearing company of allegations of siphoning huge sums into tax havens to be reviewed, Guardian, Michael Safi in Delhi, 1 Dec 17, The Adani Group is likely to again have to answer allegations it siphoned more than US$600m (£445m) into overseas tax havens after senior Indian finance authorities recommended an appeal of a judgment clearing the mining giant.
The Indian finance secretary has confirmed to local media the August decision clearing the Adani Group had been reviewed by senior officials in November who ordered an appeal to be lodged by 14 December.
In August the Guardian revealed details of a massive fraud investigation into the company, which is preparing to build one of the world’s largest coal mines in Australia.
According to two sets of Indian customs intelligence documents from 2014, the Adani Group was accused of inflating the cost of electricity equipment for power projects in Maharashtra and Rajasthan states using fraudulent invoices. Authorities valued the alleged scams at nearly $852m.
The company or entities linked to it are currently being scrutinised for their suitability for a $681m concessional loan from the Australian government to build a railway line linking the proposed coal mine to a Queensland port. However it is reportedly close to securing loans from a Chinese state-owned company that would make the Australian loan unnecessary.
The Adani Group has denied any wrongdoing and was cleared on one set of allegations in August and a second set in October.
But the Indian finance secretary, Hasmukh Adhia, has confirmed the August judgment – referring to fraud allegations worth around $600m – has been recommended for appeal by senior customs officials.
“As per the procedure for review of orders of the Adjudication Authority, a committee comprising of two chief Commissioners of Customs has reviewed this order of Adjudicating Authority and directed the Commissioner of Customs vide their order dated November 15, 2017 to file an appeal in the tribunal,” Adhia said
Customs officials have until 14 December to lodge the appeal, which will be heard by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. Any subsequent appeals would be heard by the Indian supreme court.
Six Adani subsidiaries are among 40 companies being investigated by Indian authorities over a separate alleged fraud involving the over-invoicing of coal imports from Indonesia.
The general modus operandi of the alleged scams is that the energy companies used fake middlemen to inflate the price of equipment or coal they sourced from overseas.
The extra money allegedly paid by the businesses was allegedly channeled into offshore bank accounts out of the reach of Indian regulators or tax authorities.
The Indian Express reported on Thursday that the outcome of the allegations against the Adani Group could impact a $125m compensation package the company has been promised from electricity distribution companies in Haryana state over its “financial difficulties” in the area.
Indian opposition groups have called for a supreme court inquiry into the company over the fraud allegations which, if proved, could have pushed up power prices for local consumers.
A public-interest lawsuit has also been filed in the supreme court calling for an investigation into alleged over-invoicing by the Adani Group and other energy companies.
The Adani Group has been contacted for comment.
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 