Will Australia back coal at the UN climate talks?
What’s in store at the Marrakech climate talks – and will Australia still back coal?, Guardian, Graham Readfearn,6 Nov 16
The US presidential race is guaranteed to prove a distraction at the Morocco COP22 gathering, where action is on the agenda. he Australian government takes a delegation to the United Nations climate change talks in Morocco starting Monday – two weeks that are sure to be dominated by, well, who knows?
Because, during the first week, the United States will go to the polls to pick a new president – an event that will act like a giant weapon of mass distraction in Marrakech.
The Republican candidate, Donald Trump, has pledged to pull the US out of the UN process on climate change and cancel the global deal agreed at the last talks in Paris…….
aside from the distraction of US politics, what else for Marrakech – a meeting known as COP22 (so called, if you must ask, because this is the 22nd meeting of the conference of the parties to the UN framework convention on climate change)? And what about Australia’s position?
Since the Paris agreement was gavelled last December, the process to ratify the deal has been ongoing.
This process, known as “entry into force”, required at least 55 “parties” representing about 55% of global greenhouse gas emissions to ratify the agreement.
This threshold was met on 5 October and the deal will enter into force right about … now!…….
Australia has still not ratified the Paris agreement but there are reports this could happen before the talks close on 18 November……
Australia pledged that by 2030, it would cut emissions between 26% and 28% below where they were in 2005.
While the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade stands by the target as being ambitious and fair, there are many critics who say it’s anything but……
Australia remains an influential country in the talks, owing in part to its position as chair of the umbrella group of countries – one of many negotiating groups.
As yet there has been no formal announcement from the Australian government on who will attend, but there is an expectation among some that the foreign minister, Julie Bishop, will be there for the “high-level segment” that starts in week two.
The Australian delegation will also have a new diplomat in charge. Replacing Peter Woolcott as climate change ambassador is Patrick Suckling, who took over the role in February after serving as Australia’s high commissioner in India.
During his time in New Delhi Suckling made several statements supporting the controversial Carmichael mega-coalmine project in Queensland, being proposed by Indian company Adani.
“This project will drive economic growth and create more than 6,000 jobs in Australia,” he said in 2014. “It will also boost India’s development by providing electricity to 100 million Indians.”
In one report in the Economic Times, Suckling was quoted as saying the Australian government was trying to tighten legal rules around who could and could not challenge coalmines through the courts (a theme that has re-emerged in recent weeks).
“We are actively thinking of possible ways to limit the scope of litigation to only those with a real standing in a project,” he was quoted as saying.
Language like this tends not to go down well with the army of NGOs, campaigners and civil society groups who attend the climate talks and have given Australia more then a fair share of “fossil” awards over the years.
The perception among many has been that Australia has sought to defend the coal industry too many times at UN meetings.
Will Australia stake its reputation on coal again? https://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2016/nov/05/whats-in-store-at-the-marrakech-climate-talks-and-will-australia-still-back-coal
Shonky Nuclear Royal Commission – the end for Premier Jay Weatherill?
Bias of SA Nuclear Royal Commission finally exposed, REneweconomy, By Jim Green on 4 November 2016 “……..SA Premier Jay Weatherill should initiate a Royal Commission to investigate the discredited, $9 million Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission. He should also have the decency to fall on his sword for his role in the fiasco.South Australian government focus groups Port Pirie – separates the sexes!
Kim Mavromatis No High Level International Nuclear Waste Dump in South Australia, 1 Nov 16 SA Government Nuclear Focus Group in Port Pirie last night.
I got into a SA Govnt Nuclear Focus Group session in Port Pirie last night. 9 
males – no females. There was an all female focus session before the all male session. Males and females were separated, why? Apparently females are predominately against the nuclear waste dumps and males are more open to it.The sniff of desperation in Jay Weatherill’s latest nuclear manipulations
apparatchiks, advisors and academics from both the nuclear industry BHP-Billiton/Santos et al and those in Defence that are pushing for nuclear submarines/capabilities, the Business Council of SA, and in concert with the Murdoch/MSM press, have precision-engineered this campaign to simultaneously blitzkrieg the people of SA with pro-nuke propaganda whilst purposefully obfuscating the SA proposal with that of the Federal government’s search for a dump of our indigenous low-level nuclear waste.
The confusion is of volition and the strategy’s outcome has been immensely effective nationally in not only keeping the topic out of the national spotlight in general but also to make any trickle of dissent that does appear nationally, such as summarised in the slogan “not in our backyard”, appear to be driven by self-interest and, therefore, it’s SA’s problem.
It’s the old divide and conquer with huge resources from both industry and the public purse.
That said, there are fault lines starting to appear in the juggernaut, such as the limited accommodation of the critics in the 2nd Citizens Jury Economic forum, and Weatherill’s failure to attain a mandate motion at least weekend’s ALP State Conference. There will be consternation and increased applied effort from all pro-nuke actors both to guard Weatherill’s back and ramp up inertia through glamorised, potentially high profile events such as the yet-another Nuclear Conference in Adelaide next month.
South Australian Labor comes up with the delaying tactic that Weatherill wanted
convention has delayed making a decision on the proposal for a nuclear waste dump in the state’s north. South Australian Premier Jay Weatherill has run the gauntlet of anti-nuclear protesters as Labor voted to put the question of establishing a high-level nuclear waste dump to a special party convention.
Mr Weatherill was heckled by several hundred anti-nuclear activists while entering the ALP state conference in Adelaide on Saturday, as they called on him to scrap the dump idea, which goes against current party policy.
Dave Sweeney, from the Australian Conservation Foundation, told the protesters South Australia was so much more than a dumping site.
“This is a bad idea, it’s a thought bubble that should have burst on day one,” Mr Sweeney said.
“We will not be burying waste, we will be burying this idea.”
The convention considered a number of motions related to the dump, including one calling for the government to hold a referendum on the issue.
Others called for the government to delay any decision until after the issue was discussed at the next national ALP conference while the Maritime Union of Australia urged the state government to “cease and desist” with any action to consider a dump of any kind.
However, the party endorsed a motion to have the issue put before a special convention at the conclusion of the community consultation process.
The state government remains committed to making a decision on the dump proposal by the end of the year ….http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2016/10/29/special-assembly-weigh-sa-nuclear-dump
Tax-payer funding goes to South Australian nuclear propaganda event Nov 15-16
The Weatherill government continues to break South Australia’s law against tax-payer funding of promotion of nuclear waste importing. Of course, they’ve been doing this for nearly two years now, with close to $10 million on the Nuclear Fuel Chain Royal Commission, the Nuclear Citizens’ Juries and on the blanket of pro nuclear propaganda across the State.
The latest is A new conference called “Australian Nuclear Fuel Cycle ’16 – Managing Radioactive Waste & Spent Nuclear Fuel” , being held in Adelaide on November 15-16 to discuss nuclear waste storage prospects.
Sponsors include the University of South Australia (a public university), ANSTO (a Federal gov’t agency) and UCL (whose Australian campus was publicly supported financially).
The danger for Australia as Turnbull wants to change Australia’s environment act
None of these decisions would have been possible without the groups’ standing under Section 487 of the EPBC Act. Removing these provisions undermines the foundational objectives of Australia’s national environmental act at a time when its protective capabilities are needed most.
Turnbull wants to change Australia’s environment act – here’s what we stand to lose, The Conversation, Director of the Centre for Energy and Natural Resources Law, Deakin Law School, Deakin University October 31, 2016 Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull is seeking changes to Australia’s national environment act to stop conservation groups from challenging ministerial decisions on major resource developments and other matters of environmental importance.
Turnbull is reviving a bid made by former Prime Minister Tony Abbott to abolish Section 487 of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (EPBC Act) – a bid rejected in the Senate in 2015. If it goes ahead, the change will significantly diminish the functionality of the act.
The EPBC Act, introduced by the Howard government in 1999, has an established record of success. Judicial oversight of ministerial discretion, enabled by expanded standing under Section 487, has been crucial to its success.
Section 487 allows individuals and groups to challenge ministerial decisions on resources, developments and other issues under the EPBC Act. An organisation can establish standing by showing they have engaged in activities for the “protection or conservation of, or research into, the environment” within the previous two years. They must also show that their purpose is environmental protection.
Repealing this provision would remove the standing of these groups to seek judicial review of decisions. Standing would then revert to the common law position. That means parties would need to prove they are a “person aggrieved” by showing that their interests have been impacted directly.
Many environmental groups will be unable to satisfy the common law test, leaving a very small group of people with the right to request judicial review – essentially, the right to check that federal ministerial power under the EPBC Act has been exercised properly.
This is likely to have a devastating impact on fragile ecological systems and biodiversity conservation strategies.
This is particularly concerning given the dramatic changes affecting the environment from the expansion of onshore resource development and the acceleration of climate change.
Why do we have the EPBC Act?
The hypocrisy of attack on ‘foreign-funded’ environment groups
Why only “environment groups”? Why not take a look at the tax-deductible recipient status of all charities, such as the Institute of Public Affairs?
The IPA is using its tax-deductibility status to raise cash for a third edition of its climate science denial book Climate Change: The Facts, with contributions from US-based and UK-based contrarian scientists, alongside the likes of Clive James and Bjørn Lomborg.
Why the attack on ‘foreign-funded’ environment groups stinks of hypocrisy, Guardian, 
Graham Readfearn, 30 Oct 16 Supporters of coal projects want transparency and proper use of charity status – but only when they support their arguments You might have noticed that all of a sudden, Australians are supposed to be appalled by foreign interests getting in the way of us digging up as much coal as we want, thanks very much.
Last weekend the Australian newspaper started running stories based on a “revelation” from the inbox of John Podesta, the chairman of Democratic nominee for president Hillary Clinton’s election campaign.
One email forwarded to Podesta showed the philanthropic group the Sandler Foundation, based in San Francisco, was a funder of Australian group the Sunrise Project. The emails were published by WikiLeaks.
Sunrise, run by the former Greenpeace campaigner John Hepburn, has been involved in supporting some of the court cases brought against proposed coal projects – chiefly, the massive Adani coalmine in Queensland.
According to an editorial in the Australian, “thinking Australians” should be “appalled” by this news.
On the back of these stories, there have been shouts for more transparency, while Turnbull government ministers have used the coverage as a pivot to call for environment groups to be stripped of their charitable status. The climate change impacts of burning coal, meanwhile, have been summarily discounted or ignored.
So let us count the ways that Australians should not be “appalled” and, on the way, examine some of the bald hypocrisy that has been on display this week. Continue reading
Labor Party dithers in vote over nuclear waste dumping in South Australia
Nuclear waste dump: Labor votes at SA convention to delay decision on proposal, ABC News By Daniel Keane, 29 Oct 16, “……Inside the conference, Mr Weatherill defended the decision to explore the nuclear option, but Labor MP Steph Key told the gathering of ministers, MPs and party members her constituents strongly opposed the idea.
“People in Ashford don’t favour a high-level nuclear waste dump,” she said.
“We think there needs to be a special convention so that we can talk about these issues in detail within the party, and see whether or not there is a social licence within the Labor Party first of all for such a thing.”
Frontbencher Peter Malinauskas used his speech to mock the demonstrators.
“We’re all here past lunchtime, unlike the protesters,” he said.
“The difference between us and them, of course, is that we take very seriously our obligation to make sure that our ideology is underpinned by evidence.”
But Labor voted to delay a decision on whether to pursue a nuclear dump until it holds a special convention, in line with Ms Key’s suggestion, at the end of the community consultation process.
Citizens’ jury hears from expert witnesses The party conference coincides with a royal commission citizens’ jury at the Adelaide Convention Centre, where about 350 randomly selected people are meeting this weekend to discuss the state’s possible involvement in the nuclear fuel cycle.
Mr Weatherill has previously been confronted by protesters over the issue, and was heckled on his way into a previous citizens’ jury. “I don’t know where this debate is ultimately going to end, either in the community or in this party,” he told the convention…..
The citizens’ jury is hearing from more than 30 experts witnesses over two days. A report prepared after the citizens’ jury meetings will be presented to Mr Weatherill next month.http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-10-29/sa-nuclear-dump-decision-delayed-at-labor-state-conference/7977670
South Australian Premier Weatherill heckled by anti nuclear protestors
Adam Langenberg, Political reporter, The Advertiser October 29, 2016 PREMIER Jay Weatherill and ALP colleagues were heckled by anti-nuclear protesters as he headed into the Labor State Convention in Adelaide today.The Premier and Senator Penny Wong entered the venue amid cries of “nuclear waste, what a disgrace”, with a number of senior party ministers including Police Minister Peter Malinauskas also lobbied by protesters.
Eleven separate motions about a proposal to establish a nuclear waste dump in the state will be heard at the conference this afternoon, with many calling on Labor to immediately rule out establishing a dump.
……….More than 130 motions will be debated at the convention. http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/jay-weatherill-colleagues-heckled-by-antinuclear-protesters-at-labor-state-convention-in-adelaide/news-story/93593b17164cba17c78cbaf6d856bb63
Delaying tactics on the nuclear waste agenda at South Australia’s Labor party Conference
Treasurer defends SA dump debate Read more at http://www.9news.com.au/national/2016/10/28/12/18/treasurer-defends-sa-dump-debate#rpdClBGbUpWJ4umI.99 October 28, 2016 The Labor party is no different to a football club or a family barbecue when it comes to debating the merits of establishing a nuclear waste dump in South Australia, Treasurer Tom Koutsantonis says.
The issue will come under discussion at the party’s state convention on Saturday, with a number of motions to be debated, some calling for any plans for a dump to be scrapped and others buying the state government some time before having to make a decision. Mr Koutsantonis says the party is rightly engaged in the same discussion that mums and dads are having across South Australia, weighing up the pros and cons of taking high-level waste from overseas.
“People are just talking about what do we do next? Do we do this or don’t we do this? What are the risks, what are the rewards.
“So absolutely we should have this debate.”
Among motions to be debated at the convention, one calls for the government to hold a state referendum on the issue of a dump, others call for the government to delay any decision until after the issue is discussed at the next national ALP conference and one calls for a special state convention to be called.
There is also one that calls for the state government to “cease and desist” any further action to consider nuclear waste dumps of any kind.
Mr Koutsantonis acknowledged there were strong feelings within the party on the question of nuclear waste. “Our view, very simply is, we want to continue the debate,” he said. “The party is allowed to express its views, individuals are allowed to express their views.”
Also this weekend the second citizen’s jury will continue to deliberate on the dump proposal, which was raised as possibility by a royal commission conducted into SA’s future involvement in the nuclear fuel cycle.
The 350 people making up the jury will present their final report to Premier Jay Weatherill on Sunday.
The No Dump Alliance, which plans to stage a protest outside the convention on Saturday, said the ALP should “close the door on this deeply flawed and reckless plan”.
“Despite a huge amount of taxpayer-funded promotion, opposition to an international nuclear dump is growing within the Labor Party and the wider community,” spokesman Craig Wilkins said.
Nuclear showdown for South Australia’s Labor Party Conference – perhaps
Steve Dale , Nuclear Fuel Watch South Australia Watch out, there is also a group trying to delay decision making about the dump for a few months. They say they are anti-dump but the agenda is probably to defuse maritime/transport/fire/.. unions anger over this crazy plan. These unions who will have to handle this poisonous muck are rightfully angry. They should kill this plan off on Saturday unless they want their workers killed by this cancer causing poison years later.https://www.facebook.com/groups/1021186047913052/permalink/1342858522412468/?comment_id=1342893619075625
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/labor-readies-for-tense-nuclear-showdown-amid-opposition-at-state-meeting/news-story/94b465193620d74f489a1f0cd3fc6e40 Political Reporter Sheradyn Holderhead, The Advertiser October 27 2016PREMIER Jay Weatherill faces a tense showdown over his Government’s nuclear strategy at a state Labor meeting this weekend.
Three motions have been listed for a vote that essentially call on the Government to abandon the proposed nuclear waste dump while others call for further consultation or a referendum. A joint motion from the Maritime and Rail, Tram and Bus unions demands the State Government “immediately cease and desist any further action or consideration” of any type of nuclear dump.
Among its concerns are a weak economic case, high upfront cost, political damage to Labor, safety risks to workers and the public, and ignoring the rights of Aboriginal people.
The moves make good on threats of a heated fight from powerful union figures who have publicly backed anti-dump campaigners. The Advertiser revealed last month that some within Labor were talking about a repeat of the union campaign against Mike Rann, which boiled over in 2010 when he needed a police escort through protesters at Labor’s state convention.
Anti-dump protesters are expected at the West Adelaide Football Club, which is the venue for Saturday’s meeting. Mr Weatherill declined to comment on the meeting.
The Government is pinning its hopes on an alternative motion that would buy time on a vote to overturn the longstanding party policy to oppose nuclear reactors and imported waste storage.
It instead calls for a Special State ALP Convention on the matter to be held at the conclusion of community consultation but before a decision was made on whether to develop a dump.
Labor MP Tom Kenyon said he hoped the convention would show there was support within the party to continue investigating the $445 billion project, which he called a “tremendous opportunity” for SA.
Mr Kenyon, also a member of a parliamentary committee considering the project, said making it easier for other countries to have nuclear power could potentially do more to address climate change than efforts toward renewables.
He said while the party always “finds something to be excited about” at conventions this issue was unique.
“This is unusual because since the ‘70s, the Labor Party has had a very strong anti-nuclear position. It’s almost an article of faith,” Mr Kenyon said.
“At some point the party will have to grapple with this deeply and consider its position at the state and federal level.”
Health Services Union state secretary Jorge Navas, who also put forward a motion to reaffirm the existing policy of opposition to a dump said safety risks remained a significant concern.
He likened pursuit of the nuclear industry to asbestos.
“It was profitable but the consequences are devastating,” he said.
Australian government considering law to stop environment groups taking legal action
Coalition can bring back green ‘lawfare’ bill if Senate supports it, says Turnbull
Prime minister floats plan to reintroduce controversial laws to limit right of conservation groups to mount court cases, Guardian, Paul Karp, 24 Oct 16, The government plans to reintroduce controversial laws to limit the legal standing of conservation groups mounting court cases if it thinks the new Senate will support them, Malcolm Turnbull has revealed.
At a press conference in Sydney on Monday Turnbull expressed concern that “systematic, well-funded” environmental campaigns were targeting major projects and flagged a renewed attempt to pass the law.
In August 2015 the Abbott government announced it would remove the right of most environmental organisations to challenge developments under federal laws unless they could show they were “directly affected”.
The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Act allows any Australian citizen or resident who has engaged in conservation activities in the previous two years to bring a legal challenge to government environmental decisions.
The proposed changes followed a federal court decision that the then environment minister, Greg Hunt, had not properly considered all advice in his approval of Adani’s $16.6bn Carmichael coalmine.
After becoming prime minister Turnbull unexpectedly retained plans to introduce the laws limiting legal standing…….
The Greens environment spokeswoman, Senator Larissa Waters, said: “Stopping ordinary Australians from enforcing our environment laws would be a capitulation to the hard right inside the Coalition and yet another win for Tony Abbott.”
She added: “Gutting public enforcement of environmental laws is an attack on democracy and the rule of law.
“When governments fail to enforce or comply with their own laws, it falls to community groups to hold them to account.”
Waters said there were already strict rules that limit which cases go to court and frivolous or vexatious claims could be struck out.
On Tuesday a United Nations special rapporteur, Michel Forst, criticised the proposed law after a two-week visit to Australia investigating protections for human rights defenders, including environmentalists.
Forst said there were already significant obstacles to environmental litigation including complexity and the risk of a costs order if a case was unsuccessful.
An Australian Conservation Foundation campaigner, Basha Stasak, welcomed the UN rapporteur’s findings that environmental campaigners had been “vilified” for legitimate legal action.
She called on the government to “take on board the recommendations that environmental groups have a legitimate interest in decision making and in the courts” and withdraw amendments to deny them standing and deprive them of tax-deductible status. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/oct/24/coalition-can-bring-back-green-lawfare-bill-if-senate-supports-it-says-turnbull
Lack of balance in the Witness List for Nuclear Citizens’ Jury South Australia October 29-30 ?
The Witness list for the 29 -30 Nuclear Citizens’ Jury in Adelaide is posted here on Antinuclear . This list is shown with indications of which witnesses are pro nuclear waste import and which are not.
It is interesting to observe that the pronuke and nuclear free witnesses are not always balanced evenly.
On “ECONOMICS” there is, oddly, a clear majority of nuclear-free opinions. It looks as if no-one in the nuclear lobby was game to face questioning on this topic! DemocracyCo was forced to step in and find a pro nuclear speaker!
On “SAFETY” (includes general safety, siting and transport) there are just two witnesses who appear to be neutral. The remaining four including the facilitator are pro nuclear.
“CONSENT” is a dodgy one, with only one nuclear-free opinion – three pro nuclear (including the facilitator, and two neutral.
Meanwhile – this Citizens Jury will probably go on under the media radar, as the South Australian Labor Party National Conference is happening at the same time – where the ALP will be debating changing their nuclear policy, and overturning or weakening the Nuclear Waste Storage Facility Prohibition Act 2000
Premier Jay Weatherill’s Nuclear Waste Decisions in November South Australia
David Noonan, 22 Oct 16 In mid-late November Premier Weatherill intends to announce his SA gov decision and go to the SA Parliament to amend the Nuclear Waste Storage Facility Prohibition Act 2000 – at a minimum: to repeal the prohibition on spending public monies on nuclear waste plans (as per the likely ‘amber light’ Citizen Jury outcome over the first weekend in Nov).
This has to follow on from release of the SA Parliamentary Inquiry Report, likely in the week of Parliamentary sittings 15th to 17th Nov. The SA Liberals have privately said they will not give their position while the Citizen’s Jury is on, and will not do so until after this Inquiry reports.
The Premier will likely go to Parliament in the final scheduled sitting week of 29th Nov to 1st Dec (with an ‘optional sitting week’ in early Dec – which is very rarely ever used). The Premier requires the SA Liberals to agree to his proposed changes.
Appears unlikely the SA Liberals will agree to repeal the key prohibitions on import, transport, storage and disposal of International nuclear waste (at this time) BUT likely agree to repeal the prohibition on spending public funds – in a ‘further information’ style approach.
The Premier will then formally ask the Federal government to jointly work up the Inter dump plan along-side the SA gov through-out 2017 and in the lead up to the March 2018 State election. The Premier would then have to return to Parliament to repeal the key prohibitions on import, transport, storage and disposal of nuclear waste – potentially late in 2017 OR after the State Election.
Note: Shadow Treasurer Rob Lucas MLC (the lead Liberal on the Parliamentary Inquiry) has made media statements (as an individual) that the extent of public funds required to be spent before SA knows if this plan could go ahead – “is a potential deal breaker”;
And has also cast doubt on the potential economic benefits: warning it was not possible to verify “some of the financial estimates in terms of what the state might earn from this facility”.
see:“SA nuclear dump dreams just fool’s gold: senior Lib” The Australian 29 Sept 2016:http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/state-politics/sa-nuclear-dump-dreams-just-fools-gold-senior-lib/news-story/a595649777c14703159a462c5d9cb34f
see: “SA would have to spend up to $600 million to plan a nuclear waste repository” The Advertiser 11 September 2016:http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/subscribe/news/1/index.html?sourceCode=AAWEB_WRE170_a&mode=premium&dest=http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/sa-would-have-to-spend-up-to-600-million-to-plan-a-nuclear-waste-repository/news-story/9287ad32b2717574afdeb29e0cf90f5c&memtype=registered
|
|
1 This month
7 April – WEBINAR – Australia and the Doomsday Clock – Preventing nuclear war through NoFirstUse and other policies
Online | Tuesday April 7, 4:00-5:30pm, Australian Eastern Time / 8:00-9:30am Central Europe Time
– Access the registration link
15 April – Zoom –Nuclear Power is Not the Solution
Apr 15, 2026 01:00 AM in Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney
Join the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW) on Tuesday, April 14th for a timely webinar exploring the risks associated with nuclear power and challenging the myth that it offers a simple, safe, carbon-free solution to the climate crisis
21 April Webinar: No Nuclear Weapons in Australia
Start: 2026-04-21 18:00:00 UTC Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney (GMT+10:00)
End: 2026-04-21 19:30:00 UTC Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney (GMT+10:00)
Event Type: Virtual
A virtual link will be communicated before the event.
Host Contact Info: australia@icanw.org
of the week – Australians for War Powers Reform (AWPR)
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
Antinuclear 