Uranium deal with India is bad for Australian business
Australia-India nuclear deal http://www.lowyinterpreter.org/post/2015/09/14/Reader-riposte-Australia-India-nuclear-deal.aspx
Besides its collateral damage to Australia’s security, commercial and diplomatic interests, the soon-to-be ratifiedAustralia-India nuclear cooperation agreement notably fails to meet its objectives.
The aim was to give a green light to Australian uranium exports to India. Two objectives were to be served, one commercial, the other diplomatic. A vast new market was to be opened for Australian uranium exporters and India was to be convinced Australia was a reliable partner, worthy of a closer relationship.
Instead, as has been exposed in the Joint Parliamentary Committee, the Australian side gave away so much in the course of the negotiations on safeguards against nuclear proliferation and left open such loopholes for Australian uranium to end up in bombs or otherwise help their manufacture, that this proposed treaty does not do what Australia’s 23 existing nuclear safeguards treaties do.
Unlike them, it does not give Australian exporters legally watertight guarantees that the trade will be subject to effective controls against misuse of the uranium in ways Australian companies neither want nor could afford. So many deficiencies in the proposed treaty have been exposed it amounts at best, not to a greenlight but to a blinking yellow one. Not ‘all is guaranteed safe’ but ‘proceed carefully at your own peril’. And JSCOT’s main recommendation is a red light: no uranium exports to be permitted for the foreseeable future.
How Australian companies will respond and what risks they will be prepared to take remains to be seen, but no responsible government would have placed them in this situation.
The Indian Government has every reason to feel it too has been dudded. Instead of a reliable supply, there is a big element of precariousness. As for a demonstration of the Australian Government’s trustworthiness as a close partner, the contrary impression is conveyed of a bumbling inability to manage our own end of the deal.
Australia’s Turnbull Liberal government – new style, same content
Eight years ago, I started this website because I felt it necessary, in order to help get rid of Australia’s worst Prime Minster ever – John Howard. Little did I know that before long, Howard would be followed by an even worse Prime Minister than he, in Tony Abbott..
John Howard wanted to take Australia back to the complacent, comfortable, unimaginative 1950s. Still, John Howard brought in gun reform law, that prevented Australia going down the crazy American path of gun terrors. Howard must have saved many lives, in bringing about that law, and he deserves credit.
Tony Abbott aimed to reject every modern trend. For the purposes of this website, Abbott’s denial of climate change, and his support for nuclear power, were reason enough to want to get rid of him as PM.
But in addition to that, PM Abbott was like a punch drunk boxer, wanting to keep on fighting, not just personally, but in promoting militarism -ever ready to take Australia into any war, even ahead of USA asking us to tag along. Abbott – clever, cunning? But not really intelligent.
Thank goodness, new Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull is intelligent, does understand climate change, does want to take Australia into the 21st Century, not back to the 18th. In a way – I wish him well.
BUT – Turnbull is still leading a Liberal-National Coalition government. Let’s not forget who’s backing them, and where they get their funding.
Graph below show the history of mining donations to Liberal and Labor parties:
Malcolm Turnbull’s pro nuclear, pro coal, anti renewables policies
Malcolm Turnbull may have a better public profile than Tony Abbott but he is no hero and certainly doesn’t deserve support from outside the Liberal Party…….He fought the price on carbon and towed the party line beyond belief!# He supports coal seam gas mining, uranium mining, coal mining and doesn’t give a rats about Abbott Point or Mega factory ships in our waters or the pollution of our waters in so very 
many ways!
# He doesn’t support renewable energy or renewable industry!…….Just because once upon a time he supported an emissions trading scheme (dumped that idea when Labor actually introduced one thanks to the Greens)
and just because he’s for equal marriage rights and wears a leather jacket does not mean he deserves our support!
Where did the Malcolm Turnbull propaganda come from? He’s very marginally better than Abbott because he presents well but then again, so does the big bad wolf in Little red Riding Hood! http://lisa-green-owen.blogspot.com.au/
Malcolm Turnbull is keen on renewable energy. Would he save the Renewable Energy Target?
originally published in February 2015
Renewables is a different matter. Turnbull is known to be a supporter – as are most Nationals. Turnbull understands that the world is on the cusp of an energy revolution, and that new technologies will not send the economy back to the dark ages. Judging by his response to his Tesla test drive – he thinks it could be rather fun, and exciting.
Supporting a robust renewable energy target, either unchanged from its current level of 41,000GWh, or with minor changes, or delays, as recommended by the Climate Change Authority, would help Turnbull recapture the centre of the policy debate
Would Malcolm Turnbull save the renewable energy target? REneweconomy, By Giles Parkinson on 6 February 2015 As the Coalition government’s energy and environment ministers and their Labor counterparts sit down to resume discussions over the renewable energy target, one question that should overhang the negotiations is this: “What would Malcolm do?”
Tony Abbott’s position is clear: He established a panel of climate deniers and fossil fuel supporters to argue that the RET should be removed completely or slashed by more than half. The latter remains its negotiating position.
But talk of a leadership spill offers the real possibility that Malcolm Turnbull could be the new prime minister as early as next week. As veteran Canberra political writer Michelle Grattan writes, Abbott will either go now, or soon. His leadership is terminal.
What we can assume is that when this happens Turnbull would sweep away the cabal of climate deniers that have installed themselves in and around the PM’s office and dominated the government’s policy making.
This would include Abbott’s main business advisor, Maurice Newman, who was at it again on Friday, writing in The Australian that 2014 was NOT the hottest year on record, and that NASA, NOAA, the World Meteorological Organisation, the Australian Bureau of Meteorology, Japan’s Meteorological Agency, and the UK Met Office were all wrong for thinking so. Why? Because he had read as much on an obscure though notorious climate denier website favoured by the Mad Right.
So, one suspects we can count on Turnbull to sweep a broom through the likes of Newman, Dick Warburton, Tony Shepherd and David Murray – all climate deniers in charge of advising the government on key policy areas.
What Turnbull won’t do is reverse Abbott’s dumping of the carbon price. The Guardian’s Lenore Taylor gives a good explanation of why here. While Turnbull has been a fierce critic of Direct Action, he also believes it can be adapted into a baseline and credit scheme of the type he has long favoured. In effect, it will be a trading scheme without the word tax. Continue reading
Abbott’s attempt to stop legal action by green activists is likely to fail in the Senate
BUT with Labor and the Greens adamantly opposed, Environment Minister Greg Hunt faces a tough lobbying job to get it through the Senate.
The measure follows a Federal Court order, sought by a local environmental group, setting aside Mr Hunt’s approval of the proposed Carmichael coal mine in Queensland’s Galilee Basin.Mr Hunt on Thursday told parliament the change would prevent people with no connection to a project except a political agenda from using the courts to disrupt and delay.However the rights of farmers and other impacted landowners to go to court would not be affected………http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/breaking-news/greens-court-options-being-limited/story-fni0xqi4-1227521109153
Will Tony Abbott ignore the cautionary message of committee on uranium sales to India?
India uranium red-light a test for Tony Abbott, SBS News, 8 Sept 15, While Prime Minister Abbott and Foreign Minister Bishop have been strong supporters of selling Australian uranium to India, many others, including key Australian diplomats and insiders, remain far more circumspect. By Dave Sweeney
The JSCOT report followed a detailed examination and expert testimony and states that while the federal government can ratify the deal it must not advance uranium sales or supply to India before key checks and balances are put into practice and proven to work.
In short, the committee charged with advising the government on Indian uranium sales has reached the unambiguous conclusion that the government can sign but not sell.
The question now is whether the Abbott government will follow due parliamentary process and act in the public interest or will it ignore these concerns and JSCOT’s advice and seek to fast-track the agenda of the under-performing uranium sector?
When Prime Minister Tony Abbott signed a uranium deal with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi in New Delhi in September 2014, he praised India’s “absolutely impeccable non-proliferation record”. Yet India’s record on nuclear proliferation tells another story. India acquired its nuclear arsenal by breaking a promise not to use a Canadian reactor for military purposes. It remains outside the globe’s key non-proliferation frameworks and the region remains on nuclear high alert amid tensions with nuclear rival Pakistan.
Instead of addressing real questions about India’s nuclear weapons program and inadequate nuclear safety standards Mr Abbott resorted to cricketing clichés, declaring that Australia and India trust each other on issues like uranium safeguards because of “the fundamentally ethical principle that every cricketer is supposed to assimilate – play by the rules and accept the umpire’s decision”.
The JSCOT process received strongly critical submissions from a who’s who of nuclear arms control diplomats and experts including John Carlson (former long serving Director-General of the Australian Safeguards and Non-Proliferation Office from 1989 to 2010), Ron Walker (former Chair of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Prof. Lawrence Scheinman (former Assistant Director of the US Arms Control and Disarmament Agency). These are veteran players in global nuclear diplomatic and regulatory regimes, not anti-nuclear activists.
Nuclear arms control expert Crispin Rovere noted that “this treaty appears less like the deepening of a bilateral partnership and more like one of a client state being dictated to in an expanded Indian empire. It is a major display of weakness on the part of the Australian Government, and a failure to stand up for Australia’s national interests in this area”.
One thing we can all agree on is that Australia has a key role to play in supporting India’s legitimate energy aspirations, but this cannot be advanced by a retreat from responsibility on nuclear safeguards and security. The government must read and heed the JSCOT report and Australia’s uranium must remain away from India’s nuclear reactors and weapons – to do otherwise would be profoundly irresponsible.
JSCOT has just clean bowled this dangerous and deeply deficient sales plan. Mr Abbott must now heed his own words, “accept the umpire’s decision” and start the long walk back to pavilion for a serious re-think. http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2015/09/08/comment-india-uranium-red-light-test-tony-abbott
Joint Standing Committee on Treaties (JSCOT) not happy with plan to sell uranium to India
Caution urged on uranium sales to India, Herald Sun September 8, 2015 THE government needs to consider greater safeguards and stronger diplomatic efforts before Australia sells uranium to India, a new report says. THE treaties committee report, tabled in parliament on Tuesday, said India should be encouraged to become a party to the comprehensive test ban treaty and separate its civil and military nuclear facilities.Uranium should not be sold to India until it puts in place an independent nuclear regulator and best practice safety inspections of nuclear facilities, the report said.Committee chairman, Liberal MP Wyatt Roy, said in the report there were some “significant risks” to selling uranium to India.India was outside the “nuclear non-proliferation mainstream” and Australia should use all diplomatic steps to ensure it signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.There were weaknesses in the way India’s nuclear facilities are regulated “that jeopardise nuclear safety and security”.
“The committee has made a recommendation that the sale of uranium to India only commence when these weaknesses have been addressed,” Mr Roy said……..Two Labor members of the committee said the full separation of India’s civil and military nuclear facilities and the setting up of a new independent watchdog should be done before the treaty is ratified.The majority committee view was that these two matters should be addressed after ratification.”We consider it essential that any nuclear agreement with India should be at least as rigorous as all the agreements Australia has concluded with other countries,” Labor’s Melissa Parke and Sue Lines wrote.Greens senator Scott Ludlam said the deal should not go ahead.”It puts the interest of a small and marginal industry ahead of global security,” he said……..http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/breaking-news/australias-india-uranium-deal-report-due/story-fni0xqi4-1227517124640
Western Australian Labor holds firm to nuclear-free policies
URANIUM AND THORIUM (nb: from Environment chapter)
- WA Labor believes that:
- Enriching uranium poses significant risks to human health, the natural environment and is not a solution to climate change; and
- Thorium also poses significant risks to human health and the environment.
- In Government, WA Labor will:
- Oppose the mining and export of uranium;
- Oppose nuclear enrichment, nuclear power and otherwise the production of dangerous radioactive waste;
- Oppose the storage of nuclear energy waste in Western Australia;
- Oppose the testing or use of nuclear weapons in Western Australia or near our coastline;
- Encourage local governments to declare themselves ‘Nuclear Free Zones’; and
- Ensure that the mining of thorium in Western Australia only occurs under the most stringent environmental conditions and oppose thorium exports to countries that do not observe the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
URANIUM MINING & NUCLEAR ENERGY (nb: from Industry and Regional Development chapter)
- Recognising the problems, hazards and dangers of nuclear power, especially relating to:
- The safety of the nuclear fuel cycle;
- The unsolved problems pertaining to the reprocessing and storage of radioactive wastes and spent plant;
- The growing concern about the biomedical effects of even low radiation;
- The coupling of nuclear energy and nuclear weapon development;
- The added danger of a future plutonium economy and the threats to civil liberties involved in a nuclear economy; and
- The fact that Labor policy contained herein on fossil fuels, energy conservation and renewable resources will ensure Western Australian energy self-sufficiency.
- WA Labor will:
- Reject nuclear power as an option for electricity generation in Western Australia;
- Oppose the establishment of a nuclear enrichment facility in the State;
- Reject the establishment of nuclear processing plants or the storage of nuclear wastes in the State;
- Allow no uranium mining or development in Western Australia; and
- Place thorium under the restrictions and conditions applicable to the mining, processing, sale and transportation of uranium currently mined in Australia as outlined in the Resources and Energy section of the National Platform, so far as they relate to nuclear non-proliferation.
- The platform recognises WA Labor’s long and continuous opposition to Uranium Mining. The commencement and continuation of any uranium project is inconsistent with WA Labor Policy. WA Labor will accept no obligation to complete approval processes or honour contractual arrangements entered into by a previous government where such approvals or contracts are directed towards an outcome inconsistent with WA Labor’s platform.
International Relations:
Support measures that prevent the use of Australian uranium exports in the proliferation of nuclear weapons or environmental degradation
September 1st, Wattle Day, should be our new Australia Day
Wattle Day, [September 1st]on the other hand, acknowledges the natural beauty of this land, which, like Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, is ancient. This would be more sensitive to indigenous peoples, and it would bring unity, in celebrating the natural beauty of our lands and waters.
Why today should be Australia Day, news.com.au SEPTEMBER 01, 2015 Is there any more Australian sign of spring than wattle trees blossoming across the country, our nation al flower’s bright yellow blooms against the green of its leaves, the inspiration for our Australian colours of green and gold?
Acacia pycnantha, otherwise known as Golden Wattle, has earned its status as our national floral emblem: it symbolises May Gibbs’ Little Ragged Blossom; the green and gold garb of our cricket team; it signifies the golden sands of our beaches and the green of our gum trees.
This and many other reasons, is why Australia Day, our national celebration of who we are as a nation, should move from January 26 to September 1 — Wattle Day. The first of September is the first day of Spring, marking a time of birth, fresh beginnings….
Instead, we officially celebrate Australia Day on January 26. For our First Peoples, this is hardly a day to celebrate. It marks the day in 1788 that Captain Arthur Phillip invaded the Eora Nation, landing in Sydney Harbour and claiming the lands of indigenous peoples in the name of the British Empire. It marks the start of 227 years of suffering and loss, massacres of hundreds of thousands of people, and of the removal of tens of thousands of children from their mothers’ arms.
It is the height of insensitivity and hypocrisy to celebrate Australia’s nationhood on such a date, and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples have voiced their protest to it since the 1880s………
Wattle Day, on the other hand, acknowledges the natural beauty of this land, which, like Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, is ancient. This would be more sensitive to indigenous peoples, and it would bring unity, in celebrating the natural beauty of our lands and waters.
Changing the date of Australia Day is possible. We only have to look to the USA for inspiration, where the similarly insensitive ‘Columbus Day’ is no longer observed in Hawaii, South Dakota, Alaska and Oregon. South Dakota has actually changed the day to ‘Native American Day’ and the city of Berkeley in California, followed by a number of other cities, renamed it ‘indigenous Peoples’ Day’.
The last time changing the date was discussed on a political level was in 2009 when Mick Dodson was named Australian of the Year. He used the opportunity to urge national debate on changing the date of Australia Day, saying that the use of January 26 as Australia Day alienates Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people…….
>National symbols matter, and it is time for us to celebrate as a nation in a way that unites rather than divides us, under the green and golden branches of the wattle tree.
Tammy Solonec is indigenous Peoples’ Rights Manager for Amnesty International Australia. http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/real-life/why-today-should-be-australia-day/story-fnixwvgh-1227507268253
Canning voters are urged to reject Liberals’ war on solar energy
The solar council is planning a nationwide marginal seats campaign at the next election.
The government has directed the CEFC – which it unsuccessfully tried to abolish – to stop investments in rooftop solar, but changes to the investment mandate remain under legal uncertainty.
Canning byelection: solar industry urges voters to reject Liberals ‘war on solar’, Guardian, Lenore Taylor, 25 Aug 15
Solar Council letterboxes all electors in Western Australia’s seat of Canning encouraging them to vote for Labor, the Greens or the Palmer United party The solar 
industry is letterboxing all electors in the crucial West Australian Canning byelection urging them to vote against the Liberal party on 19 September in response to the Abbott government’s “war on solar”.
The Solar Council leaflet states: “Installing solar helps Western Australians cut a typical power bill by up to 65%. The federal government is targeting solar by slashing the renewable energy target. We will support any political party with a good solar policy.”
The council has invited all party leaders and candidates to a public forum on 13 September
– a week before the byelection that could affect Tony Abbott’s hold on the Liberal leadership – to explain their solar policies. Continue reading
BHP wants to remove Federal and State laws on uranium mining
BHP cool on hot uranium demand, The Weekend Australian p.2 REBECCA PUDDY, 22 Aug 2015 BHP Billiton has warned that the future doubling of global demand for uranium will not necessarily lead to increased investment at its Olympic Dam mine.
The mining company said the commercial return from the Olympic Dam deposit in the north of South Australia was driven primarily by copper production, together with a combination of commodity prices and other market factors.
“Therefore increased demand for uranium may not in and of itself lead to increased investment in the Olympic Dam deposit,” the company said in its submission to South Australia’s Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission.
BHP Billiton’s warning comes after it announced this month that 380 workers would be sacked as part of an operational review to cut costs.
An expansion plan for Olympic Dam was put on hold three years ago, although South Australian Premier Jay Weatherill hinted this month that a modified plan to expand the mine remains on the cards, with trials of an alternative heap-leaching technology progressing more rapidly and successfully than expected. This comes as demand for uranium is tipped to increase.
The International Energy Agency world energy outlook states that there are currently 437 operating nuclear power reactors in the world with 378 gigawatt capacity.
With a further 68 reactors being built, the agency forecasts nuclear capacity will increase to 624GW by 2040. “In the long run, additional supply of primary uranium will be required to meet the expected demand,” it says.
“With steady demand increases, the market deficit is expected to be filled by a range of potential projects.”
BHP Billiton’s submission to the royal commission focuses its attentions on the regulatory burdens placed on it by state and federal governments. It recommends the removal of uranium mining from the list of Matters of Environmental Significance in the federal Environment Protection and Biodiversity Act.
The commission is due to report early next year.
Dump for Lucas Heights wastes not the same thing as importing foreign nuclear wastes
We may now expect Fed govt to await the bi-election in Canning in Perth on Sept 17th before announcing the national nuclear dump site short list across SA & WA – just as South Australian Premier awaited his bi-elections before announcing the Nuclear Fuel Chain Royal Commission
In any case, the national store & repository are required by law under National Radioactive Waste Management Act 2012 as a national dump to be restricted to take waste ‘of domestic origin’.
And so has to be at a different site to proposed International nuclear dump being pushed in South Australia.
Ambivalence in Port Adelaide Enfield Council about trucking radioactive trash
Trucking nuclear material could clog LeFevre roads, Port Adelaide Enfield Council says, Kurtis Eichler, Portside Messenger August 19, 2015 TRUCKING nuclear material through the Lefevre Peninsula would add “significant” pressure to already clogged transport routes, Port Adelaide Enfield Council says.
Councillors voted last week to send a four-page submission to the State Government to be considered by its Royal Commission into nuclear energy.
Issues raised in the submission included transporting uranium from northern mining areas through Outer Harbor…….In February, contentious climate commentator Professor Ian Plimer pushed for a nuclear reactor in Port Adelaide, saying it would create jobs and make electricity cheaper.
The idea was rejected by Mr Johanson and Port Adelaide MP Susan Close. http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/messenger/west-beaches/trucking-nuclear-material-could-clog-lefevre-roads-port-adelaide-enfield-council-says/story-fni9llx9-1227489550161
Nuclear stooge MP Rowan Ramsey touting radioactive trash dump for his electorate
Concern over radioactive storage, Port Lincoln Times, By Olivia Barnes Aug. 20, 2015, THE potential for a low to medium grade radioactive waste management facility in the Kimba and Buckleboo district has some local families concerned.
After an information session in April and a call for voluntary nominations from landholders, two families with properties to the north of Kimba expressed interest in volunteering land for the facility.
The project is still in its early planning stages but a number of residents and landowners who are strongly opposed to the idea of the facility being placed anywhere in the district have decided to act.
Among these families’ concerns are the potential health effects a storage facility could have as well as future property values and the impact it could have on grain prices in years to come.
Cameron and Toni Scott said after their neighbours told them they had expressed interest in volunteering land for the facility, they were immediately concerned.
“When the information session was held in April it was the middle of seeding and a lot of us couldn’t make it,” Mr Scott said.
“Our concern is this facility could be near our farms and homes and we don’t know what the consequences could be in the future.”
Mr Scott said his family’s concerns were that there was no precedent to compare the proposed facility to and so much was unknown. “We don’t know what it could do to the district’s reputation, what it could mean for our grain in the future, we don’t know what the outcomes will be for future generations,” he said…….
Federal Member for Grey Rowan Ramsey is hoping the Kimba district doesn’t “wipe off” the opportunity for a radioactive waste management facility to be located somewhere in the area. http://www.portlincolntimes.com.au/story/3290460/concern-over-radioactive-storage/?cs=1500
Federal Member for Grey Rowan Ramsey will be holding an information session at the Kimba Hotel on Monday, August 24 at 8pm, similar to the one earlier this year
—
Very little use made of “third-party appeal rights” in Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act
Review questions Coalition push to end ‘legal sabotage’ of resources projects, SMH August 19, 2015 Mark Kenny, Lisa Cox, Jane Lee An attempt by Tony Abbott to blame “legal sabotage” used by green groups to kill off large resource projects in the courts, at the cost of tens of thousands of jobs, is derived from dubious and exaggerated evidence, according to an independent review of environmental law.
An analysis of the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act by progressive think tank the Australia Institute has found only a fraction of the roughly 5500 projects referred since the act’s inception in 2000 have been challenged using “third-party appeal rights”.
Elements of the yet-to-be-released study, obtained by Fairfax Media, reveal that of those projects referred to the environment minister for assessment under the act, about 1500 have been judged to require formal assessment, with just 12 refused federal environmental approval – nine of those because they were deemed “clearly unacceptable” even before being referred for formal assessment.
And of those 5500, only 27 have been the subject of third-party legal appeals.
“Third-party appeals to the Federal Court have only affected 0.4 per cent of all projects referred under the legislation,” the Australia Institute’s executive director, Ben Oquist, said………
the government plans to amend section 487 of the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act to remove the power of so-called “third parties”, such as environmental groups, from intervening in referrals from the minister under that act, via the courts.
Labor and the Greens said they would not support government’s proposal, meaning the government will need the crossbench if its plan is to pass the Senate……….http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/review-questions-coalition-push-to-end-legal-sabotage-of-resources-projects-20150818-gj1xp3.html
1 This month
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/2352741955560
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 