Farm organisations angry at Abbott plan to restrict legal action against resource projects
Farm groups furious at Coalition move to restrict environmental challenges, Guardian, Lenore Taylor, 19 Aug 15 Farm organisations horrified they will be swept up in changes to environmental laws that aim to stop green groups taking legal action against resource projects Angry farm organisations have learned they will be caught by changes to federal environmental laws aimed at stopping “environmental saboteurs” using the courts to delay big projects, but agriculture minister Barnaby Joyce says some individual farmers may not.
After the surprise announcement of major changes to federal environmental law on Tuesday, the Abbott government spent much of Wednesday making conflicting statements about which part of the laws it intended to abolish.
But by the day’s end it confirmed it would try to repeal all of section 487 of the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act – contrary to an answer given by the responsible minister, attorney general George Brandis, just hours earlier, and contrary to confidential speaking notes mailed to all MPs that morning.
The clarification horrified farm groups because many farm organisations will also be denied standing to challenge federal environmental approvals in the court and this could stymie several planned challenges to federal approval of the controversial $1.2bnShenhua Watermark coalmine on the fertile Liverpool Plains in NSW.
Any person wanting to mount a challenge would have to prove they had been directly and personally adversely affected……
The government insists the changes to the law will stop only what it calls environmental “vigilantists” and “vandals” and not farm groups.
According to Joyce the Shenhua mine is a “far different proposition” from the Adani mine because it is located on a fertile farming plain.
According to lawyers expert in the operations of the EPBC Act, the amendments proposed by the government would leave both environmental and farm groups bogged in lengthy and expensive legal proceedings to decide whether or not they had the “standing” to take legal action, and will mean many of them wouldn’t.
The proposed amendment, to be introduced on Thursday, appears likely to be defeated in the Senate. Labor and the Greens have said they would not support it. Independent Queensland senator Glenn Lazarus and Palmer United party senator Dio Wang are also unlikely to vote for it and independent Nick Xenophon has said he is “very wary”…….. http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/aug/19/farm-groups-fear-coalition-move-to-restrict-environment-challenges
Abbott’s plan to change environmental law puts Great Barrier Reef at risk
Great Barrier Reef and other icons at risk from proposed law change: green groups August 19, 2015 Peter Hannam Environment Editor, The Sydney Morning Herald The Abbott government’s proposed change to a key environmental protection law is an anti-democratic move that could put Australia’s famous natural heritage sites at risk, green groups say.
Eight leading non-profit environmental organisations gathered in Sydney on Wednesday to oppose the federal government’s plan to abolish section 487 of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act.
The move, which may struggle to win sufficient votes to get through the Senate, would limit legal challenges to major projects to those parties directly affected……….
Wilderness Society convener James Johnson said the EPBC ACT had been set up by the Howard government in 1999 after the Australian Law Reform Commission found individuals should not require a special test to begin proceedings on environmental matters.
“Those are the areas and issues deserving the highest levels of protection,” Mr Johnson said. “It’s wrong to represent to the Australian people that we have laws to protect matters of national environmental significance on the one hand, and to take away the very right to ensure those laws are followed with the other.”
Paul Oosting, acting national director of GetUp!, said the move was an action of a “desperate government”.
“They’ve had a controversial few weeks and now they’ve launched this attack on Australia’s key environmental laws, putting in jeopardy our precious places like the Great Barrier Reef, to distract from a government that’s not performing well,” he said.: http://www.theage.com.au/environment/great-barrier-reef-and-other-icons-at-risk-from-proposed-law-change-green-groups-20150819-gj2h49.html#ixzz3jJGos0sl
#Nuclear stooge Senator Bob Day not able to dismantle Australia’s law against establishing nuclear facilities
the ARPANS Act 1998 – 1A Section 10 includes :
10 Prohibition on certain nuclear installations
(1) Nothing in this Act is to be taken to authorise the construction or operation of any of the following nuclear installations:
(a) a nuclear fuel fabrication plant; (b) a nuclear power plant;
(c) an enrichment plant;
(d) a reprocessing facility.
(2) The CEO must not issue a licence under section 32 in respect of any of the facilities mentioned in subsection (1).
(2) Clause 12, page 8 (lines 14 to 22), omit the definition of nuclear installation, substitute: nuclear installation means any of the following:
(a) a nuclear reactor for research or production of nuclear materials for industrial or medical use (including critical and sub-critical assemblies);
(b) a plant for preparing or storing fuel for use in a nuclear reactor as described in paragraph (a);
(c) a nuclear waste storage or disposal facility with an activity that is greater than the activity level prescribed by regulations made for the purposes of this section;
(d) a facility for production of radioisotopes with an activity that is greater than the activity level prescribed by regulations made for the purposes of this section
Nuclear fan Senator Bob Day pushes to scrap Australia’s law on nuclear facilities
Push to scrap nuclear power plant ban in Australia THE AUSTRALIAN AUGUST 18, 2015 A push to scrap federal laws that ban nuclear power plants in Australia is due to be voted on today, amid calls for MPs to support expanding the uranium industry ahead of the findings of a royal commission.
An amendment to the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Bill was tabled in the Senate yesterday by Family First senator Bob Day.
The change would abolish section 10 of the ARPANS Act which bans construction of certain nuclear installations, including nuclear fuel fabrication plants, nuclear power plants, uranium enrichment plants, and reprocessing facilities.
Senator Day said the change was needed to position the country — and his home state of South Australia — to take advantage of a potential nuclear industry.
A royal commission is underway to investigate the state’s role in the nuclear fuel cycle, with industry invited to submit business cases for building a value-added uranium sector…….
The federal government has made a submission to the royal commission highlighting the benefits of Australia’s nuclear activities.
“Australia has a strong reputation as a global supplier of uranium for peaceful purposes and we already benefit from our nuclear research and the provision of life saving radiopharmaceuticals that help diagnose and treat serious illnesses,” Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane said.
However, the government is not expected to support the change.
The current restriction under the ARPANS Act was established in 1998 after an amendment moved by the Greens, which was supported by both major parties. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/push-to-scrap-nuclear-power-plant-ban-in-australia/story-fn59niix-1227488202358
Tony Abbott’s pointless accusations against environmental groups
Tony Abbott’s defence of the Carmichael coalmine is passionate but baseless, Guardian, Lenore Taylor, 7 Aug 15
Prime minister, ‘sabotage’ is something undertaken by enemy agents, not citizens testing the laws of the land.In yet another passionate defence of coal (in an interview with the Australiannewspaper), Tony Abbott has made so many inaccurate and questionable claims it’s hard to know where to start. Here are some of his statements, juxtaposed with facts.
If a vital national project can be endlessly delayed, if the courts can be turned into a means of sabotaging projects which are striving to meet the highest environmental standards, then we have a real problem in this nation … we have to remain a nation that gives people a fair go if they play by the rules.”
The prime minister seems to be suggesting those taking court action are doing something unpatriotic and wrong. In fact, the environmentalists trying to stop the Carmichael mine are playing by the rules – the laws made by parliaments and interpreted by courts.
“Sabotage” is usually something undertaken by enemy agents, not citizens testing the laws of the land. The Environmental Defenders Office is an organisation representing the views of many loyal Australians. A recent Essential poll found that 50% of Australians believe governments should prioritise support for renewables over the coal industry, including 39% of Liberal voters. Only 6% thought governments should prioritise support for coal. The federal court interprets the law.
In any event, the biggest danger to the Adani mine is its own business case, not environmental legal cases, as my colleague Joshua Robertson explained after the recent court decision. Continue reading
Abbott govt to remove right of environmental groups to legally challenge developments
Coalition to restrict green groups’ right to challenge after Carmichael setback, Guardian, Lenore Taylor, 18 Aug 15 [below – mining donations to Coalition]
Decision to place restrictions on environment groups that can bring legal action comes after federal court overturned approval for the Queensland coalmine The government will remove the right of most environmental organisations to challenge developments under federal laws unless they can show they are “directly affected” – a direct response to the federal court decision this month on Adani’s Carmichael coalmine.
Attorney general George Brandis took the plan to cabinet “under the line” on Monday and it was approved by the Coalition party room on Tuesday, where Tony Abbott said he wanted to use the issue to prove Labor was “torn between workers and greens”, whereas the Coalition was always on the side of the “hard-working and decent” workers.
Brandis said the government would seek to repeal section 487 (2) of the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Act and “return to the common law”. The government says “vigilante” green groups have been “sabotaging” development, jobs and growth by “lawfare” – unfair and improper use of the courts………
Abbott repeated the claim that the Adani mine would bring 10,000 jobs to Queensland even though the company’s own financial officer told a court this was not true and only 1,464 jobs would be created.
He told his party room “green activists” were “sabotaging” projects that could be bringing growth and jobs to Australia. The approval of the $16bn Carmichael mine, to be located in Queensland’s Galilee Basin region, was set aside earlier this month following a legal challenge by the Mackay Conservation Group. Continue reading
South Australian government warned on using public money to encourage nuclear industry
“…..Greens MLC Mark Parnell has questioned why the Attorney-General’s Department is in charge of three tenders seeking on behalf of the Royal Commission business cases for the establishment of a nuclear power plant, a dump and an enrichment facility.
“The Government must tread a very fine line between engaging in genuine open inquiry and actively promoting an expansion of the nuclear industry,’’ he said.
“It is illegal to spend any public money to “encourage” a nuclear waste facility in this State. The tender contract is in the name of the Attorney-General’s Department, so they will need to be very careful about any instructions they provide to tenderers about what to say or what not to say.” – Adelaide Now, August 14, 2015
Australia will have to improve on its inadequate greenhouse gas emission pledge
UN climate expert warns Australia’s emissions target should not be final offer, The Age, August 13, 2015 Nicole Hasham Environment and immigration correspondent Australia should not attend global talks in Paris refusing to budge on its greenhouse gas emission pledge, the UN’s scientific body on climate change has said, ahead of expected international pressure on the Abbott government to do better……….
In Canberra on Wednesday, Professor Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, vice-chairman of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said the December talks in Paris were negotiations.
“No country can go to negotiations knowing or thinking, really, that the [emissions target] numbers cannot be touched,” he said. Professor van Ypersele said targets from each nation would be collated and assessed, adding the collective efforts may not be enough to keep warming below 2 degrees. That would lead to “a discussion on how to increase the level of ambition and who needs to increase it first”, he said.
While pledges from nations may not be formally negotiated at Paris, leaders will probably be urged to increase their ambitions, either during the conference or afterwards……….
On Wednesday Labor leader Bill Shorten said he would attend the Paris talks.
The Marshall Islands, a Pacific nation highly vulnerable to the effects of climate change, has decried Australia’s pledge as a “weak target” that erodes our international reputation.
Mr Abbott said the Minerals Council of Australia, which represents the mining industry, called the target is “ambitious”.
The target has been interpreted as an effort to placate climate sceptics in the community and the government, while doing the minimum needed to meet Australia’s international obligations.
Climate Institute deputy chief executive Erwin Jackson said Australia’s target was “not the end of the story”. “Countries in Paris will be under pressure to lift their ambitions,” he said.
“Both diplomatic and economic pressure is [also] going to build through time after Paris for countries to get in line with where the world needs to go, which is towards net zero emissions.” http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/un-climate-expert-warns-australias-emissions-target-should-not-be-final-offer-20150812-gixa98.html#ixzz3ijcqRmdX
Research finds gender divide on opinions on nuclear power versus solar
More men back nuclear, women like solar: climate change gender divide found, The Age, August 10, 2015 Nicole Hasham Environment and immigration correspondent If the climate change debate wasn’t polarised enough, another divide has opened up: the attitudes of men versus those of women.
Climate Institute research published on Monday confirms Australian men are more likely than women to believe climate change is not happening, and to prefer nuclear and coal as energy sources. Women, meanwhile, are more inclined than men to support wind and solar power, and take the view backed by the vast majority of the world’s scientists – that climate change is real.
Ian Dunlop, a former international oil, gas and coal industry executive who is now a director of not-for-profit think tank Australia21, said gender differences were a “fundamental issue” holding back climate action.
“The male incumbency in the business and political world have not been prepared to engage with that discussion,” he said, deriding a dominant culture of “macho short-termism”. “I think women on the other hand are actually more conscious of the … world we are heading into and [that] we need to start doing something about it.”………
The United Nations has previously said women in poor nations bear the disproportionate burden of climate change, but are largely overlooked in the debate about how to address effects such as rising seas, droughts and extreme weather.
The founder of 1 million women, Natalie Isaacs, whose organisation encourages women to act on climate change through the way they live, said protecting future generations “is a hot button issue for women”. She said women made 85 per cent of consumer decisions that affect a household’s carbon footprint.
Mr Dunlop, former chairman of the Australian Coal Association and former chief executive of the Australian Institute of Company Directors, said women were more likely than men to see climate change as an “existential issue”. “The male approach to this thing is [often] saying it is all nonsense, it’s all just alarmism,” he said.
It has been argued that advocates for climate action should frame their message around defending the status quo, to encourage more men to confront the problem. http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/men-back-nuclear-women-like-solar-climate-change-gender-divide-found-20150809-giv5vk.html#ixzz3iZgnCE00
South Australian Premier critical of BHP as the company cuts even more jobs
“Our strategy has always been about the diversification of the South Australian economy and I think that we’ve been working on many fronts. Whether it’s education, health industries, tourism, defence … this is an economy of many moving parts,” Mr Weatherill said.
SA Premier Jay Weatherill refuses to explain BHP Billiton’s ‘bad news’ after jobs cut announcement 891 ABC Adelaide , 11 Aug 15,
Mr Weatherill said the company needed to “front the media” after its announcement this week that jobs would go at the mine, including those of technicians, scientists, engineers and supervisors.
It follows on from the loss of 230 positions in South Australia earlier this year.
Mr Weatherill defended the Government’s record on embracing the mining industry and BHP’s expansion plans for the mine. Continue reading
Role of senator Sean Edwards in the South Australia Nuclear Toilet plan
South Australia’s future role in the nuclear industry, The Saturday Paper, 8 Aug 15 PHILIP DORLING“……..Perhaps the most interesting twist in these proceedings, however, has been the role of South Australian Liberal senator Sean Edwards, who in April outlined a radical plan for an integrated nuclear industry embracing nuclear waste storage and recycling, fuel fabrication and power production.
Edwards has demonstrated a sustained interest in nuclear issues since he entered federal parliament in 2011.
He argues that East Asian countries could pay up to $1 million a tonne to send used fuel rods to South Australia for storage. By using a new form of reactor, an integral fast reactor (specifically the power reactor innovative small module – PRISM – design proposed by GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy), 95 per cent of the energy could be extracted from the rods, with electricity generation as a byproduct.
“We could end up with zero or low-cost power,’’ Edwards told The Sydney Institute in April. “It could revitalise the industrial sector in South Australia. The more you reprocess, the more electricity you have to get rid of.”
After consultation with a group of pro-nuclear advocates and technical experts, Edwards has submitted an as-yet-unpublished 213-page submission to the royal commission, arguing that South Australia can take advantage of the “under-serviced market for the management of used nuclear fuel. Several nations are holding quarantined budgets in the tens of billions of dollars with no satisfactory pathway to discharge responsibility for this material”.
Edwards’ submission proposes the establishment of a multinational spent fuel storage installation, an industrial pilot-scale fuel recycling and fabrication facility, a new “fourth generation” fast-breeder reactor, and deep borehole disposal of short-lived waste products.
Substantially funded by foreign investment, Edwards estimates the project could deliver $28 billion to South Australia, including very low-cost, even free, electricity for the state.
During the past 18 months, Edwards has also engaged in discussions with the nuclear industries in several Asian countries, which he says have expressed “considerable interest”. He is currently not prepared to identify the countries involved, but The Saturday Paper has established they include South Korea and Japan.
Edwards has also briefed Abbott, Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane and Trade Minister Andrew Robb.
It remains to be seen whether Edwards’ scheme stands critical scrutiny from the royal commission and wider debate. There are already plenty of critics. The Australian Greens have expressed strong opposition to the entire royal commission process, so too has veteran anti-nuclear campaigner Helen Caldicott. Nuclear researcher Richard Leaver, formerly of Flinders University, points out that no so-called fourth-generation reactors have been built and they are not expected to be available for commercial construction before 2030-40. ……..https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/news/politics/2015/08/08/south-australias-future-role-the-nuclear-industry/14389560002222
South Australia’s flirtation with nuclear energy – a ticking time bomb for Labor?
South Australia’s future role in the nuclear industry, The Saturday Paper, 8 Aug 15 PHILIP DORLING The South Australian government’s flirtation with nuclear energy threatens to turn its relationship with federal Labor into a ticking time bomb. South Australia was in the news this week thanks to Prime Minister Tony Abbott’s announcement of a new naval construction plan that, if implemented, will see Adelaide confirmed as Australia’s naval shipbuilding hub.Wind inquiry: Australia’s pro-nuclear Senate trio downgrades nation’s peak medical research body
The Committee also cast doubt on the reliability of National Health and Medical Research Council investigations of the issue, after the nation’s peak research body reported a lack of evidence to support claims of the harmful effects of wind turbines.
It proposed the IESC take the lead on conducting research on the issue, dismissing the NHMRC’s efforts in the area as “manifestly inadequate”.
But in a dissenting report, Labor Senator Anne Urquhart shredded the credibility of Sarah Laurie, who the majority senators relied heavily upon for evidence of the adverse health effects of wind farms, as an authority on the issue.
Senators want federal health body sidelined on wind turbine investigations, REneweconomy, By Adrian Rollins on 4 August 2015 Australian Medicine The Federal Government has been urged to sideline the nation’s peak medical research body and set up a stand-alone scientific committee to investigate the health effects of wind farm noise.
The Senate Select Committee on Wind Turbines, chaired by Democratic Labor Party Senator John Madigan, has recommended the establishment of an Independent Expert Scientific Committee (IESC) on Industrial Sound to research the health effects of wind turbines “and any other industrial projects which emit sound and vibration energy” and develop a national noise standard for wind farms.
The IESC, which along with a National Wind Farm Ombudsman, would be paid for through a levy on wind farm operators, would provide advice to State governments on the health effects of any proposed or existing wind farm, and the Senate committee called for states that did not accept expert advice or adopt the national noise standard to be overruled by the Commonwealth.
The recommendations are in keeping with Government hostility to the wind power industry. Continue reading
Tom Kenyon MP – the man who sold the radioactive trash idea to South Australia
Mr Kenyon, now a backbench MP, refused to comment on the report.
The Sunday Mail understands it was not presented to Cabinet but became instrumental in prompting the current Royal Commission into the potential for the nuclear fuel cycle to revive the SA economy.
The report found there needed to be a good public relations campaign to convince people of the safety of the plan, and that money raised should be spent on infrastructure like the SA leg of a high speed rail to Melbourne.
It also proposed a model in which SA generate more money by leasing yellowcake mined here and taking it back as waste, and as a trade off people be guaranteed there will be no nuclear power plants in SA.
Nuclear waste dump should be first cab off the rank, report finds by: MILES KEMP From: Sunday Mail (SA) Originally published as Nuclear dump could be key to our riches August 01, 2015 Available on The Australian website http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nuclear-waste-dump-should-be-first-cab-off-the-rank-report-finds/story-e6frg6n6-1227466384020
A BRIEFING paper delivered to the State Government recommended the state accept Taiwan’s nuclear waste, access that nation’s $10 billion disposal fund and establish an Outback nuclear waste dump to revive the economy.
As the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission explores the option to help solve SA’s jobs crisis, the Sunday Mail has obtained a copy of a report prepared for former Employment and Science Minister Tom Kenyon which argues the case for a waste dump near Woomera. Continue reading
Senators, servants of the nuclear lobby, stitched up wind power inquiry
The Senate inquiry is led crossbenchers David Leyonhjelm, John Madigan and Bob Day
.Senate inquiry into wind power a ‘stitch-up’ http://thenewdaily.com.au/news/2015/07/31/senate-inquiry-wind-power-stitch/ Jul 31, 2015 Renewable energy sector claims industry would be destroyed if recommendations are followed. The Clean Energy Council (CEC) has accused a Senate inquiry of a “biased political stitch-up” against the renewable energy industry. Continue reading
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 