Australian government will not intervene as Australian citizen Julian Assange is extradited from UK to USA
Australia won’t interfere in Assange case https://www.aapnews.com.au/news/australia-won-t-interfere-in-assange-case?share=PPzPIGP&fbclid=IwAR2z0saMHCLbT3dc-VMgelywE7ND1eEa4TahOq9wCQ2Ai7IG2CKRyzKmWVE, By Dominic Giannini, April 21, 2022 The Australian government will not make any representations to the British home secretary after a UK court approved the extradition of whistleblower Julian Assange to the US.
A British court has sent Mr Assange’s extradition order to Home Secretary Priti Patel, but the whistleblower can try to challenge the decision by judicial review if signed.
Finance Minister Simon Birmingham said the government maintained confidence in the UK’s justice system.
“We trust the independence and integrity of the UK justice system. Our expectation is that, as always, it operates in the proper and transparent and independent way,” he told the ABC.
“It, of course, has appeal processes built into it as well. This is the legal system upon which our own has been built on and established and we have confidence in the process.”
Labor foreign affairs spokeswoman Penny Wong said it was ultimately a decision for the UK home secretary.
“I do understand why not only Mr Assange’s personal supporters but many Australians more generally are worried about this. It has dragged on a long time,” she told the ABC.
“As an Australian citizen, he is entitled to consular assistance. We also expect the government to keep seeking assurances from both the UK and US that he’s treated fairly and humanely.”
But Senator Wong stopped short of saying a Labor government would make specific representations about the case.
“Consular matters are regularly raised with counterparts, they are regularly raised and this one would be no different,” she said.
The development comes 10 days after Mr Assange surpassed the three-year anniversary of his arrest.
The 50-year-old Australian was dragged from London’s Ecuador embassy on April 11 in 2019 to face extradition to the United States on espionage charges over WikiLeaks’ release of confidential US military records and diplomatic cables.
Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce has previously called for an end to Mr Assange’s extradition.
Mr Joyce said Mr Assange didn’t steal secret US files but only published them, which did not breach any Australian laws at the time, and he was not in the US when leaks were put online.
The Greens have criticised the extradition of Mr Assange, with senator Peter Whish-Wilson saying the US Espionage Act wasn’t intended to be used against publishers.
“We must support press freedoms and those who hold the powerful to account,” he said.
“Julian Assange’s prosecution has always been political. It needs political intervention of the highest order from our government to get justice for him.”
Assange Australia campaign adviser Greg Barnes says it’s important the matter has moved back into the political realm.
“Previously the Australian government has said we can’t even intervene because the matter is before the courts. It is no longer before the courts in that sense,” he told Sky News.
This is a political decision that will be made by Priti Patel and it’s a decision which the Australian government, and of course in this context the opposition, could influence.”
The Greens, crossbenchers such as Andrew Wilkie, and Liberal and Labor backbenchers had expressed support for Mr Assange, which could potentially influence a hung parliament in May, Mr Barnes said.
“That’s also an interesting factor as to what pressure is going to come on whoever gets elected in May to bring this Australian home.”
with Reuters
Australian politics – Grift, Lies and Influence
As we lurch from one scandal of misspent public money to the next, transparency and accountability in public life have never seemed rarer. Fiona McLeod is Chair of the Accountability Round Table. Her book, Easy Lies and Influence, documents how community interests have been undermined. Through his fiercely independent news site, Michael West is known for following the money, highlighting those corporations exercising insidious power over our democracy. They ask: where have we gone wrong and what should we do now?
Scott Morrison, Angus Taylor stack clean energy agencies with fossil fuel mates
https://michaelwest.com.au/scott-morrison-angus-taylor-stack-clean-energy-agencies-with-fossil-fuel-mates/ by Callum Foote | Apr 20, 2022,
The Morrison government has slashed renewables funding and stacked Australia’s renewable energy agencies with fossil fuel executives, leaving the likes of ARENA, CEFC and Snowy Hydro controlled by potentially regressive political appointees for years. Callum Foote reports.
Eschewing common sense and proper process has become de rigeur for Scott Morrison and his energy minister Angus Taylor. And we are not hearing more than a whimper about this from Labor either. Political Mates deals. Jobs for the boys, Jobs for the girls.
Stacking the bureaucracy occurs under regimes of both stripes but, as is their wont, Prime Minister Scott Morrison and his energy minister Angus Taylor have taken their undemocratic agendas to the next level, to a grotesque art form.
They have been busy stacking public agencies, supposedly independent agencies, with their own people; not on merit but on party lines. We are of talking highly paid jobs, many between $250,000 and $500,000 going to people on the basis on political affiliations rather than ability or independence.
As if the government’s well-publicised stacking of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) were not enough evidence of blatant abuse of process, the recent spate of mining or fossil-fuel related board appointments to government-run renewable energy bodies ARENA and the CEFC, will favour the agendas, indeed the profits, of large multinational mining companies for years to come.
CEFC Board appointments
The Clean Energy Finance Corporation (CEFC) was created under the Gillard government, dedicated to making investments in emerging clean energy technologies. Originally, and for many years it ran a profit while presiding judiciously over the financing of RE projects.
First, the Coalition under Tony Abbott tried to have it abolished, despite it being a net earner for government – therefore no drag on the public purse. Failing there, the government has undermined its mandate and stacked it with its own ever since.
The latest: chairman, Steven Skala, AO, has had his position renewed for another five years.
Skala is vice chairman of Deutsche Bank Australia and has been a director of the Centre for Independent Studies, a libertarian think tank, since 1995.
While being the vice president of Deutsche Bank Australia, the bank joined JP Morgan and Standard Chartered to loan US$1 billion to Adani Enterprises in July last year.
Matt Howell has been appointed to the CEFC board for the first time, leaving his position as CEO of Tomago Aluminium.
Howell is also a director of the Australian Aluminium Council, an organisation which has been labelled the most militant of the “greenhouse mafia” organisations – as dubbed in a 2006 ABC Four Corners investigation.
The Council funded and promoted the work of the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics (ABARE), whose “MEGABARE” economic model was, at the time, used to generate reports which were a go-to for Liberal and National Party politicians wanting to argue climate action would spell economic catastrophe.
Rod Campbell, director of research at The Australia Institute, says Howell’s recent switch to pro-renewable energy rhetoric shows he is ”more than willing to play games in the energy space rather than really be involved in constructive long-term planning”.
ARENA Board appointments
Elizabeth O’Leary, a senior director at Macquarie Asset Management and head of MAM Agriculture & Natural Assets, one of the world’s largest private land managers, has been appointed to the board of the Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA).
O’Leary joins a long list of Macquarie Bank Alumni working for Australian clean energy financial bodies as revealed by a MWM investigation.
A consortium comprising private equity funds managed by the tax avoiding Brookfield Asset Management and Macquarie Capital acquired Apache Corporation’s Western Australian oil and gas assets for $US2.1 billion in 2019. This created Australia’s third largest oil and gas producer.
Snowy Hydro Board appointments
Snowy Hydro, which has become the government’s tool to intervene in the energy market – check out the highly questionable public subsidies for the Kurri Kurri gas plant – has appointed two new board members. These are Leanne Heywood who spent 10 years as an executive with Rio Tinto.
Timothy Longstaff was the government’s other pick for the role. Longstaff has previously been a director of Perenti, a Perth-based global mining services contractor.
Longstaff was also a senior advisor to the Finance Minister Simon Birmingham as recently as 2021. Birmingham is the minister who announced Longstaff’s appointment. Jobs for the boys, anyone?
Reduction in renewables funding:
The Climate Debt Statement, a measure introduced by Prime Minister Tony Abbott aggregates funding for the Clean Energy Finance Corporation (CEFC), the Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA) and the Clean Energy Regulator (CER) to work out how much their expenditure contributes to total government debt. It shows a decline in spending from $2 billion in 2022-23 to $1.3 billion in 2025-26.
Angus Taylor attempting to co-opt CEFC
A previous attempt to amend the CEFC’s legislation was abandoned earlier this year, after a group of Nationals MPs – including current leader Barnaby Joyce – sought to move additional amendments to expand the agency’s investments into coal and nuclear projects.
The Morrison government had attempted to open up the CEFC to carbon capture and storage projects, announcing a plan to establish a new Low Emissions Technology Commercialisation Fund using the Clean Energy Finance Corporation (CEFC).
This was designed to skirt around the CEFC’s legislated ban on funding CCS projects.
Despite the government’s ten-year jihad on renewable energy, there is no stopping financial logic, or common sense for that matter. RE prices have dropped radically over the decade, even more than the sector’s advocates and analysts had anticipated. That is, the cost of building new renewable energy versus the cost of building new coal or gas.
Where government has failed, miserably, investors have taken up the slack, leaving our politicians in the dust trying to prop up their fossil fuel donors with public money. This, even to the point of espousing ludicrous schemes which do not measure up financially: Kurri Kurri, the examination of a new coal-fired power plant for Queensland, the public subsidies for gas companies to frack the NT’s Beetaloo Basin.
Will Australia’s nuclear submarines end up being built overseas?
ABC, 7.30 / By Angelique Donnellan, 18 Apr 22, In 1938, wharfies at Port Kembla, south of Sydney refused to load smelted iron ore bound for military production in Japan for its war against China.
Key points:
Independent Senator Rex Patrick is concerned Australia’s nuclear submarines may end up being built overseas
Defence expert Clive Williams believes it would be cheaper to build the subs in the US or the UK
Port Kembla in NSW is being considered as a base for the nuclear submarines
Some locals, including Alexander Brown from Wollongong Against War and Nukes, says the peaceful legacy is reason for the town not to become a defence base for Australia’s new nuclear submarines.
“We’re a city of peace, and we’re a city of renewable and sustainable employment. We don’t want to turn into a defence industry town,” he told 7.30.
“If nuclear submarines are based here in Port Kembla, we’re looking at accident risks for us, for sea life, for the ecosystem that we all depend upon.”
Port Kembla is being considered as a potential $10 billion east coast nuclear submarine base location, along with Newcastle and Brisbane.
Debra Murphy from Illawarra Regional Development Australia said the town should embrace the opportunity.
Along with the base proposal, the historic AUKUS deal to deliver eight nuclear-powered submarines remains a work in progress during its initial 18-month consultation period…………
Defence Minister Peter Dutton wouldn’t be drawn on when the new nuclear submarines would be built and go into service, or the amount of construction work that would happen in Australia.
Under the previous French submarine deal, there was a public pledge to spend 60 per cent of the contract value in Australia………..
Concerns subs may be built overseas
South Australian Independent Senator and former submariner Rex Patrick said the language around a local build was too vague.
Every day, it looks more and more likely that this submarine will be built overseas,” Mr Patrick told 7.30.
“The government keeps squeezing on the schedule and that means that they have to reduce risk wherever they possibly can.
“The Australian Strategic Policy Institute has predicted that this project will cost about $170 billion. An overseas build is the exporting of $170 billion of taxpayers’ money and thousands of Australian jobs to foreign shipyards.”……………………..
Expert says subs should be built overseas
Defence researcher Clive Williams from Australian National University said considering the complexity of a nuclear submarine, taxpayers would get better value for money if the boats were constructed in the US or UK.
“I think building at Osborne in South Australia is fraught with danger and could well be another defence procurement disaster. I’m sure that it’ll wind up in cost overruns, changes to design, fiddling around with it, and so on,” he told 7.30.
“I think a much safer bet is to go with an overseas purchase.”………………………………
The government is pursuing the nuclear option after cancelling a contract last September with the French to build 12 diesel-electric submarines, a move that is likely to cost up to $5.5 billion in compensation to the companies involved, including Naval Group.
Mr Dutton said negotiations were ongoing and the settlement would be made public when finalised. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-04-19/australia-aukus-nuclear-submarines-building/100982778
Cameco Corp still set on WA uranium mine, despite government knockback, Indigenous opposition
ABC Goldfields / By Sean Tarek Goodwin, 14 Apr 2022
A multinational mining company says it remains committed to a controversial uranium project in WA, despite the state government declining to extend its environmental approval.
Key points:
- The WA Environment Minister has rejected an application to extend approval for a uranium mine near Wiluna
- Traditional owners and conservationists say the decision is a relief, after half a century of opposition
- The company says it is still determined to bring the project forward in the future
A multinational mining company says it remains committed to a controversial uranium project in WA, despite the state government declining to extend its environmental approval.
Canada-based Cameco Corporation spent US$430 million acquiring the Yeelirrie uranium deposit, near Wiluna in the northern Goldfields, in 2012.
It is one of the largest uranium deposits in the country.
Earlier this year, the project’s approval expired due to a failure to commence work.
Last week, WA Environment Minister Reece Whitby denied the firm’s application to have the approval extended.
Relief for traditional owners and conservationists
The Conservation Council of WA and Tjiwarl traditional owners welcomed that decision, after 50 years of campaigning against the project.
Traditional owner Vicky Abdullah said it meant a “threat” was over.
It was a bad decision in the first place and after years in court and fighting to defend our country this news is a great relief,” Ms Abdullah said.
Other conservationists also welcomed the decision.
“This is an important and responsible decision and is a further signal to the uranium sector that they’re not welcome in WA,” Dave Sweeney from the Australian Conservation Foundation said.
Cameco said it has also had a similar application for its Kintyre project in the Pilbara knocked back.
Conservation Council Nuclear Free campaigner Mia Pepper said uranium mining had no future in WA.
“Cameco has clearly shown that there is no economic case to mine uranium in WA, with the 2016 writedown of the Kintyre uranium proposal and the clear decision not to advance Yeelirrie,” Ms Pepper said.
But one mine, at Mulga Rock, also in the Goldfields region is pushing forward.
“There is a lesson here for Vimy Resources and their investors – who are bucking the trend and are continuing to throw more money at their beleaguered Mulga Rock project – that mining uranium in WA is uneconomic,” Ms Pepper said.
Company not backing away
Cameco Corporation declined an interview with the ABC, but said market conditions had hindered the project.
“Economic conditions and the state of the uranium market since the project was approved did not support significant expenditure on development activities,” communications director Jeff Hryhoriw said.
But the major mining company said it was committed to the long-term prospect of mining the mineral in WA. ……………………….
Project’s controversial history
The ABC revealed last year the mine was approved by the former federal environment minister Melissa Price without key protections strongly and repeatedly recommended by the government’s own experts.
The approval occurred on the eve of the 2019 election, which most expected the government to lose.
An email from Cameco chief Simon Williamson to the federal government in the days before the 2019 federal election.(ABC )
Secret emails obtained by the ABC showed the approval occurred following intervention by Cameco and then-resources minister Matt Canavan, both of whom asked for the process to be expedited. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-04-14/wa-uranium-mine-cameco-yeelirre-project-reece-whitby/100991146—
Today: AUKUS, nuclear submarines, hypersonic missiles – all lovely for Australia’s khaki election.
I must admit – the unsurpassed marketing genius Scotty Morrison has got off to a great start with the ”economics, jobs, jobs, ain’t it grand, mate” campaign. He was helped enormously by the Labor leader not being able to answer questions on unemployment and interest rates.
Nevertheless, I’m betting that dear old #ScotttyFromMarketing will before long revert to the war-mongering shtick. After all, he needs to nullify as much as possible, any criticism of the astronomic costs to all this militarism.
And – #ScottyFromMarketing needs to ward off any potential subversion by the gun-crazy Peter Dutton, who’s always there, salivating to take over the leadership.
Defence Dept blocks access to advice on location choice for Australia’s nuclear submarines base
Labor’s defence spokesperson, Brendan O’Connor, questioned whether the government was “hiding their advice because the prime minister has made a political decision in shortlisting three east coast submarine bases”.
“Australians deserve to know if the government went through rigorous processes or if these bases have been chosen on a whim close to an election.”
“The timing of this announcement just before an election and the fact that it departs from the Navy’s previous analysis is quite inexplicable,” Patrick said.
Defence blocks access to advice on location choice for Australia’s nuclear submarines base https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/apr/09/defence-blocks-access-to-advice-on-location-choice-for-australias-nuclear-submarines-base
Labor demands government reveal how it shortlisted Brisbane, Newcastle and Port Kembla as potential sites for base Daniel Hurst Foreign affairs and defence correspondent, @danielhurstbne, Sat 9 Apr 2022
Voters will be kept in the dark on how Scott Morrison’s government selected three potential bases for Australia’s planned nuclear-powered submarines, after the advice was blocked from release.
With the prime minister preparing to formally call the election within days, Labor demanded the government reveal how it shortlisted the locations to prove the announcement was “not just a marketing ploy”.
Morrison named Brisbane, Newcastle and Wollongong’s Port Kembla as three contenders for a new eastern submarine base, and revealed Aukus-related infrastructure works would cost up to $10bn, in a keynote national security speech last month.
The government is expected to lock in one of these sites late next year, once further studies and negotiations are completed.
Morrison said the “three preferred locations” were identified “following significant work by Defence reviewing 19 potential sites”, although a minister later said it was the cabinet’s national security committee that had “narrowed it down to three”.
Guardian Australia applied to the Department of Defence under freedom of information laws seeking the site analysis. The request also covered any advice, briefings or submissions prepared for the defence minister, Peter Dutton, regarding the preferred locations.
Continue readingNo – it turns out that the nuclear submarines not likely to be built in Australia – Morrison
I am in awe. The man is a marketing genius. He managed to make sure that the submarine development plan for Adelaide was shut down – by promising an even better nuclear submarine development in Adelaide. Now that wondeful new job-making enterprise vanishes into the ether. But – no worries – he”ll be able to convince us that an attack on Australia by China is imminent, -so natioal security tops employment. So no doubt Australians will rejoice and re-elect the champion marketer.
PM won’t commit to build nuclear subs locally Joseph Brookes,, https://www.innovationaus.com/pm-wont-commit-to-build-nuclear-subs-locally/ 6 April 2022 Prime Minister Scott Morrison will not commit to building Australia’s nuclear powered submarines locally, saying any industry development considerations will be trumped by the need to acquire the capability as soon as possible.
The refusal, made Wednesday as the AUKUS arrangement was expanded to other technologies, follows Defence Minister Peter Dutton also flagging Australia would need to “get the balance right” between supporting local industry and securing capabilities in response to rising foreign threats.
The AUKUS arrangement was announced in September and the “intent” to build new nuclear powered submarines in Australia was a welcome direction for the local defence industry because the new plan also meant the previous submarine program was being scrapped.
A taskforce is continuing to assess options for acquiring the new submarines, including which vessel type and where they will be built.
In February, Defence Minister Peter Dutton had to address concerns about local industry missing out after a high-ranking Defence official told an industry conference the department is “maturing beyond ascribing a percentage” of local industry involvement and was unlikely to set a minimum like previous major ship builds.
A few weeks later the minister suggested a decision on submarine type would be revealed before the election after the taskforce made significant progress earlier this year.
But he was promptly contradicted by Prime Minister Scott Morrison who said a decision was not anticipated before the election because of the processes that would be required stretching into a caretaker period.
On Wednesday, during an announcement about the expansion of the AUKUS arrangement to hypersonic technologies and electronic warfare, the Prime Minister backed away from any commitment to local industry.
He was asked if he could guarantee if the new submarines, beyond the nuclear reactor, would be built in Australia.
“We’re working through all of those issues at present what, and that is certainly our intention to maximise all of that [local manufacturing]. Of course it is,” he told reporters.
“But it’s also the paramount goal is to ensure we get that capability as soon as we can, and it’s in the best form that it can be working with our partners.”
Scott Morrison has no plan for the economic growth that would needed to pay for all his touted ”Defence – Security” stuff
What is Australia building? If the Morrison government were serious about the threat, you’d expect it to have a plan to increase the county’s economic vigour. To generate much greater economic growth, to generate much greater revenue, so that the country can manage the national debt and invest in the transformation of Australian security. In every dimension – in cutting-edge research and development, in military capability, in diplomacy and economic assistance. As well as the next generation of submarines.
Security money must match our political posturing, SMH, Peter HartcherPolitical and international editor 25 Mar 22,
The Morrison government’s favoured election policy themes will be the showpieces of next week’s federal budget. They are twofold. The Coalition claims to be the better party to build a stronger economy. And to strengthen national security.
One especially topical example. Before the US agreed to last year’s AUKUS arrangement to help Australia acquire nuclear-powered submarines, the Biden administration took a hard look at whether Australia could afford them in the years to come. The US didn’t want to entangle itself in any future Australian budgetary disaster. So judging whether to trust Australia with the so-called crown jewels of US military advantage demanded a judgment on whether to trust Australia to be able to pay for them. Crown jewels are expensive.
Recollecting the internal debate, an administration official told me: “This will be very expensive for Australia, perhaps more expensive than the French subs it will be replacing and there will be maintenance costs for decades.”
It was likely a correct assumption. The lifetime cost of the French conventional subs was estimated to be $90 billion while a preliminary guess at the price of merely acquiring the nuclear subs ranges from $116 billion to $171 billion, including anticipated inflation, according to the Australian Strategic Policy Institute.
The question we asked,” said the US official, “was, ‘Can Australia sustain the cost, which will be a not inconsiderable percentage of national GDP?’ And Australia’s force structure may need to be changed.”
Ultimately, Washington decided that Australia could manage the cost, but it was an act of faith in Australia’s future economic strength……………………………
So what’s the Morrison government’s plan? So far, we have nothing. There is no economic reform plan. Australian productivity growth has been falling for the entire nine-year term of three Liberal prime ministers and is now stagnant.
…………….. the Morrison-Frydenberg reform effort is desultory. And we can safely assume that next Tuesday’s budget will not change this sorry picture. How so? Because the Treasurer tells us he’s commissioned a report from the Productivity Commission to guide the reform agenda for the future.
But isn’t that exactly what the government should do? Well, yes, but it already did it. Five years ago. The Productivity Commission delivered its Shifting the Dial report to the then treasurer, Scott Morrison. Who did absolutely nothing. The commission’s website forlornly notes: “There has not been a government response to this inquiry yet.”
And Frydenberg’s request last month for a new report next year puts it safely on the post-budget, post-election never-never. The request for a new report is merely a fig leaf to cover the government’s studied inaction.
The measures that the government likes to declare as “reforms” are nothing more than housekeeping. Shuffling tax brackets is helpful but hardly transformative. This week’s fanfare about a change in cash flow arrangements for small business paying PAYG taxes is helpful but doesn’t actually cut their taxes. It’s all marginal.
Morrison and his ministers like to emphasise that Australia’s security is facing its most severe test since World War II. And fair enough.
The problems press in on Australia on many sides. The chief scientist, Cathy Foley, last month warned that Australia is at risk of losing its research edge on the serious tech frontier of quantum computing and quantum communication, an area which China has named a national priority with $US25 billion committed for research.
While Australia dithers over a national quantum strategy, China already can send unhackable communications. The signal can’t be intercepted because, in the eerie world of quantum communication, there is no signal. Imagine how that will transform future war. The US is scrambling to catch up.
The inaugural head of the Australian Defence Department’s Space Force, Air Vice-Marshal Catherine Roberts, this week warned that Australia has no way to protect its essential communications satellites from Russian or Chinese attack. If China decided to “take out the NBN”, all Australia could do would be to ask the US for help, she said. “We need to be able to protect our assets in space, otherwise it will change Australians’ way of life.”
………………………………………… What is Australia building? If the Morrison government were serious about the threat, you’d expect it to have a plan to increase the county’s economic vigour. To generate much greater economic growth, to generate much greater revenue, so that the country can manage the national debt and invest in the transformation of Australian security. In every dimension – in cutting-edge research and development, in military capability, in diplomacy and economic assistance. As well as the next generation of submarines.
To put its security money where its political mouth is, in short. If the government is serious about the security threat, it must be serious about the economic response.The post-pandemic recovery should be a springboard into an economic rejuvenation. Instead, it’s going to be designed as a springboard into an election campaign. The two needn’t be mutually exclusive. But Morrison and Frydenberg are only interested in drawing from the well of national prosperity, not replenishing it…………
. What do Morrison and Frydenberg propose as Australia’s national motto? “Stagnant country, feeble army” perhaps?
Until and unless an Australian government supercharges its economic prosperity to power its security, no Australian government can be taken seriously on either. https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/security-money-must-match-our-political-posturing-20220324-p5a7rm.html
Friends of the Earth Australia’s Submission to Environment Minister calls out the dishonesty in the proposal for a national nuclear waste dump at Kimba, South Australia
Provide reasons for why you believe this is/is not a controlled action.
As a significant “nuclear action” under the EPBC Act this Nuclear Radioactive Waste Management Facility (NRWMF) Referral is a “Controlled Action”.
IT REQUIRES A FULL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT / STATEMENT (EIA/EIS) AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL OF PUBLIC ASSESSMENT.
In a nuclear action “the whole environment” is the “Matter of National Environmental Significance” protected under the EPBC Act. An EIA/EIS is warranted to cover the scope of this protected matter.
The behaviour of the Morrison government and the Australian Radioactive Waste Agency (ARWA) in relation to the imposition of a national nuclear waste dump in SA has been disgraceful. If Minister Sussan Ley is minded to require anything less than a full EIA/EIS at the highest level of assessment, she should consider the following:
1. The new South Australian government is clearly opposed to the dump, primarily because of the crude racism of the Morrison’ government’s willingness to impose a dump on Barngarla country despite the unanimous opposition of Barngarla Traditional Owners. Expect a hardening of that opposition if anything less than a full EIA/EIS is required.
2. Media silence is far from guaranteed as evidenced by the extraordinary recent coverage in The Australian and The Advertiser ‒ both Murdoch publications ‒ regarding BHP’s mismanagement of the Olympic Dam mine and in particular its mistreatment of Traditional Owners:
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/mining-energy/dam-busters-aborigines-battle-bhp-over-water-rights/news-story/5771234ab2fca122009e83720ecbaf01
https://todayspaper.adelaidenow.com.au/infinity/article_popover_share.aspx?guid=23a5b7bd-e6d5-4a82-972e-347f65874b3a
And also widespread national and international media coverage of Rio Tinto’s crimes at Juukan Gorge.
3. Community opposition to the dump in South Australia is building. Expect it to build further if anything less than a full EIA/EIS is required.
Australian Radioactive Waste Agency (ARWA) is the ‘proponent’ in this NRWMF Referral, as a non-independent office of the Industry Department. The Environment Minister must not make a decision to approve and allow the nuclear dump to proceed on the inadequate limited basis of non-independent input by the proponent, or on the basis of anything less than a full EIA/EIS at the highest level of assessment.
A public impact assessment must be carried out under the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act ( EPBC Act). ARWA wants something less than a full EIA/EIS due to a separate ARPANSA licensing process, but the ARPANSA process covers different issues, under different legislation, and in no way could substitute for a full EIA/EIS under the EPBC Act. The ARPANS Act does not protect nor assess ‘the whole of environment’ protected matter involved here under the EPBC Act.
ARWA’s claim there is no alternative to the proposed dump is dishonest and Minister Ley is obliged to call out that dishonesty. Many alternatives are available. See for example the proposals in the paper online at:
https://nuclear.foe.org.au/wp-content/uploads/Responsible-Radioactive-Waste-Management-The-need-for-an-Inquiry-Final.pdf
In particular, the implicit claim that there is no alternative to ongoing storage of intermediate-level waste (ILW) at ANSTO is absurd and dishonest. Clearly ILW should remain at ANSTO because: a large majority of ILW is already stored there (well over 90 percent measured by radioactivity); Australia’s nuclear expertise is concentrated at ANSTO; security at ANSTO is vastly superior to that proposed at the Kimba dump site; it avoids unnecessary transportation; it avoids unnecessary double-handling given that the final disposal site for ILW will not be at Kimba (and could easily be in NSW or any state/territory).
The proposal to store ILW at Kimba is absurd and must be clearly rejected by Minister Ley.
Minister off-target with claim Labor cut billions from defence
AAP.com, William Summers March 14, 2022,
WHAT WAS CLAIMED Labor cut billions of dollars from the defence budget when it was last in government.
OUR VERDICT Misleading. Labor cut defence spending in two years while in office, but overall real-term spending went up while in government.
Defence Minister Peter Dutton has questioned the opposition’s commitment to national security by claiming Labor cut “literally billions” from the Defence budget when the party was last in office.
The claim is misleading. Labor increased overall spending on Defence when in government between 2007 and 2013, both in nominal terms and real terms. However, Labor did cut $1.9 billion from the portfolio in 2012/13, its last full year in office.
Mr Dutton made the claim during an appearance on ABC’s Radio National on March 8 in response to comments made by Labor’s shadow defence minister Brendan O’Connor about the need to consider the future role of Australia’s military during natural disasters.
Mr Dutton said: “Defence has record funding. A bit ironic to hear that from Brendan (O’Connor) when (Labor) pulled literally billions out of defence when they were last in government.” (audio mark 6 min 45sec)
When contacted by AAP FactCheck about the basis of the claim, Mr Dutton’s office pointed to budget papers from Labor’s time in office without providing further information. By that measure, Mr Dutton’s claim does not stack up.
Historical Defence portfolio budget papers provide detailed figures on projected spending as well as actual spending that took place in the previous budget year.
The Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) – a think tank majority-funded by the Department of Defence and other federal government agencies – has collated these figures going back to 1997/98 (see here). Its figures include spending on the Australian Signals Directorate, which provides cyber intelligence and other capabilities and falls under the Defence portfolio.
The previous Labor government was elected on November 24, 2007, and lost office on September 7, 2013. Therefore, to judge Labor’s spending record, AAP FactCheck looked at spending from 2007/08 – the fiscal year Labor first came into office – to 2012/13, Labor’s final full year in office.
……………………… Misleading – The claim is accurate in parts but information has also been presented incorrectly, out of context or omitted. https://www.aap.com.au/factcheck/minister-off-target-with-claim-labor-cut-billions-from-defence/
Scott Morrison has been urged to act over fears Australian uranium could be used to fuel Russia’s nuclear arsenal.
Fears Australian uranium could be seized by Russia for nuclear weapons arsenal
Scott Morrison has been urged to act over fears Australian uranium could be used to fuel Russia’s nuclear arsenal. news.com.au, Alex Blair 9 Mar 22.
The Electrical Trades Union of Australia has called on Scott Morrison to take immediate action over Australian uranium in Ukraine, which analysts believe could be seized by Russia and used to fuel its nuclear weapons arsenal..
In a letter sent to the Prime Minister this week, the ETU highlighted its concerns over Australian obligated nuclear material (AONM) which has been transferred to Ukraine under the Australia-Ukraine Nuclear Cooperation Agreement.
The ETU is urging the Prime Minister to reveal details on any contingency plans set in place following Russia’s invasion, as the Australian government has an “obligation to create a plan for the removal of nuclear material if it is at risk of a loss of regulatory control”.
The ETU has also requested information on whether uranium that was transferred to Ukraine is still stored in the besieged nation.
“Amongst many other horrors, the war in Ukraine is painfully highlighting the inherent problems with nuclear power,” ETU National Assistant Secretary Michael Wright said.
“If Russia is able to gain control of Australian uranium in Ukraine, the fallout could be catastrophic.
“Australians have a right to know if Australian uranium is at risk and what our nation’s obligations are in the event of an incident.
“We not only have an obligation under our own agreement with Ukraine but we owe it to the global community to ensure these materials are protected – preferably by leaving them in the ground.”
It came as Russian President Vladimir Putin was accused of using nuclear “blackmail” to keep the international community from interfering in his Ukraine invasion.
“This is one of the scariest moments really when it comes to nuclear weapons,” Beatrice Fihn, who leads the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, told AFP in an interview on Tuesday.
The 40-year-old, who has spearheaded the group’s global efforts to ban the weapons of mass destruction since 2013, said she had never in her lifetime seen the nuclear threat level so high.“It is incredibly worrying and overwhelming.”
Just days after Russia launched its full-scale invasion of its pro-Western neighbour on February 24, Putin ordered his country’s nuclear forces to be put on high alert, sparking global alarm…………………………… https://www.news.com.au/world/europe/fears-australian-uranium-could-be-seized-by-russia-for-nuclear-weapons-arsenal/news-story/565ae8e823834435ad1846798f4066d4
Sydney ruled out as nuclear submarine base – despite topping list of sites in Defence study
Sydney ruled out as nuclear submarine base – despite topping list of sites in Defence study https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/mar/09/sydney-ruled-out-as-nuclear-submarine-base-despite-topping-list-of-sites-in-defence-study
Questions raised about how Coalition settled on its three potential locations Daniel Hurst Foreign affairs and defence correspondent, @danielhurstbne, Wed 9 Mar 2022
Sydney Harbour has been ruled out as a site for the proposed new base for Australia’s nuclear-powered submarines, with officials insisting it was not viable because of “limitations on berth space and shore facilities”.
Questions have been raised about how the Morrison government settled on the three potential sites it announced this week – Port Kembla in Wollongong, Newcastle and Brisbane – given that these were not among the top five options listed in a previous Defence review.
A 2011 Defence report ranked potential options for a new east coast home port for submarines. The top three options were in Sydney Harbour, followed by two options in Jervis Bay, south of Sydney.
The same study said it “would be impractical” to develop a future submarine basing capability at Port Kembla, noting it had previously been found to be “a small and congested harbour with little space for substantial expansion”.
When asked by Guardian Australia to explain what had changed since that review, a Defence spokesperson said changes in commercial activity at Port Kembla had released a large pocket of land which was “now potentially suitable for creation of a new naval base”.
Jervis Bay had been “discounted as it is a gazetted marine park”, the spokesperson said.
The Garden Island defence precinct in Sydney Harbour, which already serves as the navy’s key operational base on the east coast, was also “not considered a viable long-term solution” for a permanent submarine base.
“The site is constrained with limitations on berth space and shore facilities and suffers considerable encroachment,” the Defence spokesperson said. “Construction of dedicated submarine facilities at GIDP would exacerbate existing pressures and further limit expansion options.”
Scott Morrison announced the three potential sites in a national security speech on Monday, even though the selection process will not be complete until next year. That sparked Labor accusations of a pre-election marketing “ploy”.
Both the prime minister’s speech and the government’s subsequent press release contained ambiguous language about who precisely had settled on the three final sites, after Defence did “significant work” to review “19 potential sites”.
“Three preferred locations on the east coast have been identified,” Morrison said. He did not explicitly state whether it was the department or cabinet ministers who had done the identifying, or whether the government’s decision was in line with Defence’s recommendations.
The employment minister, Stuart Robert, told Sky News on Tuesday: “The national security committee of cabinet has worked through a range of options and narrowed it down to three.”
That committee is chaired by Morrison and includes senior ministers, including the defence minister, Peter Dutton, and the foreign affairs minister, Marise Payne. Robert is not listed as a member.
But the Defence spokesperson told Guardian Australia each site had been “assessed against Defence’s evaluation criteria”.
The factors included “access to exercise areas and proximity to industrial infrastructure and significant population centres to support personnel and recruitment”.
The three options would be “subject to further review and consultation”, the spokesperson said.
In Defence’s 2011 future submarine basing study, Newcastle port was ranked sixth and the Port of Brisbane eighth. That review said Newcastle’s strengths were “compromised by its isolation from any other naval infrastructure, its susceptibility to flooding, and its sometimes difficult harbour entrance”.
Dutton was asked on Tuesday whether a Chinese state-owned corporation’s part-holding of the long-term lease over the port would affect the eventual decision on where to build the submarine base.
“All of that would be taken into consideration,” he told the ABC.
He bristled at any suggestion he and Morrison were at odds on the timeframe for deciding which submarine design Australia would adopt under the much-trumpeted Aukus partnership with the US and the UK.
Dutton had said on Sunday the government would announce the selected boat “within the next couple of months”, sparking speculation this may occur before the federal election due in May.
But Morrison ruled out making a decision before the election, noting that caretaker conventions were due to begin by April.
The defence minister told the Nine Network: “I didn’t say it would be before the election. Of course the ABC and the Guardian and others have tried to spin it into that but that’s not the case.”
The Labor party has offered its support for the Aukus, saying it accepts advice that the deteriorating strategic environment in the Indo-Pacific justifies the need for less easily detectible nuclear-propelled submarines.
That committee is chaired by Morrison and includes senior ministers, including the defence minister, Peter Dutton, and the foreign affairs minister, Marise Payne. Robert is not listed as a member.
But the Defence spokesperson told Guardian Australia each site had been “assessed against Defence’s evaluation criteria”.
The factors included “access to exercise areas and proximity to industrial infrastructure and significant population centres to support personnel and recruitment”.
But Labor’s defence spokesperson, Brendan O’Connor, said the party was seeking a briefing on the east coast base plans. He said Morrison had “taken a leaf out of his marketing playbook by making an announcement about a decision that will be made in 2023”.
Officials from the US and the UK have visited Australia in recent weeks. It is understood the three governments are examining the full set of requirements to allow for the delivery of at least eight nuclear-propelled submarines under Aukus.
These include the submarine design, construction, safety, operation, maintenance, disposal, regulation, training, environmental protection, installations and infrastructure, industrial base capacity, workforce and force structure.
While Morrison has previously said the first submarine was expected to be in the water by about 2040, Dutton has since argued the may be achievable sooner.
The government has also foreshadowed a likely increase in visits by British and US nuclear submarines in the meantime.
Australian government’s bungling incompetence over the record floods in Queensland and New South Wales
Government incompetence and lack of planning: it never rains but it pours
Michael West Media, By Callum Foote|March 9, 2022 The skies opened and the rains fell, hammering communities up and down the east coast. So how good is Australia in another time of tragedy? An FOI reveals that the government was warned about the increased likelihood of floods in November last year, and failed to properly prepare for the disaster, writes Callum Foote.
Better late than never. Two weeks into the floods that have devastated Queensland and NSW, Scott Morrison has announced a state of emergency. If only it was a problem of tardiness. In fact, the government knew for three months that this catastrophe was coming, and failed to act.
The Department of Home Affairs was given a briefing by the Director-General Emergency Management Australia, Joe Buffone, on November 5 warning that widespread flooding, severe storms and tropical cyclones are “more likely” than previous decades.
All the premiers and the PM were given this briefing, yet even today we still have Morrison talking about a once in 500-year event. Deputy PM and Minister for Infrastructure, Barnaby Joyce, has said that this is a “one in 3500 years” event and the New South Wales premier, Dominic Perrottet described the torrential rain in the north of the state as a “one-in-1000-year event”.
The presentation, released by the Department of Home Affairs under a freedom of information request by independent Senator Rex Patrick, also pointed to the effects of the La Nina weather pattern and a negative Indian Ocean Diapol (IOD) which both contribute to a wetter than average northern Australia………….
The report did not forecast regional hazards into autumn, but its mid-late summer predictions were that the eastern seaboard would experience flooding as a result of tropical cycles and widespread rain.
MWM has put questions to the Department of Home Affairs about what steps it took to prepare Australians for these hazards. We have not yet received a reply.
The agency responsible for addressing emergencies such as the current floods is the National Recovery and Resilience Agency. The NRRA’s $4.7 Emergency Response Fund has up to $50 million set aside to spend on disaster preparedness measures every year. Until Labor senator Murray Watt challenged Shane Stone, the co-ordinator general of the NRRA, in Senate estimates last year for not spending a cent of this money set aside, measures had not been taken.
Fifty million dollars was given out to fund flood mitigation infrastructure last May under the National Flood Mitigation Infrastructure Program 20-21. None of the three projects funded in Queensland was in the state’s south.
Applications for the 2021-22 program closed on February 4 and it has not announced any funding.
When did authorities know flooding was occurring?
The NRRA is housed within the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet and overseen by the Minister for Emergency Management and National Recovery and Resilience, currently Bridget McKenzie.
The first reports of severe storms and flooding in South-East Queensland occurred on February 1, with the first reports of flooding in NSW occurring on February 11.
Morrison first issued a statement of support to the victims of the Queensland floods on February 27, almost a full month after the floods began. He followed it up the following day to include NSW flood victims also.
McKenzie addressed the floods on February 15, offering “disaster assistance” to Queensland Local Government Areas affected by the ongoing floods.
What money is on offer now?
The Australian Government Disaster Recovery Payment provides one-off financial assistance to eligible Australians adversely affected by the floods in Queensland and NSW. The rate is $1,000 per eligible adult and $400 per eligible child…………………….
Shane Stone: disaster fighter
Shane Stone stepped into the role of Coordinator-General of the super-agency after serving as coordinator-general of one of its subordinates, the former National Drought and North Queensland Flood Response and Recovery Agency.
Labor has called on Stone to resign over comments appearing to blame people who “want to live among the gum trees” for the cost of recovering from catastrophic floods.
Failure to spend
Watt uncovered in Senate Estimates late last month that zero-funding had been allocated to the now $4.7 billion Emergency Response Fund. This was despite the fund being cleared to allocate up to $50 million a year on preventive measures such as flood barriers, cyclone shelters and bushfire prevention works.
It appears from answers given to questions asked by MWM by an NRRA media spokesperson that since then, $50 million has been allocated to build flood mitigation infrastructure.
As coordinator-general. Stone also has considerable influence on the unutilised $4.7 billion Emergency Response Fund as the Ministers funding decisions are made following Stone’s advice. pours https://www.michaelwest.com.au/government-incompetence-and-lack-of-planning-it-never-rains-but-it-pour
 | |||
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/235274195556
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 