$10b plan for nuclear submarine base under fire over timing, potential site
$10b plan for nuclear submarine base under fire over timing, potential site, The Age, By David Crowe, March 7, 2022 . A federal plan for a $10 billion nuclear submarine base on Australia’s east coast has sparked Labor claims that the move is a ploy to get a headline while others say Sydney would be a better location than the official options of Brisbane, Newcastle or Port Kembla.
Labor has backed the plan to build a fleet of nuclear-powered submarines under the AUKUS alliance signed last year with the United Kingdom and United States but has demanded a briefing on the new base after being promised regular briefings last year.
Independent Senator Rex Patrick, a former submariner, also questioned the timing of the government move and said the Department of Defence had favoured Sydney in previous plans, questioning whether election factors had influenced the new proposal.
Prime Minister Scott Morrison outlined the options for the new base in a speech to the Lowy Institute on Monday that said Defence had reviewed 19 potential sites and estimated a $10 billion cost for the base at one of the preferred east coast sites to add to an existing base near Perth.
While Defence Minister Peter Dutton said on Sunday the government would bring forward a decision on whether to choose British or American nuclear submarines for construction in Australia, Mr Morrison said on Monday this did not mean an announcement before the election.
The timelines for the vast project suggest a decision on the east coast base should be made in 2023 and the first submarine would be in the water by around 2040.
Senator Patrick said a process to choose the new submarines began in 2009 but the government had failed to deliver since coming to power in 2013.
“We’re 13 years and $3 billion into a future submarine project and what do we have to show for it? We’ve got a study into getting a nuclear submarine and, now, a study into where we might put them,” he said.
“Call me cynical, but this is another Scott Morrison announcement designed to gloss over his government’s disgraceful national security failures that have left our country vulnerable.”
Senator Patrick gained documents from the Department of Defence under freedom of information law that showed the search for an east coast base canvassed locations including Jervis Bay on the south coast of NSW and Western Port Bay in Victoria as well as Sydney…….
Mr Patrick said Sydney should remain the leading option but appeared to be dropped for political reasons.
“The fact that Sydney is the only city in Australia with a nuclear reactor, and the experienced personnel that maintain and operate it, only strengthens Sydney’s case,” he said.
……………………… Labor candidate Alison Byrnes, who is aiming to replace sitting Labor MP Sharon Bird in the seat of Cunningham around Wollongong and Port Kembla, called for a full briefing from the government rather than being asked to respond to a government “drop” to the media.
With a decision not likely until 2023, critics of the government questioned the timing of Mr Morrison’s announcement and the need for a swift response to his proposal.
“The suggestion for a base for nuclear-powered submarines is just another ploy from the Prime Minister to get a headline without providing any detail of how this will be implemented or even when it will be delivered,” Labor defence spokesman Brendan O’Connor said.
“It seems like Scott Morrison is trying to divert attention from the fact the nuclear-powered submarines won’t come into effect for more than a decade, leaving Australia with a significant capability gap. https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/10b-plan-for-nuclear-submarine-base-under-fire-over-timing-potential-site-20220307-p5a2bi.html
Morrison’s selected sites for nuclear submarine base were not the Defence Dept choices – and opposed by the local towns.
Coalition shortlist for nuclear submarines base were not in Defence’s top five in 2011 review, https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/mar/08/coalition-shortlist-for-nuclear-submarines-base-were-not-in-defences-top-five-in-2011-reviewDaniel Hurst and Royce Kurmelovs. 8 Mar 22, ‘We are not getting lumped with their mess’, Newcastle mayor says of prospect of basing nuclear fleet in city while Wollongong mayor also concerned.
The mayors of Newcastle and Wollongong have expressed unease at the Morrison government naming their cities as a potential base for nuclear-powered submarines, with one describing the Aukus plans as a “fantasy”.
Questions have also been raised about the government’s process for shortlisting Newcastle, Port Kembla in Wollongong and Brisbane for a new east coast base, given that a previous Defence review had not backed them as most-preferred sites.
The South Australian independent senator Rex Patrick, a former submariner, said Scott Morrison’s announcement on Monday was “thick with political fog” with an election looming, noting the final site would not be selected until 2023.
Patrick said: “Why pork barrel in one electorate when you can – for the same price – pork barrel in three?”
Morrison said the government had “provisioned more than $10bn to meet the facilities and infrastructure requirements” for the transition from Australia’s existing Collins-class submarines to the nuclear-powered submarines to be acquired under the Aukus pact with the UK and the US.
He said Defence had looked at 19 potential sites and narrowed them down to the three preferred locations. Defence would now discuss the plans further with state and local governments and “begin negotiations on what will be an enormous undertaking”.
The moves come amid continuing uncertainty about when the first of the nuclear-powered submarines will be operating. Morrison originally estimated it would be by about 2040 but the government now insists it may be sooner.
The new base – which the Coalition wants to build in either Brisbane, Newcastle or Port Kembla – would “enable the regular visiting of US and UK nuclear-powered submarines”, Morrison said in a virtual address to the Lowy Institute.
However, the mayors of Newcastle and Wollongong both said they were not consulted about the decision. With both cities historically home to anti-war movements they expected considerable community opposition.
Both cities have passed official resolutions to make them nuclear-free zones.
There is also believed to be opposition to nuclear power, particularly where it is used to propel a weapon of war – although spent fuel rods from the Lucas Heights reactor have passed through Port Kembla on their way for processing in France.
Wollongong’s lord mayor, Gordon Bradbery, an independent, said he was waiting for more detail about the proposal before he would consult the local community.
“It’s not only nuclear power and nuclear-powered submarines, but it’s the location of a strategic defence asset and that would make anyone who gets this particular facility a target,” Bradbery said.
“International tensions now are playing on a lot of people’s minds and there would be concerns about our city as a location for nuclear-powered submarines.”
Bradbery said Wollongong city council had previously worked with Regional Development Australia to make a submission to the federal government to relocate naval activities from Garden Island in Sydney Harbour to Port Kembla, but this was for conventional submarines only.
“It just disappeared into the ether at the time,” Bradbery said. “Many suggested it was pie in the sky as the navy wasn’t keen on relocating from Garden Island.”
Newcastle’s Labor lord mayor, Nuatali Nelmes, said the city had no intention of giving up its nuclear-free status over a “fantasy”.
“The whole deal is a fantasy,” Nelmes said.
“This announcement, the Aukus decision and the absolutely hopeless way they have handled this submarine contract – we are not getting lumped with their mess.
“It is also typical of the federal government to have unilateral decision making where cities like Newcastle, which have been for many decades, a nuclear-free zone, would even be considered.”
But the Liberal premier of New South Wales, Dominic Perrottet, welcomed the inclusion of Port Kembla and Newcastle on the federal government’s shortlist , saying the world faced “very uncertain times”.
“Defence protection for our country is paramount and we have worked very closely with the federal government to identify these sites for our state,” Perrottet told the Nine Network.
A spokesperson for the Queensland Labor government said it was “yet to receive any detailed information from the commonwealth”.
Study found Port Kembla ‘impractical’
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.
“Newcastle has its strengths, but the slight edge that it has with respect to positive people factors is compromised by its isolation from any other naval infrastructure, its susceptibility to flooding, and its sometimes difficult harbour entrance,” the future submarine basing study said.
Newcastle Port was sixth on the list and the Port of Brisbane was eighth.
The report included the caveat that detailed costing and environmental impact analysis “may generate a different outcome”. It placed a priority on the proximity to fleet assets in Sydney.
Brisbane, Newcastle and Port Kembla shortlisted for nuclear submarine base on Australia’s east coast
Brisbane, Newcastle and Port Kembla shortlisted for nuclear submarine base on Australia’s east coast, ABC By defence correspondent Andrew Greene 7 Mar 22, A new submarine base will be built on Australia’s east coast to support the future nuclear-powered fleet being acquired under the AUKUS partnership, with Defence identifying Brisbane, Newcastle and Port Kembla as the most suitable locations.
Key points:
- The Prime Minister will announce a new “future submarine base” for Australia’s east coast to accommodate a nuclear fleet
- Defence believes Port Kembla in NSW is the best option, but the Commonwealth will also consider Brisbane and Newcastle
- The government is playing down the Defence Minister’s suggestion of a submarine design announcement ahead of this year’s election
Prime Minister Scott Morrison will unveil the plan in a national security speech today, when he will warn the strategic, political, economic and social implications of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine will “inevitably stretch to the Indo-Pacific”.
Australia’s fleet of six Collins-class submarines are currently based at Perth’s HMAS Stirling (Fleet Base West), while the ageing boats also regularly operate out of Sydney’s Garden Island Naval base (Fleet Base East).
During an address to the Lowy Institute, Mr Morrison will confirm the government has decided to establish “a future submarine base on the east coast of Australia to support basing and disposition of the future nuclear-powered submarines“. ……..
Australia’s fleet of six Collins-class submarines are currently based at Perth’s HMAS Stirling (Fleet Base West), while the ageing boats also regularly operate out of Sydney’s Garden Island Naval base (Fleet Base East).
During an address to the Lowy Institute, Mr Morrison will confirm the government has decided to establish “a future submarine base on the east coast of Australia to support basing and disposition of the future nuclear-powered submarines“.
The new facility would be the first new major defence base built in Australia since the Robertson Barracks in Darwin in the 1990s, with initial works expected to be completed by next year ahead of a final decision on the location.
Early estimates from Defence suggest more than $10 billion will be needed for facilities and infrastructure requirements to transition from Collins submarines to the future nuclear-powered fleet.
With the Coalition continuing to push national security as a major election issue against the backdrop of growing worldwide military tensions, Mr Morrison will declare Australia faces its most difficult and dangerous security environment in 80 years.
In his Monday speech, he will accuse Russia and China of aligning to try and reshape the international order to create a “transactional world, devoid of principle, accountability and transparency”.
A new arc of autocracy is instinctively aligning to challenge and reset the world order in their own image,” Mr Morrison will say, invoking President George W Bush’s 2002 declaration that Iran, North Korea, and Iraq formed an “axis of evil”.
Decision on sub design in ‘next couple of months’
On Sunday, Defence Minister Peter Dutton told the ABC’s Insiders program the government would decide “within the next couple of months” what submarines it would acquire under the AUKUS partnership
He said the nuclear-powered boats would be in Australia “much sooner” than 2040 and there would be a plan to provide capability in the interim, although the government later played down suggestions a design would be announced before the election.
Mr Dutton’s initial suggestion of a pre-election decision on Australia’s choice of nuclear-powered submarines caused shock among officials from AUKUS partners the United Kingdom and the United States.
“A lot of effort has gone into taking partisan politics out of the whole process – hopefully, this doesn’t derail it,” one diplomatic official told the ABC, speaking on the condition of anonymity. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-03-07/nuclear-submarine-base-shortlist-brisbane-newcastle-port-kembla/100887204
Peter Dutton enthuses – weapons to Taiwan, nuclear submarines ASAP
Peter Dutton flags Australia sending weapons to Taiwan, acquiring nuclear submarines before 2040, ABC 6 Mar 22
By political reporter Henry Belot and Jane Norman Defence Minister Peter Dutton has indicated Australia may send weapons to Taiwan in response to any future Chinese military aggression, drawing a direct comparison to support currently being sent to Ukraine in its fight against Russia.
Key points:
- Mr Dutton said China was acquiring nuclear weapons and amassing “huge” forces
- Labor said it was wrong for the Defence Minister to answer hypotheticals about military action
- Mr Dutton said Australia could acquire nuclear submarines earlier than 2040
Mr Dutton also revealed Australia might acquire nuclear submarines earlier than the expected 2040 timeline, with details on design and construction to be announced “within a couple of months” and possibly before a federal election.
Federal Labor has criticised Mr Dutton for previously saying it would be “inconceivable” for Australia not to join military action if the US defended Taiwan.
“It would be completely wrong and wrongheaded for us to be answering such hypotheticals, and we think the Defence Minister made a mistake in that regard,” Shadow Defence Minister Brendan O’Connor said on Sunday.
“I don’t recall any defence minister in our history, certainly recent history, that would ever answer a question in the positive about a hypothetical question about whether we would find ourselves engaged in a full-blown war with a nuclear superpower.”……………….
Mr Dutton confirmed that missiles and ammunition supplied by Western nations – including Australia – had now arrived in Ukraine.
Submarine timeline condensed
Mr Dutton also revealed the government would announce “within a couple of months” which nuclear-powered submarines it planned to acquire as part of the new AUKUS alliance with the United States and United Kingdom.
When AUKUS was unveiled in September last year, torpedoing Australia’s $90 billion submarine contract with France, the government said it would take 18 months to identify the best way to acquire and build the new fleet, using either US or UK technology.
However Mr Dutton is now indicating that timeline has been dramatically condensed, raising the prospect of a pre-election announcement.
“We will have an announcement within the next couple of months about which boat we are going with, what we can do in the interim,” he said……….. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-03-06/peter-dutton-flags-australian-military-support-for-taiwan/100886412
Peter Dutton’s war machine cult
Independent Australia, By Binoy Kampmark | 19 January 2022, The Federal Government has spent billions on defence equipment, ignoring issues such as the climate crisis and pandemic, writes Dr Binoy Kampmark.
THE OPERATING DOCTRINE of many a defence ministry is premised on fatuity. There is the industry prerogative and need for employment. There are the hectoring think tanks writing in oracular tones of warning that the next “strategic” change is peeking around the corner.
Purchases of weapons are then made to fight devils foreign and invisible, with the occasional lethal deployment against the local citizenry who misbehave. This often leads to purchases that should put the decision maker in therapy.
Australia’s war-wishing Defence Minister Peter Dutton may be in urgent need of such treatment, but he is unlikely to take up the suggestion, preferring to pursue an arms program of delusional proportions. His mental soundness was not helped by last year’s establishment of AUKUS and the signals of enthusiastic militarism from Washington.
Having cut ties with the French defence establishment over what was a trouble-plagued submarine contract, Dutton has been an important figure in ensuring that Australia will continue its naval problems with a future nuclear-powered submarine.
Submarines are seaborne phallic reassurances for the naval arm of defence. Stubbornly expensive and always stressing celebrated potential over proven reality, they stimulate the defence establishment. The land-based forces, however, will also have their toys and stimulants, their own slice of make believe. And Dutton is promising them a few, including tanks.
This month, the Minister announced that Australia will be spending $3.5 billion on 120 tanks and an assortment of other armoured vehicles, including 29 assault breacher vehicles and 17 joint assault bridge vehicles. All will be purchased from the U.S. military machine. This will also include 75 M1A2 main battle tanks, which will replace the 59 Abrams M1A1s purchased in 2007 and kept in blissful quarantine, untouched by actual combat.
Reading from the script of presumed military relevance, Dutton declared that:
“Teamed with the Infantry Fighting Vehicle, Combat Engineering Vehicles and self-propelled howitzers, the new Abrams will give our soldiers the best possibility of success and protection from harm.”
………….. To dispel any notion that this purchase simply confirmed Australian deference and obedience to U.S. military power, the Defence Minister also claimed that the new Abrams:
“…will incorporate the latest developments in Australian sovereign defence capabilities, including command, control, communications, computers and intelligence systems, and benefit from the intended manufacture of tank ammunition in Australia.”
In other words, once Australia finishes with these cherished, dear imports, adjusted as they are bound to be for the ADF, they are more likely to be extortionately priced museum pieces rather than operable weapons of flexible deployment…………
The last time Australia deployed tanks in combat was during the Vietnam War, that other grand failure of military adventurism. They were never used in Australia’s engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan, despite being lauded as being a necessary vehicle in beating down insurgency movements…………………….
Critics of the purchase have included otherwise hawkish pundits such as Greg Sheridan of The Australian, who spent some of last year shaking his head at the proposed acquisition after it was announced by the U.S. Defence Security Cooperation Agency. The decision, he opined unleashing his talons, was one of ‘sheer idiocy’, an ‘anachronistic frivolity’. Tanks and other heavy, tracked vehicles would ‘never be of the slightest military use to us’……………………..
The tank fraternity, a gathering of near cultic loyalty, are swooning in triumph. As Peter J Dean, director of the Defence and Security Institute at the University of Western Australia remarked last year, their membership has never proven shy. Cults tend to show that utility is secondary to the importance of st https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/peter-duttons-war-machine-cult,15952
Friendlyjordies allegations against Dutton met with silence.
Friendlyjordies allegations against Dutton met with silence, Independent Australia,
By Victoria Fielding | 7 March 2022 An exposé on Peter Dutton by independent journalist Friendlyjordies has been ignored by the mainstream media, writes Dr Victoria Fielding.
On Friday last week, independent investigative journalist, Jordan Shanks (Friendlyjordies), released an explosive video about one of the most powerful Ministers in the Morrison Government. Since then, the story has sunk without a trace. What is going on?
Is this the mainstream news media refusing to admit Friendlyjordies has beaten them to a scandal, or is Defence Minister Peter Dutton being protected from scrutiny by his mates in the media?
As of writing, over 300,000 people have watched the Friendlyjordies piece. The investigation intricately maps out some very specific allegations about the business dealings of Dutton’s friends, including sources alleging sex scandals, drugs and dodgy dealings in lucrative government contracts.
One of the people involved in the web of intrigue exposed by Shanks is Ryan Shaw, who up until Wednesday was the Liberal National Party’s candidate for the marginal seat of Lilley. Shaw, an Army veteran, has been campaigning in the seat for months, including with Prime Minister Scott Morrison.
The seat is held by Labor MP Anika Wells by the wafer-thin margin of 0.64 per cent. Not just any candidate gets placed in a must-win marginal seat. Shaw’s withdrawal, citing family and mental health issues, is a big loss to the L-NP considering they are left without a candidate weeks out from the Election and after the much-wasted investment of time and resources.
Although it is impossible to know exactly why Shaw withdrew, it is more than a little coincidental that the decision was made at the exact same time as Shanks and his team were questioning Shaw about his involvement with people in the incredibly suspect chain of events detailed in the video.
I’ve spent a lot of time around politics and I know a candidate doesn’t withdraw their cand
I’ve spent a lot of time around politics and I know a candidate doesn’t withdraw their candidacy over any small thing. The Friendlyjordies allegations, if they could be batted away, no doubt would have been to save Shaw’s position. Yet they weren’t.
But it isn’t just Shaw who had questions to answer over his association with people directly implicated by allegations in the explosive story. Peter Dutton is also associated with key players.
Not only does Dutton hold the powerful position of Minister for Defence, but he is also a contender for leader of the Liberal Party, should Morrison choose to step down after the Election. This scandal therefore has all the ingredients you would think the mainstream media would need to make it top priority for journalist follow up.
Senior Minister in the Morrison Government — check. A high profile candidate stepping down seemingly for no reason weeks out from the Election — check. Allegations of government contracts being used to enrich Liberal Party donors — check. Allegations of drug-fueled parties and drug-taking — check…………..
On Sunday, by chance, Peter Dutton was interviewed at length by David Speers on ABC’s Insiders program. It is true that there is much on the Defence Minister’s agenda, what with the war in Ukraine and the Queensland and NSW floods, but there was plenty of time for at least one question about the Shanks allegations in the video. The Minister is not meant to define the agenda of the interview; the whole point of such questioning is to hold the Minister to account. This opportunity was missed.
So, what makes this story so untouchable by mainstream journalists?…………………
Whatever role Dutton has played in this scandal, he should be answerable to the public. And if the news media refuses to even mention the story, let alone pressure Dutton to explain his involvement, then it is a very sad day indeed for democracy. https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/friendlyjordies-allegations-against-dutton-met-with-silence,16122
Ukraine war – a boon for Morrison to campaign on fear and war with China?
This changes everything, from the world stage to polling booths far from the fatal steppes, MICHAEL SWEST MEDIA, By Mark Sawyer, February 25, 2022 As the world watches in horror the Russian assault on Ukraine, it seems crass to discuss what it means for a little election in faraway Australia. But local political operators in the big parties and the small will be doing nothing else this weekend, writes Mark Sawyer.
The Russian invasion of Ukraine is a disaster for more than 40 million people, a threat to Europe, a challenge to the US and a catastrophe for the world.
It’s hard to imagine that Vladimir Putin’s war, while just about as far away from Australia as any world event could be, would have no bearing on the thoughts of voters in the expected May election. And it’s clear we were already gearing for a security election. The Coalition has installed one of its head-kickers, Peter Dutton, in the Defence post and his warnings are as much about the dangers of a Labor government as any foreign foe.
The government has stooped to describing Labor leader Anthony Albanese as China’s preferred Australian leader and deputy Labor leader Richard Marles as the Manchurian candidate. (A term now synonymous with being a traitor in the service of China, but its provenance is from a book and film about US soldiers brainwashed during the Korean War to become assassins back home). Memories of former senator Sam Dastyari’s dalliance with Chinese interests remain fresh enough for the government to exploit.
Opponents of the Morrison government will be wondering whether the Coalition will be saved by a military crisis. Labor fears being robbed of victory. Both sides will be thinking of the same election: 2001.
Khaki elections, Australian style: est 1914
In fact khaki elections have not always been bad for Labor. In 1914 Andrew Fisher won the federal election held just a month after the outbreak of the Great War. He pledged Australia would ”stand beside the mother country [Britain] to help and defend her to the last man and the last shilling”. A year later, an exhausted Fisher handed over to Billy Hughes, who tried to introduce conscription……………….
Billy Hughes, [originally Labou) styled as ”the Little Digger”, became the personification of the Australian war effort. In 1917 he won a decisive victory, and another one in 1919, fresh on the back of his participation in the postwar treaty negotiations.In 1943 Labor under John Curtin won a thumping vote of confidence for its handling of the most serious threat to the nation in white history. (The negative role of militant unions on the home front is a less storied aspect of Labor history.)…………………………………………………………………..
The last word should go to Calwell again. Remember, this speech was made in 1965:
| The government justifies its action on the ground of Chinese expansionist aggression. And yet this same government is willing to continue and expand trade in strategic materials with China. We are selling wheat, wool and steel to China. The wheat is used to feed the armies of China. The wool is used to clothe the armies of China. The steel is used to equip the armies of China. Yet the government which is willing to encourage this trade is the same government which now sends Australian troops, in the words of the Prime Minister, to prevent ” the downward thrust of China “. The government may be able to square its conscience on this matter, but this is logically and morally impossible.https://www.michaelwest.com.au/ukraine-attack-changes-everything-including-australian-election/ |
Nuclear and politics – intertwined- theme for March 2022
”Manna from Heaven” – #ScottyFromMarketing rejoices- as the happy news broke of war in Ukraine. Just as Scotty had promised up to $171 Billion of tax-payers’ money – for nuclear submarines of no conceivable use for Australian monitoring or defence, comes this wonderful new preoccupation. Russia into Ukraine – next thing China into Taiwan – what could be better?
Such immediate threats to Australia! We all know that Russia and China are itching to militarily attack Australia,- don’t we? Or do we? Wot the heck!
FEAR and DEFENCE – what beautiful new themes for the coming Australian election!
Early closure of coal plant, battery and renewable developments – all spell the end for nuclear power hopes in Australia
Jim Green Nuclear Fuel Cycle Watch Australia, https://www.facebook.com/groups/1021186047913052 19 Feb 22,
Today’s two announcements in NSW are further proof that it’s game over for nuclear. Early closure of a coal plant (2025), and announcement of an additional large battery (700 MW) to be operational by 2025.
And major construction of the NSW-SA interconnector began this week. SA went from 62% renewable electricity supply to 67% last year with lots more in the pipeline, and synchronous condensers helped reduce gas-fired backup power generation
Federal govt expecting 69% renewable supply to the NEM by 2030 (about double the current amount) and Labor is aiming for 83% by 2030 if elected.
Coalition parties/governments in SA, NSW, Qld and Tas opposed to nuclear power. Labor clearly opposed at state and federal levels. Howard’s federal nuclear power ban has been retained by the Abbott, Turnbull and Morrison Coalition governments.
The writing is on the wall ‒ Kimba radioactive concerns move to South Australia’s political centre
The controversial federal government plan to dump and store radioactive waste near Kimba on the Eyre Peninsula is the focus of new posters appearing across Adelaide’s central business district this week.
The posters ‒ an initiative of the Don’t Dump on SA (DDSA) network ‒ are part of a growing effort calling on Premier Steven Marshall to support the South Australian law, community and environment and send a clear message of opposition to Canberra ahead of the March 19 state election.
The move comes following last week’s Legislative Council vote where Liberal politicians refused to join SA Green and Labor representatives in condemning the federal waste plan.
“For over two decades there has been bipartisan opposition to federal government plans to make SA the nation’s radioactive waste zone,” said DDSA member Dr. Jim Green. “Last week Premier Marshall walked away from this protection and from the commitment that he made ahead of the last state election that he had “a much greater ambition for our state” than to be a nuclear waste dump.
“A positive outcome of the Legislative Council vote was that the Labor Party reaffirmed its opposition to the proposed nuclear dump. MLC Kyam Maher highlighted Labor’s policy that Traditional Owners should have a right of veto over nuclear projects.”
The federal waste plan at Kimba is facing growing scrutiny following recent extensive flooding of the region and a Federal Court challenge by the Barngarla Traditional Owners.
“Barngarla people have been actively excluded from the area’s community ballot and the wider SA community has not had a say,” said DDSA representative Sister Michele Madigan.
“The federal waste plan poses a very serious and long-lasting risk to people and the environment and demands the highest level of transparency and rigour. Sadly, so far it has been a political football played with moving goalposts. It is time Premier Marshall blew the whistle and demanded an end to this move.”
The posters will remain in 30+ sites around Adelaide until the election and will be complemented with a range of community outreach initiatives in the lead up to the state election.
South Australian Labor supported Greens. motion opposing SA as nuclear waste dump, but Liberals SA Best and Advance SA blocked it.
10 Feb 22, Liberals and crossbench block Greens motion calling for SA to reject Federal Government’s attempt to turn the state into nuclear waste dumping ground
Today, the Liberals along with SA Best and Advance SA voted against a Greens motion condemning the decision by the federal government late last year to dump nuclear waste in Kimba.
“South Australians could not have been clearer. We do not want dangerous radioactive waste being dumped in farming country against the wishes of the Barngarla – the area’s Traditional Owners,” said SA Greens spokesperson for Energy, Robert Simms MLC.
“It is tremendously disappointing that the Liberals, SA Best, and Advance SA have ignored the pleas of the Traditional Owners, and instead given their tick of approval to put a radioactive waste dump in the heart of our food bowl that puts at risk our clean, green reputation and our state’s key grain export industry.
“A wide-ranging parliamentary inquiry must occur to not only consider the implications of the federal government’s decision to dump radioactive waste on Kimba on SA’s Eyre Peninsula, but also hear the concerns of the Barngarla People – and no further action should be taken until that process has concluded, “ Mr Simms said.
The motion moved today by Robert Simms MLC, was only supported by the Greens and SA Labor.
The ABC is under the biggest attack in its history
The ABC is under the biggest attack in its history https://www.sarahhansonyoung.com/save_our_abc_petition?recruiter_id=759870
Our ABC is facing death by a thousand cuts – totalling over half a BILLION dollars – from the Liberals who can’t handle the public broadcaster doing its job and holding those in power to account. Sadly, our democracy is going to be far worse off for it.
Not only has the Morrison Government failed to restore the millions of dollars of funding they have cut from the ABC year after year, there is now no future funding for the Enhanced News Gathering program.
Our ABC is facing death by a thousand cuts – totalling over half a BILLION dollars – from the Liberals who can’t handle the public broadcaster doing its job and holding those in power to account. Sadly, our democracy is going to be far worse off for it.
Not only has the Morrison Government failed to restore the millions of dollars of funding they have cut from the ABC year after year, there is now no future funding for the Enhanced News Gathering program.
The ABC has been a vital source of information during the pandemic and helped save lives during the catastrophic summer bushfires immediately before that.
To do its job as the public expects, to continue producing the new Australians trust and the stories we love, the ABC must be well-funded.
The ABC needs allies, now more than ever.
The coming Khaki election: will Labor join in the belligerence against China?
For the Australian Coalition government, with an election coming in less than four months, this is convenient.
Dutton and Prime Minister Scott Morrison are happy to harness Wu’s carefully crafted rhetoric to turn the threat from China into the national security issue of the election.
The three reasons Taiwan keeps talking up the threat of war with China, The Age, By Eryk Bagshaw, January 31, 2022 — Singapore: There was alarm last year when Defence Minister Peter Dutton warned that China’s push to take over Taiwan was gathering pace. It was time to have an honest conversation about the threat of war, he said, because once Taiwan was taken, the Japanese Senkaku islands were next – and then every major Australian city was “within range of China’s missiles”.The threat to Taiwan has not dissipated in the new year………
Peter Dutton also vowed to continue to speak out against China’s “belligerent approach” just hours after the new Chinese ambassador arrived in Australia with a conciliatory message about getting the troubled relationship “back to the right track”.
Taiwan’s Foreign Minister Joseph Wu is determined to keep international leaders talking about Taiwan’s situation should war come to pass.
There are three key reasons for this.
The first objective is domestic. “Taiwanese society understands that if the government is doing something right, they will continue to support the government,” Wu told me in an interview from Taipei……..
The strategy has netted Taiwan’s Democratic Progressive Party results, including a landslide presidential victory for Tsai Ing-wen in 2020.
The second objective is to maintain resolve………..
That means every rhetorical threat from Beijing is met with a response from Taipei. This cacophony can sound like warmongering but is more bombastic than about readying for boots on the ground.
The third objective is about building alliances and ensuring Taiwan becomes a global symbol of liberal democracy worth fighting for…………..
Taipei watched on with concern as the United States and its allies pulled out of Afghanistan……
This is why you will hear more like this from Wu throughout 2022…….
”Wu must frame the threat of war as omnipresent even if it is not imminent.”
For the Australian Coalition government, with an election coming in less than four months, this is convenient.
Dutton and Prime Minister Scott Morrison are happy to harness Wu’s carefully crafted rhetoric to turn the threat from China into the national security issue of the election.
Labor’s attempts to follow the international relations playbook will become more challenging as polling day draws near.
On Monday, Labor leader Anthony Albanese was asked on 3AW radio whether he would “unequivocally” support Taiwan in a military conflict and take a stand against “concentration camps” in Xinjiang.
“Where do you stand?” Neil Mitchell asked Albanese on Monday after days of government ministers accusing Albanese of softening Labor’s stance on China.
“What the international community has consistently said is that Taiwan’s position needs to be respected,” said Albanese.
Albanese let Wu do the talking. That’s admirable restraint. Let’s see how long it lasts. https://www.theage.com.au/world/asia/the-three-reasons-taiwan-keeps-talking-up-the-threat-of-war-with-china-20220131-p59skk.html
Defence Minister Peter Dutton evasive about the 137 member nuclear submarine taskforce, which does not include a South Australian govt rep.
137 OFFICIALS ON TASKFORCE EXPLORING NUCLEAR SUB OPTIONS, AuManufacturing By Joseph Brookes, 28 Jan 22
Defence Minister Peter Dutton did not directly answer some of the questions, which came from government Senator James Patterson, including what the taskforce has delivered and to who, saying only that it is “still active”.
There are nearly 150 members on the federal government’s nuclear-powered submarines taskforce, including officials from a range of federal departments and 10 contractors who the defence department has declined to name, but no state government representatives.
The taskforce was established in September last year on the day the Prime Minister Scott Morrison announced a nuclear-powered submarine program would be the first major initiative of a new AUKUS security agreement.
Answers to Senate question on notice published on Friday revealed more details on the group which is spending 18 months scoping options for at least eight new nuclear-powered submarines.
Led by Vice Admiral Jonathan Mead, the Canberra based Nuclear-Powered Submarine Task Force had 137 members as of 10 December, including secondees from several government departments and private contractors, according to the response from defence minister Peter Dutton.
Prime Minister and Cabinet, DFAT, the Attorney General’s Department, Australia’s nuclear organisations ANSTO and ARPANSA, the Department of Education, Skills and Employment, and 10 unnamed contractors are all represented on the taskforce, which reports to the Secretary of Defence.
According to the minister’s response, the taskforce’s terms of reference are to work with the US and UK to “to identify the optimal pathway to deliver” at least eight nuclear-powered submarines……
The taskforce does not appear to include representatives from the South Australian state government, where the boat building project is “intended” to be based.
Editor’s note: work has begun on a submarine construction yard at Osborne North in Adelaide (pictured), intended for construction of conventional powered vessels.
,…………… The defence minister did not directly answer some of the questions, which came from government Senator James Patterson, including what the taskforce has delivered and to who, saying only that it is “still active”.
The response suggests a possible misunderstanding of the question which referred the minister to Senate Estimates hearings in October when defence officials spoke of an earlier inter-departmental group assessing the feasibility of switching to a nuclear submarine program……..
In May 2020 the Prime Minister instructed the Department of Defence to examine the feasibility of acquiring the nuclear-powered submarines, and received a briefing on the outcomes – including it being possible – around six months later on December 18.
But a public announcement on the plan to establish a nuclear-powered fleet and scrap an existing $90 billion diesel powered submarine program was not made until September last year.
The government’s ultimate decision to scupper an existing $90 billion submarine project in favour of a nuclear powered fleet has caused diplomatic tensions, including French president Emanuel Macron accusing Mr Morrison of lying to him about the change……. https://www.aumanufacturing.com.au/137-officials-on-taskforce-exploring-nuclear-sub-options
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 