Time to question the authorities on the nuclear waste dump mess, the incompetence of ANSTO, and the ?inactive role of Kimba nuclear waste staff .
The decision in South Australia authorising the full disclosure of government papers was made on the application of Rex Patrick by the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal by its president who is a Supreme Court judge and not by the Supreme Court as I wrongly stated.
The practical outcome of the decision is that interested parties should now ask various federal and state governments and district councils for full disclosure of all papers relating to the nuclear waste facility at Kimba .
It has been suggested that the federal government is proceeding with the facility and related aspects WITHOUT AUTHORITY in the hope that the composition of the Senate will change in its favour after the federal election but this seems to me a forlorn expectation particularly if the preceding state election in South Australia were to see a change in government to the Labor Party.
However the actions and conduct of the federal government as to the facility are still badly prepared by persons who are ignorant and inexperienced in this area – this is the view of many overseas experts who consider that Australia does not know or understand what is involved with regard to nuclear waste engineering .
The incompetency of ANSTO is best exemplified by lengthy and now somewhat outdated development of the SYNROC process and the continued technical difficulties and breakdowns with the nuclear medicine facility at Lucas Heights
Interested parties should also be questioning what work is actually being done by the government’s personnel located at Kimba since there appears to be no new outcomes through their presence
Australia’s mining lobby exaggerates by $45 billion the taxes and royalties they pay
Mining lobby exaggerates taxes and royalties paid by $45 billion, Michaelo West Media, by Callum Foote | May 21, 2021,
The mining industry has exaggerated its contribution in taxes and royalties to Australian governments by an estimated $45 billion over the past 10 years. Callum Foote reports on the findings of an independent research project by Michael West Media.
The mining lobby and its “independent experts” from Deloitte Access Economics have routinely overcooked the contribution that mining companies make to Australia.
Michael West Media was commissioned to undertake an investigation into Australia’s mining royalty regime by the Neroli Colvin Foundation.
The report, A Fair Share?, found the mining lobby exaggerated by 19% its contribution to Australian government revenues through royalties and taxes for the period where government data has been made available, or an estimated $45 billion over the past decade.
The mining industry sold $2.1 trillion worth of Australian resources overseas in the past decade but Australian governments received less than a 10% return. The actual rate – 9.1% – covers royalty payments and taxes paid. If we consider only royalties, then the rate drops to 5.6% of the value of exported resources.
The mining industry regularly combines royalties and taxes but this is misleading when talking about its contribution to Australia.
Less than 10% of $2.1 trillion worth of Australian resources is perhaps not the “staggering” contribution as described by Resources Minister Keith Pitt earlier this week on the release of the latest Minerals Council report.
This is particularly the case given that the large mining houses are owned by foreign shareholders, so are the largest beneficiaries of Australia’s mineral wealth.
Michael West Media has found that, on average, mining companies make a 1654% revenue mark-up on Australian commodities………..
In Australia, all mineral commodities below the earth are owned by the Australian people. It is up to State and Federal governments to sell these commodities to mining companies that wish to extract and process them for selling. In accounting terms, royalties are deemed to be a “cost of goods sold”.
Just as a baker must buy raw flour from a mill and process it into bread to sell, royalties are the payment made by miners to the Australian people for the raw commodities that they then sell internationally.
Deloitte’s most recent report is more accurate than previous estimates of mining taxes and royalty payments. Michael West Media had contacted the firm for comment before it published this report because it was found that royalty and taxation figures were previously exaggerated by 33%, or $78 billion, for the period between 2010 and 2017………
The total export value of Australian commodities over the period, which is indicative of the revenue these companies have made from selling Australian resources overseas, is $2.1 trillion. This means that only 9.1% of the export revenue made by these companies has been paid to state and federal governments. ……………. https://www.michaelwest.com.au/mining-lobby-exaggerates-taxes-and-royalties-paid-45-billion/
Senator Rex Patrick challenges Scott Morrison’s special arrangement to protect his government from public scrutiny

Senator challenges cabinet secrecy, The Saturday Paper 33 May 21, Scott Morrison is using a special arrangement to keep the workings of his government secret, but independent senator Rex Patrick has launched a challenge to its legality. By Karen Middleton. Karen Middleton is The Saturday Paper’s chief political correspondent.
A special policy committee the prime minister uses to keep the workings of his government secret is being called into legal question as part of a challenge to the confidential status of national cabinet.
Independent senator Rex Patrick launched the challenge after the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet refused two freedom of information requests for access to national cabinet documents.
Appearing before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) this week, the Commonwealth argued that national cabinet’s workings must be secret because it is an offshoot of federal cabinet, which is governed by a confidentiality convention.
It argued that deciding how cabinet committees are formed and who joins them is in the prime minister’s “gift” alone.
The national cabinet arrangement relies on the controversial cabinet office policy committee that Morrison created upon becoming prime minister. He is its only permanent member. The one-man construct allows the prime minister to declare almost any gathering he attends to be a cabinet committee meeting, protecting it from public scrutiny.
When the tribunal’s Justice Richard White queried the mechanism purporting to give national cabinet confidential status, the government could provide no information.
“Is there anything else that tells me anything about the cabinet office policy committee?” Justice White asked counsel for the Commonwealth, Andrew Berger, QC, on Wednesday. “I’m not sure there is, Your Honour,” Berger replied.
Last year, Labor’s senate leader, Penny Wong, condemned the one-man committee as “an abuse” of process used to “cover up blatant political decision-making”.
Senator Patrick’s AAT challenge could also have implications for accessing information from other designated cabinet subcommittees and groups advising them.
The one-man construct allows the prime minister to declare almost any gathering he attends to be a cabinet committee meeting, protecting it from public scrutiny…………..
…………………………. After the hearing, Rex Patrick described national cabinet as “a last-minute idea dealt with at short notice, without its implementation or consequences being properly considered”.
“That’s apparent when looking back at the various media statements, the cobbling together of a new cabinet handbook and the evidence before the AAT,” he told The Saturday Paper.
Patrick said the legislated right to access information on intergovernmental communication had existed in Australia for almost 40 years, “subject only to a test of public harm”.
“Last year, Prime Minister Morrison took that right away,” he said. “He did not ask the parliament to change the law.”
Patrick said he was in a fight for transparency and responsible government. “And I’m in a fight to stop a prime minister unilaterally taking away a right that was given to me and all Australians, by the parliament.”
Whether Justice White agrees will be clear soon. He reserved his judgement and promised a quick decision.
This article was first published in the print edition of The Saturday Paper on May 22, 2021 as “Cabinet of one”. https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/news/politics/2021/05/22/senator-challenges-cabinet-secrecy/162160560011709
Questions that must be asked of Resource Minister Pitt, about the new money for Kimba, designated as Australia’s nuclear waste dump.
The contentious Waste Management Amendment (Site Specification, Community Fund and Other Measures) Bill 2020 has been listed in the Senate’s order of business for Tuesday 11 May 2021 as number 11 in the government business—orders of the day
The senator representing the responsible minister for the bill is Senator the Hon. Zed Seselja as Minister for International Development and the Pacific.
It is now important that people who care about the Kimba community,about South Australia, about Australia should contact politicians, especially Keith Pitt, Rowan Ramsey, and also Kimba Mayor Dean Johnson, and ask them these vital questions about the money that the Federal government plans to shower on Kimba.
Member for Grey, Rowan Ramsey MP, said the new nvestment highlighted the government’s commitment to
Kimba. Applications for projects will be open later in 2021 and will be assessed by Business Grants Hub in consultation with the Kimba community.
Pitt and Ramsay should be asked with regard to the latest grant:
1. How will it “drive further economic and socialimprovements across the Kimba community?
2. What is the economic success of Kimba?
3. What is the disruption which this has caused for the people in the area by the progress of the facility when
no effort has been made by Pitt and Ramsay to enable those objecting to the facility the opportunity to have an
independent assessment of the safety and economic consequences of the facility’s establishment?
4. Will the services and infrastructure under the new round of funding include payment for an independent assessment sought by the the many persons objecting to the facility proposals.?
5. Would the funding for this payment be made automatically by Pitt without the intended application process?
6. Does Pitt accept that a major part of the disruption to the people in the area has been caused by his government
failing in providing them with a safety case and enabling an independent assessment as demanded by them since the initial proposals for a facility?
7.Surely he would acknowledge that “this funding will be invested into therefore the disruption which this has
caused for the people who live in the area” by paying for an independent assessment as sought by them?
8. How does Ramsay expect that this funding will “include projects which will grow employment in the community”
when there is a justified fear and concern among many in the community that the facility’s presence will destroy the region’s economy“?
9. Is this “a warm welcome”?
10. How can Johnson justify this as “a win for Kimba businesses and residents” when there is the strong
likelihood based on overseas experience that the local economy will be destroyed through the presence and operations of the facility?
11. What are the important health care initiatives, tourism funding and economic diversification projects referred to in the media release as they presumably should have been normal funding obligations of the federal and state
governments?
Minister Keith Pitt – desperate times, desperate measures – to get Kimba nuclear waste dump
![]() ![]() | |||
Kazzi Jai No nuclear waste dump anywhere in South Australia, 9 May 21
DESPERATE TIMES CALL FOR DESPERATE MEASURES!!….”Kimba community to receive $2 million funding boost8 May 2021Joint media release with Rowan Ramsay MP, Member for Grey
The Kimba community will benefit from an additional $2 million investment in services and infrastructure under a new round of the Community Benefit Program announced by the Coalition Government.”So….this PRESS RELEASE by Minister Pitt was released YESTERDAY SATURDAY 8TH MAY 2021. Interesting timing given that the Senate reconvenes THIS COMING TUESDAY 11TH MAY 2021!
More money to build public toilets?….Can’t have TOO MANY toilets!!….Or what OTHER Community Benefits projects would they be considering…..given that the GRANT money is not to be used for COMPETITIVE ADVANCEMENT or PERSONAL GAIN. Not looking at anyone specific there – maybe a certain MAYOR, and a certain other person EMPLOYED directly by the department from last Grant Round!!What really intrigues me is that Kimba Council released a public document 30th April 2021 regarding their ANNUAL BUSINESS PLAN AND BUDGET 2021-22 PUBLIC CONSULTATION DRAFT….and in it stated, under Non-Financial Performance Measures – 2021-22 (page 10)…
“Lobby Australian Radioactive Waste Agency and the Minister for resources, Water & Northern Australia for grant funding promised as part of stage 2 of the establishment of the Nuclear Waste Facility. (Strategy3.1)“Feedback due 17th May 2021.So…..this announcement throws up a number of questions. Firstly, “lobby” is a term used to “try to influence the decision-making of a government or opposition representative in the exercise of their official functions”. Does this mean that the Kimba Council had no idea that the money was to be released as part of the continued Stage 2 – which Hawker now is no longer a part of?
Remember Matt Canavan (the previous minister) only announced the so called “New Community Benefit Program 2019-22” JUST MOMENTS BEFORE THE KIMBA AND HAWKER BALLOTS STARTED – on October 8th 2019!! So it isn’t an annual anticipated thing!!….especially when they named the Community Benefit Program 2019 – 22!! Of course Matt Canavan then jumped ship and resigned his ministry on 3rd February 2020.
Is it AGAIN to sway people in Kimba that they are “special”? Remember that $2 million is chicken feed in the grand scheme of things – even the total which would be now $6 million is chicken feed given what they intend doing – making the CURRENT EXPORT PRODUCING AGRICULTURAL LAND OF KIMBA A NUCLEAR WASTELAND….which is over 1700 KMS AWAY from the industrial producer of this nuclear waste – Lucas Heights!!Or is it a way of convincing people that sellout RAMSEY is worth re-electing in this coming Election Year for the Federal Government? (The latest that a Federal Election can be held will be next year May 2022.)
Gun totin’ gay-marriage opposing, sports-rorting Senator Bridget McKenzie leads the National Party’s push on behalf of the nuclear lobby.
Sky News.6 May 21, Nationals Senator Bridget McKenzie, Nationals Senators earlier this year drafted legislation which would allow the Clean Energy Finance Corporation to invest in nuclear power. Ms McKenzie told Sky News host Alan Jones “we’re still waiting” for Energy Minister Angus Taylor to put the legislation through parliament and spark debate on the issue.

Angus Taylor, Energy Minister – incompetent and ignorant – SO – VOTE HIM OUT

campaign gathers momentum
Kazzi Jai No nuclear waste dump anywhere in South Australia, 4 May 21
maybe we should start a campaign…. for the Federal Election coming ….with t-shirts which say VOTE RAMSEY OUT!Idea taken from this Bulletin article! ·
CAMPAIGN TO OUST ANGUS TAYLOR GATHERS MOMENTUM
The successful campaign to remove former Liberal prime minister Tony Abbott from his Warringah seat during the 2019 Federal Election is being replicated in other electorates.
A 30-year-old pilot from Thirlmere in the Hume electorate’s north-eastern corner – who has avoided politics until now – is behind the grassroots independent movement to oust his Liberal member and the Minister for Energy, Angus Taylor.
Alex Murphy followed the Vote Tony Out campaign and wondered why there wasn’t similar action to remove Mr Taylor.He set about canvassing local voters in 2020 through the Voices of Hume group. He found others were unhappy with the MP’s energy, climate and emissions reduction policies and involvement in the GrassGate, WaterGate and Clover Moore controversies.
Within three months, the campaign has attracted 350 subscribers and gained momentum by selling T-shirts, face masks and tote bags through social media, emails and meetings.
Its first meeting in Wollondilly on 17 April attracted between 50 and 60 people. The next Vote Angus Out meeting is scheduled for 30 May in Goulburn.
Vote Angus Out campaigners are mostly farmers and retirees who disapprove of many of the MP’s decisions, including his support for fracking on farmland and lack of support for the dairy industry, increasing the age pension and encouraging Australian-based industry.
”He’s there to represent the gas and oil industries first and foremost,” Mr Murphy said.
Mr Murphy believes there is more support for Mr Taylor’s removal, assuming retirees only represent the campaign’s demographic because they have more time on their hands.He also bases subscriber numbers on social media follows and email opens. However, if retirees are the true campaign demographic, there would be many who don’t use social media or email.
“People are getting sick of the same old things happening, and a lot of retirees see it as a way to leave something for their children and grandchildren,” Mr Murphy said.
Mr Murphy said he’s confident Mr Taylor will be gone by the next federal election and is seeking advice from Vote Tony Out campaigners.
It makes our job a lot easier to have a politician who is so easily targeted. His inaction on climate change and emissions reduction, and the fact he’s been implicated in a number of scandals, make him an easy target,” he said.
Mr Taylor was also recently voted the most incompetent cabinet member in the Morrison Government in a poll conducted by The Australian Financial Review.
On the other hand, Mr Murphy recognises that the Hume electorate is a safe Liberal seat.It will be a challenge to convince people not to vote for him, but at the same time, it’s certainly going to be a lot easier for us to convince people not to vote for Angus than not to vote for a lot of other politicians,” he said.
That’s why the Vote Angus Out campaign is also focusing its efforts on finding a strong independent candidate.“The problem is, a lot of the big parties are just as bad at taking large donations from fossil fuel companies. We really want to put forward someone who isn’t going to be beholden to those big donors,” Mr Murphy said.
Similar campaigns are also on the hunt for independents to challenge the Liberal member for North Sydney, Trent Zimmerman, and the Liberal member for Bradfield, Paul Fletcher. Both seats neighbour Tony Abbott’s former seat of Warringah. The Riot ACT / Hannah Sparks
Are The Greens taking over from Labor as Australia’s progressive party – Tasmanian election results suggest this.
Have the Greens taken over the progressive mantle from Labor? South Wind, 4 May 2021 by Peter Boyer
Peter Gutwein’s win on Saturday is only part of the story of a fascinating election. ”……….. Predictably, Peter Gutwein won the election on the back of his fine response to COVID-19, recording an exceptional personal vote. People appreciated that this leader, in response to expert scientific advice, could make tough, confronting decisions.
But as the Greens’ Cassy O’Connor pointed out on Saturday night, while the premier chose to follow the science around contagious disease, he has relegated to a secondary position the science that warns of an unfolding climate catastrophe.
In building the Greens as a political force, founding leader Bob Brown fostered the view – perhaps unintentionally – that his party was the only way to environmental salvation. In times past I’ve found myself irritated by what seemed to be the Greens’ uncompromising approach to wicked policy dilemmas. Kevin Rudd’s doomed carbon pricing scheme was one such case.
In 2010, for the first and still the only time in Australia, the Greens became an integral part of government in Tasmania. Leader Nick McKim and then Cassy O’Connor took on the climate challenge on the basis that this responsibility is shared by all jurisdictions, everywhere.
That work culminated in O’Connor’s 2013 strategic plan, which remains the standout among a plethora of such documents that have arrived with fanfare over the years before being quietly shelved. Eight years later, her election night speech showed that this was no accident.
The buzz of leadership doesn’t rest easily with complex, slow-burning issues like climate change. Perhaps taking a cue from Rudd’s unseemly demise in 2010, Australia’s major party leaders and MPs continue to avoid making climate a front-rank policy issue.
Nowhere was that better illustrated than in the last parliament, in a debate over whether Tasmania should declare itself to be in a climate emergency. The only MPs arguing cogently for this fully justified move were O’Connor and her deputy, Rosalie Woodruff, while the rest of the parliament played partisan games.
On Saturday night O’Connor spoke of the Greens’ proposal for a bill to mandate planning for sequestering carbon, adapting to climate change, and annual sectoral emission targets, contrasting that with the major parties’ failure to come up with any coherent climate policy: “a shameful indictment”.
“We hear some Liberals gloating about the state’s climate record while they accelerate native forest logging,” she said. “Tasmania’s status as a net carbon sink is the result of decades of commitment and heart from the broader conservation movement and civil society, and the Greens’ hard work to protect this island’s extraordinary carbon rich forests.”…….
It was a long speech, bringing to mind another politician inclined to go on a bit, Gough Whitlam. The point about both is that they covered a lot of ground and had things to say that mattered, about life, community and government. O’Connor is a leader of real substance……
A century ago another small progressive party was said to be a mere annoyance that would soon disappear. The Labor Party rose to power as a voice for the powerless. On Saturday night, the most effective voice for that noble cause was O’Connor’s….. https://southwind.com.au/2021/05/04/have-the-greens-taken-over-the-progressive-mantle-from-labor/
”Low Level” radioactive trash to be removed to USA from posh Sydney suburb, while govt plans to send Higher Level nuclear waste to Kimba, rural South Australia.
This is very interesting. They say it’s ”low leve” – presumably ”safe”. Yet for the residents of a posh Sydney suburb, its worth a century-long fight to get it removed – and sent to America !! Makes you see why the residents of Lucas Heights , – now called Bardon Ridge – might be keen to have their much higher-level radioactive trash foisted on distant rural Kimba, South Australia
Hunters Hill radioactive waste to be removed sent to United States https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-04-30/hunters-hill-radioactive-waste-to-be-removed-sent-to-us/1001
By Rani Hayman 1 May 21,
Key points:
- The land was the former site of the Radium Hill refinery, which closed in 1915
- The removal will begin in the coming weeks and take 12 months
- Melinda Pavey said the issue had taken a long time to resolve because it was “complicated”
Several properties on Nelson Parade at Hunters Hill were built on land contaminated by a former uranium processing site, which closed in 1915.
The area was also occupied by a carbolic acid plant until the early 1900s and a tin smelter until the 1960s.
Residents have spent decades fighting for the state government to remove the affected soil.
Finally, their calls have been heard, with the waste due to be excavated and sent to the United States.
Philippa Clark from the Nelson Parade Action Group said she was pleased the issued had finally been resolved.
“This is the way you deal with this kind of contamination and the best way possible for us and the environment and future generations,” she said.
The NSW government said the process would begin in the next few weeks and was expected to take 12 months.
The Minister for Water, Property and Housing Melinda Pavey said the health and safety of the community would be the main priority during site remediation works and the transportation of the material.
“The Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) will supervise the excavation and packing of the contaminated material into sealed bags and containers prior to transport to the USA,” she said.
While there is a sense of relief within the community, the decades-long battle has put strain on the affected residents.
When asked why it has taken so long to find a solution, Ms Pavey said: “Because it was complicated.”
A parliamentary committee in 2008 called for a comprehensive remediation plan for the site and in 2014 the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a management order to Property NSW to commence the works — although it said the development consent still had not been issued.
A plan to move the contaminated material to Kemps Creek in Sydney’s west was also abandoned in 2014 following community backlash.
The Mayor of Hunters Hill, Ross Williams, said the residents were looking forward to the area being rehabilitated.
“It’s been a health issue and a legacy issue for all that time.
It’s low-level radioactive material and it came from an industry that was essential [really?] back in those days,” he said.
“In modern times the environmental consequences wouldn’t have been tolerated.
“Once it’s totally cleaned up it will be available for any use.”
Ms Clark is pleased with the outcome despite how long it has taken.
“The government has listened to what we all wanted and what the parliamentary inquiry recommendation had been,” she said.
“We overwhelmingly just want to see ordinary houses and [go] back to [living in] an ordinary street, but without the stigma and without the constant anxiety that we’ve had to live with.”
Scott Morrison’s plan for Australia to fund small nuclear reactors and other very dubious technologies that purport to combat global heating.
Australia to fund low-emissions research as world sets ambitious climate targets, The Age, By Mike Foley, April 21, 2021,
The government is offering $566 million to global experts who want to collaborate with Australia on clean energy projects, with ‘green steel’, battery storage and even research on nuclear fission reactors among the possible tech options.
Australia will help fund groundbreaking research in low-emissions technology as the Morrison government confronts increasingly ambitious climate commitments from major trading partners ahead of a global climate summit.
Prime Minister Scott Morrison will announce a $566 million investment in research partnerships with other countries for new technology like green steel, small modular nuclear reactors, and soil carbon sequestration. He said the technology from the deals would benefit Australian export industries such as agriculture, coal, aluminium and gas…….
Australia’s focus on international action contrasts with the increasingly ambitious 2030 emissions targets that developed nations are announcing in the lead-up to US President Joe Biden’s international climate summit on Thursday…….
But Energy and Emissions Reduction Minister Angus Taylor said one country alone cannot make commercially viable the low emissions solutions needed to replace polluting technologies, or roll them out at scale……..
The partnership funding is a commitment in the upcoming federal budget. The Morrison government has entered discussions with the US, UK, Japan, Korea and Germany…..
Funds will be invested in research and development partnerships in line with Australia’s technology roadmap, which has prioritised hydrogen, low-emissions steel and aluminium, battery storage, and soil carbon sequestration on farmland….”
The Morrison government will also seek to collaborate with the US and UK on small modular nuclear reactors, which are not yet commercially viable. It has no plan to remove Australia’s ban on nuclear power or fuel processing.. … https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/australia-to-fund-low-emissions-research-as-world-sets-ambitious-climate-targets-20210421-p57l5v.html
Australian Strategic Policy Institute sees nuclear submarines as a step towards the full nuclear chain
Nuclear submarines could lead to nuclear power for Australia, The Strategist 15 Apr 21‘‘………..Submarines could lead to a broad nuclear industry in Australia. This possibility will be the subject of a seminar to be held at ASPI on Thursday 15 July, jointly hosted by the Submarine Institute of Australia and UNSW Canberra. More information is available here….””
https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/nuclear-submarines-could-lead-to-nuclear-power-for-australia/
Scott Morrison’s $billion missile spend, a gift to foreign war companies and their sponsor, the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, (ASPI)
Foreign war lobby gets a $billion for missiles – media fawns

https://www.michaelwest.com.au/foreign-war-lobby-gets-a-billion-for-missiles-media-fawns/ 4 Apr 21,
Scott Morrison’s latest billion-dollar missile spend was deftly leaked to the media then talked up by ASPI whose sponsors have raked in $51 billion in Defence Department contracts while doling cash to the conflicted “think-tank”. Marcus Rubenstein investigates.
No sooner had Scott Morrison’s new cabinet been sworn in than it was back to business, feeding out distractions to the Canberra press gallery.
Nearly 14 hours before the prime minister announced to the nation that Australia was going to spend a billion dollars on building “our own missiles” Greg Sheridan from The Australian had the scoop—along with The Age/SMH, Nine Newspapers stablemate Australian Financial Review and the ABC. Along with the ranks of metropolitan mainstream media dailies who all fell in line behind the announcement.
And with military precision they all fired off their online reports at 10:30pm… or, to be more precise, 22:30 hrs.
The Age and Sydney Morning Herald both quoted ASPI (Australian Strategic Policy Institute) in their coverage as did The Conversation, along with others they listed potential weapons maker partners for this home grown missile mission.
Apart from the glaring fact that none of these companies are actually Australian, most were listed by ASPI in a report it published last year. Of the five potential partner companies being touted by mainstream media— Raytheon (USA), Lockheed Martin (USA), Kongsberg (Norway), Rafeal (Israel) and BAE Systems (UK)—all but one is a long-term financial backer of ASPI.
As is de rigueur there was no mention that ASPI’s enthusiasm for substantial new military expenditure was directed towards spending on weapons made by their sponsors.
A number of media reports included PR handout images from US missile maker Raytheon, which for years was a loyal ASPI sponsor and also the former employer of, recently demoted, Defence Minister Linda Reynolds.
The actual announcement was made by the prime minister, not at Parliament House, but at the South Australian facility of Raytheon.
Government access for weapons makers
Since ASPI’s foundation in 2001, when it was created to challenge the policy direction of Defence, it has become more and more commercialised.
This fact was highlighted by ASPI’s founding Executive Director Hugh White, who wrote on the 15th anniversary of its foundation, “The quality of defence policy slumped… [and] ASPI’s focus inevitably swung round to contributing to public debates not government policy-making.”
Under Hugh White’s leadership, ASPI preserved a great deal of independence and only took an average of $28,000 per year in commercial revenue.
In the last financial year, under the leadership of (former Howard Government adviser) Peter Jennings, ASPI raked in $6,953,000 in commercial revenue. Yet it maintains its façade of independence of outside influence.
ASPI sponsor, French-owned Naval Group was awarded the contract for Australia’s controversial $80 billion future submarine project. It has been in the headlines recently after an independent report released in March found the project was “dangerously off track”.
In 2016, when the contract was awarded Jennings, wrote a glowing opinion piece, about his sponsor, under the headline “Vive Australia’s choice of a French submarine”.
The release of the Future Submarines Report was very critical of the entire project and there were suggestions from highly credentialed defence strategists that Australia should walk away from the deal.
In response, ASPI wrote that not only should Naval Group keeps its contract but the Royal Australian Navy should commission un-maned Orca submarines whilst waiting decades for the French submarines order to be fulfilled.
And who makes the Orca? Another ASPI sponsor, Boeing Defense.
This comes after revelations in March that ASPI had been commissioned to write a report critical of the federal government’s awarding of cloud computing contracts to Australian company Canberra Data Centres (CDC).
As it transpires, ASPI had been commissioned to write the report by lobbying firm Australian Public Affairs (APA); the Commonwealth Lobbyists Register reveals APA represent CDC’s three main commercial rivals.
Last October, ASPI’s Peter Jennings told the ABC, “ASPI’s work as a think tank is genuinely independent” and suggestions it was controlled by sponsors were “frankly nonsense”.
The massive ASPI payoff
ASPI is not an independent think tank, it is in fact a Commonwealth Company which reports to the parliament through the Defence Ministry. In its latest annual report ASPI singled out the then Defence Minister for her “continuing close personal engagement and support”.
In her first speech as Defence Minister, Linda Reynolds boasted of her close friendship with ASPI’s Peter Jennings.
Clearly ASPI’s boss and his board, which is chaired by former Chief of the Army, Lt Gen (Ret’d) Kenneth Gillespie and includes former Liberal Defence Minister Brendan Nelson, has access to the highest levels of government and the Defence Department.
Since ASPI’s inception it has received sponsorship from 12 manufacturers of weapons and weapons systems. Over that period, they have been awarded 9,423 Defence Department contracts with a total value of $51.2 billion.
This does not include another 49 ASPI sponsors who do not manufacture weapons, yet Department of Finance data, reveals have benefitted from more than $30 billion in defence contracts since 2001.
ASPI’s most recent annual report revealed that in the year before the COVID-19 pandemic, it hosted 142 separate events and meetings, many of them bringing together defence policy makers and defence suppliers.
At one such event in 2019, sponsored by Thales, Northrop Grumman and Lockheed Martin, then Defence Minister Linda Reynolds was keynote speaker. Presumably executives from these foreign weapons makers had some level of access to the minister.
Department of Finance figures later revealed that ministerial and department staff were charged $30,723 by ASPI in order to attend that speech.
Labor Party’s platform on uranium/nuclear and radioactive waste issues.

Dave Sweeey, 31 Mar 21, At its National Conference federal Labor adopted the platform (below) on uranium/nuclear and radioactive waste issues.
Clearly it is not what we would write but there’s a lot that is useful and important – including options to further contest Australian uranium sales, a commitment to responsible radioactive waste management and a rejection of domestic nuclear power.
Yesterday federal Labor also clearly reaffirmed its commitment to sign and ratify the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (the ICAN Ban) in government.
Uranium
1. The production of uranium and its use in the nuclear fuel cycle present unique and unprecedented
hazards and risks, including:
Threats to human health and the local environment in the mining and milling of uranium and
management of radioactive materials, which demand the enforcement of strict safety
procedures;
The generation of products that are usable as the raw materials for nuclear weapons
manufacture, which demands the enforcement of effective controls against diversion; and
The generation of highly toxic radioactive waste by-products that demand permanently safe
disposal methods.
2 Labor accordingly will allow the mining and export of uranium only under the most stringent
conditions.
3. In relation to mining and milling, Labor will:
Ensure the safety of workers in the uranium industry is given priority. Labor has established a
compulsory register for workers in the uranium industry that includes regular health checks
and ongoing monitoring. The register is held by an independent agency and will be subject to
privacy provisions;
Ensure Australian uranium mining, milling and rehabilitation is based on world best practice
standards, extensive continuing research on environmental impacts and the health and
safety of employees and affected communities, particularly Indigenous communities;
Ensure the Australian public is informed about the quality of the environmental performance
of uranium mines through public accountability mechanisms;
Foster a constructive relationship between mining companies and Indigenous communities
affected by uranium mining; and
Prohibit the mining of uranium within national parks under International Union for
Conservation of Nature protected area category 1A, category 1B, and category 2, and listed
world heritage areas.
4. In relation to exports other than to India, Labor will allow the export of uranium only to those
countries that observe the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), are committed to nonproliferation
policies, and have ratified international and bilateral nuclear safeguards agreements.
Labor will export uranium only to countries that maintain strict safeguards and security controls
over their nuclear power industries.
5. In relation to India, an important strategic partner for Australia, commitments and responsible
actions in support of nuclear non-proliferation, consistent with international guidelines on nuclear
supply, will provide an acceptable basis for peaceful nuclear cooperation, including the export of
uranium, subject to the application of strong safeguards.
6. In addition, Labor will work towards:
Strengthening export control regimes and the rights and authority of the International
Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA);
Appropriate international responses to violations of existing safeguard commitments;
Limiting the processing of weapon usable material (separation of plutonium and high
enriched uranium in civilian programs);
Tightening controls over the export of nuclear material and technology;
Universalising of the IAEA additional protocol making it mandatory for all states and
members of the Nuclear Suppliers Group to adhere to the additional protocol as a condition
of supply to all their transfers;
Criminalising actions of individuals and companies that assist in nuclear proliferation;
The development of an international guarantee of nuclear fuel supply to states foregoing
sensitive nuclear technologies;
Revising the NPT to prevent countries from withdrawing from the NPT and passing a new
resolution in the United Nations Security Council addressing the penalties for withdrawal
from the NPT;
Encouraging all nuclear states to join the NPT;
Reserving the right to withhold supplies of uranium permanently, indefinitely or for a
specified period from any country that ceases to observe the non-proliferation safeguards
and security conditions applied to Australian uranium exports to that country, or which
adopts nuclear practices or policies that do not further advance the cause of nuclear nonproliferation;
Supporting the maintenance and enhancement of international and Australian safeguards to
ensure that uranium mined in Australia, and nuclear products derived from it, are used only
for civil purposes by approved instrumentalities in approved countries that are signatories to
the NPT (with the exception of India) and with whom Australia has safeguard arrangements;
and
Seeking adequate international resourcing of the IAEA to ensure its effectiveness in
undertaking its charter.
7. Labor will progress these commitments through diplomatic means including the re-establishment
of the Canberra Commission to re-invigorate Australia’s tradition of middle power, multilateral
diplomacy. In doing so, Labor believes that as a non-nuclear armed nation and a good international
citizen, Australia can make a significant contribution to promoting disarmament, the reduction of
nuclear stockpiles, and the responsible use of nuclear technology.
8. Labor will:
Vigorously and totally oppose the ocean dumping of radioactive waste;
Prohibit the establishment of nuclear power plants and all other stages of the nuclear fuel
cycle in Australia;
Fully meet all Australia’s obligations as a party to the NPT; and
Remain strongly opposed to the importation and storage of nuclear waste that is sourced
from overseas in Australia.
9. Labor acknowledges that radioactive waste management is a complex policy challenge that
requires the highest levels of transparency and evidence, while balancing the need of the
community to benefit from treatments for diseases like cancer. Accordingly, Labor will act in
accordance with scientific evidence, and with full transparency, broad public input and best
practice technical and consultative standards, taking into account the views of traditional owners,
to progress responsible radioactive waste management
Why Boris Johnson rejected Scott Morrison as speaker at climate summit, to Morrison’s fury
|
Boris Johnson outlines why Scott Morrison was rejected to speak at climate summit, The Age, By Rob Harris March 22, 2021 British Prime Minister Boris Johnson told Scott Morrison that Australia was denied the opportunity to speak at last year’s climate summit because he wanted to encourage nations to set more ambitious emissions reduction targets.
Mr Johnson, who is rallying the world’s leading economies towards achieving net zero emissions by 2050, explained his rationale in a letter to the Australian Prime Minister in December last year while acknowledging the domestic political challenge over climate policy. Mr Johnson had originally invited Mr Morrison to speak at the December 12 summit but later walked away from the offer amid a behind-the-scenes diplomatic tussle over whether Australia’s climate change policies were insufficient to warrant a speaking slot………. While Mr Morrison told Parliament at the time he was not bothered by the snub, the government was privately furious behind the scenes and much of its anger was directed towards the British PM, who hosted the conference in partnership with the UN and France. Mr Johnson said Mr Morrison should understand that “we have tried to set a high bar for this summit to encourage countries to come forward with ambitious commitments”………https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/boris-johnson-outlines-why-scott-morrison-was-rejected-to-speak-at-climate-summit-20210322-p57d2o.html |
|








