Morrison government just doesn’t get it, on climate change
Hewson’s View: How long can Morrison deny the undeniable? https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/6793657/how-long-can-the-pm-deny-the-undeniable/?cs=14246#gsc.tab=0
John Hewson, 19 June 20, The government is doing little to ensure that our soils are more drought resistant and resilient.
Unfortunately, the Morrison government just doesn’t get it when it comes to the imperative for urgent climate action.
Sure, the worst of the drought is over. Sure, the bushfire season has ended. Sure, Morrison has handled the COVID-19 pandemic well, certainly better than expected, but only so far – the more difficult economic and social challenges are yet to come, and the risk of a pick-up in the infection rate is omnipresent.
But, what has the government actually learned from these experiences such as to encourage them to embrace longer-term strategic thinking and planning to better respond to the inevitability of more of these crises in the future? Apparently, very little!
Climate was an important cause of the drought, and the climate predictions are that droughts will occur more frequently and with even greater intensity. Climate was an important cause of the bushfires, again the predictions are for more and worse to come. COVID-19 was very much a dress rehearsal for what awaits us if we continue to ignore the science and the urgent demands of the climate threat. The government has a “tin ear” to all this, not really accepting the significance of the science; certainly not doing much to ensure that our soils are more drought resistant and resilient, or to better prepare for the next bushfire season; and clearly failing to seize the opportunity in developing its COVID Recovery Strategy to accelerate our transition, sector by sector, to a low carbon Australia by mid-century.
They are totally self-absorbed in short-term politics, cynically relieved that they have been able to “survive” their mismanagement of both the drought and the fires, and are now making anti-climate decisions, perceiving some sort of short-term political advantage from paying out to certain vested interests and political supporters, against our longer-term national interest.
Australia is now clearly a laggard in response to climate ...
Australia is now clearly a laggard in response to climate, having squandered the opportunities to lead over the last three decades, thereby forgoing billions of dollars of investment and growth, and hundreds of thousands of jobs.
A new survey (based on digital news) released this week by the University of Canberra and conducted at the end of the bushfire season earlier this year, found that the number of climate deniers (8 per cent) in Australia is more than double the global average (3 per cent), and of the 40 countries surveyed, behind only the US (12 per cent) and Sweden (9 per cent).
While 58 per cent think climate is an “extremely or very serious problem”, this is lower than the global average of 69 per cent, and only one-quarter of the countries surveyed are less concerned than we are.
This clearly reflects the reliance on commercial AM radio and Sky/Fox News – more than one-third who listen to these outlets consider climate to be “not at all” or “not very” serious. It also reflects the government’s failure to encourage and sustain a mature debate on climate, including “threats” of job losses and disruption.
Moreover, as our government is sticking with support for more coal and gas projects, including new coal and gas-fired power projects, large fossil fuel companies are accelerating the transition away from fossil fuels. Following on from the likes of BHP and Rio Tinto, global oil giant BP this week announced the write down of its exploration and production assets by some A$25 billion, as it reassesses the global energy market – post COVID – and the increasingly rapid shift to clean energy.
The finance and investment sectors are also driving the essential climate transitions, with most major banks refusing to finance new fossil fuel or dirty energy projects; major insurers becoming increasingly reluctant to insure them; and the big global investors, fearing the possibility of “stranded assets”, are shifting their investments towards less climate-exposed assets – for example, the largest sovereign wealth fund, the Norwegian Fund, has quit coal, and Blackrock, the world’s largest funds manager, has adopted its Climate Action Strategy. Also, major corporates such as Unilever have urged Morrison to join the climate fight.
Morrison is clearly focused within the “Canberra Bubble”, mostly taking his much lauded “Quiet Australians” for granted. His short-term political game is grossly irresponsible, selling out our national interest, and stealing from future generations, to whom he will happily leave the increasingly difficult task of cleaning up his mess, probably in the context of lower living standards.
John Hewson is a professor at the Crawford School of Public Policy, ANU, and a former Liberal opposition leader.
Why we must fight miners’ push to fast-track uranium mines
Expensive, dirty and dangerous: why we must fight miners’ push to fast-track uranium mines https://theconversation.com/expensive-dirty-and-dangerous-why-we-must-fight-miners-push-to-fast-track-uranium-mines-139966?fbclid=IwAR173tiUPtRX3YkqQh5VlmoWHWWCUHxSFtCFxFIxKtuvI3IaghgbGhAEBAM, Gavin Mudd, Associate Professor of Environmental Engineering, RMIT University, June 18, 2020 Of all the elements on Earth, none is more strictly controlled under law than uranium. A plethora of international agreements govern its sale and use in energy, research and nuclear weapons.
Australian environmental law considers nuclear actions, such as uranium mining, as a “matter of national environmental significance” under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act. This means uranium involves matters of national and international concern for which the Australian government is solely responsible.
The states, which own minerals, cannot exercise such oversight on uranium exports and use. So any new uranium mine needs both state and federal environmental approvals.
On Monday, Prime Minister Scott Morrison announced that BHP’s proposed expansion of the Olympic Dam copper-uranium-gold-silver mine in South Australia was one of 15 major projects set to be fast-tracked for environmental approval. This would include a single, joint state and federal assessment.
But responsibility and past performance make a compelling case to maintain our federal environmental laws more than ever. Here’s why uranium mining must remain a federal issue.
Our international obligations
Australia is a signatory to several international treaties, conventions and agreements concerning nuclear activities and uranium mining and export.
As of the end of 2018, the nuclear material safeguarded under international agreements derived from our uranium exports totalled 212,052 tonnes – including 201.6 tonnes of separated plutonium.
In response, a spokesperson for the Minerals Council of Australia said a national mechanism to manage safeguards already exists through the Australian Safeguards and Non-Proliferation Office, adding:
Uranium is further regulated through the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) […] under the provisions of the ARPANS Regulations 1999. The object of the ARPANS Act is “to protect the health and safety of people, and to protect the environment, from the harmful effects of radiation”.
Successful rehabilitation has yet to be seen
Uranium mines are difficult to rehabilitate at the end of their lives. In my 24 years of research, including visiting most sites, I’ve yet to see a successful case study of Australia’s 11 major uranium mines or numerous small sites.
For example, the Rum Jungle mine near Darwin, which operated from 1954 to 1971, left a toxic legacy of acidic and radioactive drainage and a biologically dead Finniss River.
The former Mary Kathleen mine, also part of Rio Tinto’s corporate history, operated from 1958-63 and 1976-82.
Rehabilitation works were completed by 1986 and won national engineering awards for excellence. But by the late 1990s, acid seepage problems emerged from the tailings dam (where mining by-products are stored) and overlying grasses were absorbing toxic heavy metals, creating a risk for grazing cattle.
Both Rum Jungle and Mary Kathleen were rehabilitated to the standards of their day, but they have not withstood the test of time.
Australia’s biggest uranium mine, Ranger, is fast approaching the end of its operating life.
Rio Tinto is also the majority owner of Ranger. Despite Ranger’s recent losses, Rio has retained control and given Ranger hundreds of millions of dollars towards ensuring site operations and rehabilitation.
Site rehabilitation is required to be complete by January 2026, with Rio Tinto and Ranger assuming 25 years of monitoring – although plans and funding for this are still being finalised.
Recently, it emerged that Ranger had not agreed to continue its share of funding the scientific research required for the rehabilitation – an issue still unresolved. So despite promises of world’s best ever rehabilitation, concerns remain.
The Conversation contacted Rio Tinto to respond, and it referred us to Energy Resources Australia (ERA), which operates Ranger. An ERA spokesperson stated:
ERA is required to cease processing in January 2021 in accordance with the expiration of its Authority to Operate under the Commonwealth Atomic Energy Act. Given the impending cessation in processing, ERA believes it is appropriate and reasonable to review the current research funding arrangements.
No other former uranium mine in Australia can claim long-term rehabilitation success. Nabarlek, Radium Hill-Port Pirie, South Alligator Valley and other small mines all have issues such as erosion, weeds, remaining infrastructure, radiation hot-spots and/or water contamination. They all require ongoing surveillance.
Uranium mining is set to be outcompeted
Even if Olympic Dam expands (and especially if it stops extracting uranium in favour of tellurium, cobalt and rare earths also present), this trend is expected to increase in the coming years as Ranger closes and the world transitions to renewable energy and electric vehicles to help address climate change.
In response, the Minerals Council of Australia stated that lithium’s contribution to large-scale electricity storage is just beginning, arguing:
Scott Morrison gives a boost to uranium mining at Olympic Dam
Poor old BHP. My heart bleeds! The so-called “Big Australian” (about 70% owned by overseas interests), is so poor that it’s had to get exemptions from just about every regulation that matters. The SA Roxby Downs Indenture Act legislation allows the mine to operate with 
wide-ranging exemptions from the Aboriginal Heritage Protection Act, the Environment Protection Act, the Natural Resources Act, and the Freedom of Information Act. There are constant problems with tailings such as ongoing seepage and large numbers of bird deaths.
Probably worst of all, BHP plans to increase extraction of precious Great Artesian Basin water to an average 50 million litres per day for the next 25 years, with likely serious adverse impacts on the unique and fragile Mound Springs ‒ which are listed as an Endangered Ecological Community and are of significant cultural importance to Aboriginal people.
Olympic Dam expansion on fast track,e InDaily, 15 June 20
The Olympic Dam expansion is being fast-tracked as part of a Federal Government plan to boost employment and reduce the length and severity of the coronavirus-induced recession.
Prime Minister Scott Morrison is expected to today announce $1.5 billion to immediately start work on priority projects identified by the states and territories…….
BHP is proposing for a staged increase in copper production at Olympic Dam from 200,000 to up to 350,000 tonnes per annum.
The expansion has been granted Major Development status by the state government …. https://indaily.com.au/news/2020/06/15/olympic-dam-expansion-on-fast-track/
Coalition’s push to deregulate environmental approvals will lead to extinction crisis
Scientists fear Coalition’s push to deregulate environmental approvals will lead to extinction crisisScott Morrison’s announcement in wake of bushfires is ‘distressing’ and puts threatened species at risk, ecologists say, Guardian, Lisa Cox, Tue 16 Jun 2020 Scientists have expressed dismay and frustration at Scott Morrison’s latest push to deregulate the environmental approval process for major developments, noting it comes just months after an unprecedented bushfire crisis and during a review of national conservation laws.In a speech on Monday, the prime minister said he wanted to slash approval times for major projects by moving to a streamlined “single touch” system for state and federal environmental assessments.
Morrison said the change would be informed by the review of Australia’s environment laws, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act, which is under way. But his speech did not mention the environment or the act’s objectives to protect threatened species and ecosystems. ……
Scientists and environmentalists argue the act is failing to prevent an extinction crisis. Just 22 of 6,500 projects referred for approval have been knocked back in the act’s 20-year history.
Australia has the world’s highest rate of mammalian extinction. Reporting by Guardian Australia has found the government has failed to implement or track measures for species known to be at risk, stopped listing major threats to species, and not registered a single piece of critical habitat for 15 years.
The listing of species and ecosystems as threatened has been delayed by successive ministers, funding has been directed to projects that did not benefit threatened species and hundreds of plants and animals have been identified as requiring urgent attention after the summer bushfire disaster.
The government has framed its commentary about the review around a desire to speed up approval times for projects as the country moves out of the economic shutdown caused by the Covid-19 pandemic. …..
Megan Evans, an environmental policy researcher at the University of New South Wales in Canberra, said one of the reasons approvals could be slow was because the capacity of the public service had been cut. …… we have highly ambiguous wording [in the act] which provides maximum discretion to the minister that reduces certainty and puts all power in the hands of the minister of the day. You can’t on one hand complain about the lack of certainty but then on the other shy away from measures that would actually provide greater certainty.”
The climate scientist, Bill Hare, said Australia’s approach to its natural environment was damaging not only for the country’s ecosystems, but its democracy…….. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jun/16/scientists-fear-push-to-deregulate-environmental-approvals-will-lead-to-extinction-crisis
Australia’s Environment Laws have no teeth, are in much need of strengthening
‘No checks, no balances’: push for change to environment laws, The Age, By Mike Foley, June 14, 2020 Australia’s 20-year-old flagship environmental protection laws are failing badly and in urgent need of an overhaul, the crossbench senator who helped the Howard government install the landmark legislation says.
“Clearly it’s not working well,” former Democrats senator Andrew Bartlett said ahead of an imminent review of the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. “The most obvious failure is despite the fact conditions can be attached to project approvals, there are just so many cases where conditions aren’t adhered to. There are no efforts to check and no penalties.”
Mr Bartlett stared down bitter opposition from some powerful players in the conservation movement and sided with the Howard government against Labor and the Greens to vote for legislation in 1999.
The act was an attempt by the Howard government to modernise environmental protection laws and was controversial because it significantly increased the environment minister’s powers, such as allowing them to intervene in project approvals to protect threatened species.
Since the act’s introduction, Australia’s list of nationally threatened species and ecosystems has grown by more than one-third – from 1483 to 1974.
The act is being reviewed by the former chair of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, Graeme Samuel, who is due to complete his report for Environment Minister Sussan Ley later this month.
Both conservationists and industry are unhappy with the application of the act. Conservation groups say successive governments have not used the powers in the act to protect threatened species, while industry argues the act has delayed development because of so-called “green law-fare”.
Australian Conservation Foundation policy co-ordinator James Trezise said “the idea that vexatious litigation is rife under national environment law is not borne out by the evidence”.
Professor Hugh Possingham, one of the scientists who advised the Howard government on the legislation, said the act had failed to protect the environment.
“There’s no ambiguity in the science, the EPBC Act isn’t delivering,” Professor Possingham told The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age. ……
The Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists’ submission to Mr Samuel’s review said the “objectives of the [EPBC] act are not being met”….. https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/no-checks-no-balances-push-for-change-to-environment-laws-20200610-p55180.html
Government -owned Woomera a better site than agricultural land, for nuclear waste dump
|
Senator pushes Woomera instead of Kimba for waste facility, Port Lincoln Times, Jarrad Delaney , 12 June 20, South Australian senator Rex Patrick will push for the Woomera Prohibited Area to be the location of the National Radioactive Waste Management Facility instead of land near Kimba. The Centre Alliance senator has announced he will move amendments to the National Radioactive Waste Management Facility Bill, which would allow the Minister for Defence to nominate a site in the prohibited area. This comes as the National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment (Site Specification, Community Fund and Other Measures) Bill passed through the House of Representatives on Thursday.
The bill was tabled in February to formally name Napandee, near Kimba as the site for the National Radioactive Waste Management Facility. Minister for Resources, Water and Northern Australia Keith Pitt said it was an important milestone for the establishment of the facility.
However Mr Patrick said the bill was now before the Senate Economics Committee which is expected to report on July 31, although this could be extended. He said the act was based on volunteerism, as no site could be considered as a potential location for a radioactive waste management facility without the voluntary nomination of that site and agreement of persons with relevant rights and interests. “The Federal Parliament will be given a choice on whether the site should be on prime agricultural land on the Eyre Peninsula in a community that is bitterly divided about it being built there, or in the remote and highly secure Woomera Prohibited Area where a significant amount of low and intermediate level radioactive waste has been stored for more than two decades,” he said. Mr Patrick has pointed to a 2002 study which identified sites for a low level and short-lived intermediate level radioactive waste repository at three sites. These are located within the prohibited area near Koolymilka, about 20km east of Woomera and about 50km northeast of Woomera. Mr Patrick said there were already two radioactive waste storage facilities inside the prohibited area, one CSIRO building (Hanger 5 at Evetts Field) and one defence bunker (Koolymilka). “My amendment will, instead of selecting Kimba as the site, allow the Minister for Defence to nominate a site in the Woomera Prohibited Area,” he said. “If the Minister can’t find a suitable site somewhere within that 12.7 million hectares of desert, then she’s not looking hard enough. “My proposed amendments will require the Minister to consult with affected parties, including First Nation’s people, before making her decision as to the preferred Woomera site.” Mr Patrick said he would not seek to amend the community funding being directed at Kimba by the bill. However Mr Pitt said suggestions of a site in the Woomera area could be used for the facility was not practical due to the increase in Defence Force training activities that would limit access to the area……https://www.portlincolntimes.com.au/story/6788596/senator-pushes-woomera-for-waste-facility/ |
|
Former weapons chief executive now South Australian Premier’s top advisor
This could shed some light on the South Australian government’s silence on the Federal plan for a nuclear waste dump in South Australia. We can expect the South Australian government to now support the nuclear waste dump at Napandee, and to promote schemes to make south Australia a nuclear hub, especially with nuclear submarines production.
|
Weapons of Influence: BAE arms boss turns Premier’s right-hand man https://www.michaelwest.com.au/weapons-of-influence-bae-arms-boss-turns-premiers-right-hand-man/ Michael West Media, by Michelle Fahy | Jun 12, 2020 As part of her series of investigations into the close links between the military industry and politics, Michelle Fahy reports on former weapons chief executive for BAE, Jim McDowell, who is now at the centre of government in the Defence State, South Australia. Jim McDowell was employed in the weapons industry for 37 years. Born in Belfast, he studied law then spent 18 years with Northern Ireland firm Bombardier Shorts. After that, he joined British Aerospace (now BAE Systems) in Singapore and worked his way up through various positions in Asia. In 2001, McDowell was appointed CEO of BAE Systems Australia. During a decade in that role he oversaw BAE’s 2008 acquisition of Tenix Defence, a deal that doubled the size of the company and resulted in BAE becoming Australia’s largest weapons-maker at the time. It remains one of the largest today, mostly for building Australia’s warships, among other projects. In September 2011, Jim McDowell left Adelaide for Riyadh, where he ran BAE’s Saudi Arabian operation for a little over two years. Saudi Arabia is crucial to BAE’s business, its third largest market after the US and the UK (Australia is fourth). The company has been supplying combat aircraft to the Saudis since the 1960s. Several of its arms deals have been dogged by controversy (and continue to be due to the Saudi role in the humanitarian catastrophe in Yemen), and some by corruption. In the UK, a Serious Fraud Office investigation into BAE’s relationship with the Saudis was notoriously shut down in December 2006 following intense pressure from the Saudi government and the UK’s then prime minister Tony Blair, citing national security reasons. The capitulation of the Serious Fraud Office was later deemed “unlawful, an “abject surrender” and a “threat to the reputation of British justice” by the British High Court. By the time McDowell arrived, all that was in the past and it was back to business. In a media release describing a visit of the BAE Board to Saudi Arabia in March 2012, McDowell said, “Saudi Arabia is a key market for the company. We want to be considered as an industrial and a strategic partner for the Kingdom… The meeting was a wonderful way to strengthen relations.” Several multi-billion pound arms deals were concluded during the period McDowell was BAE’s chief executive in Saudi Arabia. Back to Australia with ANSTOIn December 2013, McDowell resigned from BAE and returned to Australia. He was immediately appointed to the board of the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, as deputy chair. Then Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane said, “Mr McDowell’s business background coupled with his knowledge of international marketing and joint ventures will support the development of emerging business opportunities…” ANSTO’s chair, Dr Paul Greenfield, said, “This is a dynamic and exciting time for ANSTO and this is reflected in the overall contribution nuclear science and technology is now making across a range of key areas.” Earlier that year (in February 2013), ANSTO had signed a formal research cooperation agreement with the Defence Science and Technology (DST) Organisation. This was a period when DST, under Chief Defence Scientist Alex Zelinsky, signed a number of collaborative agreements with military industrial companies, including BAE in October 2013 and, as we have covered previously, Lockheed Martin in March 2014, among others. At the completion of Dr Greenfield’s term, in August 2014, McDowell was appointed chair of the ANSTO board, a position he held for the next four years. McDowell’s timely departure from the military industry created an influx of new opportunities for him from a government with a policy of recognising industry as a “fundamental input to capability”. Following his rapid appointment to the ANSTO board, over the next four years, McDowell was awarded lucrative contracts across six major areas by Defence (see table), which together totalled almost $1.5 million in consultancy fees. To supplement the government’s largesse, in the same four-year period, McDowell accepted appointments as Chancellor of the University of South Australia and to the Council of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute. He also joined the boards of eight public companies, most of which operate in the military industrial sector. In addition to those in the chart, McDowell was made chair of another two private companies, duMonde Group Pty Ltd and Total Construction Pty Ltd (dates of those appointments are not publicly available). In 2017, it appears McDowell was engaged simultaneously in at least 12 different roles. Continue reading |
Australia’s govt rushes nuclear waste Bill through Lower House, but this story is not over.
The federal government’s radioactive waste laws the House of Representatives today, however they failed to win broad support or approval.
Importantly, Labor joined with Greens, Centre Alliance and independents to vote against the contested push to move Australia’s radioactive waste from ANSTO’s secure Lucas Heights facility in southern Sydney to a site near Kimba in regional South Australia.
While accepting the need for improved radioactive waste management, Labor MPs highlighted deep concerns with the government’s approach and called for further detail and review.
Concerns included:
- The double handling of problematic and long-lived Intermediate Level Waste (ILW) through the unnecessary transport from an above-ground extended interim storage facility at ANSTO to an above-ground extended interim storage at a less resourced regional facility.
- The continuing opposition of the region’s Barngarla Traditional Owners.
- The lack of a rationale for a new set of waste laws.
- The government’s decision not to de-couple consideration of the different waste streams (ILW and Low Level Waste). Labor urged the government to allow wider project consideration, including through a current Senate review.
The Greens spoke strongly against the plan – as did Zali Steggall. Andrew Wilkie and Centre Alliance’s Rebekah Sharkie also voted against the legislation – further details in the Hansard transcript and voting record attached fyi
From here – among other things – we need to work to highlight and detail the unresolved concerns via the Senate review (still tracking to report at the end of July) and the subsequent Senate consideration and vote on these laws.
Today the government has had a short-term political win at the expense of building consensus or credibility – we saw a political numbers exercise but we did not see agreement, evidence or responsibility. The government’s plan is deeply deficient and more people are seeing and acknowledging this – this story will grow and change the approach to radioactive waste management.
Australia’s House of Representatives passed the National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment Bill
11 June 2020, Federal govt just passed the National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment Bill through the lower house of federal parliament, which sounds like bad news but could be good news, an own goal by the government and minister Keith Pitt
Labor voted against the Bill and spoke strongly against it (including the shadow minister Brendan O’Connor, SA MP Tony Zappia and others) … raising issues of Traditional Owner opposition, double-handling of intermediate-level waste, etc etc. I’m guessing Labor also pointed out that voting on the Bill before the Senate Inquiry is complete is poor form.
Zalia Steggall spoke strongly, linking the dump to BLM and raising numerous other issues.
Andrew Wilkie voted against.
Some recent lobbying by Maritime Union of Australia might have been useful in getting the ALP to show some decency, as well as lobbying by Dave Sweeney and David Noonan
The Senate Committee is meeting tomorrow to discuss the inquiry into the Bill.
Desmond Menz – Constitutional problems in Nuclear Waste Bill – could lead to High Court case?
why ultimately was South Australia the only state to contain the final three sites?
A tiny community poll seems to have informed the final decision, and contradicts the Minister’s stated position of “broad community support”. Just 0.037% of the voting public in SA have had a say.
why did South Australia become the only state to be chosen for the nuclear waste site, knowing that a Citizens Jury in 2016 had rejected a major nuclear waste storage industry in South Australia following the outcomes of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission? The Citizens Jury was substantially more representative of the views of the people of SA, in comparison with the very small poll of the eligible residents of the District Council of Kimba..
former Minister Canavan’s snap decision? The decision on site selection was announced on Saturday morning 1 February 2020, and by the afternoon Senator Canavan had resigned
Desmond Menz SUBMISSION TO ECONOMICS LEGISLATION COMMITTEE OF THE
AUSTRALIAN PARLIAMENT ON THE National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment (Site Specification, Community Fund and Other Measures) Bill 2020 Submission 13
In September 2019 ….I raised critical concerns about the validity of the National Radioactive Waste Management Act 2012 (NRWM Act) in relation to the Australian Constitution, and also the lawfulness of the process about site selection. I also raised concerns about breaches of South Australian law. It seems that my concerns were either ignored or dismissed. I again raise these critical matters for the attention of the Economics Legislation Committee. If they are not responded to, then it would not be too much a stretch of the imagination to have them resolved in a higher court of law, quite possibly the High Court of Australia. In my view, the Economics Legislation Committee should not make any decision on the Amendment Bill until all issues I have countenanced have been resolved.
Main Concerns
1.It is contended that inconsistency between the federal National Radioactive Waste Management Act 2012 (NRWM Act) and the South Australian Nuclear Waste Storage (Prohibition) Act 2000 (NWSP Act) (and other similar state/territory laws), has been manufactured by the Australian Parliament. This is a serious issue, and one that not even the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills has acknowledged. It is incomprehensible why this matter was not addressed way back in 2010 during the establishment of the NRWM Act.
It is also contended that there are Constitutional matters that need to be resolved to affirm the safety of the federal law, including the Amendment Bill, because at the moment there are sufficient concerns relating to inconsistency between federal and state laws to inhibit the lawful and constitutional passage of the Amendment Bill. [here he gives an example from a previous High Court case]……… Continue reading
Senator Rex Patrick – nuclear waste dump should not go on agricultural land
Australia’s very bad record on environment: it’s no time to weaken our laws
|
Now is not the time to weaken our environmental protections, Canberra Times, Katherine Barraclough, Fiona Armstrong , 10 June 20
As Australia’s primary environmental legislation undergoes a once-in-a-decade review, businesses and the government have spoken of the need to cut environmental bureaucracy (so-called “green tape”) and speed up approvals. However, health experts insist that environmental protections must be strengthened. Why? Because the stark reality is that our health is fundamentally dependent on the health of the natural world – for clean air, water and soils, food security, protection against infectious diseases and a stable climate. Nature is also the source of over half of all medicines we rely on. Last month, more than 180 health professionals and 19 health groups published an open letter to federal Environment Minister Sussan Ley, warning a failure to significantly reform Australia’s environmental law, the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (EPBC Act), will risk fuelling further public health crises. Signatories included Nobel laureate Professor Peter Doherty, former Australian of the Year Professor Fiona Stanley and nutritionist and dietician Dr Rosemary Stanton. Despite being a wealthy, developed nation, Australia’s environmental track record is among the worst of all countries. We lead the world in mammal extinctions, have the highest rate of biodiversity loss bar Indonesia, and have been recognised as a land-clearing and deforestation “hotspot”. It is estimated that in Queensland and NSW alone, land clearing kills some 50 million mammals, birds and reptiles annually. Our scarce water resources are in decline, and some of our most precious marine environments, including the Great Barrier Reef, face collapse. Climate change constitutes one of the most serious threats to our natural environment and our nation’s public health, and yet Australia is one of the highest per-capita emitters of greenhouse gases. This degradation of our natural environment is, in essence, a dismantling of our life support systems. That it has occurred despite the existence of the EPBC Act is a clear indication that major environmental law reform is required. Unfortunately, examples of failed environmental protections in Australia are plentiful…….. https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/6777567/now-is-not-the-time-to-weaken-our-environmental-protections/?cs=14230#gsc.tab=0 |
|
Another Australian former Senator glides easily into the weapons industry
Stephen Loosley AM, MILITARY INDUSTRY REVOLVING DOOR
Stephen Loosley was a NSW ALP Senator from 1990 to 1995. From November 2012 to September 2016 he was Chair of the Woomera Prohibited Area Advisory Board, a role required to be independent, yet he concurrently sat on the Thales Australia Advisory Board. Thales is one of the world’s top 10 weapons-makers….. https://www.michaelwest.com.au/stephen-loosley-am/
New Zealand puts Australia to shame – with its environment – pandemic recovery programme
Australia’s destructive COVID-19 recovery
An opportunity for Australia
Economic stimulus through conservation and land management is not yet recognised as a way for Australia to respond to both the COVID-19 crisis and long-standing conservation needs.
Australian governments, if they invested similarly to New Zealand, could create jobs in the short term in any desired target region, based on economic and environmental need….
|
Let’s fix Australia’s environment with any pandemic recovery aid – the Kiwis are doing it https://theconversation.com/lets-fix-australias-environment-with-any-pandemic-recovery-aid-the-kiwis-are-doing-it-139305 5 June 20, Lachlan G. Howell, John Clulow,John Rodger, Ryan R. Witt The COVID-19 pandemic is causing significant economic challenges for Australia. With April figures showing more than 800,000 people unemployed and last month 1.6 million on JobSeeker payments, a key focus will be job creation.
Lessons should be learned from what’s happening in New Zealand, where the government is funding projects that revive the environment. Unfortunately, Australia seems to be going the other way. New Zealand gets itAs part of New Zealand’s innovative Wellbeing Budget the government will invest NZ$50 billion in a direct COVID-19 recovery response. Of that, NZ$1.1 billion will be spent on creating 11,000 “nature jobs” to combat unemployment and supplement pandemic-affected sectors. This unique investment will be delivered in a number of targeted environmental programs. Continue reading
|
A reality check on the cost of nuclear power for Australia
 Nuclear cost and water consumption – The elephants in the control room, Open Forum.com.au. Peter Farley | December 20, 2019 Cost There are four nuclear plants being built around the world where public information on costs is reasonably reliable.
These are Plant Vogtle in the US (US$27.5bn, 2.2GW), Framanville France (€12.4bn+, 1.6 GW), Olkiluoto in Finland (around €10 bn+, 1.6 GW) and Hinckley Point in the UK (₤22 bn+, 3.2 GW). There are two further plants whose power costs have been published, Akkuyu in Turkey US$127/MWh and Barakah in the Emirates US$110/MWh. It should be emphasised that none of these costs are the full cost recovery. For example in the British case it is estimated that some $10 bn has been spent by others on upgrading the grid and backup power supplies. In Turkey the cost of the plant is just that, and doesn’t include civil works, grid connections, cooling water supply. In the US plant Vogtle has benefited from some US$8bn of federal government loan guarantees and an unusual form of financing where customers have paid about 8% premium on their bills for 10-12 years before the plant is to be commissioned. All of the plants get catastrophe insurance and some security from their government and most have inadequate bond structures for long term waste storage. They also rarely pay for cooling water. Many have preferential supply agreements which will require other cheaper sources of power to turn off to allow the nuclear plants to keep running. However, even on the published information, nuclear power plants in democracies are running at about A$13m/MW. In our case we do not have an experienced nuclear workforce, Australian construction costs are higher by 20-30% for large projects – and there are 5,000 tradesmen on site at Plant Vogtle out of a workforce of 9,000 as nuclear power plants are very large projects. We do not have the heavy fabrication facilities required, and these cost hundreds of millions to build For example the Osborne Naval Shipyard design for 1/10th of the throughput of a nuclear fab shop cost $380m. Even the inspectors would have to be imported. So it is reasonable to suggest that new nuclear in Australia would cost at least A$16m per MW including subsidised construction finance, resulting in a first day of operation cost of a 2.2 GW plant of A$41 bn. Amortised over 50 years station life at a very low weighted average cost of capital at 5.5% – lower than plant Vogtle – that still works out at about $2.4 bn/yr. Due to the variability of demand in Australia the plants would be unlikely to be able to achieve a capacity factor above about 80% – halfway between the US and France and higher than Korea. So over a typical year a two unit 2.2 GW plant would be expected to generate about 15,500,000 MWh meaning the fixed costs per MWh would be $2.4bn/15.5m or $156/MWh. The daily running costs of US nuclear plants average out at US$40/MWh. This is lower than France and almost certainly lower than any new nuclear plant in Australia could achieve due to the much larger American skill base, higher utilisation and lower operating temperatures. The best case for Australia would be A$60+ for maintenace and operation. Thus an Australian nuclear power station could be expected to deliver power at a cost of A$216/MWh. Now if you use the cheaper Barrakah design at about US$5,300/MW and allow for 15 years of inflation at 1.5% to allow time for the project to come online, and a modest 10% Australian premium, power here could be produced at about A$10.4 bn per GW. After a slightly lower capacity factor of 75%, about the same as Korea, and a realistic WACC of 6.5% the ammortisation amounts to $107/MWh with a similar A$60/MWh operating and maintenance cost and the total delivered cost of power is a mere A $167/MWh. This figure aligns closely with the figure quoted by the CEO of the Barrakah plant some years ago at US$110/MWh The costs of a renewable alternative It should be noted that many of the arguments about relative costs are based on the figures used in the Finkel report. These are well out of date. Nuclear power has become even more expensive and actual renewable contracts in Australia are down 40-50% on the Finkel figures. Thus if we dispersed 2 GW of wind $3.6 bn, 1.2 GW of tracking solar $1.8bn, 2 GW of rooftop solar $2.5 bn, 1 GW of waste/biomass/geothermal $2.5bn and 1 GW/15GWh of pumped hydro $1.8 bn and 1 GW/ 2 GWh of batteries $1.2bn across the NEM the total cost would be $13.5 bn. Annual generation would be 17,500 GWh – more than the nuclear plant – and minimum available output would be 2.5 GW+. Typical hot day peak demand at 5pm would be about 4GW. About 30% of generation would go through storage at 85% efficiency, so net output would be around 16,500 GWh. Some would be curtailed so we can assume a similar annual output to the nuclear plant. However the operating costs average around $18 and the capital, even if amortised over 30 years are only $59/MWh for a total of $77 including backup. In summary, for 1/3rd of the investment, in one third of the time, we can get renewable power and backup for 1/3rd of the cost of nuclear power……https://www.openforum.com.au/nuclear-cost-and-water-consumption-the-elephants-in-the-control-room/?fbclid=IwAR2M3NxMjfrDJNWTG9tatKSARHGUKWVcG_CE-bSW5wtnAbwhGnYxd1ElugU |
|
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 