Antinuclear

Australian news, and some related international items

Another revolving door- Air Chief Marshal (ret’d) Mark Binskin AC straight into BAE warships maker

Air Chief Marshal (ret’d) Mark Binskin AC

MILITARY INDUSTRY REVOLVING DOOR. Michael West Media

In June 2018, Mark Binskin was Chief of the Defence Force when BAE Systems Australia was awarded the $35 billion Future Frigate contract, the largest surface warship program in Australia’s history. The following month Binskin retired. He has since been appointed in a non-executive director role with BAE Systems. The contract for the $1.2 billion upgrade of the Jindalee Operational Radar Network was also awarded to BAE in the final months of Binskin’s tenure…… https://www.michaelwest.com.au/air-chief-marshal-mark-binskin-ac-retd/

April 21, 2020 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, politics, secrets and lies, weapons and war | Leave a comment

13 Australian peak Non Government Organisations seek stronger Environmental Law on Nuclear Issues

Joint ENGO Submission on Nuclear Issues as they Relate to the Environmental Protection & Biodiversity Conservation Act Review 2020

This submission is made on behalf of the following national and state peak environment groups:

    • Australian Conservation Foundation,
    • Australian Nuclear Free Alliance,
    • Friends of the Earth Australia,
    • Greenpeace Australia Pacific,
    • Mineral Policy Institute,
    • The Wilderness Society,
    • Arid Lands Environment Centre,
    • Environment Centre NT,
    • Environment Victoria,
    • Conservation Council SA,
    • Conservation Council WA,
    • Nature Conservation Council NSW and Queensland Conservation Council.

This submission outlines the importance of retaining s140A of the EPBC Act which prohibits nuclear power; the retention of uranium exploration and mining in the definition of a Nuclear Action and the inclusion of Nuclear Actions as a Matter of National Environmental Significance (MNES).

This submission is made in consideration of the broader objects and principles of the Act and is based on evidence from recent inquiries into both nuclear power and uranium mining. There is clear evidence that nuclear activities can have a significant environmental and public health risk and, in many cases, irreversible impacts, and this is consistent with the current dedicated legislative prohibitions for both nuclear power and scrutiny for uranium mining.

While the current Act does not include a prohibition on uranium mining we strongly advocate that there be a national ban on uranium mining consistent with state legal or policy prohibitions in New South Wales, Queensland, Tasmania, Victoria and West Australia   Written by Mia Pepper, Jim Green, Dave Sweeney, David Noonan & Annica Schoo.

Summary of Recommendations

Uranium: 

• that uranium mining and milling be included in s140A prohibitions as nuclear actions that the Minister must not approve, on the basis that the nuclear industry has failed to successfully remediate any uranium mine in Australia and has impacts inconsistent with the objects and principles of the EPBC Act.

• if the above recommendation is not adopted that uranium mining and milling remains within the definition of a ‘nuclear action’ and that nuclear actions continue to be listed as MNES and the protected matters continue to be listed as the ‘environment’ and so be subject to full environmental assessment at the state level

• DAWE to initiate an inquiry into the human and environmental impacts of uranium mining, as advised by the UN Secretary General following the Fukushima nuclear disaster, noting that Australian uranium was present in each of the Fukushima Daiichi reactors at the time of multiple reactor meltdowns

. • regulatory reform for existing operating mines • that the review committee recommend DAWE prioritise the rehabilitation of abandoned uranium mines and processing facilities, exploration sites and uranium mines that have been in care and maintenance for more than two years.

Nuclear Power:
• the retention of s140A of the EPBC Act 1999 which states “No approval for certain nuclear installations: The Minister must not approve an action consisting of or involving the construction or operation of any of the following nuclear installations: (a) a nuclear fuel fabrication plant; (b) a nuclear power plant; (c) an enrichment plant; (d) a reprocessing facility.”

Other Matters:
• a National Environmental Protection Authority be established
• the effectiveness of assessment bilateral agreements be reviewed, and approval bilateral agreements are not pursued
• legislate requirements for mine closure, address activities that are used to avoid mine closure and to work with states and territories to remediate existing legacy mine sites
• there be established internal process for DAWE to pursue the listing of newly identified species by referring to the Threatened Species Scientific Committee
• that the principles of free, prior and informed consent become a mandatory operational principle within the EPBC Act along with a governance mechanism to operationalise this principle……… . https://dont-nuke-the-climate.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Joint_Sub_EPBC_Nukes_FINAL.pdf

April 17, 2020 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, environment, legal, politics, reference | Leave a comment

A brief Submission to the the Review of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999

I first tried to use their online formal submission form.  I found several of the questions they posed to be confusing, and obfuscated the issues.    So, I gave up on their form, and just wrote my own ideas

Noel Wauchope, SUBMISSION TO EPBC REVIEW.

It is patently obvious that the EPBC Act is nowhere near strong enough  to protect Australia’s unique wildlife. A scorecard released recently by Australian National University researchers  reveals the worst environmental conditions in many decades, perhaps centuries, and confirms the devastating damage global warming and mismanagement are wreaking on our natural resources. Australia’s environmental condition score fell by 2.3 points in 2019, to a very low 0.8 out of ten. 1

It is obvious that the polluting industries, especially mining, are keen to further weaken Australia’s environmental protection laws.

Announcing the statutory review of the commonwealth’s Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (EPBC) last October, the Morrison government pitched it as an opportunity to weaken the Howard era laws even further and make it easier still for environmentally destructive projects to be approved.  2

A particular case for scrutiny is in the uranium/nuclear industry. A very telling example of the weakness of the EPBC Act is in the sudden approval given by the then Environment Minister, Melissa Price, for the Yeelirrie uranium project to go ahead, in complete contradiction of its rejection by  WA Environmental Protection Agency . The current EPBC Act specifies protection for species at risk of extinction.  Still, the approval went ahead, the EPBC Act apparently  a toothless tiger. 3

Australian governments, State and federal, are under relentless lobbying by the nuclear industry. There are several nuclear Inquiries going on at State level, and one Federal nuclear Inquiry.  Despite the clear knowledge of nuclear power’s high costs, safety dangers and terrorism risks, the global nuclear lobby’s push is to remove Australia’s nuclear prohibition laws. The EPBC Act contains two strong nuclear prohibitions, which should not be changed  – EPBC Act 1999 section 140A  No approval for certain nuclear installations and EPBC Act 1999 section 22  What is a nuclear action?

1.  https://theconversation.com/a-major-scorecard-gives-the-health-of-australias-environment-less-than-1-out-of-10-133444
2.  https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/mar/28/with-the-climate-crisis-and-coronavirus-bearing-down-on-us-the-age-of-disconnection-is-over
3. https://www.sbs.com.au/news/labor-questions-shonky-wa-uranium-mine-deal

April 17, 2020 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, environment, politics | Leave a comment

Call for Australian government to delay review of its Environment laws

April 16, 2020 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, environment, politics | Leave a comment

Australia’s political revolving door between military industry and government – Reynolds and Reith

 

Senator the Hon Linda Reynolds CSC

MILITARY INDUSTRY REVOLVING DOOR, MichaelWest.com 15 Apr 20

The “spruiker-in-chief” of defence industry has been involved with promoting military industry interests since the late 1980s when she co-founded the WA Defence Industry Council. Reynolds combined a career in the army reserves with political staffing roles for the Liberals, and a stint with industry giant Raytheon, before becoming a senator for WA in 2014. From 2 March 2019, she served as Minister for Defence Industry before being promoted to Defence Minister on 29 May 2019……..  https://www.michaelwest.com.au/linda-reynolds/

The Hon Peter Reith AM

MILITARY INDUSTRY REVOLVING DOOR

Former Howard government defence minister Peter Reith created a storm of protest when he quit politics and started work within a day or two for Tenix Defence (now BAE Systems Australia) as a consultant on government relations. Tenix Defence was Australia’s largest military industry corporation and a significant contractor to the department over which Reith had just had oversight. ……..more  https://www.michaelwest.com.au/peter-reith/ ……  https://www.michaelwest.com.au/linda-reynolds/

April 16, 2020 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, politics, secrets and lies, weapons and war | Leave a comment

While we focus on coronavirus, the planet is still heating

All eyes are on coronavirus… but what about the planet?   With COVID-19 all anyone is talking about at the moment, we take a look at where that leaves the environment, Pro Bono Australia,  14th April 2020   Maggie Coggan   As many countries shut their borders, impose heavy-duty lock down laws, and scramble to deal with the financial and social implications of coronavirus, the climate crisis has shifted out of focus.

But environmental advocates warn that just because attention is elsewhere it doesn’t mean the environment isn’t suffering, or that action to mitigate the impacts of climate change should come to a grinding halt.

The crisis is still happening

At the end of March, the Great Barrier Reef experienced its third major bleaching event in the last five years.

The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority confirmed soon after that the bleaching was caused by warming waters associated with climate change.

Nathaniel Pelle, a senior Greenpeace campaigner, told Pro Bono News that while the reef could recover, it needed drastic emission reductions globally and in Australia.

He said something that wouldn’t help was the fossil fuel industry actively trying to weaken environmental protections, attracting corporate subsidies from government stimulus packages and forging ahead with mining projects. 

“We’ve seen the petroleum exploration licence fees suspended in South Australia and a lot of oil and gas companies calling for assistance as well,” Pelle said.

“Controversial coal and gas projects like the Metropolitan mine, the Vicary Coal Mine, the Glendale mine, and the Narrabri Mine are continuing apace, even while communities don’t have the opportunity to participate, while expert witnesses aren’t necessarily going to be available and scientific investigation is impossible.”

The Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews, also recently came under fire for lifting the ban on onshore gas exploration in mid-March, a move environment groups warned could lead to worse bushfires and droughts.

Gavan McFadzean, the Australian Conservation Foundation climate change program manager, also said it was critical that a close eye was kept on the fossil fuel industry.

These are times often when the fossil fuel sector may attempt to entrench its longevity as an economic powerhouse,” McFadzean told Pro Bono News. 

“They have been ramping up their political donations federally in recent years and have the kind of political access that could shape economic reform as we come out of this crisis.” 

He added that the postponement of climate talks such as the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the Cop26 in Glasgow meant that global targets and action would have to hold off until at least 2021.

He said while it was understandable the events were postponed, it was critical that once the virus was under control climate action once again took centre stage.

“The Cop26 event was going to be the most important conference since Paris in 2016… it was the conference where countries were going to be setting targets,” McFadzean said.

“It’s going to be really important that climate issues return to the national stage as COVID-19 gets under control, because climate change is also a central threat to society and the global economy as we know it.”

Emissions are going down – But not for long …….

Pelle said that if Australia and the rest of the world emerged from the crisis looking towards the energy solutions of the 21st century then the globe could see a recovery that worked for everyone.

“We could see a recovery that works for communities, that works for people, that makes people’s lives better and tackles the climate crisis at the same time, instead of a deliberate economic contraction and disruption to everyone’s lives,” he said.

A chance to start again

McFadzean said while the COVID-19 crisis was far from over, it was a good time to start imagining what a different kind of economy and climate future might look like if things were done differently.

“This means positioning ourselves to be an exporter of renewable energy to the world as we strive to make our future energy needs from low emission sources, recover our transport sector and move towards lower emissions vehicles, stronger pollution standards and electric vehicles,” he said………

https://probonoaustralia.com.au/news/2020/04/all-eyes-are-on-coronavirus-but-what-about-the-planet/

April 16, 2020 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, climate change - global warming, politics | Leave a comment

A flawed process- National Radioactive Waste Management- Submission from David Noonan

The Bill entrenches proposed untenable indefinite above ground storage and unnecessary double /
dual handling of ANSTO nuclear fuel wastes and Intermediate Level Wastes (ILW).

to be imposed onto the community of SA contrary to our Parliament’s express will.
an unacceptable threat to impose nuclear waste
against the express will of the Barngarla People, compromising their Indigenous rights and interests
To: Senate Standing Economics Legislation Committee of Inquiry
National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment Bill 2020 – public submission
                                          *********************************
Re: Flawed Federal process contrary to Nuclear Safety Committee advice and untenable interim
nuclear waste storage compromises Safety & Security and Rights & Interests in SA.
  **********
Dear Committee Chairperson
Please consider this submission and my request to give Evidence as a Witness at a Hearing in SA.
The Bill’s amendments to the National Radioactive Waste Management Act 2012 further entrench
failures of best practice and shortcomings of the Federal gov. process on these issues to date.
  ******
After 4 years of solely targeting SA sites (since April 2016) the Bill amends the Act to specify SA as a
nuclear waste state and Napandee near Kimba as an above-ground interim Nuclear Waste Store.
*****
The Bill entrenches proposed untenable indefinite above ground storage and unnecessary double /
dual handling of ANSTO nuclear fuel wastes and Intermediate Level Wastes (ILW). The nuclear
regulator ARPANSA states these wastes require radiation shielding, safe handling and security, and
require isolation from people and from the environment for over 10,000 years.
****
The proposal is contrary to a range of public interest advice from the Nuclear Safety Committee
(NSC) to the regulator ARPANSA and arguably compromises safety and security in South Australia.
****
The Bill exposes the Federal government’s failure to recognise that ARPANS Act Licensing may not be
granted to the proposed Nuclear Store, leaving an amended Act stranded with a specified failed site.
***
The proposed Nuclear Store is illegal under SA Law passed by the State Liberal gov. in 2000 and is
thereby intended to be imposed onto the community of SA contrary to our Parliament’s express will.
***
Further, the Federal gov. practice to date has conspicuously failed to consult or engage the SA
****

community on core plans to ship nuclear fuel waste to a Port in SA and to transport ILW across SA.

The Bill’s proposed specification of Napandee as a Nuclear Store effectively targets the Whyalla Port.

***

The “Site Characterisation Technical Report: Napandee” (DIIS, July 2018, Proximity to ports p.150)
named Whyalla Port to take shipments of nuclear fuel wastes, in the event Napandee is specified.
thereby intended to be imposed onto the community of SA contrary to our Parliament’s express will.
***
Two shipments of reprocessed nuclear fuel wastes are intended to an SA Port, in 130 tonne TN-81
casks, within the first two years of operations of a Nuclear Waste Store at Napandee (p.152).
Some 100 x B-double 50 tonne loads of Intermediate Level Wastes (ILW) are also intended in the
first four years of Nuclear Store operations at Napandee (p.152). The Report (p.157-158) states:
“It may be possible to have these containers shipped from Port Kembla to ports such as Whyalla”
***
The affected Eyre Peninsula, Whyalla and transport route communities have been denied a say on
these Federal plans and now face potential serious reputational risks and material impacts.
***
The Whyalla City Council states there has had no advice from Federal or SA gov’s on use of the Port.
Whyalla is targeted for nuclear waste shipments and should have a right to refuse untenable plans.
**
This flawed Federal gov. process is a direct breach of advice from the Nuclear Safety Committee in a
letter to APRANSA CEO Dr Carl-Magnus Larsson (Nov 2016), NSC Chair Dr Tamie Weaver stressed the
“ongoing requirement to clearly and effectively engage all stakeholders, including those along
transport routes”, with the NSC stating such engagement “is essential”.
***
The NSC has also advised (2013) that dual handling transport for interim storage “does not represent
International Best Practice” and “also has implications for security” and for safety.
***
Importantly, the proposed NRWM Facility presents an unacceptable threat to impose nuclear waste
against the express will of the Barngarla People, compromising their Indigenous rights and interests.
***
This Inquiry must Recommend repeal of overrides of Aboriginal heritage and traditions in the Act &
in Bill. Then Premier of SA Jay Weatherill (Oct 2017) argued for recognition of an Aboriginal People’s
‘right of veto’ over proposed nuclear waste storage and disposal on their traditional lands.
****This flawed Federal gov. process has also divided and damaged the Kimba agricultural community
and presents a reputational and material impact risk to their livelihood and community cohesion
***
Overall these matters cut to the core of SA public interests at stake in a draconian Federal agenda.
***

Co-location of an above ground Nuclear Store alongside a Low-Level Waste Disposal Facility may fail.

***

The regulator ARPANSA has said it expects separate Licence Applications for the above ground
Nuclear Store and for the Low-Level Waste Disposal Facility. The Federal gov. must not pre-empt nor
take for granted the outcome of this separate ARPANSA Licensing process for a Nuclear Store in SA.
****

The Nuclear Store in SA is unnecessary given ANSTO capacity for Extended Storage at Lucas Heights.

My background experience is relevant: as an Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) campaigner
based in Adelaide over 1996 to 2011, including 5 years on the prior Federal attempt to impose a nuclear waste facility in SA (over 1998 to 2004) – another flawed process that had to be abandoned.
***
I was also a Witness as an individual on nuclear waste issues at a Hearing of the SA Parliament Joint
Committee Inquiry on the Findings of the Nuclear Royal Commission, held in 2016.
***
I have made submissions to the Minister on Nuclear Waste Store issues (May 2017 – Attachment 5, &
Nov 2018), provided a range of Briefing materials (see Attach’s 1 & 2), and given media comments.
Please feel free to contact regarding any aspect of this public submission, by Mobile, Text or E-Mail.
Yours sincerely
Mr David J Noonan B.Sc., M.Env.St.
Independent Environment Campaigner

April 13, 2020 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump, politics | Leave a comment

Conservation Council of Western Australia stresses importance of submissions to strengthen environmental protection

 

K-A Garlick   Nuclear Free WA Campaigner, 10 Apr  20, The webinar, Yeelirrie – A Case for Environmental Law Reform was a great success, with a wealth of information from our four stellar speakers, on the urgent need for improved environmental laws using Yeelirrie as a case study for environmental law reform. We reviewed the Yelirrie uranium mine assessment process and how we can improve the agility in the Commonwealth environment department to identify and classify threatened and endangered species.

If you missed the webinar or would like to see the highlights again ~ click here for some great information to help you form your submission to the EPBC Act review.

Keynotes from the webinar, include;

  • The importance of retaining the prohibition of nuclear power and the retention of uranium exploration and mining and the inclusion of nuclear actions as a matter of national environmental significance (MNES) under the EPBC Act,
  • Environmental protection laws should protect against the extinction of species,
  • Opportunity to introduce a merits review in a reformed EPBC Act as an independent, expert court or tribunal to ensure worlds best practice for community participation, accountability and environmental protection,
  • We need an independent authority to administer the EPBC Act,
  • We need increased open and transparent assessment processes, and
  • We need a national EPA as there is no equivalent body at the federal level. A national EPA could undertake independent and technically expert assessments of projects, ensuring that the scientific evidence is put into focus.

The push for the nuclear industry and the Minerals Council of Australia to remove the prohibition on nuclear power and to remove the trigger for uranium mining is a serious push and real threat.

To retain these parts of the EPBC Act we encourage you to write a submission.

The new dont-nuke-the-climate website is a great tool to help you understand the nuclear issues and threat. There is a really useful nuclear ban page, to support your submission writing.  

Submissions are due 17 April 2020.

Make a submission to the The Independent Review of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999

The committee ask that you complete and submit this cover page with any submission via e-mail or post. All submissions that include this cover sheet will be considered by the review.

April 9, 2020 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, environment, politics | Leave a comment

Outlandish claims made by Byron Shire Councillors, (Greens!!) promoting mobile Small Nuclear Reactors

What a strange article!   The claims made about these “mobile small nuclear reactors” are completely fanciful. These reactors do not exist, are just in the planning stage for use by U.S. military.  Even more fanciful , the article’s claim – “the pilot scheme, which will attract multi-million dollar grants.”.   Just where are these grants to come from?   The cash-strapped Australian government?  The Russians? The Americans? The Chinese?  This entire magical unicorn the Small Nuclear Reactor business is quite unable to attract investors. It’s only hope is to be funded by the tax-payer.  I note these unnamed Green proponents talk about “spreading the risk fairly among the population” – and still think it’s just fine.  So they understand that there’s a risk of dangerous radiation – a very strange attitude for a supposedly environmental group. 

What could go wrong?  https://www.echo.net.au/2020/04/what-could-go-wrong/    April 1, 2020 | by Echonetdaily, Mobile 100MW nuclear power plants have been proposed by the NSW National Party.

The latest miniaturisation technology that has seen electronic circuitry reduced from physical nodes to nanoscale impulses in quantum space has had astounding impacts on the relatively macroscale equipment needed to generate nuclear power. Such equipment has become so small it is now possible to build bus-sized nuclear reactors that can be deployed, as needed, to address gaps in the power grid.

Byron’s Greens councillors have indicated support for the proposal, and hope to involve the Shire in the early stages of the pilot scheme, which will attract multi-million dollar grants. A spokesperson for the local Greens said nuclear plants are not only less polluting than coal fired power stations, but being mobile means they spread the risk fairly among the population.

State and federal Greens later issued a statement disassociating themselves, ‘as always’, from Byron Shire councillors.

April 2, 2020 Posted by | New South Wales, politics, technology | Leave a comment

Big swings to the Greens in Brisbane wards elections

Greens celebrate record swings in Brisbane wards, Brisbane Times by Lucy Stone March 30, 2020  While the final results for Brisbane City Council’s election are still days away, the Greens are already celebrating a powerful swing towards them in several LNP-held wards, as well as a strong boost in incumbent Jonathan Sri’s ward, The Gabba.As the Electoral Commission of Queensland continued the vote count on Monday, after a website glitch saw few early numbers uploaded on Saturday night, Cr Sri said he had seen a swing of about 17 per cent to the Greens in his ward……

Cr Sri said the shutdown of ordinary life due to the coronavirus pandemic meant the Greens could no longer doorknock, their most effective campaign strategy, and had to rely on telephoning prospective voters instead. …. https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/queensland/greens-celebrate-record-swings-in-brisbane-wards-20200330-p54fbb.html

March 31, 2020 Posted by | politics, Queensland | Leave a comment

With the pandemic, and the bushfires, we now must strengthen the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (EPBC)

in the immediate term we need to advocate for vital improvements to the EPBC. It is extraordinary that the Howard legacy of deliberately excluding a project’s climate impacts from the triggers to require assessment still hasn’t been remedied. That must now be fixed, as must the fact that there is no mechanism for assessing the cumulative ecological impacts of various proposals. After this summer’s destruction of huge areas of remaining healthy ecosystems, we need to institute, in both legislation and the practice of assessment, a presumption of protection instead of a culture of managed destruction.

March 28, 2020 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, environment, politics | Leave a comment

Tax-payers funded Matt Canavan’s expensive trip to attend coalmine opening

Matt Canavan billed taxpayers $5,390 for charter flight to attend coalmine opening

The former resources minister used the occasion to give a speech attacking ‘self-indulgent’ environmentalists,  Guardian, Christopher Knaus, Wed 25 Mar 2020 

The former resources minister Matt Canavan billed taxpayers for a $5,390 charter flight to travel 150km to attend the opening of a coalmine, where he gave a speech attacking “self-indulgent” environmental activists.

Canavan took the private charter flight from Mackay to Colinsville, a three-hour drive, so he could get to the opening of the $1.76bn Byerwen mine in north Queensland.

At the opening, Canavan gave a speech attacking what he described as “hypocritical, self-indulgent activists” holding back the dreamers of the mining industry…….

The most recent parliamentary expense reports, released last week, show Canavan later billed taxpayers for the $5,390 charter flight ….. The expense was listed as “unscheduled travel” by the independent parliamentary expenses authority and the finance department…….

The expense is roughly the same as that incurred by the former Liberal MP Bronwyn Bishop, who chartered a $5,227 helicopter for a return trip from Melbourne to a golf course near Geelong for a Liberal party function.

Canavan quit as minister last month to support Barnaby Joyce’s bid to return to the leadership position. He has described himself as running on an “unashamedly pro-coal” platform.

The Guardian previously reported that Canavan had omitted two properties worth more than $1m from his current declaration of interests to parliament. He declared “nil” interests in real estate despite owning two houses in Yeppoon, Queensland and Macquarie in Canberra.

Canavan said he was not required to declare the interests to the 46th parliament because they’d been declared to the previous parliament, an argument that conflicts with official advice. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/mar/25/matt-canavan-billed-taxpayers-5390-for-charter-flight-to-attend-coalmine-opening

 

March 26, 2020 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, climate change - global warming, politics | Leave a comment

The Morrison govt’s emergency measures are a massive subsidy to Australia’s largest corporations.

March 24, 2020 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, business, politics | Leave a comment

After backlash from colleagues, NSW Deputy Premier John Barilaro backs down from nuclear power support

Barilaro retreats on Nationals support for One Nation nuclear bill,  https://www.smh.com.au/politics/nsw/barilaro-retreats-on-nationals-support-for-one-nation-nuclear-bill-20200317-p54avo.html, By Lisa Visentin,March 17, 2020 Deputy Premier John Barilaro has walked back his party’s support for a One Nation bill to allow nuclear power in NSW, as the issue threatened to split the Coalition.Mr Barilaro, a long-time advocate of nuclear energy, alarmed some Coalition MPs when he declared two weeks ago that the National Party would support Mark Latham’s bill to overturn a ban on uranium mining.

But the Nationals’ leader changed his tune on Tuesday, telling a budget estimates hearing the matter would first need to be considered by the party room as well as the cabinet.

Mr Barilaro made the unilateral call to back Mr Latham’s bill during an interview on Sky News on March 3 before consulting his party room, triggering concern among some National MPs and angering some of his Liberal cabinet colleagues. 

“I’ve since then had to pull that back to the point where I’ll have to go through the National party room, the parliamentary team, before we get to that position,” Mr Barilaro told the hearing.

“What I’m committing to is advocating for a policy that the party stands for and let’s see what happens when we get to the floor of Parliament.”

However, Mr Barilaro reiterated his strong personal support for nuclear energy, in particular “small nuclear reactors”, which he dubbed “the iphone of reactors”.

In a terse exchange, Labor MLC Adam Searle asked Mr Barilaro whether he was aware small nuclear reactors “don’t exist anywhere in the world at the moment”.

Mr Barilaro responded that he was “advocating for a technology that we know is on the horizon,” saying the Russians “would probably have small modular reactors on the market in the next two to three years.”

When quizzed about whether he’d discussed with his Coalition colleagues where in NSW the reactors could be located, Mr Barilaro floated the option of his own electorate of Monaro, on the state’s southern border.

“I haven’t even ruled it out of my own electorate. There you go. There’s your press release for today. Can’t wait to see it,” he said.

Mr Barilaro has previously grounded his support for Mr Latham’s bill as being consistent with the National Party’s policy position to “support nuclear energy in Australia as part of the energy mix for the future”, adopted at last year’s state conference.

He confronted an immediate backlash from within the cabinet, which had yet to consider the issue, with at least four senior ministers saying they would not support his push to back the bill. One minister told the Herald they were prepared to quit cabinet rather than support it.

The split followed a parliamentary inquiry into Mr Latham’s bill, chaired by Liberal MLC Taylor Martin, which concluded the government should support it.

The inquiry’s report stated: “the committee could find no compelling justifications from an environmental or human safety point of view which would warrant the blanket exclusion of nuclear energy.”

The two Labor MPs on the inquiry – John Graham and Mick Veitch – opposed the findings in a dissenting statement which reaffirmed Labor’s “longstanding and unequivocal platform position in relation to nuclear exploration, extraction and export.”

Mr Latham was also on the inquiry, which was comprised of eight MLCS, including three Liberals, two Labor, and one member apiece from the Nationals and the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers party.

March 19, 2020 Posted by | New South Wales, politics | Leave a comment

Doctors again call on Australian govt about Julian Assange’s precarious health, risk of coronavirus

Almost 200 medical doctors say Julian Assange’s health is at increased risk from coronavirus,   https://www.thecanary.co/global/world-news/2020/03/18/almost-200-medical-doctors-say-julian-assanges-health-is-at-increased-risk-from-coronavirus/  
John McEvoy
 18th March 2020  On 18 March, almost 200 medical doctors wrote to Australian foreign minister Marise Payne to warn that Julian Assange’s health is at increased risk from the new coronavirus.

“Mr Assange could die in prison”

This is the latest in a number of letters sent by Doctors for Assange to express concern over the WikiLeaks publisher’s deteriorating health.

On 22 November, the group signed an open letter addressed to UK home secretary Priti Patel, saying: “we have real concerns, on the evidence currently available, that Mr Assange could die in prison”.

In a follow-up letter published on 4 December, the doctors wrote:

When the UK, as a Permanent Member of the United Nations Security Council, repeatedly ignores not only the serious warnings of the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture, but also its unequivocal investigative and remedial obligations under international and human rights law, the credibility of the UK’s commitment to human rights and the rule of law is fatally undermined.

Fertile breeding grounds”

The latest letter, signed by medical doctors from countries including the UK, Australia, Sweden, and the US, was written in light of the recent coronavirus pandemic.

The letter reads:

We wrote to you on December 15 2019 that Julian Assange’s life is at risk due to nearly a decade of human rights abuse including arbitrary detention, psychological torture and medical neglect. Now, with the president of the Prison Governor’s Association warning that prisons provide “fertile breeding grounds” for coronavirus, Julian Assange’s life and health are at heightened risk due to his arbitrary detention during this global pandemic. That threat will only grow as the coronavirus spreads. …

We therefore stand by our previous calls for the Australian Government to urgently intervene to protect the life, health and human rights of its citizen Julian Assange, before it is too late, whether due to coronavirus or any number of catastrophic health outcomes.

Coronavirus is the latest threat to Assange’s life, adding onto years of arbitrary punishment and psychological torture.

March 19, 2020 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, civil liberties, politics | Leave a comment