UK “reviewing” files on nuclear bomb tests in Australia- this smacks of a cover-up
“To now withdraw previously available documents is extremely unfortunate and hints at an attempted cover-up.”
“worrying that properly released records can suddenly be removed from public access without notice or explanation.”
Review or ‘cover up’? Mystery as Australia nuclear weapons tests files withdrawn https://edition.cnn.com/2019/01/11/australia/uk-australia-nuclear-archives-intl/index.html, By James Griffiths, CNN
More than 65 years since the UK began conducting secret nuclear weapons testing in the Australian Outback, scores of files about the program have been withdrawn from the country’s National Archives without explanation.
The unannounced move came as a shock to many researchers and historians who rely on the files and have been campaigning to unseal the small number which remain classified.
“Many relevant UK documents have remained secret since the time of the tests, well past the conventional 30 years that government documents are normally withheld,” said expert Elizabeth Tynan, author of “Atomic Thunder: The Maralinga Story”.
“To now withdraw previously available documents is extremely unfortunate and hints at an attempted cover-up.”
Withdrawal of the files was first noted in late December. Access to them has remained closed in the new year.
Dark legacy The UK conducted 12 nuclear weapons tests in Australia in the 1950s and 1960s, mostly in the sparsely populated Outback of South Australia.
Information about the tests remained a tightly held secret for decades. It wasn’t until a Royal Commission was formed in 1984 — in the wake of several damning press reports — that the damage done to indigenous people and the Australian servicemen and women who worked on the testing grounds became widely known.
Indigenous people living nearby had long complained of the effects they suffered, including after a “black mist” settled over one camp near Maralinga in the wake of the Totem I test in October 1953. The mist caused stinging eyes and skin rashes. Others vomited and suffered from diarrhea.
These claims were dismissed and ridiculed by officials for decades — until, in the wake of the Royal Commission report, the UK agreed to pay the Australian government and the traditional owners of the Maralinga lands about AU$46 million ($30 million). The Australian authorities also paid indigenous Maralinga communities a settlement of AU$13.5 million ($9 million).
While the damage done to indigenous communities was acknowledged, much about the Totem I test — and other tests at Maralinga and later at Emu Field — remained secret, even before the recent withdrawal of archive documents.
“The British atomic tests in Australia did considerable harm to indigenous populations, to military and other personnel and to large parts of the country’s territory. This country has every right to know exactly what the tests entailed,” Tynan said. “Mysteries remain about the British nuclear tests in Australia, and these mysteries have become harder to bring to light with the closure of files by the British government.”
Alan Owen, chairman of the British Nuclear Test Veterans Association, which campaigns on behalf of former servicemen, said “the removal of these documents affects not only our campaign, but affects the many academic organizations that rely on this material.”
“We are very concerned that the documents will not be republished and the (Ministry of Defense) will again deny any responsibility for the effects the tests have had on our membership,” Owen told CNN.
Unclear motives Responding to a request for comment from CNN, a spokeswoman for the National Archives said the withdrawal of the Australian nuclear test files was done at the request of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA), which has ultimate responsibility over them.
The NDA said that “a collection of records has been temporarily withdrawn from general access via The National Archive at Kew as part of a review process.”
“It is unclear, at this time, how long the review will take, however NDA anticipates that many of the documents will be restored to the public archive in due course,” a spokeswoman said.
Jon Agar, a professor of science and technology at University College London, said the withdrawal “is not just several records but two whole classes of files, many of which had previously been open to researchers at the National Archives.”
“These files are essential to any historian of the UK nuclear projects — which of course included tests in Australia. They have been closed without proper communication or consultation,” he added.
Agar shared correspondence he had with the NDA in which a spokeswoman said some files would be moved to a new archive — Nucleus — in the far north of Scotland. However the Nucleus archives focus on the British civil nuclear industry, and it is unclear why files on military testing would be moved there, or why those files would need to be withdrawn to do so.
Nucleus also does not offer the type of online access to its records as the National Archives does.
“Why not just copy the files if the nuclear industry needs them at Nucleus for administrative reasons? Why take them all out of public view?” Agar wrote on Twitter.
Information freedom In correspondence with both CNN and Agar, the NDA suggested those interested in the files could file freedom of information (FOI) requests for them.
Under the 2000 Freedom of Information Act, British citizens and concerned parties are granted the “right to access recorded information held by public sector organizations.”
FOI requests can be turned down if the government deems the information too sensitive or the request too expensive to process. Under a separate rule, the UK government should also declassify documents between 20 and 30 years after they were created.
According to the BBC, multiple UK government departments — including the Home Office and Cabinet Office — have been repeatedly condemned by auditors for their “poor,” “disappointing” and “unacceptable” treatment of FOI applications.
Commenting on the nuclear documents, Maurice Frankel, director of the Campaign for Freedom of Information, a UK-based NGO, said it was “worrying that properly released records can suddenly be removed from public access without notice or explanation.”
“It suggests that the historical record is fragile and transient and liable to be snatched away at any time, with or without good reason,” he added.
ANSTO’s worrying history of covering up releases of radioactive gases from Lucas heights nuclear reactor
New nuclear reactor spark cover up claims, PUBLIC not told about potentially dangerous gases spread over hundreds of kilometres for fear of causing alarm. https://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/poison-gas-leak-from-sydney-nuclear-reactor-spark-cover-up-claims/news-story/7a2bea7f047cf87f997ad7aff5646213?fbclid=IwAR3YTUCw81aekayba61OSWLYkemq6Eb0u9rlPYnej5B3EUHc9iE0n50_B7I#.s3vdk By Linda Silmalis, The Sunday Telegraph, AUGUST 29, 2010 POTENTIALLY dangerous radioactive gases have been secretly pumped into the atmosphere from Lucas Heights and have spread hundreds of kilometres from the nuclear reactor – but the public have never been told.
The release of the highly volatile radioxenon over several months last year was so concentrated that the plumes were detected in Melbourne up to two days later.
Other plumes were dragged out to sea by winds before drifting back over Sydney.
The Sunday Telegraph understands the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) decided against releasing a public statement at the time to avoid causing alarm.
Scientists at a nuclear testing station in Melbourne traced the source of the radioactive gases to Sydney after they picked up 10 specific events between November, 2008 and February last year.
The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Organisation International Monitoring System site in Melbourne contacted Lucas Heights after detecting the radioxenon isotope Xe-133.
They were told that 36 hours earlier the first “hot commissioning trials” at ANSTO’s Lucas Heights radioisotope facility for Molybdenum-99 had taken place.
Molybdenum-99 is produced by the fission technique – the intense neutron-bombardment of a highly purified uranium-235 – and is used in nuclear medicine.
While the nuclear reactor – and the government body that oversees it – insists the release of the radioxenon by-product were no threat to public safety, no one, including neighbours of the suburban Sydney plant, were informed.
“Xenon gases are highly volatile and, being inert, they are not susceptible to wet or dry atmospheric removal mechanisms,” a scientific report obtained by The Sunday Telegraph says.
“Consequently, once released to the atmosphere they are simply transported down-wind while radioactively decaying away.”
Significant amounts of the main gas detected – Xenon-133 – can be released during a nuclear reaction or a nuclear explosion.
While it is used in medical procedures, specialists are urged not to administer it to pregnant women and children.
Side effects of its use in medical procedures can include allergic reactions such as itching or hives, swelling of the face or hands, swelling or tingling in the mouth or throat, chest tightness, and trouble breathing.
The report into the release from Lucas Heights says the doses were “well below the annual limit for public exposure”.
Officials from the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency said it was notified at the time and that the emissions were within public safety guidelines.
In 2006, ANSTO was forced to allay public fears after a leaked memo revealed xenon and krypton were released into the atmosphere following the rupture of a pipe.
Defence Department accused of deception over Woomera radioactive wastes
Defence under attack on nuclear waste dump https://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/defence/defence-under-attack-on-nuclear-waste-dump/news-story/fd851b6cefd7c5701d354c7ed1adf09d LUKE GRIFFITHS @_LukeGriffiths DECEMBER 27, 2018
Woomera must be revisited as a potential site for Australia’s first nuclear waste dump, says Centre Alliance senator Rex Patrick, who accuses the Defence Department of deception over claims the site is unsuitable.
Senator Patrick said he would question Defence officials at Senate estimates hearings over why the department dismissed Woomera as a potential site because of an “intolerable risk” and its “impracticability” — a position since backed by Resources Minister Matt Canavan.
The 122,000sq km Woomera Prohibited Area, located in the South Australian outback 450km northwest of Adelaide, is a military testing range under federal government control.
Senator Patrick said significant nuclear waste materials had been stored there since 1994, including 10,000 drums of low and intermediate-level waste from a CSIRO research facility at Fishermans Bend in Melbourne.
In a report published on its website last week, the CSIRO said tests had found the material posed no threat to health or the environment. Tests in May found radiation levels adjacent to the storage had “natural background values” for Australia, as would be found in typical soil and rock.
“The report findings make a mockery of Defence claims there’s no way a national radioactive waste management facility could be located anywhere in the enormous expanse of the WPA,” Senator Patrick said.
“The reality is radioactive waste has been safely stored at Woomera for a quarter of a century. Defence can expect considerable scrutiny in the new year over the bureaucratic obfuscation and deception on this issue. It seems Defence is never stronger in defending territory than when it comes to defending its own.”
Senator Canavan has short-listed two sites near Kimba, 465km northwest of Adelaide, and one site near Hawker, in South Australia’s mid-north, for the waste facility.
The process, which has divided both communities, stalled after a Kimba ballot scheduled for August 20 was delayed by court action from an Aboriginal group that believes traditional owners should vote, despite not living within the shire’s boundaries.
In a similar move, traditional owners at Hawker last week lodged an Australian Human Rights Commission complaint, prepared by Maurice Blackburn Lawyers, that alleged a “fundamentally flawed process”.
Labor has not said how it would proceed should it form government after the election, which must be held by mid-May.D The Department of Defence did not respond to questions.
Fabricated media attacks on Julian Assange
Last week’s sensationalist allegation by the Guardian newspaper, that WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange met with Paul Manafort, American political lobbyist and one-time campaign manager for Donald Trump, has been exposed as a politically-motivated tissue of lies. Continue reading False claims against Julian Assange pave the way for USA to imprison him (DOES AUSTRALIA NOT CARE?)
Indeed, we could see those articles as pivotal in the current hostile environment against Assange; the purpose of which is presumably to prepare the way for the extradition of Assange to the US. Meanwhile, the Mueller inquiry into alleged links between US president Donald Trump and Russia – and Assange – is gaining headlines on an almost daily basis. And there is evidence that Assange has been secretly indicted and that an extradition request is imminent.
In such an environment, media outlets must provide hard evidence to substantiate allegations, and not simply fall back on anonymous ‘sources’ (usually code for spooks). The people these allegations target deserve better, and so do readers
Former diplomat challenges ‘fake’ Guardian claims about Julian Assange meeting Paul Manafort The Canary 3rd December 2018 A former consul and first secretary at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London has spoken out against a “fake story” from the Guardian. Speaking to The Canary, Fidel Narváez insisted that the claim that former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort met with WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is entirely false. Continue reading
Manipulations and machinations of UK, USA, Ecuador (?Australia) against Julian Assange
U.K. and Ecuador Conspire to Deliver Julian Assange to U.S. Authorities https://www.truthdig.com/articles/u-k-and-ecuador-conspire-to-deliver-julian-assange-to-u-s-authorities/
Gareth Porter 28 Nov 18 The accidental revelation in mid-November that U.S. federal prosecutors had secretly filed charges against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange underlines the determination of the Trump administration to end Assange’s asylum in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, where he has been staying since 2012.
Behind the revelation of those secret charges for supposedly threatening U.S. national security is a murky story of a political ploy by the Ecuadorian and British governments to create a phony rationale for ousting Assange from the embassy. The two regimes agreed to base their plan on the claim that Assange was conspiring to flee to Russia. Continue reading
Moving Intermediate Level Waste from Lucas Heights to another Intermediate site – dubious and possibly illegal
|
“In the unlikely event that the NRWMF is not built within 40 years, ANSTO would make a submission to ARPANSA (Section 36 of the ARPANS Act, 1998) [1] to amend the licence to extend it for a defined period of time (e.g., re-licensing at 5 year intervals). “ IF THE ILW MOVES TO REGIONAL S.AUST ‘temporarily’ AND REMAINS FOR 40 YEARS THEN A ‘HOT CELL’ WOULD BE NEEDED TO TRANSFER IT TO A NEW CONTAINER…. ANSTO estimates that the ILW may remain for 100 years “If, after 40 years, the TN 81 Transport/Storage container is deemed to be no longer suitable for storage past the initial period of 40 years, a new TN 81 Transport/Storage container would be procured. The vitrified waste containers would then be unloaded from the old container into the new TN 81 Transport/Storage container. Any such unloading and re-loading of the vitrified waste containers would be carried out in a suitably shielded hot-cell which would be purposely built and licensed for this activity ….. The NRWMF will cater for the long term above ground storage (approximately 100 years) of Intermediate Level Waste including the waste reprocessed in France and the United Kingdom. ” |
|
British scientists secretly used Australian population to test for radiation contamination after nuclear tests at Maralinga
|
the agency said it had detected varying levels of Strontium-90 in all Australian capital cities.
|
|
Nov 28 in Flinders and Kimba – ClOSED meetings on nuclear waste dump plan?
Katrina Bohr No Nuclear Waste Dump Anywhere in South Australia, 14 Nov 18After 3 years of supposed community consultation are we
to presume that they have the community’s best interests
in mind?
Are they really listening to those affected by this proposal?
Apparently there is likely to be closed meetings on the 27th in the Flinders, and Kimba on the 28th of Nov.
Should we the community be excluded at such a critical point in the process? https://www.facebook.com/groups/1314655315214929/
Nuclear whistleblowers strive for a green future for generations to come.
We are in debt to people like Rick Parks receiver of the IEEE Barus Ethics award while being a nuclear whistleblower, and Australia’s own ANSTO whistleblower David Reid, whom I hold in great regard of their honesty and credibility, that of which the opposing dichotomy has proven to have shortcomings. These whistleblowers have suffered loses to erode our ignorance, and we owe it to them to keep passing the anti-nuclear baton and strive for a green future for generations to come. https://www.facebook.com/groups/344452605899556/?multi_permalinks=837501786594633%2C837469919931153¬if_id=1538379410382955¬if_t=group_activity
‘Adani and the War Over Coal’ – a new book: Quentin Beresford spills the devious beans
BOOK REVIEW: ‘Adani and the War Over Coal’ — a pox on both their Parties, Independent Australia John Biggs 30 September 2018 The story of the devious and secretive negotiations between Adani and Australian governments of both stripes is appalling, writes John Biggs. “…… Conservation groups, Indigenous people and, eventually, a strong majority of ordinary Australians are outraged. In this book, Dr Beresford brings his sharp research and writing skills to tell this story of the war over coal.Gautam Adani had close connections with India’s PM Narendra Modi, who protected Adani over environmental and human rights violations in India. Adani donated heavily to both major Australian parties, especially to the Coalition. The Abbott and subsequent Coalition governments pushed for Adani as hard as they could. At first, so did Labor, but then sort of didn’t, but if certain conditions are met, well, maybe .
ISSUES IN DISPUTE
The major issues in dispute, as Bereford see it, are as follows.
Climate change
If all the Carmichael coal is burned – here or anywhere – the carbon emissions would be more than Australia already produces. That would likely tip global warming irreversibly. The pro-Adani group deny this.
Great Barrier Reef
The Reef is already seriously endangered by climate change, drainage from fertilised farmlands, and starfish. The mine would make matters immeasurably worse, as dredging (authorised byLabor’s Tony Burke) has already indicated.
Julie Bishop even denied the Great Barrier Reef would be in any danger.
Beresford notes (p.361):
‘None of the major parties has been prepared to unequivocally put the reef’s long term health over the interests of the fossil fuel industry.’
Great Artesian Basin
The Great Artesian Basin, vital for Australian agriculture, would be seriously endangered by the mine, either through using the water or by puncturing and draining the Basin. Adani supporters say this is exaggerated, and anyway coal mining is a thirsty business.
Native title
Doongmabulla Springs is in the mining area and is of high cultural significance to the Wangan and Jagalingou peoples. However Indigenous Land Use Agreements (ILUAs) that favour developers have been foisted onto the locals. These are currently under appeal.
Economic case
The costs of mining coal are now higher than the costs of producing renewables — and the difference is rapidly widening. With Adani’s projected costs, current debts and likely returns, Adani is predicted to lose crippling amounts of money if it proceeds.
Adani’s poor safety, criminal and environmental record
First in India and now here, Adani operations have already badly polluted land in the Carmichael region.
WHY, WHY, WHY?
Given all of this, why on Earth would Australian governments be so determined to support the Adani project?
Beresford discusses these issues and others in depth. His findings and assertions are fully referenced, his arguments convincing.
While much of this is due to the shocking judgement and wickedness of individual people, Beresford sees (p.360) as even more important the way in which the coal wars have transformed politics: …….https://independentaustralia.net/environment/environment-display/book-review-adani-and-the-war-over-coal–a-pox-on-both-their-parties,11949
Great Barrier Reef scientists told to focus on projects to make government look good
Emails tabled in Senate inquiry recommended ‘trade-offs’ to Great Barrier Reef Foundation, Guardian, Ben Smee @BenSmee 26 Sep 2018
Great Barrier Reef scientists were told they would need to make “trade-offs” to the Great Barrier Reef Foundation, including focusing on projects that would look good for the government and encourage more corporate donations, emails tabled in the Senate reveal.
The documents, including cabinet briefing notes, contain significant new details about the workings of the foundation and the government decision to award it a $443m grant, including:
- The executives of mining, gas and chemicals companies – and international financial houses that actively back fossil-fuel projects – were among the guests at a six-star retreat hosted by the foundation less than a month after the grant was announced;
- The media companies Foxtel and Fairfax and the tech giant Google are among a tightly held list of donors to the foundation;
- The only CSIRO employee contacted about the grant before the announcement in April was in Patagonia, and did not get the email. Documents have previously revealed that the government’s peak science agency was cut out of the decision to award the grant;
- In August, as scrutiny of the grant intensified, public servants pushed to block a long-planned meeting between the then science minister, Michaelia Cash, and the head of the foundation, Anna Marsden, because of concern about the “optics”.
Emails sent by staff at the Australian Institute of Marine Science outline how government expectations, the ability to leverage private donations and public perceptions “may drive the [foundation] to prioritise shorter-term research initiatives in order to demonstrate progress and return on investment”.
“Where it becomes challenging is that … interventions with the largest future benefit also take the longest to develop,” the institute’s executive director of strategic policy, David Mead, wrote in an email to colleagues.
“Among other trade-offs, we will need to determine to what degree we focus on quick wins or whether we progress longer-term strategic interventions and accept that we will only partially progress them during the next five years (perhaps with little outward visibility of success/progress).”
The emails also reveal an initial state of uncertainty about how a $100m allocation for reef restoration and adaptation would be handled……. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/sep/26/great-barrier-reef-scientists-told-to-focus-on-projects-to-make-government-look-good?CMP=share_btn_tw.
Why is the Australian government so secretive about Commonwealth land available for nuclear wastes?
Senator Rex Patrick No Nuclear Waste Dump Anywhere in South Australia
LOOK AT CROWN SITES FOR RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITY
Yesterday I received copies of minutes from the National Radioactive Waste Management Facility (NRWMF) Steering Committee under Freedom of Information laws.
What is clear from these minutes is that the Government has secretly considered a number of Commonwealth owned land parcels as potential NRWMF sites. Why has this fact not been made public? Why don’t we know what sites were considered? Why has the analysis and any decisions associated with potential Commonwealth sites not been made public?
It staggers me, in a process that the Minister claims to be open and transparent, that this important aspect of site selection process has not been made public, nor open to scrutiny.
I have written to Minister Canavan asking him to provide me with details of sites considered and the associated analysis. If he won’t I will seek a Senate Order for Production of Documents to get access to them.
Copies of the minutes are available here.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/g1nmw3nmgljp…/NRWMF%20Minutes.pdf… https://www.facebook.com/groups/1314655315214929/?multi_permalinks=2498364660177316%2C2498213100192472¬if_id=1534461842151654¬if_t=group_activity
Nuclear sacrifice bribe – no guarantee that it will all go to the towns hosting nuclear waste dump
Media breakdown is that an extra 20 million is going to whoever hosts the dump, on top of the 10 
million already promised.
The 20 million is to deliver long-term infrastructure projects.
In my opinion this amount was already allocated.
In the Federal government’s Business Case for the waste dump, these numbers are already part of their estimations.
There is no doubt the promise of infrastructure is to sustain their facility.
This is manipulation by the government due to the pending postal vote.
Annette Ellen Skipworth The 10 million is going to go to the state government not the local government …and they dont have to spend it in the local area
Australian Government aid contracts given to crooked company
comment from Brett Stokes “Jacobs, the company that bought out SKM” Jacobs MCM were paid by the Scarce Royal Commission to produce a business case for nuclear waste imports. Same mob?
the firm was bought out by Californian contracting giant Jacobs. The government continues to award contracts to Jacobs on defence-related projects.
Australia handed out millions in aid contracts to company accused of bribery, Guardian , Sinclair Knight 15July18Merz, a donor to both Labor and Liberal parties, won contracts worth $489m for Asia-Pacific projects.
The Australian government awarded hundreds of millions of dollars in foreign aid contracts to a company that was found to have been systematically bribing high-level Vietnamese officials.
Australian consulting firm Sinclair Knight Merz (SKM), a donor to both the Labor and Liberal parties, was a significant corporate player in the government’s foreign aid program for more than a decade, winning 83 contracts worth $489m for projects across the Asia-Pacific.
But Guardian Australia can reveal evidence of widespread corruption by the firm as it operated in one south-east Asian nation and allegations over dealings in another.
In Vietnam, the firm was found to have repeatedly bribed public officials to secure work on three aid projects funded by the World Bank.
“[The firm used] comparably sophisticated means of affecting and covering up the illegitimate payments through the use of third-party agreements, ghost contracts, and fake invoices,” the World Bank’s independent integrity arm alleged, according to a sanctions decision.
Different SKM subsidiaries were used to help mask the bribes and make the payments. A range of staff appeared to have knowledge of the payments.
One staff member gave damning testimony that SKM had made “provision[s] for illegitimate payments in all of the projects for which [the firm] tendered since 2000”.
SKM is also now facing criminal prosecution in Australia for conspiring to bribe officials in two countries: Vietnam and the Philippines
Court documents seen by Guardian Australia allege SKM offered bribes to Vietnamese officials between 2006 and November 2011 to secure work on four infrastructure projects, including in Thanh Hoa, Da Nang and the northern mountains. The company is alleged to have offered benefits of $USD880,000 ($AUD1,193,632).
SKM also allegedly conspired to bribe officials on five separate projects in the Philippines between 2000 and mid-2005, including sewage, river rehabilitation, and air quality projects in Manila, and an urban services project on Mindanao.
The firm is accused of offering benefits worth about PHP 6,543,578.94 ($AUD165,768.09) to “unknown public officials” from the Philippines working on the tender approval process for infrastructure projects.
There is no evidence SKM directly used Australian taxpayers’ money to bribe foreign officials and there is no suggestion it acted improperly to win aid contracts from the Australian government
But the case has raised questions about the strength of Australia’s supposedly “zero tolerance” approach to foreign bribery and the level of scrutiny applied to Australian corporations that win big through the foreign aid program.
Australian authorities are likely to have known about the bribery allegations since at least 2012, when the firm self-reported to the World Bank’s integrity arm, which has a formal information sharing agreement with the federal government.
The Australian federal police (AFP) began investigating the allegations in July 2013.
Despite this, the government continued to contract SKM on foreign aid projects until the end of 2013, when the firm was bought out by Californian contracting giant Jacobs. The government continues to award contracts to Jacobs on defence-related projects.
In total, the company received 83 contracts worth $489m from Australia’s aid program between 2000 and 2014, according to government figures. It worked largely on infrastructure-related aid projects, and advisory, consulting and service-oriented contracts relating to a diverse range of topics, including sanitation, energy, and health care on Nauru.
SKM was awarded Australian aid contracts specifically relating to Vietnam in 2008, 2009 and 2011, and the Philippines in 2008 and 2012.
Anti-corruption advocates have long warned against continuing to give government contracts to firms found to have paid bribes to foreign officials.
In 2016, Transparency International urged the government to legislate to bar such companies from government work if they are found to have bribed overseas officials – an approach taken in Canada and the United States……..
Aid/Watch, an NGO that scrutinises Australia’s aid program, said there had been a significant shift to favouring large corporates to deliver foreign aid since 2013.
The group’s coordinator, Natalie Lowrey, said this corporatisation of aid made it more difficult to ensure accountability. NGOs who deliver government-funded aid are subject to extreme scrutiny, requiring accreditation, solid governance structures, a proven track record, and compliance with strict transparency measures, Lowrey said.
“There is no accountability for private companies administering aid, whereas, Australian NGOs are strictly accredited,” she said. ……..
The decision to prosecute SKM was not publicly announced and the cases went unreported when they first appeared in a Sydney court last month.
Guardian Australia has seen documents that confirm that the claims being brought against SKM relate to foreign bribery offences under the commonwealth criminal code. The claims relate to activities in both Vietnam and the Philippines. The case is ongoing.https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/jul/13/australia-handed-out-millions-in-aid-contracts-to-company-accused-of-bribery?CMP=share_btn_fb
1 This month.
PETITION – To: Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and the Australian Labor Government
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
19 May – Webinar- Webinar: No Nuclear Weapons in Australia
Start: 2026-05-19 18:00:00 UTC Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney (GMT+10:00)
End: 2026-05-19 19:30:00 UTC Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney (GMT+10:00)
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 