Antinuclear

Australian news, and some related international items

The cost of needless secrecy on nuclear. What’s the scam?

The Defence Department and the ADF should keep secrets important to protect our national security. But that doesn’t mean everything they do should be secret. Rex Patrick

by Rex Patrick | Apr 11, 2024   https://michaelwest.com.au/whats-the-scam-with-nuclear-secrecy/

It’s been 395 days since I made the FOI request, 336 days since the Department of Defence said “no,” and 231 days since lawyers started their billing clocks to try to defend Defence’s secrecy addiction in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT).

The topic of the FOI request is one that goes to elements of the AUKUS program that relate to:

nuclear regulation, stewardship and safety, the management of operations nuclear waste, reactor decommissioning, and the management of nuclear waste.

Refuse everything

Their “refuse everything” approach is even more inexplicable, noting that Defence knows it has to build a social licence to operate nuclear reactors. ANSTO actually instructed them on this during the Morrison study into AUKUS.

Today, the government will hand over some of the secret documents that they now concede aren’t actually secret. That means the poor taxpayer will foot the bill for the AAT’s resources (because I’ll get my $1000 AAT application fee back) in addition to the lawyers’ fees.

The taxpayer’s cost-to-date is not known. Senator Jacqui Lambie has asked Defence for them through Senate processes.

“I’m willing, based on past experience, to wager the legal fees alone will be north of $50K.”

All because of an anti-transparency culture inside the Defence establishment. A culture that is especially acute inside AUKUS, where all information must, in their view, be contained within the valence shell.

April 12, 2024 Posted by | secrets and lies | Leave a comment

AUKUS: Red flag for arms industry corruption

There has been almost no public commentary about the likely influence of the arms industry in the secretive AUKUS deal.

MICHELLE FAHY, MAR 22, 2024,  https://undueinfluence.substack.com/p/aukus-red-flag-for-arms-industry?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=297295&post_id=142851171&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

The arms trade is known for being one of the most corrupt of all legal international trades.

UK research shows that this corruption drives and distorts arms procurement decisions. Arms purchases that were not previously being considered can suddenly appear on the agenda.

Before delving into AUKUS, an egregious distortion in Australian defence procurement, I’ll briefly revisit the original French submarine contract.

The research shows that submarines, in particular, are a procurement area where a very high proportion of the small overall number of deals involve major corruption.

French multinational Naval Group had been wrangling with Malcolm Turnbull’s government for almost two years trying to get the formal contract signed.

In August 2018, Scott Morrison became PM.

Soon after, Naval Group hired David Gazard, well-connected lobbyist, former Liberal candidate, and close friend of Scott Morrison, to help them get the deal over the line.

Within months, the Morrison government had signed the contract.

In early 2019, the ABC reported, ‘Naval Group confirmed the arrangement but did not disclose how much Mr Gazard’s company was being paid for its lobbying services’.

Mr Gazard’s company, DPG Advisory Solutions, declined to comment to the ABC about its role. I sent similar questions to Mr Gazard this week and received no response by deadline.

At the time Australia put Naval Group on the shortlist, the company was under investigation for corruption in three other arms deals: two for submarines (Pakistan and Malaysia) and one for frigates (Taiwan). The Abbott government would have known this.

These were not minor corruption cases: all involved murder.

French authorities commenced another corruption investigation into Naval Group (submarines; Brazil) in late 2016, after Australia had awarded Naval Group the deal, but before we signed the contract.

How did the Abbott, Turnbull and Morrison governments shortlist, select, and then sign a contract with a company being investigated in four separate corruption cases?

Murder, corruption, bombings – the company at centre of Australia’s submarine deal

Naval Group was selected by the Australian government to build its new fleet of submarines while at the centre of a deadly criminal saga and numerous global corruption scandals. How did this happen? MICHELLE FAHY, OCT 24, 2020

AUKUS submarines

BAE Systems Australia is Defence’s largest contractor and has been for six of the past eight years.

BAE Systems is set to be a significant beneficiary of AUKUS.

Six months ago, the UK Government awarded the company a £3.95 billion (A$7.5 billion) contract for the detailed design phase of the AUKUS submarines.

On Friday, Defence Minister Richard Marles announced that Australia will send $4.6 billion (£2.4 billion) to the UK. Australia’s money will contribute to BAE’s detailed design phase of the AUKUS submarines and will also help clear bottlenecks in the Rolls Royce nuclear reactor production line.

This $4.6 billion expenditure is in addition to the $3 billion of Australian money already committed to support US naval shipyards.

The UK’s current submarine programs (managed by BAE) are running well behind schedule raising questions about whether BAE can deliver on the AUKUS agreement.

BAE Systems also provides perhaps the best-known example of systematic high-level arms industry corruption.

Britain’s series of arms deals with Saudi Arabia was, and remains, its biggest ever arms deal. It earned BAE Systems at least £43 billion in revenue between 1985 and 2007, with further deals still ongoing. The deal included £6 billion pounds in ‘commissions’ (bribes), paid to the Saudis.

In addition, during the 1990s and 2000s, in ‘a deliberate choice that came from the top’, BAE Systems maintained a shell company registered in the Cayman Islands called Red Diamond Trading. This vehicle channelled hundreds of millions of pounds of bribes around the globe to key decision makers in a succession of arms deals.

The Guardian’s BAE Files contain 15 years of reporting on this subject.

Sinking billions: Undergunned and overpriced. Missing records, billions in over-runs, conflicts of interest, and flawed ships. How the Defence Department’s new frigates project is a boondoggle for a British weapons-maker. MICHELLE FAHY, JUL 03, 2023

It has also been revealed that BAE Systems was given the Hunter class frigate contract despite ‘long-running concerns’ inside Defence about BAE’s alleged inflation of invoices by tens of millions of dollars on the earlier Adelaide class of frigates.

Detailed allegations of fraud in the Adelaide-class contracts, including by Thales Australia, were published in three separate articles by The Weekend Australian in May 2019.

A Defence internal audit had reportedly found that BAE’s contract was ‘riddled with cost overruns, with the British company consistently invoicing questionable charges’.

Defence launched a second investigation.

18 months later, I asked Defence about the outcome of its second investigation. This was their response:

An independent internal review of this matter found no evidence of inappropriate excess charges by BAE and Thales. The investigation did find some minor administrative issues which have been subsequently addressed through additional training. This training is now part of the normal cycle and is routinely refreshed.

The ‘independent’ review was conducted in secret by an existing defence contractor. His report was not made public.

Defence said ‘no evidence’ was found of inappropriate excess charges. Yet the allegations were apparently so serious they were referred to Defence’s assistant secretary of fraud control who then referred several matters to the Independent Assurance Business Analysis and Reform Branch of Defence.

Recently, I have been collaborating with UK colleagues trying to uncover more about the Adelaide-class contracts. Freedom of Information requests have been lodged. Defence has blocked them, refusing to release a single page.

An appeal was submitted, Defence blocked that too. We have now appealed to the Information Commissioner.

If this was merely ‘a minor administrative issue’ that has been resolved by ‘additional training’, why the aggressive blocking of any release of information through FoI?

Undue influence and the revolving door

I will finish by outlining a mini case study of undue influence and the revolving door – that of former CEO of BAE Systems Australia, Jim McDowell.

I am not implying any illegality on the part of Mr McDowell. I am simply laying out an array of his government appointments – not all of them – to highlight the extensive influence that just one person can have.

Jim McDowell had a 17-year career with BAE Systems including a decade as its chief executive in Australia, then two years running its lucrative Saudi Arabian business. He resigned from BAE in Saudi Arabia in December 2013.

In 2014, McDowell was appointed by the Coalition to a four-person panel undertaking the First Principles Review of Defence. This Review recommended sweeping reforms to the Defence Department, including its procurement processes, which have largely benefited major arms companies.

In 2015, the Coalition appointed McDowell to a 4-person expert advisory panel overseeing the tender process for the original submarine contract. When he announced McDowell as being part of this panel, Defence Minister Kevin Andrews didn’t mention McDowell’s long history with BAE Systems, which had ended only 18 months earlier. It was highly relevant, as BAE designs and manufactures Britain’s submarines.

In late 2016, then-defence industry minister Christopher Pyne hired McDowell as his adviser to develop the Naval Shipbuilding Plan. The appointment was not announced publicly. At that time, McDowell was also on the board of Australian shipbuilder Austal.

Under the shipbuilding plan, Austal subsequently won a contract to build six more Cape-class patrol boats while BAE Systems won the biggest prize, the Hunter-class frigate contract.

After the frigate deal was announced, South Australian premier Steve Marshall hired McDowell to head his Department of Premier and Cabinet. SA was the state that gained most from the shipbuilding plan.

In 2020, McDowell left the South Australian public service to become CEO of Nova Systems, a key defence contractor.

Last year, McDowell moved back through the revolving door into a senior role with the Defence Department. He is now Deputy Secretary for Naval Shipbuilding and Sustainment, reporting directly to defence secretary Greg Moriarty.

When appointed, McDowell said his new role was an opportunity he couldn’t turn down because it ‘provides the ability for me to shape the future of Australia’s shipbuilding and sustainment’.

In my view, McDowell’s long list of sensitive senior appointments should not have been possible. He cannot be the only person in the country qualified to undertake each of these roles.

This was a brief discussion of some aspects of the undue influence of the arms industry in Australia. I raise these issues in this AUKUS context because there has been almost no public commentary about the likely influence of the arms industry in the AUKUS deal.

This is an edited and updated version of a speech given on 12.3.24 at the Independent & Peaceful Australia Network (IPAN) forum, ‘AUKUS and Military Escalation: Who Pays and Who Benefits?’. The other speakers were Allan Behm, Dr Sue Wareham and Professor Hugh White. Speeches can be viewed here.

March 25, 2024 Posted by | secrets and lies, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Murder, corruption, bombings – the company at centre of Australia’s submarine deal

March 25, 2024 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, secrets and lies | Leave a comment

CSIRO chief warns against ‘disparaging science’ after Peter Dutton criticises nuclear energy costings

Douglas Hilton says he will ‘staunchly defend’ scientists as opposition leader repeats incorrect claim that CSIRO report does not accurately represent cost of renewables

Guardian, Paul Karp and Graham Readfearn,15 Mar 24

Australia’s science agency, CSIRO, has rejected Peter Dutton’s claim its estimates of the cost of renewables are unreliable.

CSIRO chief executive, Douglas Hilton, has warned that maintaining trust “requires our political leaders to resist the temptation to disparage science”, rejecting Dutton’s comments about its GenCost report.

But the opposition leader has doubled down, repeating his incorrect claim on Friday that the report does not properly cost renewables and transmission required to integrate them into the grid.

On Tuesday, Dutton claimed the annual CSIRO report that had included estimates of costs for small modular reactors – which are not yet available commercially – was “discredited” because it “doesn’t take into account some of the transmission costs, the costs around subsidies for the renewables”.

Despite Dutton’s claim, the most recent GenCost report does include the cost of integrating renewables such as solar and wind into the electricity grid. That is, it includes the cost of building new transmission lines and energy storage such as batteries.

On Friday Hilton said that he would “staunchly defend our scientists and our organisation against unfounded criticism”.

“The GenCost report is updated each year and provides the very best estimates for the cost of future new-build electricity generation in Australia,” he said in a statement………………………………

Hilton insisted that “CSIRO’s scientists and engineers can be relied on by the community to work creatively, assiduously and with integrity”.

On Friday Dutton doubled down on the comments, despite the rebuke, telling Channel Nine his point was “we need to compare apples with apples”.

“And at the moment that report … doesn’t take into consideration all of the costs around renewables,” he claimed, repeating his original error…………………………………………

The climate change and energy minister, Chris Bowen, has repeatedly rebuffed Dutton’s nuclear push, citing cost – including an estimate from the energy department that replacing fossil fuels with nuclear could cost $387bn.

Bowen has accused the Coalition of using “the rightwing playbook of 2023 – populism, polarisation and post-truth politics” in making false claims about the potential for nuclear power in Australia.  https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2024/mar/15/csiro-peter-dutton-gencost-report-nuclear-energy-renewables-cost

March 16, 2024 Posted by | secrets and lies | Leave a comment

Silencing the Voice: the fossil-fuelled Atlas Network’s Campaign against Constitutional Recognition of Indigenous Australia

Jeremy Walker, University of Technology Sydney,Sep 30, 2023

Abstract

Australians will soon vote in a referendum to recognise Indigenous Australia in its 1901 Constitution and establish a First Nations Voice to Parliament. A year ago, polling suggested the referendum proposal of the 2017 National Constitutional Convention and its Uluru Statement from the Heart enjoyed 60% support. Since lead anti-Voice campaign organisation Advance Australia began its media offensive, the Yes vote has declined to 40%. This article argues the No campaign is being conducted on behalf of fossil-fuel corporations and their allies, whose efforts to mislead the public on life-and-death matters reach back over half a century. Coordinated across the Australian branches of the little-known Atlas Network, a global infrastructure of 500+ ‘think-tanks’ including the Centre for Independent Studies, the Institute of Public Affairs and LibertyWorks, I demonstrate that the No campaign shares the aims and methods of the longstanding Atlas disinformation campaign against climate policy. Opposition to long-overdue constitutional recognition for Indigenous Australians can be traced to fears the Voice might strengthen the capacity of Indigenous communities and Australia’s parliamentary democracy to rein in the polluting industries driving us toward climate and ecological collapse.

Article Details

Issue Vol 15 No 2 (2023)

March 4, 2024 Posted by | secrets and lies | Leave a comment

More serious governance failures in Defence contracting

The pattern of poor governance by Defence has been further exposed following disturbing revelations in yet another contract.

MICHELLE FAHY, DEC 23, 2023  https://undueinfluence.substack.com/p/more-serious-governance-failures?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=297295&post_id=140001297&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&utm_medium=email

It was revealed this week that Defence Department officials congratulated themselves for not recording minutes of a critical meeting in which the work of consultants it had hired was being checked against the contract.

Incredibly, the failure to record minutes was noted as a positive in a post-implementation review of the project, with the only negative point listed being that the donuts arrived too early in the meeting.

This serious accountability failure is a breach of Defence’s contracting rules and the Commonwealth Procurement Rules, adherence to which is fundamental to good governance.

The failure to keep minutes of the key meeting means there’s no official record of who attended the meeting, in what capacity, and what contribution they made.

It was just one of a raft of irregularities found in a $100 million contract between the Defence Department and KPMG, which is part of the One Defence Data program, following a damning review by external consultants, Anchoram Consulting.

Some of the irregularities described in the review bear striking similarities to those found in Defence’s controversial Hunter Class frigate procurement from BAE Systems, Australia’s largest ever surface warship acquisition, which has been referred to the National Anti-Corruption Commission following a scathing report by the auditor general.

One of the grounds for the corruption referral was the absence of a number of important accountability documents, including minutes of key decision making meetings, related to the Hunter Class frigate procurement process. (Read full story on the $46 billion frigate procurement here and here.)

The Australian National Audit Office report on the frigates noted that the Defence Department was a serial offender when it came to deficient record-keeping. The auditors footnoted a comment from the Commissioner for Law Enforcement Integrity that a “lack of record keeping can create corruption vulnerabilities within an Agency”.

A lack of record keeping can create corruption vulnerabilities

Another revelation in the Anchoram review was that Defence had made “a six-figure payment” to KPMG “for work the government knew had not been delivered”.

Similarly, as the audit office revealed in May, during the frigate procurement process the Defence Department made milestone payments to BAE Systems even though BAE had missed the milestones.

Anchoram revealed that the KPMG project was plagued by a “lack of accountability” and “real and perceived conflicts of interest”. Core governance documents were not signed off and key requirements of KPMG’s contract were diluted from “mandatory” to “desirable”, sometimes in consultation with KPMG itself, despite Defence requirements stating explicitly that mandatory items cannot be changed.

Furthermore, Anchoram concluded that “the Commonwealth has a significant risk that it absolved [KPMG] from its commercial obligations and consequently transferred delivery risk from [KPMG] to the Commonwealth.”

The review said the Commonwealth’s ability to govern the One Defence Data program’s financials and ensure value for money had been “significantly compromised”.

Similarly, with the frigate procurement process, Defence sidelined the central procurement rule of achieving value for money. Numerous conflicts of interest and revolving door appointments, including the secretive involvement in the frigate tender evaluation process of people formerly employed by BAE Systems (as I reported exclusively in July) prefigure the serious governance issues exposed by Anchoram in Defence’s cosy arrangement with KPMG.

The Anchoram Consulting report, dated April 2022, has been released publicly this week following an order from independent senator David Pocock to the Defence Department.

Meanwhile, the Parliamentary Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit is conducting an inquiry into Defence’s frigate procurement process.

Labor MP Julian Hill, the chair of the committee, has stated: ‘It does feel like someone has back-engineered a decision and gone, “we want to go with BAE”…’.

The Anchoram Consulting report on the One Defence Data program can be downloaded here.

December 23, 2023 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, secrets and lies | Leave a comment

Fine print bombshell – share information which “undermines trust in government”, face jail

by Rex Patrick | Nov 21, 2023  https://michaelwest.com.au/government-review-of-secrecy-provisions-an-assault-on-democracy/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_term=2023-11-23&utm_campaign=Michael+West+Media+Weekly+Update

The Government has released its ‘Review into Secrecy Provisions’ whose fine print contains the greatest assault on democracy and accountability in many years, writes Rex Patrick.

Secrecy is woven into the fabric of the Australian Government. There are eleven general secrecy offences in the criminal code, 295 non-disclosure duties in 102 laws that attract criminal liability, and 569 specific secrecy offences in 183 laws.

A rationalisation and a review of secrecy laws was long overdue.

But buried in this review is a bombshell. Carried out by the Attorney-General’s Department, the review report makes a key recommendation that disclosure of information that could cause a loss of trust in Government should be criminalised.

Paragraph 146 states:

“… disclosure of information that harms the effective working of Government undermines the Australian community’s trust in government and the ability of Commonwealth departments and agencies to deliver policies and programs. It is appropriate that conduct which causes or is likely to cause prejudice to the effective working of government be covered [by secrecy provisions enforceable under the criminal code]”

The national security bureaucrats’ view seems to be that secrecy is essential to ensure trust in government!

The infamous character of Sir Humphrey Appleby in the Yes Minister TV show would be so proud.

If implemented, this recommendation would raise for public servants a criminal penalty for anything embarrassing, anything that might put a question in the way of policy information or even any wrongdoing by officials to the extent that revealing such might undermine confidence in government.

Review origins

The review stemmed from a report of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security looking into the 2019 ABC and the Smethurst media raids.

The review was intended to be the first step in a process that would ensure that these laws protect and are consistent with essential public interests, including the public interest in transparency in government decision-making, parliamentary scrutiny and accountability, and effective media investigations and reporting.

The recommendation of the Review that the Government create a new sweeping secrecy offence is quite at odds with the original objectives of this exercise, and is indeed quite contrary to proper principles of transparency, scrutiny and accountability of government.

While the review recommends the repeal of some redundant and outdated secrecy offences and non-disclosure duties, this very modest wind back of secrecy will be completely submerged by the development of “a new general secrecy offence” for inclusion in the Criminal Code Act 1995.

Protecting the leaders

To be clear, public servants already have a duty not to disclose information unless they are authorised to do so, or they are required/permitted to disclose it by law.

But it’s one thing to say that public servants should operate in a ‘privacy of government’ environment, it’s completely another thing to say that everything they discuss or write about is confidential and they should go to jail if they reveal anything.

Under the current ‘privacy of government’ arrangements, we are supposed to let the government quietly get on with business overseen by Parliament, the Auditor-General, the Ombudsman, the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) and law enforcement, the Freedom of Information Regime and whistleblower protection.

This all sounds good; except the Parliament is very weak on oversight, the Auditor-General and Ombudsman are underfunded, the NACC operates in complete secrecy, the FOI regime is totally broken and whistleblower protections are simply non-existent.

Secrecy overreach

But even if the accountability of government systems did work, the Secrecy Review’s recommendation is overreach. It just re-enforces a culture of secrecy inside government that is already in need of a secrecy exorcism.

The much better view is that of former Sir Anthony Mason, AC KBE GBM KC in the High Court Case of Commonwealth v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd (“Defence Papers case“) [1980], before he was Chief Justice, when he said:

“It is unacceptable in our democratic society that there should be a restraint on the publication of information relating to government when the only vice of that information is that it enables the public to discuss, review and criticize government action.

His judicial pronouncement trumps the bureaucratic authors of a review that presses a recommendation that aims to protect senior leadership and ministers from embarrassment and the exposure of incompetence using the threat of criminal punishment. But his views only last until new laws are passed.

A captured Attorney General

The next question, of course, is whether the Attorney-General and the Government will act on this recommendation and remain beholden to his national security bureaucrats?

If his past record of betraying whistleblowers and his refusal to pursue Freedom of Information reforms is any guide, there aren’t any grounds for optimism.

Proceeding down this path would deal a great blow to democratic accountability and public interest journalism.

Proceeding down this path would deal a great blow to democratic accountability and public interest journalism.

It would embed the already harmful secrecy culture that exists across a vast expanse of government activity and could also blow a hole in Australia’s already weak and failing FOI regime.

But does the Government and the Attorney General want a political fight over a move towards excessive and unjustified secrecy? We will have to see, but if they do go down this path it’s a fight they’re sure to get.

November 23, 2023 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, secrets and lies | Leave a comment

Mapping the revolving door between government and the weapons industry

Undue Influence revolving door database progresses

MICHELLE FAHY, Undue Influence Substack, NOV 4, 2023

Some 80 per cent of the United States’ four star generals and admirals go on to work for US weapons-making companies, it was revealed last month. US arms industry expert William Hartung also noted that with the Pentagon’s budget soaring towards US$1 trillion a year, and security challenges posed by Russia and China front and centre, an independent assessment of the best path ahead for the US was vital.

Yet, he said, “more often than not, special interests override the national interest in decisions on how much to spend on the Pentagon, and how those funds should be allocated”.

Hartung’s revelations were made possible by US research tracking the revolving door between the US government and the weapons industry.

In Australia, the defence budget is also rising. At the same time, transparency and accountability from our politicians and the Defence Department continues to decline.

The US research has reinforced the importance of the Australian revolving door database that I am creating, in collaboration with a research assistant and a technical specialist. This project was made possible by a grant from the Jan de Voogd Peace Fund.

Revolving door a feature in major defence procurement in Australia

My two-part investigative feature, first published by Declassified Australia in July, put the spotlight on the revolving door between the Australian government and the world’s sixth largest arms manufacturer, BAE Systems. It also contributed to a referral to the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC).

The investigation revealed close links between government and industry – information that will be included in the revolving door database – and provided a rare insight into the Australian revolving door in action. It exposed how the government gave former senior BAE insiders influential behind-the-scenes roles before and during a tender process that BAE went on to win. Few of these senior roles were publicly acknowledged by the government.

The procurement of the Hunter class frigates, now at $46 billion (and rising), is Australia’s second largest ever defence acquisition. The Greens’ defence spokesman David Shoebridge made the referral to the NACC.

Database progress to date

The revolving door database has been funded by the Jan de Voogd Peace Fund (administered by the NSW Quakers). The project is being auspiced by the Medical Association for Prevention of War.

The database architecture is now complete following a detailed and complex development process which enables arms company contract data to be extracted from the government’s public databases. The website will aggregate hundreds of contract values into a single annual figure for each major arms corporation, updated daily. With major multinational arms makers having up to 20 or more relevant subsidiaries, it is vital to be able to combine the total value, and this is what the database will do.

The names of people who have occupied 60 senior military, political and defence-related positions back to the year 2000 have been compiled. We will now investigate the existence of subsequent arms-related private sector positions.

How you can help

November 4, 2023 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, secrets and lies | Leave a comment

Defence continues its blanket secrecy on weapons exports

Mapping the revolving door between government and the weapons industry

Undue Influence revolving door database progresses

Undue Influence Substack, MICHELLE FAHY, NOV 4, 2023

Australia has approved 322 military or dual-use permits to Israel over the past six years, according to new figures the government provided last week in response to questions on notice from Greens Senator David Shoebridge. The period covered was January 2017 to March 2023.

Defence has previously admitted that it favours secrecy over transparency and accountability regarding its decisions on weapons exports.

As I reported in 2021, Defence elevates the protection of ‘commercially sensitive’ information and ‘opportunities for Australian companies’ above fundamental democratic principles of transparency and accountability.

The recent reports show that Defence Department secrecy around weapons exports has not improved with the change in government.

Australia is obliged under international law to ensure weapons exports are not used to commit human rights violations, but Defence’s ongoing secrecy means the public has no idea what the Department has approved for export in our name.

“Australia has a legal duty under the UN Arms Trade Treaty, which Australia actively promoted when it was a UN Security Council member, to ensure that weapons are not used to commit human rights violations,” says former United Nations legal expert and Australian government minister Melissa Parke, who now leads the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN). “Under the treaty, there must also be fully transparent public reporting about arms exports.”

Senator Shoebridge, the Greens’ defence spokesperson, said Australia had “one of the most secretive and unaccountable weapons export systems in the world”, given that it doesn’t break down the exact items exported.

Furthermore, Defence’s disclosure of the number of permits it has approved is a statistical veneer of limited value. Consider: one permit can cover multiple shipments or shipments to multiple countries. One permit can also cover multiple quantities, types and models of weapons or other items, whether physical or ‘intangible’ (electronic). In addition, as Defence freely admits, not all permits it approves proceed to export and delivery. Knowing the number of approved permits is therefore meaningless.

The ethical consequences of Defence’s policy of protecting the commercial interests of Australian weapons companies can be readily understood given the current war between Israel and Hamas: Australia is likely to have contributed towards the indiscriminate killing of innocent people in Gaza.

“Australia’s actions in approving arms exports to countries that are known to be committing serious violations of human rights, and its failure to be transparent about this, are inconsistent with its obligations under international law,” says Parke. “Having signed up to … these international laws, the Australian government can’t just cherry pick what aspects it’s going to abide by, especially when it … lectures other countries, such as China and Russia, about the importance of the international rule of law.”  https://undueinfluence.substack.com/p/mapping-the-revolving-door-database-progress?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=297295&post_id=138509639&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&utm_medium=email

November 4, 2023 Posted by | secrets and lies, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Jacqui Lambie’s nuclear response to secret flights for submarine project

Independent Senator Jacqui Lambie has slammed the decision to slug taxpayers $630,000 a month in “secret” travel costs.

Samantha Maiden, news.com.au 7 Oct 23

Independent Senator Jacqui Lambie has slammed the decision to slug taxpayers $630,000 a month in “secret” travel costs for bureaucrats working on Australia’s nuclear submarine project.

Despite the fact that the first submarine won’t be delivered to Australia under the deal until 2040, new documents reveal scheme has already blown up $15 million in travel costs alone in two years.

But bizarrely, the Defence Department has redacted the commercial airline departure times “for security reasons” suggesting it might reveal patterns of travel and put bureaucrats lives and safety at risk…………………………………………………………

It’s the same reason the defence department is refusing to reveal details of Defence Minister Richard Marles’ VIP flights suggesting it could put his safety in danger.

Australia plans to acquire a total of eight nuclear powered submarines (SSNs) under the $368bn deal.

But at least three of the subs and up to five of the eight will be Virginia-class submarines it will buy from the United States.

New data revealed under freedom of information laws reveal that Vice Admiral Jonathan Dallas Mead, the navy’s nuclear-powered submarine taskforce chief, has spent $197,000 on 8 overseas trips alone.

That’s contributing to the $15 million in global travel costs, a figure that adds up to $633,000 per month.

Defence representatives travelled to the United States and United Kingdom, and our AUKUS partners travelled to Australia, as part of the 18-month consultation period.

“Fifteen million bucks is a shocking amount to spend on travel, that‘s a bill of $633,000 a month for the Australian tax payer,” Senator Lambie said.

Defence personnel don’t get frequent flyer points – but do get status points.

“Admiral Mead alone has spent $197,000 on eight overseas trips, I bet his status points are looking good,” she said.

“It‘s not a submarine – it’s a gravy boat! And why all this secrecy?

“The government says the flights have been redacted because it‘s a national security matter, what a load of rubbish, these flights are in the past, there’s no national security issue.”

“Australia seems to be footing most of the bill for the AUKUS submarines, what is the UK and the US paying?.”

“This government campaigned on transparency and yet they are failing Australians when it comes to public scrutiny.“

Senator Lambie asked the Department of Defence how much had actually been spent out of the $300 million that was allocated to the task force in the financial year of 2022-23.

In response, the department confirmed that Defence representatives travelled to the United States and United Kingdom, and AUKUS partners travelled to Australia, as part of the 18-month consultation period.

The total expenditure for the Nuclear Powered Submarine Taskforce over the 18-month consultation period (16 September 2021 to 31 March 2023) was $139.2m.

A breakdown of class of travel is not held…….. https://www.news.com.au/national/politics/jacqui-lambies-nuclear-response-to-secret-flights-for-submarine-project/news-story/0bb81fa011f5c3128e9caa7361a7ef2d

October 7, 2023 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, secrets and lies | Leave a comment

Nuclear-Powered Fixations: The Trump-Pratt Disclosures

The speed with which AUKUS was entered into by the Scott Morrison government in September 2021, an agreement which also brought no demurral or any murmurs of dissent from the then Labour opposition of Anthony Albanese, had a rank smell to it. For one thing, it has seen Australia further trapped in an insidious game of military competition being waged against China at the behest of US interests, militarising the country and mortgaging the budget to the tune of $368 billion over the course of two decades.

October 7, 2023. by: Dr Binoy Kampmark  https://theaimn.com/nuclear-powered-fixations-the-trump-pratt-disclosures/—

In April 2021, the Australian billionaire Anthony Pratt had a meeting with Donald Trump at his Mar-a-Lago club. According to an ABC News report, “Pratt told Trump he believed Australia should start buying its submarines from the United States, to which an excited Trump – ‘leaning’ towards Pratt as if to be discreet – then told Pratt two pieces of information about US submarines: the supposed exact number of nuclear warheads they routinely carry, and exactly how close they supposedly can get to a Russian submarine without being detected

The report, citing “sources familiar with the matter,” goes on to mention that Pratt “allegedly shared the information with scores of others, including more than a dozen foreign officials, several of his own employees, and a handful of journalists.” The net, in other words, proved rather large, with emails and conversations taking place on the subject with three former Australian prime ministers, 10 Australian officials, 11 of Pratt’s employees and six journalists.

The revelation has emerged as part of an ongoing investigation by special counsel Jack Smith into Trump’s retention of classified documents on leaving the White House. Some of the documents, hoarded at Mar-a-Lago, covered US military matters, nuclear weapons, and spy satellites

What is buried in the latest spray and foam of the Trump disclosures to Pratt is whether that encounter had any bearing on the broader strategic thinking in Canberra and its links to the US military industrial complex. The AUKUS security agreement between the United States, the United Kingdom and Australia contemplates the transfer of at least three US nuclear powered Virginia class boats, along with the construction of a specific co-designed nuclear-powered boat for the Royal Australian Navy (RAN). Did Pratt’s enthusiasm for US nuclear submarines percolate through to other officials, think-tankers and courtiers working for Washington’s interests?

Former Australian Prime Ministers Paul Keating and Tony Abbott have told the Australian Financial Review that Pratt never raised the issue of purchasing US nuclear submarines with them. Who, then, were the other prime ministers who received Pratt’s gobbets of wisdom? Surely Scott Morrison must figure, given his role in brokering the AUKUS agreement.

The ABC News report does acknowledge that a number of Australian officials who featured in the Pratt disclosures were “involved in then-ongoing negotiations with the Biden administration over a deal for Australia to purchase a number of nuclear-powered attack submarines from the United States.”

A number of Australian commentators have tried to minimise the significance of the Trump-Pratt encounter, thereby revealing visible smoke plumes. “We’ve had submariners serve on US nuclear submarines for years,” stated former Australian ambassador to the US Joe Hockey. “I find it hard to believe that in a conversation between Anthony Pratt and Donald Trump, anything of great significance was discussed that would have an impact on the national security of either Australia or the United States.”

https://www.google.com/afs/ads?psid=5134551505&channel=AutoRsVariant&cx=r-25f327788aebaf1a2&fexp=21404%2C17300003&client=pub-3072351457465524&r=m&sct=ID%3Da12c31fdf370e6dc%3AT%3D1695532171%3ART%3D1695532171%3AS%3DALNI_MYfX9daCAxZHSMbQIUiW7LW65AwpA&sc_status=6&hl=en&rpbu=http%3A%2F%2Fgoogle.com&rpqp=q&type=3&rs_tt=c&oe=UTF-8&ie=UTF-8&format=r5&nocache=3111696648995237&num=0&output=afd_ads&domain_name=theaimn.com&v=3&bsl=10&pac=0&u_his=1&u_tz=600&dt=1696648995238&u_w=1280&u_h=720&biw=1148&bih=541&psw=1148&psh=7082&frm=0&cl=570060935&uio=-&cont=autors-container-0&jsid=csa&nfp=1&jsv=570060935&rurl=https%3A%2F%2Ftheaimn.com%2Fnuclear-powered-fixations-the-trump-pratt-disclosures%2F&adbw=master-1%3A647

Former Australian Defence Department official Peter Jennings, who also served as executive director of the US-funded and parochially pro-Washington think-tank, the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, for over a decade, saw little reason to be concerned about the content of the disclosures. Most of the material on US submarines was already in the public domain. His concern, rather, was with Trump’s cavalier approach to national security information. “It’s just the 1000th example of why Trump is unfit to be president,” he tut-tutted. Jennings, along with the other members of the paid-up Washington consensus in combating Beijing, is no doubt losing sleep about Trump redux. Were Trump to return to the White House, all bets about Australia getting its nuclear-powered submarines are off.

The speed with which AUKUS was entered into by the Scott Morrison government in September 2021, an agreement which also brought no demurral or any murmurs of dissent from the then Labour opposition of Anthony Albanese, had a rank smell to it. For one thing, it has seen Australia further trapped in an insidious game of military competition being waged against China at the behest of US interests, militarising the country and mortgaging the budget to the tune of $368 billion over the course of two decades.

AUKUS also brought with it the abrupt termination of Canberra’s contract with the French Naval Group to construct twelve diesel-electric attack submarines for the RAN. This proved to be a disastrous affair for Australian diplomacy, savaging French-Australian relations and also advertising, to the region, the abject repudiation of Australian sovereignty.

While it should be stressed that Pratt faces no charges of illegality or impropriety, nor features in the 40 charges Smith is levelling against Trump, the Mar-a-Lago meeting with a former US president may prove critical in identifying a nexus with Canberra’s irrational interest in US-nuclear powered technology and the point at which that fascination ended the last vestiges of Australian independence.

October 7, 2023 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, secrets and lies | Leave a comment

Trump blabbed nuclear submarine secrets to Australian billionaire member of Mar-a-Lago club, report claims

Andrew Feinberg, Fri, October 6, 2023 https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-blabbed-nuclear-sub-secrets-211203147.html?guccounter=1

Former president Donald Trump allegedly revealed highly classified information about American nuclear-powered submarines to a wealthy Australian who regularly paid large sums to one of his companies, according to a report from ABC News.

Mr Trump reportedly disclosed the extremely sensitive information to a billionaire member of his Mar-a-Lago social club, which is housed at the location where he allegedly hoarded hundreds of classified documents for more than a year after his term as president — and his authorisation to possess such documents — had come to an end.

Citing sources familiar with the matter, ABC reported that the Aussie high-roller in question allegedly shared the information about US nuclear-powered submarines with “scores” of other people not authorised to have it, including “more than a dozen foreign officials” and journalists of unknown nationality.

Department of Justice investigators working under the supervision of Special Counsel Jack Smith learned of the potential breach as they were investigating Mr Trump’s alleged unlawful retention of national defence information.

Both prosecutors and special agents with the Federal Bureau of Investigation have reportedly spoken to the Mar-a-Lago member, packaging magnate Anthony Pratt, on at least two occasions this year.

Mr Pratt reportedly told investigators that the ex-president told him two pieces of information about the submarines: How many nuclear warheads are carried by American Ohio class ballistic missile submarines, and how close to such vessels a Russian submarine must get to detect them.

Both of those figures are among the US Navy’s most closely guarded secrets. But sources reportedly told ABC that Mr Pratt described what Mr Trump had said to at least 45 other people, including 10 Australian officials and a trio of former prime ministers.

October 7, 2023 Posted by | secrets and lies | Leave a comment

‘Unbelievable’: Defence spends $8.5m on consultants for AUKUS nuclear regulator

Greens defence spokesperson Senator David Shoebridge said: “It’s genuinely unbelievable that in the middle of a national scandal about outsourcing core government functions to the big four consultants, Defence has gifted an $8.5 million contract to one of them to design a new national nuclear regulator.

“It was always wrong to have Defence in control of its own regulator for the AUKUS nuclear submarines, and now we can see how they have hand-picked a pro-nuclear consultant to design the whole thing.”

SMH, Matthew Knott, August 21, 2023 

One of the big four consultancy firms will receive almost $8.5 million in taxpayers’ money over the next year to help design a new agency to monitor safety issues associated with Australia’s acquisition of nuclear-powered submarines under the AUKUS pact.

The Defence Department contract with EY, also known as Ernst & Young, comes amid a growing debate about the federal public service’s reliance on advice from external consultants for tasks that would previously have been performed in-house.

The Albanese government announced in March that it would create a new agency, known as the Australian Nuclear-Powered Submarine Safety Regulator, to “regulate the unique circumstances associated with nuclear safety and radiological protection across the lifecycle of Australia’s nuclear-powered submarine enterprise”.

The regulator, which will sit within the Defence Department, will also monitor infrastructure and facilities associated with the AUKUS pact such as the yet-to-be determined east coast submarine base.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese stared down concerns from Labor’s Left faction about AUKUS, including about nuclear safety and the risks of nuclear proliferation, at the party’s national conference on the weekend.

Earlier this month the Defence Department revealed that it had awarded a 12-month contract to EY worth $8.4 million to advise on the design of a future nuclear regulatory agency.

Greens defence spokesperson Senator David Shoebridge said: “It’s genuinely unbelievable that in the middle of a national scandal about outsourcing core government functions to the big four consultants, Defence has gifted an $8.5 million contract to one of them to design a new national nuclear regulator.

“It was always wrong to have Defence in control of its own regulator for the AUKUS nuclear submarines, and now we can see how they have hand-picked a pro-nuclear consultant to design the whole thing.”

Shoebridge said he was troubled by EY’s deep connections to nuclear companies including US firm NuScale Power Corporation and China General Nuclear Power Co, as well as its role as the longstanding auditor for Japan’s Tokyo Electric Power Company, which operated the now decommissioned Fukushima power plant.

“This contract needs to be torn up and then this core duty of government, designing a nuclear oversight agency, needs to be done by government, not by a hired gun from the big four,” Shoebridge said………………………………………………………………………………………..

EY declined to respond to questions about the contract.

During a Senate appearance in July EY Oceania chief executive David Larocca distanced the firm from rival PwC, which is under fire for leaking confidential government information to its clients.

Shoebridge said the nuclear safety regulator should sit inside a separate department – such as the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water – rather than Defence to ensure it could provide independent oversight of the AUKUS submarine program.

…………………………… The government has been widely expected to name Port Kembla, in the Illawarra region of NSW, as the east coast base for Australia’s fleet of nuclear-powered submarines, but the idea has attracted a backlash from residents and unions.

The government has said it will store nuclear waste from the AUKUS submarines on defence land. Woomera in remote South Australia is seen as the most likely location.  https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/unbelievable-defence-spends-8-5m-on-consultants-for-aukus-nuclear-regulator-20230820-p5dxxo.html

August 21, 2023 Posted by | politics, secrets and lies, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Game changer: defence industry ‘revolving door’ database to be created.

Undue Influence has been awarded funding from the Jan de Voogd Peace Fund to create an Australian-first database

MICHELLE FAHY, AUG 16, 2023

Our long-held goal of creating a database that makes plain the extent of the revolving door between the government/military/public service and the weapons industry in Australia is set to become reality.

Undue Influence has been awarded a grant to cover the research and development required to fulfil this vision. Work on the database has commenced. More on the grant below.

The well-trodden path from public defence roles into the private weapons industry

With AUKUS expected to cost Australian taxpayers more than $350 billion, at a time of decreasing transparency and poor accountability for record expenditure on armaments, the need for this database has never been greater. Exposing the insidious links between global weapons corporations and the government is now essential. Before an egregious practice can be stamped out, it must be documented. Hence, this project.

When senior people depart politics, the military, or the public service for roles in the weapons industry they take with them extensive national and international contacts, deep institutional knowledge and rare and privileged access to the highest levels of government. Their inside knowledge, contact books and high-level access entrenches the undue influence of the weapons industry on government decision-making, which can undermine integrity and open the door to corruption.

The Grattan Institute described the revolving door problem like this:

…firms that employ former government officials are more successful at getting meetings with government. Relationships matter in politics because they affect both the opportunity to influence and the likelihood of influence. Individuals with personal connections are more likely to get time with policy makers and a sympathetic hearing when they do.

It’s human nature that we’re more likely to listen to people we know and like. Establishing credibility is critical to persuasion, and existing relationships help clear that initial barrier. This is why hiring or employing people with the right connections can ‘buy’ influence.

Undue Influence has reported extensively on the revolving door as a channel of backroom influence on government by the weapons industry. Information on revolving door appointments into and out of this industry must be made public to achieve greater transparency, accountability and integrity in Australian public life.

What the database will cover

The database will document revolving door appointments into and out of the weapons industry from the year 2000 onwards. While it is modelled on the Project On Government Oversight (POGO) Pentagon Revolving Door website, the Undue Influence project will include more information. For example, we will include short articles accompanying key entries explaining the context and significance of certain appointments.

Users will be able to search by individual or by company. Some individuals in the database will have multiple revolving door appointments; this web of appointments across numerous companies will be revealed. Searching by weapons company will provide a list of former public officials hired by that company.

Undue Influence is delighted to be working with Evan Predavec as the project’s technical specialist and website/database creator. Evan is founder of Political Gadgets (politicalgadgets.com), a website that makes government and related information readily accessible to the public. Evan’s unique skillset and can-do attitude has been invaluable in designing and creating our website and database infrastructure.

More about the grant

Undue Influence has been awarded $60,000 by the Jan de Voogd Peace Fund to create the database. Jan de Voogd, a Quaker, died in 2021 leaving his estate to be spent on projects that foster peace and social justice. The bequest is administered by the NSW Regional Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers)……………………………………..

When will the database be ready?

The database will be launched by 29 February 2024.

How you can help

If you have information about revolving door appointments into and out of the Australian weapons industry, please email us.

Email undueinfluence@protonmail.com (encrypted)

Create an encrypted protonmail address (free): https://proton.me/mail  https://undueinfluence.substack.com/p/game-changer-defence-industry-revolving-door?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=297295&post_id=136105135&isFreemail=true&utm_medium=email

August 17, 2023 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, secrets and lies | Leave a comment

Civil Society faces imposition of an AUKUS military High Level nuclear waste dump

 https://nuclear.foe.org.au/wp-content/uploads/AUKUS-nuclear-waste-David-Noonan-brief-13Aug2023.pdf Updated Briefing by David Noonan, Independent Environment Campaigner 13 August 2023


The Federal ALP belatedly disclosed a secret pre-condition in AUKUS plans to buy existing US nuclear submarines: for Australia to keep the US subs military High Level nuclear waste forever.

In a breach of trust the ALP is seeking to ‘normalise’ High Level nuclear waste in Australia. Claims of
‘nuclear stewardship’ in taking on US nuclear subs and in retaining the US sub wastes are a farce.

Disposal of High Level nuclear waste is globally unprecedented, with our AUKUS ‘partners’ the US
and UK having proven unable to do so in over 60 years since first putting nuclear submarines to sea.

New military Agencies are being set up with an ‘Australian Submarine Agency’ (ASA) set up to:
“enable the necessary policy, legal, non-proliferation, workforce, security and safety arrangements”.

A new military nuclear regulator, the statutory ‘Australian Nuclear-Powered Submarine Safety
Regulator’ is to be established. Both Agencies will report directly to the Minister for Defence.

An array of federal legislation is required to manage nuclear submarines, supporting infrastructure
and facilities, from acquisition through to disposal. The Reforming Defence Legislation Review
proposes to take on Defence Act powers to override State and Territory legislation to ‘provide
certainty’ to Defence roles, operations and facilities.

Minister for Defence Richard Marles MP has stated there will be ‘an announcement’ by early 2024 on
a process to manage High Level nuclear waste and to site a waste disposal facility, saying “obviously
that facility will be remote from populations” (ABC News 15 March 2023).

Defence is already working to identify potential nuclear waste disposal sites. Political leaders in WA,
Queensland and Victoria have rejected a High Level nuclear waste disposal site. The SA Labor
Premier has so far only said it should go to a safe ‘remote’ location in the national interest.

AUKUS compromises public confidence in government and sets up a serious clash with

hcivil society:

  • Defence must be transparent and made accountable over AUKUS policy, associated rights and
    legal issues, and the proposed High Level nuclear waste dump siting process;
  • Defence must commit to comply with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous
    Peoples Article 29 provision of Indigenous People’s rights to “Free, Prior and Informed Consent”
    over storage or disposal of hazardous materials on their lands.
  • Defence must declare whether the SA Nuclear Waste Storage (Prohibition) Act 2000 is intended
    to be over-ridden to impose an AUKUS dump on lands and unwilling community in SA.

The public has a right to know who is targeted and a right to Say No to imposition of nuclear wastes.
The ALP National Platform (2021, Uranium p.96-98) makes a commitment to oppose overseas waste:

  • Labor will: 8. d. Remain strongly opposed to the importation and storage of nuclear waste
    that is sourced from overseas in Australia.

In contrast, AUKUS proposes Australia buy existing US military nuclear reactors in subs that are to be
up to 10-12 years old, loaded with intractable US origin weapons grade High Level nuclear wastes.

An AUKUS military nuclear dump is likely to be imposed on community in SA or in NT, with override
of State laws, compulsory land acquisition, and disregard for Indigenous Peoples rights to Say No.

Woomera is being targeted as a ‘favoured location’ for an AUKUS nuclear dump, in an
untenable affront to democratic rights in SA and to Indigenous People’s rights

SA community and the Barngarla People have just overcome federal plans to store ANSTO nuclear
fuel wastes and ILW on agricultural land near Kimba that had divided community on Eyre Peninsula.

The Bargarla People won a hard fought court case against the Federal Government that set aside the
Kimba dump siting decision by Coalition Minister Pitt as affected by bias and pre-judgement.

In response, Labor Minister Hon Madeleine King MP decided to not appeal the Judge’s finding of
apprehended bias, saying “The judgement was clear, and the Government is listening.”

The next day the national press reports: “Woomera looms as national nuclear waste dump site
including for AUKUS submarine high-level waste (afr.com) (11 August 2023). The article states the
AFR understands the Woomera rocket range is the ‘favoured location’ for the submarine waste.

The federal gov may also decide to ‘co-locate’ AUKUS submarine waste with ANSTO nuclear fuel
wastes and long lived ILW. However, the regulator says ANSTO wastes can be securely retained at the
Lucas Heights reactor site for decades. An imposed AUKUS dump will discredit any associated plans.

A suite of public interests are already at stake. For instance, which Ports will be requisitioned for
roles in AUKUS nuclear waste plans? (the federal gov previously targeted the Port of Whyalla).

AUKUS nuclear waste dump plans trigger the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous
Peoples (adopted by United Nations, Sept 2007) in Indigenous People’s Article 29 rights to “Free,
Prior and Informed Consent” over storage or disposal of hazardous materials on their lands.

Traditional owners must have a right to Say No to nuclear wastes, see “AUKUS nuclear waste dump
must be subject to Indigenous veto” (By Michelle Fahy May 2023): “Bipartisan secrecy and Defence’s
poor record with Indigenous groups at Woomera are red flags for consultations over an AUKUS
nuclear waste dump. Human rights experts say government must establish an Indigenous veto right.”

The “Woomera Protected Area” (WPA) a large Defence weapon testing range in SA had already been
flagged by other State Premiers as a site for a military High Level nuclear waste disposal facility.

Most of the WPA is State owned Crown land and not federal owned Defence lands. Siting a nuclear
dump on the WPA would be imposed through compulsory land acquisition and over-ride of SA laws.

Storage and disposal of nuclear wastes compromises the safety and welfare of the people of South
Australia, that is why it is prohibited by the SA Nuclear Waste Storage (Prohibition) Act 2000.
The Objects of this Act cover public interest issues at stake, to protect our health, safety and welfare:

“The Objects of this Act are to protect the health, safety and welfare of the people of South
Australia and to protect the environment in which they live by prohibiting the establishment
of certain nuclear waste storage facilities in this State.”

Defence are already ignoring Aboriginal Heritage law and contravening protections in SA, see
“Defence bombing Indigenous site in Woomera” (May 2023). Defence is now further ‘angling for
exemption from State laws it admits serve important public purposes’.

The SA Premier is yet to say if he will support an Indigenous right to Say No to an AUKUS dump in SA.

South Australians have a democratic right to decide their own future and to reject an AUKUS dump.

August 16, 2023 Posted by | secrets and lies | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »