Disclaimer
http://www.antinuclear.net does not represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any information’s, content contained on, distributed through, or linked, downloaded or accessed from any of the services contained on this website.
3 Comments »
Leave a Reply
1.This month
For international nuclear news go to https://nuclear-news.net/
FEDERAL. Inquiry into the prerequisites for nuclear energy in Australia Read the published submissions on the Parliamentary website. Read the SUMMARIES of submissions here.
Julian Assange and the Australian Media | Q&A
EVENTS
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION – theme for October 19
Christian Porter’s press freedom ‘safeguard’ raises fears over reporters’ independence
Key points:
- Mr Porter’s directive could protect ABC and New Corp employees from prosecution for reporting on national security issues
- But Law Council president Arthur Moses SC fears the decision will pressure journalists to keep in governments’ good books to avoid criminal charges
- The Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance says the measure could act as a safeguard but it was the wrong approach
Under pressure to do more to protect press freedom, Christian Porter issued a directive that prosecutors will need his approval before charging journalists under certain sections of Australia’s secrecy laws.
The decision could shield ABC and News Corp employees from facing possible criminal charges over their reporting on national security issues following June’s raids by the Australian Federal Police.
But Law Council of Australia President Arthur Moses SC said it would not help solve the “legitimate concerns raised by the media” since the raids.
“Let me be very blunt about this, it does not allay the concerns that have being raised in relation to press freedoms in Australia,” Mr Moses said.
“It puts the Attorney-General, who after all is a politician, in the position of authorising prosecutions of journalists in situations where they may have written stories critical of his Government.
“It creates an apprehension on the part of journalists that they will need to curry favour with the Government or, in particular, the Attorney-General in order to avoid prosecution………..
The directive did not rule out the prospect of the journalists facing charges, nor did it make any mention of any particular cases.
Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance president Marcus Strom agreed Mr Porter’s measure could act as a safeguard, but did not agree it was the right approach.
“We’d like to think it’s a welcome development for Dan Oakes, Sam Clark and Annika Smethurst who have been facing prosecution recently,” Mr Strom said.
“[But] we don’t want politicians to be deciding the fate of journalists.
“It doesn’t seem to be a solution to the problem — which is that journalism is effectively criminalised in this country.”
Mr Strom has argued for the decision to be made as part of a judicial process instead.
The Shadow Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus said while Labor welcomed the measure, Mr Porter still needed to rule out any charges being laid against the three journalists.
“This direction is not legislation … it won’t prevent police raids, it won’t prevent other actions of intimidation by the Government,” he said.
“What we urgently need are more robust protections for press freedom.” https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-10-01/journalists-under-pressure-government-onside-press-freedom-afp/11562102
PETITION
Free Julian Assange, before it’s too late. Sign to STOP the USA Extradition
September 8 – Adelaide – Symposium on South Australia’s nuclear history:
Link for registration: https://www.eventbrite.com.au/e/south-australias-nuclear-past-present-and-future-tickets-48944656786?aff=ebdssbdestsearch
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/events/308523099705836
also:
Black Mist Burnt Country at National Museum in Canberra 24 August – 18 November
http://www.blackmistcountry.com.au
http://www.nma.gov.au/exhibitions/black-mist-burnt-country
Hi,
on this website you summarize my submission to the federal inquiry as included below. I don’t think your summary is a correct reflection of my text and I refer your readers to the original document, which is available on the inquiry website. For example, I clearly make the point in my submission that there is currently no business case for nuclear power in Australia. Furthermore I do not say there or think that Fukushima has resulted in greater nuclear safety measures. Neither do I make the point that Australia should have nuclear power, because we export uranium or because other nations have it.
In general I find your categorization into pro and anti unhelpful. I don’t see my submission in either camp.
Regards, Heiko Timmers
—————–
“Timmers, Heiko (63) Says Australia should have nuclear power because it exports uranium, because other nations have it, because it is low carbon, and with it, Australia can help against nuclear weapons proliferation – and because Australia needs to be ready for Generation IV reactors.
Says Australia should have the full nuclear fuel cycle. Present debate is too “emotional”. Says Fukushima resulted in greater nuclear safety measures. Sees nuclear power as making Australia more important internationally.
Recommends developing renewable energy. Recommends setting up a nuclear waste import industry. Recommends “we intensify our participation in the Generation IV International Forum ……reinvigoratie university training and research in nuclear engineering. …Our active participation in the global nuclear fuel cycle with uranium exports and spent fuel storage services, thus taking ethical and environmental responsibility for the planet and helping to limit carbon-dioxide emissions, may benefit our international standing. “
Enthuses about the future of molten salt reactors.”
—————–
Thank you, Mr Timmers, for your comment. I acknowledge that you did not say that Fukushima resulted in greater safety measures, (though I am surprised that you don’t think that)
While you make the point that nuclear power is not currently feasible – the whole theme of your submission is that Australia should be ready for later development of nuclear power. You talk about not “disengaging with nuclear power.” But Australia IS already disengaged,
What you really want – is Australia to ENGAGE with nuclear power, e.g by overturning its laws against nuclear activities.
You just word it carefully, without spelling it out.