US Republicans threaten to block AUKUS deal
By Anthony Galloway, The Age, July 21, 2023
Australia’s AUKUS submarine deal with the United States has hit a hurdle with Senate Republicans threatening to block the sale unless President Joe Biden boosts funding for the domestic production line.
Republican members of the Senate Armed Services Committee on Friday moved to block legislation which would enable the sale of US Virginia-class submarines to Australia.
Under the AUKUS deal, Washington was set to sell Canberra between three and five of its own nuclear submarines in the 2030s before Australia begins building a new class of boat with Britain.
But the ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, senator Roger Wicker, said Biden needed to commit more money to guarantee “we have enough submarines for our own security before we endorse that pillar of the agreement”.
Wicker said Australia’s commitment of US$3 billion ($4.4 billion) for the US production line would not be enough to meet the needs of both countries.
“The president needs to submit a supplemental request to give us an adequate number of submarines,” he told US news outlet Politico…………………………………………………….. https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/foolish-us-republicans-threaten-to-block-aukus-deal-20230721-p5dqc3.html
UK campaigners call on Australian PM to withdraw Kimba nuke dump threat.
UK campaign groups opposed to nuclear waste dumps were ‘delighted’ to hear that their counterparts in Australia, the Barngarla Determination Aboriginal Corporation, have just won their court case against the imposition of a similar dump on their Traditional Lands.
In a historic judgement given earlier this week (18 July), Her Honour Justice Charlesworth in the Federal Court of Australia handed down a decision to quash Federal Government plans to move nuclear waste from the reactor at Lucas Heights to an unwanted waste dump at Napandee near Kimba in South Australia. Justice Charlesworth charged government officials with ‘pre-judgement’ and ‘apprehended bias’.
In March, the UK/Ireland Nuclear Free Local Authorities joined Radiation Free Lakeland, Millom against the Nuclear Dump / South Copeland against GDF, and Guardians of the East Coast, which are local groups fighting plans to locate a so-called Geological Disposal Facility in either West Cumbria or East Lincolnshire, wrote a joint letter to the Australian Government to raise their international objections to the plan.
Our objections were that there was no need for such a dump as the facility at Lucas Heights has capacity to take the waste and that the rights to the land by the Traditional Owners were being wilfully and shamefully disregarded, contrary to international law, with the government giving no proper consideration to the position of the Barngarla.
The attempt to impose a nuclear waste dump is all par for the course in Australia with the ill-treatment of Indigenous Peoples by corporations, political elites and the military over nuclear matters having an established history, with First Nation territories ravaged by uranium mining or shattered by British atomic weapon testing.
Following the damning judgement, the four British organisations have today written to the Prime Minister of Australia Anthony Albanese asking him to ‘take the honourable and courageous course of action’, withdraw the plan and ‘leave the Barngarla in peace’.
A copy of the letter and a message of solidarity will be sent to the Barngarla Determination Aboriginal Corporation. more https://www.nuclearpolicy.info/news/uk-campaigners-call-on-australian-pm-to-withdraw-kimba-nuke-dump-threat/
Luck Is Not a Strategy for the Ukraine, The Germans Take the “Evidence-based” Path.
We Chat with Nuclear Expert Dr. Paul Dorfman
Hot Globe, STEVE CHAPPLE, JUL 20, 2023
“………………………………………………………………………………. HOT GLOBE: It’s always bothered me that Saudi Arabia because of the Trump administration has now got access to the beginnings of nuclear power, and to a future nuclear bomb. The idea of selling small nuclear reactors around the world raises a pretty problematic point.
DORFMAN: That’s absolutely true. Saudi has made no bones about its nuclear ambitions and I mean its military nuclear ambitions. Saudi diplomats have said quite clearly that they’re looking towards Iran and that they’re seriously thinking about both civil and military nuclear. So there’s a potential for an arms race, a military nuclear arms race in the Middle East region. It’s actually even more bad news for the Middle East because in a proxy war if say, for example, Russian and America wanted to have a bit of a go and they didn’t want to absolutely destroy each other’s country where would they be fighting their proxy nuclear war? The first region that comes to mind is the Middle East and Saudi and Iran.
The economies of small nuclear reactors depend absolutely on production to scale. It’s been proven time and time again that in order to make any money at all, to break even on small nuclear production, you need to sell them abroad. Now, selling them abroad to whom, for what reasons? You’d be selling them to developing nations who may or may not have the capacity to regulate, to protect, to defend in depth, and so therefore you would be significantly expanding the potential for military nuclear risk whether that means a dirty bomb or further nuclear development.
HOT GLOBE: A slightly different question here, but Germany had ongoing nuclear plants and even though they were still producing electricity, they’ve shut those down. That may be a little puzzling to some Americans. Can you explain that?
DORFMAN: First of all, what Germany does is evidence-based policy. Germany puts out its scientific, technological questions, its energy questions, to well-funded high level research units. They go away and do their research. They come back with their research. They give it to the government departments and then the government makes a decision. So it’s evidence-based policy making. Over the years Germany has said well, we want to get to net-zero and we’re kind of worried about nuclear. Now around 2011 when Fukushima happened–remember Chancellor Merkel is a PhD chemist. She realized like many of us that even in an advanced society things could go badly wrong since accidents are by definition accidental.
HOT GLOBE: Good line
DORFMAN: Yeah, who knew? [laughs] So when Fukushima happened, Merkel and many others in Germany said well, look, we can’t stand the pain of this. I was having supper with Naoto Kan, the premier of Japan at the time of Fukushima after we both spoke in Westminster. Even then I was shocked when he turned to me and said that if the wind had been in the wrong direction, they would have lost Tokyo. The majority of the pollution went out into the Pacific Ocean. Now to the point about Germany. It’s landlocked so the Germans looked at the possibility of an accident and they came up with the numbers. It would cost trillions and trillions and trillions of Euros if they had a nuclear accident and they said look, we really can’t be doing this. This is just crazy, basically, and so we’re going to do “the German energy transition.” We’re going to try to lead the world on this and we’re going to move stepwise into renewables-plus, that’s renewables solar wind energy storage, interconnection, demand site management, energy management, distributed grids and a significant centralized upgrade of grids, too.
Now clearly Germany has a core problem, a fossil fuel problem, but they didn’t want to go down the fissile fuel route so Germany has said well OK for the time being we’re going to rely on gas but then we’re going to move to a full renewable economy. Well, the war has speeded that up. Since the war Germany has burnt less coal and Germany has shuttered all its nuclear power plants. It’s done this because what Germany says it will do, it does, unlike many other states. It set upon a route to go renewables. Now there is no such thing as a free lunch. Everything costs and there’s no perfect solution to the energy crisis, but what Germany is trying to do is to lead the world in this so-called energy transition, and I won’t spout numbers but basically what has happened is you’ve just seen significant renewable deployment, significant storage and a water storage as it were deployment which is sort of integrated into the power system and also integrated into the democratic system whereby by local communities also own the local renewable aspects of the local renewable power generation. It’s basically saying well look yes we can do this rather like Americans, you know, we have a dream, we will try to do this, it will be difficult but we will do our best to get there since the costs and the risks of nuclear are far too great. Let’s find a realistic, sustainable, positive, constructive way through……..
more https://hotglobe.substack.com/p/nuclear-power-is-already-a-climate
Prime Minister Albanese must abandon South Australian nuclear waste dump
Friends of the Earth Australia ‒ 18 July 2023
The Federal Court has today quashed the declaration of a proposed nuclear waste dump site near Kimba in SA, citing ‘pre-judgement’ and ‘apprehended bias’. The court case was initiated by Barngarla Traditional Owners, who are unanimous in their opposition to the proposed nuclear dump.
Dr. Jim Green, national nuclear campaigner with Friends of the Earth Australia, said:
“Today’s decision is an incredible victory for Barngarla Traditional Owners. Now Prime Minister Albanese must kill the nuclear dump plan stone dead.
“It is an outrage that the Albanese government has been attempting to impose a national nuclear waste dump on Barngarla country despite the unanimous opposition of the Traditional Owners.
“It is deeply hypocritical that the Albanese government has been championing a Voice to Parliament at the same time as it ignores and overrides the unanimous voice of the Barngarla Traditional Owners.”
Jane Stinson, Chair of the SA Parliament’s Environment, Resources and Development Committee, said last year: “In this day and age, when we’re talking about Voice, Treaty and Truth, we can’t just turn around and say, ‘Oh, well, those are our values but in this particular instance, we’re going to ignore the voice of Aboriginal people’. I think that’s just preposterous and it’s inconsistent with what most South Australians would think.”
Susan Close, now Deputy Premier of South Australia, said in 2019 that it was a “dreadful process from start to finish” that led to the nomination of the proposed Kimba dump site and that SA Labor is “utterly opposed” to the “appalling” process which led to Kimba being targeted.
Susan Close noted in 2020 statement, titled ‘Kimba site selection process flawed, waste dump plans must be scrapped’, that SA Labor “has committed to traditional owners having a right of veto over any nuclear waste sites, yet the federal government has shown no respect to the local Aboriginal people.”
Dr. Green continued:
“It is appalling that the Albanese government has been willing to violate the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples while at the same time professing to support the Declaration.”
The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples states that: “States shall take effective measures to ensure that no storage or disposal of hazardous materials shall take place in the lands or territories of indigenous peoples without their free, prior and informed consent.”
Dr. Green concluded:
“To date, the issue has been managed by federal resources minister Madeleine King. There appears to have been little or no input from caucus, Cabinet or the Prime Minister’s Office.
“Prime Minister Anthony Albanese needs to take control and declare that the rights of Barngarla Traditional Owners will be respected, today’s Federal Court decision will not be challenged, and the government will now abandon the plan to impose a nuclear waste dump on Barngarla country.
“Federal Labor should adopt SA Labor’s policy giving traditional owners a right of veto over proposed nuclear waste dump sites. That would give traditional owners across the country some confidence that their voices will be heard as the government progresses plans to store and dispose of waste arising from nuclear-powered submarines in the coming decades.”
Contact: Jim Green 0417 318 368
Background: ‘Labor must hear Indigenous voice against Kimba nuclear site’, inDaily, July 17.
Oppie biopic should rekindle Japanese A bombing debate
Walt Zlotow, West Suburban Peace CoalitionGlen , Ellyn IL 21 Jul 23
The movie ‘Oppenheimer’, based on ‘American Prometheus’ the Pulitzer Prize winning bio of J. Robert Oppenheimer, hits theaters today. Neatly bookended on the calendar between the July 16, 1945 A bomb test and the Hiroshima/Nagasaki strikes 3 weeks later, ‘Oppenheimer’ is sure to be an atomic like blockbuster.
Besides widely informing America of the epic life of possibly its most consequential American in history, it should also spur debate on the necessity for killing over a hundred thousand Japanese civilians in those 2 monstrous attacks.
The mainstream American narrative still portrays the bombings as necessary and just to end the Japanese war without an invasion projected to inflict a million US casualties.
I learned of the atomic bombings 72 years ago at age 6. For the first decade afterward, I swallowed whole the US fairytale that the military and political elite were unified in dropping the bombs to prevent that costly invasion.
Few if any reputable historians buy that version today. They point to a number of top military leaders who opposed the nuclear attacks, for good reasons. Most prominent was U.S. Army Chief of Staff General George C. Marshall who argued not using the Bomb would strengthen America’s prestige and position in post war Asia.
He even advocated for inviting the Russians to view its July 16, 1945 test. Navy Secretary and later Defense Secretary James Forrestal rightly argued the bombings would impede our post WWII relations with the Soviet Union. Fleet Admiral William Leahy, senior US military officer on active duty in WWII, called the proposed bombings “barbaric”.
Assistant Secretary of War John McCloy told Truman that neither invasion nor atomic bombings were necessary. Japan would surrender if we avoided ‘Unconditional Surrender’ terminology since any surrender would amount to that without saying so. McCloy even advocated telling Japanese leaders we had the Bomb as additional incentive to quit the war.
Tho not involved in the atomic bombing decision process, Gen. Dwight Eisenhower was furious we dropped them. He recounted telling Secretary of War Harry Stimson shortly after the attacks “I voiced my grave misgivings, first on my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly, because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of “face.”
Ike, McCloy, Leahy, Forestall, Marshall and others were right; Truman and his supporters were wrong. Seventy-eight years on America is still the only country to explode nukes in anger. Current US belligerency abrogating sensible nuclear agreements, routinely threatening imagined enemies with “all military options are no the table”, spending a trillion dollars to upgrade our nuclear capability, lurching toward nuclear confrontation with both Russia and China, all bode ill the world will make another 78 years nuclear attack free.
Every American concerned about avoiding nuclear winter should view ‘Oppenheimer’ and ponder the current nuclear dilemma facing peoplekind.
“Nuclear Power Is Already a Climate Casualty”
French Rivers Heat Up, Luck Is Not a Strategy for the Ukraine, – We Chat with Nuclear Expert Dr. Paul Dorfman
Hot Globe Substack, STEVE CHAPPLE, JUL 20, 2023
HOT GLOBE:
Paul, thanks for joining us. Let’s talk about nuclear and climate change.
PAUL DORFMAN:
Thanks, Steve. It’s important to understand that nuclear is very likely to be a significant climate casualty.
For cooling purposes nuclear reactors need to be situated by large bodies of water, which means either by the coast or inland by rivers or large water courses. Sea levels are rising much quicker than we had thought and inland the rivers are heating up, potentially drying up, and also subject to significant flooding and flash-flooding and inundation. The key issue for coastal nuclear is storm surge, which is basically where atmospheric conditions meet high tide, which is essentially what happens in Fukushima.
HOT GLOBE: The decommissioned nuclear plant in southern California at San Onofre is a case in point with the cans of nuclear waste still stored in a concrete containment box lapped by the rising tide–
DORFMAN: In France where I am right now [the government utility] just today put out once again warnings about their reactors having to power down because of low river flow, heated river flow. Now that’s not simply for reactor cooling. It’s about the water that the reactors are cooled by, which then need to be discharged back into the rivers. This super-heated water would basically kill the ecology. The reactors have to power down so as not to discharge heated waters back.
Nuclear has been touted as a potential ameliorated solution to climate. The problem, of course, is that nuclear will be, and relatively soon, a climate casualty, so coastal nuclear, unfortunately, is likely to flood via storm surge and inland nuclear will struggle more and more to get reactor cooling water and be able to discharge super-heated water to the receiving river waters.
“The notion that nuclear will will help us with climate is fortunately –unfortunately–simply not the case.”
HOT GLOBE: In America there’s an awful lot of new money sloshing around for climate remediation. Do you have an opinion on Small Nuclear Reactors?
DORFMAN: It’s not been simply I, but the former head of the US nuclear regulatory commission, the NRC, who coauthored a key study which says quite clearly that small modular reactors produce significantly more radioactive waste than conventional reactors. The waste issue is absolutely key, but there are other issues as well. I remember being invited to give a talk at the Royal United Services Institute in the UK, basically the governmental intellectual arm of the military. The compact design of small nuclear reactors is not suited to defense in depth of the nuclear island and the military guys really seemed to get and understand this, similar problem to conventional reactors in terms of safety and security as we’re finding out in Ukraine now.
The other issue is what’s known as the “economies of scale.” The bigger the nuclear plant the cheaper. ……….The economics of small nuclear reactors are proving deeply problematic. The cost per MW hour is rising. Already conventional reactors are hugely, massively, 4 to 5 times more expensive than renewables-plus, and it’s looking more and more that small nuclear reactors will have similar economic and finance problems, and of course small nuclear reactors are still in development. There are no functioning small nuclear reactors in the world producing conventional power, and they are many years from deployment.
So given the fact that we now know we have an existential climate crisis, small nuclear reactors and of course certainly conventional nuclear look to be far too costly and far too late to help the climate crisis.”
HOT GLOBE: Tell us a little bit about the situation in Zaporizhia. It comes and goes in the American media, but it seems pretty freaking scary to us over here in California! How do you estimate the dangers in the last month or so?
DORFMAN: We’ve been lucky so far but luck isn’t a strategy. Zaporizhia –6 very large nuclear power plants, the largest station in Europe with a very significant radiological inventory and critically very significant spent fuel, spent high level radiological nuclear inventory–is in the middle of a shooting war. Now there’s no way that any nuclear power plant can survive a concerted military attack. No nuclear power plant in the world is designed to do this. The International Atomic Energy agency has been very quiet about this for the last few decades which is kind of worrying given the fact that it seems obvious. Basically, people like me and many others haven’t wanted to talk about this in the past for fear of putting ideas into people’s heads, but the cat is really out of the bag now, and in an increasingly unstable world, it seems absolutely clear that nuclear risk for conventional civil nuclear plants is ramping up both in Zaporizhia and elsewhere whether in Israel, Iran, Pakistan, India or any other potential conflict zone. There’s a very real risk that existing and any new nuclear power plants will be in the firing line.
In Zaporizhia the key concern is cooling-–the cooling ponds are open but the reactors themselves are basically open in all these plants, too. They are in cold shutdown but they also need power to keep the internal sort of governance working, so both the reactors in cold shut down, not in active use and certainly the high level radioactive waste, need cooling. If something God forbid goes wrong you’ll see a worst case scenario. You’ll see what happened at Fukushima. Within eight hours you’ll see hydrogen buildup, hydrogen explosion. You’ll then see significant loss of cooling. If the backup diesel generators don’t run within a day or two, you could well see meltdown. The worst case prognosis is very grave.
HOT GLOBE: Oii. Explain the difference between Chernobyl and Fukushima in terms of Zaporizhia.
DORFMAN: Chernobyl was a graphite moderated reactor. Graphite is the kind of thing that you find on the inside of a pencil. When Chernobyl blew, this graphite was distributed high into the atmosphere and could blow far and wide. The kinds of reactors that you find in Zaporizhia are not, thank heavens, of that design. They are slightly newer Russian designed reactors which have gone through certain kinds of safety upgrades post Fukushima, not the spent fueling ponds but the reactors themselves, so if the worst were to happen, you wouldn’t see a Chernobyl. You would more likely see a Fukushima because you wouldn’t see this punch out of the graphite particles into the air, which would carry the radiation far and wide. What you would see, unfortunately, is very severe contamination of the immediate area and of the region, certainly of Ukraine, potentially Russia and certainly middle Europe. Now what’s also critically important post-accident is what would happen to the land. Ukraine is a very significant grain producing nation and other populations including the African population absolutely depend on this grain. So
that’s the thing about nuclear, if something goes wrong you can really start to write off a lot of people’s lives.
The high risk of this form of technology when we have other forms of technology that will lead us to net zero—there really isn’t any significantly good reason to go down the new nuclear route for whole sets of reasons and one of those reasons is we’re living in an increasingly unstable world and nuclear is increasingly, civil nuclear, is increasingly risky………………………………………….
more https://hotglobe.substack.com/p/nuclear-power-is-already-a-climate
Start from scratch call as nuclear dump plan shelved
Yahoo Sport, Tim Dornin, Wed, 19 July 2023
The Commonwealth needs to go back to the drawing board on plans for a nuclear waste dump and put all options back on the table, the South Australian government says.
Following the Federal Court’s move to set aside a decision to build the dump on SA’s Eyre Peninsula, Deputy Premier Susan Close said it was important for the Commonwealth to take a cautious approach to where the facility might best be located.
“I think it’s important they start from the beginning about where it’s most suitable,” she said.
“Where is the material coming from, where is the geological stability and where is the community acceptance?”
Dr Close said the previous coalition government had botched the process, exaggerating the urgency for the facility and excluding the Indigenous community.
“As a result, it’s come a cropper in the court, as it should have,” she said.
The deputy premier said given the level of angst surrounding the Kimba location in SA, it would be best to start from scratch.
The previous government decided to build the dump at Napandee, near Kimba, in November 2021, when it announced it had acquired 211 hectares of land with the proposed facility subject to heritage, design and technical studies…….
But the proposal faced strong opposition from the Barngarla traditional owners and environmental groups.
Earlier this year the Barngarla went to the Federal Court seeking a judicial review of the government’s declaration and on Tuesday Justice Natalie Charlesworth upheld one of their four grounds.
She said the only appropriate order was to set aside the whole of the declaration made by former resources minister Keith Pitt.
The Barngarla Aboriginal Determination Corporation welcomed the decision, describing the fight against the dump as crucial to First Nations people around the country.
Resources Minister Madeleine King said Labor had worked with the Barngarla people in the last term of parliament to ensure they secured the right to seek judicial review of the decision to acquire the site and that she would review the judgment. 2023
https://au.sports.yahoo.com/start-scratch-call-nuclear-dump-072229979.html
Karina’s father went blind at Emu Field. Now, she’s fighting for a treaty on nuclear weapons.
The Yankunytjatjara Anangu woman talked about the devastating effect the testing had on her family, including the loss of her father.
Karina Lester knows the fallout nuclear weapons can cause.
Her father, the late Yami Lester, went blind as a young man after the British tested atomic weapons in Emu Field.
“The scars are still felt on our Country,” said Ms Lester, a Yankunytjatjara Anangu woman from north-west South Australia.
“And the scars are still evident on our people.”
A group of Australian atomic survivors and relatives visited Canberra on Wednesday to speak with government decision-makers about their experiences of the British nuclear testing program in WA and SA.
They are calling on Prime Minister Anthony Albanese to sign the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.
In 1953 the British initiated a program of nuclear testing in Australia at the Montebello Islands, off the coast of WA and in Emu Field in South Australia.
Two years later, the British government announced a larger site for the tests at Maralinga.
Ms Lester carries her family’s stories about the impacts of the tests on her people.
“I had a grandmother of mine needing to dig a grave to bury her parents because soon after the radiation fallout, the elderly people started to suffer and die,” she said.
“My father never saw me or my children.
“It’s all because of a decision by governments of the day to say ‘That is no man’s country, go and test your bombs’.
“It’s been a huge, painful journey for us but it’s such an important story that needs to be told.”
Maxine Goodwin is the daughter of an Australian nuclear veteran who became ill as a result of his involvement in the first atomic test in WA.
“Signing the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons is a significant step towards addressing the harm experienced by individuals and communities,” she said.
In October 1953 when the British detonated the Totem I and II nuclear bombs at Emu Field, Yankunytjatjara, Antikarinya and Pitjantjatjara woman June Lennon was only a few months old.
Her family witnessed the tests and have suffered from ill-health since.
“The government didn’t tell the truth about the nuclear testing program,” she said.
“There were so many lies. They didn’t tell people what they were doing.”
International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons Australia director Gem Romuld said it was important for policy makers to hear stories firsthand.
“Nuclear survivors are experts on the devastating humanitarian impacts of nuclear weapons,” she said.
“Australia’s experience with nuclear weapons testing is a powerful motivation to join the nuclear weapon ban treaty.”
The delegation will be in Canberra on Wednesday and Thursday to meet parliamentarians, including Foreign Minister Penny Wong and speak at an event hosted by the Parliamentary Friends of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.
Examining the impact of the legal decision against the planned Kimba nuclear waste dump.
Here’s what we know about the Kimba nuclear storage facility decision, By Josephine Lim ABC News 18 Jul 23
This week the federal court ruled in favour of traditional owners who have been fighting against the
development of a nuclear waste facility
The federal government had selected a site in South Australia’s Eyre Peninsula to store low and
intermediate level radioactive waste, but the court’s decision has left the future of the project uncertain.
The uncertainty extends far beyond the court’s decision as the facility will never see the light of day due to i t s c o m p l e t e a n d i n h e r e n t unsuitability which includes the environmental implications and the lack of compliance with international standards and prescriptions relating to nuclear installations and their .safety
Here’s what we know so far. What did the original proposal entail?
In November 2021, Napandee near the town of Kimba, was acquired to be the storage facility for low and
medium-level nuclear waste.
The 211-hectare property was chosen from a shortlist of three sites, including the outback town of
Lyndhurst and Wallerberdina, a property in the northern Flinders Ranges
At the time, Coalition resources minister Keith Pitt said the site would create 45 permanent jobs in
the Kimba community.
Absolute nonsense since based on overseas experience similar but larger facilities employ some 15
people with very minimal external support staff.
T h i s h a s b e e n c o n s t a n t l y disingenuous information by Pitt for which he should be severely taken to task as it developed completely unrealistic expectations by the Kimba community.
Yesterday, he said on ABC’s Afternoon Briefing that he was “incredibly disappointed for the
people of Kimba” following the court’s findings.
If a proper survey were done then
most people of Kimba would be
heartened by and pleased with the
court’s decision as they are
completely against the proposed
facility.
“The piece of land on which this was going to be cited did not have a native title. It is a dryland wheat
farm,” he said.
No, it is not
It is like most of Kimba prone to ground water seepage and basic geological and geophysical surveys
show this to be the case making it grossly unsuitable for the facility
He said more than 60 per cent of the local community supported the project, citing a postal ballot that only local ratepayers were allowed to vote in.
If a proper ballot were now held (which should have been the case in the first place) with the voting accompanied by in favour and a g a i n s t a r g u m e n t s a n d a n unrestricted voting base then the majority against the facility would be significant even if it still excluded the Barngarla people
Why did the Barngarla people fight the plan?
The Barngarla people have a sacred site for women near Kimba, which they fear a facility would destroy.”The Seven Sisters Dreaming is through that area,” Barngarla woman Dawn Taylor said.
“But the Seven Sisters Dreaming means a lot to all of us as women, in each tribe, throughout the country.”
The Barngarla Determination Aboriginal Corporation (BDAC)launched the challenge in the Federal Court in a bid to stop the site from going ahead altogether.
BDAC chairman Jason Bilney said he felt “very emotional” winning a “David versus Goliath” battle.
“It’s the fight that we continue and you feel it from the heart no matter where we are, whether it’s our
Country or other people’s Country,” he said outside court.
D a v i d a n d G o l i a t h is an understatement when the federal government has spent nearly $14
million fighting the application by the Barngarla who have apparently spent less than $700,000 to mount
the review application in totality.
What did the court find?
The Federal Court upheld a complaint by the Barngarla people on the ground there was apprehended bias in the decisionmaking process by former federal minister Keith Pitt in selecting the site
In upholding the apprehension of bias argument, Justice Natalie Charlesworth found that the
Coalition minister, who formally declared the site in 2021, could be seen to have a “foreclosed mind” on
the issue “simply because his statements strongly conveyed the impression that his mind was made
up”
Lawyer for the Barngarla people, Nick Llewellyn-Jones, said findings of apprehended bias against a
minister were “very rare” and the judgement was significant in terms of legal precedent.
“It’s set a precedent for Aboriginal groups to take a stand, it’s set a precedent also in terms, I believe, of what standards are required of Commonwealth ministers,” Mr Llewellyn-Jones said.
“What we’ve had here is a finding of apprehension of bias, we haven’t reviewed the decision fully, but it’s
obviously got some consequence in terms of the conduct the minister did at the time and it will have some authority value in terms of that as well
The bias on the part of Pitt may have been even more than apprehended since well before the passing of the enabling legislation for formal decision of the site he had selected and nominated Napandee as the location for the facility and was upset at the delay in passing that legislation for reasons that to him were unnecessary and lengthy
“Our clients have won and it’s obviously a great victory for them but in fact it’s a vindication of the
entire system that we have that people out there do have options when government affects their
lives.”
Justice Charlesworth also found there was an error of law, but concluded it did not have a “material effect” on the outcome of the declaration of the site.
How has the government responded?
Federal Labor Minister for Resources Madeleine King issued a statement that the court’s decision will be reviewed in detail but declined to comment further.
“Labor worked with the Barngarla people in the last term of Parliament to ensure they secured the right to seek judicial review of the decision to acquire the facility site,” she said
That is absolutely untrue since the Barngarla people had to continue with the review application and the enabling legislation as eventually agreed to by Labor was still well short of what was requested and expected of which I have personal knowledge as among other things I had many discussions with various members of parliament and had assisted in drafting an appropriate amendment to the legislation
When the legislation was eventually passed in the Senate I contacted Minister King who was then shadow minister for resources and explained that it was a totally unacceptable piece of legislation which she strongly and quite ignorantly refuted.
I had previously drafted an amendment to the legislation while it was still at the bill stage in the Senate under which the government and the responsible ministers would have been required to adhere completely to the codes and standards and the prescriptions of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) which was not accepted
Had this amendment been adopted than none of the present litigation with its accompanying acrimony would have been necessary since IAEA would have ensured that the government completely complied with and adhered to its standards and prescriptions.
“The principle of judicial review is an important process that the Albanese Government fully supports.”
The best way to support this application for a review would have been to agree to the review without
any contest. An appeal by the government will be an absolute lie to this proposition.
What have those in favour of the waste facility said?
Kimba farmer Kerri Cliff said the court outcome was ” pretty devastating for the majority of the
community” and expressed concerns about the economic future of the town.
“It’s a decision being made about Kimba, but not by the people that live here,” she said.
Aside from jobs at the facility, an Australian Government economic impact assessment report found the
project would have brought over $95 million to Kimba and the Flinders Ranges in the first 33 years.
Regrettably, the unconvincing notion that the facility would have brought a new economic life to Kimba is
completely misconceived and untrue
If anything it may have well destroyed a well-established and long-standing agricultural industry in the whole of the Eyre Peninsula.
What happens now?
The future of the project is in severe doubt and legal costs are also yet to be determined. The federal government is yet to say whether it would make an appeal against the court’s decision or look at a different location to store nuclear waste.
The government should be careful in considering a possible appeal since it may in any case face fresh legal opposition to its proposals by the general community at Kimba for failing to comply with all the safety codes and requirements of IAEA Local federal member
Rowan Ramsey told ABC Radio Adelaide’s Jules Schiller that the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency said that there would be no more room to store nuclear waste at Sydney’s Lucas Heights site “beyond 2028”
“Given that now the government has to find a new site and build a new facility in five years, you may as well be whistling into the wind,” Mr Ramsey said.
But Australian Conservation Foundation campaigner Dave Sweeney said 95 per cent of radioactive waste had been storedsecurely at the Lucas Heights facility and that “material can remain there securely for decades to come”.
He said he hoped the federal government could use this decision to discuss how to better manage nuclear waste in Australia. “It’s a result that will hopefully draw a line under decades of mismanagement of radioactive waste and inject some responsibility, some respect and some recognitioninto future discussions,” he said
“It’s long overdue now, and particularly against a context of AUKUS nuclear submarines and speculation about domestic nuclear power, we need to be serious and stop playing politics and stop looking for a vulnerable community to dump radioactive waste in.”
Australia must far better manage its nuclear waste This lack of proper management stems from the ignorance and incapacity of the federal government from ministerial level through its various departments and agencies failing to accept or acknowledge the international requirements for that
purpose
In conclusion I can only hope that t h e m e m b e r s o f t h e K i m b a community who feel aggrieved by the court’s decision and are seeking the establishment of the facility as an alternative to the district’s economic growth would actually be bitterlydisappointed if that were to occur
In any case, they should realise that the government is attempting to create a false economy which will
not survive and is based on the wholly unsuitable plan for the facility that will not get the necessary approvals for its establishment.
While it was suggested in an interview on Sky News this morning that many people had left the Kimba
district in the past four years this I understand stems from them being unconvinced and even fearful of the facility’s presence.
If the government as the proponent of the facility were prepared to fund a proper and independent expert review of its plans for Kimba then I am sure that those people will be shocked at the result.
Time for dump to be dumped for good.
The state’s peak environment group has strongly welcomed today’s Federal Court judgement that sets aside the declaration of Napandee (Kimba) as the site for the Australia’s nuclear waste facility.
“Today is an extraordinary vindication of the years’ long struggle by the Barngarla people to stand up for their Country, their Dreaming and their right to be heard,” said Conservation SA Chief Executive Craig Wilkins
“This case was never about whether imposing nuclear waste on Kimba was the right thing to do, but now the court has declared that the process the Federal Government undertook was never even legal.
“The Morrison Government, first with Matt Canavan as Minister, then with Keith Pitt, tried to force through a deeply divisive and deeply flawed proposal.
“They stuffed up the process and their relationship with the local community, particularly the Barngarla Traditional Owners.
“Now this comprehensive judgement has been handed down, there is only one appropriate course of action open for the Albanese Government and the Federal Resources Minister Madeleine King: to declare the Kimba waste dump dead and buried.
“It was Labor’s amendment to the Morrison Government’s legislation that gave the Barngarla their day in court today. The Albanese Government now needs to move quickly to reassure the Barngarla they will shelve the project in its entirety.
“Today’s monumental decision offers an exciting opportunity to reset the relationship between the Federal Government, Aboriginal people and nuclear waste.
“In many ways the real work starts now: to find the final resting place for Australia’s long lived radioactive waste – not a deeply deficient and illegal process to park the waste temporarily in above ground sheds in South Australia.
“Huge congratulations to Jason Bilney, Chair of the Barngarla Aboriginal Determination Corporation, Barngarla Elders and the rest of the community for the stunning result, and for standing strong on behalf of all Australians,” he said.
Great British Nuclear: High on hype, Low on substance
“How is Great British Nuclear meant to take forward the SMR competition when it has no operating budget, no legal powers, no permanent staff team, and no base from which to operate?”
“How is GBN meant to take forward the SMR competition when it has no operating budget, no legal powers, no permanent staff team, and no base from which to operate?”
https://www.nuclearpolicy.info/news/great-british-nuclear-high-on-hype-low-on-substance/ 18 Jul 23
Energy Secretary Grant Shapps finally launched ‘Great’ British Nuclear today (18 July), but whilst the minister’s announcement was big on hype, the UK/Ireland Nuclear Free Local Authorities noticed that it was short on substance.
Great British Nuclear was the new body announced by former Prime Minister Boris Johnson in April 2022 as part of his revised energy strategy. GBN is supposed to be front and centre of a ‘rapid expansion of nuclear power at an unprecedented scale and pace’, but the formal launch of the initiative has been put on hold several times, including humiliatingly at the eleventh-hour last week.
Nuclear in the UK has made little progress since April 2022. EDF Energy, which is building the only nuclear plant under construction at Hinkley Point C, has recently announced a further delay in delivery and a huge increase in costs, whilst its reactor design – the EPR-1 – has been beset with serious safety and reliability issues, with an accident at Taishan-1 in China and repeated delays to the start-up of its reactor in Olkiluoto in Finland. And the UK government has so far failed to engender any interest within the financial markets to back its Sizewell C development, meaning that the British and French governments (and ultimately taxpayers) continue to carry the can.
More faith is being placed by ministers on the development of so-called Small and Advanced Modular Reactors, with GBN’s role being to provide oversight to a competition amongst rival designs to select those deemed worthy of government funding to take forward through the regulatory approvals process and onto deployment. Such reactors would be fabricated remotely and then taken in parts for assembly on site, but all is not rosy – developments costs are rising exponentially, none of the designs are proven to be safe or reliable, none have been built, the financial position of some developers is becoming uncertain, and there remains the intractable radioactive waste problem.
NFLA Chair, Councillor Lawrence O’Neill identified some of the remaining challenges following today’s press conference:
“Like much concerning nuclear, once again when we look at GBN there is a noticeable disconnect between the upbeat speech of the Energy Secretary and the actual reality on the ground.
“Mr Shapps announced a further £157 million in government funding for nuclear, but this sum is small beer relative to the billions required to get any plant up and running, and strangely absent, yet again, was any clear indication of where the money to fund the operation of Great British Nuclear would come from. Figures of up to £500 million per year have been bandied about, and the NFLA has previously pointed out that this funding shortfall was also noticeable in the Chancellor’s Spring Budget where much was made of the ‘promise’ of GBN, but with no money to follow it.
“Furthermore, Great British Nuclear still does not have all its legal powers to function, including the power to award funding for future nuclear development. Its powers are contained within the Energy Bill currently in its Reporting Stage before the House of Commons in Parliament, and this still needs to clear its final hurdles before receiving Royal Assent and becoming legislation. As the recess is almost upon us, with MPs leaving for their summer holidays, no further progress can be made before the autumn. In addition, GBN only has an interim staff team and no real headquarters.
“How is GBN meant to take forward the SMR competition when it has no operating budget, no legal powers, no permanent staff team, and no base from which to operate?”
Mostly damningly, Emeritus Professor of Energy Policy at the University of Greenwich, Stephen Thomas, has poured scorn on the ‘promise’ of Small and Advanced Modular Reactors in his recent paper:
which includes quotes:
‘The much-hyped Small Modular Reactors are a long way from being commercially available and the claims for them being cheaper than large reactors are not credible’.
‘Advanced Modular Reactors have all been talked about for 50 years or more. However, they have either been built as unsuccessful prototypes or demonstration plants or not been built at all as power reactors. All AMR designs will require major innovations if they are to be technically viable’.
The NFLAs are at one with Professor Thomas in condemning the British Government’s continued foolhardy obsession with unproven, unreliable and potentially unsafe new nuclear, when renewable technologies already exist that can deliver affordable, sustainable electricity far more quickly and far more cheaply.
Councillor O’Neill concluded:
“Every pound spent on the vainglorious pursuit of nuclear power means a pound denied to investment in a national programme of insulation and energy efficiency measures to bring down energy usage and customer bills or a pound denied to investment in solar, wind, hydro, biomass, geothermal, tidal or wave power projects that, in combination with energy storage solutions, can provide more affordable, sustainable electricity to meet our nation’s energy needs right now.”
Brussels: Global Women For Peace United Against NATO Meet With EU Parliament, NATO Representatives
SCHEERPOST, By Colonel (Ret) Ann Wright / Popular Resistance, July 18, 2023
The weekend before the NATO summit in Vilnius, Lithuania, Global Women for Peace United against NATO representing women in 35 countries met July 6-9, 2023 for three days of peace discussions in Brussels, Belgium.
I am writing with details of each of the excellent panels and webinars to provide a sense of the numbers of women from around the world who participated in the program.
Photos of the various events in the conference are being posted in the media section of the Global Women’s website. Video recordings of the sessions are included for each session, but due to technical problems with the recordings, some are not of as good of quality as we had wished.
Global Women Meet With Members of the European Parliament
On July 6, 2023, twenty Global Women delegates met with members of the European Parliament to express their concern about the war-making role of NATO. The meeting was moderated by Skeyi Koukouma, from Cyprus, Secretary General of the Progressive Women’s Movement POGO. Irish member of the European Parliament Clare Daly and German member of the European Parliament Özlem Demirel spoke to the Global Women delegation about their concerns about NATO. The delegation gave a copy of the founding statement of Global Women to the members of the European Parliament.
MEP Clare Daly forcefully said that war and militarism are anathema to feminism and equality and stressed that equality, justice and peace are the principles that underpin women’s struggle for freedom. She emphasized that there is no place for militarism or the use of violence to achieve geopolitical goals. She underscored that NATO’s purpose is domination, not justice or the defense of human rights. MEP Daly emphasized that women must resist NATO’s policies, calling for its dismantling and the restoration of equality and peace and not allow NATO to co-opt the use of the term “Feminine Foreign Policy” and “Women, Gender and Equality.”
In her speech, MEP Özlem Demirel referred to the need for immediate demilitarization and obtaining peace only through peaceful means. She also stressed that the funds given for the purchase of arms and military equipment are at the expense of having funds for the strengthening of health, education and other services for the people worldwide.
Almost all of the twenty Global Women delegates took turns speaking, each emphasizing the problems faced in their countries because of NATO’s military actions and mandatory military expenditures. The need for world peace, demilitarization, for human services such as health and education and for strengthening the protection of human rights was emphasized by all delegates…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
We will continue to meet to strengthen our international/global solidarity and plan for actions July 9-11, 2024 in Washington, DC for the 75th anniversary of NATO. https://scheerpost.com/2023/07/18/brussels-global-women-for-peace-united-against-nato-meet-with-eu-parliament-nato-representatives/
Heatwaves are new normal as 50C hits US and China – UN
The extreme temperatures sweeping the globe this week are the new normal in
a world warmed by climate change, the UN weather agency says. Temperatures
went over 50C (122F) in parts of the US and China on Sunday. The World
Meteorological Organisation warned the heatwave in Europe could continue
into August. Millions around the world are under heat advisories as
officials warn of danger to life from the hot temperatures. Night-time in
Europe and the US is not expected to bring widespread relief as
temperatures stay above 30C in places including Arizona or southern Spain.
BBC 17th July 2023
Only neutral countries can bring peace to Ukraine – Brazil
https://www.rt.com/news/579835-brazilian-fm-weapons-deliveries-ukraine/ 18 Jul 23
Foreign Minister Mauro Vieira told RIA Novosti that several countries are willing to join his nation’s peace efforts
Brazil is against weapons deliveries to either party in the Ukraine-Russia conflict, Foreign Minister Mauro Vieira has said. The diplomat also predicted that peace would eventually be achieved with the help of nations which have not taken sides, such as Brazil and African countries.
In an interview with Russia’s RIA Novosti published on Monday, Vieira stressed that Brasilia has consistently voiced its opposition to arms shipments to Kiev and Moscow.
According to the diplomat, “several countries are ready to join” Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva’s peace efforts. The minister cited the initiatives recently put forward by a group of African nations.
“This will take time, but it’s precisely this that will lead to peace which we are striving for,” Vieira insisted.
While on an official visit to Rome last month, President Lula argued that Russia and Ukraine both need to compromise to end the conflict.
“The two parties both need to get something. Only the Russians and the Ukrainians know what they need to reach peace,” he said at the time.
The Brazilian head of state also called into question the EU’s capacity for mediation, arguing that the bloc is effectively involved in the conflict. Lula went on to name India, Mexico, and African nations as potential neutral peace brokers.
Moscow has blamed Kiev for the lack of peace negotiations, pointing out that last year Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky signed a decree that rules out talks for as long as his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, remains in power.
The Ukrainian government insists it will only negotiate after driving Russian forces out from all territories within its 1991 borders. Zelensky has proposed a peace plan of his own, which calls for a Russian withdrawal, reparations, and a tribunal for alleged war criminals.
Moscow has rejected the idea, describing it as detached from reality.
1 This month
Chernobyl: The Lost Tapes – A good documentary on Chernobyl on SBS available On Demand for the next 3 weeks– https://www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/tv-program/chernobyl-the-lost-tapes/2352741955560
15 April – Zoom –Nuclear Power is Not the Solution
Apr 15, 2026 01:00 AM in Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney
Join the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW) on Tuesday, April 14th for a timely webinar exploring the risks associated with nuclear power and challenging the myth that it offers a simple, safe, carbon-free solution to the climate crisis
21 April Webinar: No Nuclear Weapons in Australia
Start: 2026-04-21 18:00:00 UTC Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney (GMT+10:00)
End: 2026-04-21 19:30:00 UTC Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney (GMT+10:00)
Event Type: Virtual
A virtual link will be communicated before the event.
Host Contact Info: australia@icanw.org
of the week – Australians for War Powers Reform (AWPR)
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
Antinuclear 