Crooked company Price Waterhouse Cooper STILL HAS ACCESS TO THE DEFENCE SECRET NETWORK
Greens Senator David Shoebridge likened PwC advising the Government to “Dracula at the blood bank” after it was discovered that PwC also still has access to the Defence Secret Network.
Greens Senator David Shoebridge likened PwC advising the Government to “Dracula at the blood bank” after it was discovered that PwC also still has access to the Defence Secret Network.
The PwC disaster — Neoliberalism on steroids
Independent Australia By Michelle Pini | 1 June 2023
Australians are tired of neoliberalism. We are sick of that much talked about and ever-widening gap between the haves and have-nots.
The idea that endless privatisation and unfettered corporate greed will somehow leave us all better off no longer appears to be swallowed by the vast majority of Australians. Certainly, public confidence in our political leaders as well as in our institutions has been severely eroded in recent years.
PUBLIC PAIN FOR PRIVATE GAIN
This week, the Pricewaterhouse Cooper (PwC) scandal – in which nine (as yet unidentified) partners of the consultancy firm enlisted to help the Coalition Government design tax laws, leaked confidential Treasury information to benefit PwC’s private clients – has left Australians outraged.
And if that’s not enough, it was revealed on Tuesday (30 March) that PwC is also:
“…The internal auditor of both Treasury and the AFP.”
This adds another level of complication to an already convoluted matter, given the Australian Federal Police (AFP) chose not to investigate the matter, despite being urged to do so by the Australian Tax Office (ATO) over a period of two years.
Appearing before Senate Estimates, ATO Commissioner Chris Jordan said:
“After sharing the information with the Australian Federal Police (AFP) over the period 2018 and 2019, and providing a number of documents upon their request after our initial sample of the emails, we had to ultimately formally refer the matter to the Tax Practitioners Board in July 2020.”
Jordan explained that once the AFP investigation was closed the only option was the Tax Practitioners Board, since:
“There was nowhere else to go.”
But an AFP spokesperson said there was “insufficient information” to proceed.
According to a report in the Financial Review:
he AFP assessed, based on the material that the ATO provided, was that there was insufficient information in the material, to support a formal referral … In consultation and agreement with the ATO, the matter was closed in 2019.”
Greens Senator David Shoebridge likened PwC advising the Government to “Dracula at the blood bank” after it was discovered that PwC also still has access to the Defence Secret Network.
SHARING BUT NOT CARING
And Australians watched, mouths agape, as the PwC tax scandal finally exploded, resulting in nine directors being “stood down” and our government institutions – to which the firm still consults – were left exposed. Of course, since PwC is a private company, no information has been shared with the public as to who these directors may be, what is meant by “stood down” or what redundancies they may take with them if their directorships are ever severed — never mind disciplinary action.
It’s a pity sharing information about its own lack of accountability does not appear to be a likely move from the consultancy firm that has received eyewatering amounts of taxpayer funds for advising the Federal Government — before also sharing confidential government information with its own client base.
And it’s not only PwC that contributes to this “shadow public service” concept so favoured by the former Coalition Government. An audit (not conducted by PwC, thankfully) has shown close to $21 billion was spent by the Morrison Government on external labour hires in the public service in 2021-22, alone………………………………… https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/the-pwc-disaster–neoliberalism-on-steroids,17570#disqus_thread
$528 Billion nuclear clean-up at Hanford Site in jeopardy
The government now appears to be seriously considering whether it will be necessary to leave thousands of gallons of leftover waste buried forever in Hanford’s shallow underground tanks, according to some of those familiar with the negotiations, and protect some of the waste not in impenetrable glass, but in a concrete grout casing that would almost certainly decay thousands of years before the toxic materials that it is designed to hold at bay.
At site after site, the solution has come down to a choice between an expensive, decades-long cleanup or quicker action that leaves a large amount of waste in place.
A Poisonous Cold War Legacy That Defies a Solution
NYT, By Ralph Vartabedian, Reporting from Richland, Wash., May 31, 2023
From 1950 to 1990, the U.S. Energy Department produced an average of four nuclear bombs every day, turning them out of hastily built factories with few environmental safeguards that left behind a vast legacy of toxic radioactive waste.
Nowhere were the problems greater than at the Hanford Site in Washington State, where engineers sent to clean up the mess after the Cold War discovered 54 million gallons of highly radioactive sludge left from producing the plutonium in America’s atomic bombs, including the one dropped on the Japanese city of Nagasaki in 1945.
Cleaning out the underground tanks that were leaching poisonous waste toward the Columbia River just six miles away and somehow stabilizing it for permanent disposal presented one of the most complex chemical problems ever encountered. Engineers thought they had solved it years ago with an elaborate plan to pump out the sludge, embed it in glass and deposit it deep in the mountains of the Nevada desert.
But construction of a five-story, 137,000 square-foot chemical treatment plant for the task was halted in 2012 — after an expenditure of $4 billion — when it was found to be riddled with safety defects. The naked superstructure of the plant has stood in mothballs for 11 years, a potent symbol of the nation’s failure, nearly 80 years after the Second World War, to deal decisively with the atomic era’s deadliest legacy.
The cleanup at Hanford is now at an inflection point. The Energy Department has been in closed-door negotiations with state officials and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, trying to revamp the plan. But many fear the most likely compromises, which could be announced in the coming months, will put the speed and quality of the cleanup at risk.
The government now appears to be seriously considering whether it will be necessary to leave thousands of gallons of leftover waste buried forever in Hanford’s shallow underground tanks, according to some of those familiar with the negotiations, and protect some of the waste not in impenetrable glass, but in a concrete grout casing that would almost certainly decay thousands of years before the toxic materials that it is designed to hold at bay.
“The Energy Department is coming to a big crossroads,” said Thomas Grumbly, a former assistant secretary at the department who oversaw the early days of the project during the Clinton administration.
Successive energy secretaries over the last 30 years, he said, “have slammed their heads against the wall” to come up with a technology and budget that would make the problem go away not only at Hanford, but also at other nuclear weapons sites around the country.
Plants in South Carolina, Washington, Ohio and Idaho that helped produce more than 60,000 atomic bombs have tons of radioactive debris that will be radioactive for thousands of years. And unlike nuclear power plants, whose waste consists of dry uranium pellets locked away in metal tubes, the weapons facilities are dealing with millions of gallons of a peanut butter-like sludge stored in aging underground tanks.
Two million pounds of mercury remain in the soils and waters of eastern Tennessee. Radioactive plumes are contaminating the Great Miami aquifer near Cincinnati.
At site after site, the solution has come down to a choice between an expensive, decades-long cleanup or quicker action that leaves a large amount of waste in place.
Hanford, some 580 square miles of shrub-steppe desert in south-central Washington State, is the largest and most contaminated of all the weapons production sites — too polluted to ever be returned to public use. But the problem is urgent, given the risk of radionuclides contaminating the Columbia River, a vital lifeline for cities, farms, tribes and wildlife in two states……………………………………………………………………………………………………
“The closer you get to the bottom of those tanks, the more radioactive, toxic and dangerous waste is,” said Geoffrey Fettus, a lawyer with the Natural Resources Defense Council, which has sued the government over the Hanford cleanup………………………………………………………………. more https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/31/us/nuclear-waste-cleanup.html
Defence reveals seven new PwC contracts worth $6m after tax scandal broke
Crikey, ANTON NILSSON MAY 31, 2023
The Defence Department has reported seven contracts with PwC, worth a total of nearly $6 million, since the firm’s tax scandal broke, Crikey can reveal.
Greens Senator David Shoebridge told Crikey that Parliamentary Library research showed the single contract worth the most money — $4.6 million for “management advisory services” — started on February 1.
That’s just over a week after the Tax Practitioner’s Board (TPB) issued a media release revealing PwC’s former tax partner Peter-John Collins had been deregistered as a tax agent over integrity breaches……………………………
Crikey can reveal the Defence Department entered into the following contracts with PwC after January 23:………………………………………………….
In total, the Defence Department has 54 contracts with PwC, also known as PricewaterhouseCoopers, worth a total of $223,299,943, the department’s Associate Secretary Matt Yannopoulos told Senate estimates on Tuesday. …………..
The senator, who is the Greens’ defence spokesperson, told Crikey the tax scandal hadn’t stopped the department “signing contract after contract with PwC”.
“This isn’t a single contract from a rogue tender panel, it’s at least seven contracts for work across the entire [Australian Defence Force]” Shoebridge said. “What this shows is how deeply PwC has its tentacles into the defence establishment and how complicit defence is with that cosy arrangement.”…………………………
https://www.crikey.com.au/2023/05/31/defence-pwc-contracts-tax-scandal/?utm_campaign=crikeyworm&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter
Plan to release Fukushima nuclear plant water into sea faces local opposition: “The sea is not a garbage dump”
CBS BY ELIZABETH PALMER, MAY 31, 2023
Japan’s government is asking for international backup as it prepares to release thousands of gallons of water from the Fukushima nuclear power plant into the sea. The plan has alarmed the public and outraged fishermen — even as the international energy agency looks inclined to back it.
………….The plant sits in what was a lush coastal part of Japan, famous for its seafood and delicious fruit. Today, there’s still no-go area around the power station where fields lie fallow and homes sit abandoned.
Inside a high security fence studded with warning signs, engineers are still working to remove radioactive fuel rods that melted inside the reactors. They’ll be at it for decades.
Another problem is piling up in hundreds of metal tanks on the site: they contain more than a million tons of contaminated water.
…………………………………….. “Piping water into the sea is an outrage,” said Haruo Ono, who has been fishing the ocean off the coast of Fukushima all his life.
“The sea is not a garbage dump,” he said. “The company says it’s safe, but the consequences could catch up with us 50 years down the road.”
………………………………..Haruo Ono, the fisherman, said the science is not the issue.
“People don’t understand it,” he said. “Mothers won’t choose Fukushima fish knowing it’s been swimming in radioactive water. Even if the experts say it’s safe.”
Under current rules, he can only take his fishing vessels out to sea a day or two a week, when he gets the OK from the government.
“This is the end of my livelihood,” he said.
……………. The Fukushima nuclear plant won’t be safely decommissioned for years to come. So far taxpayers have paid $90 billion to clean it up. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/fukushima-nuclear-plant-water-plan-release-into-sea-fear-controversy/
Dutton’s nuclear plan doesn’t add up
Our Government has done the homework and the results are in. Renewables are the cheapest form of power, they are available right now. We have doubled approvals of renewable projects and the sector is already supporting thousands of jobs across the country. And no matter which way you try to add up the numbers that is the truth.
Senator Nita Green, https://cqtoday.com.au/news/2023/06/01/duttons-nuclear-plan-doesnt-add-up/
If Peter Dutton’s nuclear energy plan was a school assignment, he would get an ‘F’ for Fantasy. It’s all about make-believe mathematics and empty promises.
I know being honest with numbers is a strange concept to the Liberal National Party, but if they want to to keep pushing a nuclear plan in regional Queensland they need to be honest about the facts, especially about the costs.
We know that nuclear power is the most expensive form of power. It costs a bucket load. Instead of driving costs down, it would drive costs up.
One small reactor would cost $5 billion to build. Doing the maths on the 80 small reactors that would be needed under the LNPs plan, that would cost $400 billion.
That’s the same as building 1600 Townsville Stadiums. Or put another way, it’s like paying for the NDIS 13 times over in one year. What essential services in regional Queensland would Peter Dutton cut to pay for this plan?
The other thing they don’t mention is the time it would take to get dispatchable power under this plan. Because even if they could find the funds, it will likely be decades before the first nuclear reactor would be operational. Anyone who thinks you could switch on nuclear energy tomorrow is living in la la land.
Globally there are delays in building these reactors, and in Australia, we don’t have the specialised workforce or regulatory or safety framework to run them. It just won’t meet the urgent need for power that we have now.
The other thing Peter Dutton won’t say is how many jobs this form of energy would support. And there’s a reason for that. Barely a quarter of the jobs post-construction would be blue-collar jobs. The other three-quarters of the jobs in nuclear would be office jobs offsite – mainly in capital cities or overseas.
Our Government has done the homework and the results are in. Renewables are the cheapest form of power, they are available right now. We have doubled approvals of renewable projects and the sector is already supporting thousands of jobs across the country. And no matter which way you try to add up the numbers that is the truth.
The Albanese Labor Government has already started working to ensure Australia is positioned to become a renewable energy superpower. Our Government doesn’t need to make up a fairytale energy plan because we’re doing it right now.
We are investing in our Powering Australia plan and providing support for Clean Energy Apprenticeships to ensure that we have a skilled workforce for the thousands of jobs the sector would create.
And we are investing $2 billion in this Budget for Hydrogen Headstart, providing revenue support for large-scale renewable hydrogen projects right now.
Ultimately, our country’s energy future shouldn’t be about fake plans or fighting about the facts. It’s too important for all Australians that we get this right and we act with urgency. Australians voted to end the energy wars and get on with the job of reducing emissions and building the industries of the future. That’s what our Government is focused on and that is what we are delivering.
AUKUS, Congress and Cold Feet
May 31, 2023, Dr Binoy Kampmark, https://theaimn.com/aukus-congress-and-cold-feet
The undertakings made by Australia regarding the AUKUS security pact promise to be monumental. Much of this is negative: increased militarisation on the home front; the co-opting of the university sector for war making industries and defence contractors; and the capitulation and total subordination of the Australian Defence Force to the Pentagon.
There are also other, neglected dimensions at work here: the failure, as yet, for the Commonwealth to establish a viable, acceptable site for the long term storage of high-grade nuclear waste; the uncertainty about where the submarines will be located; the absence of skills in the construction and operational level in Australia regarding nuclear-powered submarines; and, fundamentally, whether a nuclear-powered Australian-UK-US submarine (AUKUS SSN) will ever see the light of day.
One obstacle, habitually ignored in the Australian dialogue on AUKUS, are the rumbling concerns in the US itself about transferring submarines from the US Navy in the first place. These concerns are summarised in the Congressional Research Service report released on May 22, outlining the background and issues for US politicians regarding the procurement of the Virginia (SSN-774) submarine. “One issue for Congress is whether to approve, reject, or modify DOD’s AUKUS-related legislative package for the FY2024 NDAA [National Defense Authorization Act] sent to Congress on May 2, 2023.” This includes requested authorisation for the transfer of “up to two Virginia-class SSNs to the government of Australia in the form of sale, with the costs of the transfer to be covered by the government of Australia.”
A laundry list of concerns and potentially grave issues are suggested, and the report is clear that these are not exhaustive. They are also bound to send shivers down the spine of the adulatory Canberra planning establishment, so keen to keep Washington interested. There is, for instance, the question as to whether the transfer of the Virginia-class boats should be authorised as part of the 2024 financial year, or deferred “until a future NDAA.”
There is also the matter about how many submarines should be part of the request, whether it remains up to two as per the current request, or larger numbers. With those numbers also comes the dilemma as to what vintage they will be: those with less than 33 years of expected service life, or newly minted ones with the full 33-year period of operational service. (We can already hazard a guess on that one.)
The issue of cost also looms large. What will Australia, for instance, pay for the Virginia-class vessels, and furthermore, the amount that would be needed as “a proportionate financial investment” in Washington’s own “submarine construction industrial base.” Such a potentially delicious state of affairs for US shipbuilders, who will be receiving funds from the Australian purse to accelerate ship-building efforts.
Other issues suggest questions on operational worth. What would, for instance, be the “net impact on collective allied deterrence and warfighting capabilities of transferring three to five Virginia-class boats to Australia while pursuing the construction of three to five replacement SSNs for the US Navy.” The transfer of US naval nuclear propulsion technology would come with its “benefits and risks” and should also be cognisant of broader implications to US relations with countries in the Indo-Pacific, not to mention “the overall political and security situation in” in the region.
The report takes note of sceptics who claim this “could weaken deterrence of potential Chinese aggression if China were to find reason to believe, correctly or not, that Australia might use the transferred Virginia-class boats less effectively than the US Navy would.” This is a rather damning suspicion. Will Australian sailors either have the full capacity and skills not only to use the weaponry in their possession, but actually comply with US wishes in any deployment, even in a future conflict?
-ADVERTISEMENT-
The report is particularly interesting from the perspective of assuming that Australia will retain sovereign decision-making capacity over the use of the vessels, something that can only induce much scoffing. “Australia might not involve its military, including its Virginia-class boats, in US-China crises or conflicts that Australia viewed as not engaging important Australian interests.” On that score, the report notes remarks by Australia’s Defence Minister Richard Marles made in March 2023 that are specifically underlined to concern Congress. Of specific interest was the claim that “no promises” had been made by Australia to the United States “that Australia would support the United States in a future conflict over Taiwan.”
This is a charming admission that members of the US Congress may well be pushing for a quid pro quo: we authorise the boat transfer; you duly affirm your commitment to shed blood with us in the next grandly idiotic battle.
There is also a notable pointer in the direction of whether an individual SSN AUKUS should even be built. Sceptics, it follows, could argue that it would be preferable that US nuclear submarines “perform both US and Australian SSN missions while Australia invests in other types of military forces, as to create a capacity for performing other military missions for both Australia and the United States.”
This is exactly the kind of rationale that will confirm the holing of Australian sovereignty, not that there was much to begin with. But those voices marshalled against AUKUS will be able to take heart that Congress may, whatever its selfish reasons, be a formidable agent of obstruction. President Joe Biden, his successors, and the otherwise fractious electoral chambers certainly agree on one thing: America First, followed by a gaggle of allies foolishly holding the rear.
Scott Morrison issues blanket denial on nuclear submarine questions
The former PM answered with an emphatic ‘No’ when asked if he knew of links between powerful lobbyists and the AUKUS deal.
DAVID HARDAKER Crikey, 31 May 23 |
| “Former prime minister Scott Morrison has denied knowing of links between conservative lobbyists the Crosby Textor group (C|T Group) and the giant US company General Dynamics, which builds nuclear-powered submarines.“He has also denied knowing that General Dynamics was the lead constructor for the US Navy’s fleet of nuclear-powered submarines as he pondered cancelling Australia’s contract for conventional submarines in favour of nuclear-powered submarines. And he denied speaking about the nuclear-powered submarine option with his principal private secretary Yaron Finkelstein , who left C|T’s Australian operations to join Morrison’s staff in 2018.”………… https://www.crikey.com.au/2023/05/31/scott-morrison-denial-nuclear-submarine-questions-aukus/?utm_campaign=crikeyworm&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter |
Extreme heat events have now become the new normal
global cooperation is needed to bolster society’s resilience to extreme heat and enhance its capacity to overcome climate challenges.
By Wei Ke | CHINA DAILY 2023-05-29 https://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/202305/29/WS6473dd60a310b6054fad5766.html
Since the first day of 2023, extreme heat events have increased the threat to human health and the environment. Europe experienced the warmest New Year in history, with temperatures in some places reaching early summer levels. The highest temperature, of 25.1 Celsius, was recorded in Bilbao, Spain. In Glucholazy, Poland, the temperature at 4 am on Jan 1 was as high as 18.7 C, more than the local average minimum summer temperature. And while at least eight European countries experienced their hottest New Year’s Day, more than 100 weather stations in France reported record-breaking temperatures.
Unlike gradual global warming which many people expect, extreme heat events have raised temperatures to historical highs in many places. On Jan 1 this year, temperatures in many places in France, Germany, Denmark and Latvia were exceptionally high. For example, the temperature in Berlin, Germany, was 16 C — normally, it hovers around 0 C during New Year.
According to the State of the Global Climate 2022 of the World Meteorological Organization, which was released on April 21, global temperatures in 2022 were 1.15 C higher compared with the pre-industrial levels from 1850 to 1900. Global warming is not a gradual and uniform process anymore; instead, it manifests through a succession of extreme heat events, continuously breaking high-temperature records worldwide.
There has been a significant increase in both the frequency and intensity of extreme heat events. According to the UN Office for Disaster Risk Reduction’s report, Human Cost of Disasters 2000-19, there were 432 instances of extreme heat events globally between 2000 and 2019 compared with just 130 instances between 1980 and 1999, an increase of a whopping 232 percent.
As the northern hemisphere enters the summer season, extreme heat events have become the norm, rather than the exception. On April 14, Tak province in northwestern Thailand recorded a scorching 45.4 C, breaking Thailand’s highest temperature record of 44.6 C set in Mae Hong Son province in 2016.
Record-breaking heat-waves have swept across Southeast Asia, South Asia and Central Asia, with temperatures crossing 42 C. And severe air pollution has further compounded the situation in many parts of Southeast Asia, and thus increased the risk of respiratory and cardiovascular diseases.
The impacts of high temperatures are far-reaching, not only affecting human life and health but also posing a threat to the environment and ecosystems. In 2020, more than 330 elephants in the southern region of Botswana died of cyanotoxin poisoning, as prolonged heat and drought led to a bloom of cyanobacteria in ponds and other water bodies. These cyanobacteria released a significant amount of cyanotoxins in the water bodies, which resulted in the poisoning and subsequent deaths of the elephants that consumed the toxic water.
Extreme heat and drought also contribute to wildfires. In 2019-20, Australia experienced severe heat waves that contributed to the devastating wildfires which lasted for a staggering nine months. While the wildfires caused an economic loss of about 10.3 billion Australian dollars ($6.73 billion), they also claimed the lives of or displaced nearly 3 billion animals — mammals including marsupials, birds, reptiles and amphibians.
Worse, the wildfires emitted about 715 million tons of carbon dioxide, more than Australia’s total annual greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel combustion.
One of the worst effects of global warming is the “wet gets wetter, dry gets drier” phenomenon, where humid regions experience increased rainfall and arid regions become drier — with the rainy season marked by more severe flooding and the dry season by intense drought.
According to the Human Cost of Disasters 2000-19 report, over the past 20 years, there has been a 134 percent increase in flood-related disasters, 97 percent increase in storms, 46 percent increase in wildfires, and 29 percent increase in droughts or drought-like conditions.
In addition, as the oceans warm, heat-waves emanating from the oceans and seas have become more common. The increasing warming of the ocean surface inhibits the absorption of oxygen by the water, which exacerbates the problem of oxygen depletion in the marine environment, posing a threat to the survival of marine animals and plants. Warmer ocean temperatures also contribute to the increasing frequency and severity of typhoons and hurricanes. And since such storms have a wider range extending to northern latitudes, regions like northeastern China could experience typhoons in the future.
In summer, extreme heat conditions in the northern hemisphere are becoming the norm, prompting the WMO to urge countries to issue early warnings and take early action. But while it is essential for governments and management agencies at all levels to issue weather alerts and forecasts, they should also pay greater attention to the rights of vulnerable groups, including people who work outdoors during hot weather.
Building public heat shelters to protect people during orange and red heat alerts is essential. Especially, public activity centers, libraries and other government facilities allow outdoor workers to avoid working during the hottest hours of the day. As for people in general, they should closely follow weather forecasts and warnings so they can avoid the risk of heatstroke by not venturing out during extreme heat events.
Yet global temperatures will continue to rise as greenhouse gas emissions are unlikely to reduce drastically in the next 20-30 years. Therefore, economies around the world, especially the major economies, should intensify efforts to reduce emissions. The public, on its part, can contribute to the global efforts to mitigate climate change by adopting simple habits including switching off lights when not in use, recycling products, reducing the use of cars, changing the food habit, and refraining from compulsive shopping. These slight changes in habits can help lower individuals’ carbon footprint and thus reduce emissions.
But global cooperation is needed to bolster society’s resilience to extreme heat and enhance its capacity to overcome climate challenges.
Australian submariners test positive for drugs
Andrew Tillett, 29 May 23, https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/high-seas-submariners-test-positive-for-drugs-20230528-p5dbvb
The rumours of drug use saw officials take hair samples and conduct 24 tests of crew members to try to get to the bottom of the claims. A Collins class submarine carries a minimum of 48 officers and sailors, plus additional trainees.
The drug investigation offers a rare window into Australia’s submarine fleet, traditionally known as the “silent service” because of the secrecy attached to operations and deployment.
The revelations also come as the navy’s submarine operations head towards an eventual transformation from the ageing Collins class submarines to nuclear-powered submarines under AUKUS.
Submariners traditionally are among the highest paid of Australia’s military personnel in recognition of the demands of the job, including being isolated at sea and cut off from contact with family for weeks, and the specialist skills required to keep a submarine safe while operating in an inherently risky environment hundreds of metres below the ocean’s surface.
The Defence Department did not answer a series of detailed questions about the incident, but said in a statement a “small number” of navy personnel returned positive tests for prohibited substances in July 2022.
Administrative action
“Defence takes all incidents of this nature very seriously and has a zero-tolerance policy regarding the use of prohibited substances,” the statement said.
“The personnel were provided access to, and informed of, the full range of support services available to all Australian Defence Force personnel.
“Administrative action has been taken against the personnel involved. Broader investigations ruled out wider use of prohibited substances.”
The FOI documents do not reveal what submarine, ports or drugs were involved, and Defence did not provide those answers. The Financial Review has been told the submarine was HMAS Collins.
The documents show that several crew members were alleged to have used drugs during port visits in April and May last year. Commanders learnt of the claims on May 29 and initiated a fact-finding mission.
“The informant indicated that they became aware of this information during conversations with somebody, who heard it from somebody else, who heard it from somebody else and so on. In other words it was potentially 5th hand information,” a Defence Incident Report of the allegations said.
“The informant went on to imply that the officer in the submarine who was the potential source of this information, had been identified by the unknown parties involved in the alleged illicit drug taking, and told that [redacted] had better not report what [redacted] saw (or similar words to that effect), or else!”
The three submariners at the centre of the claims were issued a show cause notice and ordered back to Australia where they were tested for drugs on July 19 last year. Two people tested positive while the results of the third test were inconclusive. As well as the drug use, the fact finding process examined whether the sailors had behaved dishonestly.
Following the positive drug test results, military police drug tested another 13 sailors on August 4. Eight members on board the submarine were tested three days later. Those tests were negative.
Of the sailors who used drugs, one told the navy he did not plan to contest his positive drug test and “wishes to separate from the navy as soon as possible”, the documents said.
While the submariners were put on leave without pay, commanders concluded there was insufficient evidence to launch criminal action against them.
China halts floating nuclear power plan over security fears
Global Construction Review, David Rogers, 31.05.23
China’s plan to build a fleet of nuclear power reactors that would provide electrical power to islands on the South China Sea have been suspended over security concerns, the South China Morning Post reports.
As construction of the first units was about to begin, regulators announced that they were withholding approval.
The decision came as a surprise for the project’s scientists, who believed the technology was mature and that floating reactors were generally safer than those on land, since the ocean acts as a natural heat sink and is immune to seismic activity.
Writing in the journal Nuclear Power Engineering, Wang Donghui, a scientist at the National Energy Offshore Nuclear Power Platform Technology Research Centre, said safety and feasibility were the main concerns of authorities.
He said the decision was made in spite of a 10-year research project into floating plants, and the fact that China has advanced ship design capabilities, as well as domestic design and manufacturing units capable of building floating platforms.
It had been hoped that a floating nuclear power plant would provide power to support military and civilian activities on remote islands in the South China Sea, and China was envisaging the construction of a fleet of such vessels (see further reading)………………
n
One of the major safety concerns is that floating power plants could face attacks from sea and air, but also from underwater attacks, according to Wang.
An enemy submarine, for example, could attempt to sabotage the facility by planting explosives on its hull or damaging its cooling systems. Unmanned aerial vehicles could also fly over the plant and drop bombs or other projectiles on it.
According to Wang, protecting a floating nuclear power plant from “underwater divers, vessels, floating objects or airborne objects”, would require a comprehensive ship security system. https://www.globalconstructionreview.com/china-halts-floating-nuclear-power-plan-over-security-fears/
Call for International Action against Fukushima Radioactive Water Dumping in the Pacific
The Korean coalition, Peoples’ Action to Stop Dumping of Fukushima
Radioactive Water, would like to ask you to join international joint action
on World Ocean Day, June 8, to stop the dumping of Fukushima Radioactive
water into the Pacific Ocean.
Peoples’ Action to Stop Dumping of Fukushima Radioactive Water 30th May
2023
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSdU3pcoNvYHpN2zXcCy9TLN2sIrzX2eRNOcvi72CeAkxznhvQ/viewform
Civil Society faces imposition of an AUKUS military High Level nuclear waste dump.
Briefing by David Noonan, Independent Environment Campaigner 23 May 2023 https://nuclear.foe.org.au/wp-content/uploads/Noonan-AUKUS-high-level-nuclear-waste-May-2023.pdf
The Federal ALP belatedly disclosed a pre-condition to AUKUS and to Australia’s purchase of existing US nuclear submarines is for Australia to keep the US subs military High Level nuclear waste forever.
This was kept secret in the federal election and only revealed to the public after an 18-month study.
The ALP is seeking to ‘normalise’ military High Level nuclear waste in Australia with simplistic claims
of ‘nuclear stewardship’ in taking on the liabilities in buying US nuclear subs & retaining the wastes.
Disposal of High Level nuclear waste is unprecedented at a global scale, with the US and UK having
proven unable to do so in over 60 years since first putting nuclear powered submarines to sea.
Minister for Defence Richard Marles MP has stated there will be ‘an announcement’ within a year on the management of High Level nuclear waste with a process to site a disposal facility, saying
“obviously that facility will be remote from populations” (ABC News 15 March 2023).
Defence is reported to be working with the Australian Radioactive Waste Agency to conduct a review
to identify potential nuclear waste disposal sites. The public have a right to know who’s targeted.
WA, Queensland and Victoria immediately rejected a High Level nuclear waste disposal site in their
States. The SA Premier said it should go to a safe ‘remote’ location in the national interest.
New Agencies are to be set up and at least three sets of federal legislation are to go to Parliament
that relate to facilitating the disposal of military High Level nuclear waste in Australia.
An Australian Submarine Agency (ASA) is to be set up by 1 July 2023, to absorb the current NuclearPowered Submarine Taskforce and manage nuclear submarines and supporting infrastructure and
facilities from acquisition through to disposal. Defence says the ASA is 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 Defence Minister.
The current Reforming Defence Legislation Review proposes to take on Defence Act powers to
override State & Territory legislation to ‘provide certainty’ to Defence roles, operations and facilities.
In public input to that Defence Review I made these Recommendations (April 2023, p.7 & Rec 6-7):
Defence should become transparent over proposed Navy High Level nuclear waste disposal,
policy, siting process, rights and legal issues.
Defence should commit to respect and 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 will be
respected or is intended to be over-ridden to impose a Navy High Level nuclear waste
storage or disposal site on ‘remote’ lands and unwilling community in South Australia.
Integrity, transparency and accountability are key to any public confidence in government process.
However, this nuclear dump is likely to be imposed on community in SA or in NT, with override of
State legislation, compulsory land acquisition, and disregard for Indigenous Peoples right to Say No.
Both the AUKUS military nuclear dump and ANSTO’s dump imposition at Kimba are
untenable affronts to democratic rights and to Indigenous People’s rights in SA
Defence should now disclose associated policy plans for ANSTO nuclear fuel wastes and long-lived
Intermediate Level Radioactive Wastes (ILW) to also be disposed at a proposed military High Level
nuclear waste disposal site, along side Navy nuclear wastes arising from buying US nuclear subs.
SA already faces federal imposition of a so called National Radioactive Waste Management Facility to
store ANSTO nuclear fuel wastes and ILW on agricultural land near Kimba, on Barngarla People’s
country in defiance of Barngarla clearly Saying No, and dividing community on Eyre Peninsula.
A suite of public interests are already at risk, see input to the Federal Environment Department on
Guidelines for an Environmental Impact process on the nuclear facility at Kimba (DN 23 March 2023).
For instance, see “Nuclear Waste Store siting at Kimba also targets the Port of Whyalla” (Feb 2020).
ANSTO is the predominant waste holder and future producer of both ILW and Low Level Waste, see a
Briefing: “National Inventory of Radioactive Waste shows the Kimba dump is ANSTO’s dump”.
There are alternatives: ANSTO can securely retain their nuclear wastes on site at Lucas Heights,
rather than impose double handling transport into indefinite above ground storage at Kimba.
Both 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 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 has 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 Commonwealth owned Defence lands. Siting a
nuclear waste dump would be imposed through compulsory land acquisition & 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” (20 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.
Both the proposed AUKUS military High Level nuclear waste dump and ANSTO’s dump at Kimba are
illegal under SA Law. Both nuclear dumps are an untenable affront to democratic rights in SA.
Aukus ‘expensive’ and not ‘easy to replicate’, Australian officials told foreign diplomats
Exclusive: Documents obtained by Guardian Australia show Australia attempted to reassure countries amid nuclear proliferation concerns
Daniel Hurst, Guardian 29 May 23
Australian officials have told foreign diplomats that the Aukus submarine plan is “expensive” and not “easy to replicate”, as part of an effort to play down concerns about the risks of other countries racing to do the same, a newly released tranche of documents reveals…..
Briefing notes obtained by Guardian Australia under freedom of information laws lay bare the arguments the government is using to defend and explain Aukus to foreign diplomats posted to Canberra………………………………………
China’s mission to the UN said in March that “two nuclear weapons states who claim to uphold the highest nuclear non-proliferation standard” – the US and the UK – “are transferring tons of weapons-grade enriched uranium to a non-nuclear-weapon state”.
The new documents show that many of the answers given by Australian officials at the Aukus briefings aimed to reassure countries about nuclear non-proliferation issues.
The first assistant secretary of Dfat’s Aukus taskforce, Sarah deZoeten, told those in attendance that Australia would retain control of operational waste and spent fuel.
…………………………. Aukus is novel because it will be the first time a provision of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty regime has been used to transfer naval nuclear propulsion technology from a nuclear weapons state to a non-weapons state……………………………. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/may/30/aukus-expensive-and-not-easy-to-replicate-australian-officials-told-foreign-diplomats
China firmly opposes Japan’s discharge of Fukushima nuclear-contaminated water into sea
Source: Xinhua, Editor: huaxia, 2023-05-30 https://english.news.cn/20230530/5bdd921cc81744ffbcfd0eb7b76dd09b/c.html
GENEVA, May 28 (Xinhua) — A Chinese delegate on Saturday expressed firm opposition to Japan’s unilateral decision to discharge the nuclear-contaminated water from Fukushima into the sea, when attending related discussions at the 76th World Health Assembly (WHA) held here.
Given the strong currents along Fukushima’s coast, the radionuclides will spread to waters worldwide in 10 years after a discharge, the delegate said, adding that this move is to shift the risks to all mankind, and is not Japan’s private matter, but a crucial issue affecting global public health.
Noting many countries and stakeholders have expressed serious concerns, the delegate urged Japan not to unilaterally discharge the nuclear-contaminated water before reaching an agreement with all parties.
In response to a Japanese delegate’s defense, the Chinese side said that the defense can be summed up as “the water quality is non-toxic and the discharge is reasonable,” but what the Japanese side said is completely untenable and they must give convincing answers to a series of questions.
The Chinese delegate raised three questions: First, if the nuclear-contaminated water is safe, why doesn’t Japan itself use the water? Why not use the water for domestic agriculture and manufacturing, or discharge it into domestic lakes? Second, is discharging the nuclear-contaminated water into the sea the only feasible solution? Third, what kind of long-term impact will such a discharge have on the world?
When it comes to the disposal of the nuclear-contaminated water, the Chinese delegate pointed out that Japan’s Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry has proposed five plans. The Japanese government’s expert committee has admitted that compared to such options as emitting the water into the atmosphere through vaporization, building new storage tanks and solidifying the water with cement, a discharge into the sea is the cheapest option with minimum risk of pollution to Japan itself.
Japan’s current choice is to save itself trouble and money by pushing the world to suffer consequences, the delegate said, emphasizing that such actions, which only serve the short-term interests of Japan but harm the common interests of all mankind, must be severely condemned and resolutely resisted, and that the Pacific Ocean is not a sewer into which Japan can dump nuclear-contaminated water.
In April 2021, Japan announced that it would discharge the polluted water from the Fukushima nuclear accident into the ocean. Many countries, including China, have expressed firm opposition, and Russia also expressed serious concerns at this WHA. However, Japan has disregarded the reasonable appeals and demands of the international community.
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 