Fireys pour water on Peter Dutton’s “potentially catastrophic” nuclear power plan
Jim Green, Apr 28, 2025, https://reneweconomy.com.au/fireys-pour-water-on-peter-duttons-potentially-catastrophic-nuclear-power-plan/
The United Firefighters Union of Australia (UFUA) has today launched a last-minute campaign warning Australians of the risks associated with the Dutton Coalition’s plan to build seven nuclear power plants in five states.
The UFUA has revealed that the Coalition’s nuclear costings exclude more than half a billion dollars in essential emergency services infrastructure and personnel. The costs include $446.68 million to establish specialised fire stations both in and near the proposed nuclear sites, and $79.7 million annually in additional firefighter salaries.
The costings assume two specialised fire stations at each of the proposed seven nuclear sites — a mandatory standard of the International Atomic Energy Agency.
UFUA National Secretary Greg McConville said the nuclear plan is both financially reckless and a threat to firefighter and public safety:
“The Coalition’s nuclear plan ignores the reality that nuclear power demands a specialised, fully equipped emergency response capability. This is a half-billion-dollar black hole in their costings puts firefighters and communities at risk, and places the overall cost further out of reach.
“Firefighters already face extreme risks responding to bushfires, floods, and industrial incidents. Nuclear power introduces a new, more dangerous threat we are not prepared for, radioactive contamination that can linger for decades.
“A nuclear accident would stretch our already under-resourced emergency services to breaking point. The consequences for firefighters, first responders, and surrounding communities would be catastrophic.
“Firefighters put their lives on the line every day to protect homes, schools, and hospitals. Asking us to safeguard nuclear reactors, something the Australian public has never asked for, is both reckless and irresponsible.
“This is a high-risk, high-cost gamble with no clear benefit. Our communities deserve clean, safe, and affordable energy solutions, not a nuclear burden that compromises emergency response and public safety.”
The UFUA discusses the cancer risks:
“Responding to nuclear emergencies exposes firefighters to an even greater risk of contracting occupational cancer. The risk of a catastrophic nuclear incident requiring firefighter response would likely result in much shorter periods in which cancer would develop from a single exposure, and the risk of immediate fatalities. This increased risk is documented by The Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA).
“ARPANSA describes the public limit of ionizing radiation at 1mSv per year. Section 4.2 of the Radiation Protection Series G-3 Part 2 identifies that in the event of a nuclear accident, emergency workers (naming firefighters specifically) can be exposed to up to 500mSv of ionizing radiation “for life saving actions, to prevent the development of catastrophic conditions and to prevent severe tissue reactions.”
“In Table 1 under the heading “What are the possible health effects?” the ARPANSA website explains that 500mSv can result in “increased risk of cancer [and] acute effects at [the] higher end of [the] range”.
“If a nuclear disaster of the proportions of the Fukushima power plant were to occur at any of the seven sites proposed for nuclear power stations, a radiation plume would endanger local communities.”
Emergency Leaders for Climate Action
Emergency Leaders for Climate Action (ELCA), a coalition of 38 former emergency leaders with more than 1,000 years of experience between them, noted in a submission to the recent federal nuclear inquiry that there are no safety or environmental frameworks in place to manage the risks of nuclear power stations in Australia. Nor are emergency services trained to respond to nuclear disasters.
ELCA notes that the Coalition has released no plans as to how states and territories will be supported to plan for potential emergencies and disasters resulting from the operation of nuclear reactors, as well as the transportation and storage of radioactive waste.
ELCA spokesperson Greg Mullins said:
“Our firefighters are on the frontlines of escalating climate fuelled disasters, like bushfires and floods, fuelled by climate pollution. They’re not trained or equipped to deal with nuclear emergencies that could arise from nuclear reactors or the transportation and storage of radioactive waste.
“I oversaw the deployment of Australian firefighters to assist in the wake of the earthquake and tsunami that led to the Fukushima disaster, where the chaos and devastation caused by nuclear failures was stark. First responders, many of them civilian firefighters, were thrown into situations they weren’t trained for. That’s not a risk we should take in Australia, no matter how remote.”
“There are no safety or environmental frameworks in place to manage the risks of nuclear reactors or to safely transport and store radioactive waste in Australia.
“Placing nuclear reactors in disaster-prone areas like Latrobe, Lithgow, Singleton, and South Burnett would add to the burden emergency services already face responding to worsening bushfires, floods, and storms. …
“Our communities and emergency services are bearing the brunt of worsening disasters driven by burning coal, oil and gas. We don’t have the luxury of waiting decades for new power stations, we must slash climate pollution now to protect Australians. Australia can’t afford to risk our energy security, economy and safety on a nuclear fantasy when renewables can cut pollution today and help ensure a safer future for our kids.”
Nuclear plume
The Nuclear Plume project initiated by Friends of the Earth and others has considered the impacts of a Fukushima-scale nuclear disaster at the Coalition’s proposed nuclear sites. The research finds that 200,000 people live within a 30 km evacuation zone around the seven sites, along with hundreds of schools, hospitals, day care centres and early learning centres.
The federal Labor government notes that 12,000 farms are located within 80 km of the seven sites targeted by the Coalition for nuclear reactors. A July 2024 Joint Ministerial Statement released by Agriculture Ministers of the Governments of Australia, Queensland, NSW, the ACT, Victoria, SA, WA and the NT notes that in similar countries, including the United States, states have produced detailed plans to manage radioactive emergencies from nuclear reactors within a similar radius of farmland (known as the “ingestion zone”). These states have set out detailed guidelines to be followed by farmers, processors and distributors within nuclear ingestion zones to attempt to protect their food supply.
Security risks
The Australian Security Leaders Climate Group warns that in addition to the risk of catastrophic accidents, the Coalition’s plan to build nuclear reactors would leave Australia vulnerable to missile warfare and sabotage.
Retired Admiral Chris Barrie, former Chief of the Australian Defence Force, said:
“Every nuclear power facility is a potential dirty bomb because rupture of containment facilities can cause devastating damage. Modern warfare is increasingly focused on missiles and uncrewed aerial systems, and with the proposed power stations all located within a 100 kilometres of the coast, they are a clear and accessible target. … Do we prioritise the protection of cities and population centres and military bases, or do we divert vital resources to defending seven nuclear power stations scattered across Australia?”
Cheryl Durrant, former Department of Defence Director of Preparedness and Mobilisation, said:
“In the Ukraine-Russia war, both sides have given strategic priority to targeting their opponents’ energy systems, and Australia would be no different. So these nuclear facilities would necessitate expensive and complex missile defence systems as well as allocated cyber and counter-intelligence resources, making our security challenge more complex and expensive.”
Dr. Jim Green is the national nuclear campaigner with Friends of the Earth Australia and a member of the EnergyScience Coalition.
Labor, Liberal and National Parties all caught up in American militarism, and enriching American weapons companies
Terry McBride 14 April 2025.
A Memorandum of Understanding has been signed between the WA Government and General Dynamics Mission Systems Inc
The partnership is designed to fast-track local businesses into the Virginia-class supply chain
Part of the Made in WA plan to build more things locally, create more local jobs and diversify the economy
2025 Decnet reports Australia is launching an ambitious plan to establish a domestic Australian Weapons Manufacturing Complex (AWMC) capable of producing up to 4,000 Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System (GMLRS) missiles annually by 2029. This initiative – a partnership with Lockheed Martin as part of the Future Made in Australia. The australian gov gives a 23.5B handout to the worlds most profitable business.
What the US MIC does is spread a number of military manufacturing factories across a country to make each state dependant on them. It becomes to politically hot for politicians after they are built. The MIC knows this as they have done it in the US for decades. It also makes war inevitable because this equipment is for use. its not made to sit on a shelf. The MIC is the biggest and most profitable business in the world and leaving equipment sitting does not make money.
This is so the Americans have enough missiles for war with china and others at australian taxpayer expense.
23 april 2025 Dutton announces defence policy to spend another 21B on top of the 58B this year, on top of 32M a day for AUKUS(or 11.5B per year) plus the 1B for a missil factory in sydney, plus the above, plus other US military bases we are paying for. About 75B a year for war so far. Is this why you pay tax. Where are they getting the money? Loans from the US with interest.
If the people woke up to the fact that our 3 mains parties are completely fascist groups and actively working towards war.
Stop voting Labor, Liberal and National number 1 on the ballot. If you want a better future of your children and not war, DO something different. Simple.
Dont underestimate Labor, Liberal and Nationals commitment to put your children on the front line for american business interest
Peter Dutton’s claim about SA premier’s nuclear support misleads
Matthew Elmas, April 18, 2025, https://www.aap.com.au/factcheck/peter-duttons-claim-about-sa-premiers-nuclear-support-misleads/?fbclid=IwY2xjawJyJ2NleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHumaAudgFry-WUdbHh6CG_Yc1zFFAjZ_IBuzZE5XtEC3LYX3IqI3WdN7jBwq_aem_0I9My22omArVRsJyCKUhyg
WHAT WAS CLAIMED
South Australian Premier Peter Malinauskas supports nuclear power.
OUR VERDICT
Misleading. While Mr Malinauskas supports nuclear power globally, he’s repeatedly opposed nuclear power in Australia due to the costs.
AAP FactCheck – Peter Dutton is misleadingly claiming South Australian Premier Peter Malinauskas has been “very clear” in his support for nuclear power.
While Mr Malinauskas has spoken of the need for nuclear as part of the global energy mix, he has repeatedly opposed nuclear power in Australia due to high costs.
Mr Dutton made the misleading claim during the leaders’ debate hosted by the ABC on April 16, in response to questions about getting states and territories on board with his nuclear plan.
The coalition will need to overturn state and territory bans on nuclear for its policy, but faces opposition from governments, including from the Liberal Nationals in Queensland.
“We can work with state governments,” Mr Dutton said (timestamp 28 minutes 33 seconds).
“The South Australian Premier has been very clear of his support for nuclear.”
Mr Dutton has made the claim before, including during a press conference on April 8, 2025, where he suggested Mr Malinauskas has been upfront about his support for “the nuclear policy”.
AAP FactCheck asked Mr Dutton for evidence to support his claims but did not receive a response.
After the coalition unveiled plans in 2024 to construct a nuclear power plant in South Australia, Mr Malinauskas held a press conference to outline his position on the policy.
He said his position on nuclear power has been consistent for more than a decade.
“Nuclear power has an important role to play in the global energy mix as we pursue a decarbonised future – that’s just an obvious truth,” Mr Malinauskas said (0:45).
“As a premier I am fine with nuclear power, as long as it doesn’t make electricity bills more expensive,” Mr Malinauskas went on to say.
“What we know from report after report is that in the Australian context, it will make power more expensive, so why on earth would we pursue it?
“I would support nuclear power if it didn’t make electricity more expensive. But it will make it more expensive… all the evidence says it will make electricity a lot more expensive.”
Mr Malinauskas reiterated his position more recently on April 1, 2025, The Guardian reported.
“Why would any premier of any jurisdiction around the country support a plan to make electricity more expensive in households, in business?” he said.
“Peter Dutton has a plan to make it more expensive. I can’t be clearer about it.
“His plan would make electricity and energy prices for South Australia more expensive and there is not a month of Sundays we would support a plan to do that.”
AAP FactCheck is an accredited member of the International Fact-Checking Network. To keep up with our latest fact checks, follow us on Facebook, Instagram, Threads, X, BlueSky, TikTok and YouTube.
Chernobyl’s shadow highlights Australia’s potential nuclear risks
April 26, 2025, Don’t Nuke the Climate
On 26 April 1986, the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in Ukraine exploded, spewing uncontrolled radiation across Europe and beyond.
Chernobyl caused massive human, environmental and economic impacts. The ongoing clean-up is set to continue for another four decades, with parts of the exclusion zone likely to remain uninhabitable for many hundreds of years.
Against the shadow of Chernobyl, Peter Dutton’s proposal to build nuclear power plants at seven sites around the country could put up to 200,000 Australians in direct danger.
Advocacy group Don’t Nuke the Climate has produced an online resource based on real world data from the Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan. This detail has been transposed to Australia to help people understand the extent of nuclear contamination from a potential reactor accident.
The maps at www.nuclearplume.au show how far radioactive fallout from a Fukushima-sized accident would spread under different wind conditions from the seven sites identified for nuclear reactor by the federal Coalition. They highlight how a nuclear accident at one of the proposed reactor sites would affect nearby communities, including schools and hospitals.
Don’t Nuke the Climate is sharing this research to assist with evidence-based decision making that reduces nuclear risks and prioritises environmental responsibility and a safe future ahead of the coming federal election.
Dave Sweeney – Nuclear analyst, Australian Conservation Foundation says:
‘Australia should heed the lessons of Chernobyl and Fukushima and keep the door shut on domestic nuclear power. Nuclear isn’t just dangerous, it’s an irresponsible distraction from real climate action that makes no economic or environmental sense in Australia.’
‘Instead of the threat of radiation blowing in the wind we should be using the wind to generate clean electricity. Australia’s energy future is renewable, not radioactive.’
Dr Jim Green – Nuclear campaigner, Friends of the Earth Australia says:
‘Emergency Leaders for Climate Action recently warned that nuclear reactors would introduce significant and unnecessary risk to Australian communities and emergency responders, including firefighters already stretched by escalating climate fuelled disasters.’
‘The Coalitions nuclear push is risky and reckless. It is a high cost, high risk thought bubble, not a credible national energy policy.’
The Australian Labor Party is No Friend of the Nuclear-Free Cause.
https://theaimn.net/the-australian-labor-party-is-no-friend-of-the-nuclear-free-cause/ 26 Apr 25
I’m thinking that the nuclear lobby loves the ALP even more than it loves the Liberal Coalition opposition party.
Advance Australia, and the U.S-controlled Atlas Network are powerful and well-funded groups dedicated to molding public opinion on behalf of wealthy right-wing groups. They did a fine job in 2023 of destroying Australian support for the 2023 Australian referendum on the indigenous Voice to Parliament.
I was expecting them to pretty much run riot in support of the Liberal Coalition’s plan for a nuclear Australia. That does not seem to have happened. Why not?
Advance “kicked off with outright lies“, but has been rather quiet lately. And the Atlas Network is nowhere in sight, although its modus operandi is secretive anyway, spreading simplistic memes.
My conclusion is that Peter Dutton’s Liberal Coalition campaign is so inept, so incompetent, that it has turned out to be counter-productive to the party’s cause. There’s just so much evidence of this ineptitude – particularly when it comes to the estimated costs of setting up seven nuclear power plants around Australia. The latest of many examinations of these costs is – “Coalition’s nuclear gambit will cost Australia trillions – and permanently gut its industry.” Half-baked plans to keep old coal-power plants running for many years until nuclear is “ready”, no mention of plans for waste disposal, – the tax-payer to cop the whole cost. Even a suave sales magician like Ted O’Brien has not been able to con the Australian public. The party’s incompetence is on show in other ways, too, unconnected to the nuclear issue.
But what of Labor? They have been remarkably quiet on the nuclear issue – focussing on their own rather ha[f-baked plans for housing. It’s all cost-of-living issues – and I don’t deny that this is important. But nuclear rarely gets a mention – except when Labor finds it useful to mention the costs.
It doesn’t look as if Peter Dutton’s Liberal Coalition has a hope in hell of getting a majority win for its nuclear platform.
But does the nuclear lobby really care? I’m afraid not. You see, the Labor Party, supposedly opposed to the nuclear industry, has a long tradition of caving in on nuclear issues. From 1982 – a weak, supposed “no new uranium mines” policy became a “three mines uranium policy” 1984 then a pathetic “no new mines policy” in the 1990s. Backing for South Australia’s uranium mines further weakened Labor anti-nuclear policy.
Over decades, Labor luminary Gareth Evans has been acclaimed for his supposed stance against nuclear weapons. But he’s done a disservice to the nuclear-free movement, in his long-standing position in favour of “the contribution that can be made by nuclear energy capable of providing huge amounts of energy, and just as clean as renewables in its climate impact”. Evans has always been close to the International Atomic Energy Agency, in his complacency that nuclear power has nothing to do with nuclear weapons!
Labor has always been officially opposed to nuclear power, but at the Federal level, and some State levels, there have always been significant Ministers like Bob Hawke, and Martin Ferguson, who pushed for the nuclear industry. To his credit, Anthony Albanese for a long time held out against the nuclear industry. Even up until 2024, he was still trying .
But the crunch had already come – Albanese on Thursday, 16th September 2021 – “We accept that this technology [nuclear-powered submarines ] is now the best option for Australia’s capability.”
Why did Albanese agree to this deal, arranged between the Morrison Liberal government, and the USA and UK? Apparently, he did so, after just a two-hour briefing, with no documents provided, on the previous day. Labor Caucus was presented with it as a fait accompli. No vote was taken.
I can only conclude that Albanese’s decision was based on that time-honored fear of Labor looking “weak on security”.
In one fell swoop, Labor’s anti-nuclear policy was wrecked. The nuclear submarines will mean nuclear reactors on Australia’s coast. The will mean nuclear waste disposal in Australia, including foreign nuclear waste from the second-hand submarines. They will surely eventually mean nuclear weapons, as who can really tell if a nuclear-powered submarines has or has not got nuclear weapons? (The Chinese will be very wary about them.)
Since 2021, Australia’s nuclear submarine arrangement has been largely in the hands of Defence Minister Richard Marles, who worked with that dodgy company PWC to set it up, and who is a committed supporter of Australia’s solidarity with the USA.
March 2023 – Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, US President Joe Biden and UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak unveiled the path to acquiring nuclear-powered submarines.
“In 2024, Australian Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese, made undisclosed “political commitments” with its AUKUS partners in an agreement for the transfer of naval nuclear technology to Australia, sparking concerns about the potential for high-level radioactive waste to be stored in the country. “
The global nuclear lobby works across national boundaries to promote its industry. It does well with Russia – as government clamp-down on dissent makes it easier to expand the industry in all its forms, and to market nuclear power to Asian ana African countries.
The nuclear industry is well aware of the problems in maintaining the belief that nuclear is clean, cheap, and climate friendly. But above all, it’s the nuclear-waste problem that its most expensive and difficult obstacle. Here’s where Australia has always looked appealing. All this nonsense about getting small nuclear reactors is just a distraction . The industry knows that small nuclear reactors are fraught with difficulties – too expensive, requiring too much security, public opposition at the local level, still needing too much water……… But to keep the global industry going, a nuclear-waste-welcoming country would be such a boost.
Well, it is early days, even for the prospect of those AUKUS nuclear submarines ever actually arriving. But in the meantime – the whole AUKUS thing has quietly introduced the Australian public to the idea that nuclear submarines are OK, and so are their wastes, and so are USA nuclear weapons based in Australia.
So, really, the Australian Labor Party has done a much better job of promoting the nuclear industry, than the fumbling Liberal Coalition could.
We are fortunate inn Australia to have proportional representation in our election. If you care about keeping Australia nuclear-free, you don’t have to vote for either of the big parties.
Most Australians would be concerned about nuclear power station built nearby, survey shows
Survey by Griffith University found 38% of respondents extremely concerned by the prospect of a reactor being built near their home.
Josh Nicholas, 24 Apr 25, https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2025/apr/24/most-australians-would-be-concerned-about-nuclear-power-station-built-nearby-survey-shows
A majority of Australians do not view nuclear power favourably, and would be concerned if a plant was built near them, according to a new survey shared exclusively with Guardian Australia.
The new figures come as the Coalition battles to regain momentum in the final two weeks of the election campaign. The Coalition has pledged to build taxpayer-funded nuclear reactors at seven sites around Australia in a bid for more “reliable” power than could be achieved with renewables firmed by storage such as batteries and pumped-hydro, using gas as a back-up.
The Coalition has promised a two-and-a-half-year consultation process, but some Nationals constituents have said their concerns are already being ignored and some community groups have expressed anger that they will not be able to veto plants in their area. The new survey suggests concern about nuclear power plants being built nearby is widespread.
Almost 10% were concerned when asked about the prospect of a nuclear plant being built within 50km of their homes, while 16% were very concerned and 38.8% were extremely concerned. By comparison, about 80% viewed wind and solar power favourably and the majority surveyed would not be concerned if solar or windfarms were built nearby.
The previously unpublished data was collected in December and comes from the National Climate Action Survey, conducted by researchers at Griffith and Monash universities. The survey asks more than 300 questions, such as where people get information about climate change from, whether they have been affected by natural disasters and what changes they’d be prepared to make to their behaviour.
The aim of the survey, according to associate professor Kerrie Foxwell-Norton, is to measure “the ways in which Australians are thinking about climate change and [climate] action”.
“You can see in the way that stats play out, that there’s a lot of concern around the development of a coalmine, gas site, and a nuclear power plant, as opposed to renewable sources of power,” says Foxwell-Norton.
“So people are aware of the local environmental outcomes for the development of fossil fuel energy sources as opposed to renewables.”
In the latest survey, 84% of Australians believe the world’s climate is changing and 75% are somewhat or very worried about global warming. Foxwell-Norton says the trust in climate science has been pretty steady across the surveys.
This trust seems to cut across the political spectrum. 98% of Greens voters believe the science, as do 92% of Labor voters, 80% of Nationals, 73% of Liberal party supporters and 52% of both One Nation and United Australia supporters.
“The survey shows that the baseline of trust in scientific expertise is established in Australia. But after that, things get really complicated in terms of how Australians are responding in regional areas as opposed to metropolitan and remote areas. How people are responding based on their socioeconomic class, upon their age, their gender and so on.
“And that sort of complexity is not something to be smoothed away if we are going to seek meaningful action on climate, then we need to dig down into the complexity.”
Toxic threat: New Greenpeace report outlines unacceptable risk of nuclear waste in Australia
| SYDNEY, Thursday 24 April 2025 — A new report from Greenpeace Australia Pacific has shown the Coalition’s nuclear plan could produce 14 billion Coke cans’ worth of radioactive waste a year, warning it is a matter of when, not if, a nuclear waste accident could occur in Australia. |
| Released in the lead-up to the 39th anniversary of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster, the report, ‘Toxic threat: The danger of nuclear waste in Australia’ shows that the Coalition has grossly understated the volume of dangerous waste its nuclear plan will produce — 14 billion times more than the ‘single coke can’ for a small modular reactor touted by Peter Dutton.The report also outlines the unacceptable risk this waste poses to Australian communities, and warns Australia’s long history of nuclear waste management failures point to a very high likelihood of future nuclear disaster. |
Joe Rafalowicz, Head of Climate and Energy at Greenpeace Australia Pacific, said: “Peter Dutton’s nuclear plan is a dangerous and expensive disaster waiting to happen. From Chernobyl to Fukushima, the devastation of nuclear disasters is a risk that Australia cannot afford to, and doesn’t need to, take.
“Australians don’t need the equivalent of 14 billion Coke cans of radioactive nuclear waste every year. The Coalition has not offered a credible plan for how it will manage nuclear waste safely, nor how it will fund this multibillion dollar effort.
“Australia’s unenviable track record of mismanaging even low-level nuclear waste, as well as a history of radioactive incidents in the US, UK and EU, reveals how complex it is to manage nuclear waste safely. Multiplying that challenge many times over by building a fleet of nuclear reactors could have devastating consequences for communities and ecosystems.
“International examples show that accidents, natural disasters, and other waste management failures occur with alarming regularity. A nuclear waste accident could lead to mass casualties, long-term health impacts, and the contamination of groundwater, farmland, and ecosystems for millennia. The clean-up bill from an incident would be astronomical, costing billions of dollars.
“Australia doesn’t need nuclear energy, which is just a smokescreen to prolong the use of climate-wrecking coal and gas for decades. We are almost halfway to powering the nation with clean, affordable wind and solar, and should be supercharging efforts to get to 100% renewables backed by storage.
“The Coalition has not asked communities like Collie, Latrobe Valley and the Hunter Valley for their consent to build nuclear reactors and waste dumps in their backyards, but the upcoming Federal Election is a chance for voters to have a say in Australia’s energy future. Peter Dutton’s nuclear plan is too dangerous to proceed, and Australians should strongly reject the idea of nuclear energy here.” https://www.greenpeace.org.au/static/planet4-australiapacific-stateless/2025/04/23ab6ee2-toxic-threat-greenpeace-australia-pacific-report.pdf
Dark Money: Labor and Liberal join forces in attacks on Teals and Greens
by Wendy Bacon and Yaakov Aharon | Apr 22, 2025 https://michaelwest.com.au/labor-and-liberal-powerbrokers-join-to-attack-teals-and-greens/
Teals and Greens are under political attack from a new pro-fossil fuel, pro-Israel astroturfing group, adding to the onslaught by far-right lobbyists Advance Australia. Wendy Bacon and Yaakov Aharon with the story.
On February 12 this year, former prime minister Scott Morrison’s principal private secretary Yaron Finkelstein, and former Labor NSW Treasurer Eric Roozendaal, met in the plush 50 Bridge St offices in the heart of Sydney’s CBD. The powerbrokers were there to discuss election strategies of for astroturfing campaign group Better Australia 2025 Inc.
Finkelstein now runs his own discreet advisory firm Society Advisory, while also a director of the Liberal Party’s primary think-tank Menzies Research Centre. Previously, he worked as head of global campaigns for the conservative lobby firm Crosby Textor (CT), before working for Morrison and as Special Counsel to former NSW Premier Dominic Perrottet.
Roozendaal earned a reputation as a top fundraiser during his term as General Secretary of NSW Labor and a later stint for the Yuhu property developer. He is now a co-convenor of Labor Friends of Israel.
The two strategists have previously served together on the executive of the NSW Jewish Board of Deputies, where Finkelstein was vice-president (2010-2019) and Roozendaal was later the chair of public affairs (2019-2020).
Better for whom?
Better Australia Chairperson Sophie Calland, a software engineer and active member of the Alexandria Branch of the Labor party attended the meeting. She is a director of Better Australia and carries formal responsibility for electoral campaigns (and partner of Israel agitator Ofir Birenbaum).
Also present was at the meeting was Better Australia 2025 member Alex Polson, a former staffer to retiring Senator Simon Birmingham and CEO of firm DBK Advisory. Other members present included another director Charline Samuell, and her husband, psychiatrist Doron Samuell.
Last week, Doron attracted negative publicity when Liberal campaigners in the electorate of Reid leaked Whatsapp messages where he insisted on referring to Greens as Nazis. “Nazis at Chiswick wharf,” Samuell wrote, alongside a photograph of two Greens volunteers.
The Better Australia group already have experience as astroturfers. Their “Put The Greens Last” campaign was previously directed by Calland and Polson under the entity Better Council Inc. in the NSW Local government elections in September 2024. The Greens lost three councillors in Sydney’s East but maintained five seats on the Inner West Council.
But the group had developed bigger electoral plans. They also registered the name Better NSW in mid-2024. By the time the group met for the first time this year on January 8, their plans to play a role in the Federal election were already well advanced. They voted to change the name Better NSW Inc. to Better Australia 2025 Inc.
Calland and Birenbaum
Group member Ofir Birenbaum joined the January meeting to discuss “potential campaign fundraising materials” and a “pool of national volunteers”. Birenbaum is Calland’s husband and member of the Rosebery Branch of the Labor Party.
But by the time the group met with Finkelstein and Roozendaal in February, Birenbaum was missing. The day before the meeting, Birenbaum’s role in the #UndercoverJew stunt at Cairo Takeaway cafe was sprung.
This incident focused attention on Birenbaum’s track record as an agitator at Pro-Palestine events and as a “close friend” of the extreme-right Australian Jewish Association. The former Instagram influencer has since closed his social media accounts and disappeared from public view.
The minutes of the February meeting lodged with NSW Fair Trading mention a “discussion of potential campaign management candidates; an in-depth presentation and discussion of strategy; a review and amendments of draft campaign fundraising materials”. All of this suggests that consultants had been hired and work was well underway.
The group also voted to change Better Council’s business address and register a national association with ASIC so they could legally campaign at a national level.
On March 4, Calland registered Better Australia as a ‘significant third party’ with the Australian Electoral Commission. This is required for organisations that expect their campaign to cost more than $250,000.
Three weeks later, Prime Minister Albanese called the election, and Better Australia’s federal campaign was off to the races.
Labor or Liberal, it doesn’t matter…
According to its website, Better Australia’s stated goals are non-partisan: they want a majority government, “regardless of which major party is in office”.
“In Australia, past minority governments have seen stalled reforms, frequent leadership changes, and uncertainty that paralysed effective governance.”
No evidence has been provided by either Better Australia’s website or campaigning materials for these statements. In fact, in its short lifetime, the Gillard Labor minority government passed legislation at a record pace.
Instead, it is all about creating fear. A stream of campaigning videos, posts, flyers and placards carrying simple messages tapping into fear, insecurity, distrust and disappointment have appeared on social media and the streets of Sydney in recent weeks.
On Easter Friday, placards warning voters, “Don’t let the Teals trick you” greeted beachgoers arriving at Bondi Beach.
Wentworth independent Allegra Spender wasted no time posting her own video telling voters she was unfazed, and for her electorate to make their own voting choices rather than fall for a crude scare campaign.
Spender is accused of supporting anti-Israel terrorism by voting to reinstate funding for the United Nations aid agency UNRWA. Better Australia warns that billionaires and dark money fund the Teal campaign, alleging average voters will lose their money if Teals are reelected.
It doesn’t matter that most Teal MPs have policies in favour of increasing accountability in government or that no information is provided about who is backing Better Australia.
Anti-Green, too
The anti-Greens angle of Better Australia’s campaign sends a broad message to all electorates to ‘Put the Greens Last’. It aims to starve the Greens of preferences. The campaign message is simple: the Greens are antisemitic, support terrorism, and have abandoned their environmental roots.
It does not matter that calls unite the peaceful Palestine protests for a ceasefire, or that the Greens have never stopped campaigning for the environment and against new fossil fuel projects.
Better Australia promotes itself as a grassroots organisation. In February, Sophie Calland told The Guardian that “Better Australia is led by a broad coalition of Australians who believe that political representation should be based on integrity and action, not extremist or elite activism.”
It has very few members and its operations are marked by secrecy, and voters will have to wait a full year before the AEC registry of political donations reveals Better Australia’s backers.
It fits into a patchwork of organisations aiming to influence voters towards a framework of right-wing values, including
support for the Israel Defence Force, fossil fuel industries, nationalism and anti-immigration and anti-transgender issues.
Advance Australia (not so fair)
Advance is the lead organisation in this space. It campaigns in its own right and also supports other organisations, including Minority Impact Coalition, Queensland Jewish Collective and J-United. Advance claims to have raised $5 million to smash the Greens and a supporter base of more than 245,000. It has received donations up to $500,000 from the Victorian Liberal Party’s holding company, Cormack Foundation.In Melbourne, ex-Labor member for Macnamara, Michael Danby, directs and authorises ‘Macnamara Voters Against Extremism’, which pushes voters to preference either Liberals or Labor first, and the Greens last. Danby has spoken alongside Birenbaum at Together With Israel rallies.
L-R Michael Danby, Ofir Birenbaum, unionist Michael Easson OAM, and Rabbi Ben Elton. Source: Together With Israel Facebook groupThe message of Better Australia – and Better Council before it – mostly aligns with Advance. These campaigns target women aged 35 to 49, who Advance claims are twice as likely to vote for the Greens as men of the same age.
The scare campaign targets female voters with its fear-mongering and Greens MPS, including Australia’s first Muslim Senator Mehreen Faruqi, and independent female MPS with its loathing.
Meanwhile, Advance is funded by mining billionaires and advocates against renewable energy.
Labor standing by in silence
Better Australia is different from Advance, which is targeting Labor because it is an alliance of Zionist Labor and LIberal interests. Calland’s campaign may be effectively contributing to the election of a Dutton government. In the face of what would appear to be betrayal, the NSW Labor Party simply stands by.
The NSW Labor Rules Book (Section A.7c) states that a member may be suspended for “disloyal or unworthy conduct [or] action or conduct contrary to the principles and solidarity of the Party.”
Following MWM’s February exposé of Birenbaum, we sent questions to NSW Labor Head Office, and MPs Tanya Plibersek and Ron Hoenig, without reply. Hoenig is a member of the Parliamentary Friends of Israel and has attended Alexandria Branch meetings with Calland.
MWM asked Plibersek to comment on Birenbaum’s membership of her own Rosebery Branch, and on Birenbaum’s covert filming of Luc Velez, the Greens candidate in Plibersek’s seat of Sydney. Birenbaum shared the video and generated homophobic commentary, but we received no answers to any of our questions.
According to MWM sources, Calland’s involvement in Better Australia and Better Council before that is well known in Inner Sydney Labor circles. Last Tuesday night, she attended an Alexandria Branch meeting that discussed the Federal election. She also attended a meeting of Plibersek’s campaign.
No one raised or asked questions about Calland’s activities. MWM is not aware if NSW Labor has received complaints from any of its members alleging that Calland or Birenbaum has breached the party’s rules.
After all, when top Liberal and Labor strategists walk into a corporate boardroom, there is much to agree on.
It begins with a national campaign to keep the major parties in and independents and Greens out.
MWM has sent questions to Calland, Finkelstein, and Roozendaal, regarding funding and the alliance between Liberal and Labor powerbrokers but we have yet to receive any replies.
Wendy BaconWendy Bacon is an investigative journalist who was the Professor of Journalism at UTS. She worked for Fairfax, Channel Nine and SBS and has published in The Guardian, New Matilda, City Hub and Overland. She has a long history in promoting independent and alternative journalism.
She is a long-term supporter of a peaceful BDS and the Greens.
Yaakov Aharon Yaakov Aharon is a Jewish-Australian living in Wollongong. He enjoys long walks on Wollongong Beach, unimpeded by Port Kembla smoke fumes and AUKUS submarines.
Activate climate’s ‘silent majority’ to supercharge action, experts say
Making concerned people aware their views are far from alone could unlock the change so urgently needed.
‘Spiral of silence’: climate action is very popular, so why don’t people realise it? The Guardian is joining forces with dozens of newsrooms around the world to launch the 89% project—and highlight the fact that the vast majority of the world’s population wants climate action. Read more
Making people aware that their pro-climate view is, in
fact, by far the majority could unlock a social tipping point and push
leaders into the climate action so urgently needed, experts say. The data
comes from a global survey that interviewed 130,000 people across 125
countries and found 89% thought their national government “should do more
to fight global warming”. It also asked people if they would
“contribute 1% of their household income every month to fight global
warming” and what proportion of their fellow citizens they thought would
do the same. In almost all countries, people believed only a minority of
their fellow citizens would be willing to contribute. In reality, the
opposite was true: more than 50% of citizens were willing to contribute in
all but a few nations. The global average of those willing to contribute
was 69%. But the percentage that people thought would be willing was 43%.
The gap between perception and reality was as high as 40 percentage points
in some countries, from Greece to Gabon.
Damian Carrington Guardian 22nd April 2025, https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/apr/22/activate-climate-silent-majority-support-supercharge-action
Earthquake with epicentre near proposed nuclear site rattles eastern Australia
Epicentre located about 36km from one of seven locations where federal opposition proposes building nuclear power plant if elected
Stuti Mishra, Wednesday 23 April 2025
The quake’s epicentre has been located about 36km from
Liddell, the site of a decommissioned coal-fired power station and one of
seven locations where the federal opposition has proposed building a
nuclear power plant if elected. Opposition leader Peter Dutton last year
named Liddell as a candidate for Australia’s first nuclear energy
facility under the Coalition’s plan to replace ageing coal infrastructure
with nuclear reactors. The site has since come to be a flashpoint in the
national energy debate.
Independent 23rd April 2025, https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/australasia/earthquake-australia-nsw-sydney-canberra-magnitude-b2737717.html
Be wary of Google Search, especially on nuclear matters.
24 Apr 25 https://theaimn.net/be-wary-of-google-search-especially-on-nuclear-matters/
I’ve been meaning for a long time, to write about Google’s very pro-nuclear stance.
Then today, I found something that was both amusing and a wake-up call.
I have, for the past 16 years, run an anti-nuclear website – nuclear-news.net. Today, I typed into Google Search:
“who owns nuclear-news.net?”
And here is Google’s answer:
The online news service at nuclear-news.net, also known as World Nuclear News (WNN), is supported by the World Nuclear Association. WNN is based within the Association’s London Secretariat. The Association is an international industry organization with a global mandate to communicate about nuclear energy.
Well fancy that! I had no idea that WNN promoted the nuclear-free cause. Well of course, it doesn’t. Interestingly one does not “own” a website name, -one licenses it from a domain names company. Even if you make up the name yourself, as I did. And I still have the license. So – poo to the WNN.
And to Google. What a sad decline in morality! They started out with that noble motto: “Don’t Be Evil”
Back in 2008, if you typed “nuclear news” into Google Search – my website would come up at or very near the top. Google’s system then prioritised its list according to two considerations:
- That the website title accurately indicated its content.
- The number of viewings the website receives.
That system’s gone long ago, and Google has at least had the grace to abandon its former motto. Its now motto is “Do the right thing”.
Now isn’t that an interesting motto? Sounds similar to “Don’t Be Evil” – and yet, and yet ……. it’s not really the same. You see “the right thing” depends on who decides between right and wrong.
For a start, in today’s zeitgeist – the culture of economic growth – the right thing is what makes the most money. Therefore, Google correctly prioritises the websites that pay Google the most in sponsorship.
But that priority leads on to other considerations. For a company like Google, well, it’s essential to keep the most powerful economic interests onside. So, the weapons companies, Western militarism, the nuclear industry, and the other polluting industries get priority. And the Gazans and other impoverished communities don’t matter much.
Anyway, as I don’t pay Google any sponsorship money, my website comes up at something like page 154 on Google search , when looking for “nuclear news”.
I’m not writing this to get you to go to my website. And quite a healthy number of viewers do go there each day.
The thing is – be aware of Google’s priorities. They are not interested in the facts. We all knows that economic progress is more important than the truth, don’t we?
And at the same time, you might fairly accuse me of hypocrisy. I use Google Search all the time. It is tremendously useful . One just needs to be aware of the sources of information, and of Google keeping its nose clean by not too much offending the powerful and wealthy.
Coalition’s nuclear gambit will cost Australia trillions – and permanently gut its industry
The modelling cited extensively by the federal Coalition to defend its
nuclear power fantasies is predicated on a massive hollowing out of
Australian industry.
Climate Energy Finance (CEF) published a report on
Thursday examining the economic implications of the nuclear pathway
modelled by Frontier Economics for Australia’s energy transition.
Frontier concludes its $A331 billion costed nuclear scenario is somehow
better than the Australian Energy Market Operator’s Integrated System
Plan’s (ISP) Step Change scenario cost, which they calculate at $594
billion by bizarrely ignoring the massive cost of the resulting cumulative
$3.5 trillion reduction in Australian gross domestic product (GDP) by 2050.
Renew Economy 24th April 2025 https://reneweconomy.com.au/coalitions-nuclear-gambit-will-cost-australia-trillions-and-permanently-gut-its-industry/
New report: Coalition’s nuclear folly would cost Australian economy at least $4.3 trillion by 2050
Climate Energy Finance Media April 24, 2025, https://theaimn.net/new-report-coalitions-nuclear-folly-would-cost-australian-economy-at-least-4-3-trillion-by-2050/
New analysis by independent public interest think tank Climate Energy Finance (CEF) looks at the economic implications of the nuclear pathway modelled by Frontier Economics for Australia’s energy transition – cited extensively by the Federal Coalition to defend its nuclear plan. The analysis reveals a massive hollowing out of Australian industry, permanently higher total energy costs, uncosted and unabated carbon pollution, and trillions of dollars in lost GDP.
The CEF analysis exposes damaging flow-on costs to the economy for which the Frontier modelling fails to account.
Combined with Frontier’s extreme underestimation of the capital costs of building nuclear reactors, these costs accumulate to $4.3 – 5.2 trillion by 2050, 13-16 times the $331bn price tag for a nuclear Australia assumed by Frontier Economics.
These costs include an estimated:
- $3.5 trillion in cumulative undiscounted lost GDP through to 2050;
- An $111-332bn in nuclear capex costs, which the Frontier modelling erases all but $13.5bn of by failing to both amortise nuclear’s capital investment costs incurred after 2050 and account for inevitable expensive retrofits;
- $234bn in higher fuel costs due to slower electrification meaning consumers and businesses are forced to rely on higher cost fossil fuels for longer;
- $72-720bn in economic damage from up to 2.0bn of additional tonnes of CO2 emissions;
- $100bn in lost export revenue from the aluminium industry alone, likely to collapse under the drastically reduced industrial electricity demand in the nuclear scenario.
Report author Tim Buckley, CEF Director and a former Managing Director of global investment bank Citigroup, said:
“It strains credulity that the Frontier Economics nuclear report is riddled with shortcomings which completely undermine its credibility as a work of serious energy transition analysis, given this is the central modelling being relied upon by the Opposition for its key energy and climate policy offering of the 2025 Federal election.
“The largest share of the Frontier-modelled ‘savings’ in energy transition investment comes at the cost of delivering much weaker outcomes for Australia, including an assumption the Australian economy’s GDP is $300bn lower annually by 2051. This represents an astonishing $3.5 trillion in cumulative GDP forgone.
“This is as weak as the Opposition Leader recently declining to accept the settled climate science because he is ‘not a scientist’.
It beggars belief that this is the best the party representing itself as alternative federal government can come up with, as the nation stands on the brink of an immense generational opportunity to remake itself as a global renewables superpower and green energy trade and export leader in a rapidly decarbonising world.”
‘Spiral of silence’: climate action is very popular, so why don’t people realise it?
Researchers find 89% of people around the world want more to be done, but
mistakenly assume their peers do not.
The Guardian is joining forces with
dozens of newsrooms around the world to launch the 89% project—and
highlight the fact that the vast majority of the world’s population wants
climate action. The illusion that climate action is not popular is global.
So imagine dispelling that myth: such a shift, experts say, could be a
gamechanger, pushing the world over a social tipping point into unstoppable
climate progress. Such a communication campaign, low-cost and scalable,
could be among the most powerful tools available to fight the climate
crisis, they say. Decades of psychological research indicates that
correcting such misunderstandings can change people’s views across a
swathe of issues, from participating in protests to voting for Donald
Trump.
Guardian 22nd April 2025
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/apr/22/spiral-of-silence-climate-action-very-popular-why-dont-people-realise
1 This month
of the week – Disrupting War & Militarism in Oceania. Active solidarity. Radical practice.
Antinuclear 