Antinuclear

Give Me Missiles: Gina Rinehart and the Pathologies of Mining

Australian Independent Media, September 6, 2024, by: Dr Binoy Kampmark

Power should only ever be vested carefully, and certainly not in the hands of mining magnate Gina Rinehart, a creature so comically absurd as to warrant immediate dismissal in any respectable commentary. But Australia’s richest human being demands to be noticed, given the insensible influence she continues to exert in press and policy circles. Rants of smelly suggestion become pearls of perfumed wisdom, often occasioned by large amounts of largesse she disgorges on her sycophantic following.

Of late, she has been busy in her narcissistic daftness. At the National Bush Summit held last month, she proved particularly unstoppable. While advertised as a News Corp project backed by a number of Australian corporate heavies (NBN, CommBank, Woolworths and Qantas), Rinehart’s Hancock Prospecting left its unmistakable mark. The events offered a Rinehart Hall of Mirrors, self-reflecting her purchased eminence. She funded much of it; she structured it; she brought the necessary tyrannical boredom in tow.

Before remarking on some of the observations, brief mention should be made about the source of Rinehart’s animal spirit. One should never condemn, outright, the children for the sins of their parents. But she is the exception that proves the rule. Her father, Lang Hancock, was an elemental Australian version of a 20th century conquistador, an enterprising plunderer of the land and equally immune to cultural refinements and such novel notions as human rights. With barbaric clarity and genocidal suggestion, he proposed in 1984 that unassimilated members of the Indigenous populace be given the following treatment: “dope up the water up, so that they were sterile and would breed themselves out in the future and that would solve the problem.”

At the Port Hedland leg of the Bush Summit, Rinehart fantasised about having the military styled comforts offered by the US firm Rafael Advanced Defense Systems in 2011 to Israel. The Iron Dome system, used to shield Israel from rocket attacks, could just as well be deployed in Australia. But instead of focusing on protecting civilians, the batteries would be invaluable in protecting Rinehart’s own mining assets in the Pilbara.

A gorged ego, the country’s perceived welfare and mining interests are all fused in an unsteady mix of justified plunder under the cover of military protection for Hancock Prospecting. “It is no good having the resources of the Pilbara unless we can ship it out. Hence, we should have defence to keep our railways and ports open, and defend our sea lanes.” To the defensive dome could also be added “war drones, and smart sea mines.”

The next target in this spray of barking madness was government regulation – at least the sortthat impairs her extractive practices. With brattish petulance, she even claimed that Canada had treated the mining industry with greater aplomb and respect, despite having, in her words, a “socialist” Prime Minister in the form of Justin Trudeau. Various taxes, such as the Fringe Benefits Tax, should be ditched, given the damage it was doing to Northern Australia………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………. All liberal democracies face similar challenges: how to make sure the thick of mind remain distracted and resistant to riot, and keeping the malevolently wealthy contained within the realm of accountability. Rinehart’s commentaries suggest a desire to escape that orbit of accountability, operating as an unelected politician’s wish list. And being unelected is exactly how she likes it. The compromise and messiness of parliamentary debate and the making of policy would prove too excruciating and intolerable. Far better to intimidateelected representatives from afar, using platoons of paid-up lobbyists, consultants and cheering propagandists. When feeling generous, give them a confessional platform to ask forgiveness for their sins.

Were the fossil fuel lobby to be equipped with actual weapons, a coup would not be off the cards. A few Australian prime ministers have already had their heads, politically speaking,served on a platter to the mining industry, with Rinehart’s blessings. A depressing conclusion can thereby be drawn. Australia is a country where rule is exercised by those outside parliament. It’s Rinehart on minerals and metals and the Pentagon and the US military complex on weapons and military bases. What a stupendous state of affairs Australians find themselves in. https://theaimn.com/give-me-missiles-gina-rinehart-and-the-pathologies-of-mining/

September 6, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics | Leave a comment

Submission- Friends of the Earth -re new agreement on  Naval Nuclear Propulsion

underlying premises are false or misleading

most importantly, a wasteful expenditure of public money that will make Australia less safe

It is a logical contortion to suggest that nuclear powered naval submarines are “a peaceful activity”.

Besides spent nuclear fuel from Australian AUKUS submarines, there is a danger that Australia could be pressured into storing and disposing of spent nuclear fuel from UK and US submarines.

a giant millstone bequeathed to the people of Australia.

Submission to the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties re “Agreement … for Cooperation
related to Naval Nuclear Propulsion” Submission no. 5  https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Treaties/NuclearPropulsion/Submissions

Philip White, For Friends of the Earth Adelaide 4 Sept 24 [Original contains many nots, references, sources)

This Agreement should be rejected for reasons including those outlined below.

1. Because the underlying premises are false or misleading.

(a) Australia’s defence and security
The premises stated in the preamble include:
Recognizing that their common defense and security will be advanced by the exchange
of information, including Naval Nuclear Propulsion Information, and the transfer of
Material and Equipment for conventionally armed, nuclear-powered submarines, in
accordance with this Agreement; and
Believing that such exchanges and transfers can be undertaken without unreasonable
risk to each Party’s common defense and security.

These premises are false. In fact, Australia’s security will not be advanced and there is an
unreasonable risk to Australia’s defence and security, as can be seen from the quotes below from
eminent military analysts.

Hugh White (emeritus professor of strategic studies at the Australian National University, former
deputy-secretary of the Department of Defence) states as follows:
The new plan – to buy a nuclear-powered submarine instead – is worse [than the old
plan]. It will make the replacement of the Royal Australian Navy’s fleet of Collins-class
boats riskier, costlier and slower. It means an even bigger slump in our submarine
capability over the next few dangerous decades. And it deepens our commitment to the
United States’ military confrontation of China, which has little chance of success and
carries terrifying risks.1

He concludes that it “tied Australia to a deal that undermines our sovereign capabilities,
overspends on hardware we can barely be confident of operating, and drags us closer to the front
line of a war we may have no interest in fighting.”2

Major General Michael G Smith (retired) says:

In my view this decision to procure nuclear-powered submarines will prove to be as
useless, but even more costly, than was our flawed Singapore strategy before World War
II.3
Sam Roggeveen (director of the Lowy Institute’s International Security Program) is quoted as
saying:
It (AUKUS) is a project of vaulting ambition that is out of step with Australian tradition
as a middle military power, wildly at odds with our international status and, most
importantly, a wasteful expenditure of public money that will make Australia less safe.4

(b) Nuclear non-proliferation
The preamble also includes the following premises:
Reaffirming their respective obligations under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of
Nuclear Weapons, done at London, Moscow, and Washington 1 July 1968, and entered
into force 5 March 1970; …
Further recognizing that Australia has announced its intention to negotiate and conclude
an Article 14 arrangement with the International Atomic Energy Agency (“IAEA”)
pursuant to the Australia-IAEA Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement, related to
cooperation under this Agreement.

The premises thus stated fail to acknowledge that the ‘Article 14’ arrangement in question is a
self-contradictory attempt to close a dangerous loophole in the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of
Nuclear Weapons (NPT). The NPT only requires the application of safeguards to ‘peaceful’
nuclear activities. That leaves unstated the question of what to do about ‘non-peaceful’ nuclear
activities, other than nuclear weapons which are banned for non-nuclear-weapon states

‘Article 14’ of the Australia- IAEA comprehensive safeguards agreement (INFCIRC/217, 13
December 1974) states:

Australia shall inform the Agency of the activity, making it clear:
That the use of the nuclear material in a non-proscribed military activity will not be in
conflict with an undertaking Australia may have given and in respect of which Agency
safeguards apply, that the nuclear material will be used only in a peaceful nuclear activity.

It is a logical contortion to suggest that nuclear powered naval submarines are “a peaceful
activity”.
In a 6 October 2021 letter to President Biden, seven leading US non-proliferation experts explain
the problem as follows:

The IAEA is charged by the Treaty on the Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons with
verifying that nuclear material in non-weapon states is not diverted to nuclear weapons.
The IAEA is constrained, however, by Section 14 of its standard safeguard agreement,
“Non-Application of Safeguards to Nuclear Material to be Used in [Non-Explosive]
Non-Peaceful Activities,” which would allow a country to exempt HEU fuel from
normal inspections for decades. This well-known loophole has not yet been tested.5

These nuclear non-proliferation experts go on to articulate the following concern:

We … are concerned that the AUKUS deal to supply Australia with nuclear-powered
attack submarines fueled with weapon-grade uranium could have serious negative
impacts on the global nuclear nonproliferation regime and thereby on US national
security.6

They are concerned that countries including Iran, Brazil and South Korea could use the agreement
between Australia, the UK and the US as a precedent to support their own interest in acquiring
nuclear submarines. The experts express their concern for US national security, but the negative
impacts also apply to the national security of Australia.

2. Radioactive waste
   If Australia goes ahead with its plan to acquire nuclear powered submarines, the resulting spent
   nuclear fuel and other radioactive waste will continue to be dangerous for tens of thousands of
   years. It will have to be managed, stored and disposed of, but the countries from which we would
   purchase these submarines inspire no confidence that this can be safely achieved. In over 60 years
   of operating nuclear submarines, the US and UK have been unable to dispose of their own spent
   nuclear fuel.

Besides spent nuclear fuel from Australian AUKUS submarines, there is a danger that Australia
could be pressured into storing and disposing of spent nuclear fuel from UK and US submarines.
Under the Agreement, the status of spent fuel from second hand Virginia class submarines to be
purchased from the US is vague, but it is likely that Australia would be expected to accept US
spent fuel: i.e. to dispose of both the spent fuel produced while the submarines were owned and
operated by the US, as well as that produced while they were owned and operated by Australia.
The situation regarding other UK and US submarines is also unclear.

Minister for Defence RichardMarles has stated that Australia would not accept radioactive waste from overseas, but this has not been explicitly ruled out in the Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Bill 2023 currently before Parliament. The words of an under-pressure defence minister in 2024 are unlikely to count for much decades hence if Australian legislation and the Agreement between Australia, the UK and
the US do not prohibit the acceptance of foreign spent nuclear fuel.

It is important to acknowledge Australia’s poor history regarding radioactive waste disposal
facilities. As former Senator Rex Patrick points out, “Australia has been searching for a site for a
National Radioactive Waste Management Facility (NRWMF) site since the 1970s; and after 50
years, it still hasn’t found a spot on which to safely establish such a repository.”8 Several attempts
have been made, but they have been opposed by the Traditional Custodians, as well as the wider
public. The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples states:

States shall take effective measures to ensure that no storage or disposal of hazardous
materials shall take place in the lands or territories of indigenous peoples without their
free, prior and informed consent.9

This principle has not been followed in the search for a National Radioactive Waste Management
Facility. Now the Commonwealth Government is seeking to commit Australia to storing and
disposing of highly radioactive long-lived spent nuclear fuel from nuclear submarines. In the event
that Australia does acquire nuclear submarines, any future disposal site selection process should
adhere to this principle. However, it should not be taken for granted that Australia will be able to
find willing communities to host a site, especially considering that several State and Territory
governments have laws or policies opposing the disposal of nuclear waste in their jurisdictions. The Commonwealth should respect such prohibitions. It should not take the view that it can jus tride roughshod over them.

3. Health and Safety
   Much as the United States Navy claims that its nuclear-powered submarines are safe,11 the fact is
   that the longer they operate the more highly radioactive material accumulates in their reactors.
   Unlike civilian nuclear power plants, which have some of their spent fuel removed during regular
   outages, US and UK designed submarines, which use highly enriched uranium and do not require
   refuelling, keep accumulating radioactive material for the life of the submarine. Therefore, even
   though submarine reactors have a lower power output than standard civilian reactors, after they
   have been operating for a while they accumulate a substantial inventory of spent fuel.

It is not possible to guarantee that some of that radioactive material will not be released into the
environment, but, under the terms of the Agreement, liability is foisted onto Australia. Article IV.E
states as follows:

Australia shall indemnify, subject to paragraph F of this Article, the United States and
the United Kingdom against any liability, loss, costs, damage or injury (including
third-party claims) arising out of, related to, or resulting from Nuclear Risks connected
with the design, manufacture, assembly, transfer, or utilization of any Material or
Equipment, including Naval Nuclear Propulsion Plants and component parts and spare
parts thereof, transferred or to be transferred pursuant to this Article.

So even if the fault lies with the US or the UK, the liability, which could be huge, lies with
Australia. No government should accept such a risk.

Emergency planning is necessary to respond to potential accidents. In the case of port visits by
foreign nuclear vessels, organisations including the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear
Safety Agency (ARPANSA), the Department of Defence, and State and Territory authorities each
play a role in planning and responding to accidents involving the release of radioactive material. According to the Department of Defence,

1.4 The Australian Government requires contingency arrangements to be in place at all
Australian ports visited by NPWs and also requires that there be the capability to
undertake radiation monitoring of the port environment. These arrangements are
formulated to cover two potential release mechanisms, which are failure or malfunction
of radioactive waste control systems within the vessel and an accident involving the
reactor plant.13

One scenario that is not considered is the case of a nuclear vessel being attacked by a hostile
foreign power. As we witness the attacks on the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant in Ukraine, we are forced to realise that attacks on nuclear facilities are not confined to the realm of fantasy.
Inevitably a hostile power (be it China, or Russia, or some other country in future) would perceive
Australian nuclear powered submarines operated in alliance with the United States and the United
Kingdom as a threat. We cannot rule out the possibility that such a hostile power might one day
decide to attack an Australian nuclear powered submarine, or a US or UK nuclear vessel while it is
in an Australian port or in waters near the Australian coast.

Even if the probability of a nuclear accident is low, the potential consequences could be
catastrophic. The fact that there are grave risks is essentially acknowledged in the high
“permissible radiation dose[s]” envisaged under the existing emergency response plans.

14,15 There are already risks involved in accepting visits by foreign nuclear ships. However, there have been no nuclear vessel visits to Adelaide, where Friends of the Earth Adelaide is based, so there has
been no need to develop emergency plans for this contingency. We would like to keep it that way.
For that reason, we do not want Osborne to be declared a “designated zone” for nuclear submarine
construction. The claimed benefits (which are mostly illusory) are not worth the risk.

4. Waste of money and human resources
   The projected cost of AUKUS is extraordinary.
   The costs of the submarine component of AUKUS are estimated at $368bn through to
   the 2040s; and the total cost also includes $3bn to be transferred to the USA to help with
   its current domestic submarine production difficulties (Creighton 2023).16

We live in a time of multiple crises: for example, a failing health system, lack of housing, energy
system transformation, and degradation of the environment. All of these crises are security issues.
The security of ordinary Australians is compromised when they can’t get a hospital bed, or find a
home to live in, or pay their electricity bill, or enjoy the fruits of a sustainable environment. All
these security crises could be greatly ameliorated by the wise use of $368 billion. On the other
hand, nuclear-powered submarines won’t even make us safer from attack (refer discussion above),
let alone solve any of the real security issues faced by Australians on a daily basis.
Politicians like to claim that the submarine project will create jobs.

A government press release in March 2023 claimed that the jobs in South Australia
arising from the AUKUS deal would be fairly evenly divided between 4,000 workers employed to design and build the infrastructure at Osborne (Port Adelaide) and a further
4,000 to 5,500 to build the actual submarines. The AMWU sees around 5,000 workers
being needed to build, maintain and repair the submarines when the build is scheduled to
start in the 2040s. Spread over more than a quarter of a century, this is not hugely
impressive.
Furthermore, as John Quiggin (2023) pointed out, at current estimates, this works out at
roughly $18 million per job.17

Spending this money on health, housing, renewable energy and the environment would create
many more jobs at the same time as addressing the real sources of insecurity for Australians now
and in the foreseeable future. Furthermore, it is not just a matter of the money, but also the
diversion of skills that unwise spending leads to.

For Port Adelaide/Osborne, the lesson is that it would be wise to treat all claims
regarding job growth and related local economic development with a large pinch of salt.
South Australia, like the rest of the country, is facing a massive skills shortage. A 2023
report from Jobs and Skills Australia (JSA 2023) argued that Australia would need more
than two million workers in the building and engineering trades by 2050 and more than
32,000 more electricians by 2030. A development focussed entirely on producing
nuclear submarines to reinforce a growing Cold War is going to suck skilled workers
from other vital sectors.18

5. Conclusion
   The proposal for Australia to acquire nuclear powered submarines from the US and the UK, was
   conceived in secret and presented as a fait accompli to the Australian public by then Prime
   Minister Morrison. After taking a few hours to collect its thoughts, judging that so close to an
   election it couldn’t afford to be seen to be weak on Defence, as a matter of political expediency the
   then Albanese Opposition accepted the deal, even though it made no sense from a security
   perspective and represented a massive opportunity cost for every Australian for decades. If
   Australia proceeds with the deal, it will be Scott Morrison’s greatest legacy: a giant millstone
   bequeathed to the people of Australia.

Despite the fact that the deal has received criticism from both the right and the left, there is no sign
that either Labor or the Liberal/National Coalition are interested in winding it back. But maybe
these submarines have an escape hatch written into the clauses of the Memorandum of
Understanding and the Agreement itself. Clause 6 of the Memorandum of Understanding states:

The Governments affirm that cooperation under the Agreement is to be carried out in
such a manner as to not adversely affect the ability of the United States and the United
Kingdom to meet their respective military requirements and to not degrade their
respective naval nuclear propulsion programs.

The grounds for making this judgement are not specified, but based on the current rate of
submarine construction in the US and the UK, it would not be difficult for those countries to make
the case that delivery of submarines to Australia would “degrade their respective naval nuclear
propulsion programs”.19 Article XIII of the Agreement gives them the right to terminate the
Agreement with one year’s written notice, so there is their escape hatch.

We strongly believe that the Agreement should not be entered into in the first place. The proposal
for Australia to acquire nuclear powered submarines should be rejected on security, safety, nuclear
non-proliferation, environmental and economic grounds. Given that both sides of politics have
committed themselves to these submarines, it would take some political courage to reverse course.
If the government does not have enough political courage to make the right decision now, then it
should encourage the US and UK governments to do the arithmetic and quickly come to the
conclusion that they can’t build submarines fast enough to supply Australia without degrading
their own nuclear propulsion programs. The quicker everyone acknowledges this and exercises
their right to terminate the Agreement, the less money will be wasted.

September 5, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics | Leave a comment

Cash splash for nuclear towns under Coalition plan

Don’t believe the hype!

The Age, By Paul Sakkal and Mike Foley, September 5, 2024 —

Regional communities will be showered with gifts for hosting nuclear reactors under Opposition Leader Peter Dutton’s energy policy, as the Coalition pledges a government-backed managed investment fund propped up by profits from its proposed power plants.

Opposition energy spokesman Ted O’Brien detailed the plans in a speech planned for this week’s Gippsland New Energy Conference, announcing the Coalition’s Community Partnership funds that invest dividends earned by the nuclear plants into the local economy.

Climate and Energy Minister Chris Bowen was invited to speak at the conference while O’Brien’s office claimed he was blocked from speaking despite the Coalition proposing a nuclear facility in the region, displaying what O’Brien called Australia’s “immature” energy debate that excludes nuclear energy advocates. Conference organisers were contacted for comment.

The Coalition’s signature energy policy would build seven taxpayer-funded, government-owned nuclear plants on the sites of existing coal generators. The proposed sites are in Lithgow and the Hunter Valley in NSW, Loy Yang in Victoria’s Latrobe Valley, Tarong and Callide in Queensland, Collie in Western Australia and Port Augusta in South Australia.

In his draft speech given to this masthead, O’Brien claimed the plants would supply the “cheapest electricity in the nation” for firms in industrial zones, which would attract a wave of investment to build facilities, grow the workforce and drive regional population growth.

“We want to ensure that communities like Latrobe can power Australian manufacturing for the remainder of this century and beyond,” O’Brien said in the speech.

“The key here is workers can move over in their same occupations, continuing to apply their skills, doing what they’ve always done. It means their social networks remain, their kids can still go to the same school.”

The Coalition has pledged to build the first two nuclear plants by 2037, with all seven completed by 2050. The sites have been selected to tap into existing transmission line infrastructure once the existing coal plants reach the end of their life.

However, experts have rejected claims that nuclear energy would be cheap, arguing renewables already produce less expensive electricity than fossil fuels and that CSIRO findings show it would cost more than $16 billion to build a single nuclear reactor.

The CSIRO said electricity will come from a grid drawing 90 per cent of its power from renewables, it would cost between $89 and $128 per megawatt hour by 2030. A large scale nuclear reactor would supply power for $136 to $226 per megawatt hour by 2040, according to the CSIRO.

The Coalition disputes the findings, saying the CSIRO did not consider the long life of nuclear plants, but has not released its own costings. This document will be key to understanding how the Coalition intends to return a profit on taxpayers’ investment in nuclear plants.

Bowen told the Gippsland conference on Wednesday the Coalition’s nuclear plan would cripple investment in renewable energy currently flowing to regional communities.

“They want to stop investment, stop jobs, and stop benefits in favour of waiting for a nuclear fantasy that may never come true,” he said.

The Coalition’s claims of a regional industrial boom under the nuclear plan resembles the goals of its previous regional investment policies…………………….more https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/cash-splash-for-nuclear-towns-under-coalition-plan-20240902-p5k72h.html

September 5, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics | Leave a comment

Barnaby’s Bush Summit bombshell: Why ScoMo wouldn’t back nuclear

Barnaby Joyce revealed Scott Morrison rejected a push from within the Coalition to introduce nuclear power in Australia because polling showed it was unpopular.

Daily Telegraph, John Rolfe and James O’Doherty, 30 Aug 24

Former Prime Minister Scott Morrison rejected a push from within his Coalition government to introduce nuclear power in Australia because polling showed it was unpopular, the Bush Summit has heard.

Speaking in a panel on energy policy at the Summit in Orange, Barnaby Joyce revealed that when he was Deputy Prime Minister he went to Mr Morrison, the then PM, and made the case for overturning the prohibition on nuclear and building reactors.

He claimed Mr Morrison said there wasn’t enough community backing.

“He (Mr Morrison) said that the polling didn’t support that,” Mr Joyce recalled. “And so it didn’t go ahead.”

He added: “We’ve continued fighting, and … now the Opposition is taking it on. That’s what happens in politics. You just fight, fight, fight, and then you finally get there, and we’re there.”

Later, in an interview for DTTV, Mr Joyce went further: “I’ve always been a supporter of nuclear power. So Scott Morrison didn’t pursue nuclear power because he thought it was politically untenable.

“In politics, it’s not a case of following. It’s a case of leading. And that’s what we intend to do.”

Mr Morrison told The Telegraph it was “seriously considered and discussed.

“It was determined and agreed that there was insufficient runway before the election to prosecute the case for a civil nuclear energy capability … especially given there would not be bipartisan support for the change, which had been our standing policy position on nuclear power for many years, that is, to proceed it would need to be bipartisan.

“That said, nuclear power was included in our government’s Technology Road Map.”

Mr Joyce also told the Summit that the push for renewable energy is the “most divisive thing” he has seen in his time in politics in a fiery debate with Matt Kean.

‘WHAT IS THIS, THE WIZARD OF OZ?’

“It has split communities down the middle. It has made good friends (go) for each other’s throats,” Mr Joyce said during his face-off with the former NSW treasurer and energy Minister Mr Kean – now Climate Change Authority chairman.

“We are going to be mugged by reality on this one … if we keep going down this path, the lights are going to go out,” Mr Joyce said, adding red tape would slow down building new energy such as nuclear power.

“You were the deputy Prime Minister of the country Barnaby … you could do something about it,” Mr Kean said.

Mr Kean added he wasn’t “opposed” to nuclear.

“I’m supportive of the facts, I’m not opposed to nuclear per se, but … nuclear is three to five times more expensive than firmed renewables,” Mr Kean said, prompting a barrage of rejections from the New England MP.

“What is this? The Wizard of Oz,” Mr Joyce said.

Mr Kean said the government Mr Joyce was part of didn’t build any baseload power.

Earlier, Mr Joyce met with pro-nuclear protesters outside the summit and promised he would “fight this till the end.”

The anti-wind farm campaigners were brandishing signs saying “we do not consent” and “minimum 6km setback from our homes”.

“They’re ruining the environment and wrecking regional Australia,” one protester said of wind farms………………………………………………………………………….. https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/bush-summit/barnabys-bush-summit-bombshell-why-scomo-wouldnt-back-nuclear/news-story/f16eae0098c75cb049d0d1a03eddf4be

August 31, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics | Leave a comment