Dutton’s plan to nuke Australia’s renewable energy transition explained in full

Giles Parkinson, Jun 21, 2024,   https://reneweconomy.com.au/duttons-plan-to-nuke-australias-renewable-energy-transition-explained-in-full/

Opposition leader Peter Dutton has outlined his plan to bring the renewable energy transition in Australia to a halt, keep coal fired power stations open, build more gas and use taxpayer funds to build nuclear power plants in the 2030s and 2040s – if the Coalition wins the next election.

Here is an explanation of the plan as far as we know it.

What are the details?

There are not many, because the nuclear “policy” has been released in a one page press release. The Coalition says it wants to build seven nuclear power plants – all at the site of current or former coal fired power stations – in five states. It favours a mix of small modular reactors and large-scale nuclear. It wants the first reactor built by 2035.

Where exactly will they be built?

Two sites in NSW (Liddell in the Hunter and Mt Piper near Lithgow), two in Queensland (at the Tarong and Callide power plants), one in Victoria (Loy Yang in the Latrobe Valley), one in South Australia (Port Augusta), and one in Western Australia (Collie).

Are the site owners OK with that?

No, they say they haven’t been consulted and they say they have their own multi-billion dollar plans to build clean energy and industrial hubs. AGL CEO Damien Nicks says: “There is no viable schedule for the regulation or development of nuclear energy in Australia, and the cost, build time and public opinion are all prohibitive. ” However, the Coalition says if the site owners do not co-operate they will compulsory acquire the land needed.

Which technology will the Coalition use?

It’s not clear. Dutton wants to build small nuclear reactors at two sites, in South Australia and W.A. But SMRs do not exist yet, none have planning approval, and none even have licences to be built anywhere in the western world. Of the two large scale nuclear technologies cited, one (APR1400) has not been ordered anywhere in the world outside South Korea for 15 years. The other, the AP1000, sent its maker Westinghouse bankrupt in 2017 and was the technology used in the Vogtle reactor in the US whose massive delays and cost overruns might make it the last ever built in that country.

When is the timeline for the Coalition nuclear build?

The Coalition wants the first SMR up and running by 2035, and the first large-scale nuclear plant by 2037, with the rest in the 2040s.

Is that realistic?

No. SMRs – for all intents and purposes – haven’t been invented yet. There is no design in any western country that has even been licensed, let alone been given approvals or started construction. Globally, the industry is hopeful of getting the first up by the end of the decade. Even Canada, with a well established nuclear industry and an available site, says it is unlikely to have the second SMR up and running by 2035.

The timelines for large-scale nuclear are even longer. All four projects built or under construction in the last three decades in the US, France, Finland and the UK have suffered massive delays and cost over-runs. Australia has no regulatory platform, and no existing industry, apart from the small reactor at Lucas Heights in Sydney. Even pro-nuclear advocates like former chief scientist Alan Finkel say nuclear cannot realistically be delivered in Australia until the 2040s.

What are the costs?

The Coalition hasn’t said anything about costs, which is not surprising. SMRs have not been built and the only one that got close was cancelled by its would-be customers because it would have been hideously expensive. The Coalition’s timeline of 2035 means it wants to be an early adopter. The CSIRO puts the costs at more than $600/MWh, which might be palatable for a technology used only rarely for evening peaks, but such a price for “always on” power would be insane.

Would it lead to lower bills?

All Australian and international studies show that the Coalition’s choice of technologies – nuclear, gas and carbon capture – are by far the most expensive. See CSIRO, AEMO, Lazard, and BloombergNEF. Energy analysts say the growing reliance on gas power while renewables are stopped and coal kept on line would lead to soaring prices and an extra $1,000 on annual bills for the average household. The nuclear rollout will be entirely funded and subsidised by the taxpayer, which means that – as in France, Ontario and elsewhere – the costs of nuclear would be borne by the government and hidden from consumer bills.

What would happen to emissions?

Emissions will rise significantly if the Coalition puts its plan into action. One study suggests it would result in some 2.3 billion tonnes of additional carbon emissions over the Australian Energy Market Operator’s step change scenario.

What about Australia’s obligations to the Paris climate treaty?

The Coalition has made clear it will not seek to meet the current interim target of a 43 per cent cut in emissions. That means it is effectively ignoring the climate treaty, which requires no back-tracking on committed targets.

What about the net zero by 2050 target?

The Coalition says it still intends to meet that – but, by stopping wind and solar and building more gas, that target looks impossible under their plan.

The Coalition says the sites were chosen because they will not need new transmission. Is that true?

No. The site owners have their own plans. In Port Augusta, for instance, the grid capacity has already been mostly taken up by new wind, solar and batteries. “The myth that a nuclear reactor could just plug into the old Pt Augusta coal power station transmission lines is not true,” says South Australia energy minister Tom Koutsanstonis. “The transmission lines are already nearly full from new renewables. In truth, a nuclear reactor at Pt Augusta would need new transmission lines, the exact thing the LNP are complaining about.” And the large-scale nuclear reactors cited by Dutton will be twice the size of any existing unit in Australia, so it will need more grid infrastructure, and also more “back-up” in case those units fail.

The Coalition says the market operator has warned that the reliance on wind and solar will mean the lights will go out. Is that true?

No. The Australian Energy Market Operator says the biggest threat to energy reliability and security is the failure of ageing and increasingly unreliable coal fired generators.

The Coalition says wind and solar cannot power modern economies and businesses. Is that true?

No. The owners of Australia’s biggest smelters and refineries, including Rio Tinto and Ark Energy, are contracting multiple gigawatts of wind and solar to power their assets. South Australia says it has been flooded with inquiries from business with more than 2 GW of energy demand seeking to move to the state to access cheap wind and solar.

The Coalition says wind and solar cannot provide more than 10 per cent of the energy mix without causing problems. Is that true?

No. South Australia already enjoys a 75 per cent share of wind and solar, and the isolated W.A. grid has had 36 per cent wind and solar over the past year. The market operator says instantaneous levels of 100 per cent should be achieved in coming years.

The Coalition says the Labor government wants to build 28,000 km of new transmission lines by 2030. Is that true?

No. The market operator’s system plan envisages just over 5,000 km by 2030, one third of which have already been built, and some of the rest needed by growth in population and industry. The 28,000 km number comes from the “green export superpower” scenario and is for 2050. That assumes a switch from fossil fuel exports to green industries (steel, power, ammonia), and would likely be required whatever the technology.

Isn’t nuclear banned in Australia?

Yes, at federal and state levels. If the Coalition wants to repeal the laws it will need to get it through both houses of parliament, and who knows where the numbers will be after the next election, with the two-party preferred polls even stevens and any number of independents and minor parties also likely to emerge.

Do the states want nuclear?

No. The Labor governments in Queensland, NSW and Victoria have state laws against nuclear and intend to keep them. LNP Opposition leader David Crusafulli, favoured to take power in Queensland’s election in October, is also against nuclear. State governments in Western Australia, South Australia and even the Liberals in Tasmania are also opposed to nuclear, but legal experts say if the Commonwealth pulls rank, it is heading for the courts.

What if local communities object?

Nationals leader David Littleproud has spent the last few years defending the right of communities to oppose wind, solar, battery and transmission projects, and has demanded a pause and a “re-set.” But he says the Coalition will brook no opposition to its nuclear plans. If local communities don’t like it, tough luck. “We need strong leadership in this country, to have the courage of its convictions, to follow through and to make the tough calls in the national interest,” he told the ABC.

What will be the future of large-scale renewables under a Coalition government?

If the Coalition wins power, it won’t be good. Littleproud wants them stopped, and has vowed to rip up contracts written by the Commonwealth under the Capacity Investment Scheme, which could have 12 GW of capacity lined up over the next 12 months. States may plough on, but will face roadblocks and vetoes on projects. Investors say they need certainty.

So what is the real strategy here?

It’s pretty clear that the strategy is less about building nuclear and more about stopping renewables and protecting the fossil fuel industry, something that the Coalition has not been shy about for the last two decades. It will lead to higher costs, more emissions, squandered industry opportunities, and make the grid less reliable.

Will the strategy work?

Quite possibly. To people in the industry, pushing nuclear and walking away from Australia’s low cost wind and solar resources is nuts – from an engineering, economic and environmental point of view. But 95 per cent of people do not know, and are not interested in, the fine details of the complex energy system. They just want cheap power and the lights to stay on.

And to many of them the Coalition’s fear mongering may sound entirely plausible, particularly when the obvious misinformation is not contradicted by mainstream media – with a few notable exceptions such as The Guardian. See Trump, see Aboriginal voice referendum.

The fossil fuel industry is funding a massive campaign on social media to share simple and effective stories that make nuclear sound sensible and wind and solar as madness. They didn’t just think of this yesterday. If the renewable energy industry and Labor are not careful, they will lose this battle for hearts and minds.

Wow, that was exhausting. Do you need a lie down?

Yes.

Nuclear thuggery: Coalition will not take no for an answer from local communities or site owners

Jim Green, Jun 20, 2024, https://reneweconomy.com.au/nuclear-thuggery-coalition-will-not-take-no-for-an-answer-from-local-communities-or-site-own

Former Liberal prime minister Malcolm Turnbull famously described Coalition leader Peter Dutton as a “thug”. That description appears particularly apt in Dutton’s nuclear power plans.

The Coalition’s nuclear project is opposed by state Labor governments in each of the five states being targeted. Victoria, NSW and Queensland have laws banning nuclear power. The Labor governments in SA and WA may follow suit if they think state legislation will give them some legal protection, or any political advantage.

Could a Dutton government override state laws banning nuclear power? Anne Twomey, a Sydney University Professor Emerita with lengthy experience teaching and practising in constitutional law, argues that states probably could not prevent the Commonwealth establishing a nuclear power plant, nor could they prevent necessary associated operations such as transmission lines and nuclear waste transport.

Would a Dutton Coalition government attempt to override state opposition to nuclear power plants? Almost certainly it would. Nationals leader David Littleproud said in March that “if the Australian people vote for us that’s a fair indication to premiers that they should get out of the way”.

Coalition and Labor federal governments have pursued attempts to impose a national nuclear waste dump in SA and the NT despite state/territory laws banning such facilities. Those attempts have all failed, largely due to community opposition led by affected Aboriginal Traditional Owners.

Legal challenges helped stop three of the four proposed nuclear dump sites — Woomera (SA) under the Howard government, Muckaty (NT) under the Abbott government, and Kimba (SA) under the Morrison and Albanese governments. But the legal difficulties could have been overcome if the government of the day was ruthless enough and wasn’t suffering too much political pain because of its racist, undemocratic thuggery.

What about the companies who own the sites being targeted by the Coalition for nuclear power plants, and who have their own multi-billion dollar plans to develop their own clean energy industrial hubs based around renewables. Well, they can get stuffed too.

Dutton hasn’t bothered to consult these companies, but he has sought legal advice. This is what he said yesterday:

“We will work with the companies, the owners of the sites. If we find a situation where we apply a national interest test and we require that site to be part of the national grid, then the legal advice that we have is that the Commonwealth has ample power to compulsorily acquire that with ample compensation.”

According to energy minister Chris Bowen, six of the owners of the seven targeted sites have ruled out agreeing to nuclear power reactors on their land.

The Coalition also hasn’t bothered to consult communities around the sites targeted for nuclear reactors. And, like state governments and the owners of the targeted sites, the wishes of those communities will also be ignored.

Nationals deputy leader Perin Davey made the mistake of saying that the Coalition would not impose nuclear power plants on communities that were adamantly opposed.

She was corrected by Littleproud, who said: “She is not correct and we made this very clear. Peter Dutton and David Littleproud as part of a Coalition government are prepared to make the tough decisions in the national interest.”

Likewise, Dutton said: “Perin I think made a mistake yesterday as everybody does from time to time … We’ve identified the seven locations and we believe it’s in the community’s interests and the national interest to proceed.”

Democracy is for wimps, apparently, and for traitors who oppose the ‘national interest’ as Comrades Dutton and Littleproud see it.

All this stands in stark contrast to a 2019 parliamentary inquiry led by current shadow energy minister Ted O’Brien. The Committee’s report was titled ‘Not without your approval: a way forward for nuclear technology in Australia’.

O’Brien said in 2019 that a future government should only proceed with nuclear power on the condition that it make “a commitment to community consent as a condition of approval for any nuclear power or nuclear waste disposal facility”.

He also waffled on about “maintaining a social license based on trust and transparency” and putting the Australian people “at the centre of any approval process”.

That was then, this is now. The ‘national interest’ is at stake.

Prof. Anne Twomey notes that the Dutton government would need to get legislation through Parliament, including the Senate, both to repeal federal laws banning nuclear power and also “to provide any necessary legal support and protection for a nuclear power industry in Australia”.

An uncooperative Senate could block Dutton’s nuclear power plans, but could not stop him expanding the use of fossil fuels and derailing the renewable energy transition.

Dr Jim Green is the national nuclear campaigner with Friends of the Earth Australia and co-author of a new ACF report, ‘Power Games: Assessing coal to nuclear proposals in Australia’.

Port Augusta mayor and local MP kept in the dark about Liberal Coalition’s plant to site nuclear reactors there

Adelaide Now, 20 June 24

Stuart MP Geoff Brock says phone blowing up as Dutton nuclear plan leaves Port Augusta searching for answers

The state MP whose seat could house a nuclear power plant says the Opposition Leader’s announcement has sparked a surge of questions from locals.

The MP who represents the state seat which could house a nuclear power station says he has been taking calls from constituents worried about the proposal and what it could mean for the regional city.

But independent Stuart MP Geoff Brock said he had been unable to answer the questions because he has not been briefed on the proposal by the Liberal Party or its leader Peter Dutton.

“They are trying to understand what it’s all about,’’ Mr Brock said.

“When’s it going to happen? How’s it going to happen? What rights have they got? How are they going to be communicated with?

“There’s none of that information out there and its created so much uncertainty. For some people its very stressful.’’However, Mr Brock said it was important to remain “calm’’ about the Liberal proposal until more information was known.

Port Augusta mayor Linley Shine declined to comment.

However, Giles Labor MP Eddie Hughes said the proposal to build a nuclear power station in Port Augusta could divide the community.

Mr Hughes electorate includes part of Port Augusta.

“In areas with relatively high unemployment, projects are welcome but I think this will divide the community,’’ he said.

“There will be some who are pro and some who are anti, but I think the thing to focus on is communities like Whyalla, like Port Augusta have had all these promises in the past that have not been delivered.’’

Mr Hughes said while he didn’t have a “reflexive antinuclear view’’, he didn’t think nuclear would add up economically, given the projected growth of renewable energy that will happen before the first nuclear power station comes opens close to 2040.

He also said with so much renewable energy in the region that was already using the transmission lines, a new nuclear plant would also require new transmission capacity to be built.

“We have multiple energy options in Australia and nuclear just does not stack up,’’ he said………………………………  https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/stuart-mp-geoff-brock-says-phone-blowing-up-as-dutton-nuclear-plan-leaves-port-augusta-searching-for-answers/news-story/de6e0262aafb5bd0a991bce2073542af

The Slow-Motion Execution of Julian Assange Continues .

Free speech is a key issue. If Julian is granted First Amendment rights in a U.S. court it will be very difficult for the U.S. to build a criminal case against him, since other news organizations, including The New York Times and The Guardian, published the material he released. 

The ruling by the High Court in London permitting Julian Assange to appeal his extradition order leaves him languishing in precarious health in a high-security prison. That is the point.

CHRIS HEDGES, MAY 24, 2024,  https://chrishedges.substack.com/p/the-slow-motion-execution-of-julian-986?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=778851&post_id=144930141&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=ln98x&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

The decision by the High Court in London to grant Julian Assange the right to appeal the order to extradite him to the United States may prove to be a Pyrrhic victory. It does not mean Julian will elude extradition. It does not mean the court has ruled, as it should, that he is a journalist whose only “crime” was providing evidence of war crimes and lies by the U.S. government to the public. It does not mean he will be released from the high-security HMS Belmarsh prison where, as Nils Melzer, the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, after visiting Julian there, said he was undergoing a “slow-motion execution.”

It does not mean that journalism is any less imperiled. Editors and publishers of  five international media outlets —– The New York Times, the Guardian, Le Monde, El Pais and DER SPIEGEL —– which published stories based on documents released by WikiLeaks, have urged that the U.S. charges be dropped and Julian be released. None of these media executives were charged with espionage. It does not dismiss the ludicrous ploy by the U.S. government to extradite an Australian citizen whose publication is not based in the U.S. and charge him under the Espionage Act. It continues the long Dickensian farce that mocks the most basic concepts of due process.

This ruling is based on the grounds that the U.S. government did not offer sufficient assurances that Julian would be granted the same First Amendment protections afforded to a U.S. citizen, should he stand trial. The appeal process is one more legal hurdle in the persecution of a journalist who should not only be free, but feted and honored as the most courageous of our generation.  

Yes. He can file an appeal. But this means another year, perhaps longer, in harsh prison conditions as his physical and psychological health deteriorates. He has spent over five years in HMS Belmarsh without being charged. He spent seven years in the Ecuadorian Embassy because the U.K. and Swedish governments refused to guarantee that he wouldn’t be extradited to the U.S., even though he agreed to return to Sweden to aid a preliminary investigation that was eventually dropped.

The judicial lynching of Julian was never about justice. The plethora of legal irregularities, including the recording of his meetings with attorneys by the Spanish security firm UC Global at the embassy on behalf of the CIA, alone should have seen the case thrown out of court as it eviscerates attorney-client privilege.

The U.S. has charged Julian with 17 counts under the Espionage Act and one count of computer misuse, for an alleged conspiracy to take possession of and then publish national defense information. If found guilty on all of these charges he faces 175 years in a U.S. prison.

The extradition request is based on the 2010 release by WikiLeaks of the Iraq and Afghanistan war logs — hundreds of thousands of classified documents, leaked to the site by Chelsea Manning, then an Army intelligence analyst, which exposed numerous U.S. war crimes including video images of the gunning down of two Reuters journalists and 10 other unarmed civilians in the Collateral Murder video, the routine torture of Iraqi prisoners, the covering up of thousands of civilian deaths and the killing of nearly 700 civilians that had approached too closely to U.S. checkpoints.

In February, lawyers for Julian submitted nine separate grounds for a possible appeal. 

A two-day hearing in March, which I attended, was Julian’s last chance to request an appeal of the extradition decision made in 2022 by the then British home secretary, Priti Patel, and of many of the rulings of District Judge Baraitser in 2021. 

The two High Court judges, Dame Victoria Sharp and Justice Jeremy Johnson, in March rejected most of Julian’s grounds of appeal. These included his lawyers’ contention that the UK-US extradition treaty bars extradition for political offenses; that the extradition request was made for the purpose of prosecuting him for his political opinions; that extradition would amount to retroactive application of the law — because it was not foreseeable that a century-old espionage law would be used against a foreign publisher; and that he would not receive a fair trial in the Eastern District of Virginia. The judges also refused to hear new evidence that the CIA plotted to kidnap and assassinate Julian, concluding — both perversely and incorrectly — that the CIA only considered these options because they believed Julian was planning to flee to Russia.

But the two judges determined Monday that it is “arguable” that a U.S. court might not grant Julian protection under the First Amendment, violating his rights to free speech as enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights.

The judges in March asked the U.S. to provide written assurances that Julian would be protected under the First Amendment and that he would be exempt from a death penalty verdict. The U.S. assured the court that Julian would not be subjected to the death penalty, which Julian’s lawyers ultimately accepted. But the Department of Justice was unable to provide an assurance that Julian could mount a First Amendment defense in a U.S. court. Such a decision is made in a U.S. federal court, their lawyers explained. 

Assistant U.S. Attorney Gordon Kromberg, who is prosecuting Julian, has argued that only U.S. citizens are guaranteed First Amendment rights in U.S. courts. Kromberg has stated that what Julian published was “not in the public interest” and that the U.S. was not seeking his extradition on political grounds.

Free speech is a key issue. If Julian is granted First Amendment rights in a U.S. court it will be very difficult for the U.S. to build a criminal case against him, since other news organizations, including The New York Times and The Guardian, published the material he released. 

The extradition request is based on the contention that Julian is not a journalist and not protected under the First Amendment.

Julian’s attorneys and those representing the U.S. government have until May 24 to submit a draft order, which will determine when the appeal will be heard. 

Julian committed the empire’s greatest sin — he exposed it as a criminal enterprise. He documented its lies, routine violation of human rights, wanton killing of innocent civilians, rampant corruption and war crimes. Republican or Democrat, Conservative or Labour, Trump or Biden — it does not matter. Those who manage the empire use the same dirty playbook.

The publication of classified documents is not a crime in the United States, but if Julian is extradited and convicted, it will become one. 

Julian is in precarious physical and psychological health. His physical and psychological deterioration has resulted in a minor stroke, hallucinations and depression. He takes antidepressant medication and the antipsychotic quetiapine. He has been observed pacing his cell until he collapses, punching himself in the face and banging his head against the wall. He has spent weeks in the medical wing of Belmarsh, nicknamed “hell wing.” Prison authorities found “half of a razor blade” hidden under his socks. He has repeatedly called the suicide hotline run by the Samaritans because he thought about killing himself “hundreds of times a day.” 

These slow-motion executioners have not yet completed their work. Toussaint L’Ouverture, who led the Haitian independence movement, the only successful slave revolt in human history, was physically destroyed in the same manner. He was locked by the French in an unheated and cramped prison cell and left to die of exhaustion, malnutrition, apoplexy, pneumonia and probably tuberculosis. 

Prolonged imprisonment, which the granting of this appeal perpetuates, is the point. The 12 years Julian has been detained — seven in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London and over five in high-security Belmarsh Prison — have been accompanied by a lack of sunlight and exercise, as well as unrelenting threats, pressure, prolonged isolation, anxiety and constant stress. The goal is to destroy him.

We must free Julian. We must keep him out of the hands of the U.S. government. Given all he did for us, we owe him an unrelenting fight. 

If there is no freedom of speech for Julian, there will be no freedom of speech for us.

Dutton’s nuclear would spike electricity bills when (if) they start in the 2040s

Odd that Peter Dutton hasn’t mentioned the commencement of the latest nuclear reactor in the US — or the big price hike it has caused consumers.

BERNARD KEANE AND GLENN DYER, MAY 20, 2024,  https://www.crikey.com.au/2024/05/20/peter-dutton-nuclear-power-proposal-energy-bills-usa/

Why has Peter Dutton pulled another disappearing act — this time with his major policy, nuclear power?

In March, the Coalition’s media arm “exclusively” revealed he “will announce the Coalition’s signature energy policy before the May federal budget”. A few weeks later, we were told that timeline was abandoned, with Nationals leader David Littleproud complaining the Coalition was being “bullied” into announcing it before the budget, but that it could be announced “as soon as June or July”. When you live in the fantasy world of The Australian, the calendar’s a very flexible thing.

Dutton mentioned nuclear power several times in his budget reply speech last week. He did claim that “because of nuclear power, residents in Ontario, Canada pay up to a quarter of the cost of what some Australians pay for electricity”. But there was no detail — especially the electorates he wants to locate nuclear power plants in.

We know the Coalition is split over nuclear power, but you would have thought recent events in the United States would be encouraging Dutton to push forward. At the end of April, the most recent new nuclear reactor, in Georgia, began operating. “Georgia Power announced this week that the 1,114-megawatt (MW) Unit 4 nuclear power reactor at Plant Vogtle near Waynesboro, Georgia, entered into commercial operation after connecting to the power grid in March 2024,” the US Energy Information Administration (IEA) announced on May 1. Vogtle 3 began operating in mid-2023.

Good news, surely? Why wouldn’t Dutton be mentioning Vogtle (OK, it’s a little hard to pronounce) in his budget reply — rather than Canada?

Well, for one thing, the two new reactors have cost around US$35 billion to construct — that’s around US$20 billion over budget — and were completed seven years late. The final cost makes them the most expensive nuclear power plants in history, and they were only completed because Donald Trump provided $12 billion in loan guarantees to the ailing project.

Preliminary construction began on the two Vogtle reactors in 2009. On that timetable — remembering Australia has no nuclear power regulatory structures or industry expertise to draw on — a Dutton government’s first nuclear power would become available in 2040, assuming building started the day after the election.

But mammoth delays and massive cost blowouts are neither here nor there to the Coalition, remembering that nuclear power is actually all about keeping coal-fired power going, not building any nuclear power stations. The reason Dutton might not want to mention Vogtle is what the enormous cost of the new reactors has done to power prices: cause a permanent 10% increase in electricity bills for consumers across Georgia and beyond. According to the Associated Press:

Regulators in December approved an additional 6% rate increase on Georgia Power’s 2.7 million customers to pay for $7.56 billion in remaining costs at Vogtle, with the company absorbing $2.6 billion in costs. That’s expected to cost the typical residential customer an additional $8.97 a month in May, on top of the $5.42 increase that took effect when Unit 3 began operating.

That means consumers have faced a total 9.6% increase in electricity costs to pay for the new reactors.

That’s not modelling or estimates — that’s cold hard cash that American consumers are having to fork out, every quarter, forever, to pay for nuclear power.

Who would bear the cost of the inevitable budget blowouts of Dutton’s reactors? There is literally no major infrastructure project in Australia in recent years that has not experienced major cost blowouts. Consumers would be looking at similar increases in their power bills as the residents of Georgia — or higher.

This is why, as the IEA said, “no nuclear reactors are under construction now in the United States”. American electric utilities have learned from Vogtle’s delays, cost overruns, regulatory problems and massive lift in power costs for consumers. They have shelved plans for 24 other reactors proposed between 2007 and 2009.

The much-vaunted — by the Coalition — NuScale small modular reactor in Idaho was abandoned earlier this year amid cost blowouts that saw the likely consumer price of electricity produced by the plant rise by more than 50% to US$89/MWh. Two half-built reactors under construction in South Carolina were abandoned in 2017.

Westinghouse, whose technology is used in the Vogtle 4 station, is focused on trying to sell its reactor design abroad, as Americans come to realise that, even despite having had a nuclear power industry since the 1950s, more nuclear power plants are too costly for consumers to wear. But the penny hasn’t dropped with Dutton and his media champions yet.

Australian Greens’ dissenting report on The Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Bill

1.1The Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Bill 2023 (the Bill or ANNPS) is deeply flawed legislation that is only being progressed because of the deeply flawed trilateral agreement that is AUKUS.

1.2The Bill proposes a seriously flawed regulatory model for the dangers of naval nuclear reactors and associated waste.

1.3 The proposed regulator lacks genuine independence, the process for dealing with nuclear waste is recklessly indifferent to community or First Nations interests and the level of secrecy is a threat to both the environment and the public interest.

1.4 Any amendments proposed to improve the many deficiencies of this legislation should not be interpreted as support for the Bill itself or for the AUKUS deal.

1.5 This Bill establishes a new defence naval nuclear regulator that will oversee all aspects of the nuclear production and waste cycle associated with Australian nuclear-powered submarines (and with regard to waste but not the operational activities of UK and US submarines) that operate, are constructed or decommissioned in Australia and Australian territorial waters.

1.6 This regulator will be entirely separate from the existing and long-standing nuclear regulation framework in Australia, which currently sits under the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Act 1998 (ARPANS Act).

Independence

1.7This Bill fails to meet the fundamental international principles of regulatory independence for safely addressing the inherent risks of nuclear power and nuclear waste.

1.8In this Bill, the proposed Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Regulator reports directly to the Minister of Defence. The Defence Minister is also responsible, through the Australian Defence Force, for the operation of those same nuclear submarines.

1.9 This is widely out of step with international standards of legal and functional independence for nuclear safety and is contrary to current practice on civil nuclear regulation in Australia.

1.10This is also in direct opposition to the International Atomic Energy Agency in its Fundamental Safety Principles that state: An effective legal and governmental framework for safety, including an independent regulatory body, must be established and sustained.^[1]

1.11It is also not in line with the current regulation of nuclear waste in Australia. The regulator, called the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) sits in the Ministry of Health whereas the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) (which operates the Lucas Heights reactor) sits in the Ministry of Industry and Science. This is to ensure the regulator is independent of the industry it oversees.

1.12As the majority report notes in some detail, the proposed model under this Bill is distinct from either the UK or US naval nuclear regulators.

1.13 In the UK, while the main naval nuclear regulator does report through the Ministry of Defence, there is a significant ongoing role for the independent civilian Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) in overseeing defence nuclear activities. This is formalised in the General Agreement between the Ministry of Defence and the Office for Nuclear Regulation. This agreement clearly delineates the relationship between the Ministry of Defence and the ONR in discharging their respective roles and responsibilities for the UK’s defence nuclear operations. There is no equivalent role for ARPANSA in this Bill.

In the US, the regulator is known as the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program (NNPP). This is not run solely by Defense but rather is jointly managed and self-regulated by the civilian National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) that reports to the Department of Energy, and the Department of the Navy. By contrast, under this Bill the regulator will be entirely within the Department of Defence and the Defence Minister will have sole ministerial responsibility.

1.15The importance of regulatory independence was outlined in a letter to the CEO of ARPANSA from the Radiation Health and Safety Advisory Council in October 2022 that stated:

Independence of the regulator is a critical part of its effectiveness. The regulator should be independent of the operators and departments overseeing any aspect of purchase, manufacture, maintenance, and operation of the program. It is noted that some of the more significant global nuclear and radiation incidents have arisen from inadequate separation of responsibilities from regulatory capture. More than functional separation, it is important that the independent regulator can operate without influence, and with a strong voice. If a regulatory body cannot provide information on safety and incidents at licensed facilities without the approval of another organisation, issues of independence and transparency will arise. Reporting arrangements should therefore enable the regulatory body to be able to provide safety related information to the Government and the public with the maximum amount of transparency.^[2]

1.16During a committee hearing, these concerns were put to the Royal Institution of Naval Architects (RINA), concerning the importance of independence in ‘social licence’:

Senator SHOEBRIDGE: We have good examples, though, of independence. ANSTO is an operator. The regulator of ANSTO reports to a different minister, and that is part of how ANSTO gets social licence. That’s a good example, isn’t it, of structural independence?……………………………………………………

ARPANSA also acknowledged that the key to their social licences was independence through reporting to a minister not associated with the industry they are regulating

1.18In further questioning concerning how this independence can be achieved with the Defence Minister having both the regulator and the body it’s regulating reporting to them, ARPANSA stated:

Senator SHOEBRIDGE: Do you agree it’s a weakness in this bill to have the operator and the regulator both report to the same minister? Or if you don’t want to adopt my phrase, tell me how you would respond to the fact that the regulator and the operator both report to the same minister, given the fundamental importance of independence?

Dr Hirth: I think it’s important to go back to the IAEA, and I think the comments made by RINA in your questions to them this morning around undue influence. Establishing reporting arrangements in order that there isn’t undue influence of interested parties does present a challenge for the Minister for Defence…………………………….

1.19Furthermore, there were concerns raised about the development of a new regulatory body, with all the concerns of independence with the ANNPS Bill, which may also lack the expertise needed……………..

The ability of the Minister through proposed section 105 to issue directions to the regulator further blurs the independence of the new regulator. This was a concern for the Australian Shipbuilding Federation of Unions (ASFU),……………………………………………

1.21Another aspect of the lack of independence concerns the staffing and leadership of the new regulator. It is true that neither the Director-General nor Deputy Director-General can be an active member of the ADF (Australian Defence Force) as specified in proposed section 109.

1.22 However, there is nothing stopping someone from immediately stepping out of the ADF and the next day becoming the Director-General or Deputy Director-General, as this exchange with Defence made clear:……………………………………………………..

1.23 Furthermore, there are no such restrictions on the staff of the regulator, which may all be drawn from active ADF personnel.

1.24 This means the supposed independent regulator of Defence can be run by someone who, the day before was in the Defence, staffed by the Defence and report to the Minister of Defence.

Recommendation 1

1.25 It is recommended that the Bill be amended to ensure a genuinely independent regulator and that the regulator reports to the Minister of Health rather than the Minister of Defence.

1.26 Alternatively, that the regulator more closely reflects the arrangements in the United States and jointly reports to both the Minister of Health and the Minister for Defence, with these Ministers jointly holding Ministerial responsibility under the Bill.

Recommendation 2

1.27 It is recommended that for transparency any direction issued under section 105 be tabled in Parliament within three days where the direction may, or will, negatively impact public health or safety.

Recommendation 3

1.28 It is recommended that section 109 be amended to:

prohibit the Director General from being a current or former member of the ADF or Department of Defence, and;

that the Deputy Director General not be a current member of the ADF or Department of Defence or have been a member of the ADF or Department of Defence for at least two years prior to any appointment.

No public or First Nations consultation

1.29This Bill allows the Minister of Defence to establish ‘designated zones’ for the storage, management and disposal of low, medium and high-level nuclear waste in any part of Australia the Minister chooses by regulation.

1.30This Bill establishes an initial two zones, one at HMAS Stirling at Garden Island in Western Australia and another at the Osborne Naval Shipyard in South Australia. Both zones are close to major metropolitan centres.

1.31Concerning future nuclear waste dumps, the Minister for Defence has indicated that they will only be on Defence land, however, that includes large parcels of land within every major population centre in the country. The Minister also said this can include ‘future’ Defence land.^[9]

1.32However, the Bill does not provide even this limitation on where nuclear waste can be located. In fact, the Bill says in bold terms the waste can be on defence land or ‘any other area in Australia’ identified in the regulations. This means, with the flick of the Minister’s pen, any location in Australia can be made into a high-level nuclear waste dump.

1.33This completely excludes any consultation with the local impacted community or with First Nations people whose land and water will be targeted by Defence. With this Bill, neighbours to large defence sites like Holsworthy in Sydney or Greenbank in Brisbane are right to be concerned that they may wake up one morning, with no notice, to find they back onto a high-level nuclear waste dump.

1.34 We have seen from decades of failed attempts to set up nuclear waste sites across the country, most recently at Kimba, that Federal governments have routinely sought to override First Nations people’s claims to the land on this issue. The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) specifies the importance of free, prior and informed consent before any such action is taken. This Bill does not even pretend to engage with these principles.

1.35 As the submission from Friends of the Earth stated:

First Nations communities have repeatedly defeated thuggish, racist governments in relation to radioactive waste facilities but that has come at a huge cost in terms of physical and mental health.^[10]

1.36The few protections that the law currently gives to First Nations people over their land are removed by this Bill. The Independent and Peaceful Australia Network raised this during a hearing, stating:

There doesn’t seem to have been any notice taken of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. They should have the right to prior informed consent on this issue and have full consultation before any designations are made for nuclear waste.^[11]

1.37Multiple submissions also raised the comments by Dr Marcos Orellana, UN Special Rapporteur on Toxics and Human Rights, in 2023 on this issue, saying:

It is instructive that all siting initiatives by the Government for a radioactive waste repository have failed, leaving a legacy of division and acrimony in the communities. The loss of lives and songlines resulting from exposure of Indigenous peoples to hazardous pesticides in the Kimberley region, from asbestos exposure in Wittenoom in Western Australia, and from the radioactive contamination following nuclear weapons testing in South Australia, are all open wounds. Alignment of regulations with the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is a critical step in the path towards healing open wounds of past environmental injustices.^[12]

1.38Concerning the proposed nuclear ‘designated zone’ in Perth, Nuclear Free WA and Stop AUKUS WA noted the importance of the areas around HMAS Stirling, stating in their submission:

Cockburn Sound and Garden Island have significant cultural value for First Nations Peoples … The ecological values of Garden Island, the proximity to Cockburn Sound make radioactive waste disposal here incompatible.^[13]

1.39 It is remarkable that on an issue so vital to communities, the potential location of a nuclear waste dump, there is zero public consultation required under this Bill. Compare this to existing laws such as the National Radioactive Waste Management Act 2012, where a site must be voluntarily nominated, evaluated against technical, economic, social and environmental criteria, and offered for public consultation.

1.40 This, together with the express inclusion of the UNDRIP principles, is the minimum standard that should be expected under this Bill for public and First Nations consultation.

Recommendation 4

1.41 It is recommended that the Bill must ensure that there is free, prior and informed consent from First Nations people and the communities impacted before any designated zone is established for low, medium or high-level naval nuclear waste.

Recommendation 5

1.42 It is recommended that the Bill should expressly include reference to, and compliance with, Australia’s international obligations including the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Recommendation 6

1.43 It is recommended that the Bill should adopt the requirements for public consultation and site identification for designated nuclear zones found in the National Radioactive Waste Management Act 2012.

Transparency and collaboration

1.44 The ARPANS Act has key elements to ensure the management of nuclear waste is done in collaboration with other experts and bodies, as well as openly with the public. This Bill fails on both of these fronts……………………………………………………………………………………………

1.47 By creating a legally and functionally separate naval nuclear regulator this Bill ignores decades of experience in both the UK and the US where there is a co-regulatory civil and defence regime. This not only ignores international experience, it also ignores the decades of experience held in Australia’s civilian nuclear regulators and advisers. This is a reckless proposal that will leave Defence to be both the nuclear operator and the nuclear regulator without having ongoing advice from an independent body.

Recommendation 7

1.48 It is recommended that the Bill should require close co-operation and consultation between the proposed naval nuclear regulator and the civilian regulator ARPANSA.

Recommendation 8

1.49 It is recommended that the Bill should be amended to ensure that the Director General receives advice from the relevant nuclear safety advisory groups including the Radiation Health and Safety Advisory Council, Radiation Health Committee and the Nuclear Safety Committee.

UK and US nuclear waste dumping ground

1.50 As noted above the Bill is drafted to allow the UK and US to dump nuclear waste, including high-level nuclear waste, from their existing and decommissioned nuclear submarines in Australia.

1.51 Despite Minister Marles rejecting this as ‘fear-mongering’ when first raised, this fact was admitted by multiple witnesses, including Defence officials and BAE Systems Australia. It also flows from any even moderately close reading of the Bill.^[16]

1.52 It turned out to be significantly more than this with numerous organisations confirming that this Bill indeed does allow for the dumpling of nuclear waste in Australia from UK and US submarines.

1.53 Mr Peter Quinlivian, Senior Legal Counsel, BAE Systems Australia admitted the law would permit the dumping of nuclear waste from UK nuclear submarines in the following exchange:…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

1.54 Mr Adam Beeson, General Counsel, Australian Conservation Foundation, further corroborated this information said:………………………………………………………………………….

1.55 Mr Kim Moy, Assistant Director-General of the Domestic Nuclear Policy Branch, Department of Defence also admitted that this Bill would allow for the dumping of foreign nuclear waste:……………………………………………………

1.56 Question on Notice 1 from Defence during this hearing also made clear that the current definition is not just limited to low-level nuclear waste, but high-level nuclear waste too.^[20]

1.57 This is particularly disturbing given the UK currently has no plan to dispose of the nuclear waste from their nuclear submarines. In the UK there are now six decades of decommissioned rusting nuclear submarines that are filled with high and medium-level nuclear waste for which they have no solution.

1.58 To be clear, under this Bill, there is a real and present danger that either this government or a future government will allow UK nuclear waste to be brought to Australia. This is an extraordinary proposal and is so clearly not in Australia’s interests, let alone the interests of communities and First Nations peoples on whose land this toxic waste will be dumped.

1,59 Mr Dave Sweeny, Nuclear Policy Analyst, Australian Conservation Foundation addressed these concerns ………………………………………………………..

1.60If the AUKUS nuclear submarine deal is to splutter on, then it must not be allowed to become a back door entry for the world’s most toxic nuclear waste.

Recommendation 9

1.61 The Bill must be amended to ensure that no UK or US nuclear waste can be stored or disposed of in Australia.

Overrides other laws

1.62 This Bill also seeks to override or disregard other laws and international obligations.

1.63 For example, the Bill allows for the Minister to override State and Territory laws that might limit where the Federal Government proposes nuclear waste will be stored through proposed section 135 which reads:

If a law of a State or Territory, or one or more provisions of such a law, is prescribed by the regulations, that law or provision does not apply in relation to a regulated activity.

1.64 This issue has been noted by local communities and environmental groups including David J Noonan who stated in his submission:

The Bill is undemocratic and disrespectful to the people of SA in a proposed power under Section 135 “Operation of State and Territory laws” to over-ride any SA Laws or provisions of our Laws effectively by decree, a fiat of unaccountable federal agents to annul our Laws by naming then in Regulations.^[22]

Recommendation 10

1.68 It is recommended that section 135 of the Bill should be removed to retain existing State and Territory protections for the safe treatment of nuclear materials.

Recommendation 11

1.69 It is recommended, to ensure the Bill meets the existing requirements for Australia’s nuclear safety regime to be consistent with international standards, that section 136 be amended to require functions performed to be in accordance with, rather than simply to have regard to, prescribed international agreements.

1.70 Each of the above amendments are intended to strengthen a dangerously undercooked bill. Taken together they would significantly strengthen the proposed regulatory regime to make it more independent and to ensure the public interest, public consultation and First Nations’ rights are respected.

1 .71 However, even if all were adopted, the Bill’s express purpose is to facilitate Australia spending some $368 billion to obtain a handful of nuclear submarines. This entire project comes at an eye-watering cost that strips vital public resources from addressing the climate challenge, the housing crisis and rising economic inequality in our country.

1.72 For all these reasons the Bill should be rejected by the Parliament in its entirety.

Recommendation 12

1.73 It is recommended that the Bill be rejected in full.

Senator David Shoebridge, Substitute member, Greens Senator for New South Wales

Footnotes …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..  https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Foreign_Affairs_Defence_and_Trade/ANNPSBills23/Report/Australian_Greens_dissenting_report?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTAAAR05CTHduGYDKKcA97g2CvxUE5GZijeBqCITeyjzP0E6YtRmwA_t1EDhwE0_aem_AfsyqQjkM1ez6NUjpa-gSqQ_S_XuhvR6d41rhpWq5VIanWmfHvNRjs3Fqrq_uzaOhVymvSX39Jdbj-LRRbQGamPl

Peter Dutton to press ahead with nuclear despite opposition in regional Australia

Locals who live in areas earmarked for nuclear reactors have delivered a blow to Peter Dutton’s energy plan.
James Campbell National political editor, April 7, 2024, The Sunday Telegraph
https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/nsw/peter-dutton-to-press-ahead-with-nuclear-despite-opposition-in-regional-australia/news-story/53a7108e83484542ee99870d5002fba9
Peter Dutton will press on with his plans for nuclear power, despite recent Coalition research finding widespread opposition to the proposals in regional areas earmarked for reactors.
Coalition sources said focus group research carried out in the Hunter Valley in NSW and the Latrobe Valley in Victoria in recent weeks found hostility to the proposed polices.
It found that while voters were aware of the general arguments for nuclear power, they were hostile to plans for reactors in their own areas.

A Coalition source familiar with the research said the findings had come as a shock.
“They had convinced themselves that people would be queuing up for these things,” the source said.
Another said it was clear “more work needs to be done” on winning the argument.
But Mr Dutton is still set to release his plan for net-zero energy before the May budget.
The Weekend Australian reported the Coalition’s plan would offer heavily discounted power bills to communities with nuclear power plants.
It also reported the plan is to install small nuclear reactors at as many as seven sites, which will be operating by the mid-2030s.

“The ability to produce zero-emissions baseload with 24/7 electricity to firm up renewables is within our grasp,” he told the paper.
However a Coalition MP who strongly supports nuclear power said there was increasing concern in both the Liberal and National Party rooms that it was already too late to win the public argument about nuclear power in the time left before the next election.
“We haven’t even seen the policy yet,” the MP said. “My read is they’re in panic about it. They don’t know what to do.”

The Sunday Telegraph spoke to a number of Coalition MPs, including frontbenchers, who expressed concerns about the saleability of nuclear power from opposition.
But they all agreed Mr Dutton is not for turning on ¬nuclear power.
According to one frontbencher who supports the plan “the best case scenario” from pushing nuclear power would be a “nil-all draw” with the Government.
“Let’s not kid ourselves that this is some kind of vote-catching policy,” the frontbencher said.
But he said there was no chance Mr Dutton would walk away from it.

“He’s obsessed with this nuclear thing – obsessed with it,” the frontbencher said.
“Peter is very determined to go down this path,” another said.
On Wednesday, Mr Dutton told reporters: “I think we need to have a proper, mature discussion about how we migrate to a new energy system where we can have renewables that are firmed up by zero emissions, latest generation nuclear technology”.
He added: “In terms of regions, we’ve been very definite in our advice that we’re looking at about half a dozen sites, on brownfield sites, those where you’ve got a coal-fired generator coming to an end of life”.

Melissa Parke: The nuclear threat Australia is ignoring

In its 2018 policy platform, Labor committed to signing and ratifying the TPNW in government, after taking account of a number of factors, including the new treaty’s interaction with the longstanding non-proliferation treaty.

It was Albanese who moved the motion, stating at the time, “Nuclear weapons are the most destructive, inhumane and indiscriminate weapons ever created. Today we have an opportunity to take a step towards their elimination.”

The motion was seconded by the now defence minister, Richard Marles, and adopted unanimously.

The Saturday Paper, 30 Mar 24

In August 1939, a month before the outbreak of World War II, Albert Einstein wrote to then United States president Franklin D. Roosevelt advising that a large mass of uranium could be used to make “extremely powerful bombs of a new type”.

Fearing Nazi Germany would be the first to develop such weaponry, he implored Roosevelt to speed up experimental work aimed at harnessing the destructive power of the atom.

It was, he later said, the “one great mistake” of his life.

Like J. Robert Oppenheimer, Einstein became increasingly alarmed at the implications of the Manhattan Project. In just a few years, the human species had acquired the means to destroy itself, along with most other living organisms on Earth.

Horrified by the high death toll from the US atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, which killed more than 200,000 people, mostly civilians, Einstein reflected, “The unleashed power of the atom has changed everything save our modes of thinking, and we thus drift toward unparalleled catastrophe.”

Shortly before his death in 1955, Einstein signed a manifesto with other renowned intellectuals, including the mathematician and philosopher Bertrand Russell, warning “a war with H-bombs might quite possibly put an end to the human race”.

Their growing concern stemmed, in part, from the discovery that nuclear weapons could spread destruction over a much wider area than had initially been supposed.

A year earlier, at Bikini Atoll in the Marshall Islands, America’s infamous Castle Bravo nuclear weapons test had poisoned not only the people of nearby Rongelap but also Japanese fishermen hundreds of kilometres from the blast site.

It was the largest of more than 300 US, French and British nuclear test explosions carried out in the Pacific between 1946 and 1996, with devastating consequences for local populations and the environment.

The British government also tested nuclear weapons on Australian soil in the 1950s and 1960s, poisoning the environment, dislocating and irradiating Aboriginal communities, and affecting many of the 20,000 British and Australian service personnel involved in the testing program.

The toxic legacy of these experiments – in Australia, the Pacific and other parts of the world – persists to this day. Those exposed to radiation and their descendants suffer from birth defects and cancers at much higher rates than the general population.

Still, the nuclear arms race continues apace. The dire warnings articulated so powerfully in the Russell–Einstein manifesto seven decades ago remain just as relevant today.

Our world is teetering on the brink of catastrophe, with close to 13,000 nuclear weapons in the arsenals of nine countries. The risk of their use – whether by accident or design – is as high as ever……………………………………………………………

Australia’s plan to acquire nuclear-powered submarines under AUKUS has only exacerbated tensions, eroding well-established non-proliferation norms.

Last year, more than 150 medical journals, including The Lancet and the Medical Journal of Australia, put out a joint call for urgent action to eliminate nuclear weapons. They identified the abolition of nuclear weapons as a public health priority. “Even a ‘limited’ nuclear war involving only 250 of the 13,000 nuclear weapons in the world,” the warning stated, “could kill 120 million people outright and cause global climate disruption leading to a nuclear famine, putting two billion people at risk.”……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

This week, as I walked the halls of Parliament House to advocate for Australia’s signing of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), a landmark accord adopted at the United Nations in 2017 with the backing of 122 countries, I was reminded of the power that people in government have to make real and long-lasting change, and also how all too often they let opportunities slip by.

During my nine years as the Labor member for Fremantle, I saw how government action and policy change could make positive differences for people and the environment, but also how inaction could have devastating consequences.

The Albanese government has an opportunity to leave a powerful legacy and help secure the future of all life on Earth. To do so, Australia must step out from under the shadow of the nuclear umbrella and sign the Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Wespons (TPNW)

The sticking point for Australia has been the doctrine of extended nuclear deterrence, a feature of our defence strategy for decades. In theory, Australia relies on US nuclear weapons to defend us against nuclear attack. Washington, however, has never made a public commitment to that effect. Furthermore, since nuclear deterrence is based on the willingness and readiness to commit the mass murder of civilians, it is morally and legally unacceptable, even by way of retaliation.

Deterrence theory also assumes complete rationality and predictability of all actors, including one’s enemies, all of the time, which is a bold assumption.

There are many things that cannot be deterred, including accidents, miscalculations, unhinged leaders, terrorist groups, cyber attacks and simple mistakes. There have been many nuclear near-misses over the decades and we have been on the brink of catastrophe more than once, most famously during the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962.

The TPNW provides a pathway to the elimination of nuclear weapons. It is a new norm in international law that delegitimises and stigmatises the most destructive and inhumane weapons ever created. It also includes groundbreaking provisions to assist communities harmed by nuclear use and testing and to remediate contaminated environments.

Indonesia, New Zealand, Malaysia, the Philippines, Thailand and nine of the Pacific Island states have signed up. We are clearly out of step with our region.

Australia has a proud history of championing nuclear disarmament, particularly under Labor governments. The late Tom Uren, a Labor luminary and mentor to Anthony Albanese, was one of the party’s most passionate critics of nuclear weapons and war.

It was under the Whitlam government, with Uren serving as a minister, that Australia ratified the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons in 1973. Bob Hawke worked with Pacific neighbours to develop the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty in 1985. Paul Keating established the Canberra Commission on the Elimination of Nuclear Weapons in 1995. Kevin Rudd established a follow-up commission in 2008.

In its 2018 policy platform, Labor committed to signing and ratifying the TPNW in government, after taking account of a number of factors, including the new treaty’s interaction with the longstanding non-proliferation treaty.

It was Albanese who moved the motion, stating at the time, “Nuclear weapons are the most destructive, inhumane and indiscriminate weapons ever created. Today we have an opportunity to take a step towards their elimination.”

The motion was seconded by the now defence minister, Richard Marles, and adopted unanimously.

Albanese argued the most effective way for Australia to build universal support for the TPNW – including, ultimately, bringing nuclear-armed states on board – would be for our country to join the treaty itself.

He also said that doing so would not jeopardise Australia’s alliance with the US, noting Australia had joined other disarmament treaties to which the US isn’t a party, including those banning anti-personnel landmines and cluster munitions.

New Zealand, the Philippines and Thailand have all ratified the TPNW, with no disruption to their ongoing non-nuclear military cooperation with the US. Indeed, the Philippines recently almost doubled the number of its military bases available to US forces and conducted joint military exercises with the US in the South China Sea.

Labor reaffirmed its commitment to signing the TPNW at its 2021 and 2023 national conferences, but the Albanese government has not yet inked the accord. It is time for the prime minister to act.

The rising, existential danger of nuclear war makes it all the more important for Australia to get on the right side of history.

We need to change our modes of thinking – to use Einstein’s phrase – and dispense with old ideas about what makes us safe and secure. We must remember that disarmament is essential for our collective survival.

In their manifesto, Einstein and Russell appealed as human beings to human beings: “Remember your humanity, and forget the rest.”

This article was first published in the print edition of The Saturday Paper on March 30, 2024 as “The nuclear threat Australia is ignoring”.  https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/comment/topic/2024/03/30/the-nuclear-threat-australia-ignoring#mtr

UK court orders delay to extradition of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange to US on espionage charges

By Associated Press, By OLIVER PRICE , 27 March 2024  https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13239885/Julian-Assange-appeal-against-extradition-court-rules.html?fbclid=IwAR05bAhgRzHKwygiC0ljNnPEU_bL1uwPz2mIRy7vU9RzSU0J_Qbi4aOpK_M_aem_AahKjiDK6G3wRltDvIaC_MtPOcRzYRMwUFpdRPeR7yiJcdMyJyjQi03SWVMX6MWQenTiiAm9LmgWVamqopIy9ZT_

The United States must give assurances that Julian Assange will not face the death penalty before judges will consider dismissing the WikiLeaks founder’s bid to bring an extradition appeal, the High Court has ruled.

Assange, 52, faces prosecution in the US over an alleged conspiracy to obtain and disclose national defence information following the publication of hundreds of thousands of leaked documents relating to the Afghanistan and Iraq wars.

In a 66-page ruling, Dame Victoria Sharp said: ‘Before making a final decision on the application for leave to appeal, we will give the respondent an opportunity to give assurances.

‘If assurances are not given then we will grant leave to appeal without a further hearing.

‘If assurances are given then we will give the parties an opportunity to make further submissions before we make a final decision on the application for leave to appeal.’

These assurances are that Assange would be protected by and allowed to rely on the First Amendment – which protects freedom of speech in the US, that he is not ‘prejudiced at trial’ due to his nationality, and that the death penalty is not imposed.

The judges said the US authorities had three weeks to give those assurances, with a final hearing potentially taking place in late May.

In her ruling, Dame Sharp said any assurances from the United States would need to include ‘that the applicant (Julian Assange) is permitted to rely on the First Amendment, that the applicant is not prejudiced at trial, including sentence, by reason of his nationality, that he is afforded the same First Amendment protections as a United States citizen, and that the death penalty is not imposed’. 

Speaking after the judgment, the Australian’s wife Stella Assange described the ruling as ‘astounding’.

She said: ‘What the courts have done has been to invite a political intervention from the United States… send a letter saying ‘its all ok’. I find this astounding.

‘This case is a retribution. It is a signal to all of you that if you expose the interests that are driving war they will come after you, they will put you in prison and will try to kill you.

‘The Biden administration should not issue assurances. They should drop this shameful case that should never have been brought.’

Addressing Julian Assange’s legal ground about freedom of speech guarantees in the US, Dame Victoria Sharp said: ‘The applicant wishes to argue, at any trial in the United States, that his actions were protected by the First Amendment.

‘He contends that if he is given First Amendment rights, the prosecution will be stopped. The First Amendment is therefore of central importance to his defence to the extradition charge.’

She continued: ‘If he is not permitted to rely on the First Amendment because of his status as a foreign national, he will thereby be prejudiced, potentially very greatly prejudiced, by reason of his nationality.’

Dame Victoria concluded: ‘It follows that it is arguable that the applicant might be treated differently at trial on the grounds of his nationality.

‘Subject to the question of whether this could be addressed by means of an assurance from the respondent, we would grant leave to appeal.’

WikiLeaks initially reacted positively to the news, saying Assange had been granted ‘leave to appeal’ his extradition, but he will only be allowed to do so if ‘assurances’ are not met.

Reacting to the ruling on X, formerly Twitter, this morning, WikiLeaks posted: ‘Julian Assange has been granted leave to appeal extradition to the US.

‘Having spent almost five years detained at the UK’s most secure prison the publisher will continue his long detention separated from his young family for revealing war crimes. #FreeAssangeNOW.’

WikiLeaks has now deleted this tweet.

WikiLeaks later added: ‘The court has given US Gov 3 weeks to give satisfactory assurances: That Mr. Assange is permitted to rely on the First Amendment to the US constitution; not prejudiced at trial by reason of his nationality; and that the death penalty is not imposed. #FreeAssange.’

The hearing at the Royal Courts of Justice today was attended by Assange’s wife Stella, dozens of journalists and members of the public, with hundreds observing remotely.

Dozens of people stood outside the central London courthouse to await the judgment, holding placards bearing the message ‘Free Julian Assange’ and chanting ‘There is only one decision, no extradition’.

Speaking at a press conference after Julian Assange’s bid to appeal against extradition to the US was delayed, Jennifer Robinson, WikiLeaks legal counsel, said the decision raised ‘fundamental concerns about free speech’.

She added: ‘It is absurd that we are five years into this case and the US has not offered assurance to protect him from (the death penalty).’ 

Ms Robinson added: ‘The judgment today demonstrates that if Julian was extradited to the United States there is a real risk and concern that he would not be afforded free speech protections.

‘We say the US should not be offering assurance in response to this judgment, they should be dropping the case and it is a case that should never have been brought in the first place.’

Speaking after the latest Julian Assange ruling, Michelle Stanistreet, general secretary of the National Union of Journalists, said: ‘A temporary reprieve is clearly preferable to an extradition that would have taken place in the coming days.

‘However, the conditionality around the grounds of appeal, which are contingent on the examination of US government assurances that he will not face the death penalty and has the right to free speech, mean the risks to Assange and press freedom remain stark.

‘Assange’s prosecution by the US is for activities that are daily work for investigative journalists – finding sources with evidence of criminality and helping them to get their stories out into the world.

‘If Assange is prosecuted, free expression the world over will be damaged.’

She added: ‘The nuanced nature of this appeal judgment makes an alternative ending to this situation even more pressing.

‘In recent months there has been increasing speculation about some kind of plea deal, to bring this saga to a swift and straightforward conclusion. I urge the US to return to these options.

‘Media freedom is under threat all over the world, compassion and common sense from the US Department of Justice would do much to restore Washington’s reputation as a bastion of free expression.’ 

Former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has called for the US to drop the charges against Julian Assange.

Speaking outside the Royal Courts of Justice, Mr Corbyn said Tuesday’s decision was ‘big step forward’ for Assange’s case but that it is ‘not the victory’ his supporters are looking for.

Mr Corbyn said: ‘Above all, the pressure has to be on the US administration to drop the charges against Julian Assange.

‘He’s a brave journalist who tells the truth.’

When asked why Assange’s case was important to him, the Corbyn said: ‘Because he’s told some very uncomfortable truths about the military activities in Iraq and Afghanistan and other places around the world, but also the effects of corporate greed on the natural world and environment.

‘If Julian goes down for that, then every serious journalist around the world is going to be feel a bit constrained, and that’s dangerous.’

n a January 2021 ruling, then-district judge Vanessa Baraitser said that Assange should not be sent to the US, citing a real and ‘oppressive’ risk of suicide, while ruling against him on all other issues.

But later that year, US authorities won their High Court bid to overturn this block, paving the way towards Assange’s extradition.

During a two-day hearing in February, lawyers for the 52-year-old asked for the go-ahead to challenge the original judge’s dismissal of other parts of his case to prevent his extradition.

And in a judgment today, Dame Victoria Sharp and Mr Justice Johnson dismissed most of Assange’s legal arguments but said that unless assurances were given by the United States, he would be able to bring an appeal on three grounds.

The judges said the US authorities had three weeks to give those assurances, with a final decision to be made in late May.

At the start of Assange’s bid last month, Mark Summers KC argued the US’s prosecution would be retribution for his political opinions, meaning it would be unlawful to extradite him under UK law.

However the two judges rejected this argument.

Dame Victoria said: ‘The applicant’s case before us amounts simply to a reassertion of his case on this issue, and a disagreement with the (district) judge’s conclusion.

‘It does not engage with the judge’s reasoning. Far less does it identify any flaw in her factual conclusions.’

Reversing Europe’s and Australia’s slide into irrelevance & insecurity – National Press Club of Australia speech- Yanis Varoufakis

First, Australia must restore a reputation tainted by blindly following America into lethal adventures in Iraq, Afghanistan and, today, via its active and crucial complicity in Israel’s deliberate war crimes in Gaza, East Jerusalem and the West Bank.

Children are not starving in Gaza today. No, they are being deliberately starved. Without hesitation or remorse. The famine in Gaza is no collateral damage. It is an intentional policy of starving to death thousands until the rest agree to leave their ancestral homeland.

Second, Australia has a duty to de-escalate the New Cold War. To understand that this can only be done if Australia ends its servility to a United States’ actively creating the threats that they then make us pay through the nose to protect us from.

Imagine an Australia that helps bring a just Peace in Ukraine, as opposed to a mindless forever war. A non-aligned Australia that is never neutral in the face of injustice but, also, not automatically aligned with every warmongering adventure decided in Washington.

Imagine an Australia which, having re-established its credentials as a country that thinks and acts for itself, engages with China in the spirit of peaceful cooperation – a far better way of addressing Beijing’s increasing authoritarianism toward its own peoples than buying useless, hyper-expensive submarines that only succeed in forcing China’s political class to close ranks around a more authoritarian core.

Imagine a truly patriotic Australian Prime Minister who tells the American President to cease and desist from the slow murder of Julian Assange for the crime of journalism – for exposing American war crimes perpetrated behind the back of US citizens in their name.

To conclude, if Europe and Australia are to escape gross irrelevance, we need separate but well-coordinated European and Australian Green New Deals.

DiEM25, our paneuropean movement, is working toward this goal.

Yanis Varoufakis – 14/03/2024 

Europe and Australia are facing a common existential threat: a creeping irrelevance caused, on the one hand, by our failure properly to invest and, on the other hand, by our ill-considered slide from a strategic dependence on the United States to a non-strategic, self-defeating servility to Washington’s policy agenda.”

Yanis Varoufakis’s address at the National Press Club in Canberra on Wednesday 13 March, 2024

…………………………………. The three post-war phases that shaped Australia’s and Europe’s habitat

Our present moment in Europe and in Australia has been shaped by three distinct postwar phases.

The first was the Bretton Woods system. America exited the war as the only surplus, creditor country. Bretton Woods, a remarkable recycling mechanism, was, in effect, a dollar zone built on fixed exchange rates, sustained by capital controls, and erected on the back of America’s trade surplus. With quasi-free trade as part of the deal, Washington dollarised Europe, Japan and Australia to generate aggregate demand for the products of its factories – whose productivity had skyrocketed during the war. Subsequently, the US trade surplus sucked the exported dollars back into America.  The result was twenty years of high growth, low unemployment, blissfully boring banking and dwindling inequality. Alas, once the United States lost its trade surplus, Bretton Woods was dead in the water.

The second phase was marked by the violent reversal of this recycling mechanism. The United States became the first hegemon to enhance its hegemony by boosting its trade deficit. Operating like a powerful vacuum cleaner, the burgeoning US trade deficit hoovered up the world’s net exports. And how did America pay for them? With dollars which it also hoovered up from the rest of the world as German, Japanese and later Chinese capitalists sent to Wall Street 70% of dollar profits made from their net exports to the US. There, in Wall Street, these foreign capitalists recycled their dollar profits into Treasuries, real estate, shares and derivatives.

This audacious inverted recycling system, built on US deficits, required ever increasing American deficits to remain stable. In the process, it gave rise to even higher growth than the Bretton Woods era, but also to macroeconomic and financial imbalances as well as mind-numbing levels of inequality. The new era came complete with an ideology (neoliberalism), a policy of letting finance rip (financialisation), and a false sense of dynamic equilibrium – the infamous Great Moderation built on hugely immoderate imbalances.

Almost inevitably, on the back of the perpetual tsunami of capital rushing in from the rest-of-the-world to Wall Street, financiers fashioned gigantic pyramids of complex wagers – Warren Buffet’s infamous Weapons of Mass Financial Destruction. When these crashed, to deliver the Global Financial Crisis, two things saved Wall Street and Western capitalism:

• The G7 central banks, that printed a total of $35 trillion on behalf of the financiers from 2009 to last year – a peculiar socialism for bankers. And,
• China, which directed half its national income to investment, thus replacing much of the lost aggregate demand not only domestically but also in Germany, Australia and, of course, in the United States.

The third period is more recent. The era of technofeudalism, as I call it, which took root in the mid-2000s but grew strongly after the GFC in conjunction with the rapid technological change that caused capital to mutate into, what I call, cloud capital – the automated means of behavioural modification living inside our phones, apps, tablets and laptops. Consider the six things this cloud capital (which one encounters in Amazon or Alibaba) does all at once:

1. It grabs our attention.
2. It manufactures our desires.
3. It sells to us, directly, outside any actual markets, that which will satiate the desires it made us have.
4. It drives and monitors waged labour inside the workplaces.
5. It elicits massive free labour from us, its cloud-serfs.
6. It provides the potential of blending seamlessly all that with free, digital payments.

Is it any wonder that the owners of this cloud capital – I call them cloudalists – have a hitherto undreamt of power to extract? They are, already, a new ruling class: today, the capitalisation of just seven US cloudalist firms is approximately the same as the capitalisation of all listed corporations in the UK, France, Japan, Canada and China taken together!