Home

SA

Join the nuclear industry DOTS!!!!!!!

Thu, 2007-10-25 10:45 — Cyber Activist

by Dr. Alison Broinowski
(Published with permision from the Author for not-for-profit public awareness purposes)

"In late June and early July, just as the Howard Government was dispatching the army to Aboriginal communities to deal with sexual abuse, the U.S. military was involved for two weeks in northern Australia in the biggest ever joint exercise, Talisman Sabre.

Most Australians saw no connection.

Military training areas, uranium mines, sites for future nuclear waste dumps and now Aboriginal land seized by the Commonwealth are dots across the Australian map.

Several of them are connected by the Adelaide-Darwin railway. Having been many times promised, the $1.3 billion link from Alice Springs to Darwin was surprisingly found viable in 1999. By January, 2004, the train was running. The only tenderer, according to research at University of Technology Sydney, was the FreightLink consortium led by Halliburton (then headed by US vice-president Dick Cheney), with state, territory and federal contributions.

FreightLink owns the railway and can operate it for 50 years. It has contracted UK firm Serco, to staff and service the train.

Serco, which manages British nuclear power plants, gained a reputation in 2000 for sacking workers without AWAs at Australian naval bases in Jervis Bay.

In November, 2006, FreightLink was reported to be facing its third annual loss in a row. It tried to sell a majority stake in the railway for $360 million, without success. The owners promised to invest an additional $14 million over three years, presumably betting on the line's long-term profitability.

It must expect - or have been promised - the railway will serve the potentially lucrative nuclear and defence industries.

Between 2004 and 2006, the Australian and U.S. governments announced more collaboration between American forces and the ADF, including missile defence (Star Wars) training, and interoperability. Several defence facilities in northern Australia have been built or expanded:

at Bradshaw and Delamere in the Northern Territory, Shoalwater Bay in Queensland and Yampi Sound and Geraldton in Western Australia.

The railway passes near several bases, the biggest uranium deposits in the world and the mines at Olympic Dam (Roxby Downs), Beverley, Ranger and Honeymoon.

Freightlink's main business now is transporting iron ore, manganese and uranium to Darwin for export. In June, 2006, just before Prime Minster John Howard set up a nuclear power inquiry, businessmen Hugh Morgan, Robert Champion de Crespigny and Ron Walker registered Australian Nuclear Energy. It later emerged they had discussed with Mr Howard a plan to build a nuclear plant near Port Augusta.
----
(Learn more about Hugh:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Morgan_%28Australian_businessman%29
> snip from Wikipedia

>In June 2006, Hugh Morgan formed the company Australian Nuclear Energy with Fairfax chairman Ron Walker and fellow mining executive Robert Champion de Crespigny, planning to build nuclear power plants in Australia. Morgan has a 20% stake in the company.

Controversially, Prime Minister John Howard revealed that he had a discussion with Mr Walker about the company days before he announced an inquiry into nuclear power (the inquiry predicted that Australia could have 25 nuclear reactors producing a third of the country's electricity by 2050)

Formerly an outspoken opponent of Aboriginal Land Rights (Morgan claimed Native Title threatened Australia's sovereignty), Morgan has more recently spoken of reconciling mining with Aboriginal welfare. With newly introduced, less transparent conservation agreements under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act , Morgan has flagged how an internationally owned nuclear waste repository could now be built (such as the one recently announced on Aboriginal land).

see more about Ron and Robert
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Walker
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Champion_de_Crespigny
------
The railway would take uranium ore to Darwin for export, enrichment and fabrication, and bring it back to Port Augusta as nuclear fuel for the reactor. The spent fuel
would then go back by rail to Darwin for export, or return to the NT for disposal at a waste site.

The only "suitable" sites for disposal of nuclear waste under federal government control are in the NT. If the Commonwealth takes control of as many as 80 Aboriginal communities through five-year leases in the name of
protecting children, it will put vast land areas at the Federal Government's discretion.

The Government has begun to repeal parts of its 1999 legislation prohibiting nuclear activities.

But it is unlikely before the 2007 election to say where or how Australian nuclear waste will be stored.

The U.S., meanwhile, has more than 47,000 tonnes of high-level nuclear waste to get rid of, because its new site at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, does not meet safety requirements.

The controlling American interest in the railway indicates Australia will store American waste too.

It takes more than the Ghan railway to connect the dots in an election year. A lot more is happening than Australians are being told.
---------
Dr Alison Broinowski is a former Australian diplomat
and is now a visiting fellow at the Australian National
University's Faculty of Asian Studies. Her latest book
is Allied and Addicted.

Dirty policies and practices

Thu, 2007-10-11 10:06 — Cyber Activist

Beware of "missing words" when perusing political party’s policies and deciding where you will be casting your PRECIOUS 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th votes....

If, like me, you wish to see an end to the nuclear industry (firstly) on moral grounds, followed closely by environmental grounds, and clearly not needed on financial grounds, then expanding the mining of Uranium in Australia is NOT wanted, needed or necessary.

Of course if you are a Rio Tinto shareholder, you may think otherwise.

Recently, whilst participating in the Cycle against the nuclear cycle, I visited the Gladstone Office of our local standing MP, Paul Neville (National/Liberal Coalition) and spoke with his Secretary. She couldn't tell me if their party would be considering a nuclear power plant in this electorate or not. Her advice to me and my friend was that this issue needed further investigation. "Informed" decisions would not be forthcoming until after the election.

To me, that says... "when our party is voted back into power we will do whatever we want, it's not your business now. You are not a scientist!"
or... "don't you worry about that".

I am a registered voter. Where I put my mark IS my business. Where my taxes are spent IS my business. I need answers before these two parties are given further opportunities at destroying MY future.

The Labor Party won't commit to nuclear power stations (yet), they will however commit to an expansion of Uranium mining to supply the growing nuclear industry - and they already have.

The Greens, Socialist Alliance and Australian Democrats are clear where they stand. They stand in favour of sustainable development, social justice and equality. Clearly, nuclear does not fit the bill. These parties have made it clear in their policies that they will not support an expansion of the nuclear industry or nuclear energy - (as an "alternative" energy).

The new party "Climate Change Coalition" (CCC) stands in favour of sustainable housing developments, improved transportation systems and better education (as do the three parties listed above).

The CCC are in favour of many good things which will mitigate the worst effects of climate change in the long term but so are the Greens, the Socialist Alliance and the Australian Democrats.

However, the CCC intend to leave ALL OTHER polices to the "conscience vote" of any candidate who is elected. This tends to really worry me. How will their ideas and policies be implemented? Where is their financial plan for our taxes? What say the CCC on our health care taxes? Where do they stand on Industrial Relations and Workplace Agreements?

What also worries me is that they leave the door open for the nuclear industry when they state:

..."Does nuclear power have a role to play in a climate change reduction strategy? James Lovelock, the founder of Gaia Hypothesis, thinks that it can be a useful element in a greenhouse reduction strategy for some countries. Others, such as Australian scientist and climate change campaigner, Emeritus Professor Ian Lowe sees nuclear power as a cure as bad as the disease.
This debate is unavoidable and essential. The CCC encourages our best and brightest minds to state their cases - realising that any debate on Nuclear Power immediately involves alternative power."

In other words... when it comes to the nuclear industry and nuclear power... they sit on the fence. Let others worry about that in an informed and "open" debate? History clearly shows the "openness" of the nuclear industry and the honesty of their "debate".

There is no need for further debate. Expanding the nuclear industry IS avoidable and NOT essential.

The nuclear industry is not safe, and it never was, and it never will be.
In any doubt? please visit:

Startling fact and figures:
http://www.43things.com/entries/view/1888283

Or "Maralinga - Learn from our experience" by my (then) 15yo daughter, Natalie:
http://www.43things.com/entries/view/1881061
and explore the highly educational links in the Appendix

or Nuclear Industry - human effects - facts you should know http://www.43things.com/entries/view/1875511

Finally, today's latest:
Nuclear Power and water scarcity: By Dr Jim Green
http://globalclimatechangeaction.org/node/122
(fliers available shortly)

It appears that the CCC's nuclear policies are hand in hand with those of our currently elected leaders... they "may" support nuclear industry power generation and an expansion of this industry and the associated waste.
Their "vote catching policies" are attached in a PDF document.

Unless the CCC can inform me clearly that they will not support nuclear power or an expansion of the nuclear industry in Australia, I will be putting my vote for the CCC below the ALP, to be sure that their preference flow does not re-elect a National/Liberal Coalition.

I hope other voters are aware of the insidious nature of the nuclear industry and all of their "dirty tricks" to retain their control over our precious taxes.

Anne Goddard

Socialist Worker says - All Unions should back the Greens

Wed, 2007-10-10 09:36 — Cyber Activist

Please distribute to Union Members for their consideration

via:
http://leftclickblog.blogspot.com/

full story:
http://leftclickblog.blogspot.com/2007/10/all-unions-should-back-greens....

Snip>:
All unions should back the Greens
by Socialist Worker

Enough is enough. That is the message coming from thousands of working people across the country about WorkChoices. There is no doubt that Howard is spooked by the overwhelmingly mood against him. Tragically Labor is so concerned to keep big business onside that it has promised to keep important parts of the legislation.

These include the ban on the right to strike and the right of unions to enter workplaces.
This is ridiculous-how can unions survive, let alone prosper, if they cannot enter workplaces to talk to members?

more: http://leftclickblog.blogspot.com/2007/10/all-unions-should-back-greens....

Further comments via Green Left Discussion Group:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/GreenLeft_discussion/message/47418
and
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/GreenLeft_discussion/message/47420

My comments:
ALL UNION MEMBERS should be encouraged to volunteer to scrutineer for their local candidate. This is the best way to ensure (in an open an honest voting system) that ALL votes are counted and EVERY vote sees the light of day.
For further information on what scrutineering entails, visit:
http://www.aec.gov.au/Parties_and_Representatives/Candidate/Handbook/scr...

cc Unions

Syndicate content