Publications

Southpaw Backhander

The return of the Liberal Party government in Tasmania with a bare, reduced majority was not an unalloyed catastrophe for the progressive forces in the island State. Labor was returned with an increased minority on an issue of principle, pokies reform. This confirms the strong leadership of Rebecca White, who is arguably well poised to regain government at the next election, circumstances permitting; the Green vote was alarmingly static, not to say worse. There is the consolation that losing with a sound policy at least leaves a legacy to build on. But it is nonetheless a setback for progressive forces in Tasmania and nationally. It once again shows that excessive tension between Labor and the Greens only benefits the Tories, in keeping with the maxim that disunity is death. It is unhealthy that the Hodgeman dynasty administration has been returned to office, with its plans to log wilderness extensively and restrict the democratic right to protest to appease capital. Despite Hodgeman’s denials that the election was bought, there is no doubt that the massive advertising campaign by the gambling lobby, led by the Federal Group which owns the island’s two casinos, was a powerful factor.

Labor and the Greens can now only govern together. Labor’s primary vote has fallen to historic lows, while Bob Brown’s ambitions to `replace the bastards’ are illusory. Labor and the Greens are as doomed to serve the public together as the Liberals and Nationals are condemned to loot the public purse on behalf of vested interests as Coalition partners in crime. As a Tasmanian expat I have been arguing this case like Cassandra since my teenage years in Tasmania during the rise of the Greens in the 1970s. These basic political principles have national implications. As the 2018 Tasmanian General Election shows, they are ignored at the peril of the interested parties and the public, not to mention the environment. And it’s not as if they prevent creative competition and mature political agreements to disagree, so nothing should be allowed to stand in the way on either side. As it is, the Tasmanian electorate has held its nose and marginally voted Liberal after pronouncing a pox on both progressive houses, seeing them as unstable, divided and divisive.

Why have Labor and the Greens defied common sense for so long, destabilizing one another by devouring each other’s vote? Competition from diverse class, philosophical and cultural bases is certainly part of the problem. A certain willfulness too is a common fault; Labor sees the Greens reductively as middle-class, while Green smugness about `old parties’, which must irritate half the electorate over 30, begs the question about the positive value of certain traditions. Both parties must grow out of these bad habits. The progressive cause and the environment itself demand no less.

Dr David Faber Adelaide March 2018

CSIRO planning US military funded genetic extinction experiments in WA

A raft of emails obtained through a Freedom of Information request (The Gene Drive Files) reveal that CSIRO and University of Adelaide scientists are part of a US military funded global network researching a risky new genetic modification (GM) technique referred to as gene drives. The group have already identified six potential islands in Western Australia where they intend to use the technique to drive local mice populations to extinction.

Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA – the US military’s research arm) is contributing US$6.4M to fund the Genetic Biocontrol of Invasive Rodents Program (GBIRd). This is being spread between the CSIRO, the University of Adelaide, several US research institutes and the NGO Island Conservation.

The release of gene drives could have potentially catastrophic ecological consequences. Even gene drive proponents have now admitted that the gene drives are too risky to be released into the environment. We find it incredible that CSIRO and its GBIRd partners are already considering the environmental release of this technology.”

Gene drives are a new and highly controversial technique that can force altered genetic traits through successive generations. The GBIRd scientists intend to use the technique to develop mice that only produce male offspring in order to drive local populations to extinction.

Mice are notorious for stowing away on boats, which is how they have spread globally. One of the proposed release sites for the gene drive mice is Boullanger Island – a popular tourist destination just 1km from the mainland. There is no way that a release of gene drive mice there could be geographically contained.

Most rodents are considered keystone species in their ecological communities as herbivores, seed eaters and seed dispersers, and prey for many carnivores. Many other species depend on them for survival. The ecological impacts if mice are driven to extinction in their natural habitats in Europe and Asia could be catastrophic.

Gene drives are a classic ‘dual use’ technology, meaning that gene drives ostensibly developed for one use could also be used as a weapon. For example, gene drives could be developed to make insects, parasites or microbes spread disease or toxins. And releasing a gene drive into agricultural fields could attack a country’s food production. DARPA has sunk approximately 100 million dollars into gene drive research making the agency probably the largest single funder of gene drive research on the planet.

DARPA has no interest in funding public interest research. It is interested in the militarisation of this technology and it is deeply disturbing that CSIRO is aiding and abetting it in this work.

In the GBIrd coalition CSIRO has the highly conflicted responsibility of both promoting gene drives and assessing their risks. According to the FOI documents, the CSIRO is planning community engagement “as part of a wider effort to gain social license for environmental applications of synthetic biology (1) technologies“. CSIRO has allocated $3.5M for community/stakeholder research related to synthetic biology and is attempting to secure more money from DARPAspecifically for this work on the GBIRd project.

CSIRO scientists have already decided they want to release gene drive mice into the environment. The community engagement work they are planning is no more than a cynical marketing exercise. They clearly have no interest in a genuine societal debate on the use of this technology.

The Government is currently reviewing whether new GM techniques such as gene drives and CRISPR should be regulated. CSIRO gene drive developer and GBIRd partner Mark Tizard is currently advising both the Department of Health and Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) on the regulation of new GM techniques.

This starkly illustrates the extent of the capture of our regulatory agencies by vested interests. Here we have a gene drive developer who has called for the complete deregulation of new GM techniques such as CRISPR advising the Government on whether these new techniques should be regulated.

The Government needs to urgently remove individuals with clear conflicts of interest from its advisory committees and introduce a moratorium on gene drive research.

Read our briefing on the Gene Drive Files

(1) Synthetic biology is an extreme form of genetic engineering that involves re-engineering and designing genes to create new synthetic organisms that do not exist in nature.

Senate Enquiry National Rad Waste Facility

Mara Bonacci, the CCSA’s  Nuclear Waste campaigner writes:

On  6 February 2018, the Senate referred an inquiry into the selection process for a national radioactive waste management facility in South Australia to the Senate Economics Reference Committee for inquiry and report by 14 August 2018.
This is welcome.
Submissions are due by Tuesday 3rd April.
It would be wonderful if you  could write a submission.
The terms of reference can be found here
Some points to consider including are:
  • A single individual or property owner should not be allowed to nominate a site for a nuclear waste dump.
  • The federal government have not made a clear or compelling case that we need a national nuclear waste dump in SA.
  • The consultation process has been deficient and has caused division in our communities.
  • The federal government plan lacks social licence or community consent. Traditional Owners have flagged concerns over cultural heritage issues.
  • The project has not considered the full range of options to best advance responsible radioactive waste management in Australia. Australia’s worst waste should be dealt with better.
In addition, I have set up on online submission system that is pre-filled but can be edited.  I encourage as many people as possible to take a few minutes to complete.
It would be great to get as many submissions to the Senate Standing Committees on Economics as possible so collectively we can end this terrible process and get the federal government to finally take a responsible approach to radioactive waste management.
Please contact me if you have any questions or need any help with this.
thanks and regards,
Mara Bonacci
Nuclear Waste Campaigner
Usual Hours Monday – Wednesday 10am – 3pm
Conservation Council SA
The Joinery / 111 Franklin Street, Adelaide SA 5000
(08) 8223 5155  mobile: 0422 229 970

REGARDING THE NATIONAL RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITY

A summary of the letter from MAPW to Industry Minister Matt Canavan
Medical Association for the Prevention of War (MAPW),                                        23 Feb 18 

 

 REGARDING THE NATIONAL RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITY (NRWMF )

1) The process is very divisive. Repeated, highly damaging processes imposed on previously cohesive communities are causing significant harms.

2) Considerable amounts of persistently misleading information have been and continue to be presented to communities. Incorrect and incomplete information does not result in genuine consent.

3) There is a failure to observe international best practice standards for the highly radioactive long lived intermediate level waste (ILW) management. There is no disposal plan whatsoever for ILW, leaving the problem for many future generations.

REGARDING THE EXPANSION OF NUCLEAR MEDICINE PRODUCTION FOR EXPORT

1) There is a lack of demonstrable “Net benefit”. The proposed 40 year-long expansion of medical isotope production needs genuine cost/benefit analysis to make sure this is not a heavily subsidised product being sold into the global market at the expense of the Australian community both now and in the future. Independent NEA/OECD economic modelling finds only 10-15% cost recovery of isotope manufacture when there is genuine inclusion of all costs.

2) The expansion will create 40 years of significantly increased production of ILW.

3) ANSTO has a narrative of global shortages, yet given falling demand and increasing global supply there is no shortage of Mo99. The NEA/OECD predict a significant oversupply.

4) Again, there is no plan whatsoever for disposal of the additional ILW generated.

Both processes are unacceptably flawed.

Medical Association for the Prevention of War (MAPW)  urges

  • A halt to the current NRWMF process until such time as world’s best practice is followed. There is sufficient capacity at the Lucas Heights facility, once regulatory approvals are met, to store Low Level Waste (LLW) and Intermediate Level Waste  (ILW) well into the next decade.
  • Cessation of expansion of nuclear medicine for export, and a phase out of exports, until there is demonstrated, publicly available, clear analysis of cost/benefit and plans for appropriate disposal of the substantial amount of ILW this process will generate.
  • Transparent evaluation of “net benefit” to the Australian community. This as a whole must underpin the process, and be based on cradle to grave impacts of production.
  • Recognition that currently the information provided to communities is riddled with so much misinformation it calls into question the underlying validity of any community consent process.

In closing, it is clear there is an urgent need for an independent inquiry into the production and management of Australia’s nuclear waste.

Concern over gas exploration in the SE

As you may be aware, a number of residents in the South East have concerns regarding any mining or petroleum activities, particularly with large swaths of exploration licences over their properties.  The most concerning area is water security.  When there are droughts, the South East residents are fully dependent on the groundwater.  Health concerns, keeping the South East’s world renowned  clean and green image for export growth, and impacts on the economy are other concerns.  2015 – 2016, the value of agriculture in the SE, was  $3.2 billion, which was 51% of the total gross value of agricultural production in SA.
The geology and hydrology, including limestone, cavernous systems, and fault lines are not suitable for any drilling or mining and petroleum activities, apart from extractive mining for road and building materials.  With both mining and petroleum activities, there are risks to the groundwater, soil and air, through loss of well integrity, any dewatering of the aquifers, waste water disposal from gas or oil activities and no suitable way for safe disposal, contamination from tailing and benefication ponds for mining, salt impacts and landscape changes. Emissions and waste water ponds may impact bird life.  There has been a shocking disaster in Canada, where 7500 song birds flew into a gas flare at a gas processing plant and died.  http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/7-500-songbirds-killed-at-canaport-gas-plant-in-saint-john-1.1857615
All gas needs flaring. I understand, if there is viable amounts of gas, the Katnook Gas Plant will be upgraded. In other places, including Australia,  my colleagues have told me that there have been a number of animal and bird deaths that may have died through road kill and extra traffic on the roads, and also through drinking water from the contaminated waste water ponds.
I would like these concerns to be on the agenda in the South Australian Parliament, after the election.  To achieve this, I am asking that as many people as possible can write emails to the politicians, stating their views.  I have included an attachment of facts that may be referenced. Even a paragraph would be appreciated, as the emails don’t have to be long.  I am then asking that people email their letters through to me at annedaw@bigpond.com so that I am able to keep track of the emails, present them in hard copy to someone at Parliament House, then forward the emails on to any newly elected politicians.
I am hoping that you will be able to assist me in passing this on to your friends and encourage them and their families to write emails and forward this request
                    — Anne Daw, Agricultural Advocate

The detailed factsheet: Categories for parliamentarian letters