Bev Baldock – another Submission completely happy with the Kimba nuclear waste project
Bev Baldock (Submission No. 72) Submission to Senate Inquiry on Selection process for a national radioactive waste management facility in South Australia. My name is Bev Baldock. I have lived and worked in the Kimba Community for many years, living and working on a farm for twenty years, small business for sixteen years. I personally have no issues with the site selection, which has been honest and open.
The financial compensation offered to the applicants for the acquisition of their land is minimal, but fair.
Overall, I am very comfortable that we have been given honest knowledge and feedback on this project. Our community has had ample opportunity to learn more about the proposed facility which has been advertised extensively. We have had several community meetings, the opportunities to meet departmental members and experts in many areas of Nuclear.
I consider myself informed now and able to share my knowledge. It will be great to create new jobs which will bring economic benefits to Kimba. It could help bring more numbers for our school and keep the services that we still have as numbers are diminishing each year. Whatever the community may decide the process has been fair and open with lots of opportunities to learn, and make the right decision for our district.
I disagree that we need broader community support and feel the rest of South Australia should not have a say in what happens in our town and district.
If the rules are changed for measuring the community support to include more of South Australia, how can this be compared? E.g.: community consultation, public meetings, local government election.
We do not get a direct say in what takes place in neighboring communities and our state. This would set a precedent for future projects in South Australia where local communities don’t actually get listened to.
We have had visits from indigenous leaders, and to my knowledge there are no native title claims on district lands. We can still take care in what we do and try to make this project welcoming and inclusive for everyone and to look after heritage if they find it.
The benefit fund is a great bonus for Kimba, without this funding projects that have been submitted would not be possible. I have been involved in lots of projects for many years and this takes a huge amount of time to raise the dollars and reach our target. It is a great a fund to the betterment of the whole community whether the facility goes ahead or not.
Overall, the site selection process has been open, honest and fair. The proposed payments to landholders are fair. It’s our community, we have done the work, we have had the information, and we should be able to make our decision. Yours Sincerely, Bev Baldock
Does the Australian Federal Govt have the power to impose a nuclear waste dump?
The Minister claims a need for this dump is generated by civilian radioisotope production & not from military use – therefore it cannot be legitimised under auspices of the S.51(vi) Defence umbrella.
there is no legal base for the Commonwealth to enforce State acceptance of radioactive waste.
ENuFF-SA Examining 
Commonwealth Power to Enforce Nuke Dump – part 1, 4th July 2018
SOUTH AUSTRALIAN LAW
- The 2015-16 $10+ million South Australian Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission found that: “The construction or operation of a facility for storage and disposal of nuclear waste, along with the importation or transport of nuclear waste, is unlawful in South Australia”. The amendment or repeal of the Nuclear Waste Storage Facility (Prohibition) Act 2000 (SA) would therefore be required prior to any substantive progress being made in further developing any proposal.
- “ 1 The Nuclear Waste Storage Facility (Prohibition) Act 2000 (SA)2 must be amended or repealed PRIOR TO ANY SUBSTANTIVE PROGRESS towards developing a radioactive waste facility in this State. 2.
- Portions of The Act which prohibit the establishment of nuclear waste storage facilities include:
S.8 against the construction or operation of such;
• S.9 making it illegal to import or transport nuclear waste, &
• S.13 “No public money to be used to encourage or finance construction or operation of nuclear waste storage facility”
S.13.1 also provides such prohibition “Despite any Act or law to the contrary ….”
- The newly elected Liberal Premier Steven Marshall has previously categorically stated: “A Marshall Liberal Government will not support the building of a nuclear waste repository in South Australia.“ 4 : & in answer to a February 2018 Election Survey the South Australian Liberal Party responded: “The Liberal Party supports the current Nuclear Waste Storage Facility (Prohibition) Act 2000“ 5 .
- 4. To date (June 2018) the NRWMF-T has expended $40+ million of taxpayers PUBLIC MONEY towards: not only encouraging ‘local communities’ acceptance for a nuclear waste storage facility within South Australia; but also financing active on-site preliminary works deemed essential to constructing said facility. Clearly & brazenly contrary to State Law.
- 5. It would appear that the NRWMF-T has failed to investigate nor even consider any implications arising from the current prime facie unlawful nature of their actions. Numerous sham ‘community consultation’ medleys; Taskforce presence in the field, & radiopharma promotions. Myriad ANSTO propaganda tours of Lucas Heights; French des visiteurs; community grants; ORIMA & AECOM contracts, & etc.. costing tens of millions. All done without first establishing any legal foundation.
Legally; fiscally; morally, & administratively negligent
FEDERAL LAW “Commonwealth Legislative Powers”
The Constitution confers the power to make laws on the Commonwealth Parliament. However, the power of the Commonwealth Parliament to make laws is limited to particular subjects. Most of these subjects are listed in sections 51 and 52. They include defence; external affairs; interstate and international trade; taxation; foreign, trading and financial corporations; marriage and divorce; immigration; bankruptcy; and interstate industrial conciliation and arbitration.” 6
- Amongst other dubious claims, Minister Canavan would have us believe that Federal Legislation allows him to run roughshod over State Law. But does the Emperor actually wear any clothes?
- 7. The previous South Australian Premier Jay Weatherill in 30 January 2018: “ Asked if the state government would pursue a High Court case against the Turnbull government if a national facility were approved in South Australia, Mr Weatherill said: “We would have to explore our options to see what steps can be taken.” “ 7 .
- 8. One of those steps would be to query whether Federal Parliament had Constitutional Authority to impose radioactive waste upon a State which had specific laws prohibiting such. Section 51 of the Australian Constitution describes the various Powers of the Federal Parliament, & there are 39 such capacities – none of which relate to things radioactive8 : whilst Section 118 obligates the Commonwealth to recognise & respect the public Acts of the States.
- To make things perfectly clear, included as Appendix 1 is the whole Section 51 of the Australian Constitution: we challenge anyone to demonstrate how Canberra can legally impose Commonwealth owned radioactive waste upon any State whose Legislation prohibits such – S.51. (xxvi) actually says that Federal Parliament needs to respect State Legislation. Prime facie there is no legal base for the Commonwealth to enforce State acceptance of radioactive waste.
- 10. The knowledge that the Feds don’t have Constitutional Power to dump radioactive waste upon the States is not rocket science & is not a new revelation. Continue reading
50% of RET could be delivered by corporate-backed solar and wind projects — RenewEconomy
Corporates have driven around $3 billion investment in new renewable energy projects via corporate PPAs.
via 50% of RET could be delivered by corporate-backed solar and wind projects — RenewEconomy
Queensland now matches NSW with nine solar farms connected to grid — RenewEconomy
Another 110MW solar farm joins the grid in Queensland, taking that state’s total to nine, and matching NSW and the ACT.
via Queensland now matches NSW with nine solar farms connected to grid — RenewEconomy
July 3 Energy News — geoharvey
Opinion: ¶ “Trump Has Done More Than Pull Out of Paris” • Since taking office, Trump has done something worse for the climate than pull the US out of the Paris Agreement on climate change: He has cut a large body of climate-focused rules issued by President Obama. With rules no longer in place, corporate […]
1 This month
of the week – Disrupting War & Militarism in Oceania. Active solidarity. Radical practice.
Antinuclear 