Australian news, and some related international items

Jeff Baldock (volunteered his land) : the Kimba waste dump selection vote a matter for locals only.

Jeff Baldock Submission To : Committee Secretariat, Senate Standing Committee on Ecomomics Re-Proposed National Radioactive Waste Management Facility From :- (Submission No.39)

I am a 60yr old, 3rd generation farmer from Kimba. Along with my wife, two sons, our daughter and their families including 7 grandchildren, we run our properties which produce cereals, legumes, oilseeds, sheep, meat and wool.


A ) FINANCIAL COMPENSATION The compensation offered to the landowner for this project is in line with any other land sale in our area, that involves the purchase of a small portion of someone’s land to be used for a specific purpose.

B) BROAD COMMUNITY SUPPORT (i) The definition of “Broad Community Support”. (ii) How “Broad Community Support” has been or will be determined for each process advancement stage.

I believe Broad Community Support is anything over 50% of the people, who reside in our district council area, along with Council support and clear direct neighbour support.

  1. INDIGENOUS SUPPORT I am unaware of any real interest being shown from the Barngarla group from our area, other than a small group visited the Kimba sites but declined an offer to meet with the landowners. You will need to refer to the dept. who have had contact with them.(D) COMMUNITY BENEFIT PROGRAM

    Being a small rural community that relies heavily on farming along with our ever shrinking population, means it is getting harder for the community to raise funds for projects/upgrades that need to be done for the various sporting and service clubs. The community benefit program will be a very welcome relief to the financial strain we all feel at times, however I don’t believe it would affect the way people will vote on the facility.


I don’t believe people outside of the Kimba area should be involved in any vote on the process moving forward, as I don’t believe there will be any negative affect from this facility being built in Kimba. All the information sessions have been aimed at the Kimba community therefore I think it would be unfair to invite people outside this area to give an informed view. There is nothing to stop people outside the Kimba District Council area sending their views to the Minister or the Department, but they should not expect to be able to vote on the issue.


In summary, I believe Kimba Residents have had every opportunity to fully understand this proposal. We have had visits from all types of experts in the fields of Nuclear Medicine, Radiation Safety, Geoscience, Waste Management and also activists from Friends of the Earth, Conservation Council and Medical Association for the Prevention of War. I have attended every session available to us.

The department has consistently asked everyone for suggestions of speakers with relevant expertise that the community may want to hear from. Anyone who claims they have not been ‘ informed’ has not been willing to be engaged in the process, which in my view has been extremely thorough.

Kimba is the only community that has participated in a proper vote conducted by the AEC, which showed a resounding 57.4% in favour from 88% of the community voting. This along with Council support and strong direct neighbour support, including unanimous support at one of the nominated sites, resulted in Minister Canavan , accepting both new nominations into Phase 2. Jeff Baldock (Napandee site nominator)

July 9, 2018 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump | Leave a comment

Andrew Baldock (offered his land for nuclear waste dump) dismisses objections to the plan

Andrew Baldock  Submission to Senate Standing Committees on Economics Re – Proposed National Radioactive Waste Management Facility (Submission no. 38)

I am a 4th generation farmer in the Kimba District with all 4 of my grandparents being from pioneering farming families of the district. I farm with my wife Dale and soon to be 4 children as well as my brother and his wife and children, my sister and her husband and children, along with our parents.

Our family has been involved in this process from the outset with our family nominating a parcel of land in the initial round of applications which failed to progress to the technical assessment stage due to a lack of neighbouring support. We have since offered up a number of parcels of land to the community renomination process of which one site “Napandee” was put forward to support the community in re-entering the NRWMF assessment process as a result of strong community and neighbouring support.

I am pleased to be able to provide information to the inquiry on the appropriateness and thoroughness of the National Radioactive Waste Management Facility (NRWMF) site selection process in Kimba SA. I give my permission for this submission to be made public and would be available to speak with the Senate committee to answer any further questions on the Kimba process with particular reference to:

a) the financial compensation offered to applicants for the acquisition of land under the Nominations of Land Guidelines;

The financial compensation being offered to applicants is a one-off land purchase at 4 times the market rate for a 100ha parcel of land. I see this as being very fair and equitable and very much in line with any agricultural land sales for alternative use such as residential or industrial developments.

As nominated landholders we understand the site will be positioned on the most suitable 100ha portion of the nominated land holding. This is likely to have a considerable impact on the efficiencies of our farming operations and as a result quickly eroding any economic gain from the land sale.

This level of financial compensation is unlikely to be a driving factor for any nominating landholder especially in low value landholdings such as Kimba and Hawker. The 100ha site nominated equates to less than 1.4% of our farm operation, the sale of this land makes very little difference to our financial position. We see the siting of this facility in the district making a huge difference to the host community.

b) how the need for ‘broad community support’ has played and will continue to play a part in the process, including: i) the definition of ‘broad community support’, and ii) how ‘broad community support’ has been or will be determined for each process advancement stage;

I can only speak for the process in the Kimba community of which the community has been at the heart of the discussion from the very start of this process.

The idea of the community putting nominations forward for consideration come about as a result of a community consultation meeting held by local MP for Grey, Rowan Ramsey, who at the time was considering nominating his own farm. Our family attended this meeting which resulted in an overwhelming majority of attendees supporting local nominations into the process to give the community the opportunity to investigate the proposal further.

As a result of this early support for the concept a number of nominations were put forward by local landholders with two of those making the shortlist enabling the community to enter the initial community consultation process. This consultation provided a high level of community engagement with many opportunities for all interested parties to have their say. An extensive phone poll survey was also undertaken which showed a majority support to progress to the technical assessment stage across the district; however neighbouring support was low for the two nominated sites and as a result neither nomination progressed.

Following this decision there was a high level of disappointment amongst community members and as a result of community discussion a local community group investigated alternate sites within the community which would be suitable for renomination. There were a number of sites which were made publicly known about the possibility of nomination including engagement with neighbouring landholders and the local council. As a result, two sites “Napandee” and “Lyndhurst” were put forward for consideration to nominate to enter the NRWMF assessment process.

Once nominations were lodged for these properties the community was fortunate to have further community consultation and opportunities to express their views on the possibility of the Minister accepting these nominations into the technical assessment stage. This culminated in the council facilitating a very unique Electoral Commission vote resulting in an overwhelming majority of 57.4% support in progressing the nominations.

This level of broad community support as well as consideration of the views of neighbouring landholders, council engagement, views of interested individuals and groups not included in the voting region resulted in the minister being satisfied there is adequate support to warrant the nominations to progress to the technical assessment stage.

The local community as well as the broader community has opportunities to express their views on the proposal by means of community engagement and submissions on the proposal as the process runs and the local community has been assured another vote will be undertaken prior to the minister making a decision as to whether either site will progress to the licence application phase.

I believe that broad community support has been displayed throughout the process. There are many views that need to be considered with various weighting when considering the definition of broad community support. In theory anything over 50% should be considered as broad community. But when considering the views of those outside the district boundaries, the added weight of the neighbouring views etc. I think it needs to be left to the minister’s discretion as to what determines “broad community support” as there are to many variables to attempt to impose a mandated figure.

What has become very clear to me throughout this process is that no matter how well consulted, how robust the science is or how clear the consent from the local community is, the well established anti-nuclear movement will attack the process from another angle with no accountability for their claims.

Broad support can be shown in Kimba.  The District Council of Kimba has actively participated in the process and has openly supported the process through to phase 2. As requested by the people in Kimba they arranged an Australian Electoral Commission vote for registered voters in the Kimba electorate so that it was fair to all. They also invited other people who were not on the Kimba electoral role but had a vested interest in Kimba to apply for a vote.

 As per the NRWMF guidelines, direct neighbours support was very important. Of the two sites in Kimba there is 90% ‘direct neighbour’ support.

 An Electoral Commission vote held in June 2017, returned a clear majority 57.4% support in favour for Kimba moving to Phase 2 (the consultation stage) of the project. I have seen many indications that support has been maintained since that time.

  1. whether and/or how the Government’s ‘community benefit program’ payments affect broad community and Indigenous community sentiment;I believe the community benefit program is a fair way of compensating the community for the disruption the nomination process has caused the community. This fairly modest level of community funding will ensure the nominated communities will have some lasting legacy projects for the good of the community, whether they host the project or not. Allowing for positive outcomes for communities having undertaken this process.

This level of funding is certainly not likely to influence people to support the project alone, the safety and integration of the facility along with the opportunities the siting of the facility presents, are the driving factors in people’s decision making

. d) whether wider (Eyre Peninsula or state-wide) community views should be taken into consideration and, if so, how this is occurring or should be occurring;

I firmly believe that the main driving factor of any decision should be based on the outcome of a Kimba District Council boundary vote with extra consideration given to the sentiments of the immediate surrounding landholders.

This is the community which will be impacted by the siting of the facility and this is the community who has been thoroughly consulted on the facility. Those outside of the council boundary have had and should continue to have the opportunity to voice their opinions through means of consultation meetings with DISS as well as written correspondence. But to open the vote up beyond the council boundary would set a difficult precedence for any future development processes across the country.

It is very clear from the project brief and the science presented that this project will have no impact outside of the walls of the proposed facility apart from the economic and social benefit as a result of the construction works and ongoing employment and economic support.

a) any other related matters

I welcome the senate inquiry into this process as I hope it will provide assurity to all involved that the department and the minister’s office have gone above and beyond in their requirements to provide communities with information regarding the project and opportunities to voice their opinions regarding the proposal.

I can not imagine many other projects, government or privately run would have had the level of community engagement this has had. We have had a number of community votes so far including a full electoral commission vote just to consult as to weather the community is willing to discuss the project further. The process that has been run to date has been as thorough as I could imagine.

The reality is that you could run the process a hundred different ways and it will always be attacked by those opposed as a means to create division and distrust. I have the upmost confidence in the process that has been set out to measure community support.

I look forward to the findings on the enquiry

July 9, 2018 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump | Leave a comment

Jessica Morgan’s enthusiastic endorsement of ANSTO and the nuclear waste dump plan for Kimba

Jessica Morgan. Submission to Senate on Selection process for a national radioactive waste management facility in South Australia. (Submission no. 37)

My husband and I live and work in Hawker and are raising our three children here, our two oldest attend Hawker Area School and our youngest will be three this year. I have lived here for ten years and my husband over 20, we welcome this project. We believe it is a wonderful opportunity for our community and believe firmly in the benefits of increased employment. We also believe that this facility will ensure other essential services in our town, such as the hospital, police, and improved mobile phone coverage. We also hope that this project may assist in increasing student numbers at the school. In June 2016 when on a personal trip to Sydney I had the benefit of visiting ANSTO, I was taken on a tour which included going to level 13 and visiting the waste storage areas. I have stood next to and touched the canister containing the intermediate level waste with my 9 month old baby in a carrier on my chest, feeling totally confident of my own safety and that of my child. I left ANSTO very impressed not only in their contribution to our first class medical system, which Australia is so fortunate to have, but also the work in other areas of science and technology. Having seen the waste storage areas I saw first hand the need for the national waste facility to be located at another site. I also learnt the vast difference between the reactor at Lucas Heights and nuclear power reactors in other countries, with the main reactors coming to mind being Fukushima and Chernobyl. Nuclear electrical generation is a totally different undertaking to the ANSTO pursuits and we must distinguish between the two.

The financial compensation for the land is calculated at four times the land value of the area required, not the full property, is not a large windfall for the applicant. I question if the loss of productivity of the land area will be more than the compensation.

The definition of “broad community support” will differ between people, in my opinion 50% plus one is a majority and while I deem majority rules should apply I understand this will not be considered broad. Someone against the facility may say that broad community support is 65-70% in which case a minority may win. I have full confidence in the department deciding on the definition of broad community support.

The department has set up offices in the local communities, they are regularly here to answer questions, assist with grant applications and have organised tours to ANSTO. Heritage assessments are being carried out on the land and the project has both support and opposition from the Aboriginal community. I am most impressed with the level of community engagement and complement the department for their ongoing communication.

The first round of the community benefit program had applications from people who both support and oppose the proposed facility. The second round of applications closed in February and the successful grants will be announced in coming days. Once again there will probably be successful applications from people both opposed to and in support of the facility. Having almost $2 million dollars injected into our small community has seen some wonderful things happen.

The only people whose views should be taken into consideration are those living in the area and those actively involved with the community. Given the small population of our area, taking into the consideration the views of a wider area or the state would mean the decision would no longer be made by the local community. It must be remembered that there are almost 130 nuclear waste sitesall around Australia, someone living in Adelaide is already living near nuclear waste. The proposed land is not in a tourist area and cannot be seen from main roads. I estimate the nominated land is nearly 40km as the crow flies from Rawnsley Bluff, the city of Adelaide and most of its suburbs would fit in between.

July 9, 2018 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump | Leave a comment

Annie Clements happy to see nuclear waste dump powering Kimba community into the future

Annie Clements: Submission to Senate Standing Committee on Economics Subject: Proposed National Radioactive Waste Facility (Submission No 35)

I have lived in Kimba for sixty years and am an active member of the community including as a volunteer Ambulance Officer for the last 28 years. I am also a member of the Working for Kimba’s Future group. I am completely comfortable with the Low/Intermediate Nuclear Waste Facility in Kimba and believe that the process has been good.

We have two sites nominated in the Kimba district to host a Low/Intermediate Nuclear Waste Management facility. Both were put forward voluntarily and are 100 hectares each. The financial compensation offered was four times the value of the land. I think this is fair as it is just a small portion of the farm’s acreage. Both sites could hardly be described as prime farming land, more like marginal land.

In my opinion the process has been open and transparent from the beginning. Rowen Ramsey sent out a brochure announcing a town meeting in April 2015 to discuss the idea of nominating a site for a low/intermediate nuclear waste facility. When I attended the meeting I was surprised to see only around forty people there considering the very different subject. Those who did not attend cannot say that it was not advertised.

“Broad community support” probably means different things to different people. Looking at the meaning of broad in a dictionary includes – wide not narrow – generalised bold in effect or style – being tolerant in thought or opinion – need not be included or counted in a vote. In a state or federal election anyone who has 51% of votes would consider that they have been elected. The process here in Kimba deserves to be respected in the same way.

Minister Canavan announced that the two Kimba sites had been accepted to enter phase 2 after a postal vote that concluded on June 22 2017. This included everyone within the Kimba Council boundary. The post vote showed that 57% of those who chose to vote (which was 80 % of the whole district. 20 % chose not to vote) wanted to move forward for more consultation, assessment and information. Plus, the District Council is supportive and nearly all of the direct neighbours of the sites are supportive. I am very comfortable with this decision. There will be another vote later this year that will determine whether the facility can go to the next and final phase.

As far as indigenous involvement goes, I am aware that a few weeks ago a group of people I think from the Barngala tribe spent a few days in and around Kimba and met with the Department of Industry Innovation and Science staff. That’s good, since they are the right people to be involved.

Because the two Kimba sites have progressed to phase 2, we are eligible to receive the Community Benefit Program, just like the community near Hawker. Currently, 34 projects have been nominated and are being assessed. A broad range of groups, clubs and individuals have entered their projects and I’m sure all will be beneficial for the community.

The Kimba community has the advantage of receiving lots of information and education on the safety any risks and benefits of this facility. People outside our area could be influenced by anti nuclear scare campaigns and wild allegations that have no relevance to this facility. There will be no negative impact from this facility on land adjacent to it, let alone outside the district. I strongly believe that the boundary that was in place for the vote in April 2017 must be retained for the next vote i.e. the Kimba District Council boundary. Wudinna, a neighbouring town, is planning a large mine funded by a Chinese company. I see no reason why we in Kimba should have a vote on whether that goes ahead. The Kimba community should have the right to decide if we want this facility or not.

Some things that have happened during the process. Several town meetings – department of Industry Innovation and Science opened an office usually here, two days a week – appointment of a Community Liaison Officer – established the Kimba Consultative Committee – recently took nominations for a Kimba Economic working group – visits from experts in different fields including nuclear medicine – visit from Minister Canavan – also ARPANSA – a delegation of close neighbours to a nuclear waste facility in France – tours to the Lucas Heights nuclear facility open to anyone either for or against the facility. We really have had a good opportunity to learn, and this continues.

Australia needs a low/intermediate nuclear waste management facility. Some say why Kimba? Well I say why not Kimba? We need this facility to enable our small, struggling community to power into the future. Fifteen jobs and extra activity may not sound like much to city folk, but would make a huge difference to us, so we should be able to make that decision ourselves. If this economic committee wants to be helpful, it can at least give us that much respect, while we think about our economic future.

July 9, 2018 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump | Leave a comment

Margaret and Charlie Milton – excited at the prospect of Kimba nuclear waste dump

Margaret & Charlie Milton  Submission  to Senate Standing Committee on Economics economics Subject: Proposed National Radioactive Waste Facility

I have been a resident of the Kimba for 43 years, and my husband has been a resident for 53 years. We are happy to provide the Committee with this submission relating to ‘the appropriateness and thoroughness of the site selection process for a national radioactive waste management facility at Kimba…’.Personally, We have no objection to the potential to host a national radioactive waste facility on the two sites that have been nominated for selection in our Kimba District.

More importantly we think the process has been fair, the information we have received has been good, and we are getting everything we need to make the right decision for our community.

The additional financial benefit to land owner is minimal. Four times the market value of such a small parcel of land is negligible in the overall scheme of things. It takes a huge effort to make a living out of farming in our district, with big costs and big risks every single year. If one of our farmers makes some additional money from this land, that’s great. But it’s not going to make them wealthy in its own right. Considering the government needs land for a national project, this seems more than fair to me.

Community support is interesting aspect of this proposed facility. I have seen and learned about many positive implications on the town from this project going ahead.

 Our community has had ample opportunity to learn more about the proposed facility. Any time we need to know more, there is a shopfront that is staffed on main street in Kimba

Early meetings with Rowan Ramsey MP gave us a good insight

 We have had several Town Meetings

 A French delegation visited Kimba to give us some insight into living near nuclear facilities. It seems to be no problem at all.

 We have had meetings with Departmental members  Some in the community have been fortunate to meet with Minister Canavan

 Trips have been organised and funded to visit ANSTO to learn more about waste storage

 It will be a huge lift for the local businesses in the development of the site.

 There is no apparent risk to land prices or the prices of grain that is grown in the area. That has been a big concern by some farmers but there won’t be any negative impact on our farming community.

 It will have a huge impact for the local businesses in general, that will cater for the influx of people who will infiltrate our community in the building of this Waste Facility.

 Huge impact on businesses with tourism set to soar with the building of this Facility

Overall, We are very comfortable in the knowledge that the community has had ample opportunity to learn about the potential Facility. There has been plenty of media coverage (newspaper, social media, radio, television) and through the Department of Industry, Innovation and Science which is in the community most weeks 2 days per week. They have a display which shows what it will look like if built here and personally can see no impact on the surrounding area. We don’t know what the community will decide, but the process has been fair and open with lots of opportunity to learn and ask questions. We were asked to vote on whether to get more assessment and information about the opportunity and we voted yes. So that’s what’s happening. It would be unfair for us to not have the chance to learn more.

We disagree that we need ‘broader community views’ and the need to stretch the boundaries outside of our District Council. What is happening in our Community is exactly that: our community. As residents of Kimba for the last 43 years, plus ++ We see no reason that the rest of SA has a right to tell us what we can and can’t have. It is our back yard, not theirs. We are the community. We are all allowed our own personal opinions and feelings on this matter but, when we have to, we pull together as a community and are always there for each other.

From everything we have learned, we can only see positive outcomes for our town

.  New jobs. It might only be 15 to start with but forcibly there may be more than that. What a bonus to fill some of the many empty house in our community, and an influx of students to our school which has diminishing numbers every year.

 We are more likely to received essential town services: hospital, doctor (which we are struggling to keep), dentist (which we do not have). We need to keep the services we have but that has been a huge struggle in recent years.

 The need for a Doctor to be based permanently in Kimba as currently we do not have a Doctor and have to travel to see one.

 It’s an opportunity to support existing businesses and try and encourage new local business, which brings economic benefits to the town.

 Businesses have been seeing a decline in customers as land is sold it is been purchased by neighbours to make larger farms Very few farms are being bought by farmers from out of the district. We need new people here and this is an opportunity for new community member.

 Improved phone and internet service would be an added bonus for our community.

 : The $2,000,000 Benefit Fund. What a bonus for a small community!! That’s just a ‘thank you’ for taking part. I am so glad to see friends and organisation in the town applying for funding of their projects. We know how hard we all work as volunteers and this is a really great thing. We can see such a bonus for the community with the opportunity to put forward grants to obtain money for thing that would not be because of lack in funding. It’s a win for social clubs, sporting facilities and anyone else who think they are eligible to put in a submission for funding.

So, we can see the opportunity for a small country town such as ours to have such a facility. It could ultimately mean long term survival for our community. The whole town is struggling. The CFS, the SES, Ambulance Service, they are all struggling for numbers in a declining population. We might not choose to support it, and we might not even be offered it (there is another location in Hawker too). But we should be able to decide for ourselves. It’s a shame we have to have this inquiry. Everything so far has been fair and reasonable.

July 9, 2018 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump | Leave a comment