Antinuclear

Australian news, and some related international items

Chelsea Haywood sees nuclear waste dump as saving Hawker from a slow death

Chelsea Haywood. Submission to Senate Inquiry on Selection process for a national radioactive waste management facility in South Australia

My name is Chelsea Haywood and I purchased my house in Hawker 13 years ago. I lived in Waubra Victoria when the windfarm was in its proposal stage and was actively involved in the process of community education. I have 2 young children t1 that attends the school here, and the other just started pre entry at Kindy. Both my husband and myself work and devote a lot of our time to the community.

I am secretary of the Hawker Community Development Board, Chair of the Flindersfest Committee, Active on the Swimming Pool Committee while supporting my husband who is a volunteer ambo, on the EWG and BCC (both consulting committees for the project) how the need for ‘broad community support’ has played and will continue to play a part in the process, including:

the definition of ‘broad community support’ [she puts this in red]

broad community support should be kept to those that will be affected should this proposal move forward. By this I mean that there is no need to involve the entire state as it will not impact on them either way should the project go ahead or not. Those in the local area “Hawker” can already see the benefits such a facility can have for our area. Where as those from outside the area are concentrating on the stereo type the word nuclear brings to the state, while ignoring the broader picture, they do not care if Hawker dies a slow death due to lack of employment etc as it has no direct impact on themselves or their homes. The Government needs to talk more to those in Hawker and understand their support for the proposal as at the moment only the minority are being heard due to the yelling

how ‘broad community support’ has been or will be determined for each process advancement stage; [her red]

Remembering that I have children that may well have grandchildren here one day I wanted to make sure that it would be safe before even considering the idea Before moving onto round one I received a phone call asking for my thoughts on the said proposal. As I had spent the time to educate myself on the risks that such a site could pose I saw no need to oppose the proposal. Shall we continue to stage 3 and it is put to a formal vote I still will not be opposing as there are no risks to be found. I suggest that using a formal voting system such as what was used at Kimba would be more beneficial as people can vote without fear of repercussion

how any need for Indigenous support has played and will continue to play a part in the process, including how Indigenous support has been or will be determined for each process advancement stage; [her red]

Local Indigenous have been involved since the announcement of the proposal. I believe that if you want to take a stance on their behalf you need to talk to more than just a couple from the area and also check on what their response was a few months ago. I am more than happy to provide you with quite a few names of those that are for the project. Currently they are getting the best help possible from the Government to be able to collate their history with DNA and age testing, GPS marking of sacred sites so as to protect them for years to come with out this project this would never be documented for generations to come. Any problems found while surveying the sites geographically and historically which be taken into consideration when they decide on a final site.

whether and/or how the Government’s ‘community benefit program’ payments affect broad community and Indigenous community sentiment; [her red]

The benefit program was set up to help with the impact that the proposal has had on our district. So far we have people come from overseas to hold rallys against the proposal without a thought that maybe the district does want this. We have had state members visit the town and disregard any local problems (that have not stemmed from this) due to the minority yelling the loudest. Also people that are against the site have still applied for grant funds and succeeded without changing their stance on the proposal. The small injection of funds into the community has helped us to get things done that would otherwise take years of baking sales and fundraisers. This shows that the money other than assisting where required has not impacted on anyones thoughts on the proposal.

whether wider (Eyre Peninsular or state-wide) community views should be taken into consideration and, if so, how this is occurring or should be occurring [her red]

Why should the entire state be given the option to vote into something that will have absolutely no impact on if it is to not go ahead, where as it has a massive impact on my community. Broad community should be held to the current area that is being used and could probably even be made smaller. If this site is to go ahead Quorn will still keep their tourism and the travellers through the town, they also have a greater population that is more diverse than Hawker.

This has the possibility to save employment in the town which is currently on the down fall and bring with it more families, which in turn boosts our available services. If Barndioota is selected it will hold no impact whatsoever for Adelaide, the Limestone Coast or elsewhere. IF you wish to give the entire state a say in the project I believe that everything that is then put forward to occur anywhere in this state should go to a statewide vote and cannot occur with out majority rules

This inquiry is supposed to be about the ‘site selection’ process, yet not one term of reference reflects this. If the site selection is the issue, surely your terms should reflect this and not how everything is impacting the local indigenous and the federal government ‘buying’ support.

As it stands my view on the site selection process was well handled. There was no need to get 300+ communities hopeful by alerting all towns of the properties tendered. We received notification once it was dwindled to 5 properties and straight away the government had an open door policy when it comes to questions and learning more about the proposal. There are many in the community that are for the proposal but due to hearing what happens if you are vocal have remained quiet. Similar things happen in districts when it comes to other proposals as well eg. Windfarms, Big Batteries. You will always have people against the proposals that yell the loudest so they can be heard, but when people dig a little deeper in a community they find that there is a lot more support to be found, they just don’t feel the need to yell and Hawker is the same at the moment. I would like to invite any of the Inquiry committee members to come and spend some time in Hawker (not just with the against group) and see exactly how much support is out there

Advertisements

July 11, 2018 - Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump

No comments yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: