Australian news, and some related international items

Denise Carpenter -in Hawker, anti-nuclear information has been refuted by experts

Denise Carpenter    Submission to Senate Inquiry on site selection process for a national radioactive waste management facility in South Australia.

I personally have no issues with the site selection process used in our area (Hawker). The following information is supplied in support of my opinion.

• The land acquisition request was advertised in newspapers and everyone had the opportunity to put their land forward. The fact that neighbours have complained that they were not consulted is trivial as I would not consult with my neighbours if selling or renting my property.

• The financial compensation offered to applicants for their land is minuscule – 3 times current land value for the land acquired. In the case of Barndioota it is an area of only 100 hectares on a 25000 hectare property. • Community support is an interesting aspect of this proposed repository. The site is remote to ‘adjoining neighbours’, to the closest towns and is not visible from the closest sealed road. The repository will no doubt have many positive implications to the towns in its proximity. The local community has had ample opportunity to avail themselves of any information they need to make an evaluated decision. I find it interesting that broad community support is being considered as I can only see positive outcomes for the community which acquires the repository. I have never known community support to be a consideration for other businesses, ventures, opportunities in SA.

• The indigenous people are actively involved in this process, as members of the community, as landowners of an adjoining property and are represented on various committees which are looking at the proposed repository. Their traditional beliefs are being considered at each level.

• I don’t believe the community benefit program has affected the sentiment of the people in our area. Successful applicants have come from a diverse sector and comprise of groups that are both ‘for’ and ‘against’ the repository.

• Wider community views. I believe that it is not necessary to involve wider community views – it does not affect them either way and I can only see positive outcomes for the local community involved including jobs, retaining and hopefully increasing essential town services (school, hospital, sustain and encourage new local businesses).

• The opportunity for a small country SA town to have such a facility come to their area can mean the long term survival of the town, rather than the demise of another country community.

• I am comfortable with the information available from various sources, public meetings, Internet, local people on committees, Internet, face to face discussions, availability of guest speakers, radio interviews, newspapers, displays etc. Overall, people who are positive about the proposed repository, after researching information available, are in favour because of the benefits it offers. They, including myself, tend to be accepting of the proposal and are not vocal, nor do they influence others.

It is my opinion that people opposed to the proposal are a vocal group and have been known to be giving out information which can, and has, been refuted by experts. I hereby give my permission for my submission to be published on the net and it does not have to be kept private. I can be contacted as per the above details.


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: Logo

You are commenting using your 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: