SCORING SUBMISSIONS TO SENATE COMMITTEE RE NUCLEAR WASTE DUMP SITE SELECTION
SUBMISSIONS TO SENATE COMMITTEE RE NUCLEAR WASTE DUMP SITE SELECTION
How the submissions scored on the first 6 Terms of Reference
| NAME and number on the Senate website
|
Financial compensation for land was OK | Satisfied about broad community support | Satisfied about indigenous support | Satisfied about community benefit program | Community support should mean local only | Added related matters |
| ANTI NUCLEAR SUBMISSIONS FIRST | ||||||
| (ATLA).(No 42) | No | No | No | No | strongly | |
| Ashton 73 | No | No | No | No | No | Lack of trust |
| ACF 70
|
yes | No | No | No | No | Wants wider Inquiry |
| ANFA 71 | No | No | No | No | No | Wants waste Inquiry |
| AHRC 60 | No | No | No | No | No | Predicts legal action |
| Bannon 85 | No | No | No | No | No | Hypocrisy of DIIS |
| Bangarla 56 | No | No | No | No | No | History of Aboriginal interaction |
| Bohr K 59 | No | No | No | No | No | |
|
Cameron S 18 |
No | No | No | No | No | |
| Cant B 49 | No | No | No | No | No | |
| CCSA 55 | No | No | No | No | No | Wants re-examination of waste plans |
| Cushway 6 | No | No | No | No | No | Conflicts of interest |
|
Day 67 |
No | No | No | No | No | |
| ENUFF 109 | No | No | No | No | No | Comprehensive criticism |
| EDF 43 | No | No | No | No | ||
| Fels D 76 | No | Seismic danger | ||||
| Fels K 63 | No | Floods groundwater | ||||
| Fels P 84 | No | Floods. conflict of interest | ||||
| Fergusson 106 | No | No | Hypocrisy. Conflict of interest | |||
| FLAG 73 | No | No | No | No | No | |
| FOE 86 | No | No | No | No | No | Want independent inquiry re wastes |
| Gaweda 54 | No | No | No | No | No | illegality |
| Glies 51 | No | No | No | No | No | Need judicial inquiry |
| Hannan 61 | No | Mental health | ||||
| Hughes 57 | No | No | No | No | No | Flawed process |
| Hunt 80 | No | No | No | agriculture | ||
| IPAN 30 | No | No | ||||
| Keri 8 | No | No | Wants nuclear free | |||
| Lienert L 50 | NO | No | No | No | Opposed to process, not necessarily to dump | |
| Madigan 26 | No | No | No | No | No | History. illegality |
| Major 16 | No | No | No | No | No | Not on farming land |
| MKenzie K 78 | No | Aboriginal interaction history | ||||
| McKenzie R 107 | No | In depth on Aboriginal interaction | ||||
| MAPW 74 | No | Nuclear medicine | ||||
| Mitchell 25 | No | Flawed process Intermediate wastes | ||||
| Name Withheld 90 | No | No | No | No | No | Prelude to commercial waste import? |
| Name withheld 92 | No | No | Tourism agriculture | |||
| Niepraschk 29 | No | No | No | No | Lucas Heights best option | |
| No Dump Allianc 45 | No | No | No | No | No | Dangers. Tourism |
| No Dump F Ranges | No | No | No | No | No | |
| No nuclear waste on agricultural land 46 | No | agriculture | ||||
| Noonan 31 | No | No | No | No | Wastes. Dangers .End the process now | |
| Scott C 14 | No | No | No | Wastes. Agriculture | ||
| Scott T 44 | No | No | No | Illegality. Biased committees | ||
| Srs St Joseph 68 | No | No | No | No | No | Longterm effects |
| Stokes B | No | No | No | No | No | illegality |
| Taylor A 82 | No | No | No | No | No | Wastes. Lucas Heights best site |
| Thomas 36 | No | No | No | No | Seismic flooding. Biased info | |
| Tiller J 9 | No | No | No | No | No | Biased committees |
| Tulloch B 87 | No | No | No | No | Misleading info | |
| Tulloch R 62 | No | No | No | Dishonest process | ||
| Tulloch S 32 | No | No | No | No | Illegality. stranded wastes. | |
| Wakelin B 23 | No | No | No | No justification for dump | ||
| Wakelin C 22 | No | No | No | No | agriculture | |
| Walker 20 | No | No | No | No | Tourism. illegality | |
| Wauchope | No | No | No | No | No | Why assumed S.A.? Waste types |
| Wetherby 12 | No | No | ||||
| Whittenbury 81 | No | No | No | No | No | |
| PRO NUCLEAR SUBMISSIONS | ||||||
| Ashworth 52 | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Sits on fenc e. praises DIIS |
| ANSTO 58 | Just praises itself | |||||
| Baldock A 38 | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Praises science. Criticises anti-nuclear |
| Baldock B 72 | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Praises ANSTO etc |
| Baldock H 64 | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | |
| Baldock J 39 | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | |
| Barford 83 | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | |
| Beinke 17 | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | |
| Carpenter D 1 | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Longterm survival of town. Attacks nuclear critics |
| Carpenter 3 | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Ensure town’s survival .Heritage listing |
| Clements 35 | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Ensure town’s future. Attacks anti nuclear people |
| Cliff 65 | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | |
| DIIS 40 | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Nuclear medicine. DIIS activities |
| Harris 24 | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | |
| Hawker Community Devt Board 47 | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | |
| Haywood 2 | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | |
| Heard 15 | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Wants expansion of Lucas Heights |
| Hennessy 7 | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Very opposed to outsiders having asay |
| Johnson 27 | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | |
| Joyce 33 | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Ensures town’s future. Criticises anti nuclear people |
| Kemp 88 | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Dump good for business |
| Kimba District Council 19 | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Most interested in financial benefits |
| Koch D 75 | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Criticises anti-nuclear people |
| Koch K 28 | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Dump benefit to Australia |
| Lienert M and M 53 | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Dump no negative impact |
| McInnis 4 | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Ensure town’s future. Criticises anti nuclear people |
| Milton 34 | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | |
| Morgan 37 | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Wastes OK |
| Name Witheld 11 | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | |
| Name Withheld 89 | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Ensure town’s future |
| Name Withheld 91 | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Ensure town’s future |
| Orima 108 | All about ORIMA | |||||
| Orman 77 | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Ensure town’s future. No negative impact |
| RDA Far North 41 | Yes | Unsure about community support | ||||
| Schmidt 13 | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No negative impact |
| SA ARPS 66 | All about nuclear medicine. Seems Unaware of intermediate level wastes | |||||
| SACOME 69 | Yes | Economic benefit to town | ||||
| Stewart 10 | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | |
| Taylor S 5 | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Ensure town’s future |
| Wells 48 | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
1 This month
of the week – Disrupting War & Militarism in Oceania. Active solidarity. Radical practice.
Antinuclear 