Australian news, and some related international items

Sebastian Tops: National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment Bill uses vague unspecified term “controlled material” FOR SECRET REASONS? “

Sebastian Tops to Senate Committee on National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment (Site Specification, Community Fund and Other Measures) Bill 2020 [Provisions] Submission 22   

Argument: This Bill involves possible Mutiny or even Treason. My argument here is that this Bill proposal is most disrespectful in several ways. To me this (amendment) Bill does involve democratic mutiny, Federal but also

The Bill has ignored fundamental recommendations and Verdicts from S.A.’s Citizen’s Jury (2016) entirely. Great disloyalty to Australian lands and citizens is also still optionally hidden inside this Bill, for ‘non-Commonwealth’ entities can also be ‘doing their thing’. That disrespectful proposal possibility presents the idea of treason. If (only) a military land zone is required – please say and do so – but that should follow a different process.

This Bill does state to rely on “The principle of voluntarism” (Explanatory Memo, p.1). This Bill therefore fails because it cannot be found reasonable or legal for only one, or even a few South Australian land owner(s) to decide to sell land for purposes that will impact an entire region’s State future outlook negatively in several ways. Could anyone find it democratically respectful and reasonable for one single landowner’s (temporary life) choice and this Bill, to impact an entire State, here possibly South Australia, to become the proposed nuclear victim, again?

There is no ‘voluntary principle’ apart from the one, or two apparent S.A. landowner(s). There might be an NSW heritage or family history link? It would then involve fraud (false declaration), and or treason, at least against S.A.. These are matters relating directly to ethics which have failed fundamental (Australian) morals.

The Bill here proposes to introduce possibly new payment categories for NAW, in Item 33 par. 34B(1)(b) and (c) (Expl. Memo, p.19) “payable to the Commonwealth”. England is part of the ‘Commonwealth’. Further, only a fee is payable “by non-Commonwealth and non-host State users”. Does this mean England can store their (nuclear active) waste in Australia at no cost? This Bill continues to be unspecific on proposals related directly to nuclear most hazardous topics.

With anything nuclear; any relevant information should have been part of, and timely provided to each of the applicable eligible voter prior a vote on the matter. That officially presented voter information determines what could only possibly be stored in an appropriately ‘selected’ region. Not what is possibly proposed in the Bill here, after the actual vote. Otherwise, again, no proper political processes have been applied in this matter (2015 – 2019).

Neither the AEC, nor the District Council of Kimba seem to be willing or able to inform the public what printed information was provided to each of those limited few local voters, prior considering their vote. It could explain why ballots were
not returned. Likely due to a lack of trust in the applied political processes.

Vague unspecified term uses regarding anything nuclear. Who considers that ethical? The term use of “controlled material” is extremely vague, and can involve “all types of waste” (Expl. Memo, Schedule 3, Other Amendments, point 132, p.25). It has unspecified additional unknown liabilities and outcomes, and involves other unspecified responsibilities. Within the JCV (1997). The term use of “controlled material” amends the Object of Act (Expl. Memo, p.12). Controlled
material remains secretive for dubious reasons, and did admittedly under Schedule 3, point 132 not form part at all of the applied vote processes. Were voters made timely aware of any “controlled material” involving “primarily” from “State and Territory Governments, industry, hospitals and universities” (Expl. Memo, part 6A, p.3) to which even “laws cannot apply to regulate, hinder or prevent the doing of a thing” (Expl. Memo, point 94, p.20)?

This Bill fails to specify a clear set of criteria, full accountabilities, appropriate specifications of various necessary kinds, or responsibilities for all parts of this proposal. The proposed long-distance transport of highly hazardous (nuclear active) waste products produced in another State is entirely unnecessary

The Bill proposes for the EPA to not be able to report on environmental matters regarding the proposals inside the Bill put. What is generally known is the necessity to protect life against any poison’s hazard life duration. NAW is supposed to be safely ‘managed’ to protect vital sources like water, esp. in drought affected regions. The lifetime involvement of the EPA would be an absolute minimum requirement as such for any Australian NAW proposal. By not explicitly stating any poison responsible needs for its still unknown hazard life duration, and all its necessary more costly safety requirements, seems rather unprofessional. This Bill presents its disregard for another’s (State or Territory) land, by meaning to apply intentional disrespect to another by not demanding compliance with fundamental NAW safety requirements.

Any hazardous material is to be maintained closest to its source (for safe containment reducing wider risk exposures), minimize handling, introduce future monitoring and re-packing facilities in NSW etc.. Otherwise, if this Bill was to pass then more fully operational regional hospitals would be needed prior commencement of introducing the spread of any hazardous substances etc.. No new strategically located regional fully operational hospitals are proposed in this Bill.

Democratic Human Rights – Self-Determination (not to ever have to endure another State’s own produced (nuclear active) wastes to at least prevent image impairment and future economic opportunity losses.)……

To claim that “The specification of the site … is supported by a comprehensive consultation process” (Explanatory Memo, p.4), is incorrect, as a similar (also foreign) NAW proposal was considered earlier in the process. That process did receive an official S.A. Citizens Verdict, stating: “Under no circumstances do we pursue the disposal of nuclear waste because the potential brand damage is too great a risk to the state”. “It is a threat to a $17.5billion/year (1) income to the state generated from tourism, international students, agriculture, food, wine, seafood, livestock, and this is just the beginning. This is a risk we are not willing to take”. One can suggest that related to foreign (nuclear active) wastes only but, RCNCJ reasons go much deeper into their debated, wider considered, and broader researched nuclear related findings than this Bill seemingly has.

The RCNCJ expressed the need to prevent a lasting State or Territory ‘image impairment’. Storing another’s (nuclear) wastes would have ramifications to South Australia’s economy and negatively impact future opportunities like trade. That particular finding received 82% support. That economic Verdict finding alone relates directly to this Bill amendment proposal. Like “The jury felt it was it was important for environmental impact studies to include impacts beyond radiation”. The reasons state that overall, no economic benefits are sufficient to lose or damage one’s clean and safe image which South Australia still has. The Gawler Ranges are still brilliant. Several other “No” reasons are expressed within that RCNCJ verdict. Another such example: “The project will have significant social costs. Particularly, through the divisiveness of the issue”. How true is that finding alone, and who did dictatorially decide to allow politicians to totally ignore those Citizens Verdict findings?

The (Two-third or three-quarter) majority requirement has not been achieved………
At least two non-compliant issues are present within this Bill as it fails:

1. The JCV (66.6% majority), respecting dubious vote result (under 55%).
2. The Consultation paragraph of the explanatory memo (K. Pitt), as well the Bill ignore South Australian RCNCJ (2016) Verdict. Misrepresentations regarding NAW, “controlled material”, or “doing a thing” do involve inappropriately controlled voting processes, contrary to a controlled RCNCJ (2016) “No” Verdict(s). Non-compliant issues described are to have immediate political ramifications for this (Amendment) Bill and should be denied any further considerations in its
entirety. I elaborate on (also other) reasons in the Appendix “No Because”.

Appendix “No Because”
Other additional reasons to stop this (Amendment) Bill entirely:
As this amendment Bill relates directly to (anything) nuclear,
1. it would be logical to be very specific, clear, and state exactly what will be included and excluded.
2. full professional and personal accountabilities are to apply at all times, under any of the applicable Laws (State or Federal), otherwise nuclear should finally admit that (anything) nuclear is actually the least regulated industry………

June 1, 2020 - 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 )

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: