Farmer Jeff Baldock excited at prospect of nuclear waste dump on his land. Other nearby farmers not impressed
Lobbyists get ready to fight site approval, Stock Journal , Vanessa Binks, 28 Aug 2020 AFTER more than six years of deliberation, a regional radioactive waste storage site is less than 60 days away from potential approval and the site’s owner believes the long road has been “worth it”. The site at Napandee, near Kimba, was selected for final approval by federal Resources Minister Keith Pitt earlier this month.Landowner and mixed farmer Jeff Baldock said the approval of the site could save the town, and found the announcement of further consultation “frustrating”. The 158-hectare property is less than 2 per cent of Mr Baldock’s arable farming land [this figure is disputed] and the development is expected to provide a $8.5-million benefit to the community.”There is nothing else to consult about. The proposal has already survived two Senate inquiries and been scrutinised by a Parliamentary Committee and through a court process,” he said.”There has already been multiple rounds of consultation and another one will just cause delays.” Mr Baldock said offering his land to store radioactive waste was “not about money”…….. “Country towns are diminishing and Kimba has an opportunity to invest in its future and keep families or attract more residents,” Mr Baldock said. Site construction could begin by 2024. Lobbyists get ready to fight site approval A DIVISION within the Kimba community about whether or not a local radioactive waste site should be approved has spearheaded a response from the No Radioactive Waste on Agricultural Land in Kimba group to challenge the final approval in a judicial review process. The committee will be meeting in the coming weeks to discuss the next stages after the recently announced further 60-day consultation period has lapsed. Lobby group president Peter Woolford said all options would be examined going forward.”We are another step closer to SA becoming a dumping ground and one step closer to another court case,” he said. Mr Woolford was pleased about the announcement of further consultation and hoped those who disapproved of the site would voice their concerns.”I hope that people outside of the Kimba District Council are allowed to have their say this time – particularly neighbouring councils at Cleve and Wudinna who are also affected,” he said. Mr Woolford also said agriculture’s economic benefit to the region far exceeded the benefit from the development.”About $60 million worth of income is generated from agriculture in the district each year – this development will not even come close to that and it could impact agriculture’s future in the area as well,” he said.”The risk is too unknown. |
Reflection on Jeff Baldock’s presentation to the Senate Hearing on Napandee Radioactive waste Dump plan
Jeff Baldock is the farmer who is selling a portion of his land near Kimba, for four times its market value, to the Federal Government for the site of a nuclear waste dump. He thinks he is benefiting the local community. He could be right, in that they will be showered by he Fed govt with services and facilities that they SHOULD HAVE GOT ANYWAY, without need of being bribed. Baldock has no concept of the long term effect, and later consequences for South Australia.
He made a brave effort at the hearing, to portray this as a community benefit. He struggled a bit, but was helped by plenty of “Dorothy Dixer” questions from the Chairman.
Listening to Jeff Badock on the Senate Committee hearings, I am struck by the naivety and ignorance of the man. He really thinks that farming life will go on just the same in Kimba. With the guarded radioactive waste dump, with dirty great trucks under heavy police guard arriving periodically, and with roadworks, and port works at Whyalla, and the whole disruption of the area Probable loss of population, but Baldock expects a new boom in agriculture and population there. Expects big professional jobs there – hell – those will all be in Adelaide, at best – could be Sydney or Canberra!
No, Mr Baldock, our children do not deserve this dirty, long-lasting, nuclear trash dump
Paul Waldon Fight To Stop A Nuclear Waste Dump In South Australia, 21 Feb 20, People leaving, property values dropping, large tracts of land hitting the market, children’s heritage being sold and/or eroded, a once strong community now divided, people happier to shop outside their community, these are the trademarks of a dying town with poor opportunities.
An aggressive social cancer fueled by a desperate and ignorant nuclear embracing dichotomy trying to grasp the doctrines of the indentured servitude bound nuclear coterie with a vested interest spouting factoids will surely fail to attract new business and people to the region.
Meanwhile Andrew Baldock, nuclear profiteer, social axe man has continued to state “We are doing this for the children!”
Well Baldock my children, my children’s children’s children don’t deserve this. https://www.facebook.com/groups/941313402573199/
Nuclear waste dumping: as the Baldock family sells farming land, is the agricultural market for Kimba now stuffed up?
As the Baldock family anticipates the establishment of a nuclear waste dump on Jeff Baldock’s land, they now sell a large chunk of their farming land, along with three other farming families that have made the same decision. (Reported in The Advertiser , 14 Feb 2020)
It looks as if they are getting out fast, before the dirty nuclear waste news is widely known.
And here are some of the many comments on Facebook:
James Shepherdson It is actually about roughly 20ks from the site and has only just been added to the other land for sale. Read into it what you will , but if he’s planning to stay he’s sure sending the wrong message with this move .As far as being approachable, been there done that and got jumped on by council and the gov department and were accused of bullying . this will go down in history as the most undemocratic process in this country
K Bruun I can’t – but at the same time ‘can’ – believe this. I am amazed at how planned this has been. There must be something sociopathic about these people. I still don’t understand how Baldock could spend his nuffield scholarship learning how to keep families on farms together, yet does this. What is the psychology behind people like this? They have effectively harmed their entire community.
Kazzi Jai Paul Waldon “It was sheer elation when I heard,” Baldock says. “I’m very, very excited about what lies ahead for Kimba. It gives me a great feeling of relief. I’m quite excited to have it on my property and see it develop, to have our kids around it and see some opportunities close to home.”
The Saturday Paper February 8th -14th 2020
Noel Wauchope Perhaps the Baldocks and others look to a “healthy”economic transition for Australia from an agricultural country to the world’s quarry and waste dump.
Is Napandee, (Jeff Baldock’s property) near Kimba the govt’s chosen site for expanded nuclear waste dump?
Federal Government denies claims it has a preferred site for radioactive waste storage in South Australia, Advertiser, 8 July 19,
A Kimba property is allegedly the frontrunner for a future nuclear waste dump, a source claims – but it’s disputed by the Federal Government which says no favoured site has been picked.
The Federal Government says it is yet to select a favoured site for its proposed radioactive waste facility, rebuffing claims that a Kimba property is the frontrunner.
A spokesman for the Department of Industry, Innovation and Science also says the Government is not bound to wait until a court case on the issue is finalised before selecting the best place for the contentious development.
A source close to the project has claimed the waste storage site is now likely to be at least 60 per cent bigger than previously envisaged.
The Government is considering three sites for the radioactive waste facility – two near Kimba and one near Hawker.
A Kimba-based consultative committee is due to meet next month to discuss the project.
The source believes Napandee – a property 25km northwest of Kimba – is the Government’s preferred site and next month’s meeting will discuss revised requirements for the proposed waste site.
“There’s a rumour getting around town that Napandee is the one they’ve chosen and it seems to align with this revelation over the last week that they suddenly have to increase the size of the land from 100ha to 160ha or 170ha,” the source said.
“Whoever gets the site is going to get 70 per cent more money because it’s a bigger parcel.
“They’ve always said that there would be cropping and agricultural trials at the (land) that’s not being used for the buildings. Apparently now the safety regulator has said that is not going to happen.”
Various stakeholders The Advertiser spoke to believed there would be little progress on the project until after a legal challenge was complete.
The Barngarla Determination Aboriginal Corporation took Kimba Council to court in January over its plan run a community ballot to determine the level of support for the dump, arguing it was discriminatory.
Napandee owner Jeff Baldock said the Kimba community was awaiting the court ruling.
“There’s not much happening – obviously things are still ticking along quietly in case it happens,” Mr Baldock said. (Baldock and family at left)
Once a court decision was made “we can get our vote and get on with it”, he said.
Kimba chief executive Deb Larwood said the community was “in a holding pattern” until the case was finalised.
A spokesman for the Department of Industry, Innovation and Science said community ballots were suspended last year because of the court challenge, but the department was also aware “the community would like to see a decision as soon as possible”.
The Government was not required to wait until the court process was complete.
“The National Radioactive Waste Management Act 2012 provides the (Resources) Minister (Matt Canavan) with discretion to make decisions in relation to nominations and site selection,” he said.
“That said, it has been stated consistently that if there is no broad support for the facility then it will not be imposed on a community.”
The Government had no strict definition of “broad support” for the proposed site, which would measure at least 100ha.
That would be determined by a range of factors, including submissions, feedback from the community in meetings, conversations with neighbours and “the results of any ballot if one proceeds”.
The spokesman said it had been agreed the site could include “community-led agricultural research and development” but the exact nature of this was yet to be determined.
Heather Baldock’s sycophantic submission supporting nuclear waste dump for Kimba
Heather Baldock (Submission No 64) to Senate Standing Committee on Economics Re – Appropriateness and thoroughness of the site selection process for a National Radioactive Waste Management Facility at Kimba
As a long term local farmer of the Kimba district who has been very active in many local and regional community organisations, I am very excited by the opportunities that hosting the National radioactive low level disposal and intermediate storage facility would bring to our area. I was born here and have raised my family in this community, and I have family still living in the Kimba District including grandchildren.
I wish to address the Terms of Reference for this inquiry and am happy for this submission to be made public.
A) The financial compensation offered to applicants for the acquisition of land under the Nominations of Land Guidelines:
The financial compensation for the acquisition of land to be paid to the landowner, who voluntarily nominated property, is reasonable and a long way from excessive.
Calculations suggest that 4 x the land value for 100 hectares would be equivalent to about 10 years of farm production on that amount of land. So after 10 years the landowners would be losing out with this arrangement. For the two Kimba landowners it would not even cover their input costs for one cropping season.
There is also the intrusion of media and people from far and wide, not always in a friendly manner.
This underlines the fact that the landowners nominated their land, not for personal gain, rather as an opportunity for our community to diversify and increase employment in our low rainfall marginal farming area which is experiencing ongoing population decline.
B) How the need for ‘broad community support’ has played and will continue to play a part in the process, including;
a. The definition of ‘broad community support’ and b. How ‘broad community support’ has been or will be determined for each process advancement stage; a) I believe ‘broad community support’ is the majority (more than 50%) of the Kimba District supportive of hosting the National Facility, supplemented by the support of the majority of immediate neighbours to the proposed sites. Having said that, there is no precedent for broad community support for other ventures (business, exploration, social, tourism, mining etc) on private land.
b) To move to Phase 3 of the project there is the intention of holding another Electoral Commission managed vote for Kimba district residents. The vote to move to Phase 2 was arranged by the Kimba District Council at the request of Kimba people. The District Council extensively advertised the opportunity for locals who had vested interests and not enrolled to vote in Kimba council elections to apply to be included on the ‘CEO’s roll’. I would expect this option to apply for any future vote re the Waste Facility
An interesting point about the level of scrutiny that this particular land use has attracted is that there is no practice in our district of neighbours advising neighbours of, or of seeking their agreement to, any permanent or semipermanent changes in land use, infrastructure, commodities, farm practices, or moves to sell or lease land.
I don’t believe there is call for organisations, politicians, or individuals, or others outside of our district who don’t contribute to our local social and economic viability being considered in the ‘broad community support’.
- 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;
While we have no Indigenous groups active in the Kimba district I am aware that the Department of Industry, Innovation and Science (DIIS) has been liaising with the Barngarla people and that leaders visited the localities of the two Kimba sites in March this year. I have not heard of any issues resulting from this visit.
- whether and/or how the Government’s ‘community benefit program’ payments affect broad community and Indigenous community sentiment;
I strongly doubt that the Government’s Community Benefit Fund of $2million on moving to Phase 2 has influenced many people in their views. People publicly opposed, supportive, or keeping their own counsel, have seemed very keen to utilise the funding opportunity to support unprecedented social and economic benefits to our small rural community. The infrastructure and projects submitted to this Fund will be such that locals & visitors to Kimba will benefit. Many of these projects will also leverage employment opportunities when the successful projects are implemented.
I believe that people are only supportive of the NRWMF project if they feel firstly that the Facility poses no harm to their family’s and the district resident’s health or the environmental health of our region.
The economic and social benefits are secondary, albeit very attractive to have such benefits to our small declining community, heavily reliant on agriculture in a low rainfall area. The minimum $10million Community Capital Contribution, and other infrastructure and services that will be required as part of the project, will have influenced people’s consideration of the project. The NRWMF project provides a unique opportunity for our community to diversify its industry base, secure additional employment and services that the Government will need to provide in support of the Facility. Many in our community see this opportunity as very attractive and very supportive of the town’s long term sustainability.
There should be such benefits to any community prepared to make an informed decision to host a National Facility.
E) 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;
The Kimba community has dedicated many months towards becoming informed about many aspects of the proposed Waste Facility. The wider Eyre Peninsula and even the state of SA have not had the same opportunities to become so learned. Therefore the community outside of Kimba is not in a position to make an informed decision as to whether Kimba should host a Facility.
Also the facility will have no impact on the wellbeing or lifestyles of wider communities. Kimba hosting a Facility would have no detrimental impacts on businesses in wider communities although it may be advantageous to some contractors outside of Kimba in the construction phase of a Facility.
Activists and politicians who have been using the NRWMF project as a vehicle for their anti-nuclear stance should not be entitled to any say in the vote of whether Kimba moves to Phase 3.
F) any other related matters.
The whole process from the time of the Federal Government advertising the opportunity for landowners to nominate land in early 2015 to now has been thorough with numerous chances for locals to become highly informed of the process, the opportunities, the science and the impacts.
We have had numerous experts, scientists, people who work in the industry, including speakers opposed, visit Kimba to support our information gathering. The Department of Industry, Innovation & Science (DIIS) regularly updates the community on progress via newsletters & Facebook. Locals have been encouraged to visit Lucas Height to further increase their understanding of the project. The DIIS has staffed an office and employed a local as the Community Liaison Officer for many months allowing easy face-to-face access to gain more information and have queries responded to. The Kimba community has become highly informed about the NRWMF project.
Prior to moving to Phase 2 of the Project to learn more about the proposed Facility and enable site characterisation to occur, we had a Kimba community vote instigated by the District Council of Kimba and managed by the Electoral Commission. This democratic process showed the very clear majority of 57.4% of the Kimba district in favour of moving to Phase 2. Politicians would be extremely pleased to gain that level of support in an election or any referendum they were supporting.
Since Kimba moved to Phase 2 the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) has made 2 visits to Kimba. I have found meeting with them and reading their fact sheets to have been very enlightening and reassuring that we have an independent body as Australia’s highest authority on radiation protection and nuclear safety.
In conclusion I believe that the site selection process has been appropriate and very thorough in the Kimba community with all people able to gain considerable knowledge about many aspects of the NRWMF project and have any concerns addressed if they choose to engage in the process
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.
TERMS OF REFERENCE
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.
- 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.
(E) WIDENING COMMUNITY VIEWS
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.
(F) OTHER RELATED MATTERS
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)
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.
- 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
Bev Baldock – another Submission completely happy with the Kimba nuclear waste project
Bev Baldock (Submission No. 72) Submission to Senate Inquiry on Selection process for a national radioactive waste management facility in South Australia. My name is Bev Baldock. I have lived and worked in the Kimba Community for many years, living and working on a farm for twenty years, small business for sixteen years. I personally have no issues with the site selection, which has been honest and open.
The financial compensation offered to the applicants for the acquisition of their land is minimal, but fair.
Overall, I am very comfortable that we have been given honest knowledge and feedback on this project. Our community has had ample opportunity to learn more about the proposed facility which has been advertised extensively. We have had several community meetings, the opportunities to meet departmental members and experts in many areas of Nuclear.
I consider myself informed now and able to share my knowledge. It will be great to create new jobs which will bring economic benefits to Kimba. It could help bring more numbers for our school and keep the services that we still have as numbers are diminishing each year. Whatever the community may decide the process has been fair and open with lots of opportunities to learn, and make the right decision for our district.
I disagree that we need broader community support and feel the rest of South Australia should not have a say in what happens in our town and district.
If the rules are changed for measuring the community support to include more of South Australia, how can this be compared? E.g.: community consultation, public meetings, local government election.
We do not get a direct say in what takes place in neighboring communities and our state. This would set a precedent for future projects in South Australia where local communities don’t actually get listened to.
We have had visits from indigenous leaders, and to my knowledge there are no native title claims on district lands. We can still take care in what we do and try to make this project welcoming and inclusive for everyone and to look after heritage if they find it.
The benefit fund is a great bonus for Kimba, without this funding projects that have been submitted would not be possible. I have been involved in lots of projects for many years and this takes a huge amount of time to raise the dollars and reach our target. It is a great a fund to the betterment of the whole community whether the facility goes ahead or not.
Overall, the site selection process has been open, honest and fair. The proposed payments to landholders are fair. It’s our community, we have done the work, we have had the information, and we should be able to make our decision. Yours Sincerely, Bev Baldock
Jeff Baldock looks to four times value of his land to host nuclear waste dump: others not so keen.
Opinion poll results 8 Jan 17 “3.30 pm – “NO vote is currently up to 76.75%
The Advertiser, South Australia is running an opinion poll – Should a nuclear waste facility be built at Kimba? on their article
As choice of nuclear waste facility starts narrowing, people of Kimba are either excited or disgusted
[Ed note 12 Jan – at a later date, the “NO” vote jumped to 85%]
Jeff Baldock and family: A Kimba nuclear waste dump on their property would be a bonanza for them
But what would it do for the market’s perception of South Australia’s farm produce?
Jeff Baldock could make $$$s from #nuclear waste dump, but poses as community benefactor
Note previous news item : In Kimba, farmer Jeff Baldock, one of the shortlisted applicants, volunteered to sell one square kilometre of his property for the facility in exchange for a premium price and a reported $10 million community fund. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/nuclear-waste-dump-in-kimba-goes-against-the-grain/news-story/5f1931dc52ffe2b46e8e7a3d7fd4cecf—
“It would basically guarantee Kimba’s future, it’s a 300-year program the federal government will be here for,” Mr Baldock said.
“If we don’t do something, I’m worried the school won’t be going to Year 12 by the time my grandchildren get there, and the hospital might be closed by the time we need it. We’ve only just secured a doctor; we don’t want to lose any more services.”
The federal government earmarked a cattle station at Barndioota in the Flinders Ranges as its preferred site last April, but Bruce Wilson, the head of the Industry Department’s resources division, said other sites would be considered until a final decision, which could be made late this year. Construction of the facility is likely to be completed in the early 2020s.
A second Kimba farmer also put his property forward last week, and both submitted formal applications ahead of a French delegation visiting Kimba and Barndioota from Wednesday.
Among the delegation will be two mayors whose towns are near the Aube Disposal Facility in Champagne, the facility’s director and a representative of the French national radioactive waste agency. They will discuss safety concerns with residents, who have not previously supported the proposal.
“The facility we are proposing is for Australian low- and intermediate-level waste only, [REALLY?] and we will answer as many questions from as many perspectives as we can at these sessions,” Mr Wilson said.
Mr Baldock, whose family farms three properties, suggested a different site last year but neighbours were opposed. This time, all the adjacent property owners are supportive.
Mr Baldock said selecting a Kimba property would mean the federal government injected at least $10 million into the community and created 30 fulltime jobs. His own payment would be equivalent to a year’s worth of fertiliser costs, with the community benefiting more than his family.
Local funding could be used to boost services for the community’s ageing population, fix the pool which has been closed this year because of disrepair, and create jobs, agricultural research projects and economic opportunities.
Kimba Mayor Dean Johnson said there had been some opposition to hosting a dump last year, but an information campaign on the low risk involved was turning the tide. His council would also ask the Australian Electoral Commission to run a referendum for the 700 voters after a 60-day community consultation period ended.
“Certainly there is a group that is solidly opposed and that hasn’t changed, but the important thing to remember is this is a chance to get more information about the benefits to the community,” Mr Johnson said.
Meet Australian Public Affairs, the lobbying firm that pushed the Kimba nuclear waste dump for the Federal Government.
The representation by Australian Public Affairs of companies working within or directly linked to the energy, mining and uranium mining industries—many of which obviously have an interest in a nuclear waste dump—does not appear to have been disclosed to the public at any stage of their lobbying work for the federal government on the campaign for a national nuclear waste management facility.
Meet the lobbying firm that pushed the Kimba nuclear waste dump for the Federal Government while claiming “commitment to Indigenous Australians”. Matilda Duncan, 24 Feb 22,
Australian Public Affairs company officers: Tracey Cain, Phillip McCall, Kathryn Higgs, Nick Trainor, Paula Gelo, Matthew Doman, Dominique Wolfe,
Having pocketed six years worth of consulting fees campaigning on behalf of the federal government for their proposed nuclear waste dump in SA, Australian Public Affairs claims “success” as the Barngarla people of the Eyre Peninsula continue to fight the dump through the courts.
It’s a grim project brief few public relations firms would want: convince Australia it’s acceptable to establish not just a national nuclear waste dump, but an international dump site that would potentially accept nuclear waste from the United Kingdom and France.
The requirements of the job: advocate for a radioactive waste facility being built in the middle of one of Australia’s largest wheat and agricultural belts. Urge locals to support a nuclear waste dump near Kimba, despite the site neighbouring both a conservation park and a national park. Avoid publicly questioning why the company the federal government hired to assess the shortlisted dump sites has a U.S. parent company that manufactures nuclear weapons.
Think up methods of pushing the dump in a state that has already been subjected to the stress of a government nuclear waste dump site selection process an inexplicable 4 times in 23 years—and rejected it, to the point the Olsen Government passed legislation to prevent radioactive waste being brought into the state: the Nuclear Waste Storage Facility (Prohibition) Act 2000, which was subsequently strengthened by the Rann Government.
Sell the nuclear dump to the public in a state in which traditional owners have already been subjected to decade upon decade of trauma thanks to the nuclear industry and materials for nuclear weapons being sourced from their lands. Avoid mention of the damaging mining conducted at Radium Hill, the uranium mining that continues to this day at Olympic Dam, the grotesque takeover of land to establish a weapons testing range double the size of England, or the hideous government decision to allow Britain to test 7 atomic bombs at Maralinga and Emu Field without adequately warning the Indigenous people living there—bombs that, in a full circle of destruction, were made using uranium sourced from Radium Hill.
In the face of this depraved and dark history of governmental abuse, the job: tell the locals it will be worth it because the nuclear waste dump will bring “45 jobs”.
Tracey Cain and Alastair Furnival willingly took on the work.
For the past seven years, their lobbying firm Australian Public Affairs has been working behind the scenes for the Federal Government, providing media and campaign strategy advice to help the government promote the nuclear waste dump—presented as the “National Radioactive Waste Management Facility”—and steer them through what continues to be a long, flawed and troubled dump site selection process.
A married couple, Cain and Furnival share a property worth $5 million in Cremorne and equal ownership of Australian Public Affairs Pty Ltd. Furnival is also a staffer at another consulting firm, Elevate Consulting.
Their company made national headlines in 2014, during Furnival’s time as a federal government staffer. That year, Cain and Furnival’s company was lobbying for the junk food sector, representing Cadbury, the Australian Beverages Council and Mondelez Australia (formerly Kraft), while Furnival was working as chief of staff for the federal assistant health minister, Fiona Nash.
According to media reports, Senator Nash and Furnival intervened to pull down a food health star rating website less than 24 hours after it was launched, despite it having been in development for two years and approved by state and territory food ministers.
Furnival owned half of Australian Public Affairs while intervening in public policy decisions as Nash’s chief of staff. Furnival resigned in the wake of the scandal.
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT STAFFERS VS. LOBBYISTS WRITING SPIN
The Morrison Government appear to have given Australian Public Affairs plenty of latitude to complete their work promoting the nuclear waste dump, extending permission to act directly as Government spokespeople.
Numerous times over the past 2 years, media enquiries about the national nuclear waste management facility sent to the federal Department of Industry, Innovation and Science (DIIS) and it’s superseding [new] department have been responded to directly by an Australian Public Affairs staffer rather than federal government staff.
Media enquiries from this journalist were responded to directly by Australian Public Affairs Director Nick Trainor, who in an introductory email two years ago claimed to “work with” the federal government.
Trainor provided a response on behalf of DIIS and the “National Radiactive Waste Management Facility Taskforce” in that email, without disclosing that he was in fact working for a lobbying firm representing the federal government on the nuclear waste dump project…………………………………
A DISAPPEARING ETHICS POLICY
Sometime after 2015, Cain and Furnival removed an ethics policy for Australian Public Affairs from their company website.
The policy claimed Australian Public Affairs was ‘committed to an ethical and quality approach to servicing our clients’. The company would ‘refuse causes, ideas or programs which pose harm to the community’, the policy claimed, ‘never promote deception or unsupportable claims’ and ‘at all times act as a leader in the pursuit of ethical practice.’……………………………………
Australian Public Affairs’ Deputy CEO, Phillip McCall, previously worked for the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) with oversight of the Lucas Heights nuclear reactor . APA’s client list has also included mining, gas and energy giants such as Santos—Australia’s second largest independent oil company and owner of the Moomba oil and gas fields in South Australia’s north-east.
APA staff were registered as lobbyists with the South Australian Government on Santos’ behalf from 2017 to late 2018. Uranium mining exploration projects in Santos’ Moomba gas fields were announced the following year, in 2019
APA also represented Santos on their Narrabri coal seam gas project.
Earlier this year—as their work for the Morrison Government on the nuclear waste dump continued—Australian Public Affairs began representing MaxMine (Resolution Systems), a mining technology company with offices in South Australia and South Africa. The company claims its “mission is to become the world’s biggest miner without owning a mine.”
MaxMine has been linked to Andrew Forrest’s Fortescue Metals Group, after—according to MaxMine’s own promotional material—conducting work on their technology with Fortescue in 2010.
WASTE DUMP POLITICAL CONNECTIONS
Andrew Forrest has invested in uranium mining for years. In 2014, he bought EMA, the company that owned uranium deposits at Mulga Rock in Western Australia. Just two months ago, a new uranium mining operation commenced there. Forrest’s private company, Squadron Resources, has an interest in the uranium mining company working at Mulga Rock, Vimy Resources.
The former Premier of South Australia, Jay Weatherill, was appointed to a CEO Position with Andrew Forrest’s Minderoo Foundation after he left public office.
Weatherill was behind the “unusual step” of setting up a Royal Commission in 2015 to consider South Australia’s potential role in the nuclear industry—despite the aforementioned decades of proposals for nuclear waste dumps being rejected by the community and legislation being enacted to ban nuclear waste being brought into the state. Weatherill spen much of his time as Premier pushing a proposal for a high-level nuclear waste storage facility in South Australia.
Weatherill has further personal connections to the current nuclear waste dump proposal. During his tenure as SA Premier, his wife Melissa Bailey was appointed to a position at AECOM Australia Pty Ltd—the company commissioned by the federal government to write site assessment reports for each of the shortlisted nuclear waste dump sites, covering topics like environmental impacts, climate change and wildlife impacts…………………………..
Questioned about the employment of Jay Weatherill’s wife at AECOM Australia Pty Ltd and why the federal government hired the company to assess the nuclear waste dump sites despite its association with nuclear weapons development, Australian Public Affairs responded on behalf of the federal government to both queries with the same phrase: “AECOM Australia Pty Ltd was selected to provide the required services through an open tender process and evaluation conducted in accordance with an approved procurement plan.”
The representation by Australian Public Affairs of companies working within or directly linked to the energy, mining and uranium mining industries—many of which obviously have an interest in a nuclear waste dump—does not appear to have been disclosed to the public at any stage of their lobbying work for the federal government on the campaign for a national nuclear waste management facility.
THE KIMBA COUNCIL
Remarkably, Cain has already claimed her company’s work on the government’s nuclear waste management facility project to be a “success”—even as the Traditional Owners, the Barngarla people, are again challenging the project through the courts.
For years the Barngarla people have repeatedly stated they have not been consulted about the storage of radioactive waste on their land. Representatives of the Barngarla people were excluded from a community vote to gauge local support for the nuclear waste facility—after the District Council of Kimba decided to exclude native title holders from the vote.
Despite major mainstream news outlets including the ABC, Guardian, Channel Ten’s The Project and NY Times visiting Kimba and publishing coverage of Jeff Baldock—the man who volunteered to sell his land at Napandee to the government for the nuclear waste management site—no attention was given by these outlets to his relative and business partner Graeme Baldock, a member of the Kimba Council that determined the Barngarla people would be excluded from the community vote on the nuclear waste dump………..
Graeme and Jeff Baldock had previously purchased thousands of hectares of land in the region near Kimba—in the region where the dump site is set to be established—according to information published in 2015 by the Baldock family farming company, Karinya Agriculture.
A member of the District Council of Kimba since 2010, Graeme Baldock was communicating directly with the federal government agency responsible for the nuclear waste management facility site selection process, the Department of Industry, Innovation and Science (DIIS), between 2017 and 2019.
In response to a freedom of information application made in early 2020 seeking access to Graeme Baldock’s emails with DIIS over two years, DIIS stated that the “documents contain personal information of certain individuals” and due to privacy provisions in freedom of information legislation, “8 third parties” would need to be consulted before the government might consider releasing the documents.
The Department of Industry then sought to impose administration charges of $500 to process the request for Graeme Baldock’s emails.
“COMMITTED TO CLOSING THE GAP”
As the Barngarla traditional owners pursue some semblance of justice through the courts, Tracey Cain continues to advertise her company’s services in the “Indigenous Affairs sector” today, writing: “Australian Public Affairs has extensive communications expertise with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples, on behalf of traditional landowners and Indigenous organisations, and for governments, corporates and NFPs wishing to engage with these communities.”
It’s not just the Barngarla people APA’s work on the nuclear waste dump process has affected—the traditional owners of other sites shortlisted for the dump, like South Australia’s Adnyamathanha people, have already publicly described the stress it caused. “The emotional stress we’re feeling is off the charts,” Regina McKenzie, an Adnyamathanha traditional owner, told the ABC in 2016. “We’re still the custodians here; we’ve always looked at it that way.”
Australian Public Affairs’ company spiel continues: “Within this work, APA is particularly committed to social and economic initiatives which support the Closing the Gap agenda, to provide Indigenous Australians with the same level of opportunity as the rest of the nation: including in health, mental health, education and social policy.”
In another section of APA’s website, the company characterises an “increase in environmental concern – not least amongst farmers and indigenous communities” as leading to “a rise in red tape and cost of compliance”.
In addition to APA working on projects that have contributed to the disenfranchisement of Indigenous communities, Furnival—Cain’s husband and co-owner of Australian Public Affairs—worked for the Abbott Government, an administration that cut $535 million from Indigenous programs.
Cain was contacted for comment about her husband’s role with the Abbott Government and asked if APA staff were directly involved with negotiations with the Barngarla people and other local communities involved in the nuclear waste dump site processes.
Cain was asked if Australian Public Affairs staff made it clear to these communities that they were a lobbying firm, not federal government staffers, when responding to their enquiries and concerns about the nuclear waste dump. She did not directly address these questions.
HISTORY REPEATING
Australian Public Affairs is not the only public relations firm to have chosen to assist the Government to continue perpetuating the toxic legacy of uranium in South Australia. Michels Warren have taken on the task too—an Adelaide PR firm that first represented the Howard Government during their attempt to establish a dump in South Australia from the late nineties until at least 2004. Freedom of information applications revealed the company’s dirty campaign to “soften up the community” and sell something its own staff knew had no benefit to South Australians: “The National Repository could never be sold as “good news” to South Australians. There are few, if any, tangible benefits such as jobs, investment or improved infrastructure. Its merits to South Australians, at the most, are intangible and the range and complexity of issues make them difficult to communicate.”
Despite having their ugly tactics exposed, Michels Warren chose not to leave their involvement with the nuclear industry and nuclear waste in the past. They went on to represent the Weatherill Government’s aforementioned unusual Royal Commission into nuclear power in 2016—a decision that might be explained, in part, by their previous campaigning on behalf of the corporate owners of the Beverley and Honeymoon uranium mines in South Australia.
IRATI WANTI
Almost two decades ago, the Kupa Piti Kungka Tjuta, a council of senior Indigenous women based near Coober Pedy in South Australia, were into their eighth year of fighting the Howard Government proposal to dump nuclear waste from the Lucas Heights nuclear reactor on their traditional lands.
In April 2003, the council’s founders, Eileen Kampakuta Brown and Eileen Wani Wingfield, received the Goldman Prize for environmental activism—an award akin to the Nobel Prize—and $US125,000 to continue their campaign against the nuclear waste dump. The women were fighting the Howard Government into their seventies, with a campaign slogan of “Irati wanti” which roughly translated as “The poison – leave it”.
The founder of the prize, Richard Goldman, said the women had been chosen for a campaign that “exemplifies how much can be accomplished when ordinary people take extraordinary action to protect the health of our planet”.
Mrs Brown said at the time that she was talking on behalf of her ancestors so that her children and grandchildren might also be able to live on the land, telling the Sydney Morning Herald in 2003 through her granddaughter: “There’s a lot of life out there.” https://matildaduncan.net/stories/22/feb/23/australian-public-affairs-tracey-cain-nuclear-waste-dump
Massive flooding in Kimba district, – the Agricultural (no it’s now the Nuclear Waste) Town of the Year.
Flooding in Kimba district causes a decade’s worth of damage and communities are ‘completely shut off’
ABC North and West SA / By Declan Gooch, Brooke Neindorf, and Marcus Wilson, 23 Jan 22, V
Flooding on South Australia’s Eyre Peninsula has caused “massive, massive damage” to roads and infrastructure and left communities completely isolated.
Key points:
- Some parts of the Kimba district received 300mm of rain over the weekend
- The mayor says there has been “massive” damage to infrastructure
- A local farmer says his property looks like “channel country”
The Kimba district was among the hardest hit by the weekend’s destructive rain, which battered most of regional South Australia.
Mayor Dean Johnson said some areas received up to 300mm throughout Friday and Saturday.
The Bureau of Meteorology said the 160mm officially recorded in the 24 hours to 9am on Saturday was the most rain in a day ever documented there.
“It’s done massive, massive damage to our roads and general infrastructure,” Cr Johnson said.
“It will be some years and perhaps even a decade before we get to repair all of this, I think.”
“There are entire roads and sections of roads that have just been swept away by rivers of water. I can’t paint a much better picture than that. Just cliff edges where there used to be a road.”
He said many of the roads that had been damaged or destroyed were major roads, and the Kimba district was cut off from most directions.
“We’re completely shut off from the rest of the world at the moment. The road to the airport has completely washed away,” Cr Johnson said.
It is one of several regions that have been isolated by floodwater, with authorities scrambling to repair the Olympic Dam Highway that has cut off access to Roxby Downs.
‘You can mistake us for being in channel country at the moment’
Buckleboo, about 30 kilometres from Kimba, was another of the hardest-hit areas and also received its most rain ever recorded in a day.
Local farmer Tristan Baldock said his property had been transformed.
“You can mistake us for being in channel country at the moment, so we’ve got a historic watercourse that’s probably extending 20 kilometres through our property with a series of lagoons,” Mr Baldock said. ……
Will get through’
Cr Johnson said he was confident the region would recover. “The Agricultural Town of the Year is set up for a pretty good growing season next year, I think.”
more https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-01-24/kimba-floods-eyre-peninsula-damage-isolated-roads-closed/100777084#:~:text=%22It’s%20done%20massive%2C%20massive%20damage,infrastructure%2C%22%20Cr%20Johnson%20said.&text=He%20said%20many%20of%20the,the%20world%20at%20the%20moment.
Kimba residents who oppose the nuclear waste dump plan are not backing down.
Opposing residents refusing to back down on nuclear stance, Port Lincoln Times
- Claire Harris 2 Dec 21,. Kimba residents opposed to the nuclear waste facility being built in the district are not backing down on their stance, following the selection of the Napandee site by the federal government earlier this week.
No Radioactive Waste on Agricultural Land in Kimba or SA president Peter Woolford said he was disappointed in the announcement, but not surprised.
“It’s a bitter pill to swallow, because last week we were announced SA Ag Town of the Year, and now we’re the nuclear dump town,” he said.
“Ag is our big passion, it’s made Kimba, and will be a big factor influencing Kimba in future, so we’re standing up and opposing this because we want to protect what we have.”
Mr Woolford said he didn’t “subscribe to the theory” that the nuclear waste facility would be issue-free.
“We all take out insurance not because we know something is going to happen, but to protect against a potential risk if something does happen – this is no different,” he said.
He said the group would seek legal advice going forward to explore all avenues, potentially including a judicial review.
Retired Kimba farmer Peter McGilvray also opposes the choice and expected the community would remain divided on the issue.
“The damage is done. I came here in 1976 and was never going to leave, but this has pushed the button for me, and now I don’t plan on staying much longer,” he said.
Despite the criticism, Napandee site owner Jeff Baldock said the definitive decision was a step in the right direction for the town….. https://www.portlincolntimes.com.au/story/7534854/opposing-residents-refusing-to-back-down-on-nuclear-stance/s
The week in nuclear news – to 31 August
The tragic situation in Afghanistan dominated the news.
In the USA, Hurricane Ida reminds of the effects of global heating – increasing the intensity of extreme weather.
The mainstream media carefully avoids discussion of the dangers to Louisiana’s nuclear power stations.
Coronavirus. For most of the world, the pandemic is not over – devastation in countries such as Uganda, Indonesia, India, Nepal, Peru and Brazil.
Climate. Even 1.5C warming will still leave world’s coasts exposed to extremes. Radio Ecoshock re-examines the facts on the new megafires.
Hard to find good news – mostly very individualistic stories, like these ones about bees: A friend bumblebee. Saving the bees. A bit of good news (sort of) University of Michigan reports that CO2 can be stored away in concrete,
AUSTRALIA.
Federal nuclear waste dump plan. Australia’s nuclear waste is best managed in interim storage at Lucas Heights, with an independent review on permanent disposal. The status of two current federal processes related to radioactive waste and the Kimba plan. Farmer Jeff Baldock is excited at prospect of nuclear waste dump on his land. Other nearby farmers not impressed, (Stock Journal).. Also, Stock Journal inaccurate on Baldock’s land area. Kimba nuclear waste dump consultation? WHAT CONSULTATION?
Need to investigate ANSTO’s tax-payer funded, loss-making, unnecessary nuclear medicine production
Climate activists raided by anti-terrorist police. Their crime? chalking a sign on pavement. Canberra Extinction Rebellion members convicted by ACT Magistrates Court for crimes during protests.
Australia’s biggest climate poll shows support for action in every seat
Tasmania Liberals vote down Greens climate emergency motion with Premier claiming it ‘frightens’ children. Political bribes beat the planet as gas fracking gets public hand-outs.
White Man’s Media: Rupert Murdoch and the US Imperium– Australia is its tool.
Development of ‘zombie’ gasfield areas would create waste, water issues: opponents
Nationals v CSIRO: why a party of government attacks its own scientific agency
Australian Labor Party backs bills to de-register most political parties.
INTERNATIONAL.
29 August 2021 International Day Against Nuclear Tests https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5PRZh_C0e4 Reaffirm commitment to ban nuclear tests, UN chief says in message for International Day.
How to remember Hiroshima and Nagasaki – Sign the nuclear weapons treaty. Humanitarian Impacts of Nuclear Weapons. Shadow World reveals the shocking realities of the global arms trade – the only business that counts its profits in billions and its losses in human lives
Weaponising space -the high road to World War 3, but profitable for weapons and space companies. Exposure to radiation can affect DNA: Astronauts on long-duration missions in space at risk . Rocket launches may be damaging the ozone layer
Military Contractor CACI Says Afghanistan Withdrawal Is Hurting Its Profits. It’s Funding a Pro-War Think Tank.
Nuclear energy is anything but clean, despite the media hype.
1.This month.
The Road to War brings a sharp focus to why it is not in Australia’s best interest to be dragged into a war with China which will almost inevitably go nuclear very quickly. The filmmaker has interviewed some of Australia’s senior foreign policy analysts who have vast experience behind them in analysing what really is going on here as the United States rattles its sabres with China. And sets us up to be its proxy, like the poor Ukranians have been fed into the Meatgrinder. So America can remain the Top Dog. The Road to War reveals how the United States through its spy base at Pine Gap and by stationing six nuclear capable B52 bombers in the Top End (without permission from the traditional owners) is making Australia a prime nuclear target if the current war of words suddenly melts down into full scale war.
The Road to War shows the implicit connection between Carbon emissions (the US military uses a whopping 70% of America’s annual petroleum to move its armies and vast War Machine around the globe to its 800+ military bases..but under a loophole wangled at Kyoto, the US military does not have to report its C02 annual emissions). The Road to War starts screening at selected cities and regional centres in March. See the trailer end for details.
Antinuclear 
