Time for dump to be dumped for good.
The state’s peak environment group has strongly welcomed today’s Federal Court judgement that sets aside the declaration of Napandee (Kimba) as the site for the Australia’s nuclear waste facility.
“Today is an extraordinary vindication of the years’ long struggle by the Barngarla people to stand up for their Country, their Dreaming and their right to be heard,” said Conservation SA Chief Executive Craig Wilkins
“This case was never about whether imposing nuclear waste on Kimba was the right thing to do, but now the court has declared that the process the Federal Government undertook was never even legal.
“The Morrison Government, first with Matt Canavan as Minister, then with Keith Pitt, tried to force through a deeply divisive and deeply flawed proposal.
“They stuffed up the process and their relationship with the local community, particularly the Barngarla Traditional Owners.
“Now this comprehensive judgement has been handed down, there is only one appropriate course of action open for the Albanese Government and the Federal Resources Minister Madeleine King: to declare the Kimba waste dump dead and buried.
“It was Labor’s amendment to the Morrison Government’s legislation that gave the Barngarla their day in court today. The Albanese Government now needs to move quickly to reassure the Barngarla they will shelve the project in its entirety.
“Today’s monumental decision offers an exciting opportunity to reset the relationship between the Federal Government, Aboriginal people and nuclear waste.
“In many ways the real work starts now: to find the final resting place for Australia’s long lived radioactive waste – not a deeply deficient and illegal process to park the waste temporarily in above ground sheds in South Australia.
“Huge congratulations to Jason Bilney, Chair of the Barngarla Aboriginal Determination Corporation, Barngarla Elders and the rest of the community for the stunning result, and for standing strong on behalf of all Australians,” he said.
Great British Nuclear: High on hype, Low on substance
“How is Great British Nuclear meant to take forward the SMR competition when it has no operating budget, no legal powers, no permanent staff team, and no base from which to operate?”
“How is GBN meant to take forward the SMR competition when it has no operating budget, no legal powers, no permanent staff team, and no base from which to operate?”
https://www.nuclearpolicy.info/news/great-british-nuclear-high-on-hype-low-on-substance/ 18 Jul 23
Energy Secretary Grant Shapps finally launched ‘Great’ British Nuclear today (18 July), but whilst the minister’s announcement was big on hype, the UK/Ireland Nuclear Free Local Authorities noticed that it was short on substance.
Great British Nuclear was the new body announced by former Prime Minister Boris Johnson in April 2022 as part of his revised energy strategy. GBN is supposed to be front and centre of a ‘rapid expansion of nuclear power at an unprecedented scale and pace’, but the formal launch of the initiative has been put on hold several times, including humiliatingly at the eleventh-hour last week.
Nuclear in the UK has made little progress since April 2022. EDF Energy, which is building the only nuclear plant under construction at Hinkley Point C, has recently announced a further delay in delivery and a huge increase in costs, whilst its reactor design – the EPR-1 – has been beset with serious safety and reliability issues, with an accident at Taishan-1 in China and repeated delays to the start-up of its reactor in Olkiluoto in Finland. And the UK government has so far failed to engender any interest within the financial markets to back its Sizewell C development, meaning that the British and French governments (and ultimately taxpayers) continue to carry the can.
More faith is being placed by ministers on the development of so-called Small and Advanced Modular Reactors, with GBN’s role being to provide oversight to a competition amongst rival designs to select those deemed worthy of government funding to take forward through the regulatory approvals process and onto deployment. Such reactors would be fabricated remotely and then taken in parts for assembly on site, but all is not rosy – developments costs are rising exponentially, none of the designs are proven to be safe or reliable, none have been built, the financial position of some developers is becoming uncertain, and there remains the intractable radioactive waste problem.
NFLA Chair, Councillor Lawrence O’Neill identified some of the remaining challenges following today’s press conference:
“Like much concerning nuclear, once again when we look at GBN there is a noticeable disconnect between the upbeat speech of the Energy Secretary and the actual reality on the ground.
“Mr Shapps announced a further £157 million in government funding for nuclear, but this sum is small beer relative to the billions required to get any plant up and running, and strangely absent, yet again, was any clear indication of where the money to fund the operation of Great British Nuclear would come from. Figures of up to £500 million per year have been bandied about, and the NFLA has previously pointed out that this funding shortfall was also noticeable in the Chancellor’s Spring Budget where much was made of the ‘promise’ of GBN, but with no money to follow it.
“Furthermore, Great British Nuclear still does not have all its legal powers to function, including the power to award funding for future nuclear development. Its powers are contained within the Energy Bill currently in its Reporting Stage before the House of Commons in Parliament, and this still needs to clear its final hurdles before receiving Royal Assent and becoming legislation. As the recess is almost upon us, with MPs leaving for their summer holidays, no further progress can be made before the autumn. In addition, GBN only has an interim staff team and no real headquarters.
“How is GBN meant to take forward the SMR competition when it has no operating budget, no legal powers, no permanent staff team, and no base from which to operate?”
Mostly damningly, Emeritus Professor of Energy Policy at the University of Greenwich, Stephen Thomas, has poured scorn on the ‘promise’ of Small and Advanced Modular Reactors in his recent paper:
which includes quotes:
‘The much-hyped Small Modular Reactors are a long way from being commercially available and the claims for them being cheaper than large reactors are not credible’.
‘Advanced Modular Reactors have all been talked about for 50 years or more. However, they have either been built as unsuccessful prototypes or demonstration plants or not been built at all as power reactors. All AMR designs will require major innovations if they are to be technically viable’.
The NFLAs are at one with Professor Thomas in condemning the British Government’s continued foolhardy obsession with unproven, unreliable and potentially unsafe new nuclear, when renewable technologies already exist that can deliver affordable, sustainable electricity far more quickly and far more cheaply.
Councillor O’Neill concluded:
“Every pound spent on the vainglorious pursuit of nuclear power means a pound denied to investment in a national programme of insulation and energy efficiency measures to bring down energy usage and customer bills or a pound denied to investment in solar, wind, hydro, biomass, geothermal, tidal or wave power projects that, in combination with energy storage solutions, can provide more affordable, sustainable electricity to meet our nation’s energy needs right now.”
Brussels: Global Women For Peace United Against NATO Meet With EU Parliament, NATO Representatives
SCHEERPOST, By Colonel (Ret) Ann Wright / Popular Resistance, July 18, 2023
The weekend before the NATO summit in Vilnius, Lithuania, Global Women for Peace United against NATO representing women in 35 countries met July 6-9, 2023 for three days of peace discussions in Brussels, Belgium.
I am writing with details of each of the excellent panels and webinars to provide a sense of the numbers of women from around the world who participated in the program.
Photos of the various events in the conference are being posted in the media section of the Global Women’s website. Video recordings of the sessions are included for each session, but due to technical problems with the recordings, some are not of as good of quality as we had wished.
Global Women Meet With Members of the European Parliament
On July 6, 2023, twenty Global Women delegates met with members of the European Parliament to express their concern about the war-making role of NATO. The meeting was moderated by Skeyi Koukouma, from Cyprus, Secretary General of the Progressive Women’s Movement POGO. Irish member of the European Parliament Clare Daly and German member of the European Parliament Özlem Demirel spoke to the Global Women delegation about their concerns about NATO. The delegation gave a copy of the founding statement of Global Women to the members of the European Parliament.
MEP Clare Daly forcefully said that war and militarism are anathema to feminism and equality and stressed that equality, justice and peace are the principles that underpin women’s struggle for freedom. She emphasized that there is no place for militarism or the use of violence to achieve geopolitical goals. She underscored that NATO’s purpose is domination, not justice or the defense of human rights. MEP Daly emphasized that women must resist NATO’s policies, calling for its dismantling and the restoration of equality and peace and not allow NATO to co-opt the use of the term “Feminine Foreign Policy” and “Women, Gender and Equality.”
In her speech, MEP Özlem Demirel referred to the need for immediate demilitarization and obtaining peace only through peaceful means. She also stressed that the funds given for the purchase of arms and military equipment are at the expense of having funds for the strengthening of health, education and other services for the people worldwide.
Almost all of the twenty Global Women delegates took turns speaking, each emphasizing the problems faced in their countries because of NATO’s military actions and mandatory military expenditures. The need for world peace, demilitarization, for human services such as health and education and for strengthening the protection of human rights was emphasized by all delegates…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
We will continue to meet to strengthen our international/global solidarity and plan for actions July 9-11, 2024 in Washington, DC for the 75th anniversary of NATO. https://scheerpost.com/2023/07/18/brussels-global-women-for-peace-united-against-nato-meet-with-eu-parliament-nato-representatives/
Heatwaves are new normal as 50C hits US and China – UN
The extreme temperatures sweeping the globe this week are the new normal in
a world warmed by climate change, the UN weather agency says. Temperatures
went over 50C (122F) in parts of the US and China on Sunday. The World
Meteorological Organisation warned the heatwave in Europe could continue
into August. Millions around the world are under heat advisories as
officials warn of danger to life from the hot temperatures. Night-time in
Europe and the US is not expected to bring widespread relief as
temperatures stay above 30C in places including Arizona or southern Spain.
BBC 17th July 2023
Only neutral countries can bring peace to Ukraine – Brazil
https://www.rt.com/news/579835-brazilian-fm-weapons-deliveries-ukraine/ 18 Jul 23
Foreign Minister Mauro Vieira told RIA Novosti that several countries are willing to join his nation’s peace efforts
Brazil is against weapons deliveries to either party in the Ukraine-Russia conflict, Foreign Minister Mauro Vieira has said. The diplomat also predicted that peace would eventually be achieved with the help of nations which have not taken sides, such as Brazil and African countries.
In an interview with Russia’s RIA Novosti published on Monday, Vieira stressed that Brasilia has consistently voiced its opposition to arms shipments to Kiev and Moscow.
According to the diplomat, “several countries are ready to join” Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva’s peace efforts. The minister cited the initiatives recently put forward by a group of African nations.
“This will take time, but it’s precisely this that will lead to peace which we are striving for,” Vieira insisted.
While on an official visit to Rome last month, President Lula argued that Russia and Ukraine both need to compromise to end the conflict.
“The two parties both need to get something. Only the Russians and the Ukrainians know what they need to reach peace,” he said at the time.
The Brazilian head of state also called into question the EU’s capacity for mediation, arguing that the bloc is effectively involved in the conflict. Lula went on to name India, Mexico, and African nations as potential neutral peace brokers.
Moscow has blamed Kiev for the lack of peace negotiations, pointing out that last year Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky signed a decree that rules out talks for as long as his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, remains in power.
The Ukrainian government insists it will only negotiate after driving Russian forces out from all territories within its 1991 borders. Zelensky has proposed a peace plan of his own, which calls for a Russian withdrawal, reparations, and a tribunal for alleged war criminals.
Moscow has rejected the idea, describing it as detached from reality.
South Australian Greens Welcome Court Decision to Stop Nuclear Waste Facility in Kimba
The Greens have welcomed the decision of the Federal Court to overturn the federal Ministerial declaration to select Napandee near Kimba as the proposed site for a national nuclear waste facility.
The decision comes after the Barngarla people, the traditional owners of Kimba, challenged the proposed facility, arguing that they had failed to be properly consulted and the facility would impact sacred sites.
Quotes attributable to Tammy Franks MLC:
“It was a major concern that the Barngarla people as traditional owners had not consented to this proposed facility, contradicting longstanding SA legislation. The Greens are proud to have stood in solidarity with the Barngarla people in their pursuit of justice.
“It has been a longstanding view of SA Labor that for a nuclear radioactive dump or storage facility the traditional owners should have a right of veto. The Greens look forward to the Malinauskas Government working with traditional owners to ensure their sites and stories are protected.
Not nuclear, but wind and solar still cheapest – CSIRO
By Peter Roberts https://www.aumanufacturing.com.au/not-nuclear-but-wind-and-solar-still-cheapest-csiro 18 July 23
There is a huge amount of hype around new energy sources to replace fossil fuels and none more so than the phenomenon of small modular nuclear reactors (SMR).
But the hype remains just that according to the latest GenCost 2022–23 study released today by CSIRO and Australian Energy Market Operator.
While SMRs are likely cheaper to build that traditional large nuclear power stations, renewable power from onshore wind turbines and solar PV are increasingly important as the cheapest sources of new energy generation capacity according to the report.
This holds true whether the costs of integration into the grid are taken into account, or not.
Each year the two bodies work with industry to give an updated cost estimate for large-scale electricity generation in Australia, and each year wind and solar come out on top
The 2022-23 report found that onshore wind and solar PV are ‘the lowest cost generation technology by a significant margin’, despite cost increases averaging 20 per cent for new-build electricity generation in Australia.
Offshore wind is higher cost but competitive with other alternative low emission generation technologies.
CSIRO Chief Energy Economist Paul Graham said: “Innovation in electricity generation technology is a global effort that’s strongly linked to climate change policy ambitions.
“Technology costs are one piece of the puzzle, providing critical input to electricity sector analysis.
“To limit emissions, our energy system must evolve and become more diverse.”
GenCost said the next lowest cost flexible technology in 2023 is gas generation with carbon capture and storage, but only if it could be financed at a rate that does not include climate policy risk.
Fossil fuels were more expensive and faced hurdles such as government legislation and net zero targets, and historically high energy costs.
GenCost said that with SMRs, ‘achieving the lower end of the nuclear SMR range (of cost estimates) requires that SMR is deployed globally in large enough capacity to bring down costs available to Australia’.
As for SMRs, none of this should not be surprising as even the International Atomic Energy Agency does not claim nuclear power is cheaper.
The agency claims only that SMRs, advanced nuclear reactors that have a power capacity of up to 300 MW(e) per unit or about one-third of typical sizes, provide cheaper power than traditional large nuclear stations.
Their advantage over traditional nuclear is linked to the nature of their design – small and modular.
According to the IAEA more than 70 commercial SMR designs are being developed around the world.
The IAEA says on its website: “Though SMRs have lower upfront capital cost per unit, their economic competitiveness is still to be proven in practice once they are deployed.”
.
Traditional owners win legal challenge to stop nuclear waste facility in Kimba
Key points:
- The federal government selected Kimba as the site for future storage of nuclear waste
- That decision was opposed by the Barngarla traditional owners, who challenged it in court
- The Federal Court today ruled in their favour, setting aside the government’s decision
A Scott Ritter Investigation: Agent Zelensky – Part 2
In the intelligence business, every agent is assigned tasks by his or her handlers. In the case of Agent Zelensky, I’ve identified ten obligations that define his relationship with his foreign intelligence masters. Once you’ve examined each of these, it becomes clear why Zelensky the comedian said one thing, and Zelensky the President did another. What are the true reasons behind the current situation in Ukraine today? What kind of operation has the CIA been running in Ukraine over the course of many years? You will find the answers to these and other questions in Part 2 of my investigative documentary film, “Agent Zelensky.” Click here to watch Part 1.
‘Artificial Escalation’: Imagining the future of nuclear risk
As arms race dynamics push AI progress forward, prioritizing speed over safety, it is important to remember that in races toward mutual destruction, there is no winner. There is a point at which an arms race becomes a suicide race.
Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, By Anthony Aguirre, Emilia Javorsky, Max Tegmark | July 17, 2023
Imagine it’s 2032. The US and China are still rivals. In order to give their military commanders better intel and more time to make decisions, both powers have integrated artificial intelligence (AI) throughout their nuclear command, control, and communications (NC3) systems. But instead, events take an unexpected turn and spin out of control, with catastrophic results.
This is the story told in a new short film called Artificial Escalation produced by Space Film & VFX for The Future of Life Institute. This plot may sound like science fiction (and the story is fictional), but the possibility of AI integration into weapons of mass destruction is now very real. Some experts say that the United States should build an NC3 system using AI “with predetermined response decisions, that detects, decides, and directs strategic forces.” The US is already envisioning integration like this in conventional command and control systems: the Joint All-Domain Command and Control has proposed connecting sensors from all military services into a single network, using AI to identify targets and recommend the “optimal weapon.” But NC3-AI integration is a terrible idea.
The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) explored key risks of AI integration into NC3, including: increased speed of warfare, accidental escalation, misperception of intentions and capabilities, erosion of human control, first-strike instability, the unpredictability of AI, the vulnerabilities of AI to adversary penetration, and arms race dynamics. The National Security Commission on AI cautioned that AI “will likely increase the pace and automation of warfare across the board, reducing the time and space available for de-escalatory measures.”
This new rate of warfare would leave less time for countries to signal their own capabilities and intentions or to understand their opponents’ perspectives. This could lead to unintended conflict escalation, crisis instability, and even nuclear war.
As arms race dynamics push AI progress forward, prioritizing speed over safety, it is important to remember that in races toward mutual destruction, there is no winner. There is a point at which an arms race becomes a suicide race. The reasons not to integrate AI into comprehensive command, control, and communications systems are manifold:
Adversarial AI carries unpredictable escalation risk. Even if AI-NC3 systems are carefully tested and evaluated, they may be made unpredictable by design. Two or more such systems interacting in a complex and adversarial environment can push each other to new extremes, greatly increasing the risk of accidental escalation. We have seen this before with the 2010 “flash crash” of the stock market, when adversarial trading algorithms wiped trillions of dollars off the stock exchange in under an hour. The military equivalent of that hour would be catastrophic.
No real training data. AI systems require a lot of data in their training, whether real or simulated. But training systems for nuclear conflict necessitates the generation of synthetic data with incomplete information, because the full extent of an adversary’s capabilities is unknown. This adds another element of dangerous unpredictability into the command and control mix.
Cyber vulnerabilities of networked systems. AI-integrated command, control, and communications systems would also be vulnerable to cyberattacks, hacking, and data poisoning. When all sensor data and systems are networked, failure can spread throughout the entire system. Each of these vulnerabilities must be considered across the systems of every nuclear nation, as the whole system is only as strong as its weakest link.
Epistemic uncertainty. Widespread use of AI to create misinformation is already clouding what is real and what is fake. The inability to discern truth is especially dangerous in the military context, and accurate information is particularly crucial to the stability of command and control systems. Historically, there have been channels of reliable, trustworthy communication between adversaries, even when there were also disinformation campaigns happening in the background. When we automate more and engage person-to-person less, those reliable channels dissipate and the risk of unnecessary escalation skyrockets.
Human Deference to Machines. If an algorithm makes a suggestion, people could defy it, but will they? ……………………………………………………………………………
Integrating AI into the critical functions of command, control, and communication is reckless. The world cannot afford to give up control over something as dangerous as weapons of mass destruction. As the United Nations Security Council prepares to meet tomorrow to discuss AI and nuclear risk, now is the time to set hard limits, strengthen trust and transparency, and ensure that the future remains in human hands. https://thebulletin.org/2023/07/artificial-escalation-imagining-the-future-of-nuclear-risk/
Nuclear waste on Aboriginal land ?- and the Voice to Parliament?
The Australian government is in the process of holding a referendum that would give the indigenous people a Voice to Parliament. Imposing nuclear waste on Aboriginal land is not a good look, is it?
This morning, I heard Professor Ian Lowe, talking to a English journalist, about yesterday’s court decision, which supported the Barngarla people’s opposition to nuclear waste dumping on their land.
Prof Lowe eloquently summarised the importance of this legal decision:
-the Aboriginal people were not consulted when the Morrison Liberal Coalition decided to make a nuclear waste dump on their traditional land.
– this raises problems for the Australian government in selecting any land in this country for nuclear waste dumping
-this has international implications – about any country where the rulers want to impose a nuclear waste dump on indigenous land
-this has implications for the ill-advised (corrupt firm PWC was the advisor) AUKUS decision by the Albanese government to buy U.S nuclear submarines at $369billion. That decision included Australia taking responsibility for the high level radioactive trash from the nuclear submarines. Where to dump that trash?
Of course, the Australian government does have the power to impose the nuclear waste dump anyway, against indigenous wishes, even against South Australian State government wishes,
The Australian government is in the process of holding a referendum that would give the indigenous people a Voice to Parliament. Imposing nuclear waste on Aboriginal land is not a good look, is it?
Labor must hear Indigenous voice against Kimba nuclear site
Jim Green and Michele Madigan, https://indaily.com.au/opinion/2023/07/17/labor-must-hear-indigenous-voice-against-kimba-nuclear-site/—
Ahead of tomorrow’s expected federal court decision on a Barngarla Traditional Owners challenge to the planned Kimba nuclear waste site, Jim Green and Michele Madigan say federal Labor must be consistent on listening to Indigenous concerns.
If the Albanese Labor government wants to restore confidence in its plan for an Indigenous Voice to Parliament, it needs to walk the talk and respect Aboriginal voices.
Currently, the government is ignoring the Barngarla Traditional Owners who are unanimous in their opposition to the government’s plan for a national nuclear waste dump (or ‘facility’) near Kimba on South Australia’s Eyre Peninsula.
Labor inherited the Kimba dump plan from the Morrison Coalition government. Barngarla Traditional Owners were excluded from a so-called ‘community ballot’ by the Morrison government. The results of an independent, professional survey of Barngarla Traditional Owners ‒ which found absolutely no support for the proposed dump ‒ were also ignored.
Jason Bilney, Chair of the Barngarla Determination Aboriginal Corporation, said: “It is a simple truth that had we, as the First People for the area, been included in the Kimba community ballot rather than unfairly denied the right to vote, then the community ballot would never have returned a yes vote.”
Federal parliament’s Joint Committee on Human Rights Committee unanimously concluded in an April 2020 report that the Morrison government was violating the human rights of Barngarla people. Even the Coalition members of the committee endorsed the report.
But the Morrison government continued to ignore the human rights of the Barngarla people.
The Morrison government also tried ‒ but failed ‒ to pass legislation which would deny Barngarla Traditional Owners the right to a judicial review of the nomination of the Kimba dump site. The draft legislation was blocked by Labor, minor parties and independent Senators.
It took 21 years for the Barngarla people to secure Native Title of their country through a court determination. Six months later, the Morrison government nominated Barngarla country for the proposed nuclear waste dump.
It was expected ‒ or at least hoped ‒ that the incoming Albanese Labor government would dump the controversial dump proposal after the May 2022 election. But Labor has pressed ahead with the Kimba dump proposal, led by federal resources minister Madeleine King.
Labor isn’t responsible for the plan to dump nuclear waste on Kimba farming land. But that’s no excuse for continuing with a controversial and strongly-contested proposal.
Labor’s position is that Barngarla Traditional Owners can challenge the dump plan in the courts. And that is what is happening: the Barngarla Determination Aboriginal Corporation launched a legal challenge against the Morrison government’s declaration of the Kimba dump site. The matter is before the Federal Court and a decision is expected on July 18 (with the proviso that an appeal to the full bench of the Federal Court may follow).
There are at least two problems with Labor’s position. Firstly, the government has vastly greater resources to contest a legal challenge. Indeed the government has spent $13 million fighting the Barngarla Traditional Owners in the Federal Court. Barngarla Traditional Owners haven’t even spent half a million dollars; and needless to say they have many pressing demands on their limited resources.
There is no other example in recent Australian history of this level of legal attack on an Aboriginal group.
Secondly, the relevant laws are stacked against the interests of Traditional Owners. In 2007, the Howard Coalition government passed legislation ‒ the Commonwealth Radioactive Waste Management Act ‒ allowing the imposition of a nuclear waste dump on Aboriginal land with no consultation or consent from Traditional Owners.
At the time, Labor parliamentarians described the legislation as “extreme”, “arrogant”, “draconian”, “sorry”, “sordid”, and “profoundly shameful”. But when the Gillard Labor government amended the legislation in 2012 ‒ and renamed it the National Radioactive Waste Management Act ‒ the amendments were superficial and still allowed for the imposition of a nuclear waste dump with no consultation or consent from Traditional Owners.
Even if the Federal Court finds that the government has acted within the law, the plan to impose a nuclear dump despite the unanimous opposition of Barngarla Traditional Owners is immoral.
It contradicts the spirit of the Voice to Parliament currently being championed by the Albanese government. Jayne Stinson, Chair of the SA Parliament’s Environment, Resources and Development Committee, said: “In this day and age, when we’re talking about Voice, Treaty and Truth, we can’t just turn around and say, ‘Oh, well, those are our values but in this particular instance, we’re going to ignore the voice of Aboriginal people’. I think that’s just preposterous and it’s inconsistent with what most South Australians would think.”
The government has spent $13 million fighting the Barngarla Traditional Owners in the Federal Court
It contradicts Labor’s professed support for the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which states that “no storage or disposal of hazardous materials shall take place in the lands or territories of indigenous peoples without their free, prior and informed consent”.
Susan Close, now Deputy Premier of South Australia, said in 2019 that it was a “dreadful process from start to finish” that led to the nomination of the proposed Kimba dump site and that SA Labor is “utterly opposed” to the “appalling” process which led to Kimba being targeted.
Close noted in 2020 statement, titled ‘Kimba site selection process flawed, waste dump plans must be scrapped’, that SA Labor “has committed to traditional owners having a right of veto over any nuclear waste sites, yet the federal government has shown no respect to the local Aboriginal people.”
Of course, Close was speaking about the Morrison government but SA Labor continues to call for the federal government to abandon the proposed dump and for Traditional Owners to have a right of veto.
Yet the federal Labor government stubbornly persists.
Sadly, federal Labor has form on these issues. In February 2008, Labor Prime Minister Kevin Rudd highlighted the life-story of Lorna Fejo ‒ a member of the stolen generation ‒ in the historic National Apology to Aboriginal People in Parliament House.
At the same time, the Rudd government was attempting to impose a nuclear waste dump on her country in the Northern Territory. Fejo said: “I’m very, very disappointed and downhearted about that [the National Radioactive Waste Management Act]. I’m really sad. The thing is ‒ when are we going to have a fair go? Australia is supposed to be the land of the fair go. When are we going to have fair go? I’ve been stolen from my mother and now they’re stealing my land off me.”
Labor’s nuclear racism is disgraceful and it diminishes all Australians.
Several steps should be taken to rectify the situation. To date, the issue has been managed by resources minister Madeleine King. There appears to have been little or no input from caucus, Cabinet or the Prime Minister’s Office. That needs to change.
Secondly, Labor will hold its national conference in Brisbane in mid-August. If it hasn’t already done so, Labor should take the opportunity presented by the conference to announce that it will no longer attempt to impose a dump against the opposition of Barngarla Traditional Owners.
So much the better if a national conference resolution adopts SA Labor’s policy that Traditional Owners should have a right of veto over any proposed nuclear dumps. That would give traditional owners across the country some confidence that their voice will be heard as the government progresses plans to store and dispose of waste arising from nuclear submarines in the coming decades.
Court rules in favour of Barngala people, preventing nuclear waste facility in Kimba
Joseph Guenzler – July 18, 2023 https://nit.com.au/18-07-2023/6853/court-rules-in-favour-of-barngala-people-preventing-nuclear-waste-facility-in-kimba
The Barngarla people of South Australia’s Eyre Peninsula are rejoicing as the Federal Court has overturned the decision to construct a nuclear waste facility on their land in Kimba.
The proposed facility was to store radioactive waste categorised as low and intermediate level.
The Barngarla traditional owners took the matter to the Federal Court, seeking a judicial review. They argued that the facility would disrupt a site of great significance and claimed that they were not adequately consulted before the plan received approval in 2021.
“It was important to stop this dump because the Seven Sisters Dreaming goes through there,” said Barngarla Elder Aunty Dawn Taylor, who was born at Kimba.
“Having a waste dump out there would have just destroyed everything.”
The Barngarla native title area covers more than 34,000 square kilometres on Eyre Peninsula, including the town of Kimba.
On Tuesday, the court ruled in favor of the native title group.
As a result, the future of the project is now uncertain as the court has invalidated the federal government’s previous declaration made in 2021, which designated the site for the nuclear waste facility.
Justice Natalie Charlesworth ruled in favor of the Barngarla people, citing a perceived bias in the decision-making process due to “pre-judgment.”
Justice Charlesworth also found there was an error of law, but said it did not have a “material effect” on the outcome of the declaration of the site.
A separate hearing will address the matter of legal costs, which are expected to be substantial.
The decision was met with enthusiasm by opponents of the nuclear facility, who gathered at the Federal Court building and expressed their joy upon hearing the verdict.
Speaking outside the building in Adelaide’s CBD, Barngarla Determination Aboriginal Corporation (BDAC) chairman Jason Bilney said it had been a “David and Goliath” battle that had left him “very emotional”.
“It’s been proud win for Barngarla, as well as other First Nations, to continue this fight and get this message out,” he said.
“The lesson is, it’s about truth telling… and it’s about listening to the First Nations people and who we are today and we’ve prevailed and we’ve won.”
“The money that the government’s spent to take us to court could be better spent for the rest of Australia, everyday Australians and the community, instead of taking First Nations people to court, it’s very disrespectful — we’ve been here over 60,000 years.”
Justice Charlesworth has decided to withhold any definitive orders regarding the judicial review until both parties have had a chance to review her judgment.
However, she has indicated that the most suitable course of action is to invalidate the entire declaration made by former resources minister Keith Pitt concerning the proposed facility.
1 This month
4 November – Will AUKUS keep us safe – at what cost?
the Commissioners of the AUKUS Public Inquiry present their findings at the National Press Club of Australia in Canberra. iview.abc.net.au/show/national-press-club-address
Australians deserve the truth
about
AUKUS – https://aukuspublicinquiry.com/
PETITION – To: Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and the Australian Labor Government
of the week – Australians for War Powers Reform (AWPR)
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
