Colin Mitchell Submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Economics re the selection process for a national radioactive waste management facility from Colin Mitchell (independent campaigner)
I believe that the site selection process for a national radioactive waste management facility (NRWMF) is flawed because:
- The notion of ‘broad community support’ is considered far too narrowly as applying only to the local community.The NRWMF is a National project which could have environmental consequences extending far beyond the local community to encompass large areas of SA and beyond into other States of Australia, potentially effecting the whole nation. For example, leakage of radioactive material into the water table could spread over time causing disastrous effects on human and animal health, as well as agricultural crops. Also escape of radioactive material into the atmosphere could have similar negative consequences across wide areas of Australia and beyond. This is a decision which involves far more than the welfare of the immediate local community, rather the welfare of all the people of SA and all the people of Australia should be considered.
Recommendations: ‘Broad community support’ should extend to include the people of SA as a whole. Community opinion in other States of Australia should also be considered
Community support should be gauged by multiple methods including wide-ranging telephone and internet polling, acceptance of petitions and public meetings in Adelaide and all other major cities and towns in SA.
This process should be carried out by an independent body, not controlled by the government organisations involved in the establishment of a NRWMF. (ie not controlled by ANSTO or ARPANSA)
The consultation process should be thorough, be conducted over a long period (suggest a year) and incorporate the provision of full and open information about the project, including plans for both the low-level waste disposal facility and the above-ground store for intermediate level waste to be co-located at the same site.
The establishment of a NRWMF should not proceed without overwhelming support from the population of SA – at least 90% – (as well as 100% support from the local community), because the consequences of an unwise decision, flaws in the design of the facility, accidental releases of radioactive material, or an inability to properly maintain the facility over hundreds or even thousands of years, could be extremely serious to present or future generations.
- The site-selection process is also also flawed because insufficient information about the proposed NRWMF has been provided to the communities consulted. There has been a lack of transparency and bias in the presentation of information.1. Emphasis has been placed on medical isotope waste and there is insufficient information about the proposed co-location of intermediate level nuclear waste from Lucas Heights at the same site. The consultation process is deceitful because of the bias towards discussion of only the low-level waste and failure to properly inform the community about the colocation of Intermediate – level waste.
Recommendation: The co-location of Intermediate level nuclear waste should be mentioned every time the NRWMF is mentioned to avoid the false impression that this is only a low-level waste facility.
2. the communities have not been informed that the Intermediate-level waste to be colocated at the site is much more highly radioactive and has to be isolated for thousands of years compared with hundreds of years for low-level waste.
3. There are no plans presented for the “temporary” above-ground store to hold the intermediate-level waste.
4. The communities are not informed how the intermediate level waste is to be dealt with after “temporary” storage. There are no plans presented for long-term storage or final disposal of this waste.
5.The communities are not informed that the intermediate-level waste may be later disposed of in a deep geological disposal facility which may be built at the site of the NRWMF.
6. The communities are not informed that the construction of a deep geological disposal facility may lead to the importation of intermediate and high level nuclear waste from overseas in the future ie an international nuclear waste dump on the site (as advocated by government advisor Richard Yeeles in his submission to the recent Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission in SA “……it is open to your Royal Commission to recommend that the South Australian Government actively pursue the State’s further involvement in the nuclear industry with an initial focus on national and international radioactive waste management…….That as a demonstration of its strong interest in, and commitment to the further development of a safe and sustainable Australian nuclear industry, and as a first step in such further development, the South Australian Government offers to host a national facility for the storage and disposal of Australia’s own low and intermediate-level radioactive waste with the ultimate aim of securing Federal Government support for hosting an international radioactive waste management facility in South Australia.”
R.Yeeles, submission to Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission.)
- By failing to properly inform the communities about the co-location of the intermediate level waste the consultation process leaves itself open to the charge of deceit and thus undermines trust in the process and the agencies conducting the process as well as the government.
- Hazards of transporting nuclear waste over land/water are not being considered.
- Communities are not informed that intermediate-level waste can be securely stored at Lucas Heights itself. There is no advantage to moving this waste to another location and in fact moving the waste increases the risk of hazardous spills.
- Communities are not informed that there is not general agreement that a NRWMF is needed at all in Australia. They are not informed that there is a significant body of opinion that Australia’s nuclear waste should stay where it is and that, in particular, the intermediate-level waste at Lucas Heights is best stored at Lucas Heights where there are the resources and expertise to store this waste securely as it has been for many years. They are not informed that there is a significant body of opinion that there is nothing to be gained from moving this waste across country to another location because it is not presently known how to safely dispose of intermediate or high-level radioactive waste for the thousands of years it remains dangerously radioactive.Recommendation: the deficiencies in the information provided to communities mentioned above should be remedied. An independent community consultation body should be created which can provide full information on the proposed NRWMF in an open transparent manner including plans for the low-level facility and the intermediate-level above-ground store. This body should be independent from ANSTO or ARPANSA.
April 28, 2018
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
Federal nuclear waste dump, South Australia |
Leave a comment
Small rural communities in South Australia are being told that it’s their patriotic duty to save Australia’s nuclear medicine – by allowing a nuclear waste dump in their area.
This is the patently lying propaganda of the Australian Government ‘s Department of Industry, Innovation and Science now busily involve spending tax-payers’ money on pro nuclear spin.
The real purpose of the radioactive trash dump is to host nuclear waste – euphemistically called “intermediate level” waste – currently stored in of 9,8000 leaking rusty barrels at Woomera, and also the wastes produced by the Lucas Heights nuclear reactor. These also so-called “intermediate ” wastes are the reprocessed wastes returned from France, with more to come in the future.
The Australian nation is being conned by the government and its well-funded nuclear promotion organisation Australian National Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO), with the furphy that the whole purpose of the reactor is medical.
(a) the “medical isotope” function was tacked on – the original purpose was to lead to nuclear weapons. The current purpose is just a foot in the door for the whole nuclear fuel chain.
(b) Nuclear reactors are now going out of fashion, as the cheaper, more flexible, local, cyclotrons can produce medical isotopes safely – with no radioactive waste created.
April 27, 2018
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Christina themes, secrets and lies |
Leave a comment
Land managers in Australia have adopted many of the fire-control practices of the aborigines and have partnered with native people.
While the skill of aborigines with fire had been noted before the giant brushfires – early settlers remarked on the “park-like” nature of the landscape – and studied before, it’s taken on new urgency. That’s why Australian land managers have adopted many of the ideas and partnered with native people as co-managers. The fire practices of the aborigines are also being taught and used in other countries.
Scientists have looked to Australian natives for other insights into the natural world. A team of researchers collaborated with natives based on their observations of kites and falcons that fly with flaming branches from a forest fire to start other fires. It’s well known that birds will hunt mice and lizards as they flee the flames of a wildfire. But stories among indigenous people in northern Australia held that some birds actually started fires by dropping a burning branch in unburned places. Based on this TEK, researchers watched and documented this behavior.
Aboriginal people “don’t see themselves as superior to or separated from animals. They are walking storehouses of knowledge”
Native Knowledge: What Ecologists Are Learning from Indigenous People https://e360.yale.edu/features/native-knowledge-what-ecologists-are-learning-from-indigenous-people
From Alaska to Australia, scientists are turning to the knowledge of traditional people for a deeper understanding of the natural world. What they are learning is helping them discover more about everything from melting Arctic ice, to protecting fish stocks, to controlling wildfires. BY JIM ROBBINS • APRIL 26, 2018
While he was interviewing Inuit elders in Alaska to find out more about their knowledge of beluga whales and how the mammals might respond to the changing Arctic, researcher Henry Huntington lost track of the conversation as the hunters suddenly switched from the subject of belugas to beavers.
It turned out though, that the hunters were still really talking about whales. There had been an increase in beaver populations, they explained, which had reduced spawning habitat for salmon and other fish, which meant less prey for the belugas and so fewer whales.
“It was a more holistic view of the ecosystem,” said Huntington. And an important tip for whale researchers. “It would be pretty rare for someone studying belugas to be thinking about freshwater ecology.”
Around the globe, researchers are turning to what is known as Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) to fill out an understanding of the natural world. TEK is deep knowledge of a place that has been painstakingly discovered by those who have adapted to it over thousands of years. “People have relied on this detailed knowledge for their survival,” Huntington and a colleague wrote in an article on the subject. “They have literally staked their lives on its accuracy and repeatability.”
Tapping into this traditional wisdom is playing an outsized role in the Arctic, where change is happening rapidly.
Continue reading →
April 27, 2018
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
aboriginal issues, AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, culture, environment |
Leave a comment
Disease threat forces SA Health to prioritise adapting to climate change
HEALTH threats from extreme weather events and diseases spread by mosquitoes have prompted SA Health to prioritise adapting to climate change in a new blueprint. http://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/climate-change/disease-threat-forces-sa-health-to-prioritise-adapting-to-climate-change/news-story/fc734296a4580dda2c60320f8e8ac463#.ajdi8 Matt Smith
Chief medical officer Paddy Phillips has told The Advertiser the frequency and severity of heatwaves and bushfires, and the increased risk of the spread of disease by insects and bugs, meant climate change threatened the wellbeing of South Australians.
His warning comes as SA Health released its draft State Public Health Plan for the period from 2019-2024. Professor Phillips said multiple government agencies needed to consider the impact of climate change when developing policies and strategies to manage and prevent public health risks.It should also be front of mind when agencies assessed the suitability of health infrastructure and assets.
“Variations in our climate have increased the frequency and severity of weather events such as floods, droughts, bushfires, storms (and) periods of extreme heat, as well as the spread of vector-borne diseases,” Prof Phillips said.
“These events threaten the wellbeing of our communities, especially in vulnerable populations.”
Increases in diseases transmitted by mosquitoes, sandflies, triatomine bugs, blackflies, ticks, tsetse flies, mites, snails and lice have in recent years been linked to climate change on Australia’s east coast.
The draft report, that has been published for public consultation, lists four priorities:
CREATE healthier neighbourhoods and communities.
PROTECT against public and environmental health risks and adapt to climate change.
PREVENT chronic disease, communicable disease and injury.
FURTHER develop and maintain the statewide public health system.
Health and Wellbeing Minister Stephen Wade said he would review the plan, which was drawn up on the watch of the former Labor state government, to determine if any additional issues needed to be addressed. Mr Wade welcomed the inclusion of climate change as a priority. “It is prudent for public health plans to consider the impact of climate change,” he said.
SA Greens leader Mark Parnell said a suite of measures, including better town planning and the design of individual homes to be more resilient to changing climatic conditions, was needed.
That would help South Australia adapt to the challenge of climate change.
“We know that with a hotter climate comes more health problems including increased hospitalisations and premature deaths from increasing heatwaves,” he said.
April 27, 2018
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
climate change - global warming, health, South Australia |
Leave a comment
Australia’s first lithium battery recycling plant launched https://reneweconomy.com.au/australias-first-lithium-battery-recycling-plant-launched-19366/, By Sophie Vorrath on 27 April 2018
Australia’s first lithium battery recycling plant has been officially anointed in Victoria, in conjunction with the launch of $16.5 million state government e-waste processing plan.
The plant, established in New Gisbourne by Victorian company Envirostream Australia, is the first in the nation to recycle lithium batteries – the now ubiquitous power source for mobile phones, tablets, electric cars and home energy storage systems.
But while batteries – and in particular lithium batteries – are playing a central role in facilitating the world’s digital and clean energy revolutions, only 3 per cent of Australian batteries are currently recovered – the lowest rate in the OECD.
Envirostream’s $2 million recycling facility, which began operations last year, is trying to change that. In 2017 alone, the plant recycled 240,000 kilograms of batteries that would otherwise have gone to landfill, or been shipped to China for processing
Electronic waste – or e-waste – is defined as anything with a plug or battery that has come to the end of its useful life; including old mobile phones, computers, audio devices, refrigerators and other white goods, hair driers, TVs, heaters and air-conditioners.
The amount of e-waste generated in Victoria is projected to increase from 109,000 tonnes in 2015 to approximately 256,000 tonnes in 2035.
The plan, which is being rolled out by Sustainability Victoria, comes ahead of the impending state ban on sending e-waste to landfill, which takes effect on 1 July 2019.
It includes $15 million in grants to help Victorian councils and state government entities upgrade infrastructure to collect e-waste at more than 130 sites.
This will ensure that 98 per cent of Melburnians are within a 20-minute drive of an e-waste disposal point, and 98 per cent of regional Victorians are within a 30-minute drive of one.
It will also include a $1.5 million awareness campaign to educate Victorians on recognising e-waste, how it should be managed, and the environmental and economic benefits of reusing, donating, repairing or recycling it.
To Envirostream, Sustainability Victoria has extended a grant of $40,000 to go towards boosting the company’s recovery of valuable materials in lithium batteries.
“As one of the country’s trailblazers in reprocessing electronic waste, it’s helping to keep valuable resources out of landfills,” said Sustainability Victoria CEO Stan Krpan.
“Envirostream is showing how opportunities can be developed in Australia’s resource recovery sector, create jobs in regional communities and capture valuable chemicals, copper, steel, nickel, lithium, other metals and graphene captured so they can be sent to South Korea to be used in new batteries.”
Envirostream Director, Andrew McKenzie, said recycling batteries at New Gisborne would create five new jobs over the next year and help build Victoria’s recycling capacity.
“We have a nationally coordinated partnership to increase Australia’s low recovery rates of batteries and mobile phones and want to make sure these recoverable resources are not just thrown away or sent offshore for recycling.”
“We’re in an increasingly mobile world. Lithium batteries are now the dominant mode of energy storage for domestic and industrial uses, and like other e-waste, their use is growing fast,” he said.
April 27, 2018
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
business, rare earths, Victoria |
Leave a comment
I do not think that one of two small rural communities should feel that if they do not accept the radioactive waste, these [medical] applications will be forced to stop, as they have been told by Departmental Officials.
Christine Mary Wakelin- Submission to Senate Inquiry on selection process for nuclear waste dump siting
My name is Christine Wakelin and together with my husband, I am a longstanding landowner in the Kimba District. I was a Registered Nurse for over fifty years, much of which I was employed at our local hospital. I had, in this position supervised the administration of IV Chemotherapy and taken simple XRays. A close family member had treatment with Nuclear Medicine for the control of Neuro Endocrine Tumours.
The matters I would like to submit to the Senate Economics References Committee on the appropriateness and thoroughness of the site selection process for a National Radioactive Waste Management Facility at Kimba and Hawker are as follows:
- The compensation to landowners for “volunteering”one hundred acres of land at four times the normal value makes the more remote rural areas of Australia more likely to be selected as the amount of land required, without significant buildings and improvements, is more easily found there than in more closely settled areas and prices at the selected rural sites will be significantly less.
- Cropping land such as offered at Kimba, is, in total, only approximately 4% of Australia’s land mass. Eyre Peninsula, which Kimba is part of, is an important grain, meat and wool exporter.
- To Volunteer, as defined by the Cambridge English Dictionary is doing something willingly without being paid for it. Being paid four times the value of the land does not meet this definition!
- The definition of “Broad community support” has been a very vexatious matter, varying from a two thirds district support to the majority of immediate neighbours supporting the sites. This has caused much anxiety within our community. It has been said that those against the selection of sites in the are only a “small vocal minority” but even with the incentive of the community benefit $2 million, 43% of people voted not to go onto stage two of the selection process.
- It is unclear how “broad community community support” will be defined when the selection process moves to the next stage, with Minister Canavan saying that there is no defined level of voter support from a further ballot. This has given further cause for concern from those apposed to the selection of a site in the Kimba Area.
- The selection of the two original sites in Kimba, following a suggestion by the local Federal member of a site on his farm, which was then withdrawn, caused significant apprehension and distress. There was immense relief when these two sites were rejected by the Federal Government, just prior to the 2016 Federal Election. The nomination of a further two sites soon after this time, has seen distress renewed and added scepticism of the whole process!
- Since the beginning of the two selection process, there have been many visits from Departmental Officers, several glossy information sheets and visits to ANSTO at Lucas Heights by many local residents, with all but two paid for by the Australian taxpayers. In addition are the ongoing costs of a Community Liaison Office and staff member. These are all to promote the siting of the NRWMF at either Kimba or Hawker. Those apposed to the sites in their area have received no financial support. This contrasts to the recent same sex marriage debate which saw funding allocated to both sides.
- The incentive of community benefits program and the $2 million /year that is offered, did, I believe, influence people to vote to go onto stage two of the selection process. Remarks such as “we may as well go onto stage two and get the money” were heard as a justification for voting to go further in the process. “We have to do something” was another reason for voting yes. It was ironical that Kimba had just been recognised as South Australia’s “most sustainable town”!
- The Community Benefits Program is designed, we are told, to overcome any community inconvenience. However no amount of money can compensate for the mental health wellbeing of the community which has been the affect on some community members, both those for and against the NRWMF proposals. I am closely linked only with the Kimba community but I understand the Hawker community has also had these concerns.
- The selection of the members of the Consultative Group must also come under scrutiny, with an apparent imbalance between those known to be for and against the site proposals. Who made the decision on the membership of the group and on what criteria?
- The Kimba District is part of Eyre Peninsula, a rich Grain, meat and fibre producing area. Much of our produce is exported, with benefits being passed on to the wider Australian community. Anything which has potential to affect our valuable industries must be given due consideration. Many on Eyre Peninsula say that their opinions should be considered also.
- We are told that the siting of a NRWMF Facility in our region “should not” affect our markets. This is very different from “will not” and remains a pivotal concern for many people.
- I am supportive and somewhat familiar with the use of Nuclear Medicine for the treatment and diagnosis of a variety of conditions. However I do not think that one of two small rural communities should feel that if they do not accept the radioactive waste, these applications will be forced to stop, as they have been told by Departmental Officials. Surely there is a wider community responsibility.
- Does the 2012 Legislation for the Disposal of Radioactive Waste have the power to overrule South Australian Legislation which currently does not allow the building of the NRWMF in South Australia or the transport of other than our own waste, in the state?
- Does this above legislation have the power to overrule the wishes of Aboriginal peoples of an area?
April 27, 2018
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump |
Leave a comment
THE construction of a radioactive waste dump in South Australia could be stalled by court challenges unless local indigenous people are consulted properly, the Australian Human Rights Commission has warned, Peter Jean, The AdvertiserAPRIL 25, 2018
THE construction of a radioactive waste dump in South Australia could be stalled by court challenges unless local indigenous people are consulted properly, the Australian Human Rights Commission has warned.
The commission has intervened in the debate over potential locations for the dump after some Aboriginal groups complained they were not being fully consulted.
The Federal Government said it was working closely with indigenous people as it considers two sites near Kimba and one at Hawker as possible homes for low and intermediate-level radioactive waste.
But in a submission to a Senate inquiry, the Human Rights Commission said it was concerned that Adnyamathanha indigenous people near Hawker were unhappy with the consultation process.
“This situation requires immediate attention if the consideration of the site at Wallerberdina Station is to continue,’’ the commission said.
The “overwhelming and clearly expressed support of the affected indigenous group” would be required for the facility to go ahead, according to the commission.
The federal Department of Industry, Innovation and Science told the inquiry that it was consulting indigenous people, and an Aboriginal cultural heritage assessment had been conducted at the Wallerberdina Station site near Hawker.
The department said it would continue to work closely with traditional land owners to “preserve, protect and minimise the impact on indigenous heritage”
Legal challenges resulted in earlier plans for a waste dump in the Northern Territory being abandoned in 2014.
April 27, 2018
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump |
Leave a comment
Perhaps a uranium price increase is on the way but it will do little to salvage Australia’s uranium industry. Apart from BHP’s Olympic Dam mine in SA, the only other operating uranium mine in Australia is Beverley Four Mile in SA. At Ranger in the NT, mining has ceased, stockpiles of ore are being processed, and ERA is planning a $500 million project to decommission and rehabilitate the mine site.
And with the cost of a single power reactor climbing to as much as $20 billion, proposals to introduce nuclear power to Australia seem more and more quixotic and are now largely limited to the far right ‒ in particular, Australians Conservatives’ luminary Senator Cory Bernardi and the Minerals Council of Australia.
Even Dr Ziggy Switkowski ‒ who used to be nuclear power’s head cheerleader in Australia and was appointed to lead the Howard government’s review of nuclear power ‒ recently said that “the window for gigawatt-scale nuclear has closed”. He said nuclear power is no longer cheaper than renewables and the levelised cost of electricity is rapidly diverging in favour of renewables.
Countless would-be uranium mining companies have given up, some trying their luck in other areas such as property development or growing dope. Some mines have closed, others have been put into care-and-maintenance, and others have reduced output. But supply has continued to exceed demand ‒ and to exert downward pressure on prices.
Uranium industry slumps, nuclear power dead in the water, Chain Reaction magazine, Dr Jim Green, April 2018
Very few mines could operate at a profit at current prices. Some mines are profitable because earlier contracts stipulated higher prices, while many mines are operating at a loss. Many companies have been loathe to close operating mines, or to put them into care-and-maintenance, even if the only other option is operating at a loss. They have been playing chicken, hoping that other companies and mines will fold first and that the resultant loss of production will drive up prices. “We have to recognise that we over-produce, and we are responsible for this fall in the price,” said Areva executive Jacques Peythieu in April 2017.
Current prices would need to more than double to encourage new mines ‒ a long-term contract price of about US$70–$80 is typically cited as being required to encourage the development of new mines.
The patterns outlined above were repeated in 2017. It was another miserable year for the uranium industry. A great year for those of us living in uranium producing countries who don’t want to see new mines open and who look forward to the closure of existing mines. And a great year for the nuclear power industry ‒ in the narrow sense that the plentiful availability of cheap uranium allows the industry to focus on other problems.
Cut-backs announced Continue reading →
April 27, 2018
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, business, uranium |
Leave a comment
Paladin Energy has flagged the potential closure of its flagship Langer Heinrich uranium mine, just two months after it returned to the Australian Stock Exchange after an $800 million debt restructuring. … (subscribers only)
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/mining-energy/paladin-may-shut-lossmaking-langer-heinrich-uranium-mine/news-story/53c1dda5b5b01ff36771af7b683aaafc
April 26, 2018
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, business, uranium |
Leave a comment
‘The wreath laying event yesterday at the cenotaph of the WarMemorial caught us by surprise when we realised that many of the older veterans of the modern wars stood still as we passed and applauded our entourage. People should not underestimate what this meant in the long term.
‘This is a monumental shift, because now these veterans will take this back to their tables and begin to ask the right question:
What is the Frontier Wars commemorative presence all about?
‘This is a turning point.’
~ Ghillar, MichaelAnderson, Convener – SovereignUnion 26 April 2018
Ghillar, Michael Anderson, Convener of the Sovereign Union, last surviving member of the
founding four of the Aboriginal Embassy and Leader of the Euahlayi Nation said from Canberra
today:
The success of the 2018 Anzac Day Frontier Wars March in Canberra has given great affirmation
to the old adage that if you say it long enough and represent your message by physically making
your presence known, people do begin to ask questions and begin to search inwardly within
themselves about the truth of the message that we seek to get through to them. … Continue reading →
April 26, 2018
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
aboriginal issues, AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL |
Leave a comment
By Jackie Huggins • 24/04/2018
‘National Congress of Australia’s First Peoples Co-Chair Jackie Huggins
delivered an intervention at the United Nations in New York on April 19
during the 17th Session of the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (UNPFII).
‘Last week, National Congress Co-Chair Rod Little emphasised the need for
the Australian government to implement UNDRIP during his
engagement with the Commonwealth People’s Forum in London.. …
‘ … we have reached a crisis point in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander affairs.
‘The recent Closing the Gap report reveals that only three of the seven targets are on track to be met.
Despite making up 3% of the population, First Peoples comprise 27% of the nation’s prison population,
making Australia’s Indigenous incarceration rates the worst in the world. ….
‘Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women are 32 times more likely to be hospitalised
due to family violence than their non-Indigenous counterparts.
‘The most recent statistics on life expectancy reveal the gap between
First Peoples and non-Indigenous Australians is at 10.6 years for males
and 9.5 years for females. …
‘The national rate of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children in out of home care
is 9.8 times the national average. 50% of our people have a disability.
‘Despite widespread criticism, the paternalistic Northern Territory Intervention is continuing …
It has led to … quarantining of 50% of welfare,
the forced participation in work for the dole schemes which pay individuals
far less than an average reward rate …
‘Recently, after commissioning extensive consultations with First People’s
across the nation on constitutional reform, the government flatly rejected
our recommendations in The Statement from The Heart, from Uluru. … ‘
Read more of Jackie‘s comprehensive, informative & insightful article here:
www.themandarin.com.au/91664-australias-first-people-to-the-un-govt-statements-are-hypocritical-in-the-extreme/
April 26, 2018
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
aboriginal issues, AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL |
Leave a comment
No nuclear waste groups stand together, https://www.eyretribune.com.au/story/5362658/no-nuclear-waste-groups-stand-together/ 24 Apr 18
No nuclear waste dump groups from Kimba and the Flinders Ranges came together in Port Augusta last week in response to the recent announcement by federal Resources Minister Matt Canavan that a community vote for a planned national radioactive waste management facility would begin on August 20.
The groups discussed shared concerns and committed to increase their efforts against the plan including through an open debate featuring the federal department, the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO), Traditional Owners and public policy and health professionals.
People at the meeting included Adnyamathanha community members, representatives from Kimba, Hawker, Whyalla and Quorn along with members of the Flinders Local Action Group and No Radioactive Waste on Agricultural Land in Kimba or SA.
Peter Woolford from Kimba said the “flawed federal process” was failing the communities.
“Minister Canavan is fast-tracking a plan that does not have broad community support”.
The groups committed to highlight community concern and opposition to the federal plan ahead of the August vote and urged residents in the wider region to stand up and speak out.
Former federal member for Grey Barry Wakelin said it was a national issue, “not something that a regional community should be left to deal with”.
“The current federal plan lacks evidence and poses a threat to our existing industries – we need a better way,” Mr Wakelin said.
“This has been a productive meeting and it is heartening to see regional South Australians stepping up to the challenge, taking action and working together.”
April 25, 2018
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
aboriginal issues, Federal nuclear waste dump, opposition to nuclear, South Australia |
Leave a comment
Selection Process for a National Radioactive Waste Management Facility in South Australia – Submission From: Barngarla Determination Aboriginal Corporation ICN 8603 : 3 April 2018
The Barngarla Determination Aboriginal Corporation (BDAC) is the prescribed body corporate for the Barngarla native title holders as defined in the Barngarla Determination of Native Title made by the Federal Court in Croft’ on behalf of the Bamgar/a Native Title Claim Group v State of South Australia (N0 2) [2016] FCA 724 (SAD 60/11/998) on 23 June 2016.
We attach a map [on original]of the Barngarla Determination Area, as Schedule I. It clearly shows that the Barngarla are the native title holders for the two nominated sites near Kiinba, namely the Lyndhurst and Napandee nominated sites.
BDAC believes that community consultation in relation to the site selection rocess for a National Radioactive Waste Management Facility (NRWMF) has been patently inadequate, bordering on non-existent.
We hold this view given the lack of contact by the Federal Government and the Department of Industry, Innovation and Science (the Department) from the outset. The chronology of consultation is contained in our letter to the Department of 21 February 2018 (which is attached [on original] along with all other correspondence as Schedule 2), for the sake of ease of reading we reproduce a version of it below:
On 7 April2017, three months after the Lyndhurst and Napandee sites were nominated, Barngarla made contact with the Department. Prior to this letter, the Department had made no contact with the Aboriginal traditional owners or native title holders of the area.
Notwithstanding this complete lack of contact, the Department was asserting that there were no Aboriginal heritage issues in the area. Therefore, the Barngarla letter of 7 April2017 sought to correct the Department and indicated that Barn aria needed to be engaged with. Barngarla further indicated that the failure to consult to date was unacceptable.
On 4 May 2017, Barngarla received a pro forma letter from Mr. Bruce Wilson (the date April2017 had been crossed out with May inserted). The letter contained three general paragraphs and did not in any way address the Barngarla’s concerns.
On 10 July 2017, Barngarla sent a response to Mr. Wilson, requesting s ecific information on the following:
ll proposed activities, which the Department seeks to undertake for the purposes of the proj’ect, ‘what protocols, if any, the Department intends to apply in respect of Aboriginal Heritage; and Selection process for a national radioactive waste management facility in South Australia Submission any assessment that the Department has undertaken in respect of the impact of the proposal on Aboriginal Heritage in the Bamgar/a Determination Area.
On 14 August 2017 (originally dated 11 August, with the 11 crossed out and replaced with a hand written 14), Barngarla received a particularly uriconstructive letter from Mr. Bruce MCCleary. We do not repeat it here, but a longer description of this letter i contained in our letter of 21 contained in our letter of 21 February 2018.
Barngarla responded to the 14 August 20171etter, on 13 October 2017, providing the Department with all of the information (that the Commonwealth already had) indicating the status of BDAC, and Norman Waterhouse’s role as the Solicitors for Barngarla.
Barngarla did not receive a response to their letter of 13 October 2017. The next item of correspondence we received was a further pro forma letter from Mr. Bruce MCCleary, dated 31 October 2017, confirming the Solicitor for Barn arla’s a arent “nomination” for the Kiinba Consultative Committee (although Mr Llewellyn-Jones himself did not nominate for this Committee). It is obvious from reviewing the correspondence, that this letter was not a response to any of the letters sent by Bamgarla and was just a misaddressed pro forma letter of no substance.
Bamgarla received no further correspondence from the Department in 2017
Barngarla finally received a letter on 20 February 2018, congratulating BDAC for its status as a PBC (somewhat out of date, given that this had occurred approximately one year earlier) and advising that the Department would like to present to the BDAC Board. However, this letter.
Did not address any of the substantive matters raised by Barngarla on 7 A in 2017 or, O July 2017; in particularit does not answer how the Department could assert a lack of any Barngarla Aboriginal heritage given that there had been no discussions or engagement with Barngarla;
Did not answer the express questions put to the Department on 10 July 2017; and ,
Suggested that the first consultation with Barngarla should occur some 14 months after the Lyndhurst and Napandee sites were nominated, even though the Department had been making representations about the Barn aria and Aboriginal heritage during this time.
It is Barngarla’s position that the entire consultation process has been completelyl inappropriate and, in most cases, has involved being copied into pro forma correspondence, which is not relevant to any of the issues raised by Barngarla.
As can be seen above, BDAC has repeatedly contacted the Department to address Barngarla heritage concerns as the traditional owners in the Kiinba area. Correspondence was instigated by BDAC, not by the Department. Again, as indicated above, Barngarla’s most recent letter to the Department on 21 February 2018 provides a chronological outline of BDAC’s communication with the Department. All relevant correspondence is enclosed with this submission.
The correspondence largely speaks for itself, and so forms part of this submission. Most concerning, apart from the Department not having made contact with the Aboriginal traditional owners or native title holders for the area, was the Department’s assertion that there were no Aboriginal heritage issues in the area surrounding Lyndhurst and Napandee. ‘ This assertion was made without any consultation with these traditional owners. Further, Barngarla have repeatedly asked, on three separate occasions, for the Department to provide the basis of this assertion, which the Department has failed to do. It is not the case that there is no Aboriginal heritage in the area. Given the complete inactivity of the Department to engage with Barngarla, BDAC retained out of its own funds, the services of Dr Dee Gorring to conduct a heritage assessment of the area. This took place on 27 February 2018 to 3 March 2018. Preliminary conclusions from Dr Gorring indicated that there are a number of sites that have been identified surrounding the site of Lyndhurst and spanning across to the site of Napandee.
Accordingly, as per terms of reference:
The Department has not even engaged with Barngarla to establish whether there is any relevant Indigenous support for the NRWMF. Therefore, in respect of the Committee’s terms of reference paragraph (c), the need for Indigenous support has so far not played a part in the Department’s site selection process at all in respect of the sites near Kiinba.
The Barngarla are not aware of the Government ‘community benefit program payments referred to in the Committee’s terms of reference paragraph (d). These have therefore had no impact upon the sentiment of the Barngarla Community.
However, irrespective of any community benefit package, Barngarla would not support the NRWMF in the area. This indicates that the Committee’s terms of reference paragraph (b) have not been met; there is no ‘broad community support’ in respect of the NRWMF from Barngarla.
The proposed NRWMF does not have the support of BDAC nor does the NRWMF have the support of the broader Barngarla Community.
As seen above, there has been no appropriate consultation process. The approaches made by BDAC have been rebuffed by a combination of meaningless pro forma correspondence, bureaucratic tangents, and obfuscation, which has resulted in a contrived consultation process completely lacking in transparency.
April 25, 2018
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
Federal nuclear waste dump, South Australia |
Leave a comment
Washington report floats US nuclear attack subs and warships in Perth THE AUSTRALIAN, CAMERON STEWART, Washington correspondent@camstewarttheoz, –25 Apr 18
US nuclear attack submarines and navy warships should be based in Perth in response to China’s growing power projection into the Indo-Pacific, a new US report warns.
The report says Australia and its allies must “spotlight and push back” against China’s stepped-up efforts to project power and build military infrastructure in the region.
……..The report also comes a week after it was revealed that three Australian warships were challenged by the Chinese military as they travelled through the disputed South China Sea early this month.
Tensions between Australia and China have risen sharply, with China’s ambassador to Australia warning last week that the relationship between the two countries had been marred by “systematic, irresponsible and negative remarks” about China.
Beijing has not hosted a senior Australian minister for several months and was highly critical of Malcolm Turnbull’s new security laws announced last year to protect Australia from foreign interference.
Former prime minister Kevin Rudd this week further accused the current Prime Minister of undermining Australia’s relationship with China, saying Mr Turnbull’s public remarks about our largest trading partner were tantamount to “punching the Chinese in the face”……..
the CSIS calls for a range of measures, including a rotational presence of US warships at HMAS Stirling in Perth.
It also calls on the Turnbull government to “consider the possibility of investing in the nuclear support infrastructure necessary for the basing of (US) attack submarines as well”.
These military options have been considered by the Turnbull and Abbott Coalition governments and by the Gillard and Rudd Labor governments but they have never been acted upon.
But Mr Shearer said the time was now right for a bigger US military presence at HMAS Stirling…….https://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/defence/washington-report-floats-us-nuclear-attack-subs-and-warships-in-perth/news-story/af5d0e9dd300c8eb96bf74aca790198d
April 25, 2018
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, politics international, weapons and war |
Leave a comment
Antinuclear 