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
Effectively it is about relocating Australia’s worst radioactive waste from above ground interim storage at a purpose built and heavily secured and resourced facility in Sydney to above ground interim storage at a far less resourced facility in regional SA. There is no compelling public health or radiation management rationale for this approach.
It is definitely not something that should be foisted on a community area/state/through transport route communities at the behest of a local land/leaseholder.
The national radioactive waste facility is in two parts
(i) a dump for LLW – placed there and never recovered or removed (most of this material will decay to background equivalent in 300 years) and
(ii) a store for ILW to be kept above ground prior to being removed at a undefined future point by an undefined process to an unchosen site for promised deep burial (this material needs to be isolated from the wider environment for 10, 000 – 10K – years).
Submission by Michele Madigan To The Economic References Senate Committee Inquiry – Selection process for a national radioactive waste management facility in South Australia
The appropriateness and thoroughness of the site selection process for a national radioactive waste management facility at Kimba and Hawker in South Australia, noting the Government has stated that it will not impose such a facility on an unwilling community, with particular reference(s).
I submit that the present method/process of selection for the site for Australia’s long term intermediate radioactive waste and to a lesser extent for the nation’s low level radioactive waste is not only inappropriate but has grave implications for present and future generations:
*of local communities *for all South Australians *and indeed all Australians – in particular those national communities along any proposed transport route.
I note, as does the Senate Committee, that the Federal Government has stated that it will not impose such a facility on an unwilling community. This condition of willingness is indeed world’s best practice. Whether or not its present process and reported results accurately reflects the reality of such unwillingness in the South Australian proposed sites is discussed below. Continue reading →
April 23, 2018
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump |
Leave a comment
Barilaro sees nuclear future, Labor criticises lack of detail, Canberra Times, Elliot Williams – – 21 Apr 18, NSW Deputy Premier John Barilaro has not ruled out one day having nuclear reactors in his home electorate of Monaro, near the ACT.
Mr Barilaro has garnered attention this week after advocating for nuclear energy to be considered in NSW in a speech to an energy policy forum in Sydney on Wednesday.
But when questioned whether he would ever consider bringing nuclear reactors to Monaro Mr Barilaro refused to rule anything in or out.
……..Mr Barilaro said he envisaged a future where small modular reactors were set up in a series and could be air, gas or sand cooled rather than the familiar technology of large reactors situated on the coastline for easy access to water.
He said recycling of radioactive material had improved and waste products would remain radioactive for around 300 years rather than hundreds of thousands of years.
However Mr Barilaro has been criticised by Labor candidate for Monaro Bryce Wilson and the Nature Conservation Council for his reluctance to provide details about his plan to bring nuclear power to the state.
“John can’t stand there and say he wants to provide relief to household energy bills without giving us any figures,” Mr Wilson said.
“This isn’t primary school debating, this is a conversation for grown ups.
“How can we have a conversation about nuclear power without knowing where reactors would go, how much it would cost and what would happen to the waste?
Mr Wilson added he would not endorse bringing nuclear reactors to any part of the region………The federal government has a ban on nuclear power in Australia and federal member for Eden-Monaro Mike Kelly said he would not support nuclear power in the region.
“It is not necessary to build nuclear power stations in Australia, as we have an abundance of natural renewable resources that can be utilised to create energy,” Dr Kelly said.
“For our region, there is a real opportunity in becoming a hub for research and development in renewable energy and the scope for manufacturing renewable energy components.”
Mr Barilaro said he wanted to see more investment in renewable energy, particularly in Monaro, but said it would not be possible to do so without ensuring a greater baseload of energy, which nuclear power could provide.
He said nuclear was a cleaner option than coal or gas to achieve the necessary baseload…….ACT minister for climate change and sustainability Shane Rattenbury ruled out nuclear power as an option for the territory.
“Both Greens and Labor national platforms specifically preclude the construction of nuclear power plants in Australia,” Mr Rattenbury said.
“The ACT is committed to 100 per cent renewable electricity, and nuclear power does not form part of this commitment.” http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/barilaro-sees-nuclear-future-labor-criticises-lack-of-detail-20180420-p4zaty.html
April 22, 2018
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
New South Wales, politics |
Leave a comment
Paul Waldon –No Nuclear Waste Dump Anywhere in South Australia https://www.facebook.com/groups/344452605899556/
If government can’t show that it can cleanup, or even finance a $30 million cleanup of 9,8000 leaking rusty barrels of radioactive waste abandoned at Woomera, what reason would any adroit person have to believe that the government’s $10 million incentive package to manage a radioactive dump in Hawker or Kimba is nothing more than a 79 cents a week contract to abandon high grade waste under the guise of being called intermediate waste, for the next 244,000 years of its hazard.
April 22, 2018
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
Federal nuclear waste dump, South Australia |
Leave a comment
This is the best of several submissions to the Senate Inquiry,
that I have read so far. It can be heavy going for the reader, because it is densely informative. For a start, I have summarised some of the major arguments,
ENUFF argues that “the Taskforce has not properly nor fully informed either the wider public; nor their arbitrary ‘local community’ cohort; nor the State Government; &, it would appear, not even their own Federal Minister – about the whole radioactive waste regimen. Instead they almost only & exclusively accentuate & promote Australian usage of medical radioisotopes. ”
The community consultation methods have been inadequate and unfair. There is no scientific need for Lucas Heights nuclear wastes to be transported to rural South Australia, and medical wastes amount to only a tiny fraction of the radioactive wastes planned for the S.A. Dump.
Stirling North and Leigh Creek residents would be affected, but were excluded from the consultation. Adnyamathanha Traditional Lands Association were NOT consulted prior to the Wallerberdina preferred site announcement , contrary to UN endorsed Indigenous Rights.
In surveys run by Flinders Local Action Group a clear majority voted “no” to the establishment of a National Radioactive Waste Management Facility in the area .
Scrutiny of the Barndioota Consultative Committee NRMWT survey reveals questionable and biased methodology and results.
National Radioactive Waste Management Facility’s communications and publicity have been deceptive with its pretense that the waste is predominantly medical Low Level Wastes, ignoring Intermediate Level Waste volumes intended for ‘temporary’ storage
Given the prime-facie maladministration ans deficiencies described above, ENuFF calls for a judicial inquiry into the NRWMF ‘s processes.
ENuFF-SA Submission 1 to the Senate ERC NRWMF Inquiry (not yet published on the Senate website)
CONTENTS Page 2 Acronyms 3 Introduction 5 Executive Summary 6 History 8 Contemporary Action 9 Wallerberdina 16 Indigenous appraisal 19 Correspondence with the Taskforce 22 Afterword 25 Bibliography
In order to determine whether or not maladministration &/or negligence has any bearing upon the community consultation process, ENuFF asks the committee to recommend a judicial inquiry into the performance of the NRWMF Taskforce…..
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Continue reading →
April 20, 2018
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump, politics |
Leave a comment
Barilaro slams “ignorant 1970’s thinking” on nuclear, 2GB.com – 19 Apr 18 MICHAEL MCLAREN
Acting NSW Premier John Barilaro has been speaking on energy, declaring nuclear power “inevitable” and slamming the “ignorant 1970’s thinking” that has inhibited the development of our nation’s uranium reserves.
Michael McLaren is also pointing out the hypocrisy of Australia’s engagement with nuclear energy, noting that despite being the world’s third largest exporter of uranium, Australia has a banning moratorium on the resource.
“In 2016, Australia exported uranium worth more than $900 million to other places around the world. But we didn’t use one iota of it at home,” says Michael.
“If you ask me, that’s completely stupid.” “It has been forgotten for no other then ideological reasons.”….. Download this podcast here https://www.2gb.com/podcast/barilaro-slams-ignorant-1970s-thinking-on-nuclear/
April 20, 2018
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
New South Wales, politics |
Leave a comment
Antinuclear 