South Australian Minister Dan van Holst Pellekaan shuns Supreme Court Justice’s ruling to release Kimba nuclear documents
Senator Rex Patrick (at left) 27 June 21, MIN It’s an extremely disturbing state of affairs when a Minister of the Crown simply ignores a Supreme Court Justice’s ruling.
You might recall late last year, Minister Dan van Holst Pellekaan denied me access to documents related to the Kimba National Radioactive Waste Management Facility in what I thought was an incompetent Freedom of Information (FOI) decision.
When I made an application to the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (SACAT) to challenge his decision, I was unbelievably threatened with costs. I ignored the Ministerial bullying. The challenge was heard by Supreme Court Justice Judy Hughes (sitting as the President of SACAT) who found the document I was after was NOT exempt from release under FOI. Orders to that effect were issued on 17 May 2021.I did not expect the document to be provided to me until the appeal time (1 month from the making of the decision) had expired.
It has now expired, and I have made a demand for the documents, but the Minister is refusing to abide by Her Honour’s decision.It looks like I’ll have to go to court to enforce the order.
Senator Rex Patrick explained how the government’s nuclear waste process was a botched job.
there were a number of people who were quite close to the facility who were unable to express their view in the vote because they lived outside the council area—the voting area—so they were excluded. Lots of people were excluded from the vote. We ended up with a completely flawed process.
Senator McAllister did a fantastic job drawing out in the committee stage that this bill, as it originally entered the Senate, was about ousting the jurisdiction of a court to deal with a botched process. This bill now, as a ruse, says that it’s about maybe three sites, again, when we know the government is going to select Napandee. That’s what’s going to happen as a result of this.
Senator PATRICK (South Australia) Senate 21 June 21, (18:26): I rise to speak on the National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment (Site Specification, Community Fund and Other Measures) Bill 2020. I want to go back a bit in history so that the chamber’s aware of how we got to where we are today, because the bottom line is that this bill is a bit of a ruse, a facade. I need to ground that properly in order for people to understand exactly what I’m talking about.
We’ll go back to 2012, the bill where we’re seeking to establish a national radioactive waste management facility. I might point out that I’m in favour of such a facility. I think we need a facility. We do need to take responsibility for our own radioactive waste. In terms of the safety aspects and the philosophy,………….
Firstly, the concept behind the whole process is fundamentally flawed. Instead of selecting the best site for a facility in Australia, we kind of had a raffle and said, ‘Who wants to have a site in their backyard?’ or ‘Who wants to have a site on their land?’ Of course people put up their hand, but that’s not the best way to select the best location. It’s like trying to say, ‘Let’s build a highway, and we’ll go out and see who wants to have their house knocked down to have the highway run somewhere.’ That’s not the way in which you tackle a project. You work out the best route and then you deal with the issues along the way. That’s not what we’ve done in this process. We’ve just said, ‘Anyone who wants to stick up their hand, we’ll have a look at your property and see if it fits.’ It’s not the best way to do it.
……….what we should have done is look around the country and ask, ‘Where is the best site? What are the best characteristics for a site for a radioactive waste management facility?…..
Continue readingSenator Hanson-Young outlined the shambles that the nuclear waste siting process has been
This bill is a disgrace. It is an affront to community consultation, it is an affront to the best available science and it is an affront to the promise, the long-held promise, that this country would get serious about a long-term permanent solution to dealing with the waste that we have. Of course we have a responsibility. We create nuclear waste; we need to store it properly. It is of course incredibly toxic. That’s why it is difficult to do. It is also why you don’t see the Prime Minister advocating that they build a nuclear waste dump in his electorate, where Lucas Heights actually is.
This bill is a disgrace. It is an affront to community consultation, it is an affront to the best available science and it is an affront to the promise, the long-held promise, that this country would get serious about a long-term permanent solution to dealing with the waste that we have. Of course we have a responsibility. We create nuclear waste; we need to store it properly. It is of course incredibly toxic. That’s why it is difficult to do. It is also why you don’t see the Prime Minister advocating that they build a nuclear waste dump in his electorate, where Lucas Heights actually is.
This has been a disgraceful process, and still the South Australian community are left in the dark. How is this going to be transported? How often are we going to have trucks and ships full of nuclear waste coming into our state, coming into our towns? What are the people of Whyalla meant to do—not to mention the towns and communities where this dump is built?
We’re not going to. We’re going to fight this. We want a proper process. We want independent expert advice, not special favours from national ministers, and we want our state’s reputation for having a clean, green, food, wine and tourism industry protected. It’s only the Greens who are standing up for this in our state of South Australia.
HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) Senate 21 June 21, (12:28): I rise today to speak on the National Radioactive Waste Managemn Greens and my constituents in South Australia, who, of course, are outraged that once again we see the two big parties working together to dump on our state.
This is an example of what happens when Labor and Liberal get together: they’ve got more votes on the eastern seaboard than they do in South Australia, so they dump on SA. That’s what they’re doing here today.
Continue readingSenator Rex Patrick explained why the Woomera prohibited area would be a more suitable site for a nuclear waste dump
Senator PATRICK (South Australia) Senate 21 June21, (19:50): I think Industry did make inquiries to the Department of Defence. In a two- or three-page submission, they sought to rule that out. You’ll be aware that the committee that examined this piece of legislation took a trip to Woomera and had a look at the site. I note in your speech in the second reading debate you said that Woomera was not suitable; it’s a test range. Just to inform you, Minister—you may already know this—Woomera is 13 per cent of the area of South Australia. It is twice the size of Tasmania. It’s beyond comprehension that anyone would accept from the Department of Defence the idea that you can’t fit a facility there. It is a massive area. If you look to the north-eastern corner of the Woomera prohibited area, you will find there’s a uranium mine at Roxby Downs. It’s something like 20 or 30 kilometres inside the WPA. There is a community that clearly doesn’t have any particular issue with radioactive material, noting that their livelihoods depend on that. I’m sure you’ve been up there, as I have, to Roxby and the Olympic Dam.
I also heard during your speech in the second reading debate the idea that we were going to mix a radioactive waste site with a missile firing range. This has all been dealt with by the committee. The Department of Defence advises that, whenever they conduct a missile firing, they have a safety template. So they lay out the area for which there is a danger so that if a missile, aerial vehicle or drone goes rogue it will actually most likely land in that particular safety template. The Department of Defence provided the committee with an overlay map of all of the safety templates that have been used since 2014, and there are massive areas of the Woomera prohibited area that, in actual fact, do not overlap with any test sites. It’s an area that is remote. It’s not on prime agricultural land. There is quite a thick study that shows that it’s quite feasible. It’s done all of the geological work and all of the safety work. On the idea that you can’t find a location there, this is Defence defending Defence land like no other. This is the department that came to the government in 2009 and said, ‘Let’s have a $12 billion Future Submarine project,’ and then that project got estimated up to $50 billion and then grew to $89 billion and now we have to pay an extra $10 billion to extend the life of the Collins class in order to get it to the point where it can last until the future submarines arrive sometime after 2035. This is the same department you’re talking about. It’s clearly incompetent in relation to these sorts of projects.
Any person could reasonably go up to Woomera, have a look at the sites and have a look around the airfield up there. You’ll see that there are ammunition areas and fuel storage areas, all of which are manageable from an aircraft perspective well away from the range. We’ve got the road to Roxby Downs that’s a stone’s throw from the airfield. It’s never been shut, under the various rules. There’s lots and lots of space up there. You’ve got a list of three sites that appear to be face-saving sites. Why wouldn’t you simply accept the possibility that Woomera is not a bad facility? Remember, at the start of this we ended up with the three sites that you have named in your table, in the amendments, by asking people whether they’d want to have their land as a radioactive waste management site—not by looking and asking, ‘What’s the best place to put it?’ but simply, ‘Who wants to have one—which landowner wants to sell their land at four times the market rate to have a facility?’ So they can move on and go somewhere else and leave behind a facility.
I’ve got an amendment on the sheet, and that amendment includes consultation with Indigenous parties and indeed the community. It beggars belief that the government doesn’t want to add another potential site where there could well be broad community support, where in the past proper studies have been done that say that this can go
there. It’s a government that seems to be scared of the Department of Defence and takes a two- or three-page submission to rule out something—afraid of the brass, afraid of the shiny uniforms—and basically takes at face value what they’ve said yet doesn’t listen to the community in Kimba and what their concerns are. That doesn’t seem to matter.
I’m left flabbergasted as to why it wouldn’t be considered, particularly in circumstances where there are two radioactive waste sites up in the Woomera Prohibited Area. Hangar 5 has 10,000 CSIRO drums sitting there that will have to be moved at cost. Koolymilka has defence waste that includes intermediate-level waste. That’s somehow managed to survive for 20 years—longer, actually—without causing interruption to the operations up in the Woomera Prohibited Area. So, I wonder, Minister: how do you reconcile the fact that we’ve had radioactive waste up there since the 1990s, yet Defence have been able to operate perfectly well with the two facilities that we have up there? I wonder whether you can reconcile that.
Senator PATRICK: I don’t mean to ambush you, Minister, but I have two amendments on the table that look at Woomera as a site. I don’t think it’s an unreasonable question to ask, noting that in your second reading speech you said that a radioactive waste site is not consistent with the operations at Woomera, when in fact we’ve had radioactive waste stored at Woomera since about the mid-nineties. It may well be that it will continue to be stored there, because the waste at Koolymilka is not suitable to be shifted, in which case the whole thing becomes a bit of a shambles with Defence saying, ‘We can’t have it here,’ knowing full well that it’s going to stay there. That’s the burden of my question. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to ask that question, noting I have a couple of amendments on the table that look at Woomera, which you’re knocking out for what appears to be quite shallow reasons. If you’ve gone through the process completely—not you personally, Minister—if the department has gone through the process or the minister has gone through the process properly, when that advice came back from Defence you would think that you might have challenged some of it, particularly to get an understanding of whether or not that waste will go to, presumably, Kimba. Maybe we can start with hangar 5. Hangar 5 has 10,000 drums of low-level radioactive waste that is stored very close to the range head. Perhaps you can say whether it’s the intention that that material, noting it’s in a pretty perilous state—I know CSIRO is working to tidy that up—go from hangar 5 at Woomera to the new facility? ………….
Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (20:04): In some sense, the question is as much about Woomera as it is about Kimba because if the circumstances are that you can’t store that particular type of waste—as I said, there are small amounts of plutonium stored there—then, in fact, you’re going to be in a situation where you have a facility at Kimba, presumably, but you still have a radioactive waste storage area in the very place that Defence says it can’t exist, because it’s not consistent with their operations. I wonder if that question was ever asked of Defence in order to test their assertions in relation to the claim that you can’t put this waste there. Is it the intention of the government to close the Koolymilka site at Woomera and in what time frame?
Senator Pauline Hanson was scathing in condemning the government’s nuclear waste siting process
No-one has seen a list of the radioactive waste materials to be stored in the national radioactive waste facility, opening the real possibility of mission creep over time. There is no safety case. The minister says it will be safe. How would he know?
The proposed cost of this above-ground radioactive waste dump site is estimated to cost about a third of a billion dollars, all of which will have been wasted because it’s a temporary solution. I am annoyed. The hard decision, which is the permanent dump site, has been kicked down the road like a can instead of being picked up and dealt with.
Is the movement of radioactive waste minimised for public safety by keeping the dump site close to the site of production? No. Large volumes of radioactive waste will be transported hundreds of kilometres by road into South Australia, contrary to section 9 of South Australia’s Nuclear Waste Storage Facility (Prohibition) Act 2000. Has the government resolved the conflict with section 8 of South Australia’s Nuclear Waste Storage Facility (Prohibition) Act
Where is the Marshall government in South Australia on this issue? Its silence is deafening. The next state election in South Australia is on 19 March 2022. Premier Marshall has said nothing and has not repealed South Australia’s Nuclear Waste Storage Facility (Prohibition) Act 2000. I note that the 2021-22 budget provides South Australia with $3.4 billion in new commitments, compared with $2 billion for Queensland and $377 million for Tasmania. Has the federal government bought the Marshall state government? I will let the voters in South Australia work that one out for themselves.
Is the proposed dump site near Kimba a geologically stable area? No.
Senator HANSON (Queensland—Leader of Pauline Hanson’s One Nation) Senate, 21 June 21, (18:51): I rise to speak to the National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment (Site Specification, Community Fund and Other Measures) Bill 2020. One Nation will never support the removal of judicial review from legislation. This position means One Nation has and will continue to resist pressure from the government to legislate a site in Kimba in South Australia for radioactive waste management. One Nation will always stand up for the freedoms past generations have passed on to us.
In the next 12 months there will be a general election to elect a new federal government. If Australians act like sheep, voting for the two parties and their sidekicks who want to take away their judicial rights, they are going to get wolves in government. If the two big parties had their way, a radioactive nuclear waste facility would now be under construction on the Eyre Peninsula in the middle of prime cropping land in South Australia. Just four per cent of the land in South Australia is suitable for wheat, barley and canola, but the government wants to use the prime land to build a radioactive waste facility. Up until recently, Labor agreed to the removal of judicial review in relation to site selection for a national radioactive waste storage facility. Now they champion judicial review? I ask: what grubby deal has Labor done with government to get this bill through the Senate? No wonder voters are leaving Labor and turning to One Nation.
The government has ticked every wrong box to arrive at its decision to impose a national dump site for radioactive waste on unwilling communities in South Australia.
Continue readingHistoric handback of Kakadu town to Mirarr traditional owners,
Historic handback of Kakadu town to Mirarr traditional owners, The Age By Miki PerkinJune 26, 2021, For four decades the Mirarr people, led by senior traditional owner Yvonne Margarula, have been calling for the town of Jabiru, inside World Heritage-listed Kakadu National Park, to be returned to its rightful custodians.
At a handback ceremony on Saturday, their decades-long fight for recognition of their traditional ownership over Jabiru culminated in the grant of freehold title over the town, the first of its kind in Australia.
At a handback ceremony on Saturday, their decades-long fight for recognition of their traditional ownership over Jabiru culminated in the grant of freehold title over the town, the first of its kind in Australia.
The fight for land rights in the region began in 1978, when Jabiru was built on Crown Land without the involvement of traditional owners to service the controversial Ranger uranium mine.
Ranger began operations in 1980, and was run by Energy Resources Australia, which is majority-owned by Rio Tinto.
Initially, there were plans to bulldoze the Jabiru town once the mining lease expired, but the Northern Territory government and the Gundjeihmi Aboriginal Corporation, which represents Mirarr people, have developed an ambitious plan to transform it into a tourism hub for Kakadu, and a regional centre.
The Commonwealth has promised $276 million towards the revitalisation of the town, which includes a new international airport, a five-star eco-tourism lodge, and better access to Kakadu’s natural attractions, but there have been criticisms at the speed of progress.
Justin O’Brien, the chief executive of Gundjeihmi Aboriginal Corporation said the lease handover was a historic milestone in the transition from a mining economy to tourism but the town’s future challenges should not be underestimated.
Energy Resources Australia had failed to engage in a timely way on the town’s transition, Mr O’Brien said, with former mining employee houses not ready for use, and at least 70 ERA houses vacant…….
Processing of ore at the uranium mine finished in January and the mine’s vast pits will be filled in over the next five years, but there are concerns about the rehabilitation process.
Australian Conservation Foundation nuclear campaigner Dave Sweeney welcomed the tenure change but said there were profound challenges ahead for the costly and complex mine rehabilitation, which is set to be completed by 2026.
“There has been 40 years of industrial activity involving heavy metals and radioactive materials in a wet-dry tropical place, surrounded by a World-Heritage listed area,” Mr Sweeney said. “To bring that up to a standard where it could be reincorporated into the surrounding area is a very, very high bar.”
In a statement, Energy Resources Australia extended its congratulations to Mirarr traditional owners and said that after 40 years of production its priority was to successfully rehabilitate Ranger to a standard that could be incorporated into Kakadu National Park.
In the mid-1990s, Ms Margarula and other Mirarr people mounted a high-profile campaign to oppose the Jabiluka uranium mine. Elders also lodged the Jabiru native title claim which was decided by the Federal Court in 2016 after one of Australia’s longest-running native title matters. The court granted native title to the Mirarr.
In 2017, researchers published their findings about a wealth of artefacts on Mirarr country which indicated humans reached Australia at least 65,000 years ago — up to 18,000 years earlier than archaeologists previously thought. https://www.theage.com.au/environment/sustainability/historic-handback-of-kakadu-town-to-mirarr-traditional-owners-20210625-p584c7.html
Construction of ANSTO’s new intermediate waste facility at Lucas Heights.
22 Jun 21, This morning the Government moved to progress the parliamentary process in order being works on ANSTO’s new intermediate waste facility at Lucas Heights
Once uploaded there will also be more detail at the public works committee and they’ll also begin accepting submissions shortly.
It is rare for the PWC to reject any works proposals but this process will provide an opportunity to highlight that extended ILW storage at ANSTO is possible and credible.
Also note they say that any national waste facility would not be accepting ILW waste pre 2030…..
Within weeks, Minister Keith Pitt is expected to declare Napandee, (Kimba, South Australia) as nuclear waste dump
Nuclear waste dump site in SA to be declared within weeks after bill passes federal parliament. Adelaide Now, 22 June 21,
A nuclear waste dump site in SA will be declared within weeks – with Kimba’s mayor welcoming the breakthrough.
A nuclear waste dump site in South Australia will be formally declared within weeks, after legislation passed parliament on Tuesday.
Federal resources minister Keith Pitt confirmed he would name a location for the radioactive waste storage facility soon after the “significant step forward” in parliament.
A revised bill with a shortlist of three sites passed the Senate late on Monday night with Federal Labor’s support, and was approved by the House of Representatives just after midday on Tuesday.
Kimba mayor Dean Johnson welcomed the bill’s passage as “great news”.
Napandee farm near Kimba is widely expected to be declared the location, after being named the preferred site in February 2020.
But it could quickly face a new legal challenge from the local Indigenous community……
Federal resources minister Keith Pitt confirmed he would name a location for the radioactive waste storage facility soon after the “significant step forward” in parliament.
A revised bill with a shortlist of three sites passed the Senate late on Monday night with Federal Labor’s support, and was approved by the House of Representatives just after midday on Tuesday.
Kimba mayor Dean Johnson welcomed the bill’s passage as “great news”.
Napandee farm near Kimba is widely expected to be declared the location, after being named the preferred site in February 2020.
But it could quickly face a new legal challenge from the local Indigenous community………
The opposition had refused to back the original Bill over concerns that naming the site in legislation, rather than by a ministerial decision, would prevent the possibility of a future legal challenge.
Nuclear waste Bill passed. This is what will happen next
Katrina Bohr , Fight to Stop A Nuclear Waste Dump in South Australia, 26 June 21,
Following the news that the National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment (Site Specification, Community Fund and Other Measures) Bill 2020 has been passed by the Parliament of Australia, we’ve received lots of questions about what will happen next
The Bill will now be recommended to receive Royal Assent, which is the process where the Governor General assents to the Bill, after which it becomes an Act of Parliament.The Minister may then review information relevant to the 3 shortlisted sites: Wallerberdina, Lyndhurst and Napandee that were listed in the Bill. As part of the Minister’s review, he will consider previous feedback received through community consultation processes, including the level of community support that each site received. He will also consider technical, social and economic assessments of the sites. The Minister may only select one site, and has the option not to select a site.
The community that lives and works in the vicinity of the Wallerberdina Station has made it clear that it does not broadly support the facility being located there, and the Government has not changed its position—it will not impose a facility on an unwilling local community.Once he has reviewed relevant material, the Minister may issue an ‘intention to declare’ a preferred site for the facility. This is done by issuing a notice detailing the proposed declaration and inviting nominators and persons with a right or interest in the land to comment.
Comments will be invited for a period of no less than sixty days, after which the Minister will consider relevant comments and may then choose to make a declaration under the Act, which finalises the acquisition of the site for the facility.Further information on the process: https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2014C00626 The National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment (Site Specification, Community Fund and Other Measures) Bill 2020: https://bit.ly/3gSegt more https://www.facebook.com/groups/344452605899556
Australian Parliamentarians misled by Minister Pitt’s lies about nuclear medicine.
25 June 21, Contrary to Pitt’s information to the senators the legislation makes no reference to or distinction between ILW and LLW waste
His completely disingenuous claim that the facility at Kimba is needed for continued supply for medical has been strongly and knowingly rejected by numerous experts in nuclear medicine as the hospitals and clinics and institutes using nuclear medicine destroys the resulting waste themselves since most of it is low level with a very short half life
From some enquiries and general market research the government’s facility at Kimba would be lucky to get 10% of all the waste resulting from nuclear medicine in Australia
In any case while there are well be over 100 locations in Australia they do not store nuclear waste since most of it is disposed of within a matter of days after it has been produced
How naive are our parliamentarians to blithely accept this misleading information without any proper expert inquiry of an issue of such major importance to the whole of Australia
Senator Hanson Young gave clearest explanation of the issues around the government’s nuclear waste Bill
25 June 21, Senator Hanson -Young gave most lucid and logical exposition of the important and little recognised facts regarding the government’s proposals for a nuclear – radioactive to use the government’s terminology – waste management facility
She was the only senator to speak about the technical issues of the proposed facility who did not reprise the disingenuous and nonsensical threats about the effect on nuclear medicine if the proposed facility was not established at Napandee
What is more her comments covered fundamental aspects of nuclear waste safety and management that appear to have been either wilfully or through sheer ignorance omitted from any consideration or debate of the government’s proposals
ALSO – it was a very poor reflection on our parliamentary system when the rather understandably emotional speech by Senator Lidia Thorpe was met with a shout of “bullshit” from the public gallery by a senior member of the House of Representatives who should have known better
Even if not to everyone’s liking there was nothing in her speech to deserve that description which may be far more appropriate to all that has been said by the ill-mannered shouting member over the past five years.
Need to reveal full details of nomination forms for Kimba and Wallerberdina nuclear waste dump plans
Full copies of the nomination forms by the respective owners of the site at Wallerberdina and the five or six sites at Kimba should be publicly known
They should be full and true photocopies without redactions as apparently the original forms have handwriting on them which could be extremely embarrassing to the government and the responsible ministers Canavan and Pitt
All of these nominations were under machinery provisions of the National Radioactive Waste Management Act 2012 but the form of the nomination and administrative requirements are contained in the Radioactive Waste Management Nominations of Land: Guidelines November 2016 issued by the then Department of Industry Innovation and Science
Previous requests for the nominations were met with the standard response that they could not be disclosed as they contained personal and private information of the respective parties nominating their land but instructions note 8 in the nomination form prescribed by the Guidelines specifically states that the Nominator confirms that it consents to the public disclosure of the nomination ……
In addition the Guidelines contain quite detailed provisions regarding disclosures and privacy including the operation of the freedom of information regime . The nominations requested will also be of significance in any judicial review or similar proceedings .
Barngarla people hold Native Title land close to planned nuclear waste dump, but were denied a vote on this.
The nuclear waste site is planned for Barngarla Country, but the amendments will allow Traditional Owners to take the matter to court, https://www.sbs.com.au/nitv/article/2021/06/23/traditional-owners-can-challenge-nuclear-waste-dump-country-1?fbclid=IwAR0ZYwZRYOUQn58LdV3A0X4L1AeERiDi8ylqkVFcjReI5KQj7_fl6VTXcaABy Keira Jenkins
Source: NITV News, 23 JUN 2021 The Senate has passed legislation that would allow nuclear waste to be stored at a remote site in South Australia, replacing current city facilities.
The Morrison government was forced to abandon key features of the bill to gain opposition support, including a provision that would have locked in Kimba as the new storage location.
Instead, Minister for Resources Keith Pitt can issue an ‘intention to declare’ a preferred location.
The amended bill, which passed through the Senate this week, also allows for a judicial review of the location if there is a dispute.
Barngarla Determination Aboriginal Corporation welcomed the reinstatement of the right to a judicial review on the process.
“This is a great moment for democracy, and for those who appreciate the independent scrutiny of government action,” they said in a statement.
In 2019, the Australian Electoral Commission conducted a month-long community ballot, asking the question ‘Do you support the proposed National Radioactive Waste Management Facility being located at one of the nominated sites in the community of Kimba?’
The ballot returned a 61.58 per cent ‘yes’ vote.
Barngarla conducted their own poll, saying they had been excluded from the AEC’s postal ballot.
100 per cent of the votes returned from Native Title holders said ‘no’ to the proposed nuclear facility.
Barngarla said the site selection process had been “completely and utterly miscarried”.
“No proper heritage assessment of the site was ever undertaken,” read the statement.
“… the most obvious and appalling example of this failed process was when the Government allowed the gerrymandering of the Kimba ‘community ballot’ in order to manipulate the vote.
“The simple fact remains that even though the Barngarla hold Native Title land closer to the proposed facility than the town of Kimba, the First Peoples for the area were not allowed to vote.
“…Mistakes have been made and the process needs to start again.”
Australia’s collective voice should silence the ‘drums of war’
Australia’s collective voice should silence the ‘drums of war’ Independent AustraliaBy Barbara Hartley | 24 June 2021, With Australia raising its hand to be part of joint naval exercises in the South China Sea, its departure from the G7 in Cornwall continues the “down-under” tradition of following U.S. foreign policy.
Although the beat of war drums is currently more muffled, anti-China rhetoric still echoes down the chilly halls of Federal Parliament as the winter sitting takes place.
In 2003, without parliamentary oversight, Australia followed the U.S. into Iraq. The given purpose was to initiate action against what then-U.S. President George W. Bush called the “axis of evil”: initially Iraq, Iran and North Korea, and later expanded to Cuba, Libya and Syria. This axis was in fact quite shaky.
One consequence of that unconscionable invasion was the toll on young Australian defence personnel, and others such as journalists, in terms of moral injury and stress. The compulsive loop of the Federal Government supporting U.S. wars with no direct relation to Australia – Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan – and those wars damaging Australian lives, has played non-stop since its entry into the ANZUS agreement.
Some, especially weapons trade profiteers and their political lackeys, want conflict with China to continue that unhappy pattern.
It is imperative that the now muted “drums of war” are silenced once and for all.
Readers are therefore urged to respond to the People’s Inquiry for a Peaceful and Independent Australia being conducted by the Independent Peaceful Australia Network (IPAN).
The inquiry’s purpose is to examine the impact of involvement in U.S.-led wars and the U.S.-Australia Alliance on everyday Australians. The current obsession with China and the inexplicable desire to face off with the world’s greatest military power is arguably a result of our alliance with the U.S.
The Inquiry Chairperson is Kelly Tranter, one of Australia’s leading authorities on the growing influence of weapons manufacturers on government policy in Australia.
There are also several panels addressing the various ways in which involvement in U.S.-led wars impacts our lives.
In addition, an IPAN website questionnaire can be completed in a very short time. Both submission and questionnaire suggestions will inform the Inquiry’s final report. Possible submission talking points are raised below………………………….. https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/australias-collective-voice-should-silence-the-drums-of-war,15219
Barngarla Aboriginals and Kimba farmers join forces to fight nuclear waste dump plan
Barngarla Determination Aboriginal Corporation and No Radioactive Waste on Agricultural Land in Kimba or SA group 24 June 21, The issue of the nuclear waste facility is something which provokes significant emotion, and community opposition. However, no one else is as affected by it like we are. We issue this joint press release as the First Peoples for the Kimba area, and the farming communities who make their livelihood from the land because we are having our home, our land and our heritage threatened. We are the groups of people whose lives will be permanently damaged,if a waste facility is placed on our home.
We have fought hard and will continue to fight against a nuclear waste facility being placed on our home. We do not want it, and we will never support it. Our voices and views have been ignored by the Government. Local member Rowan Ramsey has been one of the main influences in pushing the Government to place a nuclear waste facility at Kimba. If you do not want this facility in SA orin the Eyre Peninsula or the Mid-North, then you must vote out Rowan Ramsey. We will never end this issue, whilst he is a local member.
The Government has completely and utterly miscarried the site selection process. There are many examples of this. No proper heritage assessment of the site was ever undertaken, andthey have marginalised the voices of the farming community throughout the entire process. However, the most obvious and appalling example of this failed process was when the Government allowed the gerrymandering of the Kimba “community ballot”, in order to manipulate the vote. The simple fact remains that even though the Barngarla hold native title land closer to the proposed facility than the town of Kimba, the First Peoples for the areawere not allowed to vote. They prevented Barngarla persons from voting, because native title land is not rateable. Further, they did not allow many farmers to vote, even though they were within 50km of the proposed facility, because they were not in the Council area. They targeted us, because they knew that if they had a fair vote which included us, then the vote would return a “no” from the community.
The process also ignores the fact that the Government never sought the views of the communities which will be affected by the transport of nuclear waste. Those communities, where the waste will be transported through, have had no right to have a say. SouthAustralians more broadly have had any rights to have a say.
Mistakes have been made and the process needs to start again. Instead, the Government sought to change the law to remove our democratic right to judicial review of their actions so that no Court could ever assess what had been done. We find this staggering, as checks and balances are needed for a functioning democracy. The removal of independent scrutiny is, for all Australians, frightening, Protecting judicial review was the issue before the Federal Senate on Monday. It is important to understand that this is what the Senate was debating. We have won our right to have judicial review restored in this process. The broader failures are matters which will have to be dealt with in the future.
The Government have been forced by the Senate to preserve judicial review. The table in Schedule 1 of the Government’s revised Bill, is merely a face-saving exercise, and has no legal impact or effect. Even the Government Explanatory Memorandum makes this clear. Their own document states: “Recognition of the three shortlisted sites confirms the sites as being nominated and approved under the Act, but does not limit the Minister from approving new nominations. The Minister may declare any approved nomination as a site, and is not bound to declare one of the three shortlisted sites”
The Government’s attempt to remove judicial review was so egregious and careless, that it provoked almost unanimous opposition across the political spectrum. This is a great moment for democracy, and for those who appreciate the importance ofindependent scrutiny of Government action, this is a day that the Barngarla people and the farmers at Kimba have saved one of the fundamental rights in a Democratic Country. Because the Government were opposed by everyone from very different political backgrounds, such as: Labor, Pauline Hanson’s One Nation, the Greens and Senator Patrick, we consider it appropriate to express our thanks to all of these groups. This reflects the fact that judicial review is a pivotal right no matter a person’s political background. We thank everyone in no particular order, as it remains the fact that had they not stood together, the Government would have removed the democratic rights of judicial review from us, and set a precedent which would have weakened democracy for all Australians:
Labor: The Australian Labor Party deserves congratulations from all Australians for its actions. Without of the support of the Opposition, the Government would have gotten away with removing a fundamental democratic right from us and set aprecedent to remove that right every other time they did not get their way.
Labor listened to all of us, but in particular they lived up to their commitment to listening to the First Peoples for the Kimba area. The Barngarla worked extensively with Labor, and in particular the Shadow Minister Ms Madeliene King ensured that the Barngarla were entitled to review any further amendments before they wereintroduced. We intend to write to other members of Labor, such as Senator Wong who has fought for all South Australians to express our thanks. As a party, however, they have been outstanding.
More broadly, there is the issue of what to do if Labor win Government. Many in Labor do not support a process where Aboriginal people were denied the right to vote. We believe Labor will continue to fight for us. But that is tomorrow’s issue. Monday was about judicial review, and Labor protected us and by extension all Australians, by preserving our right to judicial review. •
Pauline Hanson’s One Nation & State Leader of One Nation in SA Ms Jennifer Game: It remains a simple statement of fact that without PHON and Ms Jennifer Game, there would be a nuclear waste facility on prime farming land, in circumstances where Aboriginal people were denied the right to vote, and Aboriginals and farmers would have no right to independent legal review.
For those of you out there who might relate to this side of politics, particularly the farmers in the Eyre Peninsula, who do not want a waste dump then we strongly suggest you look at what One Nation and their representative Ms Jennifer Game have done to save South Australia from nuclear waste. They said “no” and listened to the local farming community when the Local member ignored us.
The Barngarla also recognise the great work of PHON and Ms Jennifer Game. It is a testimony of our work together that we have prevented the Government from removing fundamental basic rights for all Australians.
The Greens: Special recognition must be given to the Greens. This is an issue that is central to the Greens, they have stood up and through their tireless and passionate advocacy have helped us immensely.
All Green supporters should be proud of their party’s efforts. In particular, Senator Hanson-Young has been a tireless advocate for South Australia. She was one of the first Senators to help us, and we imagine she will be with us to the end of this fight.
We would also like to acknowledge the strong words of Senator Thorpe. We agree that the Government has been tokenistic in its approach to the Barngarla people. What could be more tokenistic than saying they want to hear Barngarla views, but then deny the Barngarla the right to vote. It is our hope that with advocates likeSenator Thorpe, no other Aboriginal group will ever have to be treated in such a despicable way.•
Senator Patrick: Senator Patrick deserves great credit for his commitment to South Australia. He deserves the recognition of everyone committed to our State. He has been actively engaged on this issue from the very beginning. He has tirelessly fought to access Government documents under FOI so that South Australian’s can have access to the information which shows how badly this process has been miscarried.
We would like to thank Senator Patrick for his regular commitment and support to us in fighting to ensure our access to judicial review. Senator Patrick has also sought to find other solutions by trying to assess additional site options, whether Woomera or Leanora or others. We hope that this work by Senator Patrick will one day paydividends, and the Government will abandon its terrible plan to place this facility on prime agricultural land, which is significant also to the Barngarla People. •
The remaining cross bench: We would also like to thank the efforts of the remaining cross bench. Although we did not ultimately need to rely on their votes, we understand that they would likely have ensured our rights to judicial review. Theyspoke to us and engaged and should be acknowledged for their efforts.
Further information contact: Barngarla: barngarlamedia@gmail.com Peter Woolford: 0447 001 493
1 This month
Chernobyl: The Lost Tapes – A good documentary on Chernobyl on SBS available On Demand for the next 3 weeks– https://www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/tv-program/chernobyl-the-lost-tapes/2352741955560
15 April – Zoom –Nuclear Power is Not the Solution
Apr 15, 2026 01:00 AM in Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney
Join the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW) on Tuesday, April 14th for a timely webinar exploring the risks associated with nuclear power and challenging the myth that it offers a simple, safe, carbon-free solution to the climate crisis
21 April Webinar: No Nuclear Weapons in Australia
Start: 2026-04-21 18:00:00 UTC Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney (GMT+10:00)
End: 2026-04-21 19:30:00 UTC Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney (GMT+10:00)
Event Type: Virtual
A virtual link will be communicated before the event.
Host Contact Info: australia@icanw.org
of the week – Australians for War Powers Reform (AWPR)
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
Antinuclear 