Anti-nuclear protests at SA Liberal HQ https://www.eyretribune.com.au/story/5395082/anti-nuclear-protests-at-sa-liberal-hq/?cs=1825 MAY 11 2018
South Australians concerned about the prospect of a radioactive waste facility in the state protested outside of the Liberal Party headquarters in Adelaide this morning to oppose the proposal to both state and federal Liberals with a giant inflatable radioactive waste barrel drawing the attention of peak hour traffic.
The protesters were calling for Premier Steven Marshall and the Liberal government to oppose the federal government’s plan to establish a nuclear waste facility in Kimba or near Hawker.
Don’t Dump on SA member Tadhg Porter said the South Australian Liberal party brought in legislation that made the establishment of a waste dump illegal.
“We want Premier Marshall to defend our state against the prospect of the federal proposal, just like he defended South Australia against the proposal for an international high level radioactive waste facility,” Mr Porter said.
“We call on the federal government to stop this process, stop dividing communities and take a responsible approach to the management of Australia’s nuclear waste.”
May 15, 2018
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
Federal nuclear waste dump, opposition to nuclear, South Australia |
Leave a comment
These people seem to have no grasp at all of the concerns of people worldwide about the effects of nuclear pollution on the environment and on future generations.
It is as if they have no understanding whatsoever of the risks to South Australia’s precious groundwater, to South Australia’s agricultural reputation, nor of the risks of transport accidents, terrorism, and the longterm situation of stranded radioactive trash.
Just consider these inane comments:
“the majority, we’re just so excited about the possibilities.
“it’s a way of ensuring a future for his young children.”
“I think it’s far safer than my own farming industry”
Decision looms for SA town of Kimba divided over nuclear waste The town of Kimba is struggling for economic growth. Some see nuclear waste as the industry that could help it prosper. https://www.sbs.com.au/news/decision-looms-for-sa-town-of-kimba-divided-over-nuclear-wasteBy Rhiannon Elston, 13 May 18
The small community of Kimba sits roughly halfway across the national highway stretching between South Australia’s east and west coasts. Wheat is the main crop grown here, but mayor Dean Johnson
says it’s marginal farming land. “We’re very reliant on rainfall in our area,” he tells SBS News.
The town’s uncertain future is the reason some residents have thrown their support behind a plan to store the nation’s nuclear waste. Local small business owner and farmer Michelle Raynr and her husband have offered to sell a small parcel of their land to the government for a future radioactive waste facility.
“You kind of just dread to think what the town will be like in another five, ten years if it doesn’t happen,” she says.
It would be a permanent facility for Australia’s low-level nuclear waste, and a temporary site for intermediate level disposal.
Ms Raynr says not everyone has been supportive of her decision. “It’s been a little bit disappointing, people’s reactions,” she says.“But the majority, we’re just so excited about the possibilities.”
Andrew Baldock is one who agrees. His parents have also offered to sell a piece of their land. He says it’s a way of ensuring a future for his young children.
“I’d really like to see something like this to help underpin the community, and perhaps, put us ahead of the other struggling towns in the region,” Mr Baldcock says.
“To me, it’s a lot less scary than the chemicals and the petrol, diesel and everything else that comes through our road here. I think it’s far safer than my own farming industry, to be honest.”
Radioactive waste is currently held across 100 different facilities. The federal government says it wants a central facility, housed in a community willing to support it.
Peter Woolford, Chairman of an anti-radioactive waste group in Kimba, wants the concerns of those who don’t support the project, to be heard.
“They’ve continually said they’re not going to impose it on a community, that it has to have broad community support, but I don’t think they have that in Kimba at all.”
The location for a national facility has been narrowed down to three sites, all in South Australia. Two are in Kimba, and the other is near Hawker, in the Flinders Ranges. The federal government says any facility would be constructed and managed under a strict regulatory framework.
Kimba local Graham Tiller believes any radioactive waste should be stored on existing government land.“There’s just no guarantees that land values won’t depreciate, or that grain won’t be devalued,” he says.
Tina Wakelin, another resident, says she agrees the site must go somewhere, but questions why it has to be in Kimba. “We must not be depicted as trying to stop nuclear medicine, that’s not the aim at all,” she says.“But a little town like ours should not feel responsible for all of Australia.”
Last month, the Resources Minister announced $4 million dollars in community funding grants for both Hawker and Kimba.
Mayor Dean Johnson says dozens of groups benefited from the cash injection.
“There’s the pony club… tennis courts, playgrounds, all sorts of things.”
Graham Tiller’s wife, Janet Tiller, says the money is not worth the impact of such a project. “No amount of money’s worth the health and livelihoods and friendships that have been lost in the town,” she says.
A postal ballot will be held on August 20 to measure community support.
The final decision as to where the waste site will go rests with the Resources Minister, who is expected to make his choice by the end of the year.
May 14, 2018
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
Federal nuclear waste dump, South Australia |
Leave a comment
Fight To Stop Nuclear Waste Dump In Flinders Ranges SA, 14 May 18 It is not just Kimba that needs to be consulted. I live at Whyalla, just up the road. At the very least all of Eyre Peninsula needs to be consulted, better still all South Australia. It will effect and affect us all. Especially the reputation of any agritculture or aquaculture. Unbelieveable that there are some people in Kimba who think this will “save” their town. I believe if it goes ahead, it will be the demise of the town.
Gov thinks that people can be bought – they did with the Shire of Kimba as it is a dying town like many rural towns n those who want this to happen decided $$$$ is what they need to boost it.
When the Mayor decided that the vote should only be for Kimba residents three quarters of the Shire didn’t want it, as everyone I have 
spoken to is against it. Somehow the Mayor and Ramsay had found a loophole and they ran with it. People are getting blinded by being healed by Nuclear Medicine saying it’s OK to av this dump but don’t realise that the Nuclear Waste is completely different than Nuclear Medicine.
Yes the gov is trying to cover up the negatives and saying it is harmless but it’s not as it was why then a worker last year when he got contaminated by a work accident is still not well. When the governments put out No Bullying ads why don’t they take action as at the moment that is what they are doing BULLYING US INTO SAYING YES FOR MANY NEGATIVE IDEAS THEY WANT TO DO ALL AROUND AUSTRALIA.
the tax payer as insurance companies hate nuclear, – USA has plenty about it on google and the tax payer pays not the nuclear corporation. I say NO Nuclear dump and people should research and see Medical isotopes have a half life of 3 days, This is not about medical isotopes. https://www.facebook.com/groups/344452605899556/
May 14, 2018
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
Federal nuclear waste dump, opposition to nuclear, South Australia |
Leave a comment
NUCLEAR WASTE DUMP: NOW A FEDERAL ELECTION ISSUE? Mark Simpkin Fight To Stop Nuclear Waste Dump In Flinders Ranges SA, 10 May 18
May 12, 2018
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
Federal nuclear waste dump, South Australia |
Leave a comment
SA parliament to debate whistleblower laws http://www.news.com.au/national/breaking-news/sa-whistleblower-laws-to-be-debated/news-story/8185705eee839b9c9b9277c456641777
A law shielding South Australian journalists from liability for refusing to reveal their sources will be tabled in state parliament.
Whistleblowers may soon have stronger protections under a bill introduced to parliament in South Australia.
The Liberal government on Thursday introduced legislation to shield journalists from criminal or civil liability if they do not disclose the identity of their sources when the information is in the public interest.
“This legislation enhances the public’s right to know by encouraging whistleblowers to come forward on the understanding that journalists will not be forced to disclose their identity in a court of law,” Attorney-General Vickie Chapman said.
The proposed legislation would make the default rule that journalists cannot be compelled to answer a question or produce a document that may disclose the identity of an informant.
“I anticipate it will be a very rare day that a court will deem revealing the identity of the informant is necessary to protect the public interest,” Ms Chapman said.
SA Law Society President Tim Mellor said the legislation was an important step in the protection of a free press.
“Like an independent judiciary, the fourth estate of a free press is an integral part of an open and transparent society,” Mr Mellor said
South Australian and Queensland are the only two states without shield laws.
May 11, 2018
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
civil liberties, politics, South Australia |
Leave a comment
Shame on ANSTO and DIIS bringing yura to speak about waste dump in Wallerbidina. Who gave welcome to yartah? Did the Adnyamathana peoples give permission for them to have meeting on yartah?
Disrespectable man shame on him!
So this guy from Darwahl tribe in NSW didnt ask permission to come on to your Ancestors Lands. That seems very disrespectful as having good Indigenous friends they used to explain to me the Indigenous Law was ‘Didnt matter where one wanted to travel in other parts of Australia,they needed to go the that destination’s Elders to ask permission to enter into their Lands’. Like those from Adnyamathanha Country who wanted to travel to Lucas Heights would out of respect go to the Elders of the Darwahl Tribe to ask permission to step onto their land. I feel that Indigenous Laws once very strong amongst Australia’s Indigenous are being lost in today’s world. Also I feel that is why some Indigenous Children run amuck as they are lost and living in a White Society under the White Laws have lost their way .
He didnt ask. He come with Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation and Department of Industry Innovation and Science on Taxpayers money to have dinner at the Hawker Social Club where there was a function with invited guests.
May 6, 2018
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
Federal nuclear waste dump, South Australia, spinbuster |
Leave a comment
Ken McKenzie, Submission 78 TO THE SENATE ENQUIRY FOR THE SITE SELECTION PROCESS FOR WALERBERDINA STATION FOR A NATIONAL RADIOACTIVE WASTE FACILITY
My name is Ken McKenzie. I am seventy nine years old . I am a traditional Adnyamathanha tribal elder.
My mother was one of the stolen generation. She married my father who was a Wilyaru man . I come from a very large aboriginal family of fourteen brothers and sisters. I went to school at Blinman area school and spent most of my life working and living in and around the Flinders Ranges. I am now a senior resident of the Flinders House nursing home in Quorn. All thru my younger years I was taught my traditional heritage and my connection to the land. This was all done around the Wallerberdina area where my forefathers lived and hunted and are buried there .
I was told in early 2016 that the government wanted to put a radioactive waste dump on this land at Wallerberdina. This is causing me great sadness and distress. I have tried many times to make my voice heard about my protest against the dump, but it seems to have fallen on deaf ears. The government keep saying you can’t stop the process. Well this process is causing huge distress to my people. It is causing anger and bitterness in my own family and it is splitting us apart. Is that what the government wants, to drag out this process for so long that they think they will wear us down?
I love Australia and I love the Flinders Ranges .
Even in my own room at Flinders House, at 2 o’clock in the morning, I have received phone calls telling me I’d better change my mind or else face tribal retribution. Because of my traditional ties to this land, these phone calls frightened me terribly. I am not a violent person. I’ve also had phone calls through the day saying huge benefits ie house, property could come my way if I was to say yes and encourage my people to also say yes to the dump.
Through all of this process over the last two years the government finally, in January of this year, 2018, employed a company who did a site cultural survey on Wallerberdina Station. This group of people desecrated one of our women’s traditional sites. Once again the terrible anguish that is being put on the people to see what has happened, is something that I never dreamed would be happening to my family and friends both black and white.
I cannot understand why so many people have tried to tell the government, so many times over the last two years that Wallerberdina Station is not the area to put a waste dump, that they will not listen. They say they are, but they are not. We keep being told the dump may not be put on Wallerberdina Station if the community does not want it, but this has changed again as Mr Canavan said this will not necessarily be the deciding factor on his decision.
May 6, 2018
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump, South Australia |
Leave a comment
Heather Mckenzie Stuart Fight To Stop Nuclear Waste Dump In Flinders Ranges SA, 5 May Why is ANSTO and DIIS bringing a yaninjanha yura from Darwahl tribe in NSW to Hawker in the Flinders Ranges, making trouble saying urdnus are the only ones protesting against the proposed nuclear waste dump at Barndioota and are using yuras?
We go to protests and we will keep going to protests we will stand against the vartani. Anyway who gives that man the right to come here and talk in Adnyamathanha country, Wilyaru mirus and Adnyamathanha artuyani yarta. This is our ancestors lands, he has no shame we wouldnt go and talk in his yarta about his country. Dont come here pushing a nuclear waste dump on us, keep the poison in your country. You ANSTO and DIIS keep that yura in his country and let him dribble his rubbish over there in NSW. Hands off our sacred sites and stay in your yarta!! Ps his cultural consultancy means nothing to us, he want to stay at Lucas Heights.
May 5, 2018
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
aboriginal issues, Federal nuclear waste dump, South Australia |
Leave a comment
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
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
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
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
Looks like the bribery has been successful. $2M approved for 33 Kimba projects, Eyre Tribune 16 Apr 18
More than 30 projects in the Kimba district will share in $4 million from the National Radioactive Waste Management Facility Community Benefit Program.
Resources Minister Matt Canavan announced the successful projects near Kimba and Wallerberdina Station near Hawker on Wednesday, with 33 out of the successful 45 projects located in Kimba.
The successful projects include big projects such as a new palliative care wing at the Kimba Hospital, and smaller projects like air-conditioning in the Kelly Pioneer Memorial Hall.
The projects vary from new infrastructure and upgrades to existing infrastructure, community projects, feasibility studies and trials.
Mr Canavan said the two communities, which were being consulted about hosting the facility, were invited to submit projects that “deliver social and economic benefits to their area”.
“Two million dollars for each community is a significant investment, designed to help offset the time and resources they are devoting to the detailed consultation program underway,” Mr Canavan said……..
- “Beneficiaries include local sporting clubs, community organisations, and projects focussed on everything from tourism to health, agriculture and mobile phone coverage. ……
-
“Two sites in Kimba and one at Wallerberdina Station volunteered to host the facility, and are currently in a detailed community and technical assessment process.
“The Community Benefit Program is a key part of the process.”…….
https://www.eyretribune.com.au/story/5336162/2m-approved-for-33-kimba-projects/?cs=5806
April 18, 2018
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
Federal nuclear waste dump, South Australia |
Leave a comment
ATLA opposes UCG in Leigh Creek, The Transcontinental, , 16 Apr 18
The Adnyamathanha Traditional Lands Association (ATLA) has declared that “enough is enough”, voting unanimously against underground coal gasification (UCG) in Leigh Creek and the proposed radioactive waste management facility near Hawker.
ATLA CEO Vince Coulthard said it is time to “heal this area, not fill it with poison”.
“We don’t want the dangerous gasification project at Leigh Creek and we don’t want the toxic nuclear waste dump either,” he said.
“Our country has had enough, it is time for healing, we don’t want any further destruction at Leigh Creek.
“This is a very important Muda (spirituality) and the desecration of this site has to stop.”……….ATLA’s vote against a nuclear waste dump at Barndioota comes after a recent visit to the site by Minister for Resources and Northern Australia Matt Canavan.
The Minister declared that a postal vote would commence on August 20 to measure the community support for the proposed national radioactive waste management facility.
April 18, 2018
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
Federal nuclear waste dump, South Australia |
Leave a comment
Enice Marsh, left, and Regina McKenzie at Yappala in the northern Flinders
Antinuclear 