In its rush for Kimba nuclear dump, Australian government tries to remove rights to legal recourse
|
Jodie van Deventer’s recent comment clearly identifies “our obligation as a society to dispose of our waste responsibly”. Sadly this much needed responsibility is missing from the federal governments stalled push to advance a national radioactive waste site near Kimba on the Eyre Peninsula. Right now, the federal government is seeking to change the rules and remove fundamental democratic rights and protections by denying concerned and affected citizens a day in court. The right to independent legal recourse is a fundamental principle of our democracy. It should not be lightly jettisoned, especially on an issue with such significant implications and impacts as radioactive waste. Despite multiple requests, Barngarla Native Title holders were explicitly excluded from the consultations and remain actively opposed to the planned waste facility. To further remove their rights – and the rights of others – is unfair, unnecessary and unjustified. This is not simply a low-level waste facility. Many state and national civil society groups, Aboriginal and professional groups, the SA Upper House, state Labor and unions share concerns and oppose the government’s approach. A key concern is that it will not result in credible long term management, especially of intermediate level waste. The right to independent legal recourse is a fundamental principle of our democracy. It should not be lightly jettisoned, especially on an issue with such significant implications and impacts as radioactive waste. Despite multiple requests, Barngarla Native Title holders were explicitly excluded from the consultations and remain actively opposed to the planned waste facility. To further remove their rights – and the rights of others – is unfair, unnecessary and unjustified. This is not simply a low-level waste facility. Many state and national civil society groups, Aboriginal and professional groups, the SA Upper House, state Labor and unions share concerns and oppose the government’s approach. A key concern is that it will not result in credible long term management, especially of intermediate level waste. The right to independent legal recourse is a fundamental principle of our democracy. It should not be lightly jettisoned, especially on an issue with such significant implications and impacts as radioactive waste. |
|
Retain Gosford’s nuclear free zone status.
 Keep the Coast nuclear free, https://coastcommunitynews.com.au/central-coast/news/2021/02/keep-the-coast-nuclear-free/ Donna Carey, Narara Ecovillage, NararaFEBRUARY 12, 2021 I am passionately in favour of retaining Gosford’s nuclear free zone status. No one who I have engaged with, in person or on social media, is in favour of this being rescinded. Opening up Central Coast Council like this would allow the use, storage of or transportation through the LGA of nuclear weapons, waste or material for the first time since 1984. I am strongly opposed to this action being facilitated. It also paves the way for small-scale nuclear facilities on the Central Coast. In addition, it is on the public record that Taylor Martin MLC is in favour of small-scale nuclear reactors to generate electricity. The rationale for this proposal is that “the handling and mining of radioactive materials is now highly regulated at a State and Federal level” and “any public concern regarding nuclear-related activities is best dealt at the State and Federal level”. However, this is not completely correct, and legislation is slowly changing. In 2019, a NSW Upper House inquiry into the Uranium Mining and Nuclear Facilities (Prohibitions) Repeal Bill 2019 recommended repealing the original bill in its entirety. Uranium exploration is also already permitted under current legislation; its mining just currently is not. There is no certainty that “there are no known uranium deposits on the Central Coast” (Item 4.1, Attachment 3, Council agenda, Feb 8). As you are aware, the former Wyong Shire Council had a similar nuclear free zone policy, which was revoked in April, 2014, and “policies from the former Gosford City and Wyong Shire Councils still apply in their respective former Local Government Areas, until a new policy is adopted for the Central Coast Council region” (https://www.centralcoast.nsw.gov.au/council/forms-and-publications/policies). My first preference would be for the nuclear free zone to be extended back into the previous Wyong LGA. If our Council’s “financial crisis” is your main order of business in your role as Administrator, Mr Dick Persson, I urge you to focus on this being the main issue at hand. I also thought that you said that it was not your role to go back over previous decisions. Please resist allowing your professional integrity to be compromised by the Council’s Environment and Planning department, which will pave the way for future nuclear power generation, uranium mining, and/or the storage of nuclear waste on the beautiful Central Coast. |
|
|
Mount Isa City Council supports nuclear weapons ban
Mount Isa City Council supports nuclear weapons ban, Derek Barry, 10 Feb 21,
French nuclear attack submarine visted Australia, then on to patrol the South China Sea
|
French Nuclear Attack Boat Patrolled South China Sea https://news.usni.org/2021/02/10/french-nuclear-attack-boat-patrolled-south-china-sea By: Xavier Vavasseur, February 10, 2021 A French Navy Rubis-class nuclear-powered submarine (SSN) patrolled the South China Sea, the French minister of armed forces announced in a series of tweets.
French armed forces minister Florence Parly called the patrol “a striking proof of the capacity of our French Navy to deploy far and for a long time in connection with our Australian, American and Japanese strategic partners.” On Monday night, Parly shed some light on the current deployment of Rubis-class SSN FS Emeraude (S604) to the Pacific region. In a series of messages on Twitter, she said: “Since September, a nuclear attack submarine (SSN Émeraude) and a support vessel (BSAM Seine) have sailed up to 15,000 km from the coasts of mainland France in the Indian Ocean and the Pacific. This extraordinary patrol has just completed a passage in the South China Sea. A striking proof of the capacity of our French Navy to deploy far and for a long time in connection with our Australian, American and Japanese strategic partners. Why such a mission? To enrich our knowledge of this area and to affirm that international law is the only rule that is valid, whatever the sea in which we sail. Nation of the Indo-Pacific (~ 2 million inhabitants), France has the 2nd largest exclusive economic zone in the world (11 million km2 of which 9 are in the Indo-Pacific). We intend to protect our sovereignty and our interests.” Naval News first reported about Emeraude’s mission to the Pacific when it stopped over in Australia. The submarine then visited the U.S. naval base in Guam and participated in an anti-submarine warfare (ASW) exercise with the U.S. Navy and JMSDF. Following an exercise with the Indonesian Navy Emeraude will likely be joining the French carrier strike group which is set to depart this week for the Indian Ocean and Persian Gulf region. |
|
Legal aspects of KIMBA COMMUNITY OPPOSITION TO National Radioactive Waste Management Facility
KIMBA COMMUNITY OPPOSITION TO National Radioactive Waste 
Management Facility
The decision by the High Court in the New Acland Coal case (1) was delivered only on Wednesday of last week but it is already creating a stir
In applying the rationale of that case to the Kimba situation the very marked difference is that its community members opposing the nuclear waste facility which is apparently made up of several groups including the Barngarla people suffered a much greater disadvantage than the objectors in the New Acland case as there was a real and actual bias at Kimba and not just an apprehension of bias
This view has been expressed by several lawyers including retired judges to whom I spoke and it should be a very strong and decisive outcome which will mean that the government’s proposals for Kimba will be totally aborted
The other aspect of any litigation as to the Kimba situation is that all the information given by the government will now become subject to detailed scrutiny which will show up the the disingenuous statements by Pitt and the public servants involved including ANSTO and even ARPANSA
The same will apply to all the documents including internal minutes and notes which were either not previously disclosed or else highly redacted as they will have to be produced fully without the availability of any claim of privilege
I imagine that besides Pitt and Canavan being personally embarrassed it will make the government look silly and sneaky in its actions
I understand that the Kimba opponents are already considering an initial application to the Court to have their own impartial scrutiny and assessment of the government’s proposals to be paid for by the government
No wonder that lawyers are already queuing up to take this case on for the objectors as it should be an easy one with prolonged notoriety and no doubt with ultimately substantial costs against the government
Eat your heart out Erin Brockovich!
(1). Oakey Coal Action Alliance Inc v. New Acland Coal Pty Ltd & Ors
High Court Case No. B34/2020 Judgment: 3 February 2021
Woomera site not chemically suitable for radioactive trash. Neither is Kimba.
Paul Waldon– 8 Feb 21
The importance of maintaining a reducing chemical environment summarized by the authors of a MIT report as follows:Kimba Nuclear Waste Dump Bill yet again postponed in the Australian Senate
Kazzi Jai No nuclear waste dump anywhere in South Australia 6 Feb 21, High Court ruling a helpful precedent for opponents of Kimba nuclear dump
Peter Remta. 4 Feb 21, The High Court’s decision in the New Acland Coal Mine case (1) delivered by Justice James Edelman on Wednesday and based on the principle of “apprehended bias” should give great heart to all the community members in Kimba opposing the government’s proposed nuclear waste facility.
The background of the appeal is that a Queensland community group known as Oakey Coal Action Alliance and representing more than 60 local residents and landholders who opposed the proposed expansion of the New Acland Coal Mine on the basis that it would destroy otherwise productive agricultural land appealed to the High Court to stop the expansion.
In its unanimous decision delivered by Justice Edelman the High Court ruled that due to the way the original hearings had been conducted leading to previous decisions made by earlier courts favouring the coal mine expansion had been affected by apprehended bias with the result that the Action Alliance had not “had its day in court” and that it had not had the opportunity to present all of its arguments.
The rationale of the decision based on the principle of “apprehended bias” as stated by Justice Edelman in delivering the Court’s decision was that
“these matters are insufficient to justify the highly exceptional course of this court refusing a rehearing for a party whose hearing was decided other than independently and impartially. Indeed, it cannot be said that Oakey Coal Action has “had its day in court” or had lost all of its grounds before an independent and impartial tribunal”.
The Action Alliance had been represented by the Environmental Defenders Office on the appeal to the High Court and the Kimba community members opposing the nuclear waste facility should immediately seek the assistance of the Public Defender on the basis of that appeal.
(1). Oakey Coal Action Alliance Inv v. New Acland Coal Pty Ltd & Ors
High Court Case No.B34/2020
This description of the appeal is partly based on the report in RenewEconomy by Michael Mazengarb on 3 February 2021
https://reneweconomy.com.au/author/ michael-mazengarb/
Additional reading:
The litigation against the New Acland Coal Mine involved a major and lengthy hearing in the Land Court of Queensland, followed by judicial review, a subsequent appeal and High Court challenge the history of which is extremely well described on the website of Environmental Law Australia .
This website is a free public service provided by Dr Chris McGrath, LLB (Hons), BSc, LLM, PhD, a barrister in Queensland practising in environmental law and an Adjunct Associate Professor in the School of Earth and Environmental Sciences at the University of Queensland.
Australian government will probably ignore most recommendations in the environmental report
Jim Green and Mia Pepper (WA) 3 Feb 21, – on the nuclear issues in the final Environmental Protection & Biodiversity Conservation review Samuel report, which finds that the Act is not doing its job and the environment is in big trouble (as we all know).
”Nuclear Actions” in the final report on environment laws in Australia
In this week’s news, the final report on environment laws in Australia has been made and in summary, recommends that “nuclear actions” remain a Matter of National Environmental Significance (MNES). This means all proposals that are a “nuclear action” eg uranium mining, need to be assessed and approved in accordance with national environmental laws (EPBC Act). Initially “nuclear actions” will have to be assessed and approved based on “the whole of environment” impact – this means they would require a full environmental assessment.
Final Report on environment laws https://dont-nuke-the-climate.org.au/environment-laws-australian-nuclear/, February 2, 2021 The final report on environment laws in Australia has been made public this week.
In Summary, the Final Report:
- recommends that “nuclear actions” remain a Matter of National Environmental Significance (MNES) this means all proposals that are a “nuclear action” eg uranium mining, need to be assessed and approved in accordance with national environmental laws (The EPBC Act).
-
- recommends that State and Territory Governments be accredited to assess and approve projects in-line with the EPBC Act and with “National Environment Standards.” National Environmental Standards do not yet exist but would be legally enforceable standards. In the case of nuclear it is likely that National Environmental Standards would be derived from national and international standards on the nuclear industry. o Nuclear projects, including uranium mines would then be assessed and approved by state and territory governments, not the federal government.
- recommends a second phase of reform that “the EPBC Act and the regulatory arrangements of the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) should be aligned, to support the implementation of best-practice international approaches based on risk of harm to the environment, including the community.”
-
- describes the section 140A prohibition on some nuclear actions (like nuclear power and reprocessing) reflects a policy choice and that to change this would also be a ‘policy’ or political decision – but notes that legislative changes would be required. Important to note that there is emphasis on elected parliamentarians making policy choices, a subtle hint on the lack of a mandate to lift the prohibition.
Initially “nuclear actions” will have to be assessed and approved based on “the whole of environment” impact – this means they would require a full environmental assessment. It is unclear if this would be retained under the proposal to make ARPANSA the regulator and with National Environmental Standards for nuclear actions or whether assessments and approvals would only be required for aspects of a project that involve radiation.
Australian uranium mining company threatens Spanish government with legal action
Miner threatens Spain over uranium ban, Cosmo Sanderson, 01 February 2021
Resource Minister Pitt should withdraw the Bill as the process for a Kimba nuclear waste dump has failed
George Gear , 30 Jan 21, Reports have said that there is a possibility of a federal election this year. This means clearing the decks of issues that have the potential to embarrass the government or be a distraction.
One of these is the radioactive waste site at Kimba in SA.
The selection process for the radioactive waste facility project has now been going on for over 4 years.
The government’s bill to site the facility in Kimba will not pass the senate.
The proposed Kimba facility will not get a license to operate a radioactive waste facility as it does not meet
International Atomic Energy Agency standards of burial below ground. Australia is a founding member of the
IAEA. Their standards are our standards.
The minister will not declare Kimba because of the litigation that would follow will add years to the project. The
Barngarla traditional owners have been sidelined from the decision and will litigate. They have the resources to
do it with assets of $300M according to their Adelaide lawyers.
This will still be an issue at the next election unless it is settled. It is a major factor in SA where the government
has marginal seats. Press reports have opposition to the plan in SA at 70%.
Minister Pitt, in February, should announce that he respects the fact that the senate will not pass his bill and he
has decided to withdraw it. The cross bench have actually given the government a “get out of jail free” card. The
senate is now in control of the issue. I say that the government should take back control in the way I have
suggested.
At the same time he announces that negotiations with another nominee in the self selection process has begun.
Leonora did nominate in the process. No names at this point……..
The trouble with the process to date is that it hasn’t followed the science. The PM and Premiers did this with the
Corona Virus. The outcome is positive and they were all rewarded. The waste facility is not being ruled by science
which says that the waste has to be buried underground “at depths of twenty to hundreds of metres.” This
standard has been established by scientists.
The starting point should have been talking to the regulator to confirm the standards need to get a licence to
store the waste. This still hasn’t been done and has been left to the end of the process. Imagine if the bill had
passed the senate and the proposed facility on application to the regulator ARPANSA was refused a license. The
press would have had a field day at the governments expense.
The Australian government’s Radioactive Waste Bill does not meet required IAEA standards
Peter Remta, 30 Jan 21, National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment (Site Specification, Community Fund and Other Measures) Bill2020 I understand that Minister Pitt has brought on the bill for debate in the Senate on Thursday 4 February 2021 as he has been threatening the opposing senators that if the bill fails to pass it will become a trigger for the federal government to call early election by means of a double dissolution.
establishment of the facility at Napandee which will only show up the inefficient and disingenuous conduct of the government and its agencies such as ANSTO and even ARPANSA.
*****
Below is the email message I sent out yesterday which includes in red my suggested draft for an amendment to the Labor
Party’s proposed amendment to the bill The effect of this draft is to require such strict compliance with the codes and standards prescribed by the International Atomic Energy Agency that would be possible for the government to continue with establishing the facility
*****
3A Section 4Insert:
Joint Convention means the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management, done at Vienna on 5 September 1997, as amended and in force for Australia from at any time and includes without limitation the Safety Standards established or adopted by the International Atomic Energy Agency which provide the fundamental principles,requirements and recommendations to ensure nuclear safety for the purposes of among other things giving full effect to the Joint Convention.
Kimba nuclear waste dump issue is in limbo in the Australian Senate
Julian Assange nominated by French parliamentarians for Nobel Peace Prize
 A Nobel Peace Prize for Julian Assange! https://melenchon.fr/2021/01/28/un-prix-nobel-de-la-paix-pour-julien-assange/ Thursday 28 January 2021, I decided to nominate journalist Julian Assange for the Nobel Peace Prize, as I have the power to do as a parliamentarian. Julian Assange is a hero of freedom. The WikiLeaks initiative has raised awareness of war crimes and serious human rights abuses. It is right that the peoples of the world express their gratitude to him.
On January 4, 2021, British justice refused his extradition to the United States, but maintained his imprisonment. More than ever, Julian Assange needs the protection of the peoples of the world. Granting him the Nobel Peace Prize would allow that.
|
|
|
1 This month
4 November – Will AUKUS keep us safe – at what cost?
the Commissioners of the AUKUS Public Inquiry present their findings at the National Press Club of Australia in Canberra. iview.abc.net.au/show/national-press-club-address
Australians deserve the truth
about
AUKUS – https://aukuspublicinquiry.com/
PETITION – To: Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and the Australian Labor Government
of the week – Australians for War Powers Reform (AWPR)
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
