Susan Craig: South Australia’s $27.9 billion food, wine and tourism markets endangered by Kimba nuclear waste dump plan
South Australia’s strength in this marketplace is the trust other countries have, in not only our clean reputation, but SAFE food. The establishment of a nuclear waste facility, in particular one that is built in the heart of agriculture is a profound contradiction of South Australia’s position and will put that reputation and business at risk.
Combined; the food, wine and tourism markets are valued at $27.9 billion, to South Australia, yet operators in this industry have been totally disregarded by the DIIS and denied the rightful and proper mechanisms to become involved and informed and therefore have never been given the opportunity prepare a case to defend their industries.
Susan Craig, Submission 62 (part 1) to Senate Committee re National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment (Site Specification, Community Fund and Other Measures) Bill 2020
CRITICAL THREAD
We must protect the environment serving potential growth areas and industries to maintain our clean, green, reputation and maintain our global competitive advantage in agriculture and food, tourism and other industries – CSIRO- Securing South Australia’s Future, CSIRO Publishing 2017.
Critical stakeholders in the food, wine, agriculture and tourism industries that operate throughout South Australia were never given the rightful and proper opportunity to engage with the Department of Industry Innovation and Science (DIIS) on the details relating to the National Radioactive Waste Management Facility (NRWMF).
The boundaries for consultation did not take into account economic geography and focused only on a local district, overlooking the many South Australian stakeholders who will be adversely affected by the establishment of nuclear waste facility; as it is a profound contradiction of their clean, green, pristine and SAFE reputation, which is the cornerstone of their sustainable competitive advantage in world markets.
SOUTH AUSTRALIA’S FOOD AND WINE REVENUE IS VALUED AT $20.3 BILLION
“Particularly in regional South Australia”. “South Australia’s primary industries are a vital part of the state’s
economy. Grains, livestock, horticulture, wine, seafood, forests and dairy sectors are significant contributors to the state’s exports. In 2017–18, South Australia’s gross food and wine revenue totalled $20.3 billion.”
https://www.pir.sa.gov.au/ data/assets/pdf file/0011/339842/PIR
The most important commodity in South Australia based on the gross value of agricultural production is wheat (valued at $1.7 billion)
o Well-established natural resource management.
o Environmental protection frameworks.
o Impeccable food safety and quality assurance standards.
Protecting South Australia’s clean air, soil and water is vital for the prosperity of our food and wine sectors.
Demand for South Australian products is increasing due to our high quality safety and production standards.
SA Tourism soars to break new record $7.6 billion
South Australia’s visitor economy worth $7.6 billion – NVS and IVS results.
SUMMARY
The cornerstone of South Australia’s food, wine and tourism industries is without question; its premium, clean, green, SAFE reputation which is clearly understood by the South Australian Government, South Australia’s primary producers, tourism industries and the international markets who enjoy these products and services.
South Australia’s strength in this marketplace is the trust other countries have, in not only our clean reputation, but SAFE food. The establishment of a nuclear waste facility, in particular one that is built in the heart of agriculture is a profound contradiction of South Australia’s position and will put that reputation and business at risk.
Combined; the food, wine and tourism markets are valued at $27.9 billion, to South Australia, yet operators in this industry have been totally disregarded by the DIIS and denied the rightful and proper mechanisms to become involved and informed and therefore have never been given the opportunity prepare a case to defend their industries.
Until engagement between the National Radioactive Waste Management committee, the Department of Industry, Innovation and Science and those critical South Australian stakeholders in the South Australian primary industries and tourism sector takes place, the current plans for the NRWMF should be halted
Please accept my submission in asking the committee to reject any amendments to the National Radioactive Waste Management Susan Craig, Independent Campaigner
Susan Craig: in Kimba “Informed Consent” not possible, as the community was not properly informed
Susan Craig Submission No 62. to the Senate Committee Inquiry on National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment Bill (part 2)
CRITICAL THREAD – “Informed Consent” – voting is not possible if there is insufficient knowledge of the process.
Informed consent is based on a clear appreciation and understanding of the facts, identifying the implications, adverse risks and consequences of an action.
Because the KIMBA community were not given an unbiased and objective view
of the long term implications of the National Radioactive Waste Management
Facility (NRWMF), it is not possible for them to be in a duly qualified position
to determine the best long term solution for KIMBA and therefore they were
never afforded the opportunity to execute their decision to vote based on
“informed consent”.
INFORMATION PROVIDED TO THE KIMBA COMMUNITY BY THE DEPT. OF
INDUSTRY, INNOVATION AND SCIENCE (DIIS).information in
support of the NRWMF; outlining ONLY the proposed potential benefits
to the community of KIMBA.
The proponents of the NRWMF, DIIS, only disseminated information in support of the NRWMF ,outlining only the propsed potential benefits to the community of Kimba. At no stage during the consultation process
Because the KIMBA community were not given an unbiased and objective viewof the long term implications of the National Radioactive Waste Management Facility (NRWMF), it is not possible for them to be in a duly qualified position to determine the best long term solution for KIMBA and therefore they were never afforded the opportunity to execute their decision to vote based on “informed consent”.
At no stage during the consultation process did DIIS present the risks associated with a NRWMF to the community. Nor did they actively engage with an independent authority asking them to provide
information on the risks that the facility would pose.
A risk assessment was never carried out by DIIS to explain the
consequences of a radiological release and the effect it would have on
human life, the environment, agriculture and subsequent risk of a shift
in product / region value and land values
Refer to:
“National Radioactive Waste Management Facility Taskforce:
Information pack.” The hyperlink below [on original] is to the list of 25 documents covering various aspects of
the NRWMF and is representative of the print material distributed throughout
the Kimba community, leading up to the ballot. Note the absence of
information/documentation relating to potential risks.
Furthermore, the document titled “Safety and Security,” (extract below) shows
the extreme and unfair bias for the NRWMF. The Task Force in their dealings
and consultation were unethical and opportunist by using deception and
concealment to persuade the ill-informed taskforce-information-pack.
This information serves to demonstrate the inequitable information
that was disseminated to the Kimba community.
THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION REPRESENTS POTENTIAL RISKS
THAT WERE NEVER PART OF THE INFORMATION PROVIDED BY DIIS
TO THE KIMBA COMMUNITY.
Interim might be forever. With regards to the intermediate/high level
nuclear waste, the Kimba community needed to understand that
“interim” could mean storage for an indefinite period—perhaps
forever—if a permanent disposal facility is not constructed. Even if a
date for opening a permanent repository was stated, it is meaningless,
as the community would be relying on future Governments to uphold
the promise over the next 10, 20 – 100 years and make the tenuous
assumption that future Governments would have the expertise, impetus
or financial resources to implement them. DIIS advised the Kimba
community that the intermediate level waste would be ‘temporary,”
never referencing “indefinite” and only once the NRWMF was
established, would they commence identifying a possible permanent
facility for the intermediate/high level
Therefore the Kimba community were never informed.
A risk assessment was never carried out by DIIS to explain the
consequences of a radiological release and the consequence this would
have on human life, the environment, agriculture and subsequent risk of
a shift in product / region value and land values. This information was
never part of the consultation process.
Therefore the KIMBA community were never informed.
A Radiation Emergency Preparedness and Response Action plan was
never presented by DIIS to the Kimba community, in accordance with
ARPANSA regulations that refer to the IAEA Response Assistance
Network (RANET).
As stated by ARPANSA and the IAEA. “It is the responsibility of the State
Emergency response agencies with radiation protection guidance from
State Radiation Safety Officers to respond to a radiation emergency
within their jurisdiction.” (RANET).
“As part of these activities, it develops safety standards, guidelines and
technical tools; assists Member States in building the capacity for
emergency response; and maintains the IAEA Incident and Emergency
System to efficiently implement its role in response to nuclear or
radiological incidents and emergencies, regardless of whether they arise
from accident, negligence or deliberate act.”
A Radiation Emergency Preparedness and Response Action plan
specifically addressing and tailored to the NRWMF at Kimba does not
exist and was never presented as part of the proposal.
Therefore the Kimba community were never informed.
Without the above information being provided to the KIMBA community by
DIIS, the community has absolutely no understanding as to the consequences
of their vote in the community ballot and therefore should be disregarded and
declared to be of no consequence in assessing “broad community support”.
To do otherwise would be morally and legally negligent.
Because the KIMBA community were not given an unbiased and objective view
of the long term implications of the NRWMF, it is not possible for them to be in
a duly qualified position to determine the best long term solution for KIMBA
and therefore they were never afforded the opportunity to execute their
decision to vote based on “informed consent.”
Govt scheme to underwrite gas, hydro and coal power needs investigation – Zali Steggall
Zali Steggall calls for investigation of Coalition plan to underwrite gas, hydro and coal power
Independent MP says scheme lacks transparency and government has no authority to introduce it, Guardian, Adam Morton Environment editor @adamlmorton, Mon 27 Apr 2020 Independent MP Zali Steggall has asked the auditor general to investigate a Morrison government scheme to underwrite gas, hydro and coal power, saying it lacks transparency and citing legal advice that the Coalition had no constitutional or legislative authority to introduce it.
Announced in late 2018 after the government abandoned Malcolm Turnbull’s proposed national energy guarantee, the underwriting new generation investment (Ungi) scheme promises public support for new dispatchable power generation projects to increase competition in the electricity grid. Twelve projects have been shortlisted, including six pumped hydro plants, five gas generators and an upgrade to the Vales Point coal-fired power plant.
Steggall has written to the auditor general, Grant Hehir, asking him to consider investigating the program “as a matter of priority”. Her letter refers to research by The Australia Institute, a progressive thinktank, suggesting the program has no constitutional or legislative standing, no guidelines or criteria to assess projects, and its development and implementation did not follow a clear process.
She said despite these apparent flaws the government had shortlisted projects, started “advanced negotiations” to support gas-fired plants in Victoria and Queensland and entered a memorandum-of-understanding with the New South Wales government to support three projects in the state. ……
Steggall, who entered parliament last year on a climate action platform, said the focus on fossil fuels was questionable and there was little visibility of how and why the projects shortlisted for underwriting had been chosen….
“There’s just no transparency or accountability around this,” Steggall told Guardian Australia. “We’ve seen what happened with sport rorts. We’re talking about commonwealth money at a time when we know the economy has taken a hit due to coronavirus, and I think it should be properly investigated.”……https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/apr/27/zali-steggall-calls-for-probe-of-coalition-plan-to-underwrite-gas-hydro-and-coal-power
Australia goes backwards in latest world press freedom index
 Government ‘absolutely committed’ to press freedom as Australia drops in rankings, Brisbane Times, 24 Apr 20 Australia slipped five places to 26th in Reporters Without Borders’ latest world press freedom index, the global watchdog citing Australian Federal Police raids targeting reporters and cost-cutting in the industry as threats to public interest journalism.Attorney-General Christian Porter said the government was committed to protecting press freedom as media organisations and Labor seized on Australia’s slump in the rankings to renew calls for reform.
The drop in rankings comes after a campaign by the “Australia’s Right to Know” coalition of major media organisations, who have urged the Parliament to legislate on a suite of proposals to curb government secrecy. Labor labelled the global result “worrying” and called for action. Mr Porter said the government was “absolutely committed” to a free press and was awaiting the findings of an inquiry by Parliament’s intelligence and security committee…… The media organisations have put forward six key recommendations, including public interest exemptions from national security laws, expanded safeguards for whistleblowers, freedom of information reform, the right to contest search warrants and defamation changes…… Mr Porter said the the committee’s previous plan to report by early this year had been disrupted by the COVID-19 crisis. The reporting deadline had already been delayed multiple times last year, with members citing the complexity of the task and late submissions. Sources familiar with the committee’s deliberations told The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age the plan was now to deliver the findings by the middle of the year. Reporters Without Borders said Australia “used to be the regional model but is now characterised by its threats to the confidentiality of sources and to investigative journalism”. The organisation also noted the concentration of media ownership, the closure of national news agency Australian Associated Press and that the Australian constitution was “completely lacking in guarantees for the right to inform and to be informed”. A spokesman for Australia’s Right to Know said the coalition had long pursued changes and the High Court’s ruling last week on the search warrants executed at the home of News Corp journalist Annika Smethurst “again illustrated the increasing urgency for law reform in this area.” Journalists’ union the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance said the press freedom index result highlighted Australia was going backwards. “Overseas observers are recognising what Australians already know: that press freedom in our country is under sustained assault,” MEAA official Marcus Strom said. Shadow attorney-general Mark Dreyfus and opposition communications spokeswoman Michelle Rowland said in a joint statement the slide down the index “underscores the need for action by the government on law reform to support media diversity, support press freedom and address the concerns of Australia’s Right to Know coalition and civil society organisations”. https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/politics/federal/government-absolutely-committed-to-press-freedom-as-australia-drops-in-rankings-20200423-p54mn6.html |
|
Brett Stokes: South Australian law has been repeatedly breached by the deceptive National Radioactive Waste Dump plot
(a) encourage and support South Australian police to enforce the law against illegal
use of public money in a manner prohibited under s13 of Nuclear Waste Storage
Facility (Prohibition) Act 2000.
disgraceful “site selection process”.
I am happy for this submission to be made public.
Censored Previous Submission
Subject – Selection process for a national radioactive waste management facility in South Australia (see on this site Brett Stokes shows how plans for nuclear waste dumping in South Australia have breached S.A. law)
Ngoppon Together Reconciliation Group: Kimba nuclear waste dump opposed by Indigenous, and other South Australians
|
Ngoppon Together Reconciliation Group, Submission No 3 to National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment (Site Specification, Community Fund and Other Measures) Bill 2020 . Ngoppon Together Reconciliation Group write to you in support of the Barngarla people of Eyre Peninsula, who have fought so hard to protect their ancestral home from nuclear waste.
Senator Matt Canaban announced that Kimba, Eyre Peninsula, has been selected for the proposed Nuclear Waste Storage Facility. Why select a site within one of South Australia’s best cropping areas? Grain farming in the Kimba district brings in up to $80 million per annum.. The Federal Government’s promise of a $30 million development package is, with respect, “peanuts”, compared with the long terms risks.
Only inhabitants of a small zone around Kimba were entitled to vote. This excleded the Barngarla people, traditional caretakers of the land and native title holders, and other nearby inhabitants who objected to the proposal. If the 50km radius zone had been applied to Kimba,as it was to Hawker, the vote would have failed. Just 52 Kimba locals cannot speak for 1.7 million South Australians, The majority of South Australians have objected to nuclear proposals for many years.
Medical waste is mainly low level radiation with fast breakdown., but 90% of the waste is intermediate level, and can take up to 10,000 tears to degrade It includes spent nuclear fuel rods, classified as high level waste in France. To complicate matters, it will be stored temporarily in above ground structures until a safe reposirary is designed, approved and built. One hundred trucks will transport the wastes over a 1700 km route over a four year period. As yet there has been no community consultation about the route.
The Federal Government has decided to go ahead with the proposal, despite unanimous opposition from the Barngarla people. The Barngarla Determination Aboriginal Corporation initiated a legal action, protesting their exclusion from the ballot. This failed. The BDAC also asked the Australian Electoral Corporation to change the ballot to a confidential postal vote. This was unsuccessful. The BDAC wrote to the Federal Government, calling for the dump proposal to be abandoned.in the light of their unanimous opposition. They are determined to maintain their fight against the Nuclear Waste Dump..
Honorary Secretary Jacqueline Merckenschlager https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Economics/RadioactiveWaste/Submissions?fbclid=IwAR0v5FeP2_iTZbTmkrFA3HNLS29dko4g2NgxUR7UaiuSUyVDh62bDFOLxwA
|
|
Geraldine Gillen: Napandee nuclear waste dump -illegal, damaging to agriculture’s image, unwanted, unnecessary
Re: Flawed Federal process contrary to Nuclear Safety Committee advice and untenable interim nuclear waste storage compromises Safety & Security and Rights & Interests in SA Geraldine Gillen Submission No. 18 to National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment (Site Specification, Community Fund and Other Measures) Bill 2020 .
I contend that the Construction of a nuclear waste dump in SA at Kimba is currently illegal under SA Law passed by the State Liberal Government in 2000. We also had a Citizen’s Jury which said “NO”.
The Bill is deeply flawed on many fronts and should be rejected. It specifically targets SA for a national nuclear waste “facility” – a repository for low-level waste and an above-ground ‘interim’ (indefinite) store for long-lived intermediate-level waste including nuclear reactor fuel waste. At the same time the Federal Government is making no effort to find an alternative permanent site for this waste.
Why is the Federal Government not using its own land for this purpose? Why has it looked to private land? What is the real motive?
including cancer, cardiovascular disease, emphysema and cataracts – and if it enters the soil can contaminate our food and water.
continues to disempower and dispossess the Barngarla Traditional Owners who are unanimous in their opposition to the proposed nuclear waste facility. I have stood with them and the Kimba community who are opposed to this dump on the steps of SA Parliament House and this year at Kimba. I will continue to do so.
Besides the Barngarla people, many people in the Kimba community were unable to vote. People who originally were told they were neighbours, suddenly were not because a road between their property and another deemed them to be ineligible. People holding property who were just outside the area, did not get a vote. The process of how was eligible for voting needs to be explored by this Committee. Statistic have been misused both by the Government and then by the media.
how we plan and manage our land, resources and social responsibilities in the future.
Now is the time to scrap this Bill. more https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Economics/RadioactiveWaste/Submissions?fbclid=IwAR0v5FeP2_iTZbTmkrFA3HNLS29dko4g2NgxUR7UaiuSUyVDh62bDFOLxwA
Caring for South Australia reject nuclear waste dumping: it will jeopardise South Australian food production
Australian govt’s devious ploy to further dispossess the Bangarla Aboriginal people
First Nations communities continue to be left behind, Eureka Street, Michele Madigan -22 Apr 20 “………..As well as their own real fears for their health in the COVID-19 pandemic as documented in their recent submission (number 25) to the Senate Standing Economics Legislation Committee of Inquiry the Barngarla peoples of South Australia’s Eyre Peninisula are being forced to counter attempts to further their dispossession in new schemes by federal government. The Barngarla Determination Aboriginal Committee (BDAC) plead with the federal government to delay the current procedures so that the public hearings regarding the site of the federal nuclear waste facility in the Kimba region may take place ‘on Country’ rather than by teleconference, which would greatly disadvantage their cause.
Even more seriously, the BDAC submission (among others) denounces the purposeful strategy by the Resources Minister in refusing to make a formal declaration. Instead, the Minister made ‘a policy decision’ in naming the chosen site of Napandee, having ‘presented it as a declaration’.
BDAC points out, ‘The Government is now seeking to legislate directly, as an indirect but very effective means to prevent judicial oversight.’ That is, the Minister is seeking to change the current legislation of the National Radioactive Waste Management Act so that Parliament itself will ‘select’ Napandee as the site and thereby stopping any judicial oversight of anything untoward in the long administrative process to date.
As the BDAC submission summarises, ‘This is highly concerning to the Barngarla people as it should be to all Australians.’
In the last few days, the federal Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights has written a report critical of the treatment of Barngarla Traditional Owners. It is a unanimous report, endorsed by Coalition members of the Committee.
And there we have it. As Aboriginal communities still await the needed funding to ensure their survival during this pandemic, the wheels of another government ministry are confidently seeking to further dispossess and disempower by such proposed legislation. Shameful indeed.
Michele Madigan is a Sister of St Joseph who has spent the past 38 years working with Aboriginal people in remote areas of SA, in Adelaide and in country SA. Her work has included advocacy and support for senior Aboriginal women of Coober Pedy in their campaign against the proposed national radioactive dump. https://www.eurekastreet.com.au/article/first-nations-communities-continue-to-be-left-behind?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Eureka%20Street%20Daily%20-%20Wednesday%2022%20April%202020&utm_content=Eureka%20Street%20Daily%20-%20Wednesda
An initial brief look at the submissions to the Senate Nuclear Waste Bill Inquiry
Initial Summary: – focussing on submissions from individuals , with brief looks at those from organisations
* Of the 102 submissions published, 74 were ‘against’; 19 were ‘for’; one (ANSTO’s) was ‘neutral’; and eight were ‘unknown’ (as details were confidential).
* The leading explicitly-stated concern was with the process and decision-making (71 of 102), followed by the environment (67 of 102), health and safety (65 of 102), the economy (62 of 102) and traditional owners’ rights (47 of 102).
Six out of 13 favourable submissions were from people with the surname Baldock. (Jeff Baldock sold the land for the site to the government) – Source : https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Economics/RadioactiveWaste/Submissions
Australia’s climate experts urge govt to use rebuilding economy to combat global heating.
|
Climate scientists say coronavirus could be Australia’s golden opportunity— SBS News
Climate experts say the way Australia chooses to rebuild its economy after the COVID-19 pandemic will seal its climate change fate. BY CLAUDIA FARHART, 22 APR 20
Australian climate scientists are urging the government to recognise the similarities between the COVID-19 pandemic and climate change, arguing they could be the key to stopping global warming. Professor Matthew England from the University of New South Wales’ Climate Change Research Centre said acting early, listening to expert advice and mitigation were the keys to solving both crises.
While the coronavirus is posing a serious risk to millions of lives right now, Professor England said climate change will threaten even more lives over the next five decades. “We’ve seen all around the world that the nations ignoring the best advice of their scientists are suffering the most, and climate change is no different,” he told SBS News. “We have expert reports that have been tabled for the last three or four decades, but many nations are ignoring those, so I think that COVID-19 provides a wake up call for what happens if you do ignore the best scientific advice.”………
While these significant improvements in air and water quality are showing people around the globe what is possible when emissions are reduced, Professor England said it is not time to celebrate yet. Instead, he says Australia needs to recognise the opportunity COVID-19 presents to rebuild in a more environmentally friendly way. “This is going to be a major stall in the global economy, but out of this pandemic we’re certainly going to see a huge economic boom and it’s going to be a real chance to make that boom a low-carbon boom,” he said.
“To solve climate change, we actually need large scale innovation and the huge economic boom that is poised to happen out of this pandemic.” ‘Fight or flight’While COVID-19 has already killed at least 90,000 people, the World Health Organisation has warned that climate change will kill as many as 250,000 people per year by 2030………https://www.sbs.com.au/news/climate-scientists-say-coronavirus-could-be-australia-s-golden-opportunity |
|
During the pandemic, health and wellbeing of the First Nations people is disregarded, as usual.
First Nations communities continue to be left behind, Eureka Street, Michele Madigan, 22 April 2020
On the other hand, while there have been literally billions of dollars allocated to the crisis in general and to very many organisations, it is astounding that the most vulnerable group of all remains at the bottom of the pile. First Nations people themselves and their allies remain nonplussed at the clear lack of resources allocated to First Nations people. No one left behind? The facts suggest otherwise.
Who else in our nation is living in housing with another 26 or so people?
This huge, rarely mentioned and ongoing deeply shameful situation regarding the health and housing of First Nations people comes into sharp relief by the present crisis…….
https://www.eurekastreet.com.au/article/first-nations-communities-continue-to-be-left-behind?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Eureka%20Street%20Daily%20-%20Wednesday%2022%20April%202020&utm_content=Eureka%20Street%20Daily%20-%20Wednesda
Current Review of Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (EPBC) ? – it’s all about promoting the polluters
The Government puts business ahead of the environment , Independent Australia, By Sue Arnold | 22 April 2020, The writing is on the wall for the environment. And it doesn’t look good.
Prime Minister Scott Morrison has promised to:
‘Fast-track new and existing major infrastructure projects and adopt an aggressive pro-business strategy ahead of the October budget to help the country claw its way out of an expected virus-induced recession.’
Tax breaks for big business, deregulation and wide-scale industrial relations reform will form part of the Morrison Government’s attempts to lift the nation out of the economic black hole, according to the Sydney Morning Herald.
Environmental organisations, ecologists, wildlife shelters and Australia’s biodiversity are facing an Armageddon as a result of state and federal governments’ absolute failure to protect the environment in the face of a serious economic recession.
Yet this is the nation which has lost over one billion animals to the catastrophic bushfires. A nation with dying and dead ecosystems, and thousands of hectares of burned-out forests. The forests will take many years to recover and ecosystems may never be rehabilitated.
A glimpse of what’s in store can be gained from the current review of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (‘EPBC Act’), undertaken under the chairmanship of Professor Graeme Samuel AC.
The review is required under the EPBC Act every ten years, to examine the operation of the legislation and the extent to which its objects have been met.
An expert panel was set up to support Professor Samuel. Panel members include Bruce Martin, an inaugural member of the Prime Minister’s Indigenous Advisory Council and President of the Cape York Peninsula Live Export Group.
Dr Erica Smyth AC is a panel member with over 40 years’ experience in the mineral and petroleum industry, having worked for ten years in the oil and gas industry managing government approvals for offshore facilities, LNG and methanol facilities……
With no ecologists, environmental lawyers, or conservation organisations, the review and its panel completely fails the pub test.
It is important to note that in accordance with section 522A of the EPBC Act, the review is supposed to examine:
‘The operation of the Act; and
The extent to which the objects of the Act have been achieved.’
Added to the terms of reference is the following statement:
‘The review will make recommendations to modernise the EPBC Act and its operation to address current and future environmental challenges.’
The terms of reference may be at odds with section 522A of the Act, if the phrase ‘modernise the Act’ is interpreted as code for change to focus on economic growth at the expense of the environment.
Further evidence of the focus of the Government’s dirty business can be found on the EPBC website which lists as one of the objectives of the EPBC Act to:
‘Provide a streamlined national environmental assessment and approvals process.’
The legislation contains no such provision, and other objectives have also been changed ‘to promote the conservation of biodiversity” to ‘conserve Australia’s biodiversity’.
More importantly, the following legal objective wasn’t included:
‘To promote a cooperative approach to the protection and management of the environment involving governments, the community, land-holders and indigenous people.’
In October 2019, Environment Minister Sussan Ley said that “cutting delays in project approvals could save the economy $300m a year,” with the Morrison Government promising to “tackle green tape”.
No one should be surprised by the review’s focus or the outcome.
The review will be ‘guided by the principles’ which include:
……… Making decisions simpler, including by reducing unnecessary regulatory burdens for Australians, businesses and governments;
…….. Obviously, the first principle should be the predominant, sole guiding focus of the review given the catastrophic state of Australia’s biodiversity and environment.
Instead, the evidence of a drastically changed focus favouring the growth and the economy is made abundantly clear by the guiding principles and panel choices. There’s no explanation of the extraordinary failure to focus on the inability of the EPBC Act to have fulfilled any of its objectives.
April 17 was the final day for submissions to the review’s lengthy discussion paper. Six major environmental groups asked the Federal Government to delay the submission deadline and the review as a result of the chaos caused by the COVID-19 pandemic……..
Australia is currently cursed with governments and politicians who continue to ignore the environment. It’s almost incomprehensible that after the bushfire catastrophes, the environment should sink to the bottom of the pile……. https://independentaustralia.net/environment/environment-display/the-government-puts-business-ahead-of-the-environment,13819
Annie McGovern: stop pretending that the Kimba nuclear waste dump is a”medical necessity”
Much of what you and the Public are told is that this is mostly about providing good medicine and
saving lives. According to the Medical Association for Prevention of War ‘Factsheet’:- “Less than 1%
is medical waste (radium and some disused sources). Most states and territories each only have a
few cubic metres of low level medical waste.”
The current ploy of localising all the decision-making regarding this “National Waste Dump”, through
enticements of land procurement and localised funding, has placed this critically important process
at the level of a ‘sausage-sizzle deal’, highly inadequate for the responsibilities involved.
National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment (Site Specification, Community Fund and Other Measures) Bill 2020
[Provisions]
Annie McGovern, Submission 83 To: Senate Standing Committees on Economics.
National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment (Site Specification, Community Fund and
Other Measures) Bill 2020 (Provisions).
As stated in the support document accompanying this Bill, the Federal Government has been in the
process for the past 40 yearsof finding a site in Australia for the Dumping of Nuclear Waste. This Project has been presented bothas an independent National necessity and also as an associated proposal for an International
Industry for disposing of the world’s Nuclear Waste.
For those same 40 years the Australian people have continued to take the position that a Nuclear
Industry is a hazardous, uneconomical and unsustainable incursion into the stability of both National
and International interests, and that Australia should remain Nuclear Free.
Over time we have seen the steady erosion of the rights of the Public to express common will in
relation to industrial development in this country, and usurpation of decision-making of whether an
industry is desirable for the common good or is perceived as destructive and not in the best interests
of the Community or Environment. Clearly the Nuclear Industry falls into the latter category where
the balance of all the detrimental factors far outweigh the positive contributing factors.
The challenge of finding a disposal site is directly correlated to the resistance of allowing an easy
road for the Nuclear Industry to flourish, when it is seen to be both economically and
environmentally unsustainable. Agreement for conditions of disposal should occur when there is an
end in sight. When the Industry is shut down:- weapons, uranium and radioactive sand mining,
reactors and associated arms of the industry, then we are able to consider final disposal. With the
guarantee of no further production of this toxic and dangerous legacy there will be a genuine reason
to consider the disposal of what we have created. Until then, the current proposal is yet another
attempt to justify and legitimize a manipulative and dangerous industry, and to perpetuate its
attempts to grow in power.
The current ploy of localising all the decision-making regarding this “National Waste Dump”, through
enticements of land procurement and localised funding, has placed this critically important process
at the level of a ‘sausage-sizzle deal’, highly inadequate for the responsibilities involved.
A ‘cart-before-the –horse’ scenario occurs when acceptance of the site and facility is put before you
when there have been no Public Environmental Studies performed nor any detailed scrutiny of the
planned infrastructure. Community ratification has been achieved (minus the Indigenous Voice)
without a thorough investigation of the Impacts or ramifications of this site selection, with only an
assurance of what initial Economic gain the Community might make on this deal.
This over-simplification and commercialisation of such an important Project is reflected in the
inclusion of an extensive “Visitor’s Centre” at the site, as though it were a Tourist Attraction. This
attitude indicates a serious lack of awareness of how toxic and hazardous radioactive materials are
and a down-playing of the necessity for safe-guards that have also been eroded over the years.
Why South Australia? It is a well-known fact that the Nuclear Industry has its sites set on an
expansion of all levels of its activities, particularly in S.A. It is also a well-known fact that the people
of S.A. voted against the recent Royal Commission’s facilitation of a proposal to install an
International Radioactive Waste Dump in S.A. Its’ own State Legislation prohibits the development
of Nuclear Facilities so you as the National Senate Committee deliberating on this matter will override
the will of the people of S.A., unless you look below the surface of what you have been
proffered as justifications for this proposal.
Much of what you and the Public are told is that this is mostly about providing good medicine and
saving lives. According to the Medical Association for Prevention of War ‘Factsheet’:- “Less than 1%
is medical waste (radium and some disused sources). Most states and territories each only have a
few cubic metres of low level medical waste.”
Nuclear scans for investigating disease. These produce the vast bulk of medical nuclear waste. This is
short-lived and decays on the medical facilities’ premises until its activity is negligible. It is then
disposed of safely and appropriately in the usual manner of most waste (sewers, incinerators,,
landfill tips etc.) according to set standards.
Cancer treatment radiotherapy. Most radiotherapy uses x-rays or electromagnetic radiation which
do not produce any waste at all. A very small proportion of cancer treatment actually relies on
radioactive materials, which almost all decay rapidly. Longer lived sources must be returned to their
(overseas) sources when used up and so do not need local disposal.”
The Medical Associations for Prevention of War also supports a re-think on the production of
medical isotopes to manufacture the same product without generating radioactive waste.
“…Canada…is switching to non-reactor isotope production, which does not create radioactive wastes.
It goes on to explain: “There are broadly two areas in which radioactive material is used for medical
purposes:
Nuclear scans for investigating disease. These produce the vast bulk of medical nuclear waste. This is
short-lived and decays on the medical facilities’ premises until its activity is negligible. It is then
disposed of safely and appropriately in the usual manner of most waste (sewers, incinerators,,
landfill tips etc.) according to set standards.
Cancer treatment radiotherapy. Most radiotherapy uses x-rays or electromagnetic radiation which
do not produce any waste at all. A very small proportion of cancer treatment actually relies on
radioactive materials, which almost all decay rapidly. Longer lived sources must be returned to their
(overseas) sources when used up and so do not need local disposal.”
The Medical Associations for Prevention of War also supports a re-think on the production of
medical isotopes to manufacture the same product without generating radioactive waste.
“…Canada…is switching to non-reactor isotope production, which does not create radioactive waste.
In contrast, ANSTO is proposing to dramatically increase reactor isotope production to sell 30% of
the world market. As a result Australia will accumulate much more waste from international isotope
sales. Developing cyclotrons instead (like Canada) would eliminate waste from isotope production.”
To ply the Public with guilt-laden decision-making tools which are questionable and possibly wrong is
an underhanded way of bending peoples’ resolve. Clearly, Australia has choices of the way we
proceed into the future. It is not the right of a small group of often underinformed politicians or
vested financiers to force us into untenable industries. We, as a Nation already have enough
Radioactivity to deal with. The legacy of past mistakes and ones that today continue to add to the
problem, unseen, unchecked ‘til some day those hazards will also have to be dealt with. Roxby
Downs, Beverley, Ranger, Yeelirrie, Radium Hill, Honeymoon, Wiluna, Lucas Heights, Woomera and
Marlinga.
The Intermediate Level Waste is promoted as a temporary visitor to this site. Where is its’ long-term
repository? Is this yet another plan that has not yet been divulged? Where is the constraint, the
hazard reduction? The respect for the earth and its people that would cause decision-makers to
recognize that we gone too far?
It is a nightmare of what we already have to deal with, of decaying drums, of shipping highly toxic
huge stockpiles and dangerous goods across the country, of supervising this disposal for hundreds of
years into the future with only 100 years guaranteed by this plan.
Please see the deep and murky waters here and the lack of knowledge that lies at the bottom of
what you are being asked to authorize. There are no easy solutions or truly economically viable ones,
it will all be a cost.
Stop the Nuclear Industry now and then we will discuss what to do with the mess we have made.
Thank you for the opportunity to address this very important issue.
Annie McGovern.
Kim Mavromatis on Radioactive Waste Bill: community consent? transport dangers, on agricultural land. poor process.
Dear Committee Chairperson
I live in Port Pirie, within the Upper Spencer Gulf and Southern Flinders region of South Australia. I’m a filmmaker and have been following and documenting the Nuclear Waste dumps facility process for 5 years. My hometown of Port Pirie,
along with Whyalla and Port Lincoln, have been named potential Nuclear Waste ports by the NRWMF, so I live potentially along the transport route?
Nuclear Ports NRWMF Reference : Site Characterization Tech Report, Wallerberdina Pg 177 Proximity to Ports 4.1.2.1.6.
61.5% of residents supported a facility located in their community”.
In Senator Canavan’s media release 1st Feb 2020, announcing Napandee near Kimba as the site for Australia’s National Nuclear Waste Dumps facility, he replaced the word “residents” with “voters” :Senator Canavan : “…61.6 per cent of voters in Kimba support the proposal”.
facility – all the eligible voters need to be included in the percentages, whether they voted Yes, No or Abstained, to get a true percentage of the Community Support. All the figures need independent scrutiny.
Kimba Council and Barngarla Independent vote gives a very different outcome : 43.75% Support the waste dumps facility (452 Yes from 1,033 eligible voters), which Does Not constitute Broad Community Support.
title rights and this Fed Govt National Nuclear Waste Dumps facility process has
denied them from having a voice and ignored their independent vote. This
process not only has ramifications for the Barngarla people, but for all of
Australia’s Aboriginal people – it will inform future govts of ways to ignore and
exclude Native Title Holders, without proper consultation, and get away with it.
Spent Nuclear Fuel (10,000 x more radioactive than uranium ore) and waste
from reprocessed SNF (still contains 95% of the radioactivity of SNF), which
most of the world classify as High Level Radioactive Waste (Aust classify as
Intermediate), will be transported 1,700km halfway across Aust from Lucas
Heights, via road, rail or ship, and dumped temporarily above ground for up to
100 years on Eyre Peninsula farmland, near Kimba in SA.
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/235274195556
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 