Australia’s Industry Department is bluffing in employing staff for non existent nuclear waste project
|
Kazzi Jai, Fight to stop nuclear waste in South Australia, 19 Dec 20,
Have I missed something? Or two things actually?
Unless Minister Pitt has DECLARED the Napandee site right now as per current legislation….NOPE…or Senate passed the Amendments at last sitting ….NOPE….then is this a case of DIIS bluffing it yet again? If you ain’t got it bluff it?
And AWRA has employed ANSTO – who by the way is the MAIN CUSTOMER OF THIS DUMP – to tender for it for them! In their own words…
“ANSTO has been engaged by ARWA to provide a broad range of services to develop the NRWMF engineering design, and associated safety, security and operational framework. This tender is for the appointment of a lead engineering consultant (Consultant) to support ANSTO in progressing the project from the current concept design through to preliminary design”
BIZARRE!
Oh…and by the way Ms Chard –
THERE WAS NO BROAD COMMUNITY SUPPORT ACHIEVED!
Just because you say it and want it …. doesn’t actually make it so!
The FACTS speak for themselve
New engineering partner to assist with design on radioactive waste facility https://www.industry.gov.au/news/new-engineering-partner-to-assist-with-design-on-radioactive-waste-facility?fbclid=IwAR0RnDaKhcv6r07tmyQvhBRzRNDuyn4VfpLhf6KLyWb9bE7T8IFJ09EeCWI |
|
Minister Dan van Holst Pellekaan resorts to threas when asked to be transparent
The Usual Suspects: oil and gas majors star in Australian tax heist
The Usual Suspects: oil and gas majors star in Australian tax heist, Michael West 16 Dec 20,
Angus Taylor’s rescue package for the oil industry is a testament to governments getting gamed by large corporations. The latest Tax Office transparency data shows oil and gas juggernauts are Australia’s biggest tax cheats, again, yet now they are crying for public subsidies – and getting them – to prop up their oil refineries. Michael West reports on the good and the bad in multinational tax dodging land.
2020 in Australia – a successful year for resistance to nuclear pollution
DAVE SWEENEY | Nuclear Free Campaigner, Australian Conservation Foundation | www.acf.org.aua 15 Dec 20,
A year ago today the then federal resources/radioactive waste Minister Matt Canavan read the room in the Flinders Ranges and stated: “I will no longer consider this site an option for the facility”. https://www.minister.industry.gov.au/ministers/canavan/media-releases/national-radioactive-waste-management-facility-wallerberdina
Viva!! This decision was a great tribute to Adnyamathanha, the FLAG crew and wider community resistance.
In the year since
- Canberra has turned to Kimba where they are facing a stiff fight and have failed in an attempt to rewrite the laws to remove people’s right to legally challenge the waste plan
- SA Labor, Unions SA and many more civil society groups and state and national voices have come on board against the waste plan
- The Australian Human Rights Commission acknowledged the three sisters – Vivianne and Regina McKenzie and Heather Stuart as Human Rights Heroes for their radwaste efforts
- ARPANSA – the federal nuclear regulator – has confirmed that Australia’s worst waste can securely remain at Lucas Heights ‘for decades”
- Matt Canavan is gone and we have a new Minister – the sixth in as many years – if radioactive waste had the same longevity as federal ministers it wouldn’t be an issue.
- Collectively we are stalling the deeply flawed federal plan and shifting the story from the search for a postcode to the need for a credible process
Congratulations to all those who successfully defended the Flinders – and strength to those now actively contesting the dodgy Kimba plan.
Australia’s Liberal and National Parties got their arithmetic wrong on nuclear waste dump opinion polls
LIBS NATS FAILED MATHS, Kim Mavromatis, 8 Dec 20, Where did these people go to school? – I expect they failed maths because they can’t do % sums.
452 in favour of the dump from 824 eligible Kimba voters = 54.85% of the Kimba community.Not 62%.And Barngarla Native Title Holders, who were deliberately left out of the Kimba ballot,had their own vote : 0 in favour of the dump from 209 eligible voters.Combined Kimba and Barngarla votes = 43.75% in favour of the dump from eligible voters, Does Not equate to Broad Community Support.No mention by Pyne that the Govt want to dump radioactive Spent Nuclear Fuel, and reprocessed SNF on SA farmland that is 10,000 x more radioactive than uranium ore.No mention by Pyne that the Dump legislation removes Judicial Review – no rights of appeal or independent scrutiny.No mention by Pyne that all SA surveys consistently overwhelmingly Do Not support the dump on SA farmland near Kimba.And Christopher, my mum died of an inoperable brain tumour 2 years ago – using nuclear medicine as an excuse to dump radioactive nuclear waste on SA farmland is BS.Why on earth would you knowingly dump radioactive nuclear waste on SA Farmland????
Senate Debate on Nuclear waste dump Bill postponed till at least February 2nd 2021
Kazzi Jai, NoNuclear Waste Dump Anywhere in South Australia, 7 Sec 20Defence Minister Linda Reynolds announces hypersonic missiles for Australia
Australia to begin testing hypersonic missiles within months, The Age, By Anthony Galloway, December 1, 2020 Australia will begin testing hypersonic missiles that can travel at least five times the speed of sound within months under a new agreement with the United States to develop prototypes of the next-generation weapons…….
The Australian government will now begin talking with Australian industry about rolling out a range of technologies to bring the hypersonic missiles from the testing phase to the production line for the Royal Australian Air Force.
Defence will not reveal the estimated cost of developing the new hypersonic missiles but it is expected to run into billions of dollars. A total of $9.3 billion was earmarked in this year’s Force Structure Plan for high-speed long-range missile defences.
Under the plan, the hypersonic missiles would be carried by the RAAF’s existing arsenal of aircraft including the Growlers, Super Hornets, Joint Strike Fighters and Poseidon surveillance planes. The missiles could also be attached to unmanned aircraft such as the new Loyal Wingman drones.
The Australian Defence Minister said the experiments with the US would include demonstrations to show how the weapon performs in operational conditions, which would then inform future purchases.
“Developing this game-changing capability with the United States from an early stage is providing opportunities for Australian industry,” she said…..
Michael Kratsios, the Acting Under Secretary for Research and Engineering for the US’s Department of Defence, said the agreement was “essential to the future of hypersonic research and development, ensuring the US and our allies lead the world in the advancement of this transformational war-fighting capability”. ….. https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/australia-to-begin-testing-hypersonic-missiles-within-months-20201130-p56j5a.html
No uranium or thorium mining for Victoria
Victoria blocks prospect for uranium mining, Australian Mining, Salomae Haselgrove
According to the report, the current Australian market for uranium or thorium products is receiving enough supply via international imports and the Lucas Heights open-pool Australian lightwater (OPAL) reactor in Sydney.
“In this report, the committee makes no recommendations and does not take a strong position on nuclear power as an alternative energy source in Australia and particularly in Victoria,” the committee stated…..
The committee is not convinced that uranium and thorium exploration activities are economically or technologically viable in Victoria.
This was backed up by comments from the Medical Association for Prevention of War (Australia) infectious diseases physician Tilman Ruff, who said export earnings did not even cover employment costs for miners.
“The industry has for over a decade never cracked close to $1 billion a year in export income,” Ruff said.
“They are a relatively small cohort. It employs, on the most recent estimates I have seen, a maximum of about 700 people.”
From the three operational uranium mines in Australia – Olympic Dam and Four Mile in South Australia and Ranger in the Northern Territory, which is closing in January – all uranium products are exported.
At present, the assessment and approval process for ministerial permission to develop a uranium mine takes at least three years.
With Victoria’s solid uranium mining ban, the Minerals Council of Australia stated that “Victoria effectively sends a message there is no point in investors considering Victoria in relation to uranium”…. https://www.australianmining.com.au/news/further-uranium-mining-unlikely-to-be-taken-up-in-australia/
Victorian Government Inquiry confirms that there is no future in nuclear power
Inquiry confirms there is no future in nuclear, Mirage News 27 Nov 20, The Victorian Greens have said Parliament’s recently tabled report into nuclear power has confirmed what they’ve known all along: that there is no future in nuclear.The Greens say they expect this to be the last time Victorian Parliament has to consider nuclear, and say nuclear power must remain buried in the last century where it belongs.
Leader of the Victorian Greens, Samantha Ratnam, said she had serious concerns about Parliament wasting valuable time and resources on an inquiry into nuclear power, and that those concerns were confirmed today despite the nuclear industry trying to convince the committee otherwise.
She added that nuclear power was expensive and water hungry, and had failed at every attempt to become a viable industry in Australia.
All around the world, nuclear power plant proposals are falling over before they even begin.
It’s clear that nuclear power is the past, and renewable energy is the future. Solar and wind power with storage can meet all our energy needs without the need to dig up and manipulate dangerous nuclear material…… https://www.miragenews.com/inquiry-confirms-there-is-no-future-in-nuclear/
Australian government’s Bill to weaken Environmental Law will be rejected in the Senate
Key crossbench senators say they won’t support bid to change Australia’s environment laws
The Coalition plan to hand development approval powers to the states hits a further roadblock after Senate inquiry, Guardian, Graham Readfearn, @readfearn 27 Nov 20,
A Morrison government plan to change Australia’s environment laws to allow development approval powers to be handed to the states has hit a further roadblock, with three key crossbench senators saying in a report they will not support them.
The crossbenchers’ opposition means that, together with Labor and the Greens, the Morrison government’s laws would be voted down in the Senate.
But one crossbench senator told Guardian Australia he could change his mind once he had seen details in documents that the government has so far withheld.
A rushed Senate inquiry into the controversial changes delivered four reports late Friday, with Labor, the Greens and a crossbench group all confirming their opposition.
The government had gagged debate to push the legislation through the lower house – a move that outraged the Greens and Labor.
A final report from a major review of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act, carried out by Prof Graeme Samuel, was handed to the environment minister, Sussan Ley, in early November.
That report supported a move to devolve powers to the states, even though Guardian Australia has revealed the government was making moves to devolve powers months before the Samuel review.
Samuel’s interim report, released in July, found the environment was in unsustainable decline and the EPBC Act was not fit-for-purpose.
In their dissenting report to the inquiry, the crossbench senators Rex Patrick, Jacqui Lambie and Stirling Griff said they could not support the bill while key information was withheld……… https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/nov/27/key-crossbench-senators-say-they-wont-support-bid-to-change-australias-environment-laws
Victorian Inquiry finds nuclear power costly and risky
Inquiry confirms nuclear energy’s [‘proven risks’] https://www.miragenews.com/inquiry-confirms-nuclear-energy-s-proven-risks/ A Victorian parliamentary inquiry has found nuclear power is ‘significantly more expensive than other forms of power generation’ and remains economically unviable without subsidies.
The inquiry has confirmed nuclear energy’s ‘identified and proven risks’.
The Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) welcomed comments made at the tabling of the inquiry that the Victorian government has an ‘unequivocal commitment’ to retain the state’s long-standing nuclear ban.
The upper house inquiry into the prospects for nuclear power and uranium mining in Victoria has found:
- Nuclear energy is ‘significantly more expensive than other forms of power generation’ (finding 3) and without subsidies, a nuclear power industry is economically unviable in Australia (finding 5).
- Supposed advantages to nuclear energy put forward by nuclear proponents are speculative and do not outweigh the identified and proven risks (finding 9).
“This long-standing protection has served Victoria well and its retention is prudent and positive.
“ACF welcomes comments by inquiry member Nina Taylor that the Andrews Government has an ‘unequivocal commitment’ to retain the nuclear ban.
“Nuclear power is high cost and high risk and a distraction from the real energy choices and challenges we face. Our energy future is renewable, not radioactive.”
Inquiry confirms nuclear energy’s ‘proven risks’
Inquiry confirms nuclear energy’s ‘proven risks’
A Victorian parliamentary inquiry has found nuclear power is ‘significantly more expensive than other forms of power generation’ and remains economically unviable without subsidies.
The inquiry has confirmed nuclear energy’s ‘identified and proven risks’.
The Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) welcomed comments made at the tabling of the inquiry that the Victorian government has an ‘unequivocal commitment’ to retain the state’s long-standing nuclear ban.
The upper house inquiry into the prospects for nuclear power and uranium mining in Victoria has found:
- Nuclear energy is ‘significantly more expensive than other forms of power generation’ (finding 3) and without subsidies, a nuclear power industry is economically unviable in Australia (finding 5).
- Supposed advantages to nuclear energy put forward by nuclear proponents are speculative and do not outweigh the identified and proven risks (finding 9).
“In 1983 the Cain state Labor government introduced the Nuclear Activities (Prohibitions) Act which prohibits uranium mining, nuclear power and waste facilities in the state,” said ACF campaigner Dave Sweeney.
“This long-standing protection has served Victoria well and its retention is prudent and positive.
“ACF welcomes comments by inquiry member Nina Taylor that the Andrews Government has an ‘unequivocal commitment’ to retain the nuclear ban.
“Nuclear power is high cost and high risk and a distraction from the real energy choices and challenges we face. Our energy future is renewable, not radioactive.”
A broad coalition of faith, union, environmental, Aboriginal and public health groups, representing millions of Australians, last year declared nuclear power has no role in Australia’s energy future and is a dangerous distraction from the pressing climate challenges. Their united statement demonstrates widespread community opposition to nuclear power.
Victorian Parliament: Legislative Council Committee finds that nuclear ban should stay
Parliament of Victoria
Inquiry into nuclear prohibition
Legislative Council Environment and Planning Committee
November 2020
Findings
FINDING 1: Regardless of technology development, priority should be given to the security, stability and accessibility of energy supply and the need to lower carbon emissions due to climate change and to ensure affordable energy.
FINDING 2: Current estimates of the cost of nuclear energy in Australia are unreliable and accurately costing the full cost is not possible without a detailed business case being undertaken.
FINDING 3: Notwithstanding the ambiguities of the costings, the Committee received substantial evidence that nuclear power is significantly more expensive than other forms of power generation and it is recognised that, currently, nuclear is at the high end of the cost range across all technologies.
FINDING 4: A business case is unlikely to be undertaken, given its costs and resources required, while a prohibition of nuclear energy activities remains and there is not likelihood of a plant being able to be built.
FINDING 5: Without subsidisation a nuclear power industry will remain economically unviable in Australia for now.
FINDING 6: Discussion about Victorian participation in the nuclear fuel cycle is entirely theoretical while the Commonwealth prohibitions remain in place.
FINDING 7: Until there is a change in the Commonwealth position, detailed discussions about emerging technologies in Victoria related to the nuclear fuel cycle and power generation are unlikely to advance.
FINDING 8: The success of any radioactive waste strategy relies on a level of acceptance and confidence across government, industry and the broader community of its legitimacy, effectiveness and integrity in its ability to deal with all facets of waste management, storage and disposal, including the long-term health and safety of workers, affected communities, particularly First Nations Peoples, and the environment.
FINDING 9: Those who propose a policy shift have not presented any argument, data or proof in support of their position that cannot be nullified by those arguing against. Any advantages are speculative in nature, and do not outweigh the identified and proven risks.
FINDING 10: The nuclear medicine industry is not hindered significantly by the current prohibitions against uranium or thorium exploration and mining. Current legislative prohibitions only prohibit mining and the construction or operation of certain nuclear facilities, such as nuclear reactors. This does exclude Victoria from hosting a nuclear research reactor or other nuclear facilities which could be used to increase supply of radioisotopes for medical or industrial purposes. The Committee notes that if Victoria did seek to establish a research reactor, Victorian and Commonwealth prohibitions would need to be repealed to allow this to happen. Therefore, a repeal of just Victorian legislation would not be sufficient to expand
our involvement in nuclear medicine beyond what is currently permissible.
FINDING 11: The current market for this material is receiving enough supply from international import and the OPAL reactor at Lucas Heights. The Committee does not believe that fully repealing the Nuclear Activities (Prohibitions) Act 1983 would have a material influence on the nuclear medicine sector, as it is unlikely Victoria’s involvement would increase beyond its current capacity.
FINDING 12: The Committee is not convinced that thorium exploration and mining is economically or technologically viable.
Contents…….. https://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/epc-lc/article/4350
Exposing the deceptions of Keith Pitt, Minister for Resources, on the failed nuclear waste dump plan
Peter Remta, 23 Nov 20, With some reluctance and an apology I really must now enter the fray because of the misleading and disingenuous statements on behalf of the government regarding the choice of Kimba for the government’s nuclear waste facility
on Keith Pitt, Minister forResources
Pitt keeps claiming that Kimba is “marginal” and “low value” land and hence the ideal site for the nuclear waste facility yet it is regarded as one of the prime and best agricultural areas in this country with an international reputation as to the wheat crop from that region
He is arguing against strong opinion and advice from many agricultural experts and economists
His next claim is that Kimba is the ideal and most suitable location for the facility which is completely at odds from the knowledgeable opinions and advice by international experts in nuclear waste management
In justifying the storage of intermediate level waste at Kimba Pitt claims that it will take many years and huge expense to find and develop a suitable permanent disposal facility for that waste
This is completely false as the Leonora site for an underground nuclear waste repository has been described by one of the leading and largest nuclear waste engineering consultants asglobally an outstanding location for the proposed underground repository
This view is shared by many other overseas experts who cannot understand Australia’s proposals for the above program facility at Kimba
Added to this the Leonora site can be brought to operational standards in line with all international safety requirements and prescriptions for less than $50 million compared to the government estimate of up to $350 million for the inadequate facility at Kimba
This is shown by the concept planning and designs already undertaken for the repository at Leonora which are far more advanced than the government’s proposals for Kimba
What next as the Senate rejects the mandatory selection of Napandee as nuclear waste dump?
Minister Pitt insists he is not giving up on the legislation. Expert in radiation impacts Dr Tilman Ruff has recently called out Pitt’s recent declaration of ‘the urgent need of this facility’ in ‘saving lives’ as ‘reckless claims.’
A new stage in fight against radioactive waste bill, https://www.eurekastreet.com.au/article/a-new-stage-in-fight-against-radioactive-waste-bill?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Eureka%20Street%20Daily%20-%20Tuesday%2017%20November%202020&utm_content=Eureka%20Street%20Daily%20-%20Tuesday%2017%20Nove– Michele Madigan -17 November 2020
-
- ‘We have spent two very productive days at Parliament House speaking about our concerns regarding the proposed Kimba dump site and the Government’s attempts to pass legislation that intentionally takes away our rights to judicial review. Thank you to all of our supporters who helped get us there, this has been a long and expensive fight, but our voices are being heard.’
- This message from the No Radioactive Waste on Agricultural Land in Kimba or SA group (No Rad Waste) Radioactive Waste Management Amendment Bill 2020 was a good intimation that day to anxious followers that the hoped for blocking in the Senate of the Coalition’s Radioactive Waste Management Amendment Bill 2020 was indeed going to happen. ACF’s progressive checking of the Senate Agenda had already revealed that the Bill, listed as number 8 on Monday 9/11, had by Tuesday 10/11 slipped to number 23. On Wednesday 11/11 it had disappeared off the list.Did this mean the government, knowing it didn’t have the numbers, had given up on the legislation — at least for the present?Hope was confirmed for sure the next day. An Adelaide Advertiser’s 12th November article heading read: ‘Pauline Hanson’s One Nation torpedoes Kimba nuclear waste dump in SA.’
The article confirmed ‘The One Nation leader… has confirmed she will not back legislation to build the nuclear waste storage site at Napandee farm, near Kimba.’ The article then went on to explain that ‘Without One Nation’s two crucial votes — and Labor, the Greens, and independent senator Rex Patrick not backing the Bill — the government does not have enough votes for it to pass parliament without changes.’
- As Senator Hanson had told The Advertiser reporter, she ‘had serious concerns about the process to select Napandee, the level of community support, the waste site being built on farming land, and the facility storing intermediate radioactive waste above ground.’
-
So in the long journey of nearly five years since the Australianfederal government’s renewed search for a national radioactive waste facility, it seems a new stage has been reached.Here’s a question: did the federal Minister for Resources overreach himself? With the power to simply name the government’s preferred site, Minister Keith Pitt went a step further by presenting to Parliament the naming of the site.This meant that a passing of the government’s Amendment Bill would block off the chances for any opponent group ton take the processes leading to that decision to the courts — no judicial review.
I wrote of the progress of the bill in the House and later of the Senate Inquiry hearings.In a style reminiscent of recently ex-Minister, Joel Fitzgibbon, in the inquiry Labor Senators Carr and Gallacher chose to side with government in their questioning, comments and final vote.
However Labor, with their knowledge of community concerns, decided to follow Senator Jenny McAllister’s dissenting report and its unease regarding judicial review. Their resolution was ‘to ask for the amendment of removing the name of the Napandee site with the proviso, “Should our amendment be unsuccessful, we willoppose the Bill in the Senate.”’
The reasons? ‘This is a contentious issue and should have the highest levels of scrutiny to ensure that the principles of procedural fairness and natural justice have been applied given the national significance of this matter.’ This from the leader of the Opposition in the Senate, SA Senator Penny Wong’s Office to the Josephite SA Reconciliation Circle on 26th October.
In the meantime, president of No Radioactive Waste on Agricultural Land in Kimba or SA Peter Woolford had first heard of the Minister’s Pitt’s long awaited visit to Kimba and the Napandee site via an ABC’s North and West reporter on Tuesday October 27th. The Minister eventually confirmed that four of their group were permitted to meet with him. As well, of course, were meetings with the executive of the pro-dump District Council of Kimba and theWorking for Future pro-dump group.
‘A PR box ticking exercise’ was how Woolford named the Minister’s visit with their group. After the event it was harder to be dispassionate: ‘Pitt and Ramsey (the federal Member) certainly know what we think and the impact it’s had… it certainly got a little heated at times… We had 45 minutes and we raised many issues relating to the doubling handlingof ILW (intermediate-level waste), the vote unfairness, jobs, judicial review etc.’
With three crossbench votes needed in addition to the Greens and Labor to defeat the Bill, the Barngarla Determination Aboriginal Corporation (BDAC), headed by Chair Jason Bilney had long planned to travel to Canberra to meet with legislators.
COVID restrictions meant that the vital trip was delayed but perhaps providence meant that it took place at just the right time for the November Senate session. Both key opposition groups have long supported each others’ concerns.
So with the government unable to get the Senate numbers, what will happen next?
Minister Pitt insists he is not giving up on the legislation. Expert in radiation impacts Dr Tilman Ruff has recently called out Pitt’s recent declaration of ‘the urgent need of this facility’ in ‘saving lives’ as ‘reckless claims.’
Independent SA Senator Rex Patrick has long been involved with both BDAC and No Rad Waste groups. The Advertiser November 12th report above continued with the voice representing the other two of the vital No votes: ‘I want to make the right decision, not for the interim, I want to make the right decision for future generations,’ Senator Hanson said. ‘I’m not going to be badgered or pushed into this… It’s about looking after thepeople of SA, but also the whole of Australia.’
The SA Stock Journal’s September survey recorded 70 per cent of respondents were against the federal nuclear dump plan. In Aboriginal Way Spring 2020, Karina Lester, Chair of YNTAC, reported that four Aboriginal groups ‘right across the state’ including the Yankunyjatjara Native Title
Aboriginal Corporation have ‘submitted their concern.’
In November, it’s good to hear that South Australians aren’t alone in actively recognising that simply storing above ground, for at least ‘decades,’ nuclear waste that will be radioactive for 10,000 years is a pertinent national issue.
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
20 May – Webinar – The dangerous world of AUKUS, US, military occupation and suppression of dissent
National Webinar, 20th May, 2026, 6.30pm AEST. Confronting laws restricting/suppressing protest speech and action
Speakers: Former Sen. Rex Patrick, Lawyer Nick Hanna ,Arthur Rorris ,Jorgen Doyle, Sen David Shoebbridge,
Facilitator Kelley Tranter.
of the week – Australians for War Powers Reform (AWPR)
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
Antinuclear 