A mixed blessing – the sudden departure of Australia’s nuclear high priest, Dr Adi Paterson
I am reminded of Hilaire Belloc’s advice to the young – ”Always keep a hold of Nurse, for fear of 
finding something worse”.
Among other sycophantic tributes, Dr Adi Paterson is lauded for encouraging women into the nuclear industry.
Adi Paterson spent several years in South Africa, trying to establish Small Nuclear Reactors. It turned out to be Tan expensive and useless exercise. Then he came to Australia, with the same dream. He quietly signed Australia up to the Framework Agreement for International Collaboration on Research and Development of Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems, without any consultation, discussion in Parliament (which rubber-stamped this later).
He quietly organised Australia’s participation with China in developing small nuclear reactors.
He rubbished renewable energy at a solar conference.
He went to Kimba to do propaganda for the nuclear waste dump plan, but admitted that there was no economic benefit in the low level waste dump, so the intermediate level waste was the real intention.
Leadership changes at ANSTO, Statement from the ANSTO Chair: Dr Annabelle Bennett 9 Sep 20, Dr Adi Paterson has resigned as CEO of ANSTO slightly ahead of time of his term. He has decided to take a period of leave before formally finishing. ……..
Mr Shaun Jenkinson will continue as acting CEO, while the Board undertakes a global search for a permanent CEO. https://www.ansto.gov.au/news/leadership-changes-at-ansto?fbclid=IwAR0cLOwne84D7XJP9UGwrf1aVAxyXgStAB6502zPYUgsqxdbjUuyUR3MYjo
Adrian “Adi” Paterson is a South African scientist and engineer best known for his work on Pebble Bed modular reactor research and development. He was appointed CEO of the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) in 2009
He emigrated to Australia in 2008 and was appointed Chief Executive Officer at ANSTO in March 2009.
Australia is to build new nuclear reactors, in partnership with China (does Parliament know?)
Republishing again, in view of Dr Adi Paterson’s departure from Ansto.
Republishing this one, in view of news from the UK, that a British-China nuclear research programme may be siphoning UK tax-payers’ funds off into China’s military projects.
Australia is back in the nuclear game, Independent Australia, By Noel Wauchope | 24 March 2019, One of Australia’s chief advocates for nuclear power Dr Adi Paterson, CEO of Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, (ANSTO), has done it again.
This time, he quietly signed Australia up to spend taxpayers’ money on developing a new nuclear gimmick — the Thorium Molten Salt Reactor (TMSR).
This new nuclear reactor does not physically exist and there is no market for it. So its development depends on government funding.
Proponents claim that this nuclear reactor would be better and cheaper than the existing (very expensive) pressurised water reactors, but this claim has been refuted. The TMSR has been described by analyst Oliver Tickell as not “green”, not “viable” and not likely. More recently, the plan has been criticised as, among other things, just too expensive — not feasible as a profitable commercial energy source.
Paterson’s signing up to this agreement received no Parliamentary discussion and no public information. The news just appeared in a relatively obscure engineering journal.
The public remains unaware of this.
In 2017, we learned through the Senate Committee process that Dr Paterson had, in June 2016, signed Australia up to the Framework Agreement for International Collaboration on Research and Development of Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems (also accessible by Parliament Hansard Economics Legislation Committee 30/05/2017).
This was in advance of any Parliamentary discussion and despite Australia’s law prohibiting nuclear power development. Paterson’s decision was later rubber-stamped by a Senate Committee……..
Dr Paterson was then obviously supremely confident in his ability to make pro-nuclear decisions for Australia.
Nothing seems to have changed in Paterson’s confidence levels about making decisions on behalf of Australia.
Interestingly, Bill Gates has abandoned his nuclear co-operation with China. His company TerraPower was to develop Generation IV nuclear reactors. Gates decided to pull out of this because the Trump Administration, led by the Energy Department, announced in October that it was implementing measures to prevent China’s illegal diversion of U.S. civil nuclear technology for military or other unauthorised purposes.
Apparently, these considerations have not weighed heavily on the Australian Parliament.
Is this because the Parliament doesn’t know anything about Dr Paterson’s agreement for Australia to partner with the Shanghai Institute of Applied Physics (SINAP) in developing Thorium Molten Salt Reactors? https://independentaustralia.net/environment/environment-display/australia-is-back-in-the-nuclear-game,12488#.XJWdhxDqitc.twitter
Scott Morrison transfers his love affair with coal, to gas
Our coal-fondling PM switches his prop to gas, but is anything really different? Jacqueline Maley, Columnist and senior journalist, The Age, 20 Sept 290 In February 2017, Scott Morrison walked into Parliament to perform a piece of coal-centred theatre that became one of the defining moments of his political career. “Mr Speaker, this is coal,” he pronounced, brandishing a black lump. “Don’t be afraid, don’t be scared. It won’t hurt you!”
As was pointed out at the time, the coal must have been lacquered – touching raw coal covers you in black dust. Morrison didn’t want to get his hands dirty. He just wanted to score a political point.
His speech was not about the benefits of coal so much as it was a gleeful attempt to wedge Labor over the electability problem it had, and still has – the insoluble tension between its heavy industry-reliant, blue-collar voter base, and its urban voters, who want meaningful climate action.
No one feels this tension more than Opposition Leader Anthony Albanese, who is old-Labor in his sensibilities, but whose inner-Sydney electorate is under siege from the Greens…………
It was always the Coalition, of course, that had the ideological attachment to coal as an energy source. The Nationals, in particular, appear to be moving away from representing farmers to supporting what is buried in the earth beneath their crops.
It is Labor that has always had the political problem with coal. It needed to convince its blue-collar base it cared about jobs and electricity prices, while also being serious about emissions reduction. But Labor is also the only side of politics that has ever been effective on emissions reduction, instituting in 2012 the only sensible mechanism to bring emissions down – a carbon price and emissions trading scheme.
It worked, in the short time it was operational, before being abolished by Tony Abbott, elected in a 2013 landslide to do exactly that.
The energy prop has changed now, with Morrison this week announcing he wants a “gas-led recovery” for the post-COVID-19 future. He is backing slowly away from coal.
In a speech in the Hunter Valley – a carefully chosen location given its significance in Labor’s own climate wars – he said there was “no credible energy transition plan for an economy like Australia that does not involve the greater use of gas”.
Details of his plan were scant. It is a plan for a plan. Morrison issued an ultimatum to electricity companies, saying if the industry did not back “dispatchable” electricity generation by next year, taxpayer money would be used to build a gas-fired power plant in the Hunter Valley, replacing the near-defunct Liddell coal plant at Muswellbrook………
Most Australians are too stressed by contemporary events, and fatigued by the climate wars, to follow the detail, which is complex. But Morrison will be able to use his “gas-led recovery” rhetoric to hedge.
His government no longer has to fight a rearguard action in defence of coal, an energy source that markets have firmly turned away from, and which public opinion is swaying against. But his party can still keep its distance from the renewable energy sources to which it seems to nurse an ideological objection. It remains to be seen if the plan will work to reduce emissions, or ensure low electricity prices.
Meanwhile, business continues to move ahead faster than the government. On Friday, BlackRock, the world’s largest investor, with $US7.32 trillion in assets under management, released a report showing that more than 1000 global companies and other organisations had signed up to the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosure standards.
………Morrison’s plan for a plan will stand in for an energy policy, for now, from a government that has thoroughly betrayed the electorate on this issue for the seven years it has been in power. In that time, the earth has warmed further, and Australia has had a good taste of what is yet to come in terms of climate devastation. https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/our-coal-fondling-pm-switches-his-prop-to-gas-but-is-anything-really-different-20200918-p55ww9.html
Scott Morrison turns to socialism, with his new religion, not coal, but “gas-led recovery”
It’s a small church that sings the gas gospel, Canberra Times, Michelle Grattan, 18 Sep 20,
If Labor were threatening to build a power station, the Liberals would likely be screaming “socialists”.
As for a Coalition government contemplating such a thing – well, to say the obvious, it hardly fits with the Liberals’ stated free-market, private-enterprise philosophy. But hey, neither does the hyper-Keynesian support package to cushion the economy through the pandemic.
The gas power plant is another matter, and it will be fascinating to see how the debate plays out if the threat turns into reality.
The threat is part of the go-with-gas policy unveiled by Scott Morrison this week, spruiked as driving a “gas-fired” recovery, especially for manufacturing. This sounds suspiciously like a three-word slogan that promises more than it is likely to deliver.
But Morrison has signed up to the church of gas, whose pastors include Nev Power, chairman of the Prime Minister’s COVID-19 commission, and Andrew Liveris, the head of its (now defunct) manufacturing taskforce, which delivered a pro-gas report.
Much of the gas plan is broad and aspirational at this stage. But the threat is specific enough.
Morrison said the electricity sector must lock in by April investments to deliver 1000MW of new dispatchable energy to replace the Liddell coal-fired power station before it closes in 2023. Or else. The government-owned Snowy Hydro was working on options, he said.
Going back to Malcolm Turnbull’s time, the government conducted – and lost – a bitter battle with AGL over the planned Liddell closure. It exerted maximum pressure on the company to extend the life of the station, or alternatively to sell it, but to no avail.
The gas policy, especially the threat, hasn’t gone down well – with the energy sector or environmentalists. And it’s come under criticism from experts and even from within Coalition ranks.
The Australian Energy Council, representing investors and generators, warned the spectre of a government gas generator could put off private investors.
Environmentalists are against gas anyway, whoever produces it, because it is a fossil fuel and therefore has emissions, albeit not as bad as coal.
The Nationals’ Matt Canavan, who not so long ago was resources minister, says if a new power station is to be built in the Hunter region it should be coal-fired.
And the director of the Grattan Institute’s energy program, Tony Wood, says the government’s claim that 1000MW of new dispatchable capacity is needed isn’t supported by the advice from its own Liddell taskforce.
More generally, Wood argues the idea of a gas-led recovery is “a mirage”.
He says east-coast gas prices are unlikely to fall to very low levels and anyway, even very low prices would not stimulate major economic activity. “Investing in more gas infrastructure in the face of climate change looks more like a herd of stampeding white elephants” is Wood’s blunt assessment…….
Critics don’t like the proposed expansion of the remit of the Australian Renewable Energy Agency and the Clean Energy Finance Corporation beyond supporting renewables. https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/6931688/its-a-small-church-that-sings-the-gas-gospel/?cs=14230
Words Before Waste: South Australians Call for More Consultation on Federal Radioactive Waste Plan
New research shows that, while South Australians are divided on the issue of a nuclear waste dump, a clear majority believe more consultation should be undertaken before any final decision is made regarding a proposed disposal and storage facility near Kimba on the Eyre Peninsula.
The Australia Institute recently surveyed 510 South Australians about the proposed nuclear waste facility.
Key Findings:
- Two in three South Australians (66%) say the traditional custodians of the land, the Barngarla people, should be formally consulted via a ballot before any proposal is advanced.
- Three in five South Australians (60%) believe the whole SA population should be formally consulted via a ballot before any proposal is allowed to go ahead.
- Two in five South Australians (40%) oppose the nuclear waste dump, while the same share of respondents (40%) support the plan.
- One in two South Australians (51%) oppose the potential use of the South Australian ports and roads to transport nuclear waste.
“This issue is dividing the state and there is a strong appetite for more consultation with both the Barngarla people and the general South Australian public,” said Noah Schultz-Byard, South Australian Director at The Australia Institute.
“Our research has shown that a significant number of people hold concerns about the transportation of nuclear waste on South Australian roads and through South Australian ports.
“In 2016 the current Premier Steven Marshall said he had much greater ambitions for South Australia than for it to become a nuclear waste dump. If that is still the case, the Premier should support a state Parliamentary inquiry and a far broader community conversation regarding the proposed federal facility.”
“This is a highly controversial proposal, with many questions unanswered and a lot of misinformation flying around. It’s little wonder the community is divided,” said Craig Wilkins, Chief Executive of Conservation SA.
“However, one thing is crystal clear: the Barngarla people, who are the formal native title owners of the area, have consistently said they have not been properly consulted. The South Australian people clearly believe further consultation, particularly with Barngarla Traditional Owners, must take place before this proposal progresses.
“There is no hurry: federal authorities have confirmed that there is safe and secure storage at Lucas Heights in Sydney for decades. So, let’s get the process and the consultation right – starting with genuine and respectful engagement with the Barngarla people,” he said.
Call to Australian Labor Party to state its position on Napandee nuclear waste dump plan
Labor split on nuclear waste dump, https://www.miragenews.com/labor-split-on-nuclear-waste-dump/ The Greens are calling on the Labor Leader in the Senate, Penny Wong to declare where her party stands on the proposed Nuclear Waste Dump in SA, after a clear division within the Labor Party was revealed in a Senate Inquiry Report released late yesterday.
NSW Labor Senator Jenny McAllister delivered a dissenting report, independent of her Labor colleagues including SA Senator Alex Gallacher who supports the majority report that SA should be a dumping ground for nuclear waste.
Greens Senator for South Australia Sarah Hanson-Young said:
“Penny Wong needs to come out today and tell South Australians where the Labor Party stands.
“Does it stand with Senator McAllister who has stated the process for selecting a site has been flawed and no meaningful community consent obtained? Or does it stand with SA Senator Alex Gallacher and the Liberal Party who want to dump on SA?
“The decision to set up a nuclear waste dump in SA will affect our state for generations to come. All South Australians should have the right to have their say on this important issue and they should know very clearly where the ‘opposition party’ stands both at a federal and state level.”
Broad support for nuclear waste dump at Napandee? Senate report shows that is a lie
|
The inquiry was established to examine controversial changes to national radioactive waste laws in order to secure the Kimba site and prevent this decision from being subject to judicial review. “This is a deeply deficient plan based on a flawed and restrictive process,” Australian Conservation Foundation campaigner Dave Sweeney said. “That one Committee inquiry has generated four separate responses from Senators shows there is no consensus on the plan. “The Coalition-dominated majority report predictably supported the waste plan, while the three other responses are critical. “The government’s proposal would lead to potentially dangerous waste management, including trucking radioactive waste from Lucas Heights in Sydney through our communities and dumping it on South Australian farmland. This is actively opposed by many in the wider region, including the Barngarla Traditional Owners who have been consistently excluded from the consultation process. This is not a credible plan. Australians deserve better than an approach which lacks credibility, is inconsistent with international standards, and shirks hard questions about what to do with the worst waste.” The federal waste plan has drawn criticism and opposition from a range of civil society and community groups and South Australia’s Labor opposition. Federal Labor voted against the plan in the House of Representatives in June. Key concerns with the plan include:
|
|
See this graphic exposure of the coal, oil, gas, corruption in Australian government
Australian Government Corrupt Connections – Fossil Fuels , https://tasmaniantimes.com/2020/09/corrupt-connections-fossil-fuels/Our democracy has been hijacked by the fossil fuel industry. Australians need to know about government links with the coal, oil & gas industry.Please share this so more people are aware. WE need an ICAC now!
For more information we recommend watching “Dirty Power” (15 min) which documents many of the fossil fuel links to government detailed in this thread. Australian Government Corrupt Connections – Fossil Fuels
Thread produced by @aaron_brooks10 & @DanielBleakleyMost info sourced from michaelwest.com.au
Coalition to divert renewable energy funding away from wind and solar
|
Coalition to divert renewable energy funding away from wind and solar
Scott Morrison says solar and wind are commercially viable and do not need subsidies from the $1.43bn funding, Guardian, Katharine Murphy and Adam Morton, Thu 17 Sep 2020 The Morrison government will continue to fund Australia’s renewable energy agency to the tune of $1.43bn over a decade but overhaul its mandate so there will be less investment in solar and wind, and more focus on investment in hydrogen, carbon capture and storage, microgrids and energy efficiency.The baseline funding for the Australian Renewable Energy Agency (Arena) will be supplemented by a transfer of funds from the government’s emissions reduction fund and a new grants program worth $193.4m – but that represents a funding cut to the agency which was established by the Gillard government in 2011. The significant overhaul will be unveiled by Scott Morrison on Thursday ahead of the government outlining its next steps in the technology roadmap, which is the government’s emissions reduction strategy. The energy minister, Angus Taylor, is expected to unveil the government’s inaugural low emissions technology statement during a speech at the National Press Club early next week…….. The Morrison government will continue to fund Australia’s renewable energy agency to the tune of $1.43bn over a decade but overhaul its mandate so there will be less investment in solar and wind, and more focus on investment in hydrogen, carbon capture and storage, microgrids and energy efficiency……… The government will also continue to plough more taxpayer funds into carbon capture and storage through a $50m fund, while $70.2m will be allocated for an export hydrogen hub. ……. The overhaul of Arena follows the government outlining first steps in its much vaunted “gas-led recovery” from the economic shock caused by the coronavirus. Morrison on Tuesday pointed to new commitments in the October budget, including funding of $52.9m to unlock more gas supply and boost transport infrastructure. As well as flagging that the government would back the construction of a new gas-fired power station in the Hunter Valley if the energy company AGL failed to replace Liddell, Morrison held open the option of taxpayer underwriting for priority gas projects, streamlining approvals or creating special purpose vehicles for new investment. While Morrison and Taylor have been muscling up about the importance of new generation to replace Liddell, the government’s proposition has not been backed by a taskforce report commissioned to assess the impact of its closure. Morrison said this week the government had estimated 1,000 megawatts of new dispatchable electricity generation capacity would be needed to replace Liddell, which owner AGL has announced will close in early 2023. But the taskforce does not find that 1,000MW of additional dispatchable electricity would be needed. It listed a range of energy committed and probable projects that it found would be “more than sufficient” to maintain a high level of power grid reliability as Liddell shut.https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/sep/17/coalition-to-divert-renewable-energy-funding-away-from-wind-and-solar |
|
Australian government never intended to follow the advice of the review on environmental law
 Coalition began writing landmark environment bill before receiving review it had ordered, Guardian, Lisa Cox, Wed 16 Sep 2020 Review of EPBC Act was delivered to government 11 days after process of drawing up legislation had begun, The Morrison government started preparing controversial legislation to amend Australia’s environmental laws before it had received a report from a formal review into whether the act was working.The environment department instructed the Office of Parliamentary Counsel to begin drafting the changes to the legislation on 19 June, 11 days before the government received the interim report of the review of Australia’s national environment laws.Labor, the Greens and environment groups say the evidence, provided in answers to a Senate committee, suggests the government never intended to adopt the expert advice of the review, chaired by the former competition watchdog head Graeme Samuel. Samuel delivered his interim report, a once-in-a-decade statutory review of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act, to the government on 30 June. It found Australian governments had failed to protect Australia’s unique wildlife and habitats and recommended an overhaul of the laws to make the country’s systems of environmental protection more effective. Samuel recommended the devolution of approval powers to the states along with the introduction of national environmental standards and an independent regulator to enforce the law.
But the bill introduced in August was a near replica of failed “one-stop-shop” legislation introduced under former prime minister Tony Abbott. It contained no reference to any of Samuel’s other recommendations, including national standards. It passed the lower house last month after the government gagged debate…………. Basha Stasak, from the Australian Conservation Foundation, said Samuel’s report had warned against the approach adopted by the Abbott government in 2014, in part because it lacked legislated national environmental standards. “Yet before the federal government had even received Prof Samuel’s interim report, it was already drafting legislation to hand over environmental responsibility to weaker state regimes without national standards,” she said. Crossbench senators have indicated they will not support the proposed changes, in part because they include nothing to improve the protection of Australia’s ailing wildlife and natural heritage. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/sep/16/coalition-began-writing-landmark-environment-bill-before-receiving-review-it-had-ordered |
|
‘Gas-led recovery’ may actually deter energy investment: Experts
|
‘Gas-led recovery’ may actually deter energy investment: Experts, The New Daily, Josh Butler, 16 SEp 20, Climate change and clean energy campaigners were left dismayed at the
federal government’s plans to spearhead a “gas-led recovery” from COVID-19, saying it will be ineffective and damage the prospects of meeting international emissions reduction commitments. Independent MP Zali Steggall claimed the Prime Minister’s announcement was “blackmailing private companies”, while even energy companies said the announcement – however well meaning –could actually lead to further uncertainty and less investment in the market. On Tuesday, PM Scott Morrison announced plans to lean heavily on the gas sector in the nation’s recovery from the pandemic, talking up the fuel’s potential to lower power prices and shore up reliability in the electricity grid. He also flagged the possibility of the commonwealth helping foot the cost for a new gas-fired power station in NSW, if the soon-to-be-closed Liddell plant is not replaced. But climate experts and clean energy campaigners are up in arms over the plan, which they say will be far more expensive and far worse for the environment than renewables. ….. Mr Bourne, a former regional president with BP Australasia, said gas was better for the environment than coal – but only marginally, when emissions linked to its extraction, production and transmission were factored in. “It’s not that much better than coal,” he said. The Australian Energy Council, representing major investors in power generation, said the government’s announcement may actually create more uncertainty and less investment in the sector – saying “even discussions and threats of intervention act as a deterrent”…… Labor’s shadow energy minister Mark Butler slammed gas as “the most expensive way to build new energy”……… https://thenewdaily.com.au/news/2020/09/15/gas-led-recovery-climate/ |
|
South Australian Labor calls on the Federal Government to halt its plans to dump nuclear waste at Kimba.
SUSAN CLOSE MP Shadow Minister for Environment and Water EDDIE HUGHES MP Member for Giles 15 Sept 20,
Kimba site selection process flawed, waste dump plans must be scrapped
South Australian Labor is calling on the Federal Government to halt its plans to dump nuclear waste at Kimba. The The decision follows the release of the Senate Economics Legislation Committee report on the National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment (Site Specification Community Fund and Other Measures) Bill 2020.
The report found there was a deliberate attempt to remove judicial review rights from the Barngarla people and the farming community of the Kimba area.
In June this year, the Federal Opposition voted against this legislation in the House of Representatives.
SA Labor has consistently expressed its concerns about the site selection process and the lack of consultation with native title holders. Quotes attributable to Shadow Minister for Environment Susan Close
This was a dreadful process from start to finish, resulting in fractures within the local community over the dump.
The SA ALP has committed to traditional owners having a right of veto over any nuclear waste sites, yet the federal government has shown no respect to the local Aboriginal people.
Quotes attributable to Member for Giles Eddie Hughes
This report clearly reflects that any mediation undertaken with the Barngarla people did not have any legal or political weight.
This has been a very divisive process from the beginning due to individual land owners nominating the sites.
Instead of rushing this quick fix by dumping in SA, the federal government should do the work on a long-term plan for the management of nuclear waste in Australia.
We clearly have an obligation to manage our domestic nuclear waste in a responsible way for the long term. This proposal falls far short of meeting that obligation.
Observations on the Senate Radioactive Waste Inquiry Report
Key messages:
- Report has failed to provide a compelling case for the need for the proposed changes and the legal override
- The fact that there are multiple responses and findings highlights there is no broad political consensus – this mirrors that there is no broad community support
- This report does not provide certainty for the project – it remains unproven, unwelcome and this unfinished business will remain the focus of active contest.
The majority report – Coalition (and I presume but am not certain, some Labor members) predictably recommend the legislation be advanced.
Jenny McAllister – (Labor) has an individual dissenting report that changing the process ‘should not proceed at this time’
Rex Patrick – Independent – has a dissenting report stating the process has been flawed and improper and the waste should go to Woomera
The Greens – have a dissenting report that the legislation should not be advanced and that an inquiry into alternative management options and a consultation with transport corridor communities take place.
The majority reports recommends that the legislation be advanced – with the sop that the department and Barngarla ‘discuss issues and find a pathway for on-going consultation’, including through an independent mediator. These folks are graduates in the school that no doesn’t mean no – it means not yet.
Critical mass in Canberra puts nuclear dump in doubt
 Kimba radioactive waste plans faces challenge in parliament following release of Senate inquiry reportPlans for a nuclear waste dump in the South Australian outback could still be derailed as opposition against laws clearing its path run into opposition from multiple political players. Michelle Etheridge, Regional Editor, The Advertiser, September 14, 2020 https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/business/kimba-radioactive-waste-plans-faces-challenge-in-parliament-following-release-of-senate-inquiry-report/news-story/5f0c57845cb063a6eed2003673350f78 The Federal Government faces a challenge to pass its radioactive waste bill through Parliament, amid dissent from a Labor Senator, the Greens and Independent Senator Rex Patrick. *****************************
A Senate committee probe into the draft legislation paving way for a radioactive waste site at Napandee farm, near Kimba, has recommended it be passed. However, dissenting reports from Labor’s Jenny McAllister, Greens Senator Sarah-Hanson Young and Mr Patrick have raised a raft of concerns, including it preventing the community from seeking a judicial review of the site selection process.
*****************************
Under the plans, the Government will store low-level waste at Napandee permanently, and intermediate level waste for several decades.
*****************************
Senator McAllister said the traditional landowners, the Barngarla people, were worried the new legislation specifying the site would override their right to a judicial review that would normally apply if Resources Minister Keith Pitt declared the location. She said the Government had given “no compelling reason” for the change.
*****************************
Senator Patrick said the bill emerged because “the Government botched its own site selection process to such a degree that it would almost certainly have seen a site selected through a ministerial decision overturned on judicial review”. The Government wanted the Senate to “fix up its mistake”, he said, but it could not do that “without serving up the majority of the stakeholders … with a plate of Government-cooked injustice”.
*****************************
A Kimba Council-run ballot found 62 per cent of respondents supported the waste facility in their region. The Barngarla people lost a court battle to be included, later holding their own vote, which rejected the plans.
*****************************
Resources Minister Keith Pitt says the nuclear proposal will bring more than 40 jobs to the Kimba area. While many in the community have welcomed nuclear storage as a new industry, providing more than 40 jobs and a $31 million community funding package, others are staunchly opposed. They have cited worries including the impact on agricultural land, and double-handling of intermediate level waste.
*****************************
Senator Hanson-Young’s report said most of the 105 submissions the committee received opposed the bill and the broader SA community deserved a say in the project.
Mr Pitt said the committee’s report put the Government “one step closer” to a storage site for nuclear waste – “a process which has been ongoing for four decades”. “The individual dissenting report by Senator McAllister aside, I would like to acknowledge the largely bipartisan approach to the location and construction of this facility,” he said.
*****************************
Conservation SA chief executive Craig Wilkins and Australian Conservation Foundation campaigner Dave Sweeney said the Senate split over the issue reflected broader community division. “This is completely at odds with Federal Government rhetoric of only proceeding with facility if there is clear majority community support,” Mr Wilkins said.
*****************************
Senator Hanson-Young said the Senate inquiry showed the draft legislation was “a highly flawed bill”. “There are deep concerns that this bill blatantly seeks to prevent any right to judicial review of this process and sets in stone Kimba as the dump site against strong community opposition,” she said.
|
|
Senate inquiry recommends passing nuclear waste site at Napandee, South Australia
Senate inquiry recommends passing nuclear waste site at Napandee, South Australia, ABC North and West SA, By Gary-Jon Lysaght and Gabriella Marchant
Dissent in the ranks
While the committee as a whole recommended the amendments be passed, there were three MPs who opposed the decision — the Greens’ Sarah Hanson-Young, independent senator Rex Patrick and Labor senator Jenny McAllister.
“The proposed facility has not received the support of the relevant traditional owners, or of many other First Nations representatives in South Australia,” Ms McAllister wrote in the report.
“In particular, the process undertaken to assess community attitudes to the facility has been criticised as inadequate by the Barngarla Determination Aboriginal Corporation on the grounds that its members were excluded from participating in the community ballot commissioned to assess sentiment.”
But South Australian Labor senator Alex Gallacher, who is also on the committee, said Ms McAllister’s views did not represent the entire party.
“There’s a variety of views in the Labor party,” he said………
Mr Patrick said the Woomera Prohibited Area (WPA), a large defence testing arena in outback SA, should still be considered as a potential site.
“Defence creates an argument that says there is nowhere within the Woomera Prohibited Area you can put a National Radioactive Waste Management Facility,” he said.
“My report goes to all the areas within the WPA that have never been subject to any testing.”
Traditional owners ‘excluded from vote’
A community ballot was held at Kimba in 2019, which showed more than 60 per cent of the Kimba community supported the facility.
But the traditional owners of the region, the Barngarla, were not included in the vote, because it was limited to those living in the Kimba Council area.
Barngarla Determination Aboriginal Corporation chairman Jason Bilney said the Senate should vote the bill down.
“If the Government would only include traditional owners as a whole from the start and let Barngarla be a part of the process,” he said.
“We were excluded from the vote.”
Mr Bilney said he was concerned the proposed legislation effectively removed citizens’ ability to challenge the Government’s selection of the site in the courts.
“They’ve announced the site, why can’t they just give a reason why they picked the site, and we all have the right to question why they picked it?” he said.
“What have they got to hide, now they want to go and take away the judicial review?” https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-09-15/senate-committee-recommends-nuclear-waste-facility-at-napandee/12658266
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 