Australian news, and some related international items

Barngarla native title holders do NOT support National Radioactive Waste Management Facility on their land – the nominated sites

Selection Process for a National Radioactive Waste Management Facility in South Australia – Submission From: Barngarla Determination Aboriginal Corporation ICN 8603 : 3 April 2018

The Barngarla Determination Aboriginal Corporation (BDAC) is the prescribed body corporate for the Barngarla native title holders as defined in the Barngarla Determination of Native Title made by the Federal Court in Croft’ on behalf of the Bamgar/a Native Title Claim Group v State of South Australia (N0 2) [2016] FCA 724 (SAD 60/11/998) on 23 June 2016.

We attach a map [on original]of the Barngarla Determination Area, as Schedule I. It clearly shows that the Barngarla are the native title holders for the two nominated sites near Kiinba, namely the Lyndhurst and Napandee nominated sites.

BDAC believes that community consultation in relation to the site selection rocess for a National Radioactive Waste Management Facility (NRWMF) has been patently inadequate, bordering on non-existent.

We hold this view given the lack of contact by the Federal Government and the Department of Industry, Innovation and Science (the Department) from the outset. The chronology of consultation is contained in our letter to the Department of 21 February 2018 (which is attached [on original] along with all other correspondence as Schedule 2), for the sake of ease of reading we reproduce a version of it below:

On 7 April2017, three months after the Lyndhurst and Napandee sites were nominated, Barngarla made contact with the Department. Prior to this letter, the Department had made no contact with the Aboriginal traditional owners or native title holders of the area.

Notwithstanding this complete lack of contact, the Department was asserting that there were no Aboriginal heritage issues in the area. Therefore, the Barngarla letter of 7 April2017 sought to correct the Department and indicated that Barn aria needed to be engaged with. Barngarla further indicated that the failure to consult to date was unacceptable.

On 4 May 2017, Barngarla received a pro forma letter from Mr. Bruce Wilson (the date April2017 had been crossed out with May inserted). The letter contained three general paragraphs and did not in any way address the Barngarla’s concerns.

On 10 July 2017, Barngarla sent a response to Mr. Wilson, requesting s ecific information on the following:

ll proposed activities, which the Department seeks to undertake for the purposes of the proj’ect, ‘what protocols, if any, the Department intends to apply in respect of Aboriginal Heritage; and Selection process for a national radioactive waste management facility in South Australia Submission any assessment that the Department has undertaken in respect of the impact of the proposal on Aboriginal Heritage in the Bamgar/a Determination Area.

On 14 August 2017 (originally dated 11 August, with the 11 crossed out and replaced with a hand written 14), Barngarla received a particularly uriconstructive letter from Mr. Bruce MCCleary. We do not repeat it here, but a longer description of this letter i contained in our letter of 21 contained in our letter of 21 February 2018.

Barngarla responded to the 14 August 20171etter, on 13 October 2017, providing the Department with all of the information (that the Commonwealth already had) indicating the status of BDAC, and Norman Waterhouse’s role as the Solicitors for Barngarla.

Barngarla did not receive a response to their letter of 13 October 2017. The next item of correspondence we received was a further pro forma letter from Mr. Bruce MCCleary, dated 31 October 2017, confirming the Solicitor for Barn arla’s a arent “nomination” for the Kiinba Consultative Committee (although Mr Llewellyn-Jones himself did not nominate for this Committee). It is obvious from reviewing the correspondence, that this letter was not a response to any of the letters sent by Bamgarla and was just a misaddressed pro forma letter of no substance.

Bamgarla received no further correspondence from the Department in 2017

Barngarla finally received a letter on 20 February 2018, congratulating BDAC for its status as a PBC (somewhat out of date, given that this had occurred approximately one year earlier) and advising that the Department would like to present to the BDAC Board. However, this letter.

Did not address any of the substantive matters raised by Barngarla on 7 A in 2017 or, O July 2017; in particularit does not answer how the Department could assert a lack of any Barngarla Aboriginal heritage given that there had been no discussions or engagement with Barngarla;

Did not answer the express questions put to the Department on 10 July 2017; and ,

Suggested that the first consultation with Barngarla should occur some 14 months after the Lyndhurst and Napandee sites were nominated, even though the Department had been making representations about the Barn aria and Aboriginal heritage during this time.

It is Barngarla’s position that the entire consultation process has been completelyl inappropriate and, in most cases, has involved being copied into pro forma correspondence, which is not relevant to any of the issues raised by Barngarla.

As can be seen above, BDAC has repeatedly contacted the Department to address Barngarla heritage concerns as the traditional owners in the Kiinba area. Correspondence was instigated by BDAC, not by the Department. Again, as indicated above, Barngarla’s most recent letter to the Department on 21 February 2018 provides a chronological outline of BDAC’s communication with the Department. All relevant correspondence is enclosed with this submission.

The correspondence largely speaks for itself, and so forms part of this submission. Most concerning, apart from the Department not having made contact with the Aboriginal traditional owners or native title holders for the area, was the Department’s assertion that there were no Aboriginal heritage issues in the area surrounding Lyndhurst and Napandee. ‘ This assertion was made without any consultation with these traditional owners. Further, Barngarla have repeatedly asked, on three separate occasions, for the Department to provide the basis of this assertion, which the Department has failed to do. It is not the case that there is no Aboriginal heritage in the area. Given the complete inactivity of the Department to engage with Barngarla, BDAC retained out of its own funds, the services of Dr Dee Gorring to conduct a heritage assessment of the area. This took place on 27 February 2018 to 3 March 2018. Preliminary conclusions from Dr Gorring indicated that there are a number of sites that have been identified surrounding the site of Lyndhurst and spanning across to the site of Napandee.

Accordingly, as per terms of reference:

The Department has not even engaged with Barngarla to establish whether there is any relevant Indigenous support for the NRWMF. Therefore, in respect of the Committee’s terms of reference paragraph (c), the need for Indigenous support has so far not played a part in the Department’s site selection process at all in respect of the sites near Kiinba.

The Barngarla are not aware of the Government ‘community benefit program payments referred to in the Committee’s terms of reference paragraph (d). These have therefore had no impact upon the sentiment of the Barngarla Community.

However, irrespective of any community benefit package, Barngarla would not support the NRWMF in the area. This indicates that the Committee’s terms of reference paragraph (b) have not been met; there is no ‘broad community support’ in respect of the NRWMF from Barngarla.

The proposed NRWMF does not have the support of BDAC nor does the NRWMF have the support of the broader Barngarla Community.

As seen above, there has been no appropriate consultation process. The approaches made by BDAC have been rebuffed by a combination of meaningless pro forma correspondence, bureaucratic tangents, and obfuscation, which has resulted in a contrived consultation process completely lacking in transparency.


April 25, 2018 Posted by | Federal nuclear waste dump, South Australia | Leave a comment

Michele Madigan suggests alternative plan for Lucas Heights nuclear waste

Effectively it is about relocating Australia’s worst radioactive waste from above ground interim storage at a purpose built and heavily secured and resourced facility in Sydney to above ground interim storage at a far less resourced facility in regional SA. There is no compelling public health or radiation management rationale for this approach.

It is definitely not something that should be foisted on a community area/state/through transport route communities at the behest of a local land/leaseholder.

The national radioactive waste facility is in two parts

(i) a dump for LLW – placed there and never recovered or removed (most of this material will decay to background equivalent in 300 years) and

(ii) a store for ILW to be kept above ground prior to being removed at a undefined future point by an undefined process to an unchosen site for promised deep burial (this material needs to be isolated from the wider environment for 10, 000 – 10K – years).

Submission by Michele Madigan To The Economic References Senate Committee Inquiry – Selection process for a national radioactive waste management facility in South Australia

The appropriateness and thoroughness of the site selection process for a national radioactive waste management facility at Kimba and Hawker in South Australia, noting the Government has stated that it will not impose such a facility on an unwilling community, with particular reference(s).

I submit that the present method/process of selection for the site for Australia’s long term intermediate radioactive waste and to a lesser extent for the nation’s low level radioactive waste is not only inappropriate but has grave implications for present and future generations:

*of local communities  *for all South Australians  *and indeed all Australians – in particular those national communities along any proposed transport route.

I note, as does the Senate Committee, that the Federal Government has stated that it will not impose such a facility on an unwilling community. This condition of willingness is indeed world’s best practice. Whether or not its present process and reported results accurately reflects the reality of such unwillingness in the South Australian proposed sites is discussed below. Continue reading

April 23, 2018 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump | Leave a comment

Woomera’s high level nuclear waste to go to Kimba as “Intermediate Level Waste”

Paul Waldon –No Nuclear Waste Dump Anywhere in South Australia

If government can’t show that it can cleanup, or even finance a $30 million cleanup of 9,8000 leaking rusty barrels of radioactive waste abandoned at Woomera, what reason would any adroit person have to believe that the government’s $10 million incentive package to manage a radioactive dump in Hawker or Kimba is nothing more than a 79 cents a week contract to abandon high grade waste under the guise of being called intermediate waste, for the next 244,000 years of its hazard.

April 22, 2018 Posted by | Federal nuclear waste dump, South Australia | Leave a comment

Barbara Walker – nuclear waste dump would damage tourism, split community and is illegal in South Australia

Submission by Barbara Walker Senate Economics References Inquiry – National Radioactive Waste Management Facility
My name is Barbara Walker. My husband and I bought a home in Quorn fifteen years ago, retiring to the peace and tranquility of the magnificent Flinders Ranges. We are both active volunteers within our community. I served as a volunteer lifeguard/supervisor at the Quorn swimming pool for nine years and am also a volunteer at
the Platform Gallery in Port Augusta. I am a member of the Flinders Local Action Group – a group of concerned citizens protecting the Flinders Ranges and against a pending nuclear
waste repository.
My husband is a regular volunteer for several local clubs and community fundraising events.
He is also an organiser for an annual military veterans retreat and a volunteer radio operator
for the VKS-737/RFDS Radio Network.
Through our network of friends and radio contacts we have always encouraged people to
visit the iconic Flinders Ranges. Many travellers visit us while travelling through Quorn and
most are horrified after discovering a nuclear waste repository is pending for the Flinders
A nuclear waste facility will adversely affect tourism within the Flinders and outer regions.
Many travellers from Australia and abroad have said they will not return if a waste dump is
located in the Flinders Ranges.
The prospect of a nuclear waste repository has also caused much division and ill health
within our local communities.
The Flinders Ranges is the home of the Adnyamathanha people who coincide with tourism
operators and local pastoralists in showcasing the marvels of the Flinders Ranges.
The question of broad community support:
I believe the Orima survey was flawed and inconsistent with broad community views and
opinions.  Orima survey phone calls were made but only to some fixed home phones. These days most
people use mobile phones. Mobile phone users were not surveyed.
Orima offered small incentives in the form of supermarket vouchers to some indigenous
respondents. Proof of this is written in the Orima survey, headed “Interview Method”. Why
was this necessary? Would this be classed as a bribe?
In my opinion a better way to survey people would be through the postal system, canvassing
the whole community by using a simple democratic process. Perhaps using the AEC would
have been a better and fairer solution, and in doing so, every community member would
have a voice.
South Australia’s Nuclear Waste Storage Facility (Prohibition) Act 2000 states it is illegal to
have a nuclear waste storage facility in South Australia, in which case, the whole of South
Australia has already said a clear NO to the storage of nuclear waste, and if that were to be
changed by Government, all South Australians should be asked for consent.
At our own expense, Flinders Local Action Group also conducted a survey. It was posted to
the people living in Hawker, Quorn and Cradock. People were simply asked for a YES, NO
or UNDECIDED vote regarding storage of nuclear waste in the Flinders Ranges. Flinders
Local Action Group then asked if the results could be opened and scrutinized by the CEO of
the Flinders Ranges Council. FRC kindly obliged and final results showed 79% of the
respondents were against having a nuclear waste repository in the Flinders Ranges.
The consideration of Indigenous support:
The consideration of indigenous support is an important factor within the Flinders Ranges
and the wider community. Any support for a nuclear waste repository would firstly have to be
given from the Adnyamathanha community because, in the case of
Wallerberdina/Barndioota, a nuclear waste repository on that site would be invasive to their
culture. Intrusion would cross cultural songlines and disturb artifacts, sacred sites and the
Hookina – The Hookina is a culturally important place for Adnyamathanha women.
Adnyamathanha families from Hawker and surrounding areas have been severely affected
by this controversial process. It has caused great heartache, division and ill health for many
people. Families and friends are feeling torn apart by the long and ongoing processes from
ANSTO and the Department of Industry, Innovation and Science.
Community Benefits Program:
Another example of division. Many think the Community Benefits Program is divisive and
creates an impression of bribery. Some businesses needing monetary assistance,
regardless of their ‘for’ or ‘against’ opinions, are happy the money has been offered and
therefore feel it is up for the taking. Others refuse to apply as they regard it as bribe money.
Some people in the community were selected for paid positions, and part of their role is to
reassure people that a nuclear waste repository would be a positive enhancement to the
Flinders Ranges – jobs, tourism and Federal money. A few of these people have used their
positions as a license to bully community members who are not in favour of a nuclear waste
dump. I suggest in future jobs like these need to be screened and monitored regularly if
people are to receive Federal funding for this kind of employment.
Small vulnerable communities would be best served if community benefits were given in
constructive growth projects, like tourism and small business, not a nuclear waste repository
that offers minimal employment and destroys tourism and cultural heritage.
Wider Community Views and conclusion:

Wider community views should always be considered regarding the storage of nuclear
waste. Most people would agree there needs to be a single repository for a low level nuclear
waste facility somewhere in Australia but it is fundamentally important to find the right place.
The Flinders Ranges is not the right place.

The intermediate nuclear waste stored at Lucas Heights should stay where it is. The Lucas
Heights storage facility is purpose built for safety and has ‘state of the art’ security with plenty
of storage availability for years to come. Why move it to a place that has massive floods, frequent earthquakes and sometimes 50+ degree days in summer?

April 21, 2018 Posted by | Federal nuclear waste dump, politics | Leave a comment

The best yet: ENUFF’s Submission to Senate Inquiry on Nuclear Waste Dump Site Selection


This is the best of several submissions to the Senate Inquiry, that I have read so far. It can be heavy going for the reader, because it is densely informative.  For a start, I have summarised some of the major arguments,

ENUFF argues that “the Taskforce has not properly nor fully informed either the wider public; nor their arbitrary ‘local community’ cohort; nor the State Government; &, it would appear, not even their own Federal Minister – about the whole radioactive waste regimen. Instead they almost only & exclusively accentuate & promote Australian usage of medical radioisotopes. ”

The community consultation methods have been inadequate and unfair. There is no scientific need for Lucas Heights nuclear wastes to be transported to rural South Australia, and medical wastes amount to only a tiny fraction of the radioactive wastes planned for the S.A. Dump.

Stirling North and Leigh Creek residents would be affected, but were excluded from the consultation. Adnyamathanha Traditional Lands Association were NOT consulted prior to the Wallerberdina preferred site announcement , contrary to UN endorsed Indigenous Rights.

In surveys run by Flinders Local Action Group a clear majority voted “no” to the establishment of a National Radioactive Waste Management Facility in the area .

Scrutiny of the Barndioota Consultative Committee NRMWT survey reveals questionable and biased methodology and results.

National Radioactive Waste Management Facility’s communications and publicity have been deceptive with its pretense that the waste is predominantly medical Low Level Wastes, ignoring Intermediate Level Waste volumes intended for ‘temporary’ storage

Given the prime-facie maladministration ans deficiencies described above, ENuFF calls for a judicial inquiry into the NRWMF ‘s processes.

ENuFF-SA Submission 1 to the Senate ERC NRWMF Inquiry (not yet published on the Senate website) 

CONTENTS Page 2 Acronyms 3 Introduction 5 Executive Summary 6 History 8 Contemporary Action 9 Wallerberdina 16 Indigenous appraisal 19 Correspondence with the Taskforce 22 Afterword 25 Bibliography

In order to determine whether or not maladministration &/or negligence has any bearing upon the community consultation process, ENuFF asks the committee to recommend a judicial inquiry into the performance of the NRWMF Taskforce…..

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Continue reading

April 20, 2018 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump, politics | Leave a comment

Australian government successfully bribing Kimba community to host radioactive trash?

Looks like the bribery has been successful.   $2M approved for 33 Kimba projects, Eyre Tribune   Kathrine Catanzariti 16 Apr 18

April 18, 2018 Posted by | Federal nuclear waste dump, South Australia | Leave a comment

Visit of pro nuclear Resources Minister Canavan has strengthened Aboriginal opposition to nuclear waste dump

ATLA opposes UCG in Leigh Creek, The Transcontinental, Marco Balsamo , 16 Apr 18

April 18, 2018 Posted by | Federal nuclear waste dump, South Australia | Leave a comment

Kimba Postal Ballot – BUT the National Radioactive Waste Management Facility  Taskforce NOT truthfully informing people

Federal Science Minister Canavan this week announced a postal ballot August 20 of the so-called ‘local communities’ – Kimba & Wallerberdina – for the purpose of gaining consent towards furthering the NRWMF Site Selection process.

Informed consent requires both these electorates (& the wider Australian society) be fully appraised of all facets integral to any nuke dump.

Such would include these minimal requirements:
1.   Adequate time to digest & follow up the outcomes from the current Senate Select Committee Inquiry into the NRWMF Community Engagement Process.

2.   A complete knowledge of the actual nature, containment types, timings, duration & volumes of material destined for the facility – including a full & competent inventory of radioactive waste legacy holdings. For example: HIFAR decommissioned; ILW from all sources; CSIRO & DoD Woomera; DSTO Edinburgh; & SAGovt Radium Hill, amongst others.

Without such widespread understanding, any Poll result would lack competency, demonstrate a failure of administrative process & further exacerbate the existing community divisions created by the NRWMF Project deficient governance.

So far, the National Radioactive Waste Management Facility  Taskforce has focused almost exclusively upon ANSTO radiopharma production gloves & gowns @ Lucas Heights.


Office Admin

April 14, 2018 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump, politics | Leave a comment

Janet Tiller: deep concern at plan for radioactive trash dump on agricultural land- submission to Senate

Senate Inquiry Submission into the Nuclear Waste Site Selection Process , Janet Tiller                 I am deeply concerned and  upset that the Federal Government are considering Kimba as potential site for a Radioactive Waste Facility. Kimba has been a farming community since the land was starting to be cleared in the late 1800’s. We produce mainly Wheat, Meat and Wool and I am afraid if the Radioactive waste is stored anywhere in our community it could adversely affect the prices for our land and the Wheat, Meat and Wool (they can be very fickle industries).

I would also like to know what is the true definition of broad community support. We were advised it was 65 percent then after the vote to determine those for and against the facility, Matt Canavan the Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science decided it would be 57 percent. Why? The vote was only for Kimba residents, farm owners and people that owned property in the community. The Dump could adversely affect more than just Kimba it could affect the whole of Eyre Peninsula with its “ Clean Green” image, a Radioactive Waste Facility won’t exactly fit in there.

A committee of 16 has been formed and their aim is to decide where the $2 million (now we are in the 2nd stage of the process) will be spent in the community. The committee was selected from applicants and said to be chosen from a broad selection of the community from Farming, Business, some for the RWF and some against. There are only 4 people on that committee of 16 that were against the dump, they won’t have a very strong voice will they? I look forward to your reply.

April 14, 2018 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump, politics | Leave a comment

Nuclear Promotional Activities planned :Australia’s Department of Industry, Innovation and Science

Department of Industry, Innovation and Science Bruce Wilson,  9 April 2018.  The department has compiled the attached table of planned activities with indicative dates.

As explained in the department’s submission, provided on 3 April 2018, the process is beingundertaken closely with the communities. Accordingly, the milestones and precise dates of  activities will depend on community feedback and will be determined with community representatives. The timing of certain decisions within government are also the prerogative of the Executive and could be subject to change. For this reason, we have included a highlevel timeline of activities, with broad date ranges, to allow flexibility to respond to the needs of communities and executive government processes.

Table: Planned community consultation and activities and indicative dates to April 2019

Activity Topic Indicative timing

Information RWMF Governance Framework released Ql/2018

Consultation Kimba Economic Working Group established Ql/2018

Engagement- Quom-Work Experience Program – ANSTO Ql/2018

Consultation Barndioota Consultative Committee meets Ql/2018

Consultation Kimba Consultative Committee meets Ql/2018

Information Wallerberdina Aboriginal Heritage Ql/2018

Information Monthly newsletters – Wallerberdina and Kimba Ql/2018

Consultation Barndioota Consultative Committee meets Q2/2018

Consultation Kimba Consultative Committee meets Q2/2018

Consultation Barndioota Economic Working Group meets Q2/2018

Consultation Kimba Economic Working Group meets Q2/2018

Consultation ANSTO visits and consults Hawker and Kimba Q2/2018

Event Hawker Community Industry Expo Q2/2018

Event NRWMF Agriculture meeting Q2/2018

Information Monthly newsletters – Wallerberdina and Kimba Q2/2018

Information NRWMF Agriculture information Q2/2018

Information NRWMF Waste Acceptance Criteria Q2/2018

Information NRWMF Safety and Security Q2/2018

Information NRWMF Transport Q2/2018

Information NRWMF Site Suitability Assessment Q2/2018

Information NRWMF Facility design Q2/2018

Information NRWMF Infrastructure and enabling services Q2/2018

Information NRMWF Operation and jobs information Q272018

Consultation Barndioota Consultative Committee meets Q3/2018

Consultation Kimba Consultative Committee meets Q3/2018

Consultation Barndioota Economic Working Group meets Q3/2018

Consultation Kimba Economic Working Group meets Q3/2018

Information Senate Inquiry hands down report 14 August 2018

Event Communities vote Q3/2018

Site selection Community sentiment assessment 0.3/2018

Site selection Site Selection report Q3/2018

Site selection Minister gives notice of intent on preferred site Q4/2018

Industry House – 10 Binara Street, Canberra City, ACT 2601

GPO Box 2013 Canberra ACT 2601 ABN: 74 599 608 295


Site selection 60 Day consultation commences Q4/2018

Site selection Minister declares a site Q4/2018

Site selection Minister acquires the land Q4/2018

Milestone Detailed Business Case finalised Q4/2018

Consultation Regional Consultative Committee established Q1/2019

Milestone Public Works Committee Q1/2019

Consultation Environment Protection Biodiversity Conservation Q1/2019

approvals process

Consultation Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Q1/2019

Agency approvals process


April 14, 2018 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump | 1 Comment

Kimba Economic Working Group on nuclear waste dump set up by Dept of Industry Innovation and Science

 National Radioactive Waste Management Facility 
12 APRIL 2018  A new group in the South Australian community of Kimba will be charged with investigating all economic opportunities and issues associated with a proposed National Radioactive Waste Management Facility.

Minister for Resources and Northern Australia Matt Canavan today announced the members of the Kimba Economic Working Group, established as part of the Phase Two consultation process that is currently underway in the area.

“Together, the Phase Two community consultation and results of technical studies will help inform a decision on whether the Facility is located at one of the two volunteered sites in Kimba,” Minister Canavan said.

“Eight people from the Kimba area have been appointed as members, including farmers, Councillors and business owners, and people for, against and neutral on the proposal.

“David Schmidt, long-time Kimba resident and active local community member, has been named as the Group’s Chair.”

………The Kimba Group mirrors successfully established group around the Wallerberdina Station site, which is already developing a range of ideas on how local business could benefit from a Facility.The Kimba Economic Working Group will meet on about a monthly basis for the duration of the Phase Two consultation process.

Members of the Kimba Economic Working Group are:

April 14, 2018 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump | Leave a comment

Lucas Heights’ dangerous nuclear wastes

Nuclear waste from Australia’s only reactor ready to be dumped By Michelle Brown  

April 12, 2018 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, safety, wastes | Leave a comment

Top secret transport of nuclear waste – via Port Kembla?

Port Kembla a possibility for secret nuclear shipment Glen Humphries 12 Apr 18 

April 12, 2018 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, wastes | Leave a comment

Katrina Bohr: Submission to Senate- community views, indigenous support – and what about climate extremes?

Above – ferociousness of historical flooding near the rail lines in the proposed Barndioota area for the site. 
Katrina Bohr – Submission to SENATE INQUIRY into the site selection process for the National Radioactive Waste Management Facility , (NRWMF) Barndioota.
My name is Katrina Bohr. I have been a resident of South Australia for 32 years, having lived in regional South Australia for the last 22 years. Nuclear waste and the historical outcomes of radioactive damage has been an ongoing concern of mine for almost 50 years.

In the initial stages of the announcement for site selection at Barndioota, when Josh Frydenberg was Minister for Resources and Energy, a statement was issued from the Government.

‘The Australian Government will also take into account the views of others (outside community zones) as part of the commitment to broad consultation.’

The proposal for low and intermediate waste to be stored in South Australia affects not only myself, but also future generations. Unlike some respondents, I do not live in the Hawker region. Therefore, my views are not driven by benefits, but rather genuine concerns for peoples’ health, our environment, and our local Indigenous communities.

 B) How the need for ‘broad community support’ has played and will continue to play a part in the process, including:

i)                    The definition of ‘broad community support’
I believe the definition of ‘broad community support’ is defined as support given by the majority. Broad support should be determined when the consultation process has been conducted thoroughly and with all persons of interest. The consultation process should offer full disclosure for the proposed site selection process.

ii)                  How ‘broad community support’ has been or will be determined for each process advancement stage
Determining Broad Community support at this stage has involved a number of methods.

              Surveys, Public Meetings, face to face meetings, a continual presence of Australian Nuclear and Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) employees, members of  the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Science Agency (APRANSA) and a Heritage Assessment process.

              Rowan Ramsey’s June/July 2016 Grey Newsletter states that all all the feedback, including district surveys were considered by the  Minister to evaluate whether there was a realistic chance of ‘developing’ broad support. The word ‘developing’ almost implies an action to develop rather than consult.

             My understanding of on-going broad community support is for updated and collated material to be honest and transparent, and that all perspectives be disclosed. 

 C) How any need for Indigenous support has played and will continue to play a part in the process, including how Indigenous support has been or will be determined for each process advantage stage;

There are local indigenous people who believe that they should have been consulted from the outset. This is due to Yappala Station (next door to the proposed site) having already been classed as a protected area. Yappala Station is heritage listed as an Indigenous protected area due to its cultural and environmental significance.

A South Australian Department of State Development spokesperson confirmed that there are three Aboriginal sites that fall within the Barndioota-nominated area. Two of the sites are cultural and the third is archaeological (NITV Posted 2016).

The local indigenous people needed to be involved in all aspects of the site selection process. From heritage assessment to cultural importance. Dreamtime stories and Songlines.

Traditional land owner and Elder Eunice Marsh speaks of their love for the land as love for family. Hookina Springs and the surrounding area is significant to the Adnyamathanha women.

When the Adnyamthanha Traditional Lands Association met at the end of March 2018, the vote for the NRWMF was overwhelmingly against.

  E) Whether wider (Eyre-Peninsula or State-wide) community views should be taken into consideration and, if so, how this is occurring or should be occurring;

I believe that wider community views should be considered as the nuclear waste, and in particular, the intermediate waste from Lucas Heights in NSW will be transported through a number of corridors. Therefore, wider community consultation should be considered. 

Matt Canavan makes reference to a ‘wide’ consultation process to determine whether the site is suitable’-Transcontinental newspaper 22/11/2016.

As far as I am aware, there has been no wider community consultation to date. Wider community consultation could be conducted through relevant forums, surveys and information mail outs.

 F) Any other related matters

 In the fairness of disclosure, I have referred to the Australian Government Department of Business

                           Initial Business Case (revised) 2014 Page 29

                          ‘The Capital cost estimates for the project options are based on delivery

                           of given designs at a site in Central Australia’

The Business Case also refers to a Timeline where ANSTO is due to run out of space for low and intermediate storage. This is by 2018.

When in Parliament, Grant Chapman chaired the select committee that recommended the country’s low level nuclear waste be stored in a single facility-The Guardian 29/4/16.

Grant Chapman is part owner of the proposed site at Barndioota, and has made it quite public that he believed his land would be an ideal site for a NRWMF.

He served on three committees including Uranium mining and milling to Radioactive Waste from March 1995 to May 1997. The other from August 2000 to May 2001. Acting as Chair in the first two committees, where in !996 a decision was made to pursue a NRWMF.        There is evidence that there may have been a determination over the years by the Australian Government to establish the site at Barndioota.

Images: I am sending three images displaying the ferociousness of historical flooding near the rail lines in the proposed area for the site.

April 11, 2018 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump | Leave a comment

Holly Whittenbury on Nuclear dump siting- Aboriginal issues, tourism impact, conflict of interest issues

Senate Inquiry Submission into the Nuclear Waste Site Selection Process Holly Whittenbury

My name is Holly Whittenbury and I come from the southern Flinders Ranges. I have grown up there, spending the first 18 years of my life in Peterborough, not too far from Hawker, one of the selected dump sites. I presently study Environmental Science and plan to return to the area to assist in conservation efforts of the southern Flinders Ranges. I foresee myself being apart of the Flinders Ranges for my entire life ahead; although I do not live within the area presently, the issues within the ranges concern me wherever I am. I disagree with key aspects of the selection process for the nuclear waste dump site for the following reasons

  •   how the need for „broad community support‟ has played and will continue to play a part in the process, including: i) the definition of „broad community support‟ ii) how „broad community support‟ has been or will be determined for each
  • whether wider (Eyre Peninsular or state-wide) community views should be taken into consideration and, if so, how this is occurring or should be occurring;

Contrary to other pro-nuclear waste dump submissions, broad community support should include not just the residents within the Hawker township, but the wider surrounding area of Hawker, the state and the country.

The nearby Adnyamathanha Indigenous groups value the entire site proposed for the nuclear waste dump. Unlike Hawker residents, their spiritual home is not separated by nearly 40 kilometres. They are present in spirit and also physically through land rights beside and within the dump site location. The story-line of the Adnyamathanha people stretches 70 kilometres across the state along the ranges, their sacred birthing and healing site, Hookina Springs, lies within Grant Chapman‟s property of which they have rightful access to.

Whilst Hawker residents are separated, both physically and mentally from the proposed nuclear waste dump site, with Chapman himself declaring it is virtually wasteland, the whole area, but especially this site, is as sacred to the Adnyamathanha people as Mecca is to Muslims. To ignore or prioritise one community opinion over another is to degrade one community in favour of another. To degrade the local indigenous peoples views (who are closer in proximity to the site) in favour of the Hawker residents is to prioritise predominantly European society living in the township in European lifestyles with European law and worldviews. To claim that Indigenous consent has been gained despite the overt disagreement from the Adnyamathanha people over the waste dump site and their driving of protests which blocked the streets of Adelaide on North Terrace, is wilful ignorance in favour of nuclear fuel cycle industry and residents of non-Indigenous background. Here is a quote from Indigenous leader and outspoken critic of the waste dump, Enice Marsh, to demonstrate the obviously lack of consent and lack of consultation with the indigenous people:

“If we’re going to have that poison stuff here, even if it’s a low-level situation, it’s just absolute madness to put something like this near somewhere that’s so special,” she said.

“It’s everything; it’s a type of importance that you would never be able to describe.”

“The connection to this land for Adnyamathanha people is their culture, their customs; it’s their identity.”

In addition, criticism of the dump site has been given loudly by Adnyamathanha Traditional Lands Association chair Vince Coulthard:

“The Flinders Ranges is an iconic area that people come from all over the world to visit. I’m saddened to hear that the government wants to spoil this beautiful, pristine area with a devastating piece of junk. We certainly understand that there has to be somewhere they can store it, but you don’t take a pristine area and destroy that. We ask that the state government stand with the Adnyamathanha community to stop this waste dump.”

 Broad community support should also be sought state-wide; it is a state issue. The waste will either be trucked across the country through small towns or a port will be built to transport the waste first by ocean, then by rail or trucks on road. Despite the majority of the South Australian population living in Adelaide, The Flinders Ranges is an iconic totem of our state and dear to countless people, regardless of their place of residence. As stated, I am no longer living precisely within the Flinders Ranges area, yet my future depends on the area. I will return and my family still resides in Peterborough as they have done so since we first settled in Cavanaugh, north west of Dawson. My grandfather drove cattle and sheep through Horrocks Pass, just south of Hawker and the dump site, prior to the highway‟s construction. The land will always be important to many of us not necessarily physically present; broad community support needs to include those outside of the Hawker township.

  • the financial compensation offered to applicants for the acquisition of land under the Nominations of Land Guidelines;

In addition, the impact of the nuclear waste site on tourism within the Flinders Ranges should be evaluated independently and form part of state and national consensus. Presently, the Flinders Ranges is the third most popular visitor attraction (574,000 domestic visitors, 2.6 million visitor nights). It contributed 45% of tourism revenue in 2016 and employs 3,000 people directly and indirectly in the region. It therefore contributes significantly to the state economy and therefore likely affects the majority of the state‟s population in some way, even indirectly. Any reduction in this contribution to state economy (which is markedly more than what a nuclear waste dump would contribute) affects the entire state economically and has indirect consequences to many other businesses of towns surrounding Hawker in particular. My town, Peterborough, depends on tourism. It has been the town‟s only industry since the shut down of the railway industry decades ago, which saw the population of the town halve. The town depends on thriving tourism, largely bustling through its main street towards the Flinders Ranges. On weekends, in particular, the main street is full of caravans and off-road camper vehicles headed to the state icon north. The most successful businesses within the town are tourism based; hotels, motels, caravan parks, petrol stations, delis and the newsagency selling souvenirs touting the town as the „Gateway to the Flinders Ranges‟. How many other towns (Orroroo, Wirrabara, Melrose, Quorn, Yunta, Port Pirie, Port Augusta, Jamestown and Terowie), would be severely affected by the site selection of the nuclear waste dump? All of these businesses would be affected; therefore, these people deserve a say in the site selection. It is impossible to say how far out a reduction of tourism within the Flinders Ranges would reach. Therefore, the entire state (and nation) deserves a say and their voices heard in regards to seeking consent on the site selection.

  • whether and/or how the Government‟s „community benefit program‟ payments affect broad community and Indigenous community sentiment;

The payment of Hawker residents with a $10 million bribe does affect surrounding populations, including the Indigenous, significantly. The process of offering money to compensate or persuade a supposedly impoverished town (Hawker) to give consent despite Indigenous views disadvantages anyone who is not indoctrinated into Neo-Liberal values of European-based society. It is an inherently and blatantly biased process, given Hawker has been bribed with something that is only worthy in exchange for land of which others have spiritual and physical connection with and with something that could never be valuable in Indigenous culture. The thinking of the Hawker residents is truly unclear and motivated by financial support for their town. It is reprehensible that anyone, including the residents who have already made submissions, suggest that only their opinion counts in the selection and consent process of a nuclear waste dump. This will house the nation‟s (and perhaps eventually, the world‟s) nuclear waste. Their opinion is the most blighted and misguided of all individuals, given their own declared poverty and the bribe (“compensation”) offered to them. Here is a quote exemplifying this by Hawker Community Development board member Ian Carpenter:

“Like any small country council, we struggle for money to put into infrastructure and schools and nursing facilities,” he said.

“Admittedly, it’s not going to employ 100 people, but if it employs 20 in our area and creates traineeships for our people, then I think it’s a great idea.” traineeships for our people, then I think it’s a great idea.”

Employing 20 people through the nuclear waste dump is NOT a good enough reason to omit the voices of the other > 1 million people within the state of South Australia. Our voices count also and are arguably more objective than the Hawker residents.

Nationally, opinions on the waste dump should also be heard. The waste will come from all over the country, from medical and other sources. The need to remove that waste, the transport of such waste and its eventual storage and where it is stored (hence the site selection process) should be considerate to all individuals‟ perspectives on the matter

. · how any need for Indigenous support has played and will continue to play a part in the process, including how Indigenous support has been or will be determined for each process advancement stage;

  • any other related matters;

Indigenous support for the site should be overwhelmingly present if a site is selected to go ahead.

To have one, single person, who chaired a committee to establish a waste dump industry in SA in 1995, nominate his property as a potential site, is clearly a conflict of interest and completely bypasses the obtaining of any other consent from surrounding communities. It is reflective of the NeoLiberal system that Australia is presently under. We care more about cash, ‘industry’, tax cuts for major companies and figures at the end of spreadsheets than making real, responsible decisions and respecting the oldest living culture on this planet. The indigenous people of the area have described their stress at knowing their home and sacred site has been nominated as a nuclear waste dump for the nation.

The nomination by Grant Chapman with complete disregard for the rare freshwater spring, biodiversity, cultural storyline and indigenous community living beside his nominated property is nothing short of a continuation of forceful Colonialism. It is an Administrative Rationality which decides what is „good‟ for everyone else, despite never really placing itself in the shoes of its constituents, especially the Adnyamathanha people. His excuse was that the nearby town of Hawker is appreciative of the $10 million bribe that will go along with the nuclear waste site. In other words, the largely non-Aboriginal community’s consent, obtained through bribes that are only valuable in a society indoctrinated into Neo-Liberal, penny-counting thinking, can override Indigenous views. It is representative of our current priorising of European, Neo-Liberal thinking over Indigenous land values. It is unacceptable that, in a country which avidly nags its citizens to be more accepting of other cultures and demonstrate our so called ‘multiculturalism’, that it does not extend this to Indigenous welfare and their views on land management. They have stated their lack of consent loud and clear. Clearly, the nearby Indigenous custodians are suffering and outraged over the site selection. The nomination of the waste dump beside the beautiful Hookina Springs really is just another slap in the face to the very culture that we should actually be listening to as a nation.

April 11, 2018 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump | Leave a comment