Waste site: Govt reveals bill for dumped Kimba nuclear facility
Former SA senator Rex Patrick was concerned the money “wasted” on the failed repository could be replicated with the AUKUS nuclear submarine program.
The high cost of the federal government’s failed bid for a national nuclear waste storage site on South Australia’s Eyre Peninsula has been revealed.
Resources Minister Madeleine King says that $108.6 million was spent on preparations for establishing the now dumped National Radioactive Waste Management Facility near Kimba between July 1, 2014, and August 11, 2023.
The figure was given in response to a Senate Question lodged by Liberal Senator Gerard Rennick on August 11, but information relating to his questions about further expected expenditure of taxpayer dollars around the project was not provided.
King was asked whether the government planned to select a new site before May 17, 2025 – the last date before Prime Minister Anthony Albanese can call a federal election – or whether the Woomera Prohibited Area in SA’s outback was being considered.
“Information on expenditure and site selection will be available once the government has considered options and made decisions in due course,” SA Labor Senator Don Farrell said while answering the question on behalf of King.
The news comes after the federal government announced in August it was walking away from the Napandee plan after seven years of consultation and promises of around $31 million in incentives for the Kimba region.
Its decision was triggered by a Federal Court ruling in favour of the Barngarla Determination Aboriginal Corporation’s battle to stop the low-level waste repository on the Eyre Peninsula.
The costly court battle centred on the Barngarla arguing that Indigenous owners were not consulted by the former Morrison Government when it announced it had won “majority support” of 61 per cent in the community for the Napandee site.
Justice Natalie Charlesworth quashed former Liberal Federal Resources Minister Keith Pitt’s decision to build the National Radioactive Waste Management Facility in Kimba, saying it was affected “by bias”.
InDaily reported last year that in reply to questions on notice, SA senator Barbara Pocock heard that since January 1, 2017, the Commonwealth Government had spent at least $9,905,737 on legal work for the nuclear waste dump and the Australian Radioactive Waste Agency.
Work has now been halted at the Napandee site and King said work already completed would be reversed.
Former SA senator Rex Patrick was concerned the money “wasted” on the failed repository could be replicated with the AUKUS nuclear submarine program.
“It was clear back in February 2018, when I initiated a Senate Inquiry into the selection process for a national radioactive waste management facility in South Australia, that the selection process had gone off the rails,” Patrick said.
“The then government were cautioned about the flawed nature of the process, but ignored the findings and recommendations of the inquiry.
“There is a $110 million dollar lesson for the current Government in the need to engage the community and listen when dealing with these sorts of programs.”
He called on the federal government to be more open with the community with its AUKUS nuclear submarine program in relation to what will happen in relation to nuclear stewardship, operational radioactive waste and dealing with spent nuclear fuel rods.
Federal government spent $100 million on now abandoned nuclear waste dump near Kimba
ABC News, By Ethan Rix, 12Sept 23,
Key points:
- The Federal Resources Minister said the government had spent $108.6 million
- The Commonwealth abandoned plans to build the facility after a Federal Court ruling
- Former SA senator Rex Patrick said the “waste” of taxpayer money could have been avoided
………………………. Senator Rennick also questioned whether the government would find a new location for the NRWMF before May 17, 2025 and if the government would consider placing the facility within the Woomera Prohibited Area.
Ms King said that information about a future site and any further spending would be available once the government had “considered options and made decisions in due course”……………………………………………………………
Former resources minister had ‘foreclosed mind’
Federal Court Justice Natalie Charlesworth found there had been apprehended bias in the decision-making process under then-resources minister Keith Pitt.
Justice Charlesworth found that Mr Pitt — who formally declared the site in 2021 — could be seen to have had a “foreclosed mind” on the issue “simply because his statements strongly conveyed the impression that his mind was made up”.
The court set aside the declaration from 2021 that the site at Napandee, a 211-hectare property, be used for the facility.
Following the Federal Court ruling, Ms King told federal parliament in August that Australia still needed a nuclear storage facility and that the government remained committed to finding a solution that did not involve the Napandee site.
………………………………Mr Patrick said he was concerned that the current Labor government had not learnt any lessons from the recent Federal Court ruling.
“The lesson that needs to be learned, in relation to this, is you need to properly engage [with] a community to get a social licence,” he said.
He said it was clear the government “has their eye on” the Woomera Prohibited Area as a potential location for the facility, which is a military testing range more than 400 kilometres north of Adelaide.
“They are simply not being transparent — they’re not talking about it and that’s going to end up in tears in several years’ time.”
A spokesperson for Ms King said she has instructed her department to develop “policy options” for managing Commonwealth radioactive waste into the future. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-09-11/commonwealth-kimba-napandee-nuclear-waste-dump-100-million/102840994
Suggestion of completely unsuitable Woomera as nuclear dump site shows gross ignorance
15 Aug 23, The recent suggestion by the Hon. Nick Minchin of using the rocket
range in the relatively remote Woomera region of South Australia for
the disposal of this country’s nuclear waste generated by AUKUS is
quite irrational smacking of gross ignorance.
It has been well known for many years that the Woomera area by its
topography and geological setting is completely unsuitable for any
form of nuclear waste disposal and is clouded – forgive the pun – by
the consequences of the extensive nuclear testing in the region over
seventy years ago.
The consequences of that testing are still being felt by the Aboriginal
peoples of the region and has turned the majority of South
Australia’s general community against any form of nuclear waste
storage in its State.
The Department of Defence already has a significant volume of
nuclear waste held in the Woomera area for which it is seeking a
suitable means of disposal that to a large extent was lost with the federal government recently abandoning its proposals for nuclear waste management at Kimba.
The proof of the pudding is that if the Woomera region were at all
suitable for the disposal or even long term safe storage of nuclear
waste then the defence authorities would have already joyfully
availed themselves of that opportunity.
In his previous ministerial capacity Mr Minchin argued for the
establishment of a national nuclear waste disposal facility to among
other things dispose of the ostensibly large quantities of nuclear
waste held in over a hundred locations throughout Australia but this
in itself was disingenuous since those locations are mainly hospitals
and research facilities developing lower levels of waste which is
invariably disposed by them on site.
In fact the federal government recently acknowledged that if lucky it
would get less than 10% of that waste for disposal at the facility
proposed for Kimba.
It is comments like those now offered by Mr Minchin which make
Australia’s already glaringly limited proficiency in nuclear waste management by international standards to be even more baseless.
It is quite clear that a major one of these consequences is the
attempted successful implementation of the AUKUS arrangements
which Mr Minchin was no doubt trying to achieve with his rather
inopportune suggestion of Woomera
Woomera looms as national nuclear waste dump site
Financial Review, Phillip Coorey, Political editor, 10 Aug 23,
A federal government decision to scrap plans for a nuclear waste dump outside the South Australian town of Kimba has increased speculation it will instead build a bigger facility on defence land at Woomera that could also accommodate high-level waste from the AUKUS submarines.
More than two decades of work by successive governments to find a site to store low- and medium-level waste ended on Thursday when Resources Minister Madeleine King announced the government would not appeal last week’s Federal Court decision against the dump going ahead.
The court ruled on an action brought by the local Barngarla people, angering the Kimba community which had been bracing for the jobs and revenue the facility would have created.
……………………………………………. The dump was also opposed by the state Labor government.
Local Liberal MP Rowan Ramsey, who holds the federal seat of Grey, lashed Ms King and the government in parliament, calling the decision not to appeal as “cowardly, gutless and lacking moral fibre”.
Liberal Senate leader and SA senator Simon Birmingham concurred, especially as the Federal Court ruling was “very narrow” one……………………………………………………………….
[The dump] was not designed to store high-level waste such as the spent reactors from the nuclear-powered subs Australia will acquire and build under AUKUS.
Favoured location
Earlier this week, Defence Minister Richard Marles reaffirmed that the submarine waste would have to be stored on Defence Department land. The Australian Financial Review understands the favoured location is the Woomera rocket range in remote SA, although the selection process has yet to begin.
A high-level waste dump in Woomera would also store low and medium-level waste, ending the decades of conflict that have been caused by trying to choose such sites as Kimba.
In March, former Howard government minister Nick Minchin told the Financial Review that Mr Marles should cut to the chase and identify Woomera as the site for the high-level nuclear waste dump required under the AUKUS pact.
As industry and science minister between 1998 and 2001, the then Liberal senator for SA fought to establish a repository for low- and medium-level waste after initially choosing Woomera but being rebuffed by the Defence Department because of the stigma associated with nuclear waste.
This was despite tonnes of radioactive soil having been stored at Woomera in barrels for years.
“From my long experience of working on this issue, the Commonwealth would be well-advised putting it on Commonwealth land to avoid the states playing politics,” Mr Minchin said.
“Having previously assessed Woomera, it ticks all the boxes in terms of remoteness, stability and space.”…………………………………………….. https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/woomera-looms-as-national-nuclear-waste-dump-site-20230810-p5dvle
Nuclear waste dump plans scrapped for South Australia
By Andrew Brown August 10 2023 –
Plans for a nuclear waste dump in regional South Australia have been scrapped by the federal government following a court decision blocking its construction.
The waste facility was earmarked to be built on land at Napandee near the town of Kimba in the Eyre Peninsula by the previous coalition government in 2021.
The decision was challenged in the Federal Court by traditional owners, the Barngarla people, who said the decision was made without them being consulted.
The court ruled in July the facility could not be built.
Resources Minister Madeleine King told federal parliament the government would look for a new location for the nuclear waste storage.
“I’m deeply sorry for the uncertainty the process has created for the Kimba community, for my own department, for the Australian Radioactive Waste Agency workers and for the workers involved in the project,” she said.
“I also acknowledge the profound distress this process has caused the Barngarla people.”
Ms King said any work near Kimba had stopped after the court’s decision.
She said the government would not appeal against the court decision.
“We have to get this right. This is long lasting, multi-generational government policy for the disposal of waste that can take thousands of years to decay,” she said.
“We must consult widely and bring stakeholders including First Nations people along with us. We remain bipartisan in our approach.”…………………………………………………………….. https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/8303272/nuclear-waste-dump-plans-scrapped-for-south-australia/
Government abandons plan to dump nuclear waste near Kimba, sparking new hunt for dump site
ABC , By political reporter Matthew Doran, 10 Aug 23
Key points:
- The planned nuclear waste site near Kimba, SA, has been formally abandoned
- The Federal Court ruled against Coalition plans to dump nuclear waste there
- The Opposition claims it is a massive setback
…………………………………………………………. In parliament, Federal Resources Minister Madeleine King said the government respected the court decision.
“The Albanese Labor government does not intend to pursue Napandee as a potential site for the facility, nor is the government pursuing the previously shortlisted Lyndhurst and Wallerberdina sites,” Ms King said.
She revealed all work on the Napandee site had ceased.
“Any activities that have already been conducted were non-permanent and will be reversed or remediated,” Ms King said.
“The site is currently being supervised to ensure it remains safe and cultural heritage is protected while we work through dispossession of the land.”
The Coalition immediately took aim at the announcement, accusing Labor of a “legacy failure” and “abandoning years of work”………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Nuclear storage site still needed
Ms King said Australia needed a nuclear storage facility, but argued it could not be at the Napandee site.
……………………………….. “The site of Australia’s only nuclear reactor at Lucas Heights can safely store waste on site for some time, but we must ensure this waste has an appropriate disposal pathway.”
She argued the government remained committed to finding a solution. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-08-10/kimba-nuclear-dumping-plan-abandoned/102711320
Australia’s nuclear waste
finding a national waste repository is not urgent because it has been stored this way for 60 years.
it’s not even clear if centralising the waste is the best option. ..there’s an implicit risk in transporting the waste from the various sites to a new site, and there should be a safety comparison with leaving it where it is.
Courts have quashed a decision to store water in Kimbra, meaning there is still no centralised repository in the country
Guardian. Tory Shepherd, Sat 29 Jul 2023
More than 20 tonnes of reprocessed nuclear fuel will stay at Australia’s only reactor in southern Sydney, while nuclear waste will remain scattered in “cupboards and filing cabinets” around the country, after the federal court blocked plans for a long-term storage site in outback South Australia.
The site in Kimba was selected more than 40 years after Australia started planning for a centralised repository. But this month, that decision was quashed by the courts.
There is currently no live national facility option, and the waste pile is growing.
Successive governments and agencies have said there are more than 100 sites that are storing nuclear waste littered across the land, in hospital basements and universities, on defence and mining sites and in research laboratories.
There’s no definitive list, because of a licensing split between the federal and state governments, but the vast majority is produced and stored at the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (Ansto) facility in Lucas Heights.
A national inventory published last year found Australia’s 2,061 cubic metres of intermediate-level waste (ILW) will more than double to 4,377 cubic metres in the next 50 years.
………….The inventory predicted that the 2,490 cubic metres of low-level waste will more than quadruple to 13,287 within the next five decades. LLW includes gloves, paper, gowns and other ephemera used in nuclear medicine. Much of it can be left to “delay and decay”, and can be disposed of as regular rubbish.
Ansto’s waste makes up about 93% of the LLW, and about 96.5% of the ILW.
Ansto is also responsible for the spent fuel rods from its Opal research reactor at Lucas Heights, in Sydney’s south, which are sent to France, the UK or the US for reprocessing.
Last year, the UK shipped two tonnes of ILW to be stored at Sydney’s Lucas Heights facility until it could be transported to a national facility – it was part of a waste-swap deal after Australia sent spent fuel rods from Opal predecessor to be recycled.
In 2015, 25 tonnes of radioactive waste from France was returned to Australia after reprocessing – that too will be housed at Lucas Heights until a dump is selected and built. Since then, Australia has sent more spent fuel rods to France to have the uranium and plutonium extracted, but their return has not been announced, and it’s not clear what will happen with such deals now that Kimba option is off the table.
The current government policy is to build a National Radioactive Waste Management Facility (NRWMF) to dispose of LLW permanently, and ILW temporarily while a permanent dump is built.
The traditional owners of the land around Kimba, the Barngarla people, took the government to court, and won – former resources minister Keith Pitt’s declaration of the site was cast aside because of his “apprehended bias” and “pre-judgement”.
Now, the process is on hold as the government considers the judgement, and as the case continues with final details to be ironed out.
Top nuclear waste expert, emeritus professor Ian Lowe, says waste is kept in “cupboards and filing cabinets in universities and hospitals”…………“It’s clearly not optimal … the reason it hasn’t been a problem is there’s not actually anything very nasty you can do with low level waste. It’s not very radioactive,” Lowe says.
Ansto says such waste needs “minimal shielding”, while some major hospitals use “delay tanks” and other facilities use drums.
So, Lowe says, finding a national waste repository is not urgent because it has been stored this way for 60 years.
Lowe, who is from Griffith University, says it’s not even clear if centralising the waste is the best option. He says there’s an implicit risk in transporting the waste from the various sites to a new site, and there should be a safety comparison with leaving it where it is.
“I haven’t even seen a crude, back of the envelope calculation,” he says.
With the intermediate level waste, which is “much nastier stuff”, he says he “couldn’t see the point of moving it from temporary storage at Lucas Heights to temporary storage at Kimba while we work out a permanent solution”.
The Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) and the Greens are pushing for it to remain at Lucas Heights for now.
The ACF’s Dave Sweeney says the waste at Lucas Heights is secure, and that keeping it there could be a “circuit breaker” after years of political wrangling. He accepts that Lucas Heights is not set up to permanently dispose of the waste, but points out that the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency has said it is safe there.
And, he says, much of the LLW currently being managed in hospitals was never going to get to Kimba anyway. On top of all that, Kimba was only ever going to hold ILW temporarily until a permanent facility was built.
“We need to actually take a breath and get very serious, systematic and credible about how we advance radioactive waste management,” he says.
“[This shows] the need for and a clear ability to deliver a circuit breaker and inject some responsibility, credibility and respect into this process.”
A spokesperson for resources minister, Madeleine King, said it would be inappropriate to comment on the future of a NRWMF while the Barngarla case is still before the court. The government has lodged a submission to the federal court and could appeal the decision……………………………………
Lowe says only Finland and Sweden have managed to solve the issue with long-term waste storage, and they did it by finding communities who are keen to have the waste in return for investment.
He says permanent disposal of all types of waste will need somewhere geologically stable. “That probably means remote parts of SA, WA, NT, but there’s any number of parts of Australia. “The point is finding a community that’s happy to have it there.” https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jul/29/nuclear-waste-australia-how-much-why-kimba-lucas-heights
UK campaigners call on Australian PM to withdraw Kimba nuke dump threat.
UK campaign groups opposed to nuclear waste dumps were ‘delighted’ to hear that their counterparts in Australia, the Barngarla Determination Aboriginal Corporation, have just won their court case against the imposition of a similar dump on their Traditional Lands.
In a historic judgement given earlier this week (18 July), Her Honour Justice Charlesworth in the Federal Court of Australia handed down a decision to quash Federal Government plans to move nuclear waste from the reactor at Lucas Heights to an unwanted waste dump at Napandee near Kimba in South Australia. Justice Charlesworth charged government officials with ‘pre-judgement’ and ‘apprehended bias’.
In March, the UK/Ireland Nuclear Free Local Authorities joined Radiation Free Lakeland, Millom against the Nuclear Dump / South Copeland against GDF, and Guardians of the East Coast, which are local groups fighting plans to locate a so-called Geological Disposal Facility in either West Cumbria or East Lincolnshire, wrote a joint letter to the Australian Government to raise their international objections to the plan.
Our objections were that there was no need for such a dump as the facility at Lucas Heights has capacity to take the waste and that the rights to the land by the Traditional Owners were being wilfully and shamefully disregarded, contrary to international law, with the government giving no proper consideration to the position of the Barngarla.
The attempt to impose a nuclear waste dump is all par for the course in Australia with the ill-treatment of Indigenous Peoples by corporations, political elites and the military over nuclear matters having an established history, with First Nation territories ravaged by uranium mining or shattered by British atomic weapon testing.
Following the damning judgement, the four British organisations have today written to the Prime Minister of Australia Anthony Albanese asking him to ‘take the honourable and courageous course of action’, withdraw the plan and ‘leave the Barngarla in peace’.
A copy of the letter and a message of solidarity will be sent to the Barngarla Determination Aboriginal Corporation. more https://www.nuclearpolicy.info/news/uk-campaigners-call-on-australian-pm-to-withdraw-kimba-nuke-dump-threat/
Prime Minister Albanese must abandon South Australian nuclear waste dump
Friends of the Earth Australia ‒ 18 July 2023
The Federal Court has today quashed the declaration of a proposed nuclear waste dump site near Kimba in SA, citing ‘pre-judgement’ and ‘apprehended bias’. The court case was initiated by Barngarla Traditional Owners, who are unanimous in their opposition to the proposed nuclear dump.
Dr. Jim Green, national nuclear campaigner with Friends of the Earth Australia, said:
“Today’s decision is an incredible victory for Barngarla Traditional Owners. Now Prime Minister Albanese must kill the nuclear dump plan stone dead.
“It is an outrage that the Albanese government has been attempting to impose a national nuclear waste dump on Barngarla country despite the unanimous opposition of the Traditional Owners.
“It is deeply hypocritical that the Albanese government has been championing a Voice to Parliament at the same time as it ignores and overrides the unanimous voice of the Barngarla Traditional Owners.”
Jane Stinson, Chair of the SA Parliament’s Environment, Resources and Development Committee, said last year: “In this day and age, when we’re talking about Voice, Treaty and Truth, we can’t just turn around and say, ‘Oh, well, those are our values but in this particular instance, we’re going to ignore the voice of Aboriginal people’. I think that’s just preposterous and it’s inconsistent with what most South Australians would think.”
Susan Close, now Deputy Premier of South Australia, said in 2019 that it was a “dreadful process from start to finish” that led to the nomination of the proposed Kimba dump site and that SA Labor is “utterly opposed” to the “appalling” process which led to Kimba being targeted.
Susan Close noted in 2020 statement, titled ‘Kimba site selection process flawed, waste dump plans must be scrapped’, that SA Labor “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.”
Dr. Green continued:
“It is appalling that the Albanese government has been willing to violate the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples while at the same time professing to support the Declaration.”
The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples states that: “States shall take effective measures to ensure that no storage or disposal of hazardous materials shall take place in the lands or territories of indigenous peoples without their free, prior and informed consent.”
Dr. Green concluded:
“To date, the issue has been managed by federal resources minister Madeleine King. There appears to have been little or no input from caucus, Cabinet or the Prime Minister’s Office.
“Prime Minister Anthony Albanese needs to take control and declare that the rights of Barngarla Traditional Owners will be respected, today’s Federal Court decision will not be challenged, and the government will now abandon the plan to impose a nuclear waste dump on Barngarla country.
“Federal Labor should adopt SA Labor’s policy giving traditional owners a right of veto over proposed nuclear waste dump sites. That would give traditional owners across the country some confidence that their voices will be heard as the government progresses plans to store and dispose of waste arising from nuclear-powered submarines in the coming decades.”
Contact: Jim Green 0417 318 368
Background: ‘Labor must hear Indigenous voice against Kimba nuclear site’, inDaily, July 17.
Examining the impact of the legal decision against the planned Kimba nuclear waste dump.
Here’s what we know about the Kimba nuclear storage facility decision, By Josephine Lim ABC News 18 Jul 23
This week the federal court ruled in favour of traditional owners who have been fighting against the
development of a nuclear waste facility
The federal government had selected a site in South Australia’s Eyre Peninsula to store low and
intermediate level radioactive waste, but the court’s decision has left the future of the project uncertain.
The uncertainty extends far beyond the court’s decision as the facility will never see the light of day due to i t s c o m p l e t e a n d i n h e r e n t unsuitability which includes the environmental implications and the lack of compliance with international standards and prescriptions relating to nuclear installations and their .safety
Here’s what we know so far. What did the original proposal entail?
In November 2021, Napandee near the town of Kimba, was acquired to be the storage facility for low and
medium-level nuclear waste.
The 211-hectare property was chosen from a shortlist of three sites, including the outback town of
Lyndhurst and Wallerberdina, a property in the northern Flinders Ranges
At the time, Coalition resources minister Keith Pitt said the site would create 45 permanent jobs in
the Kimba community.
Absolute nonsense since based on overseas experience similar but larger facilities employ some 15
people with very minimal external support staff.
T h i s h a s b e e n c o n s t a n t l y disingenuous information by Pitt for which he should be severely taken to task as it developed completely unrealistic expectations by the Kimba community.
Yesterday, he said on ABC’s Afternoon Briefing that he was “incredibly disappointed for the
people of Kimba” following the court’s findings.
If a proper survey were done then
most people of Kimba would be
heartened by and pleased with the
court’s decision as they are
completely against the proposed
facility.
“The piece of land on which this was going to be cited did not have a native title. It is a dryland wheat
farm,” he said.
No, it is not
It is like most of Kimba prone to ground water seepage and basic geological and geophysical surveys
show this to be the case making it grossly unsuitable for the facility
He said more than 60 per cent of the local community supported the project, citing a postal ballot that only local ratepayers were allowed to vote in.
If a proper ballot were now held (which should have been the case in the first place) with the voting accompanied by in favour and a g a i n s t a r g u m e n t s a n d a n unrestricted voting base then the majority against the facility would be significant even if it still excluded the Barngarla people
Why did the Barngarla people fight the plan?
The Barngarla people have a sacred site for women near Kimba, which they fear a facility would destroy.”The Seven Sisters Dreaming is through that area,” Barngarla woman Dawn Taylor said.
“But the Seven Sisters Dreaming means a lot to all of us as women, in each tribe, throughout the country.”
The Barngarla Determination Aboriginal Corporation (BDAC)launched the challenge in the Federal Court in a bid to stop the site from going ahead altogether.
BDAC chairman Jason Bilney said he felt “very emotional” winning a “David versus Goliath” battle.
“It’s the fight that we continue and you feel it from the heart no matter where we are, whether it’s our
Country or other people’s Country,” he said outside court.
D a v i d a n d G o l i a t h is an understatement when the federal government has spent nearly $14
million fighting the application by the Barngarla who have apparently spent less than $700,000 to mount
the review application in totality.
What did the court find?
The Federal Court upheld a complaint by the Barngarla people on the ground there was apprehended bias in the decisionmaking process by former federal minister Keith Pitt in selecting the site
In upholding the apprehension of bias argument, Justice Natalie Charlesworth found that the
Coalition minister, who formally declared the site in 2021, could be seen to have a “foreclosed mind” on
the issue “simply because his statements strongly conveyed the impression that his mind was made
up”
Lawyer for the Barngarla people, Nick Llewellyn-Jones, said findings of apprehended bias against a
minister were “very rare” and the judgement was significant in terms of legal precedent.
“It’s set a precedent for Aboriginal groups to take a stand, it’s set a precedent also in terms, I believe, of what standards are required of Commonwealth ministers,” Mr Llewellyn-Jones said.
“What we’ve had here is a finding of apprehension of bias, we haven’t reviewed the decision fully, but it’s
obviously got some consequence in terms of the conduct the minister did at the time and it will have some authority value in terms of that as well
The bias on the part of Pitt may have been even more than apprehended since well before the passing of the enabling legislation for formal decision of the site he had selected and nominated Napandee as the location for the facility and was upset at the delay in passing that legislation for reasons that to him were unnecessary and lengthy
“Our clients have won and it’s obviously a great victory for them but in fact it’s a vindication of the
entire system that we have that people out there do have options when government affects their
lives.”
Justice Charlesworth also found there was an error of law, but concluded it did not have a “material effect” on the outcome of the declaration of the site.
How has the government responded?
Federal Labor Minister for Resources Madeleine King issued a statement that the court’s decision will be reviewed in detail but declined to comment further.
“Labor worked with the Barngarla people in the last term of Parliament to ensure they secured the right to seek judicial review of the decision to acquire the facility site,” she said
That is absolutely untrue since the Barngarla people had to continue with the review application and the enabling legislation as eventually agreed to by Labor was still well short of what was requested and expected of which I have personal knowledge as among other things I had many discussions with various members of parliament and had assisted in drafting an appropriate amendment to the legislation
When the legislation was eventually passed in the Senate I contacted Minister King who was then shadow minister for resources and explained that it was a totally unacceptable piece of legislation which she strongly and quite ignorantly refuted.
I had previously drafted an amendment to the legislation while it was still at the bill stage in the Senate under which the government and the responsible ministers would have been required to adhere completely to the codes and standards and the prescriptions of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) which was not accepted
Had this amendment been adopted than none of the present litigation with its accompanying acrimony would have been necessary since IAEA would have ensured that the government completely complied with and adhered to its standards and prescriptions.
“The principle of judicial review is an important process that the Albanese Government fully supports.”
The best way to support this application for a review would have been to agree to the review without
any contest. An appeal by the government will be an absolute lie to this proposition.
What have those in favour of the waste facility said?
Kimba farmer Kerri Cliff said the court outcome was ” pretty devastating for the majority of the
community” and expressed concerns about the economic future of the town.
“It’s a decision being made about Kimba, but not by the people that live here,” she said.
Aside from jobs at the facility, an Australian Government economic impact assessment report found the
project would have brought over $95 million to Kimba and the Flinders Ranges in the first 33 years.
Regrettably, the unconvincing notion that the facility would have brought a new economic life to Kimba is
completely misconceived and untrue
If anything it may have well destroyed a well-established and long-standing agricultural industry in the whole of the Eyre Peninsula.
What happens now?
The future of the project is in severe doubt and legal costs are also yet to be determined. The federal government is yet to say whether it would make an appeal against the court’s decision or look at a different location to store nuclear waste.
The government should be careful in considering a possible appeal since it may in any case face fresh legal opposition to its proposals by the general community at Kimba for failing to comply with all the safety codes and requirements of IAEA Local federal member
Rowan Ramsey told ABC Radio Adelaide’s Jules Schiller that the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency said that there would be no more room to store nuclear waste at Sydney’s Lucas Heights site “beyond 2028”
“Given that now the government has to find a new site and build a new facility in five years, you may as well be whistling into the wind,” Mr Ramsey said.
But Australian Conservation Foundation campaigner Dave Sweeney said 95 per cent of radioactive waste had been storedsecurely at the Lucas Heights facility and that “material can remain there securely for decades to come”.
He said he hoped the federal government could use this decision to discuss how to better manage nuclear waste in Australia. “It’s a result that will hopefully draw a line under decades of mismanagement of radioactive waste and inject some responsibility, some respect and some recognitioninto future discussions,” he said
“It’s long overdue now, and particularly against a context of AUKUS nuclear submarines and speculation about domestic nuclear power, we need to be serious and stop playing politics and stop looking for a vulnerable community to dump radioactive waste in.”
Australia must far better manage its nuclear waste This lack of proper management stems from the ignorance and incapacity of the federal government from ministerial level through its various departments and agencies failing to accept or acknowledge the international requirements for that
purpose
In conclusion I can only hope that t h e m e m b e r s o f t h e K i m b a community who feel aggrieved by the court’s decision and are seeking the establishment of the facility as an alternative to the district’s economic growth would actually be bitterlydisappointed if that were to occur
In any case, they should realise that the government is attempting to create a false economy which will
not survive and is based on the wholly unsuitable plan for the facility that will not get the necessary approvals for its establishment.
While it was suggested in an interview on Sky News this morning that many people had left the Kimba
district in the past four years this I understand stems from them being unconvinced and even fearful of the facility’s presence.
If the government as the proponent of the facility were prepared to fund a proper and independent expert review of its plans for Kimba then I am sure that those people will be shocked at the result.
Time for dump to be dumped for good.
The state’s peak environment group has strongly welcomed today’s Federal Court judgement that sets aside the declaration of Napandee (Kimba) as the site for the Australia’s nuclear waste facility.
“Today is an extraordinary vindication of the years’ long struggle by the Barngarla people to stand up for their Country, their Dreaming and their right to be heard,” said Conservation SA Chief Executive Craig Wilkins
“This case was never about whether imposing nuclear waste on Kimba was the right thing to do, but now the court has declared that the process the Federal Government undertook was never even legal.
“The Morrison Government, first with Matt Canavan as Minister, then with Keith Pitt, tried to force through a deeply divisive and deeply flawed proposal.
“They stuffed up the process and their relationship with the local community, particularly the Barngarla Traditional Owners.
“Now this comprehensive judgement has been handed down, there is only one appropriate course of action open for the Albanese Government and the Federal Resources Minister Madeleine King: to declare the Kimba waste dump dead and buried.
“It was Labor’s amendment to the Morrison Government’s legislation that gave the Barngarla their day in court today. The Albanese Government now needs to move quickly to reassure the Barngarla they will shelve the project in its entirety.
“Today’s monumental decision offers an exciting opportunity to reset the relationship between the Federal Government, Aboriginal people and nuclear waste.
“In many ways the real work starts now: to find the final resting place for Australia’s long lived radioactive waste – not a deeply deficient and illegal process to park the waste temporarily in above ground sheds in South Australia.
“Huge congratulations to Jason Bilney, Chair of the Barngarla Aboriginal Determination Corporation, Barngarla Elders and the rest of the community for the stunning result, and for standing strong on behalf of all Australians,” he said.
BARNGARLA COURT WIN OVER NUCLEAR DUMP
Jim Green, 18 July 23
Today, in a history making moment, The Federal Court of Australia through Her Honour Justice Charlesworth, handed down a decision which was favourable to the applicant the Barngarla Determination Aboriginal Corporation. This has resulted in the quashing of the decision to place the waste dump site at Napandee near Kimba.
“I am so happy for the women’s sites and dreaming on our country that are not in the firing line of a waste dump. I fought for all this time for my grandparents and for my future generations as well.” – Aunty Dawn Taylor, Barngarla Elder.
“This result today is about truth telling. The Barngarla fought for 21 years for Native Title rights over our lands, including Kimba and we weren’t going to stop fighting for this. We have always opposed a nuclear waste dump on our country and today is a big win for our community and elders.” – Jason Bilney, Chairperson Barngarla Determination Aboriginal Corporation.
“Every Australian, whether First Australians or more recent Australians have the right to independent scrutiny of Government. Today the Federal Court has set aside the declaration for the nuclear waste facility reinforcing how important these rights of independent review are. It has been a significant dispute which has created much pressure on Barngarla and their legal team they should be proud of their efforts to hold the government to account.” – Nick Llewellyn-Jones lawyer for Barngarla.
“The Barngarla have opposed the radioactive waste dump at Kimba since it was first suggested. We have fought for 7 years, to be heard, to be seen and to be respected. We welcome this decision and expect that this will be the end of this threat to our country, heritage and culture. We, the Barngarla have always stood strong and believe that this decision is reflective of staying steadfast; it shows that if you have a voice and want it to be heard, never give up. Continue to be loud. Continue to use your voice. Don’t rely on others to speak for you. Speak up for what’s right. Truth telling is what led us today. We are proud.” – The Barngarla People.
Nuclear waste on Aboriginal land ?- and the Voice to Parliament?
The Australian government is in the process of holding a referendum that would give the indigenous people a Voice to Parliament. Imposing nuclear waste on Aboriginal land is not a good look, is it?
This morning, I heard Professor Ian Lowe, talking to a English journalist, about yesterday’s court decision, which supported the Barngarla people’s opposition to nuclear waste dumping on their land.
Prof Lowe eloquently summarised the importance of this legal decision:
-the Aboriginal people were not consulted when the Morrison Liberal Coalition decided to make a nuclear waste dump on their traditional land.
– this raises problems for the Australian government in selecting any land in this country for nuclear waste dumping
-this has international implications – about any country where the rulers want to impose a nuclear waste dump on indigenous land
-this has implications for the ill-advised (corrupt firm PWC was the advisor) AUKUS decision by the Albanese government to buy U.S nuclear submarines at $369billion. That decision included Australia taking responsibility for the high level radioactive trash from the nuclear submarines. Where to dump that trash?
Of course, the Australian government does have the power to impose the nuclear waste dump anyway, against indigenous wishes, even against South Australian State government wishes,
The Australian government is in the process of holding a referendum that would give the indigenous people a Voice to Parliament. Imposing nuclear waste on Aboriginal land is not a good look, is it?
Labor must hear Indigenous voice against Kimba nuclear site
Jim Green and Michele Madigan, https://indaily.com.au/opinion/2023/07/17/labor-must-hear-indigenous-voice-against-kimba-nuclear-site/—
Ahead of tomorrow’s expected federal court decision on a Barngarla Traditional Owners challenge to the planned Kimba nuclear waste site, Jim Green and Michele Madigan say federal Labor must be consistent on listening to Indigenous concerns.
If the Albanese Labor government wants to restore confidence in its plan for an Indigenous Voice to Parliament, it needs to walk the talk and respect Aboriginal voices.
Currently, the government is ignoring the Barngarla Traditional Owners who are unanimous in their opposition to the government’s plan for a national nuclear waste dump (or ‘facility’) near Kimba on South Australia’s Eyre Peninsula.
Labor inherited the Kimba dump plan from the Morrison Coalition government. Barngarla Traditional Owners were excluded from a so-called ‘community ballot’ by the Morrison government. The results of an independent, professional survey of Barngarla Traditional Owners ‒ which found absolutely no support for the proposed dump ‒ were also ignored.
Jason Bilney, Chair of the Barngarla Determination Aboriginal Corporation, said: “It is a simple truth that had we, as the First People for the area, been included in the Kimba community ballot rather than unfairly denied the right to vote, then the community ballot would never have returned a yes vote.”
Federal parliament’s Joint Committee on Human Rights Committee unanimously concluded in an April 2020 report that the Morrison government was violating the human rights of Barngarla people. Even the Coalition members of the committee endorsed the report.
But the Morrison government continued to ignore the human rights of the Barngarla people.
The Morrison government also tried ‒ but failed ‒ to pass legislation which would deny Barngarla Traditional Owners the right to a judicial review of the nomination of the Kimba dump site. The draft legislation was blocked by Labor, minor parties and independent Senators.
It took 21 years for the Barngarla people to secure Native Title of their country through a court determination. Six months later, the Morrison government nominated Barngarla country for the proposed nuclear waste dump.
It was expected ‒ or at least hoped ‒ that the incoming Albanese Labor government would dump the controversial dump proposal after the May 2022 election. But Labor has pressed ahead with the Kimba dump proposal, led by federal resources minister Madeleine King.
Labor isn’t responsible for the plan to dump nuclear waste on Kimba farming land. But that’s no excuse for continuing with a controversial and strongly-contested proposal.
Labor’s position is that Barngarla Traditional Owners can challenge the dump plan in the courts. And that is what is happening: the Barngarla Determination Aboriginal Corporation launched a legal challenge against the Morrison government’s declaration of the Kimba dump site. The matter is before the Federal Court and a decision is expected on July 18 (with the proviso that an appeal to the full bench of the Federal Court may follow).
There are at least two problems with Labor’s position. Firstly, the government has vastly greater resources to contest a legal challenge. Indeed the government has spent $13 million fighting the Barngarla Traditional Owners in the Federal Court. Barngarla Traditional Owners haven’t even spent half a million dollars; and needless to say they have many pressing demands on their limited resources.
There is no other example in recent Australian history of this level of legal attack on an Aboriginal group.
Secondly, the relevant laws are stacked against the interests of Traditional Owners. In 2007, the Howard Coalition government passed legislation ‒ the Commonwealth Radioactive Waste Management Act ‒ allowing the imposition of a nuclear waste dump on Aboriginal land with no consultation or consent from Traditional Owners.
At the time, Labor parliamentarians described the legislation as “extreme”, “arrogant”, “draconian”, “sorry”, “sordid”, and “profoundly shameful”. But when the Gillard Labor government amended the legislation in 2012 ‒ and renamed it the National Radioactive Waste Management Act ‒ the amendments were superficial and still allowed for the imposition of a nuclear waste dump with no consultation or consent from Traditional Owners.
Even if the Federal Court finds that the government has acted within the law, the plan to impose a nuclear dump despite the unanimous opposition of Barngarla Traditional Owners is immoral.
It contradicts the spirit of the Voice to Parliament currently being championed by the Albanese government. Jayne Stinson, Chair of the SA Parliament’s Environment, Resources and Development Committee, said: “In this day and age, when we’re talking about Voice, Treaty and Truth, we can’t just turn around and say, ‘Oh, well, those are our values but in this particular instance, we’re going to ignore the voice of Aboriginal people’. I think that’s just preposterous and it’s inconsistent with what most South Australians would think.”
The government has spent $13 million fighting the Barngarla Traditional Owners in the Federal Court
It contradicts Labor’s professed support for the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which states that “no storage or disposal of hazardous materials shall take place in the lands or territories of indigenous peoples without their free, prior and informed consent”.
Susan Close, now Deputy Premier of South Australia, said in 2019 that it was a “dreadful process from start to finish” that led to the nomination of the proposed Kimba dump site and that SA Labor is “utterly opposed” to the “appalling” process which led to Kimba being targeted.
Close noted in 2020 statement, titled ‘Kimba site selection process flawed, waste dump plans must be scrapped’, that SA Labor “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.”
Of course, Close was speaking about the Morrison government but SA Labor continues to call for the federal government to abandon the proposed dump and for Traditional Owners to have a right of veto.
Yet the federal Labor government stubbornly persists.
Sadly, federal Labor has form on these issues. In February 2008, Labor Prime Minister Kevin Rudd highlighted the life-story of Lorna Fejo ‒ a member of the stolen generation ‒ in the historic National Apology to Aboriginal People in Parliament House.
At the same time, the Rudd government was attempting to impose a nuclear waste dump on her country in the Northern Territory. Fejo said: “I’m very, very disappointed and downhearted about that [the National Radioactive Waste Management Act]. I’m really sad. The thing is ‒ when are we going to have a fair go? Australia is supposed to be the land of the fair go. When are we going to have fair go? I’ve been stolen from my mother and now they’re stealing my land off me.”
Labor’s nuclear racism is disgraceful and it diminishes all Australians.
Several steps should be taken to rectify the situation. To date, the issue has been managed by resources minister Madeleine King. There appears to have been little or no input from caucus, Cabinet or the Prime Minister’s Office. That needs to change.
Secondly, Labor will hold its national conference in Brisbane in mid-August. If it hasn’t already done so, Labor should take the opportunity presented by the conference to announce that it will no longer attempt to impose a dump against the opposition of Barngarla Traditional Owners.
So much the better if a national conference resolution adopts SA Labor’s policy that Traditional Owners should have a right of veto over any proposed nuclear dumps. That would give traditional owners across the country some confidence that their voice will be heard as the government progresses plans to store and dispose of waste arising from nuclear submarines in the coming decades.
Court rules in favour of Barngala people, preventing nuclear waste facility in Kimba
Joseph Guenzler – July 18, 2023 https://nit.com.au/18-07-2023/6853/court-rules-in-favour-of-barngala-people-preventing-nuclear-waste-facility-in-kimba
The Barngarla people of South Australia’s Eyre Peninsula are rejoicing as the Federal Court has overturned the decision to construct a nuclear waste facility on their land in Kimba.
The proposed facility was to store radioactive waste categorised as low and intermediate level.
The Barngarla traditional owners took the matter to the Federal Court, seeking a judicial review. They argued that the facility would disrupt a site of great significance and claimed that they were not adequately consulted before the plan received approval in 2021.
“It was important to stop this dump because the Seven Sisters Dreaming goes through there,” said Barngarla Elder Aunty Dawn Taylor, who was born at Kimba.
“Having a waste dump out there would have just destroyed everything.”
The Barngarla native title area covers more than 34,000 square kilometres on Eyre Peninsula, including the town of Kimba.
On Tuesday, the court ruled in favor of the native title group.
As a result, the future of the project is now uncertain as the court has invalidated the federal government’s previous declaration made in 2021, which designated the site for the nuclear waste facility.
Justice Natalie Charlesworth ruled in favor of the Barngarla people, citing a perceived bias in the decision-making process due to “pre-judgment.”
Justice Charlesworth also found there was an error of law, but said it did not have a “material effect” on the outcome of the declaration of the site.
A separate hearing will address the matter of legal costs, which are expected to be substantial.
The decision was met with enthusiasm by opponents of the nuclear facility, who gathered at the Federal Court building and expressed their joy upon hearing the verdict.
Speaking outside the building in Adelaide’s CBD, Barngarla Determination Aboriginal Corporation (BDAC) chairman Jason Bilney said it had been a “David and Goliath” battle that had left him “very emotional”.
“It’s been proud win for Barngarla, as well as other First Nations, to continue this fight and get this message out,” he said.
“The lesson is, it’s about truth telling… and it’s about listening to the First Nations people and who we are today and we’ve prevailed and we’ve won.”
“The money that the government’s spent to take us to court could be better spent for the rest of Australia, everyday Australians and the community, instead of taking First Nations people to court, it’s very disrespectful — we’ve been here over 60,000 years.”
Justice Charlesworth has decided to withhold any definitive orders regarding the judicial review until both parties have had a chance to review her judgment.
However, she has indicated that the most suitable course of action is to invalidate the entire declaration made by former resources minister Keith Pitt concerning the proposed facility.
1.This month.
14 May Industrial Decarbonisation Summit
Sydney Get involved at eec.org.au/summit-registration
15- 16 May Sydney – EEC National Conference Efficiency Electrification Decarbonisation more https://eec.my.canva.site/eecnc24
The video on Palestine that got Yanis Varoufakis BANNED from Germany
Keep U.S. military expansion out of Australia
Petition EN5543 – Call for termination of the US-Australia Force Posture Agreement
Antinuclear 