Australian news, and some related international items

Australian Nuclear and Science Organisation distancing itself from the Napandee nuclear waste dump?

September 21, 2020 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump | Leave a comment

The process for selecting Napandee nuclear waste site – flawed and divisive

No Radioactive Waste Facility for Kimba District 19 Sep 20,The No Radioactive Waste on Agricultural Land in Kimba or SA group has always maintained that the current process the Federal Government have devised to site the National Radioactive Waste Management Facility is both fundamentally flawed and inherently divisive.It is clear that the Senate Economics Committee also find themselves divided on this issue, as can be witnessed in the three dissenting statements handed down within the report.
Over 5 years, one constant in a revolving line up of Ministers and Department staff has been their continual trivialisation of our concerns and opinions. That the federal government and their new Minister now consciously attempt to eliminate the fundamental right of Australians to judicial review and procedural fairness epitomises the lack of integrity and transparency with which this process had been conducted. It is exceedingly clear that if this proposal was openly and broadly supported, the current legislation to select a site by Ministerial decree would suffice.
We have always upheld that this issue is, and should be, bigger than just Kimba and that our community is much wider than just our geographical local government area. Meaningful engagement with others within proximity to the sites, regardless of council boundaries is the responsibility of the Minister, and has not occurred. Controlling boundaries and continually sampling the same people is manipulative, provides no assurance of broad community support and remains contested.
The proposed double handling and temporary storing of intermediate level waste above ground for decades and on agricultural land makes no sense for our nation’s long term responsibility to safely manage our most dangerous waste. The fact that the Senate Committee is as divided over this as ourcommunity proves that this proposed amendment, and in fact this whole process is fundamentally wrong.

September 21, 2020 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump | Leave a comment

Did she lie to the Senate? – Samantha Chard, Chief of National Radioactive Waste Management Facility Taskforce

Public servant accused of lying to Senate committee,  Sally Whyte  15 Sep 20

A senior public servant has been accused of lying to a Senate committee and only correcting the evidence given when a Freedom of Information request was set to expose her.

Independent senator Rex Patrick made the accusation under parliamentary privilege in a dissenting report on a government bill on radioactive waste management.

In a hearing for the inquiry in June, general manager of the National Radioactive Waste Management Facility Taskforce Samantha Chard was asked whether she had been involved in discussions around judicial review of decisions made under section 14 of the bill.

Ms Chard said she didn’t recall talking about it in her personal discussions, but Senator Patrick said he would use Freedom of Information to see if that was the case.

The Freedom of Information request was sent three days after the hearing, and Ms Chard clarified her evidence to the inquiry after it was sent, saying she had been involved in policy discussions about the proposed legislation’s effects on judicial review, including having the effect of reducing or avoiding the risk of potential legal challenges.

“It is completely implausible that Ms Chard was unable to recollect being involved in discussions on the new bill about the bill’s effect of removing judicial review of the site selection decision,” Senator Patrick said in the report.

“She was dishonest. She lied to the committee.”

Senator Patrick accused Ms Chard of only updating her evidence because of the FOI request.

A spokesman for the Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources said Ms Chard answered all questions truthfully to the best of her ability.

“The committee has already reached out to the government and asked if it would like to respond to any aspects of the report including minority or dissenting reports, which the department will,” he said.

“All members of the department who appear at proceedings in Parliament are aware of their obligations to answer all questions truthfully and to the best of their ability, which Ms Chard did.

In a further exchange between Ms Chard and Senator Patrick at a hearing in August, Ms Chard again said she had been truthful.

“In my clarification of the evidence I make it really clear that I have been involved in policy discussions related to the proposed legislation having the effect of reducing the risk of potential legal challenges, including through judicial review,” she said.

“At the time, the questioning was specifically related to section 14 of the act and whether this bill was designed to remove judicial review, and I maintained that it was not the intention of the bill to remove scrutiny under section 14 of the act.”

It is not the first time Senator Patrick has used parliamentary procedures to call out what he believes is a growing tendency for public servants to choose protecting their ministers over being open and transparent.

“I am absolutely determined to protect the integrity of the Senate’s oversight processes,” he said to The Canberra Times.

Senator Patrick said he would be calling ministers who make “erroneous public interest immunity claims” to the Senate chamber to explain themselves.

“I will be not be tolerating officials who are evasive, misleading or untruthful in their answers.”

He also threatened to publicly name FOI officials who make “blatantly cavalier” exemption claims that are then overturned by the Information Commissioner.

“Ministers and officials who meet their public service obligations and are fulsome and truthful in their responses to the Senate need not fear anything,” he said.

“FOI officers who make decisions consistent with the objectives of FOI act need not fear anything.”

September 17, 2020 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump | Leave a comment

Words Before Waste: South Australians Call for More Consultation on Federal Radioactive Waste Plan

New research shows that, while South Australians are divided on the issue of a nuclear waste dump, a clear majority believe more consultation should be undertaken before any final decision is made regarding a proposed disposal and storage facility near Kimba on the Eyre Peninsula.

The Australia Institute recently surveyed 510 South Australians about the proposed nuclear waste facility.

Key Findings:

  • Two in three South Australians (66%) say the traditional custodians of the land, the Barngarla people, should be formally consulted via a ballot before any proposal is advanced.
  • Three in five South Australians (60%) believe the whole SA population should be formally consulted via a ballot before any proposal is allowed to go ahead.
  • Two in five South Australians (40%) oppose the nuclear waste dump, while the same share of respondents (40%) support the plan.
  • One in two South Australians (51%) oppose the potential use of the South Australian ports and roads to transport nuclear waste.

“This issue is dividing the state and there is a strong appetite for more consultation with both the Barngarla people and the general South Australian public,” said Noah Schultz-Byard, South Australian Director at The Australia Institute.

“Our research has shown that a significant number of people hold concerns about the transportation of nuclear waste on South Australian roads and through South Australian ports.

“In 2016 the current Premier Steven Marshall said he had much greater ambitions for South Australia than for it to become a nuclear waste dump. If that is still the case, the Premier should support a state Parliamentary inquiry and a far broader community conversation regarding the proposed federal facility.”

“This is a highly controversial proposal, with many questions unanswered and a lot of misinformation flying around.  It’s little wonder the community is divided,” said Craig Wilkins, Chief Executive of Conservation SA.

“However, one thing is crystal clear: the Barngarla people, who are the formal native title owners of the area, have consistently said they have not been properly consulted. The South Australian people clearly believe further consultation, particularly with Barngarla Traditional Owners, must take place before this proposal progresses.

“There is no hurry: federal authorities have confirmed that there is safe and secure storage at Lucas Heights in Sydney for decades.  So, let’s get the process and the consultation right – starting with genuine and respectful engagement with the Barngarla people,” he said.

September 17, 2020 Posted by | Federal nuclear waste dump, politics, South Australia | Leave a comment

Call to Australian Labor Party to state its position on Napandee nuclear waste dump plan

Labor split on nuclear waste dump,    The Greens are calling on the Labor Leader in the Senate, Penny Wong to declare where her party stands on the proposed Nuclear Waste Dump in SA, after a clear division within the Labor Party was revealed in a Senate Inquiry Report released late yesterday.

NSW Labor Senator Jenny McAllister delivered a dissenting report, independent of her Labor colleagues including SA Senator Alex Gallacher who supports the majority report that SA should be a dumping ground for nuclear waste.

Greens Senator for South Australia Sarah Hanson-Young said:

“Penny Wong needs to come out today and tell South Australians where the Labor Party stands.

“Does it stand with Senator McAllister who has stated the process for selecting a site has been flawed and no meaningful community consent obtained? Or does it stand with SA Senator Alex Gallacher and the Liberal Party who want to dump on SA?

“The decision to set up a nuclear waste dump in SA will affect our state for generations to come. All South Australians should have the right to have their say on this important issue and they should know very clearly where the ‘opposition party’ stands both at a federal and state level.”


September 17, 2020 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump, politics | Leave a comment

Broad support for nuclear waste dump at Napandee? Senate report shows that is a lie

September 17, 2020 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump, politics | Leave a comment

South Australian Labor calls on the Federal Government to halt its plans to dump nuclear waste at Kimba.

SUSAN CLOSE MP Shadow Minister for Environment and Water EDDIE HUGHES MP Member for Giles 15 Sept 20, 
Kimba site selection process flawed, waste dump plans must be scrapped
South Australian Labor is calling on the Federal Government to halt its plans to dump nuclear waste at Kimba. The  The decision follows the release of the Senate Economics Legislation Committee report on the National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment (Site Specification Community Fund and Other Measures) Bill 2020.
The report found there was a deliberate attempt to remove judicial review rights from the Barngarla people and the farming community of the Kimba area.
In June this year, the Federal Opposition voted against this legislation in the House of Representatives.

SA Labor has consistently expressed its concerns about the site selection process and the lack of consultation with native title holders. Quotes attributable to Shadow Minister for Environment Susan Close

This was a dreadful process from start to finish, resulting in fractures within the local community over the dump.
The SA ALP has committed to traditional owners having a right of veto over any nuclear waste sites, yet the federal government has shown no respect to the local Aboriginal people.
Quotes attributable to Member for Giles Eddie Hughes

This report clearly reflects that any mediation undertaken with the Barngarla people did not have any legal or political weight.
This has been a very divisive process from the beginning due to individual land owners nominating the sites.
Instead of rushing this quick fix by dumping in SA, the federal government should do the work on a long-term plan for the management of nuclear waste in Australia.
We clearly have an obligation to manage our domestic nuclear waste in a responsible way for the long term. This proposal falls far short of meeting that obligation.

September 15, 2020 Posted by | Federal nuclear waste dump, politics, South Australia | Leave a comment

Observations on the Senate Radioactive Waste Inquiry Report

Key messages:

  • Report has failed to provide a compelling case for the need for the proposed changes and the legal override
  • The fact that there are multiple responses and findings highlights there is no broad political consensus – this mirrors that there is no broad community support
  • This report does not provide certainty for the project – it remains unproven, unwelcome and this unfinished business will remain the focus of active contest.

The majority report – Coalition (and I presume but am not certain, some Labor members) predictably recommend the legislation be advanced.

Jenny McAllister – (Labor) has an individual dissenting report that changing the process ‘should not proceed at this time’

Rex Patrick – Independent – has a dissenting report stating the process has been flawed and improper and the waste should go to Woomera

The Greens – have a dissenting report that the legislation should not be advanced and that an inquiry into alternative management options and a consultation with transport corridor communities take place.

The majority reports recommends that the legislation be advanced – with the sop that the department and Barngarla ‘discuss issues and find a pathway for on-going consultation’, including through an independent mediator. These folks are graduates in the school that no doesn’t mean no – it means not yet.

September 15, 2020 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump, politics | Leave a comment

Not welcome, not needed: Community alliance united in response to divided Senate report on Kimba radioactive waste plan

  September 15, 2020 ‒   Federal government plans to transport, dump and store radioactive waste in South Australia are not needed, not welcome and will be actively contested says the South Australian community based No Dump Alliance.

This statement comes in response to a new Senate report into plans to change the federal radioactive waste laws by removing the community’s right of legal review.

The government controlled Senate Committee report had multiple conflicting findings which highlights the lack of political consensus. The report does not present a compelling case for the proposed changes including the legal override. In the three minority reports Committee members have raised serious concerns and opposition including over the heavy handed legal exclusion, the denial of Aboriginal and wider community rights and protections and the lack of proven need for the planned national facility.

“In the 21st Century it is unacceptable to try and airbrush away Aboriginal peoples concern over nuclear risks”, said NDA spokesperson Karina Lester. “The Barngarla Native Title holders were excluded from the Kimba community ballot about the waste plan and now the federal government is trying to deny them the right to contest the plan in court. This is not only unfair to the Barngarla people but a clear insult to the concerns expressed by Aboriginal people from right across South Australia to any dumping and storage of radioactive waste on our traditional lands from outside the state”.

The federal plan has attracted many critics as the government has failed to demonstrate that moving waste to Kimba is either necessary or responsible.

“This plan is a clear example of government overreach,” said NDA spokesperson and state secretary of the Maritime Union Jamie Newlyn. “South Australian communities have not had any say in the controversial plan but would face increased radioactive transport risks. The plan is deeply deficient and the process is fatally flawed”.

NDA member groups have committed to escalate their efforts around the Kimba waste push and will work against the federal government’s move to reduce community and environment protections in the Senate.

“We have a long, proud and united history of overturning radioactive waste plans in SA,” said Karina Lester. “From the senior desert law women the Kupa Piti Kungka Tjuta challenging Federal waste dump plans in the late 90’s and early 2000’s to the Scarce Royal Commission (2015-2017) our community has taken action to protect and stand up for our state. The federal government – and the Marshall government – should be under no illusions – this will be opposed”.

September 15, 2020 Posted by | aboriginal issues, Federal nuclear waste dump, South Australia | Leave a comment

Critical mass in Canberra puts nuclear dump in doubt

September 15, 2020 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump, politics | Leave a comment

Dissent and anger: Senate divided over nuke dump push

 14 Sept 20  Four separate reports released today by the Senate committee investigating the Federal Government Bill to create a nuclear waste facility at Kimba shows deep divisions over whether the waste dump should proceed on agricultural land in South Australia’s Eyre Peninsula.

“Not one, but three, separate dissenting reports shows a very divided Senate Committee,” said Craig Wilkins, Chief Executive of Conservation SA.

“This is on top of a contested community ballot, and fierce opposition from the Barngarla Traditional Owners.

“The community is split, and so is the Senate.

“This is completely at odds with Federal Government rhetoric of only proceeding with facility if there is clear majority community support.

The Inquiry into the National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment (Site Specification, Community Fund and Other Measures) Bill 2020 has spawned four reports:  the Government majority report which predictably backs the facility and three dissenting reports which all strongly oppose – Senators Jenny McAllister (Labor), Sarah Hanson-Young (Greens) and Rex Patrick (Independent).

“The Federal Government process has been flawed from day one.

“There is clear and continuing opposition from Barngarla Traditional Owners, which the majority report acknowledges. Yet, they still recommend the naming of Kimba as the waste facility site despite this opposition.

“There is also clear evidence from the Senate Inquiry that this Bill was created for the express purpose of wiping out the right of community members to legally challenge the process of locating the facility at Kimba.

“If the Federal Government is confident they have the decision right, they don’t need this Bill to start building the dump.

“But clearly they fear that a court will find their process has been shoddy, so they need this Bill to override that right.

“That’s appalling, and it’s good that it’s been called out by three of the four Senate reports.

“This Senate Inquiry does not provide certainty for the project – it remains unproven, unwelcome and this unfinished business will continue to be opposed until a more respectful and credible process is advanced,” he said.

For further comment: Craig Wilkins 0417 879 439

September 14, 2020 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump, politics | Leave a comment

Australian politics: Deep disagreement on federal radioactive waste plan

The growing uncertainty and contest over Federal Government plans to advance a national radioactive waste facility at Kimba on South Australia’s Eyre Peninsula has been highlighted today in a new Senate report.

The Senate report reflects growing divisions about how to manage radioactive waste in Australia, with government members supporting the plan while Labor, Green and independent Senators raised serious concerns and reservations or actively opposed the plan.

The report was set up to examine controversial changes to national radioactive waste laws in order to the secure the Kimba site and then remove this decision from judicial review.

“This is a deeply deficient plan based on a flawed and constrained process,” said Australian Conservation Foundation campaigner Dave Sweeney. “That one Committee inquiry has generated four separate responses from Senators shows there is no consensus on the plan”.

“The government dominated majority report predictably supports the waste plan, while the three other responses are critical of the approach”.

“The government’s plan would lead to sub-optimal radioactive waste management outcomes and is actively contested by many in the wider region, including the Barngarla Traditional Owners who have been consistently excluded from the consultation process.”

The federal waste plan has drawn criticism and opposition from a range of civil society and community groups and South Australia’s Labor opposition. Federal Labor voted against the plan in the House of Representatives in June. Key concerns with the plan include:

  • There is no pressing need for a centralised national waste storage site. The federal nuclear regulator ARPANSA says there is no urgency to move the most problematic waste from where it is stored at the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisations (ANSTO) reactor site at Lucas Heights.
  • The unnecessary double-handling and transport of intermediate level waste from an above-ground extended interim storage facility at ANSTO to an above-ground extended interim storage facility in a less resourced regional area is inconsistent with best practice.
  • The bill would disproportionately and adversely affect Barngarla Traditional Owners.
  • There has been no consultation outside the immediate region. Communities on the wider Eyre Peninsula and along the extensive transport corridors have not been consulted.

“This is not a credible plan,” said Dave Sweeney, “it is a politicised and fragile promise.”

“Australians deserve better than an approach which lacks credibility, is inconsistent with international standards and shirks hard question about what to do with the worst waste.”

For context or comment contact Dave Sweeney on 0408 317 812

Read ACF’s 3-page background brief on the federal radioactive waste plans

September 14, 2020 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump, politics | Leave a comment

Farmers, Traditional Owners fight radioactive waste dump

Farmers, Traditional Owners fight radioactive waste dump, Renfrey Clarke, Adelaide, September 8, 2020

In a marginal grain-growing district of South Australia’s Eyre Peninsula, construction for a national repository for Australia’s radioactive wastes will begin soon — or so the federal government hopes.

A 160-hectare tract of farmland has been purchased near the small town of Kimba and, as inducement to deliver support for the plan, local residents have been promised a $31 million “community development package.” A non-binding ballot conducted last November among residents of the Kimba District Council area recorded 62% in favour of the scheme.

But opponents of the dump remain active and vocal. As well as farmers and townsfolk concerned for their safety and for the “clean and green” reputation of the district’s produce, those against the plan include the Barngarla First Nations people, who hold native title over the area.

Critics argue that last year’s ballot sought the views of only a narrow section of the people affected. In particular, members of the Barngarla people, who do not live locally, are angry at being excluded.

The federal Coalition government, however, has not been deterred. In June, the House of Representatives passed a set of amendments to the legislation governing the scheme. These changes would strip opponents of the dump — including the Barngarla — of the right to mount legal challenges.

The amendments still have to pass through the Senate. But, confident of victory, in July the government set up the Australian Radioactive Waste Agency as part of the Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources. With its base in Adelaide, and a satellite office in Kimba, the agency is to “lead the process to deliver” the waste dump.

Low and intermediate-level wastes

In volume terms, the great bulk of the radioactive waste currently produced in Australia results from nuclear medicine, and is considered low-level. These materials do not require shielding in handling or storage, but must be kept secure until the radioactivity has decayed to the point where they can safely go to landfill. At present, these wastes are stored at more than 100 sites around the country, mostly in hospitals or universities.

The amount of low-level waste created here each year is about 40 cubic metres, roughly three truckloads, suggesting that the need to collect these materials into a centralised store is questionable.

More than likely, the risks of shifting these wastes exceed those of keeping them where they are for the decades needed until their radioactivity falls to natural background levels.

There are also intermediate-level wastes. These accumulate at a rate of about five cubic metres a year, and are in a very different category. Highly dangerous, they require shielding, and must be kept secure for as long as 10,000 years. They consist almost entirely of spent nuclear fuel from the research reactor at Lucas Heights, near Sydney, returned after reprocessing in Europe and currently stored on the reactor premises.

The waste dump planned for the farm property Napandee, near Kimba, is meant to provide a permanent home for Australia’s low-level wastes — but not for the intermediate-level materials. The latter are to be held in above-ground canisters at the facility until permanent storage provisions have been made.

Will this “interim” storage turn out to be permanent?

Kimba is remote enough that the temptation will be great for governments to leave these dangerous, long-lasting materials there indefinitely.

Meanwhile, if the Napandee dump is to hold the intermediate-level wastes for only a few decades, where is the need to move these materials there at all? The store at Lucas Heights has room to hold the wastes for many years to come, while permanent disposal methods are being devised and tested. Simply keeping the materials on site would avoid the risks of multiple handling and long-distance transport.

Community rifts

In Kimba, the social rifts from years-long disagreements over the dump remain painful. Many local people look to the facility to sustain a town that is steadily declining as farmers are compelled to “get big or get out”, and as the regional population shrinks.

Farmer Heather Baldock, who supports the dump, lamented to a Senate committee hearing in August: “We lose students, youth, neighbours, friends, sporting club members, emergency service volunteers … We gain more empty houses and property for sale.”

The federal government has suggested that a total of 45 jobs will be created by the facility — a big boost for a town of barely 600 people. Many of these jobs, however, will likely be part–time, or will be performed on a fly-in-fly-out basis.

The $31 million community package will create excellent town amenities, but not a long–term basis for the local economy. It will not solve the worst problem confronting regions like northern Eyre Peninsula: global warming, which raises temperatures, reduces already sparse rainfall and sends farmers into crippling debt.Opponents of the dump, meanwhile, speak bitterly of the deceits by a government determined to impose its scheme regardless of local objections.

Farmer Peter Woolford, who heads the group No Radioactive Waste on Agricultural Land in Kimba or SA, told the Senate hearing: “The path that the federal government has taken … has been a long road of propaganda, manipulation and promises without justification.”

The flow of information to the community, Woolford noted, has been tightly controlled and almost entirely narrated by the department. “No assistance, practical or financial, has been given to provide independent advice. Every speaker who has visited Kimba at the expense of the government has been a supporter of the proposal.”

Ballot manipulation

Opponents of the scheme are especially angry at the way the terms of last year’s ballot were manipulated. Rejecting a call for voting to be open to all residents within a 50-kilometre radius — a far more meaningful measure of the people for whom Kimba is the local hub — the government and the Kimba District Council insisted on the smaller area within the council boundaries. If the 50-kilometre boundary had applied, critics argue, the vote would have failed.

Particularly impressive has been the resolve of the Barngarla people to have their say in deciding the outcome. In 2018, the Barngarla fought and lost a court case against the district council, demanding to be included in the prospective ballot.

Excluded from the official vote, the Barngarla Determination Aboriginal Corporation organised its own independently-run ballot. This recorded a total of 83 members against the dump and zero in favour. A recent letter from the Barngarla to the federal resources minister stated: “The systematic racist behaviour by your government is a stain on the collective consciousness of this country.”

In any case, opponents of the dump ask why “community support” for the dump should be measured only by the views of a few hundred people. Why should the decision not be one for the whole population of South Australia — where indications are that the idea of hosting a radioactive waste dump is highly unpopular?

As Woolford pointed out, of 2789 submissions received in a public consultation 94.5% oppose the facility.

September 10, 2020 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump, opposition to nuclear | Leave a comment

The nuclear stigma – some Kimba residents selling their assets before the nuclear dump sets sail?

Paul Waldon   Fight to Stop A Nuclear Waste Dump in South Australia , 8 Sept 20 
Painful to see when you don’t know if it’s Kimba’s pro or an anti nuclear dump dichotomy selling up their assets before the ship sinks. The town of Kimba poisoned by the kafkaesque promotion of a radioactive dump looks to be losing Eatts Hardware with Elders conducting an auction sale on the 18th of October.
The Nuclear Stigma not only eroding personal assets but also that of businesses belonging to both the people that have decried a radioactive dump for their town, plus those who care to embrace it but want to move on.
Oh yeah we have even seen a farmer come nuclear profiteer list a sizable parcel of land, which some people may say “he’s blazing a trail for a quick escape.”

September 10, 2020 Posted by | Federal nuclear waste dump, South Australia | Leave a comment

Australia’s National Radioactive Waste Management Taskforce plays deceptively with statistics

Kazzi Jai  Fight to stop nuclear waste dump in the Flinders Ranges

There are so many things which are really wrong with this flawed proposal….

One thing which keeps rearing its ugly head is the “selective” way that DIIS and its promoters use percentages to support their arguments. Take this extract from Sam Chard in a newspaper called “Echo Daily” from last month….

The co-location of low and intermediate level waste at the facility has been the basis of the facility proposal since 2015 and the Kimba community was well informed about the proposal, in advance of their local council ballot.
Sixty-two per cent of respondents from the Kimba community supported the proposal moving ahead – 90.41 per cent of eligible locals participated in the ballot.

39.71 per cent of the Barngarla Determination Aboriginal Corporation voted against the proposal in their own ballot – 58.38 per cent did not respond.”

Apart from the fact that THIS proposal is the EXACT SAME PROPOSAL put forward FORTY YEARS AGO….and the “assumption” that the Kimba community was well informed (how EXACTLY did they determine the level of being “informed”?)…what really irks me most is the use of PERCENTAGES!

And not only that – BUT THE SELECTIVE USE OF NUMBERS IN WORDS AND FIGURES! Unless you are being a Secret Squirrel – you need to be CONSISTENT with YOUR NOMENCLATURE!

It needs to read….
” 61.58% of respondents from the Kimba community supported the proposal moving ahead – 90.41% of eligible locals participated in the ballot.
39.71% of the Barngarla Determination Aboriginal Corporation voted against the proposal in their own ballot – 58.38% did not respond – BUT 0% VOTED FOR THE DUMP!”

Or even better yet – “100% of the respondents of the Barngarla Determination Aboriginal Corporation voted against the proposal in their own ballot”….

And include….“In fact, there was no BROAD COMMUNITY CONSENT achieved in the Kimba community at all, as the MINIMUM of 2/3RDS or OVER 66.67% WAS NOT ACHIEVED IN THE COMMUNITY BALLOT!”

September 8, 2020 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump | Leave a comment