Antinuclear

Australian news, and some related international items

  • Home
  • 1 This month
  • Disclaimer
  • Kimba waste dump Submissions

Absurdity of Napandee as nuclear waste dump – impossible to meet safety licence?

2 Jan 21, The safety case should have been begun the moment that the government first set eyes on Napandee.
The worst part is that all of the requirements of the safety case are clearly set out in the various publications by ARPANSA based on the codes and standards of IAEA but they have never been enforced
This is why it will become virtually impossible to licence the Napandee facility as IAEA will require an independent and external (overseas) peer review which  should make the government including the minister and ARPANSA shake in their boots
It seems that despite this having been explained to the government it refuses to listen and follow the requirements which will only make it a greater laughing stock internationally

January 2, 2021 Posted by Christina Macpherson | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump | Leave a comment

Busting the spin on Kimba’s “wonderful” new industry – nuclear waste dumping


Kazzi Jai
  No nuclear waste dump anywhere in South Australia , 31 Dec 2020, 
As 2020 draws to an end, and we welcome 2021 it is important to reflect what a whirlwind year 2020 has been – and I’m not talking about COVID-19!
*********
We have had people claiming “thank goodness we are talking about WASTE and not POLLUTION” with regards to nuclear waste ….and to the dump itself being a “growing tech industry”!!!
*********
We have had “our greatest export, after wheat perhaps— or perhaps before wheat—is our children” – yes that quote is memorialized in hansard – ummmm….pretty sure that’s against the law by the way…..and we have had ….”we’re widely recognized as one of the most informed communities virtually throughout the country but also throughout the world” – ummmm….what about Hawker?…Pretty sure they had the SAME information thrust upon them – surely that makes them TOO “THE” MOST INFORMED!
*********
“Goodness gracious me”- “it’s just getting out of hand” – “I do get a bit sick and tired….” – particularly when they can’t even get the timeline right about how long Kimba has been “in the process”…..Hint – Kimba was taken COMPLETELY off the list in April 2016 and only through one (greedy) person’s perseverance – how much money are we getting for that “very low value farmland” again????….Kimba was back on the short list the following year 2017
.*********
Might be the reason DIIS are hesitant to actually PUBLISH the recipients of the latest Community Benefits Program….because IF Kimba had been in the process of this dump for as long as Hawker this should be Kimba’s THIRD Bribe Money submission – not its SECOND!
*********
And WHY is there not a published list of recipients for this latest round? Surely DIIS and NRWMF would be CROWING about how FORTUNATE these towns are to have PARTICIPATED and gotten up to $2 million for their respective communities again. And it WAS communities we were talking about…NOT individuals getting an individual commercial advantage…..BECAUSE that’s right AGAINST the rules isn’t it?
*********
So where is Kimba’s list – since Flinders Ranges Council was happy to print theirs IN JUST A DAY OR TWO OF ANNOUNCEMENT…
*********
Was going to keep this short – although the figure 580 seems to come to mind for some reason….something about documents and accusations of alleged deliberate misleading of the Senate Inquiry…..
*********
These things calling on ACCOUNTABILIITY AND TRANSPARENCY just don’t seem to go away for some reason…….
*********
Anyway….all I wanted to say is that whatever 2021 brings we will be ready for it!
HAPPY NEW YEAR!
Oh….and thank you to the person for the chuckle doing the rounds about a certain individual needing to be asked to use “plain english” so that her “vague comments” could be properly understood!… 10/10

—

January 1, 2021 Posted by Christina Macpherson | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump, spinbuster | Leave a comment

The Australian government’s shameful record in the Kimba nuclear dump fiasco

I am absolutely disgusted at how the federal government has treated the communities of Kimba and previously Hawker which I  simply could not believe to be possible in Australia

It did not take long to realise how badly and improperly the government dealt with those communities for its own political reasons which has lead to a breakdown of the Kimba community and will probably ruin its agricultural industries

The government should have known from the outset that the unjustified and deliberately misleading information foisted on those communities on such a major issue of national importance would create such strong public opposition which would be difficult to overcome

Had this occurred in another country it would have already been the subject of serious litigation based on human rights yet as much as we pride ourselves on our democratic principles and the rule of law there have been no legal remedies available to the community members opposing the government’s proposals

In opposing the government’s proposals there were many others who shared my views and have helped to displace the legislative process which hopefully will put an end to this most unfortunate and socially insensitive situation

It can only shame our government administration .

December 31, 2020 Posted by Christina Macpherson | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump | Leave a comment

South Australia targeted: easy to later bring international waste in to nuclear dump

Name withheld. to Senate Committee on  National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment (Site Specification, Community Fund and Other Measures) Bill 2020 [Provisions] Submission 39  Excerpt

The amendment to the Bill put forward by the now Minister of Resources Keith Bill should be rescinded and here are the reasons why.
First and foremost there was NO Broad Community Support achieved.

[The writer now gives an account of the requirement for community support for the nuclear waste facility:  Support “would need to be in the vicinity of 65%, and that submissions and ‘neighbouring views’ would also be taken into consideration.” – and that this support was not achieved]

So why was Kimba announced as the dump site if this stipulation was not fulfilled? To understand it, first you must understand the history behind the dump proposal.


HISTORY

This whole dump proposal has been flawed from the very start. It is the exact same proposal put forward in Parliament in the 1980’s and hasn’t changed. The recurrent statement of “we only have a small amount of Intermediate Level Waste so that can “tag-a-long” or “co-locate” with the Low Level Waste” was used back then and continues to be used right now 40 years later!

If you consider that, back in the 1980’s the proposed dump concept was to be only operating for 50 years, as they also stated that by that time the Intermediate Level Waste would be dealt with before its closure. Think about it – that means the preparation should ALREADY be in place RIGHT NOW according to their statements – ready for 2030!

And yet NOTHING has been done in that regard!! We still have the Woomera Waste still sitting in Woomera, when it was stated by the Federal Government at that time (1994), that it would only be “temporary” for 2 – 3 years maximum! Moving on 25 years plus – and it still remains in Woomera. Past behaviour is a good predictor of future behaviour.

It should be noted that the waste in Woomera – the CSIRO waste from Melbourne Fishermans Bend and the St. Mary’s waste from St. Mary’s Defence Base NSW – were placed in Woomera AS A RESULT of a NSW Environmental Court Case brought onto ANSTO Lucas Heights by the Sutherland Shire Council.The CSIRO waste was from the cleanup of Fishermans Bend in Victoria – where in fact only 200 of these drums contained radioactive waste according to the then Transport code of a minimum exceeding 70,000 Becquerels per kilogram to be considered a radioactive substance! But due to the media coverage and the concern by the public, all 9726 x 205L of the drums were classified as radioactive and then taken by consignment to ANSTO Lucas Heights NSW for storage. They werenstored on site for 4 years at ANSTO Lucas Heights (1990 -1994). 

 It was only when Lucas Heights agreed to take the waste from St Mary’s Defence Base NSW (1991) that Sutherland Shire Council brought a court case up against ANSTO Lucas Heights from taking waste from other entities.The Case was won by Sutherland Council, and although ANSTO was swift to change the Federal Act thereafter so that such jurisdictional action would never happen again. The Federal Government sought a suitable Commonwealth site to place the Fishermans Bend and St Marys Bend waste at short notice – which was Woomera in SA. At the time, the Feds were in negotiation with Northern Territory with regards to a dump site in NT, which fell through. The waste remains separately stored in Woomera – although ANSTO was commissioned to condition the St Mary’s Defence waste before it was transported to Woomera.
https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/Pu blications_Archive/online/RadioactiveWaste

Almost every state in Australia has been the target of this dump in the past. This is the second time SA has been targeted.And each and every time the establishment of the dump has failed.Why is this? Because it is a flawed proposal. Trotting out the exact same proposal since 1980’s shows that. The only change this time round is for nomination by land owners to nominate their land for the dump this time! 28 sites all around Australia were nominated in the nomination period 2nd March 2015 to 5th May 2015. It was the 13th November 2015 when the then resources minister Josh Frydenberg announce 6 sites around Australia which the Federal Government had deemed suitable.
https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=a80c7b35-3fdc-4502-8febd8381b03dae3& subId=565152 “Submission
“Submission to the Senate Inquiry into the Site Selection Process for a National Radioactive Waste Management Facility Radioactive Waste Management Taskforce April 2018” Annexure 6 – Chronology of site selection process.

Coincidentally, the South Australian Royal Commission into the Nuclear Fuel Cycle was established on 19th March 2015. The final report of this Royal Commission was presented to the SA premier Jay Weatherill on 9th May 2016. From October 2016 to November 2016, with final result obtained and given to the Premier of SA on 6th November 2016 a citizen’s jury decided a NO MEANS NO to SA becoming an International Dump site. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-11-06/sa-citizens-juryvote- against-storing-nuclear-waste/7999262  The then opposition leader Stephen Marshall reaffirmed this stance 5 days later 11th November 2016
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-11-11/opposition-says-it-will-vote-against-sa-nuclear-wastedump/    8016818?fbclid=IwAR1CiCk6Y1je4l1ZUtpvlJqYT4rHeKcqreHAXtVJ1xZxpKNfHZ6xfToZxVA

Why is this important? Because of the timeline! There is NO WAY ON EARTH that South Australia was NOT BEING TARGETED!

And even today, there are South Australians who believe that the International AND National Nuclear Dump targeting in South Australia had been put to bed back in November 2016! That this was ONE FIGHT instead of TWO

However, it has to be noted, that when Mike Rann fought to stop the Federal Government putting a dump into South Australia in the early 2000’s, there was a push by an international group called PANGEA with a leaked media video, which is intent on establishing an International Nuclear Dump in Australia. The group is now called itself ARIUS, since 2012, and is alive and kicking as witnessed in the Royal Commission into the Nuclear Fuel Cycle 2016.


TECHNICAL SUITABILITY

So why is the Federal Government so hell bent on putting this nuclear waste onto South Australia? Surely World’s Best Practise would dictate that the best site would be closer to the main site of generation and not over 1700kms across the country and into another state! Less transport and less handling required meaning less human error and mistakes. Which is a perfect time to reiterate ARPANSA’s definition of nuclear waste – “Radioactive waste is material that has no foreseeable use and contains radioactive materials with activities or activity concentrations at levels high enough that regulatory oversight is needed to ensure safety.” https://www.arpansa.gov.au/understandingradiation/ radiation-sources/more-radiation-sources/radioactive-waste-safety/frequently-askedquestions

Why was Sallys Flat NSW which was ONE of the SIX sites deemed suitable by the Federal Government not hounded like the South Australian sites were? Sallys Flat is only 260 kms from Lucas Heights. Even Oman Ama QLD which is another of the SIX sites deemed suitable by the Federal Government is closer at 780kms! The site at Kimba is over 1700kms away!Over 90% of all Australia’s nuclear waste (non-mining) is generated on site at Lucas Heights NSW for the production of nuclear medical isotopes predominately. And these isotopes are predominately used for diagnostic imaging, and to a much, much smaller extent for treatment.

How much nuclear waste does South Australia actually have itself? Back in 2003 Mike Rann was reported as stating thatSouth Australia itself had only enough nuclear waste to fill one 44 gallon drum! And today it isn’t much more than that! https://www.abc.net.au/news/2003-06-03/rannrejects-waste-dump-threats/1864470“States and territories are responsible for managing a range of radioactive waste holdings, accounting for about one per cent of total radioactive waste holdings in Australia.”…according to the DIIS – “Australian Radioactive Waste Management Framework April 2018” page 7 https://www.industry.gov.au/sites/default/files/2019- 04/australian_radioactive_waste_management_framework.pdf……

Lucas Heights was built with ample space so that they could take care of all of the waste they generated on site. It was only with the build of the OPAL reactor which replaced the aging HIFAR reactor that it was thought that the waste could go elsewhere, to pacify the nearby population as a compromise of the build of the new reactor. But the premise still remains, and Lucas Heights has enough space to deal with their own was for up to 100 years.

Since Lucas Heights was built in 1958 there is still plenty of space and time for this research reactor to find a proper solution to this nuclear waste once and for all. Not to bury it somewhere out of sight and out of mind , so it is essentially abandoned. If push comes to shove with Government funding, do you think the proposed nuclear dump will be a priority? This dump simply gives Lucas Heights licence to continue and indeed even increase nuclear waste production.

And then consider the criteria for acceptance of nuclear waste at the proposed dump. These can easily be changed with a stroke of a pen. No liquid now, but that can be changed. No mining waste now, but that can be changed. No High Level Nuclear Waste now, but that can be changed. Just as the management and ownership of the dump can change, should the financing prove too much for the Federal Government. They have off loaded other Government owned entities before, no different with nuclear waste. And there in comes International Nuclear Waste through the backdoor.

December 29, 2020 Posted by Christina Macpherson | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump, reference | Leave a comment

The sorry Kimba nuclear waste saga- Michele Madigan spells it out (and it’s not over)

    • Fight against nuclear waste not over yet   http://www.eurekastreet.com.au/article/fight-against-nuclear-waste-not-over-yet?#, Michele Madigan

10 February 2020  On January 31st, just three days before he offered his resignation as Minister for Resources and Northern Australia, Senator Matthew Canavan made his long awaited, if predictable, announcement: Australia’s long lived intermediate radioactive waste will be stored, and the low level waste deposited, at the Napandee site in the Kimba region of South Australia.

Canavan’s decision was a natural follow on from his December 13th announcement that with just 47 per cent of voters in favour, the Flinders Ranges site of Wallerberdina was no longer under consideration. As such, the Kimba decision was predictable. However it still came as a jolt to most of the farmers and others rightly fearful of the plan to host nuclear waste which even the government now admits will remain toxic for an unimaginable 10,000 years.
The early November Kimba vote of 61.17 per cent in favour on the proposed project followed the four year divisive government campaign. On December 5th, Kimba region farmer Terry Schmucker explained the vote’s long history: ‘We have already been through this once already where everyone was on equal terms. The minister at the time had already ruled there was not broad community support. However the landholder that nominated his land the first time then renominated a different part of his farm and his friends and family within the Kimba council moved for a vote of only the council area. The community funding has now been restricted to the Kimba council area only because of this — people are looking at the large inducement, not the radioactive waste issues.’ He concluded that ‘if the 50 km radius was applied at Kimba like it is at Hawker the vote would fail at these waste sites.’

After their 20 year struggle to successfully obtain their native title rights, which included the Kimba region, the Barngarla people were astonished at their own exclusion from the vote. As Jeanne Miller movingly explains in Kim Mavromatis’ four minute film, as Aboriginal people with no voting power they are put back 50 years, ‘again classed as flora and fauna.’ The Barngarla case against the Kimba Council will return to the Federal Court on February 21st.

After the Kimba region announcement, most predictable was the delight of the man due to profit the most from the arrangement in monetary terms. Jeff Baldock of Napandee is to be paid four fold for the 160 hectares of his land that the federal government plans to acquire.
Not much doubt, however, that Baldock and his family over future generations may get much more in repercussions than bargained for. At our privileged gathering on 5th February in Adelaide’s CBD, every time a guest referred to ‘intermediate long lived nuclear waste’, Dr Helen Caldicott, an internationally known anti-nuclear campaigner, insistently corrected the term to ‘high level’ nuclear waste. Somewhat surprisingly, on February 6, ANSTO (Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation) senior nuclear officer Hef Griffths voiced the same opinion. Speaking to the ABC’s Paul Culliver, Griffiths admitted France classifies waste from reprocessed spent nuclear fuel as high level nuclear waste — and when the waste gets shipped back to Australia it is reclassified as intermediate.
Unsurprisingly, there has been more media coverage of this issue in the Murdoch owned Adelaide Advertiser since Senator Canavan’s anouncement. One opinion piece to one (extreme) side, more facts than usual have been reported. Unswerving however has been the insistence by many correspondents of the repetition of the government mantra that the project is all about medical nuclear waste. The reality is that over 90 per cent of the waste, measured by radioactivity, is intermediate long-lived waste including the nuclear spent fuel rods and also the parts of the previous nuclear reactor. And no, X-rays and radiotherapy aren’t nuclear medicine.

After their 20 year struggle to successfully obtain their native title rights, which included the Kimba region, the Barngarla people were astonished at their own exclusion from the vote. As Jeanne Miller movingly explains in Kim Mavromatis’ four minute film, as Aboriginal people with no voting power they are put back 50 years, “again classed as flora and fauna”‘.

To avoid any unnecessary repetition of details regarding the medical waste argument I suggest that any interested reader would do well to read the respondents’ questions and information to my last published article. In addition, there is always the valuable Friends of the Earth scientific information source.

The hosts of the Kimba Rally for Sunday February 2nd, expecting 100, were overwhelmed and delighted with the crowd, a physical count revealing five times that number. Mrs Waniwa Lester, widow of the late Yami Lester blinded by the 1953 British nuclear tests at Emu Junction, travelled the 467 kilometres from Adelaide with me to attend. Weeks in the planning, it turned out the rally took place two days after the Minister’s actual announcement of the nuclear site.

MC Peter Woodfold, President of No Radioactive Waste on Agricultural Land in Kimba or SA, summarised the local divisive campaign in his speech, saying ‘if you want to know what intimidation is, you stand between people and money.’

Perhaps most moving of all the excellent speeches were those from other farmers, James Shepherdson and Tom Harris. As reported in the Stock Journal, Shepherdson said the community had not initially been told that the facility would be used to temporarily store intermediate-level radioactive waste, in addition to the storage and disposal of low-level waste. He said funding injections, such as a $20 million government community fund, did not outweigh potential problems with grain quality. ‘Farmers are under scrutiny and at the beck and call of buyers and brokers, and to risk what is an $80m income for this district every 12 months, for a one-off $20m payment, that’s absurd,’ he said.

Kimba farming land is an important part of South Australia’s just 4.5 per cent agricultural cropping land. Tom Harris revealed with some distress the current doubt by insurance agents regarding his insurance viability because of its proximity of his farm to the nuclear storage site; this may jeopardise his sons’ succession.

Reflecting the determination of local No campaigners, ACF ‘s Dave Sweeney warns that the fight is far from over. Various hurdles along the way in which opponents can be involved include the required Environmental Impact Statement and then the assessment the regulator ARPANSA (The Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency) must make. The inclusion of other opponents is more likely when transport routes are finally revealed.

Coming from a long established Eyre Peninsula family, P Boylan is clear: all of SA’s West Coast will be affected and must have a say. Peter Woolford goes further, in view of the extraordinary ramifications of this decision for the whole state, a referendum is needed.

No, it’s not over yet. Nor will it be. On an issue that will have implications for every generation to come, just 452 local residents cannot be allowed to speak for 1.7 million South Australians.

December 29, 2020 Posted by Christina Macpherson | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump, reference | Leave a comment

History of Australia’s govt move towards importing nuclear waste

If the “low level” storage facility goes ahead in Kimba, it would only be a matter of time before it became a facility storing medium and high level waste creating untold risks for human life, Indigenous culture and heritage, flora and fauna, and agriculture. It must be stopped.

TERRA NUCLEAR  https://www.cpa.org.au/guardian/2020/1902/05-nuclear.html?fbclid=IwAR0oOmAw7IIbs9dERT6aUM6gKTG4eIIco6iEycpzr58GHwyPomOVyGh2jak  Anna Pha,16 Feb 2, Last week, the then Resources Minister Matt Canavan announced the site for an international nuclear waste dump on farmland in South Australia. The decision comes after two decades or more of wrangling over where to locate the facility.

The land is at Napandee in Kimba, on the Eyre Peninsula and is owned by a farmer who offered it to the government. He is set to receive compensation well above market value.

“The facility has broad community support in Kimba, but I acknowledge there remains opposition, particularly amongst the Barngarla People and their representative group,” Canavan said in a press release.

He omits to mention that the Barngarla People were excluded from a local vote on the question.

In addition, the opposition is not confined to the Barngarla People who fear the pollution of their land and waters, as well as the damage to their culture and sacred sites. Environmental and other groups as well as many individuals have not given up. They are determined to fight it to the end.

Denial of Danger

Just as the government refuses to acknowledge the dangers of inaction over climate change, Canavan plays down the deadly risks associated with radiation; “I am satisfied a facility at Napandee will safely and securely manage radioactive waste and that the local community has shown broad community support for the project and economic benefits it will bring.”

This is a hollow claim, which he cannot back with practice. How can anyone claim such a facility would be safely and securely managed for thousands or possibly hundreds of thousands of years that it would take for the radioactive material to breakdown?

The minister cannot make any guarantees. In particular, as the plan is to hand the facility over to the private sector to manage, the risks and cover-ups become far more likely and serious Continue reading →

December 29, 2020 Posted by Christina Macpherson | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump, history, reference | Leave a comment

Curiouser and curiouser – the dishonest acrobatics of the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO)

it does not matter what are the capabilities of the expert eventually selected by the tender offer as this will not overcame either the inherently unsuitable nature of Napandee for the government’s facility or the gross lack of regulatory compliance by the government of the internationally prescribed safety codes and regulatory requirements for the Napandee facility 

the disgraceful and insincere performance by the ANSTO management

28 Dec 20, It is amazing how much information you are given by various sources once you have begun to expose situations of improper or unfair conduct at a public level

I have just found out that ANSTO has approached two overseas experts in the field of nuclear waste to submit tenders in response to the tender offer published on 11 December 2021

In both instances the experts were told that their prime tasks would be  the corporatisation of the nuclear medicine facility at Lucas Heights as a separate entity to ANSTO and to establish the nuclear waste management facility at Napandee as planned by the federal government

It was suggested that the route to corporatise the nuclear medicine facility is now quite clear due to recent management changes at ANSTO

This probably relates to the resignation in rather unusual circumstances of Adrian Paterson as the chief executive officer of ANSTO since he was apparently against the corporate plans for the production of nuclear medicine

It was explained to the experts as to the other task that the Napandee facility has to reach operational status as quickly as possible and at the same time to discredit or prohibit the Azark Project underground repository at Leonora as this was proving a major embarrassment to the government

The words apparently used with regard to Azark were to “torpedo it” or “sink it”

It was suggested that the Leonora facility would cut across the efforts of the government to find a suitable location for the final disposal of the intermediate level waste which can only be stored at Napandee on a temporary basis

As neither of these experts has any presence in Australia which is a requirement of the tender ANSTO actually mentioned a couple of local groups who would be prepared to collaborate with those experts

While I am presently unable to verify this fact it seems that one of the overseas experts is linked with another expert group which is already a consultant for the Azark Project and it was also suggested that this consultancy be terminated as part of the tender process

If this can be established surely it is an attempt to lessen completion which becomes misleading and unconscionable conduct in trade or commerce under the Australian Consumer Law or is ANSTO exempt from any liability by Crown privilege?

However it does not matter what are the capabilities of the expert eventually selected by the tender offer as this will not overcame either the inherently unsuitable nature of Napandee for the government’s facility or the gross lack of regulatory compliance by the government of the internationally prescribed safety codes and regulatory requirements for the Napandee facility

You only need to watch the disgraceful and insincere performance by the ANSTO management at the Senate estimates committee hearing on 29 October 2020 including the inability to answer various questions which stemmed mainly from information I had given to the committee members

ANSTO has over 1,000 employees yet still suffers from gross errors in its operations and planning with seemingly little overview of its activities – moreover it remains a mystery what all these employees do because little realistic research and development has come from ANSTO.

December 27, 2020 Posted by Christina Macpherson | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump | Leave a comment

Silent Steven Marshall – cowardly silence from South Australia’s Premier on nuclear waste dump plan

Senator Rex Patrick, Nuclear Fuel Cycle Watch Australia, 23 Dec 20, 
SILENT STEVEN
Last week I posted about Minister Dan van Holst Pellekaan threatening me with legal costs in response to a Freedom of information (FOI) request for all correspondence between the Federal and SA State Government on the National Radioactive Waste Management Facility since Steven Marshall had become Premier of SA.
********
In 2016, when in opposition, Marshall stated he would not support the facility. After the SA ‘Citizens Jury’ handed down their verdict on a waste facility to Premier Weatherill, Marshall proclaimed, “Jay Weatherill’s dream of turning South Australia into a nuclear waste dump is now dead”.
********
What I got back under FOI was heavily redacted but shows Marshall, like a good lapdog to the Prime Minister, has remained silent on the issue.
********
It’s the same with keeping Submarine Full Cycle Docking work in SA, as the PM considers sending that work to WA – silence. Its the same with the Federal Government’s appointment of a irrigation supporting former NSW National to the position of Inspector-General of (Murray-Darling) Water Compliance – silence.
********
The Premier is free to determine his political position on these issues which affect South Australia’s interests. But he is obliged as Premier to share his position with South Australians and he should be prepared to defend whatever his view is. That’s what leaders do. Instead, on so many important issues, he’s just Silent Steven.

December 24, 2020 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Federal nuclear waste dump, politics, South Australia | Leave a comment

Senator Rex Patrick calls on South Australian govt to come clean about nuclear waste dumping

Patrick has Kimba nuclear question,  https://www.whyallanewsonline.com.au/story/7058277/patrick-has-kimba-nuclear-question/?fbclid=IwAR3o2cKC_SU9yV-Q-d_xa470gmY0xG5CXkYRiA-LOJuXRDV76e8ls0v1n04, Luca Cetta,  17 Dec 20, The state government has remained silent on its stance relating to the planned Kimba nuclear waste site and South Australian Independent Senator Rex Patrick has called on the government to make known its position on the proposal.

The federal government has talked with the Kimba community about creating the site near the town with a majority of residents favouring the facility.

Senator Patrick said he had lodged a freedom-of-information (FOI) request seeking access to correspondence from the time of the last state election in 2018 to today and was “surprised” there had been only a few pieces of correspondence between Minister for Energy and Mining Dan van Holst Pellekaan and the federal government.

“I was very interested as there was a lot taking place between the federal government and the community in Kimba, and I was interested in what the state government has been doing through the process,” he said.

“The Liberal Party had a position before going into government and I wanted to see what they had to say. I found there has been almost no traffic.

“The state has a role to play … and I was surprised there was only one letter to the Premier and a letter from former federal Resources Minister Matt Canavan and response. That is all we have seen. That is the only part the state government has had to play.”

While acknowledging it was a federal facility and issue, Senator Patrick said the state government should be involved by way of communication with federal leaders and community engagement.

“While I respect it is a national facility, there is no question the state government has skin in the game and I question why there is silence publicly,” he said.

“They should come out and support or oppose it so their position is known.

“They do need to be engaging the community as well to make sure all state-related issues that will flow from the facility are addressed.”

He said parts of the correspondence included redactions relating to the proposed site.

In a letter from Mr van Holst Pellekaan to Senator Patrick, which has been obtained by the Whyalla News, Mr van Holst Pellekaan said “the FOI Act provides that an agency may refuse access to a document if it is an exempt document” and that there was cause to provide “partial access” to three documents.

The letter outlines why parts should be redacted, including that a document can be exempt if “it contains information from an intergovernmental communication to the Government of South Australia”, while he also pointed to how the Act notes a document could be exempt if it “would, or could reasonably be expected to, cause damage to relations between the Commonwealth and a State”.

Senator Patrick said Mr van Holst Pellekaan made a “fundamental error” in thinking the correspondence was exempt under federal law as he was “not entitled to make that decision”.

He said he would take the matter to the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (SACAT) to “uncover what is underneath this”.

“There should be transparency about what has been communicated between the government of South Australia and the federal government,” he said.

“The Minister has made a decision. He relies on the fact he thinks it would be exempt under federal law and he is not entitled to make that decision. You can’t say ‘I think it is exempt’, you have to say ‘I think it is exempt because it would harm release in a particular way…’.”

Mr Patrick said the state FOI Act granted people and parliamentarians a positive right to documents and was only subject to restrictions consistent with the public interest and preservation of personal privacy.

He said the Act burdened the agency with establishing their case if they wanted to restrict access.

Both Commonwealth and state constitutions establish a democracy underpinned by a responsible system of government. Democracy and responsible government both require participation by people and, just because this is communication between the state and federal government, it doesn’t mean it automatically gets to be confidential. The Minister does not meet his burden by simply stating that the communications are confidential,” he said.

“This is now a fight between myself and Mr van Holst Pellekaan. This is Senator against Minister in SACAT. The Minister needs to be transparent with me, but more important with the people of SA.

“Governments work for the people, everything they do is paid for by the people. The people have a right to know what it is they are up to and how they are going about what they are up to.”

Mr van Holst Pellekaan did not respond to questions for this article.

December 21, 2020 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Federal nuclear waste dump, politics, South Australia | Leave a comment

Federal govt accepted Queensland’s “NO” to nuclear dump. Why not South Australia’s?

Kazzi Jair No nuclear waste dump anywhere in South Australia, 19 Dec 20, https://www.facebook.com/groups/1314655315214929
So….Queensland Government said a straight out NO, and the Feds accepted that! Oman Ama QLD, in fact was a strong contender for the dump as one of the SIX sites deemed suitable by the Feds.
So it all goes back to the “co-incidental” timing of this National Dump by the Feds, and the South Australian Royal Commission into the Nuclear Fuel Industry!
South Australia has said NO before in 2004. We also said NO to an International Nuclear Dump in 2016.
When will they get it that NO MEANS NO!

December 19, 2020 Posted by Christina Macpherson | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump | Leave a comment

Senator Rex Patrick contests Freedom of Information refusal about nuclear waste plan

Rex Patrick to ask SA Civil and Administrative Tribunal to reverse nuclear FoI refusal

An SA Senator will ask a court to decide whether his call for information on a nuclear waste facility should have been granted.  Advertiser –Matt Smith, December 16, 2020 – 

 South Australian senator Rex Patrick will tackle State Government lawyers after a Freedom of Information request concerning a nuclear waste facility was refused.

He will fight to overturn the decision in the SA Civil and Administrative Tribunal over what he describes as “a lack of transparency”.

Senator Patrick, pictured, said his FOI request was met with a “highly unusual” reminder from the Crown Solicitor’s office that if he were to fight the decision and lose he would be liable for costs.

He had asked for correspondence between Energy and Mining Minister Dan van Holst Pellekaan and the Federal Government concerning the establishment of a National Radioactive Waste Management Facility in SA.

“FOI in SA is a farce. Late responses, cavalier exemption claims, delayed review processes and now threats if you push a request beyond the control of the very government department seeking to hide information,” he said.

A government spokesman said: “While it would not be appropriate to comment on matters currently before SACAT, it’s worth noting that the tribunal and only the tribunal makes a determination on whether costs are awarded, and can do so if satisfied that there are statutory grounds to do so.

No decision has been made in this matter and, as such, no application for costs has been, or can be, made at this time.”

It was revealed this week that reviews of FOI requests are taking more than six months to

complete.  SA Senator Rex Patrick takes nuclear FOI ‘farce’ to court | The Advertiser (adelaidenow.com.au)

See Senator Rex Patrick’s Face Book page post:

https://www.facebook.com/193047494589008/posts/836162363610848/

MINISTER DAN van HOLST PELLEKAAN RESORTS TO THREATS WHEN ASKED TO BE TRANSPARENT

In response to a request for transparency, Minister Dan van Holst Pellekaan has outrageously instructed the Crown Solicitor to threaten me with costs.

Everything the SA Government does it does for public purpose and using SA taxpayer’s money. As such, South Australians are entitled to see all that the State Government does, admittedly with some exceptions.

I asked Minister van Holst Pellekaan’s office to provide me with correspondance between the State and Federal Government on the proposed National Radioactive Waste Management Facility at Kimba, using SA Freedom of information laws. At first he failed to respond to the request in the timeframe required by the law, then he made a decision that hid (presumably embarrassing) information from me.

I have asked SACAT, the State’s independent umpire, to review the Minister’s decision. Minister van Holst Pellekaan has now threatened me with “costs” if I proceed. That prompts two questions: 1) what’s he trying to hide and 2) if he’s prepared to threaten a senator seeking transparency, how would he treat a regular South Australian that reasonably requested information from him?

December 17, 2020 Posted by Christina Macpherson | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump, legal, secrets and lies | Leave a comment

Far from “broad community consent”- nuclear waste dump plan for Kimba South Australia.

Pauline Hanson’s One Nation says Aboriginal people not consulted enough on Kimba nuclear waste facility, ABC North and West SA, By Gary-Jon Lysaght, Luke Radford and Shannon Corvo.  11 Dec 20,   Pauline Hanson’s One Nation says it is “very odd” that the Federal Government has not consulted Aboriginal people enough on a proposed nuclear waste storage facility in South Australia.

Key points:

  • A nuclear waste storage facility has been proposed for Napandee near Kimba on the Eyre Peninsula
  • One Nation doesn’t think the Barngarla people were given enough of a voice in SA’s nuclear debate
  • Federal Government wants to legislate the site, meaning the decision wouldn’t be subject to a judicial review

The proposed facility which would house Australia’s low and intermediate-level waste — which comes from medicine — has been earmarked for a farm near Kimba on the Eyre Peninsula.

The Government wants to legislate the farm as the site for the facility, meaning the decision would not be subject to a judicial review.

There was hope the matter would be resolved before the end of the parliamentary year, however that failed to eventuate.

Labor and One Nation oppose the legislation, saying the resources minister already has powers to select a site, adding that a judicial review had merit.

The Greens also oppose the legislation………

The debate surrounding the facility has been a hot-button topic in Kimba for the past five years, with locals saying they will experience another anxious Christmas.

Farmer Jeff Baldock owns Napandee, the 160-hectare property where the Government wants to put the facility.

He said his frustration levels were growing…….

Mr Baldock said having the facility at Kimba would provide future generations with a different industry in which to work besides agriculture.  ……

  Peter Woolford is another local farmer and has been campaigning against the waste facility.

He said it had been a long process but one that “needs to happen because of the nature of what’s being proposed”.

“It’s all about fairness for people, not only those opposed to it, but those that live outside of the Kimba boundary who were denied a vote,” he said.

To have senators not happy with the current legislation, I think it is a positive thing because in the end, this is forever this facility, it’s going to be 100 years.”

Mental health

Mr Woolford said the wellbeing of people impacted by the process had been forgotten.

“There’s no doubt that’s why people have left and some people are considering leaving now,” he said.

“They don’t want to live by a nuclear facility.

“The Government don’t seem to care about the mental wellbeing of people in this town.

“We’re going to keep standing our ground and oppose this because of how unfair this process has been.” https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-12-11/one-nation-says-not-enough-consultation-kimba-nuclear-facility/12971036

December 12, 2020 Posted by Christina Macpherson | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump | Leave a comment

Michele Madigan sets former Minister Christopher Pyne straight on nuclear waste dump plan

Funny how after all this time – since 1998 as he acknowledges, former Minister Christopher Pyne (Advertiser 7th December) has not yet caught up with the fact that the federal nuclear waste dump is not just’ a low-level nuclear waste facility.’ Over 90% of the waste measured in radioactivity in fact is intermediate level waste which will remain radioactive for an unimaginable10,000 years. I’d say that will probably be for every generation of South Australians to come.

And mentioning the former Senator Nick Minchin as Mr Pyne does, would that be the same Senator Minchin who in July 2004 made a ‘rolled gold’ promise, that ‘never again’ would the federal Coalition  government seek to impose a federal nuclear waste dump on South Australia?
Senator Minchin’s announcement made banner headlines on the Advertiser front page that day. I still look at it occasionally.

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

Australia’s Liberal and National Parties got their arithmetic wrong on nuclear waste dump opinion polls

LIBS NATS FAILED MATHS,  Kim Mavromatis, 8 Dec 20, Where did these people go to school? – I expect they failed maths because they can’t do % sums.
452 in favour of the dump from 824 eligible Kimba voters = 54.85% of the Kimba community.
Not 62%.
And Barngarla Native Title Holders, who were deliberately left out of the Kimba ballot,
had their own vote : 0 in favour of the dump from 209 eligible voters.
Combined Kimba and Barngarla votes = 43.75% in favour of the dump from eligible voters,  Does Not equate to Broad Community Support.
No mention by Pyne that the Govt want to dump radioactive Spent Nuclear Fuel, and  reprocessed SNF on SA farmland that is 10,000 x more radioactive than uranium ore.
No mention by Pyne that the Dump legislation removes Judicial Review – no rights of appeal  or independent scrutiny.
No mention by Pyne that all SA surveys consistently overwhelmingly Do Not support the dump on SA farmland near Kimba.
And Christopher, my mum died of an inoperable brain tumour 2 years ago – using nuclear  medicine as an excuse to dump radioactive nuclear waste on SA farmland is BS.
Why on earth would you knowingly dump radioactive nuclear waste on SA Farmland????

December 8, 2020 Posted by Christina Macpherson | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump, politics | Leave a comment

The Bill for the Napandee nuclear waste dump won’t be passed next year, either

 

National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment (Site Specification, Community Fund and Other Measures) Bill 2020

Peter Remta 7 Dec 20, It is now quite clear that the government will not bring on the bill in the Senate sitting this week as it would be defeated and will wait until next year’s resumption before deciding what to do.

Obviously Pitt believes this will give him ample time to bring the opposing Senate cross benchers to accept the legislation but this I suggest is a forlorn hope

However none of this will overcome the inherent problems with the government’s proposals for Kimba as they cannot be cured by legislative action

This will still be the same situation irrespective of reliance on the existing or the new legislation since the problems are so basic and arise under a widely and strictly adhered to international regime dealing with nuclear safety which is beyond the legislative competence of the federal parliament

It has been put to me that if this situation had arisen in Europe and even in the United States it would already be subject to heavy litigation in superior courts – perhaps we are not as strong in our democratic principles as we are lead to believe

December 7, 2020 Posted by Christina Macpherson | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »

1 This month

of the week – Disrupting War & Militarism in Oceania. Active solidarity. Radical practice.

  • Pages

    • 1 This month
    • Disclaimer
    • Kimba waste dump Submissions
      • NUCLEAR ROYAL COMMISSION
      • Submissions on Radioactive Waste Code 2018
      • SUBMISSIONS TO SENATE INQUIRY 18
    • – Alternative media
    • – marketing nuclear power
    • business and costs
    • – Spinbuster 2011
    • Nuclear and Uranium Spinbuster – theme for June 2013
    • economics
    • health
    • radiation – ionising
    • safety
    • Aborigines
    • Audiovisual
    • Autralia’s Anti Nuclear Movement – Successes
    • climate change – global warming
    • energy
    • environment
    • Fukushima Facts
    • future Australia
    • HEALTH and ENVIRONMENT – post Fukushma
    • media Australia
    • Peace movement
    • politics
    • religion – Australia
    • religion and ethics
    • Religion and Ethics
    • secrets and lies
    • Spinbuster
    • spinbuster
    • wastes
    • ethics and nuclear power – Australia
    • nuclear medicine
    • politics – election 2010
    • secrecy – Australia
    • SUBMISSIONS to 2019 INQUIRIES
    • weapons and war
  • Follow Antinuclear on WordPress.com
  • Follow Antinuclear on WordPress.com
  • Blogroll

    • Anti-Nuclear and Clean Energy Campaign
    • Beyond Nuclear
    • Exposing the truth about thorium nuclear propaganda
    • NUCLEAR INFORMATION
    • nuclear news Australia
    • nuclear-news
  • Categories

    • 1
    • ACTION
    • Audiovisual
    • AUSTRALIA – NATIONAL
      • ACT
      • INTERNATIONAL
      • New South Wales
      • Northern Territory
      • Queensland
      • South Australia
        • NUCLEAR ROYAL COMMISSION 2016
          • Nuclear Citizens Jury
          • Submissions to Royal Commission S.A.
            • significant submissions to 6 May
      • Tasmania
      • Victoria
      • Western Australia
    • Christina reviews
    • Christina themes
    • Fukushima
    • Fukushima 2022
    • General News
    • Japan
    • Olympic Dam
    • Opposition to nuclear
    • reference
    • religion and ethics
    • Resources
    • TOPICS
      • aboriginal issues
      • art and culture
      • business
        • employment
        • marketing for nuclear
      • civil liberties
      • climate change – global warming
      • culture
      • energy
        • efficiency
        • solar
        • storage
        • wind
      • environment
      • health
      • history
      • legal
      • media
      • opposition to nuclear
      • people
      • personal stories
      • politics
        • election 2013
        • election 2016
        • election 2019
        • Submissions Federal 19
      • politics international
      • religion and ethics
      • safety
        • – incidents
      • secrets and lies
      • spinbuster
        • Education
      • technology
        • rare earths
        • thorium
      • uranium
      • wastes
        • Federal nuclear waste dump
      • weapons and war
    • water
    • Weekly Newsletter
    • Wikileaks
    • women

Site info

Antinuclear
Blog at WordPress.com.
Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
  • Subscribe Subscribed
    • Antinuclear
    • Join 884 other subscribers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • Antinuclear
    • Subscribe Subscribed
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar
 

Loading Comments...