Senate Debate on Nuclear waste dump Bill postponed till at least February 2nd 2021
Kazzi Jai, NoNuclear Waste Dump Anywhere in South Australia, 7 Sec 20Senate again postpones discussion on contentious nuclear waste Bill.
Discussion of the contentious Bill to impose nuclear waste dump at Napandee, South Australia, has once again been postponed in the Australian Senate.
it might re-emerge next week (last Senate sitting for the year) or next year (Senate sits early February), or perhaps the government will reassess it’s approach … which would probably mean nominating the Kimba site using existing legislation
Australian government struggles to impose nuclear waste dump in small South Australian agricultural area
‘Need a resolution’: Government fights opposition to toxic waste dump plans, Brisbane Times, By Rob Harris, December 1, 2020 A likely Senate roadblock to establish a radioactive waste dump in regional South Australia could be used by the Morrison government as a trigger to go to an early election as it prepares to bring the issue to a vote in the coming days.
The contentious proposal would finally establish a low- and medium-level nuclear waste facility at Napandee, a farm on South Australia’s Eyre Peninsula, after 40 years of public debate about the disposal of such materials………..
Kimba mayor Dean Johnson and community members met with Opposition Leader Anthony Albanese and Prime Minister Scott Morrison on Monday to stress the town wanted everything that came with the National Radioactive Waste Management Facility……..
The plan has been criticised by the traditional owners of the region, the Barngarla, who were not included in the vote because it was limited to those living in the Kimba Council area.
The group later challenged the ballot under the Racial Discrimination Act in the Federal Court but it was dismissed.
The Australian Conservation Foundation has also criticised the process, claiming it would lead to potentially dangerous waste management, including trucking radioactive waste from Lucas Heights in Sydney through regional communities and dumping it on South Australian farmland.
“This is actively opposed by many in the wider region, including the Barngarla Traditional Owners who have been consistently excluded from the consultation process,” veteran anti-nuclear campaigner Dave Sweeney said.
Labor will seek to amend the laws so that the minister responsible, Resources Minister Keith Pitt, can use existing powers to nominate any site under the current legislation. Labor says the changes would still give the local community access to a significant community fund on offer and would ensure the decision be subject to a judicial review………
A bill which is rejected twice by the Senate – with a period of at least three months between each attempt – hands the government the opportunity to dissolve both houses of parliament and head to an election ahead of schedule.https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/politics/federal/need-a-resolution-government-fights-opposition-to-toxic-waste-dump-plans-20201201-p56jhs.html
“Traceability” and Nuclear waste on agricultural land?
Kazzi Jai From Keith Pitt’s facebook page today – 28/11/2020...”With more consumers wanting to know where their produce comes from, a new Federal funding round is available to enhance traceability.
Applications are open now for Round 2 of the Traceability Grants Program and close on January 21, 2021.” more https://www.agriculture.gov.au/market-access-trade/traceability-grants-program?fbclid=IwAR2ngI3mkhJIpwfguNAM4rheSiggOmYPgn4BLE34TL76CNFgjCBuuBZErj0
Exposing the deceptions of Keith Pitt, Minister for Resources, on the failed nuclear waste dump plan
Peter Remta, 23 Nov 20, With some reluctance and an apology I really must now enter the fray because of the misleading and disingenuous statements on behalf of the government regarding the choice of Kimba for the government’s nuclear waste facility
on Keith Pitt, Minister forResources
Pitt keeps claiming that Kimba is “marginal” and “low value” land and hence the ideal site for the nuclear waste facility yet it is regarded as one of the prime and best agricultural areas in this country with an international reputation as to the wheat crop from that region
He is arguing against strong opinion and advice from many agricultural experts and economists
His next claim is that Kimba is the ideal and most suitable location for the facility which is completely at odds from the knowledgeable opinions and advice by international experts in nuclear waste management
In justifying the storage of intermediate level waste at Kimba Pitt claims that it will take many years and huge expense to find and develop a suitable permanent disposal facility for that waste
This is completely false as the Leonora site for an underground nuclear waste repository has been described by one of the leading and largest nuclear waste engineering consultants asglobally an outstanding location for the proposed underground repository
This view is shared by many other overseas experts who cannot understand Australia’s proposals for the above program facility at Kimba
Added to this the Leonora site can be brought to operational standards in line with all international safety requirements and prescriptions for less than $50 million compared to the government estimate of up to $350 million for the inadequate facility at Kimba
This is shown by the concept planning and designs already undertaken for the repository at Leonora which are far more advanced than the government’s proposals for Kimba
Exposing the deceptions of Samantha Chard General Manager of the National Radioactive Waste Agency
Peter Remta, 23 Nov 20, As I have mentioned previously this is not the first time that Chard has been untruthful as was established through the questioning of Senator Patrick in the recent Senate enquiry into the legislative changes for the Kimba proposal
At the estimates hearing on 22 February 2019 Chard interrupted her then responsible Minister to claim that the community development package of $30 million (her figure) including a community fund component of $20 million had always been contemplated when the initial enabling legislation was passed in 2012
However members of the committee advising the government on the implementation of the enabling legislation spanning several years in time claim that there was never any mention or even an oblique reference to anything in the way of a community fund as claimed by Chard
There was nothing in the various information released by the government including the official nomination guidelines regarding the community fund until its first mention on 12 December 2018
Moreover to have not remembered 580 documents on such an important issue of national significance as judicial review regarding this situation is completely unacceptable
If this is the best that our country can offer by way of ministerial and administrative capability on such an important issue then what hope do we have for the future
The situation was only exacerbated by the incompetent and unsatisfactory performance of the ANSTO management personnel at last month’s estimate hearing
To qualify myself I probably know more about nuclear waste in a global sense than anyone in Australia and it was through my efforts that the ANSTO personnel faced some of the uncomfortable questions at the estimates hearing last month
What next as the Senate rejects the mandatory selection of Napandee as nuclear waste dump?
Minister Pitt insists he is not giving up on the legislation. Expert in radiation impacts Dr Tilman Ruff has recently called out Pitt’s recent declaration of ‘the urgent need of this facility’ in ‘saving lives’ as ‘reckless claims.’
A new stage in fight against radioactive waste bill, https://www.eurekastreet.com.au/article/a-new-stage-in-fight-against-radioactive-waste-bill?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Eureka%20Street%20Daily%20-%20Tuesday%2017%20November%202020&utm_content=Eureka%20Street%20Daily%20-%20Tuesday%2017%20Nove– Michele Madigan -17 November 2020
-
- ‘We have spent two very productive days at Parliament House speaking about our concerns regarding the proposed Kimba dump site and the Government’s attempts to pass legislation that intentionally takes away our rights to judicial review. Thank you to all of our supporters who helped get us there, this has been a long and expensive fight, but our voices are being heard.’
- This message from the No Radioactive Waste on Agricultural Land in Kimba or SA group (No Rad Waste) Radioactive Waste Management Amendment Bill 2020 was a good intimation that day to anxious followers that the hoped for blocking in the Senate of the Coalition’s Radioactive Waste Management Amendment Bill 2020 was indeed going to happen. ACF’s progressive checking of the Senate Agenda had already revealed that the Bill, listed as number 8 on Monday 9/11, had by Tuesday 10/11 slipped to number 23. On Wednesday 11/11 it had disappeared off the list.Did this mean the government, knowing it didn’t have the numbers, had given up on the legislation — at least for the present?Hope was confirmed for sure the next day. An Adelaide Advertiser’s 12th November article heading read: ‘Pauline Hanson’s One Nation torpedoes Kimba nuclear waste dump in SA.’
The article confirmed ‘The One Nation leader… has confirmed she will not back legislation to build the nuclear waste storage site at Napandee farm, near Kimba.’ The article then went on to explain that ‘Without One Nation’s two crucial votes — and Labor, the Greens, and independent senator Rex Patrick not backing the Bill — the government does not have enough votes for it to pass parliament without changes.’
- As Senator Hanson had told The Advertiser reporter, she ‘had serious concerns about the process to select Napandee, the level of community support, the waste site being built on farming land, and the facility storing intermediate radioactive waste above ground.’
-
So in the long journey of nearly five years since the Australianfederal government’s renewed search for a national radioactive waste facility, it seems a new stage has been reached.Here’s a question: did the federal Minister for Resources overreach himself? With the power to simply name the government’s preferred site, Minister Keith Pitt went a step further by presenting to Parliament the naming of the site.This meant that a passing of the government’s Amendment Bill would block off the chances for any opponent group ton take the processes leading to that decision to the courts — no judicial review.
I wrote of the progress of the bill in the House and later of the Senate Inquiry hearings.In a style reminiscent of recently ex-Minister, Joel Fitzgibbon, in the inquiry Labor Senators Carr and Gallacher chose to side with government in their questioning, comments and final vote.
However Labor, with their knowledge of community concerns, decided to follow Senator Jenny McAllister’s dissenting report and its unease regarding judicial review. Their resolution was ‘to ask for the amendment of removing the name of the Napandee site with the proviso, “Should our amendment be unsuccessful, we willoppose the Bill in the Senate.”’
The reasons? ‘This is a contentious issue and should have the highest levels of scrutiny to ensure that the principles of procedural fairness and natural justice have been applied given the national significance of this matter.’ This from the leader of the Opposition in the Senate, SA Senator Penny Wong’s Office to the Josephite SA Reconciliation Circle on 26th October.
In the meantime, president of No Radioactive Waste on Agricultural Land in Kimba or SA Peter Woolford had first heard of the Minister’s Pitt’s long awaited visit to Kimba and the Napandee site via an ABC’s North and West reporter on Tuesday October 27th. The Minister eventually confirmed that four of their group were permitted to meet with him. As well, of course, were meetings with the executive of the pro-dump District Council of Kimba and theWorking for Future pro-dump group.
‘A PR box ticking exercise’ was how Woolford named the Minister’s visit with their group. After the event it was harder to be dispassionate: ‘Pitt and Ramsey (the federal Member) certainly know what we think and the impact it’s had… it certainly got a little heated at times… We had 45 minutes and we raised many issues relating to the doubling handlingof ILW (intermediate-level waste), the vote unfairness, jobs, judicial review etc.’
With three crossbench votes needed in addition to the Greens and Labor to defeat the Bill, the Barngarla Determination Aboriginal Corporation (BDAC), headed by Chair Jason Bilney had long planned to travel to Canberra to meet with legislators.
COVID restrictions meant that the vital trip was delayed but perhaps providence meant that it took place at just the right time for the November Senate session. Both key opposition groups have long supported each others’ concerns.
So with the government unable to get the Senate numbers, what will happen next?
Minister Pitt insists he is not giving up on the legislation. Expert in radiation impacts Dr Tilman Ruff has recently called out Pitt’s recent declaration of ‘the urgent need of this facility’ in ‘saving lives’ as ‘reckless claims.’
Independent SA Senator Rex Patrick has long been involved with both BDAC and No Rad Waste groups. The Advertiser November 12th report above continued with the voice representing the other two of the vital No votes: ‘I want to make the right decision, not for the interim, I want to make the right decision for future generations,’ Senator Hanson said. ‘I’m not going to be badgered or pushed into this… It’s about looking after thepeople of SA, but also the whole of Australia.’
The SA Stock Journal’s September survey recorded 70 per cent of respondents were against the federal nuclear dump plan. In Aboriginal Way Spring 2020, Karina Lester, Chair of YNTAC, reported that four Aboriginal groups ‘right across the state’ including the Yankunyjatjara Native Title
Aboriginal Corporation have ‘submitted their concern.’
In November, it’s good to hear that South Australians aren’t alone in actively recognising that simply storing above ground, for at least ‘decades,’ nuclear waste that will be radioactive for 10,000 years is a pertinent national issue.
Doctors call for an open independent review of nuclear waste production and disposal
One of the first principles of toxic waste management is to reduce production.
Non-reactor production of nuclear medicine is increasing, and produces very little radioactive waste. Australia should be partnering with countries like Canada, to research non-reactor production of the commonest nuclear medicine isotope Technetium.
16 Nov 20, The Medical Association for Prevention of War is calling for an open independent review of nuclear waste production and disposal in Australia, to create a careful evidence based long term best practice plan.
The recent deeply flawed proposal for a federal nuclear dump and store at Kimba now looks unlikely to get support in the Senate.
It was a cheap storage plan for highly radioactive waste that stays radioactive for more than 10,000 years- an interim facility with no longer term plan. It effectively dumps the problem on future generations of South Australians.
The Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency chief executive Dr Carl-Magnus Larsson, at a Senate inquiry in June 2020, said: “Waste can be safely stored at Lucas Heights for decades to come.”
MAPW Vice-President Dr Margaret Beavis said, “We have plenty of time to properly review and plan a disposal facility that meets international best practice standards. The recent proposal did not meet those standards.
Contrary to disgraceful and dishonest government scaremongering, there is no threat to nuclear medicine in Australia. I and other MAPW members regularly rely on nuclear medicine in our clinical practice.”
We call on the government to commit to an open independent review of both production and disposal of nuclear waste.
One of the first principles of toxic waste management is to reduce production.
Non-reactor production of nuclear medicine is increasing, and produces very little radioactive waste. Australia should be partnering with countries like Canada, to research non-reactor production of the commonest nuclear medicine isotope Technetium.
Planned nuclear waste dump at Kimba has absolutely nothing to do with the production of nuclear medicine
Peter Remta, 16 Nov 20, Referring to Minister Keith Pitt’s media release of 9 November 2020 regarding the round table conference on nuclear medicine – it still fails to answer and explain how precisely will nuclear medicine be affected by not having a national waste management facility at Kimba.
It is well known that nuclear waste is currently stored in over 100 different locations throughout Australia most of which has been generated through nuclear medical treatment and is classified as low level waste. However as Minister Pitt has himself acknowledged it would be very doubtful if the national facility managed to get 30% of that waste for storage and
disposal.
How will the production of nuclear medical material by ANSTO at Lucas Heights be affected by the failure to have the waste facility at Kimba?
The proposed facility at Kimba has nothing to do with and will not affect the production of nuclear medicine by ANSTO and to suggest otherwise is totally false and deliberately misleading.
It is no more than clutching at straws in order to convince senators who are opposed to the Bill for the waste facility presently before the Senate to change their minds. It is an insult to their intelligence.
The only thing that will affect the production of nuclear medicine by ANSTO is its own inherent problems with the nuclear medicine facility plant at Lucas Heights which keeps breaking down and having trouble despite the
huge cost of planning and building it.
Again that has nothing to do whatever with the proposed waste facility at Kimba other than perhaps to demonstrate the inefficiency of ANSTO and confirm the dangerous nature of the reactor waste which is completely unsuitable for storage at Kimba before ultimate disposal.
Despite many repeated requests, Senator Pitt has not explained how nuclear medicine will be affected should the waste facility not to be built at Kimba,
I
Minister Pitt on Kimba nuclear waste dump plan – inept, badly briefed, or just plain lying?
Peter Remta, 14 Nov 20, THE HON KEITH PITT MP Minister for Resources, Water and Northern Australia Member for Hinkler MEDIA RELEASE 12 November 2020
NATIONAL RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITY
‘‘The National Radioactive Waste Management Facility is a vital piece of national infrastructure, which will support the ongoing development of our nuclear medicine and research industries.”
He still fails to explain how and why
All of this waste is classified as intermediate level waste although when France returned the reprocessed spent fuel to Australia it classified it as high level waste
There has not been any suggestion by either ANSTO or ARPANSA that this waste is causing any lack of storage space or other problems at Lucas Heights.
What difference does that make?
Australian government completely inept in selecting Kimba nuclear waste dump
Relief in Kimba, that Labor and crossbench Senators want a fair process on nuclear wastes
No Radioactive Waste Facility for Kimba District– 14 Nov 20 · We are reassured by this week’s events that there are still many in Australian politics who believe in a fair process. The lack of support from Labor and crossbench Senators for the Government’s proposed Bill to legislate Kimba as the chosen site for the national radioactive waste dump is certainly a relief to us.The Australian government can still bully its way to imposing a Kimba nuclear waste dump
Today the Advertiser reports that the federal government does not have the numbers to get the draconian, racist National Radioactive Waste Management Bill passed in the Senate. Labor and most or all of the crossbench Senators oppose the Bill.Karina Lester speaks out: ”Traditional owners’ voices not heard and rights stripped over nuclear waste dump”
”Traditional owners voices not heard and rights stripped over nuclear waste dump”
Extract:
Chairperson of Yankunytjatjara Native Title Aboriginal Corporation (YNTAC) Karina Lester says, “The two key issues that I’m quite concerned about are the lack of consent from the traditional owners; and that they want to take away judicial review. No Barngarla person or anyone in that Kimba region can take it to the courts for it to be properly heard. That’s a given right for any Australian; to take an issue through a judicial process and they’re now trying to shift the goalposts away from Aboriginal people and people from the Kimba region so it can’t be challenged.”
Four Aboriginal groups submitted their concern about the lack of Indigenous community engagement in the consultation and selection process, as well as potential violation of those communities’ rights, these were the Yankunytjatjara Native Title Aboriginal Corporation (YNTAC), Tjayuwara Unmuru Aboriginal Corporation (TUAC), De Rose Hill-Ilpalka Aboriginal Corporation (DRHIAC) and the First Nations of South Australia Aboriginal Corporation (FNSAAC).
They acknowledged that the specified site has significance for a wider group of Aboriginal People than just the Barngarla, and that the proposed use is a matter of significance for Aboriginal People right across the state.
“They’ve been saying that this is just a Barngarla issue, just a Kimba issue – but it’s not. No, this is an issue for First Nations people everywhere. We need to stand in solidarity and send a strong message as the First Nations people of South Australia to say that no dump is wanted in our state,” said Ms Lester, who is the daughter of anti-nuclear and Indigenous rights advocate, Yami Lester.
“We have been pressured to be the ‘solution’ to waste management; it’s not been clear why the Federal Government keeps coming back to our state. I think that’s part of the problem.
“The process has been flawed from the very beginning. The risk is that if we open the door to this, we could well be opening the door to a permanent solution here in SA. Why put a temporary solution here when the facility says they can keep storing it at Lucas Heights in Sydney?
“There’s so much history of Aboriginal people’s activism against this in South Australia. For it to come back to our state, after leaving our state so many years ago, it feels like an ongoing generational battle for us to put an end to this issue in South Australia.”
Uncertainty over Kimba nuclear waste dump as farmers go to Canberra to oppose it
|
Kimba nuclear debate set to continue, Eyre Peninsula Tribune, Alisha Fogden, 9 Nov 20,
A group of Kimba farmers and community members travelled to Canberra this week to meet with the Labor Party, The Greens and cross-bench Senators “to put a face to those directly impacted by the proposed legislation to name Kimba as the site for Australia’s radioactive waste dump”.
No Radioactive Waste on Agricultural Land in Kimba or SA Committee secretary Toni Scott said the government process to site the facility in Kimba over the past five years had been “unfair, manipulative and completely lacking in transparency”. “We are extremely concerned that the government’s proposed legislation, currently awaiting Senate consideration, intentionally removes our right to contest the decision and denies basic protections,” she said.
“Productive farming land in Kimba is not the best, or even the right, place for our nation’s radioactive waste. We urge the federal government to review their selection process, rather than trying to force this decision through parliament.” The trip follows a visit by Federal Resources Minister Keith Pitt to the Kimba region last week, where he said he remained confident the federal government would get their legislation for the facility through the upper house when the Senate resumed this week. This is despite Labor withdrawing its support for the bill at the ‘eleventh hour’ and further dissenting reports from The Greens and Independent Senator Rex Patrick………https://www.eyretribune.com.au/story/7005850/group-push-nuclear-rethink/ |
|
|
1 This month
of the week – Disrupting War & Militarism in Oceania. Active solidarity. Radical practice.
Antinuclear 