Nuclear waste dump – a Federal abuse of a small rural town
Regina McKenzie Fight To Stop a Nuclear Waste Dump in South Australia, 6 Oct 20Federal government hiding its toxic nuclear waste Act under the cover of budget fuss
From A letter from Dr Margaret Beavis,Divisions in Labor, over nuclear waste dump plan
Federal Labor divided over plans to block SA’s nuclear waste dump facility, The Age, By Rob Harris, October 5, 2020 — A 40-year effort to establish a nuclear waste dump in remote South Australia faces a rocky passage through Federal Parliament after Labor signalled it is prepared to block the Morrison government’s attempts to resolve the long-running debate.
The decision, rubber-stamped by the federal caucus in lengthy debate on Monday, has sparked further divisions within the opposition, with veteran senators Alex Gallacher and Kim Carr expressing fierce criticism of their party’s position.
There are also concerns within federal Labor that its stance could unwittingly hand Prime Minister Scott Morrison a double-dissolution trigger should the crossbench sink the laws.
The government intends to introduce legislation to finally establish a low- and medium-level nuclear waste facility at Napandee, a farm on South Australia’s Eyre Peninsula, having spent seven years and more than $60 million finding a suitable home……..
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.
Seven Labor MPs spoke up in the debate over the legislation, which lasted for more than an hour………
Opposition science spokesman Brendan O’Connor said federal Labor supported the need for a national facility to store radioactive waste.
This government has had existing powers under the current legislation for the past seven years to determine a site, but under the guise of compensation has sought to remove proper scrutiny, through this proposed legislation,” he said.
“This is a contentious issue and should be subject to 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.”……..
A Senate committee last month recommended the legislation be supported but three members – the Greens’ Sarah Hanson-Young, Independent senator Rex Patrick and Labor senator Jenny McAllister – issued dissenting reports.
Senator McAllister said the proposed facility had not received the support of the relevant traditional owners in South Australia. https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/federal-labor-divided-over-plans-to-block-sa-s-nuclear-waste-dump-facility-20201005-p5628p.html
Grossly inadequate Senate report on National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment Bill
The report released on 14 September 2020 by the majority of the Senate committee inquiring into the National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment Site Specification,Community Fund and Other Measures) Bill is both grossly deficient and biased and does no credit to the members of the committee.
While I do not intend to comment on all of the report in detail I will refer to some aspects of the introduction being chapter 1 including the conduct of the inquiry but more extensively to the second part of the report dealing with support for the legislative changes and the evidence of the witnesses who appeared before the committee.
**************************************
Kimba mayor Dean Johnson shows his ignorance on nuclear wastes
Kazzi Jai Fight to Stop ma Nuclear Waste Dump in South AustraliaThe Federal Government had NOTHING to do with either of them!
And….BOTH produce waste ON SITE – which is NOT SENT SUBSEQUENTLY INTERSTATE!
We take care of our own waste produced in our own state – not try and SHAFT it onto another state so that it becomes THAT RECEIVING state’s problem and responsibility AS THE CURRENT PROPOSAL FOR KIMBA STANDS!
Kapeesh!
Kimba nuclear waste dump: The government failed to show overwhelming support and the proposal to site the facility in Kimba can’t proceed.
22 November 2019
Mr Dean Johnson
Mayor
District Council of Kimba
Dear Mayor Johnson
I refer to the recent ballot at Kimba to determine the level of support
for the siting of the radioactive waste facility.
The results of the Kimba ballot were:
Voting papers issued 824
Formal votes accepted 735
Yes vote 452
Did not vote ~ 283
The government are saying that the result is the percentage of yes votes of the formal votes accepted and they say this is 61.50/0.
This not a vote between two political opponents who are both free to campaign and present alternatives political views for consideration.
This is a simple yes / no vote on a proposal to establish a radioactive waste facility in a wheat field.
It is the government who are the proponent. It is they who have to get people to vote yes. They have to get 413 vote to get a simple majority.
For an overwhelming show of support they need at least a 2/3 yes vote.
You have to remember that this poll was not a genuine contest of ideas. There was only one view put and paid for by the government. There was not a no vote argument presented to voters. This places an unfair bias in any result obtained.
As if this were not bad enough the government offered a $31 million cash handout to the voters and 45 permanent jobs, manned a permanent office in the town of Kimba advocating a yes vote.
The way in which this ballot has to be interpreted is this: How many people voted yes as against how many people did not vote yes.
As a famous South Australian Mick Young the former Special Minister of State in the Hawke Government correctly put it if they don’t say yes they mean no.”
The government has been dishonest in that their figure of 61.49% as it neglects the people who didn’t vote.
The correct methodology is the ratio of people who wanted the facility (voted yes) as against those who didn’t vote yes. This is the ratio of yes votes to the people who didn’t vote yes.
The actual number supporting the facility is then 54.850/0. To achieve an overwhelming result the Yes vote would have to be 536 votes.
The government failed to show overwhelming support and the proposal to site the facility in Kimba can’t proceed.
This view is based on my experience as a federal government minister and also in local government where I am currently the Mayor of the City of Melville in Western Australia.
Yours sincerely
George Gear
Kimba nuclear waste dump – not just a local issue, but only locals were consulted
This article includes an opinion poll at the end –
Last week, a Senate Inquiry report was released advising federal parliament to pass legislation on the establishment of the site, including the location at Napandee, 30 kilometres from Kimba.
There were three dissenters from the Senate Economics Committee – The Greens’ Sarah Hanson-Young, independent SA senator Rex Patrick and NSW Labor’s Jenny McAllister.
In the same week, SA Labor MPs Eddie Hughes – in whose Giles electorate the site sits – and Opposition spokesperson for the environment Susan Close issued a joint call for the federal government to halt the process, saying not enough was done to include the views of the Barngarla people.
Late last year, the results of a ballot of Kimba District Council was released, showing 61.58 per cent of residents were in support of the site.
There were three dissenters from the Senate Economics Committee – The Greens’ Sarah Hanson-Young, independent SA senator Rex Patrick and NSW Labor’s Jenny McAllister.
In the same week, SA Labor MPs Eddie Hughes – in whose Giles electorate the site sits – and Opposition spokesperson for the environment Susan Close issued a joint call for the federal government to halt the process, saying not enough was done to include the views of the Barngarla people.
Late last year, the results of a ballot of Kimba District Council was released, showing 61.58 per cent of residents were in support of the site.
“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,” Mr Hughes said.
“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.”
The same week, a survey from the Australia Institute showed 60pc of its respondents believed consultation should include all of SA and not just Kimba residents, while 50pc opposed the transport of nuclear waste on SA roads and ports.
Australia Institute SA director Noah Schultz-Byard said the survey was initiated to gauge the public’s feelings about a site in SA. He said the 510 respondents were made up of a proportional representation of urban and regional residents.
Kimba District Council mayor Dean Johnson says consultation on the proposal had been ongoing for the past five years.
“It’s been completely open and well-publicised and anyone in SA could have come along,” he said………
He said the notion of statewide consultation proposed by some was not a solution.
“Kimba residents are really well-informed on this topic,” he said. “The idea that everyone is the state should get a vote is ridiculous. Does Kimba get a vote on the smelter at Port Pirie or a mine at Leigh Creek?
“This is locals making a decision on the town and the community’s future.”
No Radioactive Waste Facility for Kimba District group secretary Toni Scott said the group had long held the position the entire state should vote on this issue.
She said the release of the Senate Inquiry had again raised the opportunity for the public to share their thoughts about the site and its future.
Ms Scott said there were many parts to the legislation that needed to be approved, not just the location, and she was hopeful dissenters in parliament would continue to push for amendments.
From October 6, the Australian Senate will discuss the NATIONAL ISSUE of the Napandee nuclear waste dump plan
The Senate returns on October 6th. At some time there will be a vote on what is indeed this national issue. The stakes remain high.
The federal nuclear dump is a national issue, https://www.eurekastreet.com.au/article/the-federal-nuclear-dump-is-a-national-issue?fbclid=IwAR0zfICU9GSIJmfVdU30x9jCx847PF8ztvozbQNq0q57QCiWnhlKVtBHdJY Michele Madigan, 22 September 2020
Moreover, despite the former responsible Minister Matt Canavan’s repeated assertions that submissions from others outside the extraordinary narrow designated voting zone was a possible way to influence proceedings — there seems to have been no recorded mention of any of the 2789 submissions. With some of extraordinary length and scholarship, 94.5 per cent were against the federal nuclear waste proposal. They were seemingly ignored; one wonders were they even read?
From July 28th to August 28th, there have been four Senate Inquiry sessions concerning the Radioactive Waste Management Amendment Bill 2020, all by video link. During the Inquiry sessions it became obvious which three Senators had done their careful homework with penetrating questions to witnesses on either side of the debate.
Extreme concern about the issue was expressed by the Chair of the Barngarla Determination Aboriginal Corporation, Jason Bilney and by other Barngarla people; by Peter Woolford, farmer President of the No Radioactive waste on Agricultural Land in Kimba or SA group; by Dave Sweeney of the Australian Conservation Foundation, the single environmentalist invited to be a witness. On the other hand, there was spirited defence of the project, including every aspect of the process by the two senior government officials; by the landholder of the chosen site and by Kimba council representatives. There was an eager willingness by some Senators to positively enable these latter presentations.
On Monday 13th of September, the Senate report was released. Predictably in a Coalition led Inquiry, the report recommends the Senate proceed to vote yes to the plan on the Minister designated site on Barngarla country in agricultural land at the Kimba region Eyre Peninsula site.
However three Senators contributed separate dissenting reports released concurrently with the main report. Labor’s Jenny McAllister, formerly Centre Alliance and now Independent South Australian Rex Patrick, and the Green’s Sarah Hanson-Young SA all recommended that the legislation not go ahead. There were a number of reasons cited by the dissenting Senators.
The context of this ‘national issue’ declaration cited above by the Department was a defence of the strategy to take the Napandee (Kimba region) site to the Parliamentary vote — ensuring that if the proposed legislation is passed by the Senate, there will be no opportunity to take any aspect of the decision making to court. In the words of Labor Senator Jenny McAllister in her dissenting report: ‘In evidence to the committee, the Department confirmed that the effect of the change proposed in the legislation is to remove the requirements for procedural fairness in the selection of the site.’
As well, Senator Rex Patrick’s dissenting report included an emphasis on the heavily redacted nature of the government officials’ documentation: ‘The Department has, through its interaction with the committee, demonstrated a predisposition to secrecy—undue secrecy—in relation to provision of process information to the very people who pay them and who they are supposed to serve.’
The Greens’ summary was included in their final recommendation: ‘The Australian Greens believe the Federal Government has no mandate to situate a radioactive waste management facility in South Australia. It has mismanaged the site selection process, fallen short of international best practice and failed to secure the consent of traditional owners. For these reasons the Australian Greens recommend that this bill not be passed.’
No Dump Alliance is a group of organisations including First Nations, public health, trade union, faith and environment groups, academics and concerned individuals concerned about this matter. Revered SA theologian and international author Denis Edwards was an identified member.
On the release of the Senate report, NDA released their own media statement in which spokesperson Karina Lester (pictured), daughter of late former NDA Patron Yami Lester was clear: ‘In the 21st Century it is unacceptable to try and airbrush away Aboriginal peoples concern over nuclear risks. 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 Senate returns on October 6th. At some time there will be a vote on what is indeed this national issue. The stakes remain high.
- ’
Australian Nuclear and Science Organisation distancing itself from the Napandee nuclear waste dump?
|
I wonder how many people have put TWO AND TWO together yet and realize that ANSTO is distancing itself further and further away from the dump! ANSTO will be in fact VERY HAPPY to have THEIR waste off their books!! Remember that ANSTO does NOT have to pay to use the dump – nor does any other Commonwealth entity! And ARWA has already said they will only use ANSTO for advice if necessary …
“ARWA is a Commonwealth entity, initially established with the department, and subsuming the National Radioactive Waste Management Facility Taskforce. Over the next two years, ARWA’s capability will be developed and it will become a non-corporate Commonwealth entity under its own legislation. ARWA will continue to work closely with ANSTO, who provide their support and extensive expertise.” – Sam Chard August 2020
|
|
The process for selecting Napandee nuclear waste site – flawed and divisive
Did she lie to the Senate? – Samantha Chard, Chief of National Radioactive Waste Management Facility Taskforce
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.
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.
“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.”
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.
Call to Australian Labor Party to state its position on Napandee nuclear waste dump plan
Labor split on nuclear waste dump, https://www.miragenews.com/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.”
Broad support for nuclear waste dump at Napandee? Senate report shows that is a lie
|
The inquiry was established to examine controversial changes to national radioactive waste laws in order to secure the Kimba site and prevent this decision from being subject to judicial review. “This is a deeply deficient plan based on a flawed and restrictive process,” Australian Conservation Foundation campaigner Dave Sweeney said. “That one Committee inquiry has generated four separate responses from Senators shows there is no consensus on the plan. “The Coalition-dominated majority report predictably supported the waste plan, while the three other responses are critical. “The government’s proposal would lead to potentially dangerous waste management, including trucking radioactive waste from Lucas Heights in Sydney through our 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. This is not a credible plan. Australians deserve better than an approach which lacks credibility, is inconsistent with international standards, and shirks hard questions about what to do with the worst waste.” 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:
|
|
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.
1 This month
of the week – Disrupting War & Militarism in Oceania. Active solidarity. Radical practice.
Antinuclear 