Observations on the Senate Radioactive Waste Inquiry Report
Key messages:
- Report has failed to provide a compelling case for the need for the proposed changes and the legal override
- The fact that there are multiple responses and findings highlights there is no broad political consensus – this mirrors that there is no broad community support
- This report does not provide certainty for the project – it remains unproven, unwelcome and this unfinished business will remain the focus of active contest.
The majority report – Coalition (and I presume but am not certain, some Labor members) predictably recommend the legislation be advanced.
Jenny McAllister – (Labor) has an individual dissenting report that changing the process ‘should not proceed at this time’
Rex Patrick – Independent – has a dissenting report stating the process has been flawed and improper and the waste should go to Woomera
The Greens – have a dissenting report that the legislation should not be advanced and that an inquiry into alternative management options and a consultation with transport corridor communities take place.
The majority reports recommends that the legislation be advanced – with the sop that the department and Barngarla ‘discuss issues and find a pathway for on-going consultation’, including through an independent mediator. These folks are graduates in the school that no doesn’t mean no – it means not yet.
Not welcome, not needed: Community alliance united in response to divided Senate report on Kimba radioactive waste plan
September 15, 2020 ‒ www.nodumpalliance.org.au/senate_nuclear_waste_report Federal government plans to transport, dump and store radioactive waste in South Australia are not needed, not welcome and will be actively contested says the South Australian community based No Dump Alliance.
This statement comes in response to a new Senate report into plans to change the federal radioactive waste laws by removing the community’s right of legal review.
The government controlled Senate Committee report had multiple conflicting findings which highlights the lack of political consensus. The report does not present a compelling case for the proposed changes including the legal override. In the three minority reports Committee members have raised serious concerns and opposition including over the heavy handed legal exclusion, the denial of Aboriginal and wider community rights and protections and the lack of proven need for the planned national facility.
“In the 21st Century it is unacceptable to try and airbrush away Aboriginal peoples concern over nuclear risks”, said NDA spokesperson Karina Lester. “The Barngarla Native Title holders were excluded from the Kimba community ballot about the waste plan and now the federal government is trying to deny them the right to contest the plan in court. This is not only unfair to the Barngarla people but a clear insult to the concerns expressed by Aboriginal people from right across South Australia to any dumping and storage of radioactive waste on our traditional lands from outside the state”.
The federal plan has attracted many critics as the government has failed to demonstrate that moving waste to Kimba is either necessary or responsible.
“This plan is a clear example of government overreach,” said NDA spokesperson and state secretary of the Maritime Union Jamie Newlyn. “South Australian communities have not had any say in the controversial plan but would face increased radioactive transport risks. The plan is deeply deficient and the process is fatally flawed”.
NDA member groups have committed to escalate their efforts around the Kimba waste push and will work against the federal government’s move to reduce community and environment protections in the Senate.
“We have a long, proud and united history of overturning radioactive waste plans in SA,” said Karina Lester. “From the senior desert law women the Kupa Piti Kungka Tjuta challenging Federal waste dump plans in the late 90’s and early 2000’s to the Scarce Royal Commission (2015-2017) our community has taken action to protect and stand up for our state. The federal government – and the Marshall government – should be under no illusions – this will be opposed”.
Critical mass in Canberra puts nuclear dump in doubt
 Kimba radioactive waste plans faces challenge in parliament following release of Senate inquiry reportPlans for a nuclear waste dump in the South Australian outback could still be derailed as opposition against laws clearing its path run into opposition from multiple political players. Michelle Etheridge, Regional Editor, The Advertiser, September 14, 2020 https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/business/kimba-radioactive-waste-plans-faces-challenge-in-parliament-following-release-of-senate-inquiry-report/news-story/5f0c57845cb063a6eed2003673350f78 The Federal Government faces a challenge to pass its radioactive waste bill through Parliament, amid dissent from a Labor Senator, the Greens and Independent Senator Rex Patrick. *****************************
A Senate committee probe into the draft legislation paving way for a radioactive waste site at Napandee farm, near Kimba, has recommended it be passed. However, dissenting reports from Labor’s Jenny McAllister, Greens Senator Sarah-Hanson Young and Mr Patrick have raised a raft of concerns, including it preventing the community from seeking a judicial review of the site selection process.
*****************************
Under the plans, the Government will store low-level waste at Napandee permanently, and intermediate level waste for several decades.
*****************************
Senator McAllister said the traditional landowners, the Barngarla people, were worried the new legislation specifying the site would override their right to a judicial review that would normally apply if Resources Minister Keith Pitt declared the location. She said the Government had given “no compelling reason” for the change.
*****************************
Senator Patrick said the bill emerged because “the Government botched its own site selection process to such a degree that it would almost certainly have seen a site selected through a ministerial decision overturned on judicial review”. The Government wanted the Senate to “fix up its mistake”, he said, but it could not do that “without serving up the majority of the stakeholders … with a plate of Government-cooked injustice”.
*****************************
A Kimba Council-run ballot found 62 per cent of respondents supported the waste facility in their region. The Barngarla people lost a court battle to be included, later holding their own vote, which rejected the plans.
*****************************
Resources Minister Keith Pitt says the nuclear proposal will bring more than 40 jobs to the Kimba area. While many in the community have welcomed nuclear storage as a new industry, providing more than 40 jobs and a $31 million community funding package, others are staunchly opposed. They have cited worries including the impact on agricultural land, and double-handling of intermediate level waste.
*****************************
Senator Hanson-Young’s report said most of the 105 submissions the committee received opposed the bill and the broader SA community deserved a say in the project.
Mr Pitt said the committee’s report put the Government “one step closer” to a storage site for nuclear waste – “a process which has been ongoing for four decades”. “The individual dissenting report by Senator McAllister aside, I would like to acknowledge the largely bipartisan approach to the location and construction of this facility,” he said.
*****************************
Conservation SA chief executive Craig Wilkins and Australian Conservation Foundation campaigner Dave Sweeney said the Senate split over the issue reflected broader community division. “This is completely at odds with Federal Government rhetoric of only proceeding with facility if there is clear majority community support,” Mr Wilkins said.
*****************************
Senator Hanson-Young said the Senate inquiry showed the draft legislation was “a highly flawed bill”. “There are deep concerns that this bill blatantly seeks to prevent any right to judicial review of this process and sets in stone Kimba as the dump site against strong community opposition,” she said.
|
|
Dissent and anger: Senate divided over nuke dump push
14 Sept 20 Four separate reports released today by the Senate committee investigating the Federal Government Bill to create a nuclear waste facility at Kimba shows deep divisions over whether the waste dump should proceed on agricultural land in South Australia’s Eyre Peninsula.
“Not one, but three, separate dissenting reports shows a very divided Senate Committee,” said Craig Wilkins, Chief Executive of Conservation SA.
“This is on top of a contested community ballot, and fierce opposition from the Barngarla Traditional Owners.
“The community is split, and so is the Senate.
“This is completely at odds with Federal Government rhetoric of only proceeding with facility if there is clear majority community support.
The Inquiry into the National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment (Site Specification, Community Fund and Other Measures) Bill 2020 has spawned four reports: the Government majority report which predictably backs the facility and three dissenting reports which all strongly oppose – Senators Jenny McAllister (Labor), Sarah Hanson-Young (Greens) and Rex Patrick (Independent).
“The Federal Government process has been flawed from day one.
“There is clear and continuing opposition from Barngarla Traditional Owners, which the majority report acknowledges. Yet, they still recommend the naming of Kimba as the waste facility site despite this opposition.
“There is also clear evidence from the Senate Inquiry that this Bill was created for the express purpose of wiping out the right of community members to legally challenge the process of locating the facility at Kimba.
“If the Federal Government is confident they have the decision right, they don’t need this Bill to start building the dump.
“But clearly they fear that a court will find their process has been shoddy, so they need this Bill to override that right.
“That’s appalling, and it’s good that it’s been called out by three of the four Senate reports.
“This Senate Inquiry does not provide certainty for the project – it remains unproven, unwelcome and this unfinished business will continue to be opposed until a more respectful and credible process is advanced,” he said.
For further comment: Craig Wilkins 0417 879 439
Australian politics: Deep disagreement on federal radioactive waste plan
The growing uncertainty and contest over Federal Government plans to advance a national radioactive waste facility at Kimba on South Australia’s Eyre Peninsula has been highlighted today in a new Senate report.
The Senate report reflects growing divisions about how to manage radioactive waste in Australia, with government members supporting the plan while Labor, Green and independent Senators raised serious concerns and reservations or actively opposed the plan.
The report was set up to examine controversial changes to national radioactive waste laws in order to the secure the Kimba site and then remove this decision from judicial review.
“This is a deeply deficient plan based on a flawed and constrained process,” said Australian Conservation Foundation campaigner Dave Sweeney. “That one Committee inquiry has generated four separate responses from Senators shows there is no consensus on the plan”.
“The government dominated majority report predictably supports the waste plan, while the three other responses are critical of the approach”.
“The government’s plan would lead to sub-optimal radioactive waste management outcomes and is actively contested by many in the wider region, including the Barngarla Traditional Owners who have been consistently excluded from the consultation process.”
The federal waste plan has drawn criticism and opposition from a range of civil society and community groups and South Australia’s Labor opposition. Federal Labor voted against the plan in the House of Representatives in June. Key concerns with the plan include:
- There is no pressing need for a centralised national waste storage site. The federal nuclear regulator ARPANSA says there is no urgency to move the most problematic waste from where it is stored at the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisations (ANSTO) reactor site at Lucas Heights.
- The unnecessary double-handling and transport of intermediate level waste from an above-ground extended interim storage facility at ANSTO to an above-ground extended interim storage facility in a less resourced regional area is inconsistent with best practice.
- The bill would disproportionately and adversely affect Barngarla Traditional Owners.
- There has been no consultation outside the immediate region. Communities on the wider Eyre Peninsula and along the extensive transport corridors have not been consulted.
“This is not a credible plan,” said Dave Sweeney, “it is a politicised and fragile promise.”
“Australians deserve better than an approach which lacks credibility, is inconsistent with international standards and shirks hard question about what to do with the worst waste.”
For context or comment contact Dave Sweeney on 0408 317 812
Read ACF’s 3-page background brief on the federal radioactive waste plans
Farmers, Traditional Owners fight radioactive waste dump
Farmers, Traditional Owners fight radioactive waste dump https://www.greenleft.org.au/content/farmers-traditional-owners-fight-radioactive-waste-dump, Renfrey Clarke, Adelaide, September 8, 2020
A 160-hectare tract of farmland has been purchased near the small town of Kimba and, as inducement to deliver support for the plan, local residents have been promised a $31 million “community development package.” A non-binding ballot conducted last November among residents of the Kimba District Council area recorded 62% in favour of the scheme.
But opponents of the dump remain active and vocal. As well as farmers and townsfolk concerned for their safety and for the “clean and green” reputation of the district’s produce, those against the plan include the Barngarla First Nations people, who hold native title over the area.
Critics argue that last year’s ballot sought the views of only a narrow section of the people affected. In particular, members of the Barngarla people, who do not live locally, are angry at being excluded.
The federal Coalition government, however, has not been deterred. In June, the House of Representatives passed a set of amendments to the legislation governing the scheme. These changes would strip opponents of the dump — including the Barngarla — of the right to mount legal challenges.
The amendments still have to pass through the Senate. But, confident of victory, in July the government set up the Australian Radioactive Waste Agency as part of the Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources. With its base in Adelaide, and a satellite office in Kimba, the agency is to “lead the process to deliver” the waste dump.
Low and intermediate-level wastes
In volume terms, the great bulk of the radioactive waste currently produced in Australia results from nuclear medicine, and is considered low-level. These materials do not require shielding in handling or storage, but must be kept secure until the radioactivity has decayed to the point where they can safely go to landfill. At present, these wastes are stored at more than 100 sites around the country, mostly in hospitals or universities.
The amount of low-level waste created here each year is about 40 cubic metres, roughly three truckloads, suggesting that the need to collect these materials into a centralised store is questionable.
More than likely, the risks of shifting these wastes exceed those of keeping them where they are for the decades needed until their radioactivity falls to natural background levels.
There are also intermediate-level wastes. These accumulate at a rate of about five cubic metres a year, and are in a very different category. Highly dangerous, they require shielding, and must be kept secure for as long as 10,000 years. They consist almost entirely of spent nuclear fuel from the research reactor at Lucas Heights, near Sydney, returned after reprocessing in Europe and currently stored on the reactor premises.
The waste dump planned for the farm property Napandee, near Kimba, is meant to provide a permanent home for Australia’s low-level wastes — but not for the intermediate-level materials. The latter are to be held in above-ground canisters at the facility until permanent storage provisions have been made.
Will this “interim” storage turn out to be permanent?
Kimba is remote enough that the temptation will be great for governments to leave these dangerous, long-lasting materials there indefinitely.
Meanwhile, if the Napandee dump is to hold the intermediate-level wastes for only a few decades, where is the need to move these materials there at all? The store at Lucas Heights has room to hold the wastes for many years to come, while permanent disposal methods are being devised and tested. Simply keeping the materials on site would avoid the risks of multiple handling and long-distance transport.
Community rifts
In Kimba, the social rifts from years-long disagreements over the dump remain painful. Many local people look to the facility to sustain a town that is steadily declining as farmers are compelled to “get big or get out”, and as the regional population shrinks.
Farmer Heather Baldock, who supports the dump, lamented to a Senate committee hearing in August: “We lose students, youth, neighbours, friends, sporting club members, emergency service volunteers … We gain more empty houses and property for sale.”
The federal government has suggested that a total of 45 jobs will be created by the facility — a big boost for a town of barely 600 people. Many of these jobs, however, will likely be part–time, or will be performed on a fly-in-fly-out basis.
The $31 million community package will create excellent town amenities, but not a long–term basis for the local economy. It will not solve the worst problem confronting regions like northern Eyre Peninsula: global warming, which raises temperatures, reduces already sparse rainfall and sends farmers into crippling debt.Opponents of the dump, meanwhile, speak bitterly of the deceits by a government determined to impose its scheme regardless of local objections.
Farmer Peter Woolford, who heads the group No Radioactive Waste on Agricultural Land in Kimba or SA, told the Senate hearing: “The path that the federal government has taken … has been a long road of propaganda, manipulation and promises without justification.”
The flow of information to the community, Woolford noted, has been tightly controlled and almost entirely narrated by the department. “No assistance, practical or financial, has been given to provide independent advice. Every speaker who has visited Kimba at the expense of the government has been a supporter of the proposal.”
Ballot manipulation
Opponents of the scheme are especially angry at the way the terms of last year’s ballot were manipulated. Rejecting a call for voting to be open to all residents within a 50-kilometre radius — a far more meaningful measure of the people for whom Kimba is the local hub — the government and the Kimba District Council insisted on the smaller area within the council boundaries. If the 50-kilometre boundary had applied, critics argue, the vote would have failed.
Particularly impressive has been the resolve of the Barngarla people to have their say in deciding the outcome. In 2018, the Barngarla fought and lost a court case against the district council, demanding to be included in the prospective ballot.
Excluded from the official vote, the Barngarla Determination Aboriginal Corporation organised its own independently-run ballot. This recorded a total of 83 members against the dump and zero in favour. A recent letter from the Barngarla to the federal resources minister stated: “The systematic racist behaviour by your government is a stain on the collective consciousness of this country.”
In any case, opponents of the dump ask why “community support” for the dump should be measured only by the views of a few hundred people. Why should the decision not be one for the whole population of South Australia — where indications are that the idea of hosting a radioactive waste dump is highly unpopular?
As Woolford pointed out, of 2789 submissions received in a public consultation 94.5% oppose the facility.
The nuclear stigma – some Kimba residents selling their assets before the nuclear dump sets sail?
Australia’s National Radioactive Waste Management Taskforce plays deceptively with statistics
Kazzi Jai Fight to stop nuclear waste dump in the Flinders Ranges
There are so many things which are really wrong with this flawed proposal….
“The co-location of low and intermediate level waste at the facility has been the basis of the facility proposal since 2015 and the Kimba community was well informed about the proposal, in advance of their local council ballot.
Sixty-two per cent of respondents from the Kimba community supported the proposal moving ahead – 90.41 per cent of eligible locals participated in the ballot.
Apart from the fact that THIS proposal is the EXACT SAME PROPOSAL put forward FORTY YEARS AGO….and the “assumption” that the Kimba community was well informed (how EXACTLY did they determine the level of being “informed”?)…what really irks me most is the use of PERCENTAGES!
And not only that – BUT THE SELECTIVE USE OF NUMBERS IN WORDS AND FIGURES! Unless you are being a Secret Squirrel – you need to be CONSISTENT with YOUR NOMENCLATURE!
It needs to read….
” 61.58% of respondents from the Kimba community supported the proposal moving ahead – 90.41% of eligible locals participated in the ballot.
39.71% of the Barngarla Determination Aboriginal Corporation voted against the proposal in their own ballot – 58.38% did not respond – BUT 0% VOTED FOR THE DUMP!”
Or even better yet – “100% of the respondents of the Barngarla Determination Aboriginal Corporation voted against the proposal in their own ballot”….
And include….“In fact, there was no BROAD COMMUNITY CONSENT achieved in the Kimba community at all, as the MINIMUM of 2/3RDS or OVER 66.67% WAS NOT ACHIEVED IN THE COMMUNITY BALLOT!”
Indecent haste in Australian government’s push for law making Napandee the nuclear waste dump. What’s going on?
New nuclear legislation set to provide toxic dumping ground in South Australia, Independent Australia, By Noel Wauchope |
UNDER THE PRESSURE of The Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO), The Australian Government is in a hurry to get a new bill passed. It’s not really a new bill, it’s actually a new bit tacked on to an existing one. It’s called the National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment (Site Specification, Community Fund and Other Measures) Bill 2020.
The amendment does two important things: it selects a definite place in South Australia, a farmer’s property called Napandee, as a radioactive waste dump and it removes the possibility of a judicial review of that selection.
The proposed dump is an “interim” radioactive waste facility.
It would consist of two parts:
- Temporary above-ground storage for what is known as low-level waste (LLW). LLW is a general term for a range of objects that are radioactively contaminated, but not considered to be highly radioactive nor toxic for thousands of years.
- A “temporary” above-ground storage for intermediate-level waste (ILW). ILW is a term for a mix of wastes that contains some very long-lived highly toxic radioactive matter, that does require isolation for thousands of years. While this amount would be smaller in volume, it would be far more significant. 95 per cent of this radioactive content would be spent nuclear fuel rods from ANSTO’s nuclear reactor at Lucas Heights, Sydney.
At present, these highly radioactive wastes are stored in giant canisters at Lucas Heights, where there is ample space for further canisters and experienced and skilled staff to monitor them and provide security.
ANSTO has plans to expand its operation and CEO Dr Adi Paterson’s dream of a world-leading business in exporting radionuclides for medicine and industry. Meanwhile, international nuclear security obligations demand that Australia develop a plan for the permanent disposal of nuclear wastes.
Unfortunately, this Napandee plan does nothing towards meeting these obligations. ……….
There is no plan whatsoever for the permanent disposal of this highly radioactive trash.
There’s a vague story that these wastes will later be moved from Napandee to a permanent disposal — anything from 40 to 300 years. They are most likely to suffer the fate of other such facilities in the USA and other countries and become stranded wastes…….
There was a heavy emphasis on “medical” wastes. But the reality is that the vast majority of wastes from nuclear medicine are very short-lived radioisotopes, that have no need to be transported thousands of miles and are routinely disposed of close to places such as hospitals where they are used.
A ballot was held in the area, of ratepayers only, on whether or not to support the project. Some residents close to the property were excluded, as were the Native Title holders, the Barngarla Aboriginal community. The vote result, from 824 voters, was 452 “yes”. The Barngarla held their own vote — 80 Barngarla voted, with the unanimous result of “no”.
The whole issue of the transport of the nuclear wastes and their “temporary” dumping does concern also the region, the state of South Australia and the nation. The decision should not be made solely by 452 ratepayers in one small rural area………
Non-ratepayers did not get a look-in. In this modern, almost Trumpian paradigm, outsiders such as economists, environmentalists, medical experts, sociologists and independent radiation experts are seen as “the elites” that can’t be trusted. Unfortunately, independent overseas experts on nuclear waste management have been excluded, too. Apart from the problems raised for the town and region of Kimba itself, there are serious questions about the appropriateness of the planned system, the area environmentally and geologically……..
Of course, this plan is confined to nuclear wastes produced in Australia. For now.
The plan is obviously helpful to ANSTO. They can pass this uncomfortable buck of 10,000 year-lasting radioactive wastes on to a distant South Australian rural community. It will then be managed and funded by whom? The South Australian and Australian tax-payers.
This will take the pressure of ANSTO, make it look as if they’re doing something about their radioactive trash and avoid any Lucas Heights, or rather Barden Ridge fuss, as they expand their operations. (The residential area previously part of Lucas Heights was renamed Barden Ridge to increase the real estate value of the area, as it would no longer be instantly associated with the nuclear reactor.)
It’s not so helpful to South Australia, or to Australia. The best solution is to leave those nuclear reactor wastes safely stored at Lucas Heights for the time being and to develop a national discussion and plan for what to do with those wastes for permanent disposal. Under this present, rather rushed scheme, Resources Minister Keith Pitt, Dr Paterson and the whole crew of the NRWMF will be dead and gone, long before the stranded wastes at Napandee will be properly dealt with.
A solution for the common good is what’s needed, not just a solution that suits ANSTO. ANSTO is a statutory body — a case of the tail wagging the dog, perhaps?
The National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment (Site Specification, Community Fund and Other Measures) Bill 2020 has been passed by the House of Representatives. It will be debated in the Senate later this year.
Meanwhile the Senate Economics Legislation Committee is holding an Inquiry into this bill…….
it gets interesting. Suddenly, a public hearing becomes private. The topic for this new secrecy was the discussion of some documents from the NRWMFT that had been requested by the Committee and received only a very short time before the hearing. The documents were heavily redacted. They relate to the process by which the Napandee site was selected. How spontaneous was the farmer’s offer of his land? What roles did the NRWMFT, ANSTO and the Industry Department, play in instigating this offer?
So many questions surround this plan:
- Is the new amendment being pushed because Minister Keith Pitt fears the opposition of Aboriginals, or indeed of the public in general?
- The exclusion of the Barngarla from the decision — how does this square with Indigenous rights?
- Why did the Government not provide any independent advice to the Kimba community?
- Why are the South Australian and Australian public excluded from decision-making?
- Why is this Senate Committee public hearing to be held in secret?
- Why is this all happening in such a hurry? https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/new-nuclear-legislation-set-to-provide-toxic-dumping-ground-in-south-australia,14256
Kazzi Jai reports on the latest Senate hearing on Nuclear Waste Amendment Bill
Kazzi Jai Fight To Stop Nuclear Waste In The Flinders Ranges, 28 Aug 20, I will try and keep this summation as brief as possible regarding the Senate Hearing with DIIS this morning.South Australian MP Peter Treloar says “Kimba nuclear waste dump is a federal issue”, but he’s fine with it anyway
Kimba nuclear waste site OK with Member for Flinders ahead of proposed new electoral boundaries, ABC, ABC Eyre Peninsula, By Evelyn Leckie and Gary-Jon Lysaght 28 Aug 20
With proposed electoral boundaries changing for the Eyre Peninsula, local MP Peter Treloar is poised to take on a community that remains divided on hosting the country’s nuclear waste.
Key points:
- Proposed electoral boundaries may lead to Kimba falling within the state seat of Flinders
- Peter Treloar is poised to take on Kimba’s nuclear waste storage issues
- The Kimba community remains divided on the region’s nuclear waste site
The Member for Flinders, whose electorate is slated to include Kimba after the redistribution, said although the nuclear waste dump was ultimately a federal issue, he had no problem with its proposed location.
“The Kimba community have decided themselves that they’re prepared to be accepting of that, so this process is playing out in the federal jurisdiction,” Mr Treloar said………
Earlier this year a cross-party parliamentary committee found “significant risk” that local Indigenous groups were not consulted about the nuclear dump to a standard required under international law. ……
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-08-27/flinders-member-weighs-in-on-nuclear-waste-in-kimba/12603022
Australia’s Dept of Industry hiding the facts on choice of Kimba nuclear waste site
Kazzi Jai No Nuclear Waste Dump Anywhere in South Australia, 22 Aug 20, FRIDAY NIGHT QUIZ QUESTION: How many times did the DIIS quote this EXACT SAME STATEMENT in their “Answers to Questions Notices” tabled recently for the Senate Inquiry?….more https://www.facebook.com/groups/1314655315214929/
Reject the racist, undemocratic National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment Bill
|
Conflict of interest in Kimba Community Liaison Officer’s connection to nuclear waste dump push
Kazzi Jai, Fight to Stop a Nuclear Waste Dump in South Australia, 20 Aug, 20Here is what the Community Liaison Officer job was meant to entail: Job Description……”The Community Liaison Officer will represent a project, through consultation activities including meetings with members of the public, information sessions, and presentations. The Officer must possess local knowledge and be of an approachable demeanor to ensure meaningful engagement with all interested community members.”
Desired Skills and Abilities:…..”Ability to be approachable by all members of the Kimba community, regardless of their views on the Project, to provide information about the Project in a professional and independent manner.”
This really in fact comes as no surprise, given what actually happened in Hawker at the SAME time with THEIR Community Liaison Officer! – Submission 109 of previous Inquiry*
*Senate Committee Inquiry on Selection Process for Nuclear Waste Dump Site, August 2018 https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Economics/Wastemanagementfacility/Submissions
17 August: The Senate Nuclear Waste Inquiry- Public Hearings go Secret
This is my impression of events
1 This month
of the week – Disrupting War & Militarism in Oceania. Active solidarity. Radical practice.
Antinuclear 