Senate Nuclear Waste Inquiry gets vague and incomplete answers from Department of Industry
It is difficult to understand why important legislation now before Parliament should include or involve information that cannot be publicly disclosed as this is completely counter to the open and uninhibited nature of parliamentary business and the inquiry committee would at the very least be given a summary of the suppressed information which could then be dealt with by the privileges committee.
If it is being suggested that legal privilege is needed with respect to a judicial review preventing the development of the facility then surely this must be part of the legislative process in dealing with the bill since one of the central issues is eliminating any rights of judicial or administrative review
Peter Remta, 13 Aug 20, My comments on some of the written answers by the department to the questions put on notice at the Senate committee hearing on 30 June 2020.
SENATE COMMITTEE INQUIRY – NATIONAL RADIOACTIVE WASTE
MANAGEMENT AMENDMENT (SITE SPECIFICATION, COMMUNITY FUND AND OTHER MEASURES) BILL 2020
Answer to Question by Senator Hanson-Young:
Question: What does ANSTO understand is the proportion of your waste that would make up what is stored at the Kimba site?
Answer:
As per the Australian Radioactive Waste Management Framework dated April 2018, it is anticipated that the wastes resulting from ANSTO’s operations anticipated that the wastes resulting from ANSTO’s operations and nuclear medicine production will account for approximately 78 per cent* of all wastes that would be managed at the National Radioactive Waste Management Facility(NRWMF).
*This figure is subject to revision as more information becomes available…….
Answers to Questions 4, 5 and 6 by Senators McAllister and Patrick:
From the rather vague and incomplete answers to the specific questions posed by Senator McAllister it appears that the bill for amending the present legislation was hastily put together with little time for proper planning.
It is easier to fully quote the parts of the department’s answer:
Over the life of the program the department has briefed respective Ministers on risks to the National Radioactive Waste Management Facility development associated with judicial review.
On 31 July 2019, the department provided a brief to the former Minister for Resources and Northern Australia, the Hon Matthew Canavan, which also noted the potential to specify a site in the National Radioactive Waste Management Act 2012 (the Act).
On 20 August 2019 the Minister wrote to the Prime Minister seeking amendments to the National Radioactive Waste Management Act 2012 (the Act).
On 21 and 22 August 2019, at community forums in Kimba and Hawker, Minister Canavan indicated that Parliament would have a role in the site selection decision making process.
On 30 September 2019, the Prime Minister responded to the Minister’s letter of 20 August 2019. On 17 October 2019 and on 4 November 2019, the department provided further briefs to the Minister on potential amendments to the Act.
On 8 November 2019, the Minister wrote to the Prime Minister seeking policy authority to develop legislative amendments.
The answer then went on to say that it was the practice not to disclose information about the business of the cabinet and that certain sensitive information contained in some documents to be given to the committee on a confidential basis which would not be in the public interest to reveal and has therefore been redacted
It is difficult to understand why important legislation now before Parliament should include or involve information that cannot be publicly disclosed as this is completely counter to the open and uninhibited nature of parliamentary business and the inquiry committee would at the very least be given a summary of the suppressed information which could then be dealt with by the privileges committee.
If it is being suggested that legal privilege is needed with respect to a judicial review preventing the development of the facility then surely this must be part of the legislative process in dealing with the bill since one of the central issues is eliminating any rights of judicial or administrative review
The forums on 21 and 22 August last year only dealt with ensuring that the government’s grants would be paid direct to the communities and not the state government as this was a major concern to the members of both communities,
To protect their position Minister Canavan undertook to enshrine the the grants payments to the communities through appropriate legislative action but there was nothing along the lines suggested by the department’s answer.
From the totality of all that has been said or done by the department and ANSTO it is quite clear that they want to pursue their own means of identifying an appropriate site and method for the permanent disposal of the local intermediate level waste. Continue reading
Kimba area locals point out the unsolved problems of nuclear waste transport to Napandee
Kazzi Jai Fight To Stop A Nuclear Waste Dump In South Australia, 11 Aug 20
Noted disadvantages are that waste might pass close to Kimba … (after actually coming through a number of other locations)
-
Annette Ellen Skipworth Thats a lot of road to upgrade to take the weight of the canisters ..
Loads of Murray water..
Who is paying to upgrade the roads..
Government or local council and the maintenance of said roads.. 100 years i believe to dump will operate..Roni Skipworth Criterion 2 what hogwash to rail the Waste from Port Lincoln. Still has to go to Kimba Silos as we don’t have a RAILWAY SYSTEM ANYMORE being closed down by Viterra last year n all grain movement is trucked along our 3 local highways on dirt roads all over EP.
Looks like no one has worked out the transport side of things yet and why should we the locals who like using these dirt roads to get from A to B put up with these Trucks fucking them up so we can’t use or then not allowed cos of the Dump
Problematic selection of “community” in decision to site nuclear waste dump at Kimba. South Australia
Kazzi Jai Fight To Stop A Nuclear Waste Dump In South Australia 9 Aug 20
There’s something that has been bothering me for some time…..This is a copy of a table from page 9 of the Phase 1 Document released in April 2016 by the Minister at that time Josh Frydenberg. Even with the “service towns” included for some of them – and of those, some of them DEFINITELY OUTSIDE the so called 50 km radius of the sites….doesn’t it seem interesting that the LEAST POPULATED SITES remained those IN SOUTH AUSTRALIA!
It was ULTIMATELY decided by Matt Canavan, as Minister, that Kimba would only have its Council boundary as the community ballot area, and not have the 50km radius involved at all!
And remember during all of this that the South Australian Royal Commission into the Nuclear Fuel Cycle was running AT THE SAME TIME – March 2015 to May 2016!
No wonder people thought that the nuclear dumps were one in the same! And they had thought it had ALL been dealt with when the Citizen’s Jury came back with an over two-thirds majority (70%) saying NO MEANS NO!https://www.facebook.com/groups/941313402573199/
Call for public release of ANSTO Nuclear Waste Reports and ARPANSA’s Response
To: The Secretary, Senate Standing Economics Legislation Committee of Inquiry National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment Bill 2020 economics.sen@aph.gov.au
RE: David Noonan Supplementary Public Submission No.6.1
Call for public release of ANSTO Nuclear Waste Reports & ARPANSA’s Response; the Department fails test of transparency; and Concern over EPBC Act amendments to affect NRWMF assessment
Dear Secretary
Please consider matters raised in this Supplementary Submission, following my Public Submission No.6. in February 2020.
- Important ANSTO ILW nuclear waste reports due to ARPANSA by 30 June must be made public ASAP – along with the ARPANSA response, to provide for proper public scrutiny in this Inquiry.
- The Department has failed the test of transparency in its treatment of public submissions.
Note: Attachment of the Department’s redacted copy of my submission, to show the extent of redactions made, in blacking out over 50 public source quotations, without a proper basis to do so.
- Concern over proposed rushed changes to the EPBC Act to affect assessment & approvals of the NRWMF.
First: There are public interest concerns the scope of EPBC Act “whole of environment” nuclear action assessments will be replaced by new National Standards based on ARPANSA Codes, with limited “graded” assessments and use of pro-nuclear industry standards of IAEA origin.
Second: It should be no surprise that a Bill to amend the EPBC Act transfers EPBC Act assessment and approval of the NRWMF over to ARPANS Act Licensing.
Recommendation of this Supplementary Submission on assessment and approval of the NRWMF:
This Inquiry should investigate and report on the potential impact of pending changes to the EPBC Act on assessment & approval of the NRWMF, as flagged for introduction in a Bill in late August.
The Committee should call for EPBC Act “whole of environment” assessment of the NRWMF to be retained. The Committee should oppose potential transfer of EPBC Act environmental assessment of the NRWMF over to ARAPNS Act Licensing, Codes and Guides and limited “graded” assessment.
In Conclusion: The Committee must at a minimum reject the Bill’s proposal to legislate for specified siting of the NRWMF, and therefore of unnecessary less safe and more insecure imposition of above ground indefinite storage of ILW, at Napandee near Kimba on Eyre Peninsula in South Australia.
Rights to Judicial Review and Procedural Fairness must be retained for public interest reasons.
Please feel free to contact regarding any aspect of this public submission, by Mobile, Text or E-Mail.
Yours sincerely
Mr David J Noonan B.Sc., M.Env.St.
Independent Environment Campaigner and Consultant (ABN Sole Trader)
Napandee nuclear waste dump – potential impact on the neighbouring Pinkawillinie Conservation Park and Gawler Ranges National Park
Kazzi Jai No Nuclear Waste Dump Anywhere in South Australia 5 Aug 20 Not sure if this is relevant or not…but someone (not me, but wish I did) actually accessed FOI regarding the IMPACT or POSSIBLE IMPACT on the neighbouring Pinkawillinie Conservation Park and Gawler Ranges National Park with respect to the proposed Napandee site….and here is the DIIS reply…
Remember that these two parks, although neighbouring in the absolute sense of the definition, were not allowed to put in submissions against the nuclear dump being situated as a neighbour as they are State Owned, and it was decided by DIIS that they could not make a submission.
https://www.environment.sa.gov.au/…/200220-disclosure…
Actually…thinking along those lines…as they are State Owned…shouldn’t the PEOPLE OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA then have a justified say in this dump as VALID DIRECT NEIGHBOURS using the DIIS paradigm? Because these Conservation and National Parks BELONG to the PEOPLE of South Australia!
Oh…that’s right….”Ever Shifting Goalposts”!
https://www.environment.sa.gov.au/…/200220-disclosure… more https://www.facebook.com/groups/1314655315214929/
Vital questions for Senate Nuclear Waste Committee – on NOMINATIONS, EXPERT EVIDENCE, RADIONUCLIDES, RESET INITIATIVE
The following are some brief extracts from Peter Remta’s Additional submission
HOW DID THE NOMINATIONS COME ABOUT ?……..the government has persistently refused to provide true copies of the nominations claiming personal confidentiality.
This is a puerile excuse as the prescribed nomination form (being attachment B to the government’s own nomination guidelines issued in November 2016) specifically provides that a nominating landowner by its nomination confirms consent to the public disclosure of the nomination
For this reason your committee should request the Department to produce to it for public examination the nominations for Napandee and Lyndhurst and this should quickly establish the veracity of the claims as to the nomination and selection of those sites…..
WHY IS THE SENATE COMMITTEE NOT HEARING EXPERT EXTERNAL EVIDENCE? As it appears that your committee is drawing to the conclusion of its enquiry
I still ask why it has not availed itself of hearing from internationally renowned experts on the management of nuclear waste as I previously suggested………
WHY IS THE COMMITTEE ACCEPTING “EVIDENCE” FROM UNQUALIFIED PERSONS WITHOUT INFORMATION CONFIRMING IT? I am staggered by what was accepted as undisputed evidence by not necessarily qualified persons and without any attempt to gain further information or confirmation.
About agriculture The first of these is how the establishment of the facility at Napandee will give rise to agricultural and scientific research locally without any information to support that claim.
This becomes even more nonsensical when viewed in the light of the most recent protests by agricultural communities in European countries as to the presence of nuclear waste production and disposal……
About jobs. The other is the number of jobs arising through the establishment of the facility and now the new agency based in Adelaide as the numbers suggested are completely outside of the realm of reality.,,,,
WHY NO AUTHORITATIVE AGENCY LIKE AMERICA’s RESET INITIATIVE? While there are several examples that your committee should have studied perhaps the most apt at present is the United States of America initiative and experience known as the Reset of America’s Nuclear Waste Management – Strategies and Policies but for brevity is referred to as the Reset Initiative…… Reset is an effort to untangle the technical, administrative and public concerns in such a way that important issues can be identified,understood and addressed”………….
none of this has occurred with the selection of Napandee……
WHY THE SILENCE ON RADIONUCLIDES? Through a safety case, an implementer reveals its understanding of the management and repository site and how it expects the radionuclides to behave in the repository over long periods of time…………. One important aspect of the risk and safety of storage and disposal of nuclear waste included in the Reset relates to the radionuclides activity of the waste.
Again and despite my raising it previously there has been pointed silence in both the submissions and the personal evidence to your committee of the radionuclides inventories in the intermediate level waste which rather strangely is not known to ARPANSA.
Th Reset Initiative explains that most of the radionuclides in nuclear waste will decay away during the first 1,000 years of management but some will persist for tens of thousands to over one million years…….
It is therefore very difficult to understand how the government has chosen Napandee for its facility before and without any study of the site with regard to the radionuclides and the type of waste as this is the most preliminary and important factor in seeking a suitable location.
The results of the study should also determine the style and nature of the storage and disposal of the nuclear waste.
NEED FOR AN INTERNATIONALLY ACCEPTED PLAN FIRST – NOT “SUBSEQUENT PLANNING” This is something that cannot be cured by so-called subsequent planning and engineering and according to the expert advice should be a determining factor in rejecting the ultimate licence applications for Napandee………
In conclusion the importance and relevance of the Reset Initiative are best gauged by the suggestions that the Reset will be adopted with appropriate variations by IAEA as a principal part of its standards and codes relating to nuclear waste management which by treaty obligations would then become Australia’s prescribed standards.
Brief note on today’s Senate Committee hearing about the Nuclear Waste Bill, including a damaging admission
The hearing ended early
Doubts that a Kimba nuclear dump will really bring jobs to the area
Kimba jobs a hot topic, Whyalla News, Louis Mayfield, 29 July 20,
Debate has ensured over the federal government’s promise of bringing 45 jobs to Kimba with the establishment of a nuclear dump at Napandee, after the latest Senate inquiry revealed there is no legislative requirement to continuously staff a low-level radioactive waste facility.
The Senate Inquiry into the federal government’s Nuclear Radioactive Waste Management Facility (NRWMF) met on Tuesday, with Centre Alliance Senator Rex Patrick reading the following statement from ARPANSA:
“There is no explicit requirement in the ARPANSA or ANSTO legislation or guidance that prescribes that a low-level radioactive waste disposal facility requires continuous presence of staff for either security or safety purposes.”
Senator Patrick was questioning the agency over whether the NRWMF at Kimba could be run remotely.
The federal government has long promised that the facility will create 45 jobs, and while Senator Patrick does not dispute the idea that the jobs will be available, he doubts they will last.
“The CEO of the site may end up being repatriated back to the Australian Radioactive Waste Agency in Adelaide, and I think some of the other roles may be pulled back and the site will turned into a remote facility two or three years down the track,” Senator Patrick said.
“Kimba locals should look at how the government is willing to shift 700 submarine jobs from Adelaide to Perth on a political whim.
“Having seen federal and state government services evaporate from country towns time after time, we know governments can’t be trusted to keep their promises.
“The writing is on the wall, and the wall hasn’t even been built yet.”
Senator Patrick believes this will be a likely course of action for the government because it’s a way to trim costs and achieve savings.
“They will look at those ARPANSA rules and say ‘this is not a bad option,'” he said……. https://www.whyallanewsonline.com.au/story/6855823/kimba-jobs-a-hot-topic/Debate/?fbclid=IwAR0KJkx1ynVTY_3MxehtRridHdfIu0G5eJYhurXHE6eunG7AdtHgbst2IOs
ABC Radio interview focusd on Kimba nuclear waste dump plan
Evenings With Peter Goers ABC radio pm ABC Radio South Australia 30 July
Peter Goer first interviewed Keith Pitt, Minister for Resources. Pitt was confident about the Kimba nuclear waste dump plan. He stressed that it is essential for Australia’s medical care. He claimed strong community support for the plan, and said that it “meets all the technical requirements”. ” My advice is that the temporary waste can’t stay at Lucas Heights.” “The Kimba facility is a critical national infrastructure” “Necessary for people who receive cancer care”.
Peter Goer : “Strange that you have approved this new Adelaide agency whiled the matter still being discussed in the Senate.
Keith Pitt: “It will take time to put together the necessary team. It will take overseas and domestic research”.
Goer: “Have you read all the submissions to the Senate Inquiry?
Pitt avoided the question, and returned to the medical theme – “2 out of 3 of every Australian will utilise that type of technology, will need the Lucas Heights reactor”
Goer: It’s the temporary storage of ILW [Intermediate Level Waste] that worries people.
Pitt: ” Very small amounts. If we accept that we want to use nuclear medicine, then we must manage the by-product”
Peter Goer then interviewed Eddie Hughes, Labor federal member from South Australia
Hughes. We’ve had 3 separate Ministers. Sites that were nominated were all in the seat of Grey. First Rowan Ramsey offered his land – conflict of interest? Then another Liberal politician offered his land, did not consult local community, nor Aboriginal groups.
Aboriginal community- Barngarla not eligible to vote.They conducted their own vote, unanimoously against.
Not essential for a nuclear waste facility to be at this location. Medical waste doesn’t need to be transported to a national facility.
Goers. ILW [Intermediate Level Wastes) we are leaving that problem to our grandchildren.
Hughes. The ILW. This process should have been discussed broadly, including Aboriginal community.
Senate Inquiry going on,, but govt is pushing ahead with this plan, Kimba is not necessarily the solution
Calls. Bob from mid-north said that the vast majority of medical waste is very short-lived. There are also nuclear materials used in industry, universities. At Woomera there are 44 gallon drums rotting, materials transported from Fishermens Bends. Legacy waste from the cold war. Ws don’t know what is in it.
Goers – concern that this might led to importing nuclear waste.
Hughes – I don’t imagine this. Facility at Kimba is above ground, not suitable for deep geological disposal.
Jay Weatherill’s government gave space for Aboriginal people, gave power of veto. In the present case Barngarla people have been treated with contempt.
Goers. Kimba known as a nice little town. Will become known as the “dump town’
Hughes. I understand that people see the business activity. But I don’t think that 45 jobs will eventuate. Some overseas dumps have much smaller number of workers.
Goer. Rural communities are shrinking. Has Kimba been bribed?
Hughes. A lot of money has been put on the table for facilities – a big effort to get people onside. Sad that the only way a town can get the needed services is to offer itself for a nuclear dump. Federal govt hasn’t addressed the far more important issue of shortage of doctors across regional South Australia. Medical treatment will continue whether or not the dump goes ahead
Goers. Rowan Ramsey has the view that the local people are the best educated about this. Keith Pitt has a similar view. Seems to be a distrust of anyone who’s not local to Kimba.
Hughes. This is a South Australian issue. Very arrogant to say that only local people can have an opinion. Liberal govt ruled it out, and that legislation still stands. We need to go back and look at this whole process. Both those in favour or against this plan agreed that we need to deal with radioactive wastes in a responsible way.
Many texts received. – Reconciliation with Aboriginals – only lip service. Medicalisotopes can be made with cyclotrons – nuclear reactor not necessary. ANSTO could have promoted synchrotons producing isotopes for Australian use.- instead opted for building an export business from Lucas Hreights nuclear reactor.
Nuclear waste for Napandee: transport, double handling, safety? Should South Australians get a vote on this?
Jobs, safety and transport in the spotlight in Senate committee probe of Kimba waste plan, Michelle Etheridge, Regional Reporter, The Advertiser, July 28, 2020
Concerns about maritime workers facing safety risks and the Kimba community losing jobs promised for the local area have been raised before a Senate committee probing plans for a radioactive waste site.
Under the Federal Government’s project, low-level radioactive waste would be stored permanently at farming property Napandee, near Kimba, with intermediate-level waste stored there for several decades.
No long-term plan for intermediate-level waste has been set out – an issue raised by speakers during Tuesday’s committee meeting, which is looking into legislation the government says paves the way for the storage site.
Maritime Union of Australia (SA branch) secretary Jamie Newlyn said the Government should eliminate double-handling of the waste, also citing concerns for Whyalla-based members.
“Whyalla port has been considered … to take nuclear processing waste,” Mr Newlyn said.
“What they’re handling is 130-tonne casks of intermediate-level waste. That presents a massive risk.” A 2018 Federal Government technical report on Napandee said there was potential to ship waste from Port Kembla, NSW, to “port locations such as Whyalla, Port Pirie and Port Lincoln”.
Senator Rex Patrick also questioned whether the 45 long-term jobs promised to Kimba would stay there, now a Australian Radioactive Waste Agency has been announced for Adelaide.
A Kimba Council vote last year found 62 per cent of respondents supported the plan. Traditional landowners voted against it in a separate ballot.
Napandee owner Jeff Baldock said it was “time to accept the decision by the people of Kimba and move forward”.
“(The project) … has the potential to provide a lifeline to our community for decades to come,” Mr Baldock said.
Agriculture would benefit from the plan, he said, through a planned research and development centre.
Mr Baldock said it would also provide a much-needed new industry for the region.
This followed automation in farming and withdrawal of government agencies, which had led to a declining local population.
Wesley Schmidt, of Kimba-based Agsave Merchandise, said opposition to the project was coming from a “vocal minority”.
“We’re currently facing the third year running of drought conditions in Kimba. It’s more important than ever to establish another industry in our district,” he said.
Former Grey MP Barry Wakelin, based in the town, said the area had much to lose from picking up “something that nobody else in Australia wants”.
“Many people have said, why can’t we have an SA vote, at least, about this,” he said.
The Australian Conservation Foundation’s Dave Sweeney said: “In the absence of a clear, long-term approach for intermediate level waste, the best place to store this is at ANSTO (Australia’s Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, in NSW).”
The Senate committee will report back by August 31.
A spokesman for the Australian Radioactive Waste Agency said the Government would consult on transport options with communities near potential routes and transport operators.
“The newly created Australian Radioactive Waste Agency will lead the separate process to site a facility to permanently dispose of Australia’s intermediate level waste,” he said.
He said the 45 jobs included security, administration, environmental monitoring and health and safety roles.
“The facility will need these onsite roles to ensure that the facility is managed safely and securely.” michelle.etheridge@news.com.au
Nuclear waste dump site selection process has made the Barngarla people “aliens in their own country”
Barngarla continue fight against plan to dump nuclear waste on Country, https://www.sbs.com.au/nitv/article/2020/07/29/barngarla-continue-fight-against-plan-dump-nuclear-waste-country Barngarla mob say they were not properly consulted by federal government for plans to store radioactive waste on Country at Kimba in SA, and that their concerns continue to be ignored. By Royce Kurmelovs, NITV News 29 July 20
The 50-year-old Barngarla woman is talking about the enduring connection she has to Kimba when she tells how on the day she was born, her parents had been waiting for an ambulance that never came.
Forced to make their own way to the hospital, she says her mum made it as far as the tree outside before giving birth.
“So I’m born on Country,” she says.
Though she may not live there today, Jeanne says a part of her has never left. It is a detail that underscores the significance of the moment she learned Kimba was being considered as a dump for radioactive waste.
“I used to be a carer for my mum. When I first heard [about the facility], I told her. She goes: ‘no, no, no’ and got angry,” Jeanne says. “She said; ‘we don’t want it there’. She said to me: ‘you got to fight for this. You got to fight for it, we can’t have that place there. It’s a special place for us.’”
Most among the Barngarla have a similar story about the shock and confusion at learning their traditional Country was under consideration as part of a proposal to build a nuclear waste storage facility that would take in samples from 100 sites across the continent.
No one, they say, from the federal government contacted them beforehand to talk about the proposal, leaving most to find out through the news media or word of mouth.
Instead it was up to the Barngarla themselves, through the the Barngarla Determination Aboriginal Corporation (BDAC) to take the initiative and write to the government in April 2017 to find out what was going on.
‘Wasn’t interested in our views’
That first letter would plunge them into a fight that has so far lasted three years, until it entered a new phase in February when former Industry Minister Matt Canavan announced – a day before he resigned – that he had selected a site just outside of Kimba to situate the nuclear waste facility.
The location he chose was called Napandee, a slice of farmland about 25 kilometres west of Kimba. The precise area had been carved out of a 7500-hectare cereal and sheep property owned by the Baldock family and when built the facility promised to create 45 jobs and bring in $31 million to the community.
Over the course of its operating lifetime, the site would house low-to-intermediate level nuclear waste made up of medical waste drawn from 100 sites across the country. This material would include medical waste, but also the more serious TN81 canisters – casks of material once exposed to high levels of radiation that require containment for several hundred years.
If supporters of the proposal celebrated the financial windfall it would bring, critics worried the decision represented the thin end of a wedge that would eventually see the site expand to house higher-level toxic waste.
For the Barngarla people, however, the proposal represented something more significant: yet another decision where they have been overlooked, ignored and overruled in a process they describe as “divide and rule”.
“It’s like the government’s not listening to us,” Jeanne says. “It’s like if the government picks a place where they want to put rubbish like that, they’ll just go and do it and they don’t care what the people think. And that’s wrong. They should be listening to what the people want too.”
“I know there were people in Kimba that wanted it. We definitely know. We got the looks. We didn’t care. I didn’t care. This is something I believe in strongly and that’s why we don’t want it there, because of my strong beliefs and my family’s beliefs.”
After their early efforts to find out more, the Barngarla say they were stonewalled from the very beginning by both the Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources, and the Australian Radioactive Waste Agency (ARWA). That stance would become a pattern.
At first it began with the department initially dismissing the possibility that Aboriginal heritage sites may exist in the area and ignoring requests from the Barngarla for a meeting.
It took a year – until February 2020 – before the department offered to meet with the Barngarla people, though by the time the first and only meeting took place the government was already forging ahead to measure community support through a voting process.
In organising the vote, the local council limited those who could participate to ratepayers within the township, and provided a ballot with a single question: “Do you support the proposed National Radioactive Waste Management Facility being located at one of the nominated sites in the community of Kimba?”
Outraged by what they say was a clear act of voter suppression – a strategy common in the US where procedural tactics are used to discourage or prevent people from voting – the Barngarla took their fight to the courts.
They argued that the vote breached the Racial Discrimination Act by excluding the Traditional Owners who were openly opposed to the proposal. The matter would go all the way to the Federal Court, where it was ultimately dismissed on appeal.
Though the court found the local council had not excluded the Barngarla people on the basis of their ethnic identity, BDAC Chairperson Jason Bilney says the court did acknowledge the council had discretion about who to include in the vote, and they had deliberately chosen to exclude native title holders.
They basically created hurdles,” Bilney says. “The catchphrase was ‘rateable property’ – that’s white man’s terms ‘rateable property’. We’re the native title holders. That holds more weight than ‘rateable property’, so we should have been included.”
Around the time the Barngarla filed their lawsuit to challenge the vote, the first meeting with the department took place in August 2018 – a moment Bilney recalls with frustration.
He says Mr Canavan spoke for fifteen minutes before he left, taking all the government representatives with him.
“That’s it,” Bilney says. “He wasn’t interested in our views, he just wanted us to hear what he had to say.”
When the poll of Kimba residents was counted, it returned a result that saw 61.6 per cent of 824 participants vote in favour of the proposal.
BDAC responded by organising is own poll, asking its 209 members the same question that was asked of the broader Kimba residents.
The result would be a unanimous “No” from the 83 participants – a turnout figure explained by cultural and logistical factors that make it difficult to gather in any one place.
The Barngarla delivered the result to the department in November last year on the understanding Mr Canavan had promised to consider them together.
“Canavan said he would put the two together. He never did because if you put the two together there was clearly no broad community support,” says Bilney.
In its submissions to the senate, the department denies it agreed to incorporate the two votes, but says it only agreed to “consider” their outcomes.
Aliens in our own country’
What happens now is up to the Senate economics reference committee and a clutch of Labor, Greens and independent senators.
The Barngarla say the recent approach of the federal government – to legislate the precise location of the site – represents a new twist as it departs from the process established by the Gillard government under the National Radioactive Waste Management Act 2012.
Worse still, the Barngarla say the provisions of the bill will stymie their rights to seek a judicial review of the minister’s decision in the courts. The Parliamentary joint committee on human rights also raised concerns about the bill in April this year that it says may extinguish Native Title.
“In relation to any cultural and spiritual significance attaching to the land itself, it remains unclear how this would be protected once a radioactive waste facility is operational on the site. Further, it is unclear how Indigenous people will be able to access sites of cultural significance, should they be determined to exist,” the report said.
When NITV News contacted the Australia Radioactive Waste Agency for comment about the process to date, a spokesperson said in a statement the government is seeking to consult with the BDAC going forward.
“Napandee is privately owned, has no Native Title and has been used for agricultural purposes for 80 years. Preliminary assessments have identified no registered cultural heritage at the site,” the spokesperson said.
“Further ground cultural heritage surveys with Traditional Owner consultation are planned, to determine cultural heritage values at the site.
“That said, we have approached the Barngarla through BDAC numerous times during the past years to work together to identify heritage, without resolution.”
In addition, the federal government is seeking to establish a Barngarla economic plan backed by $3 million in government funding, employment opportunities at the site and a cultural heritage management plan.
The Barngarla view this as a bribe when for them it isn’t a matter of money, but one of self-determination concerning what happens on their Country, set against a much deeper history.
So far it has taken two decades for the Barngarla to have their Native Title claim to a 45,000 square kilometre stretch of the Eyre Peninsula recognised by the courts – a process during which they were once informed that they did not exist as a people.
Neither have they forgotten the horror at Maralinga when the British army tested nuclear weapons after falsely declaring there were no Aboriginal people in the area.
To the Barngarla, the government has only decided to talk after the big decisions have been made.
“We’re still flora and fauna to these people,” Bilney says. “They should have included us from the start. We heard about it on the news. We weren’t included in the vote.
“You know, the Barngarla [native title] claim was basically an unwinnable case, they said. It’s taken us 21 years. Twenty-one years to win Native Title under white man’s law. And yet we’re still classed as second-class citizens? Flora and fauna.
“We’re basically aliens in our own Country.”
Reflection on Jeff Baldock’s presentation to the Senate Hearing on Napandee Radioactive waste Dump plan
Jeff Baldock is the farmer who is selling a portion of his land near Kimba, for four times its market value, to the Federal Government for the site of a nuclear waste dump. He thinks he is benefiting the local community. He could be right, in that they will be showered by he Fed govt with services and facilities that they SHOULD HAVE GOT ANYWAY, without need of being bribed. Baldock has no concept of the long term effect, and later consequences for South Australia.
He made a brave effort at the hearing, to portray this as a community benefit. He struggled a bit, but was helped by plenty of “Dorothy Dixer” questions from the Chairman.
Listening to Jeff Badock on the Senate Committee hearings, I am struck by the naivety and ignorance of the man. He really thinks that farming life will go on just the same in Kimba. With the guarded radioactive waste dump, with dirty great trucks under heavy police guard arriving periodically, and with roadworks, and port works at Whyalla, and the whole disruption of the area Probable loss of population, but Baldock expects a new boom in agriculture and population there. Expects big professional jobs there – hell – those will all be in Adelaide, at best – could be Sydney or Canberra!
Black lives DO matter, but not apparently, to ANSTO and Australia’s nuclear lobby
The systematic racist behaviour by your Government is a stain on the collective consciousness of this country.’
the Senate Inquiry Committee decided not to hold a hearing in SA. Instead it will be a phone/video hearing — a disappointing decision for those far more at ease in face-to-face meetings even if most of the Senators involved were themselves on video.
Much at stake for Barngarla Country, Country, https://www.eurekastreet.com.au/article/much-at-stake-for-barngarla-country?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Eureka%20Street%20Daily%20-%20Tuesday%2028%20July%202020&utm_content=Eureka%20Street%20Daily%20-%20Tuesday%2028%20July%202020+CID_a705bb9962677d9379d61686e520c4ca&utm_source=Jescom%20Newsletters&utm_term=Much% Michele Madigan, 28 July 2020
- In the present world wide climate of Black Lives Matter when some governments/states are changing significant processes for the betterment of all, how is our own country fronting up when it comes to competing interests regarding land and culture? ‘Quite badly’ is the assessment that comes to mind in examining Barngarla Peoples’ recent reply to the Department of Resources, the federal department charged by government with the establishment of the national radioactive waste dump/facility (NRWMF).
Their letter of reply, publicly released July 23rd lays it down:
‘As you would likely be aware the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights (Human Rights Committee) has confirmed, in their Human Rights Scrutiny Report — Report 4 of April 2020, that the proposal to place a NRWMF at Napandee is a violation of the Barngarla People’s Human Rights. This is clearly the case, given just some of the matters below…?’
The letter goes on to list how, as Traditional Owners, they were refused the right to vote, forcing them to organise their own official ballot with its unanimous ‘no’ vote which was then ‘entirely ignored by the Minister.’
Shamefully, the Barngarla further identify the final determination of government to crush First Nations and any other group seeking to use the democratic processes of the nation: ‘Those terrible failures in process would have been subject to judicial oversight had the Minister made a declaration under section14 of the existing National Radioactive Waste Management Act 2012 (Cth). However, being fully aware of this, the Minister is now seeking to remove the Barngarla People’s legal rights to judicial review by using Parliament to legislate the location directly.’
Yes, the gloves are certainly off in the long running saga of the federal government’s latest effort to offload the nation’s nuclear waste — this time on Barngarla Country.
The Coalition seems to be banking on the certainty that everyone’s energy about national matters is focused on the Covid-19 emergency. The Guardian reports the plan to rush through new conservation laws even before even Prof. Graeme Samuel’s Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) final report is written:
‘The EPBC Act Interim Report (released July 21st) ) unsurprisingly includes the reprimand that the federal government’s framework environment legislation ‘reflects an overall culture of tokenism and symbolism, rather than one of genuine inclusion of Indigenous Australians’.
At the same time, with the Radioactive Waste Management Amendment Act 2020 yet to pass the Senate, on 21st July Resources Minister Pitt announced his own kind of pre-emptive strike. His joint media release announced a ‘new agency to safely and securely manage Australia’s radioactive waste’ by the establishment of ‘a dedicated agency’ based in Adelaide which will be ‘responsible for all functions of the National Radioactive Waste Management Facility including engagement with the Kimba community.’
This is notwithstanding that the Senate Inquiry Committee is presently examining the actual issue and so of course Senators have not yet voted on the Bill, which confirms the selection of the Nappanee site in SA’s Kimba, Eyre Peninsula. The Minister’s apparent certainty of the outcome by announcing a ‘dedicated agency’ responsible for the entire matter, seems to take no account of these inconvenient facts. Is the Senate seen as irrelevant?
The bill itself narrowly passed the House of Representatives last month with opposition from Labor, the Greens and most of the Independents to whom it was clear that the rights of the Traditional Owners and other groups similarly opposed had been cast aside. MPs were aware that the process attempts to create a serious precedent. As Dave Sweeney ACF summarises: ‘the Parliament precluding the Courts.’
It is possible to turn around injustice: the Human Rights Committee’s report cited above was unanimous and was endorsed by Liberal and National Party members. With the Senate vote perhaps in September, it is to be hoped that federal Labor with its key South Australian Senators like Penny Wong and Don Farrell will follow the precedent set by their Lower House colleagues.
As well as the Greens, there are those other Senate crossbenchers who support farming communities. In the Kimba district and more widely in SA’s entire Eyre Peninsula, there are food producers disturbed by threats, whether by image or actuality, to their food production — the safety of which is more important than ever in these COVID-19 times.
A week out from the long awaited July 28th public hearing, the Senate Inquiry Committee decided not to hold a hearing in SA. Instead it will be a phone/video hearing — a disappointing decision for those far more at ease in face-to-face meetings even if most of the Senators involved were themselves on video.
But the Barngarla are clear. After refusing the funds offered to ironically ‘support their cultural heritage’ comes their letter’s devastating conclusion: ‘Your email indicates that the Government wants “to form a long term relationship with the Barngarla community based on mutual respect”. This is clearly an insincere statement given the complete violation of our rights to date. …The systematic racist behaviour by your Government is a stain on the collective consciousness of this country.’
There’s a long way to go for the Coalition to change from ‘its business as usual’ performance in this as in many other matters. We can all play our part, however, in encouraging Senators to stop another sizable wind back in the nation’s democratic processes. If the Senate defeats this Radioactive Waste Management Bill then the Barngarla and others can, as in any democratic country, take to court the minister’s processes.
There is much at stake.
Notes on Barry Wakelin, speaking to the Senate Inquiry on Napandee nuclear waste dump plan
Today -public Australian Senate hearings on Kimba nuclear waste plan and changed federal laws
the next Senate hearing into the proposed Kimba radioactive waste plan and the changed federal laws to facilitate this is taking place today.
Try listening -follow the link at this site https://www.aph.gov.au/news_and_events/watch_parliament
Today’s session will hear from supporters of the planned facility as well as critics, including the MUA/Unions SA’s Jamie Newlyn, former federal member Barry Wakelin and myself/ACF.
Details of the program are below and info on how to access the event is available at:
11.00 am Wesley and Lisa Schmidt (Submission 75) 11.30 am Mr Barry Wakelin (Submission 46) 12.00 pm Mr Jeff Baldock (Submission 42) 12.45 pm Australian Conservation Foundation (Submission 97) 1.15 pm Maritime Union of Australia (Submission 19) 1.45 pm Adjournment
1 This month
of the week – Disrupting War & Militarism in Oceania. Active solidarity. Radical practice.
Antinuclear 