Dianne Ashton on Government untrustworthiness – the rushed, unethical decision on nuclear waste site
Dianne Ashton to Senate Committee on INQUIRY INTO NATIONAL RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT
FACILITY Submission No 63
Herewith is my submission and reasons for opposing the establishment of a National Radioactive
Waste Management Facility in South Australia.
Having been a part of the Barndioota Consultative Committee for the four years it was operational,
prior to a decision being made by the Government as to the proposed site of a Facility, I questioned
the trustworthiness of the Federal Department (DIIS at the time), the lack of ethics when it came to
Consultation and the reason why South Australia was chosen for a proposed NRWF when, clearly
South Australians are patently against having nuclear waste stored in the state.
South Australians voted against a High Level Nuclear Waste Facility being built in South Australia.
Unfortunately had DIIS been patient until that decision was made, they would have realised that
their hope of the long term Intermediate Level Nuclear Waste (ILW) in a High Level Facility in South
Australia was nothing more than a pipe dream. Unfortunately this decision by South Australians, left
DIIS in the unenviable position of looking for a temporary place to store this highly dangerous waste.
To store ILW temporarily above ground for up to 100 years or more, is not a good decision, which is
now what is intended at the proposed NRWMF.
ll that withstanding, the whole process which was undertaken by DIIS to find the proposed site for
a NRWMF in Australia was flawed in so many ways. If DIIS had actually undertaken the process with
World’s best practice in mind, the outcome may have been very different.
A NRWMF would have been chosen, but only after deep consultation with the neighbours, standing
council and community members of the area. The consultative process would have been a two way
process, information being given from all sides of the situation and then discussed. If there were
divisive issues the aim would have been to build greater connections and understand between
community members, because the notion of “divide and conquer” does not belong in community
engagement. This is not what happened, trust was not built, divide and conquer abounded and
information was the only means forward according to DIIS. Also continuity of engagement would
have been important instead of around 25 staff members leaving the team during the process.
Surveys would be been well thought out and extensively conducted instead of hurried and rushed
with flawed results. DIIS did not do enough to fully engage the community and work with them in an
ethical manner to bring the process to an amenable conclusion. This created mistrust of DIIS and
their process.
If the proposed site at Kimba goes ahead without full scrutiny of the process which put it there, it
will be a sad day for any future proposed facilities, as a wonderful opportunity to all work
collaboratively will have gone missing and will continue to be absent, until there is a new approach
to the process.
Covid 19 is paving the way for change in Australia for the better. The government is called to be
acting on behalf of the people (taxpayers) not on behalf of itself. Let’s hope we can all wake up
before it is too late.
Australian Law on radioactive waste to be changed in order to prevent any judicial review!
Declaration and Legislation of Selected SiteAt the time the Minister announced that the Napandee site had been identified, we were surprised and
confused that this decision was not declared as per the requirements of the Act. It is now clear that the reason
for this is the Ministers decision to amend the Act to specify the selected site. This is extremely concerning to us,
as it is our understanding that the decision to directly legislate the selected site will effectively remove the
opportunity for any judicial review of the site selection, and there appears to be no other justification to do so.
submissions were received in total, and that, in total, 94.5 of these opposed the siting of the facility in Kimba.
These appear to have been all but ignored in the Minister, in favour of multiple survey results from the same
focus group living or operating businesses based within the District Council.
the members of the Kimba, Eyre Peninsula and SA community who are opposed to the siting of the National
Radioactive Waste Management Facility on Farming land in South Australia.
Government has undertaken to site the National Radioactive Waste Facility in Kimba and we would like to thank
the Committee for their time and efforts in undertaking this inquiry.
particularly for those who do not support the siting of the facility in the Kimba district. We have had no goal or
prize in sight, only the onerous task of proving our opposition.
fuelled by the actions of the Department in their quest to establish support for the facility. There are many
examples of how this is process has been unfair and wrong, and we appreciate the opportunity to put forward
some important facts from our perspective.
The finding by former Minister Matthew Canavan that broad community consent for this facility exists in Kimba,
a basis on which this Bill rests, is tenuous at best. The path that the Federal Government took to making this
finding has been a long road of propaganda, manipulation and promises, and is now completely lacking
justification at its conclusion for the decision made.
National Radioactive Waste Management Facility (BRWMF) under scrutiny – fact checking
Kazzi Jai shared a link. No Nuclear Waste Dump Anywhere in South Australia May 19
“Did you know? ANSTO only manages about 45% of the low level radioactive waste in Australia. Australia’s radioactive waste is stored in over 100 locations such as science facilities, hospitals and universities. The NRWMF will enable Australia’s radioactive waste to be consolidated into a single, purpose-built facility.”
No references, no figures – NADA for this assertion!
Sooooooo….who IS being “economical” with the truth …when you have this statement, which was quoted from a hardcopy report by the DIIS published April 2018? ……..“States and territories are responsible for managing a range of radioactive waste holdings, accounting for about one per cent of total radioactive waste holdings in Australia.”??????????????????? (Page 7 in link below)
And there is a nifty little table WHICH SPELLS OUT EXACTLY HOW MUCH LOW AND INTERMEDIATE LEVEL WASTE IS FOUND AROUND AUSTRALIA INCLUDING ANSTO! (Page 4 for those interested in the link below!)
Do not have ANY idea how NRWMF got 45% even from the table given by DIIS in the hardcopy report!
Another case of “1 in 2” ACCORDING TO ANSTO becoming suddenly “2 in 3” ACCORDING TO NRWMF ????
NRWMF MUST BE CONSISTENT IN THEIR REPORTING…AND MORE IMPORTANTLY REFERENCE IT!
Two places, Lucas Heights + Woomera, = 90%+ of Commonwealth holdings PLUS Dept of Defence has maybe another 3%… so 3 of the ‘100+ sites’ have 93+% of the proposed volume.
PS the NRWMF has blocked me from posting scientific facts & commentary on their FB page….
If you want I can pm you the original details of Fisherman’s Bend AND St Mary’s waste ….and in that document it clearly states that only 200 of the 9726 drums from Fisherman’s Bend were radioactive as deemed by the Road Transport Act. But because of public concern – in Melbourne, Victoria and the wider Australian community – it was ALL classified as Radioactive! THAT is why..surprise, surprise…after the “temporary” two/three year storage promise which became 25 years, it is “suddenly” found that a LOT of the drums are not radioactive! That’s because they never were!! But they do contain asbestos…
The Mt Mary Defense Base is different….but is only 10 cubic metres in volume
Rose Costelloe submission – Kimba traditional Aboriginal area not suitable for nuclear waste dump
due diligence means our government and you as our elected representatives of different communities, including Aboriginal communities, that exist here and which elected you to your positions, need to carefully consider the least possible risk in creating a nuclear waste dump within Australia.
Rose Costelloe National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment (Site Specification, Community Fund and Other Measures) Bill 2020 [Provisions] Submission 78 I am writing to vigorously oppose the creation of a nuclear waste dump at the site you are considering in South Australia.
My first reason for opposing it is that the plan is to situate the dump on land traditionally owned by the
Barngala Aboriginal people who also oppose this plan.
I would say here, if you are serious about creating a nuclear waste dump in our country, you must plan to situate
it in the middle of one of the largest cities in Australia: Melbourne or Sydney. In that way you will ensure that
the utmost safety precautions are implemented at the outset. They will be then be closely monitored and
maintained with all due diligence forever.
It is very clear to me that we are fallible human beings – and I am one of them. We are not very good at caring
for dangerous substances in our midst or at anticipating what lies ahead of what appear to be clever plans made
without consideration of future risks. The demise of the Fukushima nuclear power plant in the face of a tsunami
is the most spectacular of these recent failings. Five Mile Island and Chernobyl are dreadful catastrophes
involving nuclear material from the not too distant past.
I will not dwell here on the life expectancy of nuclear matter including waste. There are more eloquent and
learned submissions covering these hard cold facts Continue reading
Felicity Wright: appalled at effect on Aboriginal communities of decision on National Radioactive Waste Dump Site
Felicity Wright – Submision to Senate Committee on National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment (Site Specification, Community Fund and Other Measures) Bill 2020 [Provisions] Submission 98
I am a resident of the Eyre Peninsula. Whilst the bulk of this email has been taken from the ACF template I
confirm that I endorse the contents fully. As an ally and advocate for Indigenous peoples for more than 30 years
I was appalled at the terrible toll fighting the nuclear waste facility in the Flinders Ranges took upon my friends.
I watched one of my closest friends visibly age as she surrendered her art practice and her enjoyment of life to
dedicate herself to challenging it.
It does not escape my attention that the Eyre Peninsula is a significant distance from the east coast and few
politicians would be familiar with the area. Neither would their electorates, therefore it looks like a convenient
location to store something highly problematic.
I have deep concerns about the federal governments proposed changes to the National Radioactive Waste
Management Act. The government has not made a clear case about the need for the planned national facility at Kimba and the process has been restricted and inadequate.
In particular, I am concerned that the planned changes:
• restrict or remove options for judicial review of the government’s site selection under current laws
• unreasonably reduce the rights and options of the Barngarla Traditional Owners and other directly
impacted parties and have not been made with proper consultation
• exempt key environmental and cultural heritage protection laws from being used.
• fail to make any clear or compelling radiological or public health case for doubling handling the long-lived
intermediate level waste (ILW) at significant public expense
• do not provide any certainty about the long-term management of Australia’s radioactive waste
• are not consistent with international best practice in relation to siting, community consultation or
procedural fairness around radioactive waste
• do not recognise or respect long standing South Australian legislation prohibiting any federal radioactive
waste facility
Against the current context of uncertainty and disruption due to the impact of Covid 19 the further uncertainty
and contest generated by the federal government’s approach to radioactive waste is not helpful or justified.
I urge the Committee not to support the proposed changes to the current legislation and instead call for a
dedicated comprehensive review of management options in order to best realise responsible radioactive waste
management in Australia.
Terry Schmucker- unfairness of community funding for nuclear dump has split the local community
It is on advice from the Kimba consultative committee that the existing funding boundary has been set. The promise of many millions of dollars isolated to one particular local government area has changed our community and the way it works. This has also extended to communication and consultation……
I ask also that funding amounts allocated to different council areas be set in law to protect vulnerable neighbourhoodslike ours from bullying and manipulation.
Terry Schmucker. SUBMISSION TO: SENATE ECONOMICS LEGISLATION COMMITTEE
Inquiry into the National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment (Site Specification,
Community Fund and Other Measures) Bill 2020 [Provisions] Submission 92
I would like to put forward my views on some of the impacts this has had on my
neighbourhood and the flaws in the process that have not been addressed. This Bill should not
be accepted as there remain many unanswered questions about naming Napandee as the site.
Firstly, to limit community funding to one particular local government area will harm the
community and put the Radioactive Waste Management Facility at odds with local residents.
I live in a neighbourhood that has our land areas also known as hundreds split in half by two
local government jurisdictions; Kimba and Wudinna District Councils.
The hundreds of Cootra and Koongawa have a long and proud history of working together
and the majority of people here have descended from the original pioneers with a strong
sense of community that came from the history of schooling, socialising, and sporting clubs
covering different local government areas. Continuation of this community spirit is still most
evident in the current Koongawa sports club and the Cootra volunteer CFS brigade. Members
come from both council districts; however the majority of support comes from outside the
Kimba district. For example our CFS brigade responds to incidents in the area around or near
the proposed waste facility and it will again in the future. The majority of brigade members
will not receive any or little support from the community funding if it is limited to just the
Kimba council area.
Our neighbourhood borders the waste site at Napandee and some of my neighbours who live
in the Wudinna district are physically closer to the waste site than the Kimba township. I
have personally brought this to the attention of Minister Canavan, the Department and the
Kimba council, but with no results. I believe vested interests have excluded us from this
process. If our neighbourhood had been given an equal status in the vote we would likely
have a different result. This was the case at Hawker where the vote extended to a 50 km
radius around the waste site as well as the council area. The selected site at Napandee site is
not at Kimba and is offset within the council area.
Before the consultative committee member application process closed, my questioning
prompted the Department to announce that applicants from outside of the council area would
also be accepted. This created a fair bit of confusion and the nominations closed three days
later as scheduled. No extension was given and all the members appointed to the consultative
committee are only from within the Kimba district council area except for the independent
chairman who is not a local. This was the beginning of a bias towards our neighbourhood that
didn’t exist before.
Sue Woolford recommends the Canadian model for selecting a Nuclear Waste Facility Site
I would like to draw the committee’s attention to the Canadian leading example which has
empowered communities to self-nominate for assessment in a long-term process called
“Adaptive Phase Management”2 ensuring trust is being gained in communities prior to any
final site selection for radioactive waste disposal in a deep geological repository over a long
established timeline.
I could not support the proposal as it stands.
The Kimba District Council has not done its due diligence to request an an independent risk analysis for the people it
represents
Sue Woolford SUBMISSION TO SENATE ECONOMICS LEGISLATION COMMITTEE
RE: Inquiry into the National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment (Site
Specification, Community Fund and Other Measures) Bill 2020 [Provisions] Submission No 91
I would like to put forward my personal views on how acceptance of this Bill would be doing
an injustice to the responsible management of radioactive waste in Australia.
I am critical of this current process but not the value of nuclear medicine and the need to
find the right long term solution to benefit all Australians. I have advocated for a fair and
transparent process that instils trust in the public domain and believe that the National
Radioactive Waste Management Act 2012 and this Bill need to have proper assessment to
deliver to all Australians a morally and legally acceptable Act with lessons learnt.
The government department responsible have initiated a consultation and site selection
process under the current Act but have not truly engaged meaningfully with all
stakeholders. Standards have not conformed alongside the principles of the International
Association for Public Participation1 (IAP2) and the spectrum of public participation which is
used internationally.
I believe if more of these principles were applied to provide objective information and listen
to feedback then the key challenges to site the nations radioactive waste into a central
location with community confidence would be taken to a new level of credibility and
assurances. My submission deals with finding the right solution instead of a second rate
option in my hometown.
Currently, I don’t believe the National Radioactive Waste Management Act 2012 has
allowed for the best and safest sites to be voluntarily put forward. The extinguishment of
Native Title holder’s rights and the Commonwealth having the authority to override states
and territories has only confirmed that the Australian example is inconsistent with world’s
best practice and is an abominable act that takes away rights of review to ensure a fair and
transparent process. Continue reading
Cameron and Toni Scott: brief but compelling critique of National Radioactive Waste Management
Cameron and Toni Scott – to Senate Committee on
National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment (Site Specification, Community Fund and Other Measures) Bill 2020 [Provisions] Submission 82
We are active residents of the Kimba Community and are involved with many community organisations within
the town. We own and operate a farming business and have 3 small children.
Over the past 5 years my husband and I have been involved with this process as direct neighbours of the first
round of nominations at Kimba. We have found the process inconsistencies extremely frustrating and stressful.
I ask that you please take our views and recommendations into consideration and I would be happy to be
called as a witness to provide further information in the form of a hearing.
Ballot figures were manipulated to justify broad community support.
– Voting boundaries were restricted and disregarded active members of our community who live within
close proximity to Kimba and Napandee site.
– Submissions from locals living alongside site but outside council boundary were ignored or considered
not relevant for the Minister to report on.
– 94.5% of all submissions received were opposed to the siting of this facility in Kimba.
– Petitions were not reported in Ministers announcements.
– Doubling handling of ILW waste is unnecessary, costly and
– Farming land is not a suitable location for radioactive waste
We recommend that the Government please further investigate options of more suitable land that could
potentially permanently dispose of both LLW and ILW radioactive waste to rule out double handling and
separating the waste.
We also recommend that the Department and Minister Canavan’s figures used to justify Broad Community
Support be looked at in depth, as it is so important that a site such as a National Radioactive Waste Facility
which would be a permanent fixture of our Community does in fact have the broad community support
required for a successful outcome.
Marty and Rachel Yates: the wrong nuclear dump process- individuals nominate their own land for their own personal gain
The current process where individuals nominate their own land for their own personal gain and then seek community support is completely backwards and does nothing but cause angst and divide communities.
We recommend the Committee:
Withdraw or reject the Bill on the grounds that neighbour support has not been met. The 100%
direct neighbour support is based on just two landowners as the majority of the land
surrounding the Napandee site is owned by the nominator themselves. Almost half of the
neighbours within the 5km radius to this site remain opposed. This does not constitute broad
neighbour support.
As farmers and neighbours to the selected site, it is of deep concern that radioactive waste could
be allowed to jeopardise Kimba and the Eyre Peninsula’s agricultural industries. The entire Eyre
Peninsula is very proud of its clean and green image, however, if a nuclear waste dump is
constructed in Kimba, no matter which way you look at it, the Eyre Peninsula will never be able to
lay claim to this image again. Clean and green does not go together with nuclear/radioactive
waste.
Marty & Rachel Yates – to Senate Committee on National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment (Site Specification, Community Fund and Other Measures) Bill 2020 [Provisions] Submission 90
We are very close neighbours to the Napandee site and are active members of the Kimba
community where we continue to live, farm and raise our young family. We are third generation
farmers and completely devastated with the news that Napandee has been selected as the site to
host the National Radioactive Waste Management facility (NRWMF) because this means the
facility will be forced upon us. We would never ever choose to live near a radioactive waste dump.
Our small country town has been targeted since 2015 when Rowan Ramsey initiated the proposal
that his property in Kimba could host the national radioactive waste facility. Since then, our once
close knit community has been torn apart by a flawed process that has been designed to divide
and conquer with the promise of jobs and money. The damage caused by this process is real and
will be lasting.
It has been extremely difficult and stressful five years for us. We have done our utmost to
request a fair, open and transparent process but instead have been presented with a very one
sided affair where the goal posts have constantly moved.
We were neighbours to the original nominated site at Cortlinye which was removed, along with
Pinkawillinie, from the process in 2016 due to lack of community support. To our dismay, a group
of locals did not accept this decision and in early 2017 proceeded to nominate two more sites in
Kimba. One called ‘Napandee’ and one called ‘Lyndhurst’. Despite being told by the Department of
Industry Innovation and Science (DIIS) that this would never come back to Pinkawillinie, it did,
because Napandee is located in the Hundred of Pinkawillinie. We now find ourselves even closer
neighbours to the Napandee site than we were to Cortlinye. We have continually stated our
opposition as neighbours but because we don’t share a fence it feels like we don’t really matter.
As farmers and neighbours to the selected site, it is of deep concern that radioactive waste could
be allowed to jeopardise Kimba and the Eyre Peninsula’s agricultural industries. The entire Eyre
Peninsula is very proud of its clean and green image, however, if a nuclear waste dump is
constructed in Kimba, no matter which way you look at it, the Eyre Peninsula will never be able to
lay claim to this image again. Clean and green does not go together with nuclear/radioactive
waste.
Only 4.5% of South Australia is arable land. There is so much unproductive land in the whole of
Australia that would be a more suitable option than farming land to store radioactive waste. This
is where the current process falls down because it only allows nominations from volunteer
landowners so even though there may be better options out there, this process won’t allow them
to be considered because they have not volunteered.
We find it staggering that Kimba was allowed to re-enter the process after initially being removed
due to lack of community support but the Leonora nomination was not accepted even though they
say they are able to provide a final deep burial site for Australia’s most toxic waste which would
completely remove the need to double handle the waste and save many tax payer dollars. Continue reading
13 top Australian non government organisations say that the Kimba nuclear waste dump plan is illogical
There is no logic behind the proposal to move intermediate-level waste from interim above-ground storage at Lucas Heights to interim above-ground storage at the Kimba site. The proposed double-handling is illogical, it exposes communities to unnecessary risk, and ARPANSA’s Nuclear Safety Committee has indicated that it is not consistent with international best practice.
[ The group makes 10 excellent RECOMMENDATOINS to the Senate Committee]
Joint NGO Submission to the Senate Economics Legislation Committee Inquiry into National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment (Site Specification, Community Fund and Other Measures) Bill 2020 Submission 101
The National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment Bill amends the National Radioactive Waste Management Act to specify a site near Kimba in South Australia for a nuclear waste ‘facility’ ‒ a repository for low-level waste and an above-ground ‘interim’ (indefinite) store for long-lived intermediate-level waste.
The Bill is deeply flawed and should be rejected. Further, the existing Act is deeply flawed and should be repealed Continue reading
Catholic Religious Australia (CRA) question government’s plan for nuclear waste dump near Kimba, South Australia
Time for action over proposed nuclear dump, https://thesoutherncross.org.au/opinion/2020/04/24/time-for-action-over-proposed-nuclear-dump/ Michele Madigan April 24, 2020
The reality is that over 90 per cent of the waste, measured by radioactivity, is intermediate long-lived waste including the nuclear spent fuel rods and also the parts of the previous nuclear reactor.
The Barngala initiated a legal action protesting their exclusion. Sadly their appeal has recently been denied. As Barngarla Traditional Owner Jeanne Miller laments, Aboriginal people with no voting power are put back 50 years, ‘again classed as flora and fauna’.
With Pope Francis’s designation of practical Care for Earth as the 8th Beatitude, a wonderful Lenten/post-Lenten penance might be a concerned letter to alert an Opposition or cross bench SA senator at Parliament House, Canberra 5600. The Senate vote is likely at the end of June.
Colleen Grantham spells it out on Kimba nuclear waste dump- NO Broad Community Consent, NO Transparency
I am appalled to learn that the Native Title awarded to the Bungarla People of this District has been
dissolved on the property in question, thus providing an “out” for the Government to need to
consider their views on this issue.
we need to protect our country’s HEALTH and our
ECONOMY and I struggle to see how this facility in this location will do anything but destroy both.
Colleen Grantham Submission 89 to Committee Secretariat, Senate Standing Committees on Economics
Re – Proposed National Radioactive Waste Management Facility
Dear Committee
Thank you for taking the time to consider this submission of opposition to the establishment of a
National Radioactive Waste Management Facility on FARMING land known as ‘Napandee’ in the
District Council of Kimba.
I grew up the daughter of a farmer in the District Council of Wudinna which is a neighbouring council
precinct to Kimba. No one in this council district has had an opportunity to be heard or to influence
the outcome of the CLOSED voting on this facility, yet some of its farming residents live much closer
to the proposed site than those people residing in the township of Kimba. PLEASE PROVIDE AN
EXPLANATION HOW THIS OUTCOME CAN POSSIBLY BE CONSIDERED FAIR OR REASONABLE given the
potential direct NEGATIVE impacts such a facility could have on their future livelihoods and those of
the generations to come.
The Government and its Agencies have continued to widely publish via all mediums that the facility
in question has received “Broad Community Support” for its establishment at the Napandee site,
HOWEVER, not one of the FIVE Ministers who have held this portfolio during the FIVE years of
consideration of this project has EVER been able to publicly quantify or provide a decent description
of what BROAD COMMUNITY SUPPORT would entail. Instead it appears that those in power are just
making up a number as it suits their purpose, thus FORCING this project ahead DESPITE a huge
number of people both inside and outside the District Council of Kimba being OPPOSED to its
establishment.
The process to date has already, metaphorically speaking, exploded a nuclear bomb in the town and
wider district. A once tight knit, cohesive community is now so far divided that people are not
shopping locally or supporting other community activities because they feel unsafe in their own
town.
Given the far reaching implications that such a facility would have on the whole of Eyre Peninsula, I
would have thought it PRUDENT that any Government consider the thoughts and impacts on the
WHOLE OF EYRE PENINSULA and not just one single Council district consisting of approximately 800-
900 people. This is a NATIONAL issue, bringing with it serious potential risks which should absolutely
NOT be decided on the thoughts of one small community of this size.
FARMING land in South Australia represents 4.5% of the state’s total land mass. I CANNOT
understand how any responsible Government would willingly sacrifice and put at risk productive
agricultural land that makes a huge contribution to the economy of this state and therefore this
nation! Continue reading
Shirley Inglis – 5th generation Kimba resident – on hasty nuclear waste legislation – this plan has really hurt people
Shirl
ey Inglis – Submission to Sentae Committee re National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment (Site Specification, Community Fund and Other Measures) Bill 2020 [Provisions] Submission 88
I have found it difficult to understand why a radioactive waste facility needs to be placed amongst farmlands in Kimba. The community I grew up in has seen many changes, growth and struggles over time, but has survived. Much smaller communities than ours continue to soldier on despite hardships and adapted to these circumstances.
Only Kimba has been chosen to host a facility after Rowan Ramsey thought it was a good idea back in 2015 to nominate his land. What has happened since is continued stance that this must be accepted at all cost. I have a lack of trust in what the government proposes and how this has continually changed just like this amended Bill.
As I see out my twilight years that has seen five generations of family live in this community, it is saddening to think of how this has really hurt people.
People must be comfortable with such a proposal, and the best possible solution for Australia’s radioactive waste must be the government’s priority to take the time to get it right..
I hope that your Committee can recommend a better process to be found that respects all Australians to find the right outcome, and not this one.
Kerri-Ann Garlick – Lucas Heights is the correct place for Australia’s nuclear waste. The Kimba dump plan is unfair, undemocratic and dangerous.
Kerri-Ann Garlick Submission 99 to Senate Committee on National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment (Site Specification, Community Fund and Other Measures) Bill 2020 [Provisions]
The National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment Bill amends the National Radioactive Waste Management Act to specify a site near Kimba in South Australia for a nuclear waste ‘facility’ ‒ a repository for low-level waste and an above-ground ‘interim’ store for long-lived intermediate level waste.
I have deep concerns about the federal government’s proposed changes to the National Radioactive Waste Management Act. They are unfair, undemocratic and dangerous.
The government has no valid case on safety or security grounds and not made a clear case about the need for the planned national nuclear waste facility at Kimba.
The necessary infrastructure, resources and expertise for nuclear operations and waste management are all located at Lucas Heights and transferring the waste component of the system to a remote location at Kimba is a recipe for disaster in the medium and long term – up to 10,000 years from now, in the case of intermediate waste.
The whole process has been restricted and inadequate. The traditional owners of the land were disrespected and excluded from the purportedly public and democratic approval process. All citizens of Australia have a stake in the successful resolution of our national nuclear waste problems yet we were not consulted either.
The Bill is deeply flawed and should be rejected.
In particular, I am concerned that the planned changes:
- restrict or remove options for judicial review of the government’s site selection under
current laws, - unreasonably reduce the rights and options of the Barngarla Traditional Owners and other
directly impacted parties and have not been made with proper consultation, - exempt key environmental and cultural heritage protection laws from being usedfail to make any clear or compelling radiological or public health case for doubling handling the long-lived intermediate level waste (ILW) at significant public expense
- do not provide any certainty about the long-term management of Australia’s radioactive
waste, - are not consistent with international best practice in relation to siting, community
consultation or procedural fairness around radioactive waste, - do not recognise or respect long standing South Australian legislation prohibiting any federal
radioactive waste facility.Against the current context of uncertainty and disruption due to the impact of Covid 19 the further
uncertainty and contest generated by the federal government’s approach to radioactive waste is not
helpful or justified.
Radioactive Waste Management Taskforce pitching an old Community Benefit Program as something new
Kazzi Jai Fight To Stop A Nuclear Waste Dump In South Australia, 7 May 20, What is old becomes new again it seems! This “new” Community Benefit Program is actually the “old” 2019 Community Benefit Program – which was announced by Matt Canavan on October 8th, 2019…. which just “conveniently” coincided with the posting out by Kimba Council of postal votes on October 3, 2019. (Hawker/Quorn ballot was held a month later due to a SWOT analysis being requested by Flinders Ranges Council as a stipulation to the ballot voting proceeding)>This Community Benefit Funding is not an “extra” but was part of the agreement to remain in Phase 2 of the process in 2019 and was actually “owed” to both Communities (…as much as “bribe” money can be owed, but that is another story…)
Spin, spin, spin… https://www.facebook.com/groups/941313402573199/
1 This month
of the week – Disrupting War & Militarism in Oceania. Active solidarity. Radical practice.
Antinuclear 