Tilman Ruff: the Australian government has not made the case for Kimba nuclear waste site: a transparent public review is needed
Tilman A Ruff AO MB, BS (Hons), FRACP –
Associate Professor, Nossal Institute for Global Health, School of Population and Global Health, University
of Melbourne
Co-President, International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (Nobel Peace Prize, 1985)
Founding international and Australian Chair, International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (Nobel
Peace Prize 2017), Australian Committee member
Re: National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment (Site Specification, Community Fund and Other Measures) Bill 2020 [Provisions]
I have deep concerns about the federal government’s proposed changes to the National Radioactive Waste Management Act. The government has not made a clear case for the planned national facility at Kimba, and its 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; - exclude key environmental and cultural heritage protection laws from being
applied; - . fail to make any clear or compelling radiological public health case for double handling of long-lived intermediate level wastes (ILW) bat 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 management, and;
- do not recognise or respect long standing South Australian legislation prohibiting any federal radioactive waste facility
Katrina Bohr – an undemocratic farce – the National Radioactive Waste Management “community consultations”
Katrina Bohr – Submission to National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment (Site Specification, Community Fund and Other Measures) Bill 2020 [Provisions] Submission 84
The site selection process in South Australia has not been democratic. From the Traditional land owners to the pastoralists and agricultural land owners, many voices that have not been heard.
There has been a flood of information cascading the communities of Kimba, Quorn and Hawker for numerous years.
In 2018, in Minister Matt Canavan’s words when questioned in Parliament on his definition of Broad Community Support, said-
1. The formal vote in the Kimba Council area and the Flinders Ranges Council area is only
one input, and a very important factor.
2. Submissions and views of people that live outside the formal regions-who also have an
interest in stake.
4. The number is not just a simple majority.
In a meeting with Alexander Scott, the then Assistant Adviser to Matt Canavan, we were informed that the Minister would be looking at submissions after the postal vote.
However, the Minister’s decision was immediate upon ballot results.
Kimba only.
Nuclear Waste is not what South Australia needs or wants. A National Nuclear Waste Facility should not be carried by a small remote community. The Department’s process involved imposing themselves onto small communities, and into
people’s homes. That’s personal, and it affects the health and well being of individuals in the communities,
and the community as a whole.
I’m presuming that the Hawker and surrounds are just collateral damage.
The Government’s process from the site selection right through to the final decision has not
been a consultative one . The concerns of those who live in Kimba are very real. Were the views of indigenous people taken into account, as was stated by the Minister in Parliament?
There are many unanswered questions.
NO RADIOACTIVE WASTE ON AGRICULTURAL LAND IN KIMBA OR SOUTH AUSTRALIA
RECOMMENDATIONS ……That the National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment (Site Specification, Community Fund and Other Measures) Bill 202 be withdrawn, and an independent inquiry into the management of Australia’s radioactive waste be commissioned.
There are many examples of how this is process has been unfair and wrong…… COMMUNITY CONSULTATION……DEFINITION OF ‘NEIGHBOURS’…… ‘INFORMED CONSENT’…… Community Benefit Packages…… Siting on Agricultural Land….. Double handling of Intermediate Level Waste…. Declaration and Legislation of Selected Site
No Radioactive Waste on Agricultural Land in Kimba or SA Committee ,Submission No 80
“To campaign against any nuclear radioactive waste management facility in South Australia’s agricultural land
and in particular the District Council of Kimba
SUBMISSION TO THE SENATE INQUIRY INTO THE NATIONAL RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT
AMENDMENT
The No Radioactive Waste on Agricultural Land in Kimba or SA Committee was established in 2016 to represent 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.
As both a committee and individuals we have been heavily involved in the 5 year process the Federal
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.
As the Senate Committee would be well aware, the process which led to this point has been long and arduous,
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.
The proposal has caused, and continues to cause, significant division within our community, which has been
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.
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION
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.
The Hawker site was removed from the process due to lack of support as shown in the result of the ballot.
However, there is every probability this same finding would have been made in Kimba had the voting rules been equitable. Continue reading
Flinders Local Action Group want a new process for disposal of Australia’s nuclear waste
From the communities’ perspective this entire process has been dogged by a lack of procedural fairness.
There has been a flood of information but many of the finer details have been obscured. The communities
have been urged to vote “Yes” without knowing exactly what they were voting for.
It is little wonder that we view the proposed amendments, as far as we understand them, with
considerable concern and distrust. We are fearful of opening the way for future nuclear activities that
could be implemented or imposed without the need for public consultation, assent or debate
We are particularly worried that this legislation is being debated under the current cloud of CV-19. We
believe the debate should be postponed at least until this current national crisis has abated and we have
a clearer view of the country’s direction, the effects on our economy and the path to recovery.
We believe that this current process to establish a NRWMF should cease in favour of an entirely new
approach. This should be a fully consultative process, based on the best science to identify a site that is
geologically, culturally and socially suitable for the permanent disposal of Australian generated waste.
Greg Bannon (Spokesperson for the Flinders Local Action Group Inquiry into National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment (Site Specification, Community Fund and Other Measures) Bill 2020 [Provisions] Submission No 79
Introduction: For over 60 years Australia has been operating a nuclear reactor. A by-product of this
operation is nuclear waste. ANSTO plans to greatly increase the production of medical isotopes. To this
day, no single, safe location for the permanent disposal of Australian generated radioactive waste has
ever been established.
In March 2015, the Minister for Industry (DIIS) Ian McFarlane, seeking a new approach for Australia’s
nuclear waste, invited private land nominations from around Australia for assessment as potential sites for
a National Radioactive Waste Management Facility (NRWMF).
Six potential sites were short listed and in 2016 one of those, on Wallerberdina Station near the Flinders
Ranges, became the first to progress to the next stage. The other five sites were abandoned, including two
near Kimba in SA. In 2017, a year behind the Flinders, two new sites near Kimba were nominated, accepted
and embarked on the same process.
Flinders Local Action Group (FLAG): Many people, including Traditional Owners, landholders, residents
and visitors, believed that Wallerberdina was culturally and geologically unsuitable for such a proposal.
They began individually protesting about it. Sadly, individual voices carry little weight against a Federal
Department with a pre-determined agenda. This Group was formed in September, 2016, to bring those
voices together.
We have had over four years of interaction with DIIS on this issue and believe we are well qualified to
comment. We believe this particular model for the NRWMF and process developed to implement it is
badly flawed. It has Continue reading
Dr Helen Caldicott explains the (virtually eternal) problem of toxic nuclear waste – Submission to Senate Committee
how much water would theoretically be required to dilute all the high level waste expected to be on hand in the USA by the end of the 20th century, to existing drinking water standards?
The answer: If you add up all the fresh water in the world, including not only all lakes and rivers and glaciers and ground water, but also all the soil moisture (which far exceeds the sum total of all the other sources), and then double that grand total, then you have about the right amount of water to do the dilution.
The USGS points out that this calculation is only to emphasize why it is so important to keep this material out of the environment to an unprecedented degree.
Dr Helen Caldicott – re National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment (Site Specification, Community Fund and Other Measures) Bill 2020 [Provisions]. Submission No. 71. have deep concerns about the federal governments proposed changes to the National Radioactive Waste
Management Act.
process has been restricted and inadequate.
mutagenicity I attach the following summary of the elements in radioactive waste, which is written for Canada
but applies equally to all radioactive waste. And by the way France which has produced our radioactive waste
from Lucas Heights calls it high level, not low level radioactive waste!
Beyond Uranium Canberra. Group calls for an end to Kimba waste plan, wants Inquiry into nuclear waste management
Many thousands of Australians live on transport corridors and have not been informed about the risks or given a say.
The federal regulator has stated that
the ANSTO waste is safe where it is and there is no urgent need to
move it. Further, continuing access to nuclear medicine is not
dependent on a nuclear waste dump and the absence of such a
facility has not hindered the practice of nuclear medicine.
Beyond Uranium Canberra. re National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment (Site Specification, Community Fund and Other Measures) Bill 2020 [Provisions]. Submission No. 59
Beyond Uranium Canberra believes a full independent inquiry into the
best way to manage our most dangerous waste must be held. The
government must stop targeting remote and regional areas and give
Aboriginal people a right of veto for proposals that threaten their
country and culture.
We believe that nuclear power has no role in Australia’s energy future
and is a dangerous distraction from the climate challenges facing
Australia. Although a pro-nuclear NSW upper house inquiry has been
initiated by One Nation MLC Mark Latham who has recommended
removing the state’s long-standing legislative ban on uranium mining
and opening the door to nuclear power, Labor committee members
have reaffirmed their party’s opposition to uranium mining and
nuclear energy.
The inquiry report recommends the repeal of the Uranium Mining and
Nuclear Facilities (Prohibitions) Act , but a dissenting statement by
Labor committee members states that a ‘Labor Government will
maintain a ban on uranium exploration, extraction and export’ and a
‘Labor Government will not introduce nuclear power in NSW’.
The Australian Conservation Foundation has said Australia is blessed
with outstanding renewable resources and does not need to explore
dangerous nuclear energy options. The state ban on uranium mining
in NSW should remain. Uranium mining in NSW would risk the health
of the environment and regional communities for scant promise of
return. There is little to be gained and a lot to lose. We have no
confidence in nuclear reactor concepts that do not exist in the real
world of civilian electricity production. Small nuclear reactors exist on
paper, in corporate funding pitches and on military submarines – they
are not a credible response to the climate crisis.
Australia’s embattled uranium sector has been hard hit by the
commodity price collapse that followed the 2011 Fukushima nuclear
crisis, which was fuelled by Australian uranium. Since then uranium
operations have been routinely deferred or scrapped in jurisdictions
A broad coalition of civil society organisations, representing millions
of Australians, last year declared nuclear power has no role in
Australia’s energy future and is a dangerous distraction from real
progress on the climate challenges facing Australia.
Most of Australia’s waste is currently produced and stored at Lucas
Heights, south of Sydney, and ANSTO has acknowledged it can be
managed on-site for decades. The federal regulator has stated that
the ANSTO waste is safe where it is and there is no urgent need to
move it. Further, continuing access to nuclear medicine is not
dependent on a nuclear waste dump and the absence of such a
facility has not hindered the practice of nuclear medicine.
Most Australians are opposed, and affected communities are deeply divided.
Many thousands of Australians live on transport corridors and have not been informed about the risks or given a say. The ‘broad community consent’ the federal minister seeks does not exist.
Employment promises are deeply implausible and have been
repeatedly inflated. Agriculture and tourism are both market-sensitive
sectors and any planned facility could negatively impact these
industries.
A full independent inquiry into the best way to manage our most
dangerous waste must be held. The government must stop targeting
remote and regional areas and give Aboriginal people a right of veto
for proposals that threaten their country and culture. There are
significant cultural heritage concerns at and opposition from many
Aboriginal Traditional Owners where mining is allowed.
Katrina Lester: major South Australian Aboriginal groups not consulted in Kimba nuclear waste dump decision.
Katrina Lester, Submission No 49 to Senate Committee Inquiry on National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment (Site Specification, Community Fund and Other Measures) Bill 2020 I, Karina Lester make this submission on behalf of concerned members of the the
Yankunytjatjara Native Title Aboriginal Corporation RNTBC (YNTAC) (SCD2006/001), the
De Rose Hill – Ilpalka Aboriginal Corporation RNTBC (DRHIAC) (SCD2005/001), the
Tjayiwara Unmuru Aboriginal Corporation RNTBC (TUAC) (SCD2013/001), and the First
Nations of South Australia Aboriginal Corporation (FNSAAC).
At this stage, the aforesaid concerned members are opposed to the National Radioactive Waste Management National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment (Site Specification, Community Fund and Other Measures) Bill 2020. This is on the basis that there has been no engagement or consultation with the aforementioned concerned members, or the organisations of which they are a part.
While we acknowledge that the specified site for the radioactive waste management facility lies in the Barngarla Native Title Determination Area, this land has significance for a wider group of Aboriginal people, including members of YNTAC, DRHIAC, TUAC and FNSAAC.
The Bill overrides the proposed use of the specified site is thus a matter of significance for Aboriginal people
from across South Australia, whose non-native title rights and interests would be affected by
the construction and operation of a radioactive waste management facility at this site.
We particularly wish to raise concern about the way section 34GB overrides the application of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984 (ATSIHPA) and the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBCA), in relation to the activities authorised under section 34G of the Bill.
Many of the activities contemplated by section 34G have the potential to be highly destructive to Aboriginal sites and objects which would otherwise be protected by ATSIHPA. These activities also have the potential to cause serious environmental damage of the kind that would otherwise be prevented by the EPBCA. Parliament should not allow the introduction into legislation of provisions that undermine the fundamental objects and functionality of essential legislation like the ATSIHPA and the EPBCA.to be negotiated for damage to the heritage and environment of our ancestors. Should our ancient rights and interests be overridden, we will take appropriate action in in court to ensure
justice for our people and their environment.
We would welcome the opportunity to discuss further this submission if requested. Please feel
free to contact me by email at: in this regard.
Yours sincerely,
Karina Lester
Director: Yankunytjatjara Native Title Aboriginal Corporation
Tjayiwara Unmuru Aboriginal Corporation
Member: De Rose Hill – Ilpalka Aboriginal Corporation
First Nations of South Australia Aboriginal Corporation
Lodged on behalf of Karina Lester by:
Osker Linde
Deputy Principal Legal Officer
South Australian Native Title Services
Susan Craig: South Australia’s $27.9 billion food, wine and tourism markets endangered by Kimba nuclear waste dump plan
South Australia’s strength in this marketplace is the trust other countries have, in not only our clean reputation, but SAFE food. The establishment of a nuclear waste facility, in particular one that is built in the heart of agriculture is a profound contradiction of South Australia’s position and will put that reputation and business at risk.
Combined; the food, wine and tourism markets are valued at $27.9 billion, to South Australia, yet operators in this industry have been totally disregarded by the DIIS and denied the rightful and proper mechanisms to become involved and informed and therefore have never been given the opportunity prepare a case to defend their industries.
Susan Craig, Submission 62 (part 1) to Senate Committee re National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment (Site Specification, Community Fund and Other Measures) Bill 2020
CRITICAL THREAD
We must protect the environment serving potential growth areas and industries to maintain our clean, green, reputation and maintain our global competitive advantage in agriculture and food, tourism and other industries – CSIRO- Securing South Australia’s Future, CSIRO Publishing 2017.
Critical stakeholders in the food, wine, agriculture and tourism industries that operate throughout South Australia were never given the rightful and proper opportunity to engage with the Department of Industry Innovation and Science (DIIS) on the details relating to the National Radioactive Waste Management Facility (NRWMF).
The boundaries for consultation did not take into account economic geography and focused only on a local district, overlooking the many South Australian stakeholders who will be adversely affected by the establishment of nuclear waste facility; as it is a profound contradiction of their clean, green, pristine and SAFE reputation, which is the cornerstone of their sustainable competitive advantage in world markets.
SOUTH AUSTRALIA’S FOOD AND WINE REVENUE IS VALUED AT $20.3 BILLION
“Particularly in regional South Australia”. “South Australia’s primary industries are a vital part of the state’s
economy. Grains, livestock, horticulture, wine, seafood, forests and dairy sectors are significant contributors to the state’s exports. In 2017–18, South Australia’s gross food and wine revenue totalled $20.3 billion.”
https://www.pir.sa.gov.au/ data/assets/pdf file/0011/339842/PIR
The most important commodity in South Australia based on the gross value of agricultural production is wheat (valued at $1.7 billion)
o Well-established natural resource management.
o Environmental protection frameworks.
o Impeccable food safety and quality assurance standards.
Protecting South Australia’s clean air, soil and water is vital for the prosperity of our food and wine sectors.
Demand for South Australian products is increasing due to our high quality safety and production standards.
SA Tourism soars to break new record $7.6 billion
South Australia’s visitor economy worth $7.6 billion – NVS and IVS results.
SUMMARY
The cornerstone of South Australia’s food, wine and tourism industries is without question; its premium, clean, green, SAFE reputation which is clearly understood by the South Australian Government, South Australia’s primary producers, tourism industries and the international markets who enjoy these products and services.
South Australia’s strength in this marketplace is the trust other countries have, in not only our clean reputation, but SAFE food. The establishment of a nuclear waste facility, in particular one that is built in the heart of agriculture is a profound contradiction of South Australia’s position and will put that reputation and business at risk.
Combined; the food, wine and tourism markets are valued at $27.9 billion, to South Australia, yet operators in this industry have been totally disregarded by the DIIS and denied the rightful and proper mechanisms to become involved and informed and therefore have never been given the opportunity prepare a case to defend their industries.
Until engagement between the National Radioactive Waste Management committee, the Department of Industry, Innovation and Science and those critical South Australian stakeholders in the South Australian primary industries and tourism sector takes place, the current plans for the NRWMF should be halted
Please accept my submission in asking the committee to reject any amendments to the National Radioactive Waste Management Susan Craig, Independent Campaigner
Susan Craig: in Kimba “Informed Consent” not possible, as the community was not properly informed
Susan Craig Submission No 62. to the Senate Committee Inquiry on National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment Bill (part 2)
CRITICAL THREAD – “Informed Consent” – voting is not possible if there is insufficient knowledge of the process.
Informed consent is based on a clear appreciation and understanding of the facts, identifying the implications, adverse risks and consequences of an action.
Because the KIMBA community were not given an unbiased and objective view
of the long term implications of the National Radioactive Waste Management
Facility (NRWMF), it is not possible for them to be in a duly qualified position
to determine the best long term solution for KIMBA and therefore they were
never afforded the opportunity to execute their decision to vote based on
“informed consent”.
INFORMATION PROVIDED TO THE KIMBA COMMUNITY BY THE DEPT. OF
INDUSTRY, INNOVATION AND SCIENCE (DIIS).information in
support of the NRWMF; outlining ONLY the proposed potential benefits
to the community of KIMBA.
The proponents of the NRWMF, DIIS, only disseminated information in support of the NRWMF ,outlining only the propsed potential benefits to the community of Kimba. At no stage during the consultation process
Because the KIMBA community were not given an unbiased and objective viewof the long term implications of the National Radioactive Waste Management Facility (NRWMF), it is not possible for them to be in a duly qualified position to determine the best long term solution for KIMBA and therefore they were never afforded the opportunity to execute their decision to vote based on “informed consent”.
At no stage during the consultation process did DIIS present the risks associated with a NRWMF to the community. Nor did they actively engage with an independent authority asking them to provide
information on the risks that the facility would pose.
A risk assessment was never carried out by DIIS to explain the
consequences of a radiological release and the effect it would have on
human life, the environment, agriculture and subsequent risk of a shift
in product / region value and land values
Refer to:
“National Radioactive Waste Management Facility Taskforce:
Information pack.” The hyperlink below [on original] is to the list of 25 documents covering various aspects of
the NRWMF and is representative of the print material distributed throughout
the Kimba community, leading up to the ballot. Note the absence of
information/documentation relating to potential risks.
Furthermore, the document titled “Safety and Security,” (extract below) shows
the extreme and unfair bias for the NRWMF. The Task Force in their dealings
and consultation were unethical and opportunist by using deception and
concealment to persuade the ill-informed taskforce-information-pack.
This information serves to demonstrate the inequitable information
that was disseminated to the Kimba community.
THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION REPRESENTS POTENTIAL RISKS
THAT WERE NEVER PART OF THE INFORMATION PROVIDED BY DIIS
TO THE KIMBA COMMUNITY.
Interim might be forever. With regards to the intermediate/high level
nuclear waste, the Kimba community needed to understand that
“interim” could mean storage for an indefinite period—perhaps
forever—if a permanent disposal facility is not constructed. Even if a
date for opening a permanent repository was stated, it is meaningless,
as the community would be relying on future Governments to uphold
the promise over the next 10, 20 – 100 years and make the tenuous
assumption that future Governments would have the expertise, impetus
or financial resources to implement them. DIIS advised the Kimba
community that the intermediate level waste would be ‘temporary,”
never referencing “indefinite” and only once the NRWMF was
established, would they commence identifying a possible permanent
facility for the intermediate/high level
Therefore the Kimba community were never informed.
A risk assessment was never carried out by DIIS to explain the
consequences of a radiological release and the consequence this would
have on human life, the environment, agriculture and subsequent risk of
a shift in product / region value and land values. This information was
never part of the consultation process.
Therefore the KIMBA community were never informed.
A Radiation Emergency Preparedness and Response Action plan was
never presented by DIIS to the Kimba community, in accordance with
ARPANSA regulations that refer to the IAEA Response Assistance
Network (RANET).
As stated by ARPANSA and the IAEA. “It is the responsibility of the State
Emergency response agencies with radiation protection guidance from
State Radiation Safety Officers to respond to a radiation emergency
within their jurisdiction.” (RANET).
“As part of these activities, it develops safety standards, guidelines and
technical tools; assists Member States in building the capacity for
emergency response; and maintains the IAEA Incident and Emergency
System to efficiently implement its role in response to nuclear or
radiological incidents and emergencies, regardless of whether they arise
from accident, negligence or deliberate act.”
A Radiation Emergency Preparedness and Response Action plan
specifically addressing and tailored to the NRWMF at Kimba does not
exist and was never presented as part of the proposal.
Therefore the Kimba community were never informed.
Without the above information being provided to the KIMBA community by
DIIS, the community has absolutely no understanding as to the consequences
of their vote in the community ballot and therefore should be disregarded and
declared to be of no consequence in assessing “broad community support”.
To do otherwise would be morally and legally negligent.
Because the KIMBA community were not given an unbiased and objective view
of the long term implications of the NRWMF, it is not possible for them to be in
a duly qualified position to determine the best long term solution for KIMBA
and therefore they were never afforded the opportunity to execute their
decision to vote based on “informed consent.”
Brett Stokes: South Australian law has been repeatedly breached by the deceptive National Radioactive Waste Dump plot
(a) encourage and support South Australian police to enforce the law against illegal
use of public money in a manner prohibited under s13 of Nuclear Waste Storage
Facility (Prohibition) Act 2000.
disgraceful “site selection process”.
I am happy for this submission to be made public.
Censored Previous Submission
Subject – Selection process for a national radioactive waste management facility in South Australia (see on this site Brett Stokes shows how plans for nuclear waste dumping in South Australia have breached S.A. law)
Ngoppon Together Reconciliation Group: Kimba nuclear waste dump opposed by Indigenous, and other South Australians
|
Ngoppon Together Reconciliation Group, Submission No 3 to National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment (Site Specification, Community Fund and Other Measures) Bill 2020 . Ngoppon Together Reconciliation Group write to you in support of the Barngarla people of Eyre Peninsula, who have fought so hard to protect their ancestral home from nuclear waste.
Senator Matt Canaban announced that Kimba, Eyre Peninsula, has been selected for the proposed Nuclear Waste Storage Facility. Why select a site within one of South Australia’s best cropping areas? Grain farming in the Kimba district brings in up to $80 million per annum.. The Federal Government’s promise of a $30 million development package is, with respect, “peanuts”, compared with the long terms risks.
Only inhabitants of a small zone around Kimba were entitled to vote. This excleded the Barngarla people, traditional caretakers of the land and native title holders, and other nearby inhabitants who objected to the proposal. If the 50km radius zone had been applied to Kimba,as it was to Hawker, the vote would have failed. Just 52 Kimba locals cannot speak for 1.7 million South Australians, The majority of South Australians have objected to nuclear proposals for many years.
Medical waste is mainly low level radiation with fast breakdown., but 90% of the waste is intermediate level, and can take up to 10,000 tears to degrade It includes spent nuclear fuel rods, classified as high level waste in France. To complicate matters, it will be stored temporarily in above ground structures until a safe reposirary is designed, approved and built. One hundred trucks will transport the wastes over a 1700 km route over a four year period. As yet there has been no community consultation about the route.
The Federal Government has decided to go ahead with the proposal, despite unanimous opposition from the Barngarla people. The Barngarla Determination Aboriginal Corporation initiated a legal action, protesting their exclusion from the ballot. This failed. The BDAC also asked the Australian Electoral Corporation to change the ballot to a confidential postal vote. This was unsuccessful. The BDAC wrote to the Federal Government, calling for the dump proposal to be abandoned.in the light of their unanimous opposition. They are determined to maintain their fight against the Nuclear Waste Dump..
Honorary Secretary Jacqueline Merckenschlager https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Economics/RadioactiveWaste/Submissions?fbclid=IwAR0v5FeP2_iTZbTmkrFA3HNLS29dko4g2NgxUR7UaiuSUyVDh62bDFOLxwA
|
|
Geraldine Gillen: Napandee nuclear waste dump -illegal, damaging to agriculture’s image, unwanted, unnecessary
Re: Flawed Federal process contrary to Nuclear Safety Committee advice and untenable interim nuclear waste storage compromises Safety & Security and Rights & Interests in SA Geraldine Gillen Submission No. 18 to National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment (Site Specification, Community Fund and Other Measures) Bill 2020 .
I contend that the Construction of a nuclear waste dump in SA at Kimba is currently illegal under SA Law passed by the State Liberal Government in 2000. We also had a Citizen’s Jury which said “NO”.
The Bill is deeply flawed on many fronts and should be rejected. It specifically targets SA for a national nuclear waste “facility” – a repository for low-level waste and an above-ground ‘interim’ (indefinite) store for long-lived intermediate-level waste including nuclear reactor fuel waste. At the same time the Federal Government is making no effort to find an alternative permanent site for this waste.
Why is the Federal Government not using its own land for this purpose? Why has it looked to private land? What is the real motive?
including cancer, cardiovascular disease, emphysema and cataracts – and if it enters the soil can contaminate our food and water.
continues to disempower and dispossess the Barngarla Traditional Owners who are unanimous in their opposition to the proposed nuclear waste facility. I have stood with them and the Kimba community who are opposed to this dump on the steps of SA Parliament House and this year at Kimba. I will continue to do so.
Besides the Barngarla people, many people in the Kimba community were unable to vote. People who originally were told they were neighbours, suddenly were not because a road between their property and another deemed them to be ineligible. People holding property who were just outside the area, did not get a vote. The process of how was eligible for voting needs to be explored by this Committee. Statistic have been misused both by the Government and then by the media.
how we plan and manage our land, resources and social responsibilities in the future.
Now is the time to scrap this Bill. more https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Economics/RadioactiveWaste/Submissions?fbclid=IwAR0v5FeP2_iTZbTmkrFA3HNLS29dko4g2NgxUR7UaiuSUyVDh62bDFOLxwA
Caring for South Australia reject nuclear waste dumping: it will jeopardise South Australian food production
Australian govt’s devious ploy to further dispossess the Bangarla Aboriginal people
First Nations communities continue to be left behind, Eureka Street, Michele Madigan -22 Apr 20 “………..As well as their own real fears for their health in the COVID-19 pandemic as documented in their recent submission (number 25) to the Senate Standing Economics Legislation Committee of Inquiry the Barngarla peoples of South Australia’s Eyre Peninisula are being forced to counter attempts to further their dispossession in new schemes by federal government. The Barngarla Determination Aboriginal Committee (BDAC) plead with the federal government to delay the current procedures so that the public hearings regarding the site of the federal nuclear waste facility in the Kimba region may take place ‘on Country’ rather than by teleconference, which would greatly disadvantage their cause.
Even more seriously, the BDAC submission (among others) denounces the purposeful strategy by the Resources Minister in refusing to make a formal declaration. Instead, the Minister made ‘a policy decision’ in naming the chosen site of Napandee, having ‘presented it as a declaration’.
BDAC points out, ‘The Government is now seeking to legislate directly, as an indirect but very effective means to prevent judicial oversight.’ That is, the Minister is seeking to change the current legislation of the National Radioactive Waste Management Act so that Parliament itself will ‘select’ Napandee as the site and thereby stopping any judicial oversight of anything untoward in the long administrative process to date.
As the BDAC submission summarises, ‘This is highly concerning to the Barngarla people as it should be to all Australians.’
In the last few days, the federal Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights has written a report critical of the treatment of Barngarla Traditional Owners. It is a unanimous report, endorsed by Coalition members of the Committee.
And there we have it. As Aboriginal communities still await the needed funding to ensure their survival during this pandemic, the wheels of another government ministry are confidently seeking to further dispossess and disempower by such proposed legislation. Shameful indeed.
Michele Madigan is a Sister of St Joseph who has spent the past 38 years working with Aboriginal people in remote areas of SA, in Adelaide and in country SA. Her work has included advocacy and support for senior Aboriginal women of Coober Pedy in their campaign against the proposed national radioactive dump. https://www.eurekastreet.com.au/article/first-nations-communities-continue-to-be-left-behind?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Eureka%20Street%20Daily%20-%20Wednesday%2022%20April%202020&utm_content=Eureka%20Street%20Daily%20-%20Wednesda
An initial brief look at the submissions to the Senate Nuclear Waste Bill Inquiry
Initial Summary: – focussing on submissions from individuals , with brief looks at those from organisations
* Of the 102 submissions published, 74 were ‘against’; 19 were ‘for’; one (ANSTO’s) was ‘neutral’; and eight were ‘unknown’ (as details were confidential).
* The leading explicitly-stated concern was with the process and decision-making (71 of 102), followed by the environment (67 of 102), health and safety (65 of 102), the economy (62 of 102) and traditional owners’ rights (47 of 102).
Six out of 13 favourable submissions were from people with the surname Baldock. (Jeff Baldock sold the land for the site to the government) – Source : https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Economics/RadioactiveWaste/Submissions
1 This month
of the week – Disrupting War & Militarism in Oceania. Active solidarity. Radical practice.
Antinuclear 