Antinuclear

Leanne Lienert not necessarily opposed to nuclear waste dump, but very critical of the process

There are far too many discrepancies in the information, consultation process and long term impacts to have such a facility based at Kimba (or Hawker). 

the consultation process has been an insult to the intelligence of rural people. 

Leanne Lienert Submission to Senate, re  National Radioactive Waste Management Facility in South Australia Submission  (Submission No. 50)   I wish to offer my thoughts to the process currently occurring within two regional areas of South Australia with an emphasis on the Kimba area. From the outset I wish to say that I am not opposed entirely to such a facility being built within South Australia – but I am extremely concerned about the process of consultation, the logisitics and location of such a site and the long term effects on vibrant farming/rural communities.

Financial Compensation  interestingly the offer of substantial money to individuals to offer up their land plus the supposed ongoing dollars is the driving force locally for the facility to be placed at Kimba. Kimba farming district, as all farms across the world, are being farmed by fewer people as technology and modern machinery changes farming practices. It also often means that individual farmers are buying up more and more land for their own needs as smaller farmers can’t compete. Interestingly those buying up land are also the ones now edging to gain financially from this current waste facility proposal. I read one article where a farmer who has offered his farm considers it will drought proof the Kimba District to have the $2 million dollars – This amount of money divided between those affected by a drought would be chicken feed where the costs each year to produce a crop is significant. This community is not poor – it is creative and community minded with little unemployment. Nowadays many young people gain a trade to supplement the farms where they live and work – and as happens across the world others gravitate to the cities

While this money is a huge enticement, logically, the big picture cost of transporting radioactive waste from all over Australia to a small rural community doesn’t seem to be discussed in the consultation! If this waste is as safe as promised why is there a need to move it such long distances when it could presumably be located closer to the source with smaller facilities within each state or shared states?

“Broad community support” –how has it played out currently and will continue into the future I spent my childhood up until early adult years in this vibrant rural community where community participation, comradery, innovation and support has always been paramount. I still have a brother and his family on the farm plus my mother. I specifically know people who have been affected on both sides by this whole process and it is beyond me with the ongoing extent of the consultation that this disconnection and destruction of the community fabric has not been the deciding factor in saying this location is inappropriate on so many levels – socially, emotionally and mentally. It is sad that locally and politically at a Federal level that the lure of money (greed) has risen to hold such a high position in exchange for a totally altered community ethos!

This process has divided the community to such an extent that (people I know well)

• – sporting teams have been affected because people will not play with those of differing opinion.
• –  people have moved out of Kimba because they no longer feel comfortable in long term friendship groups who are now split by differing opinions
• – people do not patronise business who are known to have opposite views to each other e.g. supermarkets, coffee shop, cafe – a distrust of information given to support the facility
• – queries that there is too much wider information that has not been disclosed or has been misleading e.g. the locations were deliberately local farm names or Hundred names to disguise it not being at Kimba – such as Pinkawillinie, enticements to visit Lucas Heights in an attempt to ‘prove’ and market how safe it is while choosing to locate it so far away in a rural community, and also emotionally tagging people who are against it insinuating that they will have xrays or nuclear medicine treatments and are therefore hypocrites to not support it.
• – voting for the facility only included those in the Kimba District
• – interestingly a farmer who borders a proposed property and who is opposed to the waste facility idea is in the next council area and he didn’t get a say – I consider this an injustice. Even to the extent that he was told that it wasn’t ‘adjacent’ because it was across the other side of a dirt road – I wonder if the same person on a city block would think this was fair if a facility was built on a vacant block over the road from them!!
• – A person I know very well owns a sheep stud – he has chosen not to disclose his own opinion of the facility for a real fear that those with an opposite view will not by rams from his stud.
• – The need to remain neutral has caused some tensions between a son and mother (who is opposed to the facility) for fear he will be linked publicly to her views and it will reflect on his business and therefore affect those who patronise him.
• – The notion that many jobs will be created also doesn’t ring true
• – with a world of fly-in, fly-out employment it doesn’t seem logical that many jobs would be permanently located at Kimba. – I have heard locals say it will attract tourists!!
• – what would they see? How big will this facility actually be?
• – What is the impact to transport this type of waste such long distances through populated areas all across Australia to some tiny area on Eyre Peninsular?
• – again if it is so safe why haven’t areas much closer to the source of radioactive waste been considered? It doesn’t seem to make logical sense?

Broad Community Support 

• – what does this mean? Initially it was promised that any opposition to such a facility would mean it wouldn’t go ahead. The goal posts changed dramatically in a short space of time so that a vote with a slim majority of 2-3% meant the second round of consultation went ahead and if this continues it’s possible that as few as 300 people will make the decision for all of South Australia to have such a facility here. Is it a fair process if there is not a majority of at least 70:30 to allow this facility to go ahead especially in a decision that has an ongoing impact for many generations to come in terms of governance, changing definitions of “medium’ levels of waste, possible mishaps etc. Community Benefits Program
• – If community benefits programs were to eventuate I am wondering how this would happen constructively in a community divided by the process – will the damage created continue to foster antagonism in gaining support for initiatives?
• – Who would manage the money within the community and how would allocation of funds be decided? Would it be at a local level or would it become a political football?
• – How would such a small community have a voice in changing political processes into the future?
• – Would ‘medium level’ waste alter as the years go on? How would this be guaranteed and trusted?

Eyre Peninsular and state wide considerations   

– The wider implications of a radioactive waste facility being located within a vibrant grain growing area and its impact on a clean and green agricultural area cannot be dismissed.

This issue is not just for this productive region but all of the Eyre Peninsular and South Australia as a whole therefore the consultation needs to be widened and include both the region and the state in any final considerations. – I feel that the whole economic impact area needs some dialogue and debate because once this process begins it cannot be reversed. – In a country where the greatest population and food growing areas are positioned relatively close to the coast it doesn’t seem logical to locate such a facility in an area known for its quality and quantity of agricultural produce – there is a massive land mass that could be utilised instead of impacting on a small vibrant farming district.

Other related matters

I wonder why (and would like to see the reasons ‘why not’) places such as Leigh Creek (already exposed areas that could be covered within the open cut mine areas to the degree needed), Roxby Downs (already radioactive, with large areas that could house such a facility with easy access via rail or road), Woomera (where the government already utilises vast areas of land and with ready access) or even the Defence Force land at El Alamein near Port Augusta (where the area extends all the way to Iron Knob) – because once again it is promoted as being extremely safe.

In conclusion, after following the progress of the consultation in the Kimba district over the last two years, I feel that there are far too many discrepancies in the information, consultation process and long term impacts to have such a facility based at Kimba (or Hawker).

I also feel that the consultation process has been an insult to the intelligence of rural people. That it was considered (especially in the earlier parts of the consultation), this was one small, insignificant community who could be bluffed/lured into such a facility with money and would really have no idea about radioactive waste and probably wouldn’t care!

If South Australia decides to take on the responsibility of a radioactive waste facility then I hope that this enquiry can honour the true spirit that makes a rural community flourish and not set up processes that will continue to drive wedges between its people in the name of money. Please find a place that does not interrupt genuine people who lives are entwined with the land – whether that be our Aboriginal people, farmers or country towns.

June 1, 2018 Posted by Christina Macpherson | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump | Leave a comment

No clear meaning of “broad community support” – the fatal flaw in Australian government’s push to impose a nuclear waste dump

Brian Cant Elected member District Council of Kimba, Submission RE: SITE SELECTION PROCESS FOR A NATIONAL RADIOCTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITY IN SOUTH AUSTRALIA (Submission no. 49) 
(b) How the need for ‘broad community support” has played and will continue to play a part
in the process

The definition of “broad community Support” has consistently been one of the most significant points of contention since the NRWMF project was announced, not just in Kimba, but from every corner of Australia.

One constant throughout the process has been criticism from both sides about a lack of clarity from the Department about how ”broad community support” would be defined, and subsequently measured, during the consultation process.

As a result, this uncertainty has exacerbated community angst on what was already an
emotive subject. It is possible that the community stress could have been either minimised or
avoided altogether had the Department identified defining “broad community support” as a
project priority from the outset.

May 30, 2018 Posted by Christina Macpherson | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump | Leave a comment

Submission: NO RADIOACTIVE WASTE ON AGRICULTURAL LAND IN KIMBA OR SOUTH AUSTRALIA.

NO RADIOACTIVE WASTE ON AGRICULTURAL LAND IN KIMBA OR SA.SUBMISSION TO THE SENATE INQUIRY INTO THE SELECTION PROCESS FOR A NATIONAL RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITY IN SOUTH AUSTRALIA.“To campaign against any nuclear radioactive waste management facility in South Australia’s agricultural land and in particular the District Council of Kimba” Toni Scott Secretary No Radioactive Waste on Agricultural Land in Kimba or SA (Submission No. 46)

The No Radioactive Waste on Agricultural Land in Kimba or SA is a group of local residents, farmers and business owners opposed to building a Radioactive Waste Facility on prime farming land in Kimba. Our 240 financial members consist mainly of people from Kimba and the broader Eyre Peninsula.

We would like to thank the Senators that have given their time to investigate this process. Through our experiences with the process we conclude that the site selection process for the siting of a national radioactive waste dump is flawed, we have taken the time to outline some of our concerns and ask that you would consider our recommendations.

1. The definition of Broad Community Support has been inconsistent throughout the process. We recommend that the Minister sets a % for broad community support.
2. 2. We are strongly opposed to the siting of a Radioactive Waste Facility on Agricultural Land.
3. 3. The process is divisive and lacks honesty, fairness and transparency.

Members of the No Radioactive Waste on Agricultural Land in Kimba or SA invite further consultation with your inquiry and would be happy to provide more information through a hearing.

ATTACHMENTS:

1.National Radioactive Waste Management Facility (NRWMF)

Phase 1 Summary Report April 2016

2. National Radioactive Waste Management Facility Project Summary of engagement in the Kimba community December 2016 www.radioactivewaste.gov.au
3. Declaration of Results. Distric Council of Kimba. National Radioctive Waste Management Project Ballot
4. National Radioactive Waste Management Facility Phase 1 Summary Report. Kimba 2017
5. Attachment A. Objectives and Criteria
6. Code of Practice for the near surface disposal of radioactive waste in Australia (1992). Radiation health series No 35
7. Low – Intermediate Level Radioactive Waste Facility Process Timeline NRWMF in Kimba

These attachments can be downloaded with this Submission No. 46 at    https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Economics/Wastemanagementfacility/Submissions

May 29, 2018 Posted by Christina Macpherson | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump | Leave a comment

South Australia’s No Dump Alliance sends a powerful submission opposing Federal nuclear waste dump plan for Flinders Ranges

The project has been framed by the government since its inception as a project where only local communities will be consulted.

 Such an approach is untenable as this is a federal government initiative to develop a purpose built facility for the disposal and storage of Australia’s radioactive waste. This is a national issue that demands national attention and assessment. While it may be politically expedient, it is neither credible nor responsible for the federal government to treat this issue as a local government or community matter.

 “The Adnyamathanha Traditional Lands Association remains totally opposed to the nuclear waste dump at Wallerberdina”

There is a strong risk that the waste could become stranded and forgotten about should future governments fail to find the finances or political will to dispose of the waste deep underground.

the residents who are in favour of the proposal have not been given full, complete and unbiased information to inform their decision.

No Dump Alliance submission into the appropriateness and thoroughness of the site selection process for a national radioactive waste storage facility Introduction  .” Vince Coulthard, CEO of the Adnyamathanha Traditional Lands Association. (Submission No. 45) 

The No Dump Alliance is a broad cross-section of South Australian civil society, including Indigenous, public health, trade union, faith and environment groups, academics and concerned individuals that formed in response to proposals to open South Australia up to international high-level nuclear waste importation and dumping. The Alliance also opposes the federal government’s continued push to establish a national nuclear waste dump and store in regional SA.

The No Dump Alliance supports local communities to voice their concerns, welcomes state government legislation that prohibits a nuclear waste dump in SA, and calls for a better process for the management of Australia’s nuclear waste. The No Dump Alliance welcomes this inquiry and the opportunity to contribute this submission. The Alliance also encourages the Committee to hold hearings in the regional areas of Hawker and Kimba to hear firsthand from the communities on the front line. The Alliance also welcomes hearings in Canberra to consider the views of national and state stakeholders and groups. This is a national project and is of national concern.

Spokespeople for the Alliance include Vivianne McKenzie from the Flinders Ranges and Peter Woolford, No Radioactive Waste Dump on Agricultural Land in Kimba or SA President and Jamie Newlyn from the MUA SA Branch.

The radioactive waste to be disposed and stored is both “low level” and “long lived intermediate level”. The latter must be managed safely for many thousands of years and current best practice to realise this is by deep geological disposal.

No Dump Alliance members have been closely involved with the current federal waste plan and process and concluded that the site selection process for a national radioactive waste storage facility at Kimba and Hawker in South Australia is flawed and neither appropriate nor thorough. We maintain that the current project should be discontinued.

The following specifically addresses the terms of reference.

1. a)the financial compensation offered to applicants for the acquisition of land under the Nominations of Land Guidelines;

We believe that inviting private landowners to nominate their land for financial gain far in excess of the land value is a non- scientific way to determine a location for a national radioactive waste facility. We also believe that a single party nomination model cannot be credible considered to represent a ‘volunteer’ process.

1. b) how the need for ‘broad community support’ has played and will continue to play a part in the process, including:
2. i) The definition of ‘broad community support’

 Since May 2015 the federal government and its DIIS representatives have consistently refused to define “broad community consent” in both public meetings and in writing. Members of our organisation have been told different definitions but none have been able to be confirmed in writing.

The figure 65% has been mentioned and we believe this figure was determined by the result in the flawed Orima telephone survey which purported to survey whether residents of the Flinders Ranges council district wished to proceed to Phase 2 of the site selection process.

 A postal vote of Kimba council residents resulted in a 56.5% positive result to proceed to Phase 2, which is well short of the 65% previously mentioned. We reject the claim that this is broad community support, rather it is a sign of a much-divided community.

56. ii) How ‘broad community support’ has been or will be determined for each process advancement stage. The figure 65% has been mentioned and we believe this figure was determined by the result in the flawed Orima telephone survey which purported to survey whether residents of the Flinders Ranges council district wished to proceed to Phase 2 of the site selection process. A postal vote of Kimba council residents resulted in a 56.5% positive result to proceed to Phase 2, which is well short of the 65% previously mentioned. We reject the claim that this is broad community support, rather it is a sign of a much-divided community. ii) How ‘broad community support’ has been or will be determined for each process advancement stage.

The NRWMF Community Sentiment Survey purported to survey whether residents of the Flinders Ranges council district (Hawker, Quorn and Cradock) wished to proceed to Phase 2 of the site selection process.

This telephone survey was incomplete and inadequate because it did not survey the entire population of the area and was biased because it only surveyed residents with landline telephones. The flawed survey only asked residents if they wanted to proceed to the evaluation of the site and not actually build a facility. Flinders Ranges council residents have not had an opportunity for a complete postal vote conducted by the AEC.

The Adnyamathanha people are the Traditional Owners of the Barndioota site and their representative body the Adnyamathanha Traditional Lands Association (ATLA) has repeatedly expressed clear opposition. The No Dump Alliance believes that it is critical that the views and position of the overwhelming majority of Traditional Owners are listened to and respected in relation to the appropriateness of a site.

A postal vote was held for the Kimba council region and resulted in a 56.6% positive result to proceed to Stage 2. This survey did not include the views of the Traditional Owners from the area who must be consulted and should have been consulted at the initial nomination.

 We believe that both survey results were influenced strongly by the offer of $2 million to be spent in the community, and that this was an intentional and deliberate inducement to sway the community opinion towards a positive result.

Despite seeking clarification, we have not been able to ascertain what the procedure and process will be to evaluate whether there is broad community consent should the government wish the project to proceed from Phase 3 to construction.

1. c) how any need for Indigenous support has played and will continue to play a part in the process, including how Indigenous support has been or will be determined for each process advancement stage;

The federal government has stated that no individual group will have a right of veto. The Citizen’s Jury into the former Weatherill state government’s international radioactive waste facility proposal found overwhelming support for the right of veto for Aboriginal people. Former Premier Weatherill wrote to Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull on 24 October 2017 outlining concerns about a national nuclear waste dump and store plan and recommending that local Aboriginal people should have the right of veto over any dump being built on their lands. The relevant quote from Mr Weatherill’s letter is as follows:

“I recently met with Traditional Owners of the Adnyamathanha community who expressed deep concern about the proposed site at Hawker, and the potential impacts on Adnyamathanha Cultural Heritage”…….” This engagement process was insightful and highlighted the need for a bigger conversation about how Aboriginal people want to be seen, valued and recognised and on ‘unfinished businesses from the past. In particular, Aboriginal people’s history with the nuclear industry demonstrates a need for significant healing. In recognition, the South Australian government committed to provide a local Aboriginal community with a final right of veto over any future facility proposed on their lands. I recommend that the Commonwealth Government now consider adopting a similar policy position as part of the National Radioactive Waste Management Facility process.”

 In the NRWMF community sentiments survey by Orima Research released in April 2016 it shows on page 60 of the report that 97% of Indigenous people opposed the facility at Barndioota.

 The Orima report did not table any views of Indigenous people in relation to support for the project to continue.

The Adnyamathanha Traditional Lands Association (ATLA), composed of 23 different organisations and interest groups released a statement in May 2016 opposing a nuclear waste facility.

Recently on March 24, 2018 the ATLA board reaffirmed opposition with the passing of this resolution:

 “The Adnyamathanha Traditional Lands Association remains totally opposed to the nuclear waste dump at Wallerberdina

This is our land, our culture and we must have veto over this toxic waste being dumped in our country. Udnyus come and go but we will be here forever. We say NO to the waste dump, for our grandchildren and their grandchildren and many generations to come.”

In the 2016/2017 ATLA annual report stated: “The National Waste Dump continues to be an issue and ATLA remains totally opposed to the waste dump at Wallerberdina. ATLA has been treated very poorly in this whole process and it has been a real struggle to ensure our voice is heard.”

 The No Dump Alliance understands that ATLA was not approached or engaged until the NRWMF project was into stage 2.

Surveys are not assessing the views of Adnyamathanha people who live outside the region; with a significant part of the community living in Port Augusta and Adelaide.

1. d) whether and/or how the Government’s ‘community benefit program’ payments affect broad community and Indigenous community sentiment;

 We believe that the government has linked the project to the promises of jobs and community grants as an inducement to deliberately influence community consent. We believe this is intentional and deliberate, and designed to sway the community into returning a positive result towards the project.

There have been many discussions and assertions by local residents that they have decided to be in favour of the facility by the mere fact that the government says it will bring jobs and money. This is despite scant detail being provided by the project proponent about the employment and economic impacts of the planned facility.

1. e) whether wider (Eyre Peninsular or state-wide) community views should be taken into consideration and, if so, how this is occurring or should be occurring; and

The project has been framed by the government since its inception as a project where only local communities will be consulted.

 Such an approach is untenable as this is a federal government initiative to develop a purpose built facility for the disposal and storage of Australia’s radioactive waste. This is a national issue that demands national attention and assessment. While it may be politically expedient, it is neither credible nor responsible for the federal government to treat this issue as a local government or community matter.

The community to be consulted for the Barndioota facility was originally designated at a 50km radius around the dump, which was then extended to include Quorn and the whole Flinders Ranges council.

 The community to be consulted for the Kimba facility was designated as residents of the Kimba council on the electoral roll.

The construction of a facility could have a significant impact on the reputation of either community, with a detrimental impact on the tourism and farming industries upon which the communities depend.

1. f) any other related matters.

The radioactive waste facility is intended to dispose and store both “low-level” and “longlived intermediate level” radioactive waste.

The facility is intended as an “interim” location for the “long-lived intermediate level” radioactive waste, as world’s best practice currently views deep geological disposal as the preferred management option. The waste would be stored above ground, as the current government does not have a site or a process to determine a site to build its final deep geological burial facility. There is a strong risk that the waste could become stranded and forgotten about should future governments fail to find the finances or political will to dispose of the waste deep underground.

Our members and colleagues have attended many of the federal government’s presentations and have found them biased and flawed towards focus on the “low-level” waste, and with no attention given to the extremely long-term risks involved in the storage of “long-lived intermediate level” radioactive waste.

The presentations have also failed to acknowledge any terrorism risks of creation of a “dirty bomb” from the “intermediate” waste.

 We therefore believe that the residents who are in favour of the proposal have not been given full, complete and unbiased information to inform their decision.

A decision this serious to accept the so-called “interim” storage of “long-lived intermediate level” radioactive waste that has implications for the future security of South Australia and should not be solely or primarily made by the small community of people who currently reside in the districts of the Flinders Ranges and Kimba councils. Such an approach also deeply disenfranchises communities along the extensive transport corridors any such facility would require.

Conclusion

 The members of the No Dump Alliance maintain that the site selection process for a national radioactive waste storage facility at Kimba and Hawker in South Australia is flawed, and neither appropriate nor thorough. We share the view held by many civil society groups  that the current project should be halted whilst a thorough national audit of radioactive waste is conducted with an independently assessed review of the range of options available to best manage Australia’s waste. Our members and spokespeople continue to witness and seek to highlight the high level of stress and pressure this plan is causing in the communities of Hawker and Kimba. In December 2017 the No Dump Alliance supported a ‘Don’t Dump on SA’ rally on the steps of Parliament House in Adelaide. Invited speakers made the following statements about support for the National Radioactive Waste Management Project:

 “I was the member of parliament that tried to get the last dump on the road at Woomera. The Kimba experience has taught me a very great amount. Quite frankly, the government and ANSTO cannot be trusted with this job. They cannot be trusted with the management of nuclear waste.” Barry Wakelin, former federal Liberal politician. “

Last year we voted as the Uniting Church in SA to stand in solidarity with the Adnyamathanha people in opposing the placing of a nuclear waste dump on their land. We are here today renewing our commitment to that solidarity and to join with you as fellow South Australians in this resolve.” Dr Deidre Palmer, former moderator Uniting Church (SA)

“The Flinders Ranges is not the right place for any nuclear waste facility. The purported benefits of this dump, if realised, will equal only 1% of jobs in tourism and just 2% of one year of tourism income for the Flinders Ranges and outback. Any drop-in tourism will wipe out any possible economic benefit. Everyone, including the government and ANSTO (Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation), agree that the Flinders is not suitable for long term disposal of intermediate level waste, but that is where it will be stored until another site is proposed, accepted and built. This may take decades or centuries and may never happen. We are creating a toxic legacy for our children and grandchildren. Safeguards and legislation put in place today will be brushed aside when it’s convenient for future governments. This can never be the right place to bring intermediate level waste.” Dr Susi Andersson, Hawker resident and local GP. “

We stand with Traditional Owners of this land, we stand with the farmers of this land”. Jamie Newlyn, Secretary of the Maritime Union of Australia SA Branch and No Dump Alliance spokesperson.

 “The Flinders Ranges is an iconic area, people come from all over the world to visit. I’m saddened to hear that the government wants to spoil this beautiful, pristine area with a devastating piece of junk. We certainly understand that there has to be somewhere they can store it, but you don’t take a pristine area and destroy that. We ask that the state government stand with the Adnyamathanha community to stop this waste dump

May 25, 2018 Posted by Christina Macpherson | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump | Leave a comment

Toni Scott asks: will the government hound the Kimba and Hawker communities until they support nuclear waste dumping?

How many times can the Government come back to a community and hound them until they gain broad community support?

I recommend that for something as signiWficant as building a permanent facility hosting hazardous waste it is imperative to have broad community support of no less than 70% absolute majority (meaning 70% of those eligible to vote)

Toni Scott SUBMISSION TO SENATE INQUIRY INTO THE SELECTION PROCESS FOR A NATIONAL RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITY IN SOUTH AUSTRALIA. (Submission No. 44, with 4 attachments)   Thank you for the opportunity to present my views to the senate inquiry into the process for a  national radioactive waste management facility at Kimba and Hawker in SA.

I am an active resident of the Kimba Community and am involved with many community organisations within the town. I own and operate a farming business with my husband, we have 3 small children and I also work part time in Administration at the local Hospital.

Over the past 2 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 my 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.

1. a) The financial compensation offered to applicants for the acquision of land under the Nominations of Land Guidelines;

All financial incentives been offered to individuals should be made available through public information including monies received through access agreements.

It is my view that communities should nominate to host the facility not individual land owners. This process could include local council coordinated public consultation including information from both sides of the argument prior to nominating, if there is broad community support from a town then the nomination is submitted instead of the other way around.

1. b) How the need for ‘broad community support’ has played and will continue to play a part in the process, including:

1. i) The definition of broad community support and
2. ii) How broad community support has been or will be determined for each process advancement stage

The definition of broad community support is very vague. The Minister has refused to set a% of support required for the process to progress through the stages. I have submitted a freedom of information request asking for communication between the Department and Minister Canavan outlining information on how they intend to define broad community support. My FOI request was rejected and I am currently waiting for a case manager to follow up for me through the Australian Information Commission.

Phase 1 Summary Report 2016 ii – The independent Orima Survey indicated 51% of the Kimba Community was not opposed. 582 submissions were received and 80% of them were opposed.

– Summary of Engagement in the Kimba Community December 2016iii – This engagement was prior to the second round of nominations in Kimba. The Working for Futures group indicated to the department that there had been a large increase in support. Results showed there was in fact only a slight shift, of the 300 members that spoke to the Department 56% were supportive of a new nomination.

– Phase 1 Summary Report 2017iv – The Department received 112 written submissions from Kimba residents with 86% opposed. A total of 396 letters were received in relation to the Kimba nominations but for those from outside of the Kimba council boundary results were not reported on. This included letters from people only 20kms out of Kimba who fall outside the council boundary or land holders with property only 10km from nominated site but they fall outside of the council boundary.

AEC Results v– 56% voted yes to go through to stage 2 of the process this % is of those that voted (it is actually only 50% of eligible voters)

How many times can the Government come back to a community and hound them until they gain broad community support?

I recommend that for something as significant as building a permanent facility hosting hazardous waste it is imperative to have broad community support of no less than 70% absolute majority (meaning 70% of those eligible to vote)

1. d) Whether and/or how the Governments community benefit program payment affect broad community and Indigenous community sentiment;

 The $2 million dollar community benefit fund can only be seen as a bribe for people to vote to go through to the next stage. The Department representatives have encouraged people to dream about what the money could do for the community. Many of the projects they have suggested including improved phone and internet service and better health facilities are all things that our town like all other Australian Communities should be entitled to anyway.

1. e) Whether wider (Eyre Peninsula or state-wide) community views should be taken into consideration and, if so how this is occurring or should be occurring;

I believe the views of those living close to the facility are ultimately affected the most and therefor their opinion is of the highest importance closely followed by people living or owning property in the community of where the land is nominated. I don’t believe the boundary should be measured by a council boundary it should be set by a radius and should be prioritised in the following order

– Neighbours within the 10km radius views should be of the highest ranking

– Residents & land holders within 50km of the property should all have the opportunity to vote.

– Residents of the Eyre Peninsula and communities along potential freight routes should be consulted and their submissions taken into consideration.

– South Australians should have the opportunity to have their say on the State Legislation prohibiting the building of any Radioactive Waste Facilities within our state.

1. f) Any other related matters.

Community members find it very difficult to trust the process when time and time again issues of unfairness arise, I have many other concerns including but not limited to:

– In the National Waste Management Act 2012 it states $10 million will be credited to the host state or territory to be spent on health, education and infrastructure.

It should be the communities money not the state and the Community should decide if, when and how it is spent.

– Throughout this second consultation neighbours from the 10km radius have been disregarded and only those with an immediate fence line have been considered neighbours. This is inconsistent with our first round of consultation and with the consultation at Hawker.

– The Kimba Consultative Committee (which I am a delegate on) was supposed to consist of an even spread of people who are opposed, neutral and supportive of the facility. Unfortunately of the 15 committee reps only 4 people are opposed.

– The Community Liaison Officer was supposed to be a person with neutral views but to no surprise the Department employed a local who has been openly supportive of the facility. Community members who are opposed find it difficult to speak openly with the Liaison officer about their concerns.

– For a process to be considered truly transparent information such as nominated sites, nominator financial payments and information regarding processes around broad community support need to be made readily available to the public.

I strongly believe prior to a final community vote as to whether a facility is to be sited in a community, members of the community NEED to be given all the information in writing including:

1. What percentage of support will be required for broad community support.
2. Exactly what waste will be stored at the facility.
3. What will the facility look like.
4. What are the jobs that will be required to run the facility and exactly how many are there.

5. How much money will the community receive and how will it be distributed.

i FOI Internal Review Letter

ii Phase 1 Summary Report 2016

iii Summary of Engagement in the Kimba Community December 2016

iv Phase 1 Summary Report 2017

v AEC report

Selection process for a national radioactive waste management facility in South Australia

May 25, 2018 Posted by Christina Macpherson | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump | Leave a comment

Environmental Defenders Office shows up flaws in Department of Industry, Science and Innovation’s report on nuclear waste siting

With all of the proposed sites there was strong opposition to moving onto phase 2 of the process. The two preferred sites chosen, both in South Australia, also had strong opposition, but the strong opposition was slightly less that the other three sites. Slightly less opposition cannot amount to ‘broad community support’.

Barndioota site:

The Phase 1 summary report also states that 65% of those surveyed were in support of progressing to stage 2. From our assessment of the raw data, this figure is incorrect. The data shows a figure of 51% of those surveyed being opposed to progressing to stage 2.3 Additionally, there was almost unanimous indigenous opposition to this site.

The Kimba site does not meet the Government’s criteria as having ‘broad community support’ and needs to be abandoned as a potential national radioactive waste facility

All Australians should have the right to have a say on this issue. Furthermore communities along any transport routes need to be informed of the risks and consulted in relation to the proposed sites before any site is chosen. This is an essential part of ascertaining support for the project .

Environmental Defenders Office. Melissa Ballantyne Coordinator/Solicitor Environmental Defenders Office (SA) Inc.   Submission to the Senate Committee Inquiring into Site Selection for the National Nuclear Waste Facility (Submission No. 43) 

The Environmental Defenders Office (SA) Inc (“the EDO”) is an independent community legal centre with over twenty-five years of experience specialising in environmental and planning law. EDO functions include legal advice and representation, law reform and policy work and community legal education. The EDO appreciates the opportunity to provide a submission to this Inquiry, which is seeking comment on a number of Terms of Reference.

The EDO submission relates to the following terms of reference: “The Government has stated that it will not impose such a facility on an unwilling community, with particular reference to:

.b) how the need for ‘broad community support’ has played and will continue to play a part in the process, including:

1. The definition of ‘broad community support’ and ii) how ‘broad community support’ has been or will be determined for each process advancement stage …………..e) whether wider (Eyre Peninsular or state-wide) community views should be taken into consideration and, if so, how this is occurring or should be occurring; …….” 1. Broad community support

Continue reading →

May 23, 2018 Posted by Christina Macpherson | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump | Leave a comment

Australia’s Federal government process for nuclear waste dump siting disrespects indigenous community

It has been said that this dump will not go ahead if the community is opposed to it, therefore we don’t understand why this discussion is even still happening given that the clear majority of Traditional Owners are so opposed to it?

This area is currently under some protection from the Aboriginal Heritage Act of SA however, we are concerned that the Federal Government may attempt to override this state legislation. This concern is increased given that the government has suspended federal environmental and Aboriginal heritage protections during the siting period for the planned dump.

ATLA is in partnership with IBA in owning the Wilpena Pound Resort and we don’t want a waste dump to affect our tourism future.

It is NOT international best practice to go against the Traditional Owners and we call upon the federal government to stop this proposal immediately

How can you determine Indigenous support, for each process advancement stage, when ATLA was not approached until the project entered phase 2.

Adnyamathanha Traditional Land Association RNTBC, Submission to the senate inquiry into the Selection process for a national radioactive waste management facility in South Australia. Introduction (Submission No.42)

The Adnyamathanha Traditional Lands Association RNTBC is the peak body for all matters relating to land, culture, heritage, language and native title for Adnyamathanha people. Adnyamathanha country includes the oldest mountain range in the world and we have the oldest living culture in the world.

Adnyamathanha people are important keepers of the knowledge of this country that is recognised worldwide. This is a very important role for each and every one of us to keep this culture strong and to protect this mountain range and surrounding country and ensure our knowledges are understood by future generations.

The Association has been set up on a culturally appropriate model that allows all Adnyamathanha people to have representation on this peak body. We have a governing committee of up to 24 members and each of these members represents a particular group of Adnyamathanha people. Our Board of Directors meet throughout the year to make the decisions in relation to the matters arising and where necessary decisions are brought back to the community for discussion and ratification.

This has been a very successful process for us all with our Consent Determination being handed down in 2009. We have been united in this process and by working together we have really achieved a great deal for our people and for the future generations. We have only achieved this because we work so hard to keep our culture strong and we were able to prove that we know our country and we know our story lines and our language is kept strong.

ATLA is in partnership with IBA to purchase the Wilpena Pound Resort.

Muda

Yura Muda is our term for our spiritual and cultural beliefs, it gives us our law, our rules for living and defines our spiritual beliefs and our boundaries. We believe our Muda in a way that is deeper than most other religions.

Some areas of our Muda have been disturbed or destroyed, by mining and other developments over the years and this causes a great deal of distress to our people. Once the land is destroyed the Muda is gone, we can no longer pass on that cultural and spiritual information to our younger generations and this of course effects our cultural survival.

The Waste Dump

The nuclear waste facility proposed for the Wallerberdina/Barndioota is in our country. We understand that this federal plan seeks to deal with the disposal of low level waste and the interim storage of intermediate level waste for a non-defined period at the facility site. In this submission we refer to the plan as a dump, please note that this refers to both the dump and store concepts. Our organisation has voted on several occasions stating we are totally opposed to the waste dump in that particular area.

We have been opposed to this dump from day one and we have made our views public where ever possible. Continue reading →

May 21, 2018 Posted by Christina Macpherson | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump | Leave a comment

Janette Thomas – on the biased “community consultation”on Barndioota nuclear dump plan, seismic and flooding dangers

Janette Thomas Senate Economics References Committee Inquiry into the selection process for a national radioactive waste management facility in South Australia (Submission No 36)

My name is Janette Thomas, resident of Quorn since 2003. My submission is written to explain the adverse effects of The Federal Government Nuclear Waste Dump siting selection process on my local community, my family and myself. I am deeply concerned that a nuclear waste facility is being considered for a site near Hawker on the Hookina flood plain.

Terms of Reference:

a) The financial compensation offered to applicants for the acquisition of land under the Nominations of Land Guidelines:

The Barndioota shortlisting site was publicly announced in November 2015. It was also mentioned in the November 2015 Community Newsletter of the Flinders Ranges Council by our Mayor in his “Mayors Message” stating “The first Council knew of this was calls seeking information from media outlets”.

Attachment 1 – FRC Community Newsletter, November 2015

In December 2015, The Department of Innovation, Industry and Science (DIIS) held information “drop-in” sessions in both Hawker and Quorn. It is not known how many residents availed themselves of this opportunity to learn more, however it is stated in the Mayor’s Message that “only a few residents visited them to find out more about the proposal”. I did take the opportunity to go and see what was being displayed, and spoke to the DIIS representatives. I voiced my concerns strongly, however it did not appear that there were any notes taken – just an attempt by the representatives to rebut any of the issues that I raised.

Attachment 2 – FRC Community Newsletter, December 2015

A presentation by the DIIS was held at the Quorn Town Hall on 15.2.16. The information given to the meeting was all positive and “talked up” the benefits to the community. For example:

1. The $10 million dollars the host community would receive if the nuclear waste facility was to be sited in the area.
2. 2. The 15 FTE jobs that would be available to operate the facility.
3. 3. The annual $2M Community Benefit Package that would be available for local approved applications during the site selection process.
4. 4. The tourist opportunities – it was suggested that tourists would come to the area to visit the facility.
5. 5. Once the site is chosen the landowner is to receive 3 times the current value for the 100 hectares required.
6. 6. The “temporary” storage of the Intermediate Level Waste (ILW) was barely mentioned, if at all, until question time when the panel was repeatedly asked about how it would be stored and for how long.

b) how the need for ‘broad community support’ has played and will continue to play a part in the process

A phone “survey” was undertaken by Orima over the period late February to early March 2016 to gauge the local community support to proceed to Stage 2, ie does the community want the various surveys to be undertaken to evaluate the area as suitable or not, for the storage of nuclear waste.

I answered a telephone call and was asked for the male occupant of the house between certain ages. My partner was over the age requested, and I was not eligible to do the survey, and so our household was not invited to participate. I heard of similar experiences later. I would like to have had the opportunity to make a statement at that time. How is it that a small number of phone calls about such a serious issue of “hosting” a national nuclear waste dump, can then be manipulated to gauge community support to proceed forward to the next stage. It has been suggested that the people who had no opinion were counted as being “in favour”.

Many people had not heard of the short listing of Barndioota, and had not had a chance to think about what they were saying yes, no, or don’t know to. There was publicity given through newsletters and DIIS mailouts, advising that there would be officers visiting from Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) on a regular basis, who could provide more information and answer any queries, however this all occurred after the decision was announced to proceed to stage 2. I did attend one of their visits voicing my concerns. Their answers were very biased – that there was nothing to be concerned about – refer below: ( f – any other related matters – A).

f) any other related matters

A. The people attending the town meeting 15.2.16 were given the opportunity to ask questions. Many were concerned about the Barndioota site location for many reasons. Some being:

1. The Flinders Ranges is renown as being a very seismic active locality. Refer to attachment 3 – Independent Geological Report.
2. 2. Barndioota is situated on a flood plain, notorious for extreme periodic flood events and massive historic mud flows. Refer to attachment 3 –
3. Independent Geological Report. 3. Question time revealed that there would also be Intermediate level nuclear waste (ILW) stored “temporarily”. When queried how long is temporary – the reply was vague – different figures were quoted. 20, 30 – possibly up to 100 years. If this is the case, I see no reason to move the ILW from its current storage site until a suitable, safe, permanent site is established. Refer to attachment   4 –Quorn Mercury, (Community Meeting pp1-2)

B. The Barndioota site shortlisted, was part of a private leasehold property, and the landholder had not considered or consulted the neighbours or local community before making his application. He had full knowledge of the search for the nuclear waste site having served on three Senate Select Committees related to this industry: Dangers of Radioactive Waste, 23/3/95 to 24/04/96 (Chair from 30/03/95); Uranium Mining and Milling, 08/05/96 to 15/05/97 (Chair from 23/05/96); and Lucas Heights Reactor, 17/08/00 to 24/05/01, but the local community didn’t. This has been a major flaw in the process of a possible nuclear waste dump facility for many reasons.

1. Neighbours and community should have been given the opportunity to discuss the ramifications of storing nuclear waste in their area as a matter of respect, similar to the building application process of local government.
2. 2. To date there has been millions of dollars spent in “world best practice” obtaining a suitable site for the nuclear waste facility. For example:

a. The Orima Survey undertaken to proceed to the next stage.

b. Staff travel and accommodation costs for the many visits over the last 2 ½ years during the process period.

100. Travel and accommodation costs for the numerous groups who have been taken to the Lucas Heights facility.
101. d. The travel and accommodation costs of the French group who were asked to give account of the facility in their home country.

e. The $2million Community Benefits Programme made available for application as an incentive during the process to the next stage. Currently there is a second $2million application process underway for the Barndioota site. These processes are currently being replicated in Kimba and will be available for all other sites that proceed to the same stage.

f. The appointment of a full-time Liaison Officer (who appears to be in favour of the facility and not impartial).

g. There are various committees, with members receiving payment to cover their costs of time and travel.

h. There have recently been major costly site surveys undertaken

This will be the process for each of the shortlisted sites therefore multiplying the costly exercises manyfold. Continue reading →

May 18, 2018 Posted by Christina Macpherson | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump | Leave a comment

Sue Tulloch’s scathing criticism of the federal nuclear waste dump process and shambolic Barndioota Consultative Committee

Sue Tulloch A submission to Senate Standing Committees on Economics  – The appropriateness and thoroughness of the site selection process for a national radioactive waste management facility (NRWMF) at Kimba and Hawker in South Australia, noting the Government has stated that it will not impose such a facility on an unwilling community. (Submission No. 32)

Terms of reference:

b)   how  the need for ‘broad community support’ has played and will continue to play a        part in the process, in particular:

ii)    how  ‘broad community support’ has been or will be determined for each process          advancement stage.

•  Untenable site nomination process
• The legitimacy of the Governments’ Orima Survey 
•  Lack of transparency from the Minister and DIIS Policy Officer
• Shambolic role of the Bardioota Consultative Committee 
• whether  wider (Eyre Peninsular of state‐wide) community views should be taken into consideration and, if so, how is this occurring or should be occurring

Introduction

I am Sue Tulloch, a resident of Quorn, a town within the Flinders Ranges Council district which includes  the site, Barndioota nominated for a NRWMF, a section of the Wallerberdina Pastoral Lease in the northern Flinders Ranges near Hawker. Having with my partner, run the Copley Bakery (northern Flinders Ranges) for 20 years, I know why Australian and overseas visitors want to experience the Flinders Ranges. They perceive the area as having unique wilderness qualities. What would happen if we inserted a National Radioactive Waste Management Facility into this mindset?

Untenable site nomination process

• The  site was nominated by one individual, Grant Chapman, previously a Federal Government Senator, particularly interested in Australia’s search for a national nuclear waste site for over 20 years, these facts were not publicised.
• Nobody either next door to the Barndioota site boundary, or in the surrounding  areas were notified at the time.
• Mr Chapman does not live on this property. He does not live in the designated area, whereas locals who live within the designated area ( Flinders Ranges Council district) have been suddenly lumped with the responsibility  of deciding yes or no to ‘hosting’ the establishment of a NRWMF, the long and short term consequences, impacting all Australians.
• If this site nomination process (Stage 1) is proven to be untenable, so would the ensuring community consultation process, and the ‘Community Sentiment Survey’.

The legitimacy  of the Governments’ Orima Survey to access broad community consent to proceed to Stage 2.   

The following observations were made after two days of personally studying the governments’  ‘Community Sentiment Survey – Report of Findings’, published by Orima Research in April 2016.

The survey was conducted on behalf of the Department of Industry, Innovation and Science to determine community sentiment for continuing to the next phase of a public consultation process, ( phase 2 technical assessment ) for the establishment of a National Radioactive Waste Management Facility (NRWMF) at six nominated sites. I focused on the nominated site of Barndioota and generally found the whole results conflicting and ambiguous from a layman’s point of view.

That the survey contains too many errors and unsubstantiated generalisations to be considered a formal, interpretive report, being  inappropriate for public scrutiny, considering the questionable methodology and data obtained via the pilot and main general population surveys, especially as the future of the whole site selection process apparently seems to depend on it!  (ref 1)

Lack of transparency from the Minister and the Policy Officer

• I have been frustrated by the general absence of clear answers to my very specific questions sent to Minister Canavan (ref 2,3) and the Policy Officer,      (ref 5, 6)
• I had a battle (representing myself, no other group), to see the Minister when he visited Hawker (Fri 2/6/17), having followed all protocol including forwarding my questions well beforehand and communicating with the Ministers’ diary secretary, I was asked by the Policy Officer if I had permission to attend.
• At the meeting, Minister Canavan did answer my question (ref 3 Q 2) saying, the government had no plans for future disposal of the Intermediate Level Waste proposed for the NRWMF.
• Replies to my correspondence (ref 4, 6) were received, but disappointingly generic in nature.
• At a meeting with the Dept of Industry, Innovation and Science (DIIS) on June 3 2017,  my questions, despite of the Ministers’ assertion, (ref 4  4th para)   were not addressed.

Shambolic role of the Barndioota Consultative Committee (BCC)

The BCC was established (Nov 2016) by the (DIIS) for ‘ensuring the community is fully engaged and is able to provide input on key aspects of the project throughout its’ next phase’ (NRWMF BCC Guidelines p.1 1.1 2nd para)   However my experience as a public observer at the Dec 2017 BCC meeting, was anything  but  inclusive.

The discussion involved a presentation by consultant about the possibility of excluding Quorn in the next vote to go to Stage 2

3. Public observers (myself and another) not especially invited as speakers by the DIIS, were very obviously not welcomed. After being told the whole days’ business could not proceed if we stayed,( an invidious position to be put in), we were individually, forcibly escorted out by the DIIS representative      (ref 7) What a farcical example of ‘ensuring the community is fully engaged!

ƒ The BCC ‘is not a decision‐making body and performs an advisory role only’, (BCC Guidelines p1 1.2), however ‘meetings may be open to the public at the discretion of the Committee….’ (BCC Guidelines p7 1.4.4 last para) Is this a decision making role?

ƒ The BCC  is overwhelmingly dominated by  ‘stakeholders’ wanting the NRWMF to go ahead, including the DIIS representatives. It therefore, appears to be a biased, controlled forum that does not practically encourage broad public consultation, being instead a marketing exercise to manufacture community consent.

ƒ The Deputy Convener of the BCC needs to be: ‘independent of the Department’ and to ‘act impartially with respect to any individual or representative in the community’ (BCC Guidelines pp3,4). His role as Chairperson at the Hawker BCC meeting with Minister Canavan (Fri 2/6/17), was blatantly in favor of the NRWMF going ahead, emphasising the considerable financial benefits for Hawker if the ‘project’ went ahead.

ƒ The Deputy Convener effectively evicted me from the Dec 2017 BCC meeting, (ref 7 para 2) contravening most of the ‘selection criteria for the Deputy Convener’, (BCC Guidelines p4) including;

ƒ An ability to facilitate and manage stakeholder committees in an independent manner   ƒ Experience in community relations, facilitation, mediation or public advocacy: ƒ An ability to represent the concerns of a variety of interest groups and an understanding of local issues.

ƒ A willingness to share information with the local community

Meeting  minutes (notes) are ‘drafted by the Department at the end of each Committee meeting, in collaboration with the Independent and Deputy Convener’ (BCC Guidelines p6). These notes are often, only, ‘publicly available on the Department’s website’  a week before the next bimonthly meeting if at all.(ref 7 para 3) A  further example of the inappropriate, disingenuous role the BCC plays in the site selection process for a NRWMF.

e) whether wider (Eyre Peninsula or state‐wide) community views should be taken into consideration and, if so, how this is occurring or should be occurring.

Definitely, in a democracy such as Australia, wider community views regarding an issue with state and national relevance should be mandatory! Particularly in South Australia in light of the Citizens Jury voting no, to the proposal of deposing overseas high level radioactive waste in South Australia. (SA Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission Report May 2016). Albeit a separate issue to the NRWMF, it demonstrated the overall negative public attitude towards State and Federal Government radioactive waste proposals.

Most South Australians and Australians are unaware of the NRWMF proposal, believing that since the 2015‐2016  SA Royal Commission, any nuclear waste issues have been ‘done and dusted’. This has proved very handy for the Federal Government, effectively isolating the targeted community groups around Hawker and Kimba, fighting against having  a NRWMF imposed on them.

Conclusion

Another resident of Quorn, in correspondence to Mr Bruce Wilson (DIIS advisor to the Minister), sums up my opinion about the appropriateness and thoroughness of the site selection process for a NRWMF at Hawker and Kimba, in SA, noting that the Government has stated that it will not impose such a facility on an unwilling community. ‘The search for a site to dispose of Australian generated LLW and ILW has .… so far, been unsuccessful….. If it is a National problem the answer needs to be found in a nationally collaborative way, with bi‐partisan support, and not palmed off onto remote, vulnerable communities, whose cohesion is split and disrupted by ideology, money and unsubstantiated raised  expectations.’ re jobs, tourism opportunities and long term environmental stability.

I appreciate this valuable opportunity to voice my opinions at a Federal Government level and thank Senator Rex Patrick for the chance.

May 14, 2018 Posted by Christina Macpherson | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump | Leave a comment