Antinuclear

Australian news, and some related international items

  • Home
  • 1 This month
  • Disclaimer
  • Kimba waste dump Submissions

Labor aims to amend the Nuclear Waste Bill, removing Napandee as the stipulated dump site

Penny Wong office reply to Josephite SA Reconciliation Circle letter before the last Senate session  27 October 2020 
From: “Wong, Penelope (Senator)” <Senator.Wong@aph.gov.au>

Subject: RE: We plead with Labor Senators to vote NO to the undemocratic, unfair National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment Bill 2020
Date: 26 October 2020

Dear Michele,

 RE:      NATIONAL RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITY PROPOSAL
 
Thank you for your correspondence on the proposal for a national radioactive waste management facility in South Australia and the National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment (Site Specification, Community Fund and Other Measures) Bill 2020.
 
Senator Wong is aware of different views in the community about this proposed facility.
 
It is clear the Government’s proposal gives rise to issues surrounding Indigenous heritage, environmental concerns, public safety, as well as differing opinions on necessity of such a facility, all of which must be adequately resolved.
 
Australians depend on nuclear technology for medicines used in the diagnosis of heart disease, skeletal injuries, as well as a range of cancers. Radioactive substances and wastes must be handled safely and with care.
 
One effect of the Bill would be to amend the National Radioactive Waste Management Act 2012 to set aside the existing site selection and approval process, and instead specify the site selected and enable the acquisition of additional land for the facility.
 
On 11 June 2020, the Bill passed the House of Representatives. As you noted, Labor opposed the Bill in the House. As you are aware, the Senate Economics Legislation Committee completed an inquiry into the Bill, and now it is up to the Government to decide when this bill will be debated in the Senate. Senator Wong followed the progress of the committee inquiry, in which Labor senators actively participated. We are pleased to see that you quoted from Labor senator Jenny McAllister’s dissenting report in your correspondence.
 
Senator Wong encouraged members of the South Australian community to engage with the Senate Economics Legislation Committee inquiry in order to ensure committee members and parliamentarians more broadly are aware of community attitudes. Along with consultation that has taken place with stakeholders, as well as community views expressed to Labor parliamentarians in community meetings and through organised petitions and campaign emails, this informed Shadow Cabinet and Caucus as they finalised Labor’s position on the legislation.
 
Labor has decided move an amendment to the legislation in the Senate that will remove the section of the Bill that nominates the site at Napandee, near Kimba, as the location of the national radioactive waste management facility, whilst maintaining the Community Fund established in the Bill for whatever community eventually hosts the site. Should our amendment be unsuccessful, we will oppose the Bill in the Senate.
 
Labor’s proposed course of action does not prevent the Government from nominating the site under the existing legal process, something it could do today. However, retaining the existing process ensures this significant decision will be subject to judicial review so that the community can be assured the decision about where to locate the facility was reached as a result of a fair and properly conducted process. This is something we are aware that the representatives of the Barngarla People have expressed is particularly important to them.
 
Ten years ago, Federal Labor deliberately amended the current legislation to include judicial review so that an affected party could challenge a decision made by the relevant minister. This is a contentious issue and should have the highest levels of scrutiny to ensure that the principles of procedural fairness and natural justice have been applied given the national significance of this matter.
 
Thank you again for your correspondence.
 
Yours sincerely,
 
OFFICE OF SENATOR THE HONOURABLE PENNY WONG
LETTER FROM JOSEPHITE SOUTH AUSTRALIA RECONCILIATION CIRCLE
Dear Senator Penny Wong,
 
We plead with Labor Senators, especially with yourself as Opposition Leader in the Senate, to vote NO, as Labor did in the House, to the undemocratic, unfair National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment Bill 2020 coming before the Senate this Tuesday, October 6th.
 
In the years of this federal Coalition campaign there have been many unfair practices and processes in the government’s determination to achieve the SA siting above ground of long lived intermediate level radioactive waste –  toxic for an unimaginable 10,000 years – alongside low level radioactive waste.    
 
It was clear in recent Senate Inquiry that the federal government are taking this site decision to Parliament to deny judicial process to anyone. In particular, the Traditional Owners, the Barngarla people who fought for 21 years to obtain their native title rights have been excluded from having any say over on their traditional lands. The federal government plan is now to ensure they as well as anyone else will excluded from judicial process. Labor Senator Jenny MacAllister’s dissenting report is clear:“In evidence to the committee, the Department confirmed that the effect of the change proposed in the legislation is to remove the requirements for procedural fairness in the selection of the site.”
This dangerous precedent of no judicial review will be set if the Senate passed this Bill. This is not the Australia that we want – and we would expect not what federal Labor wants. 
SA State Labor have spoken up strongly against this legislation. Senator Jenny McAllister’s dissenting report recommends “That the elements of the National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment (Site Specification, Community Fund and Other Measures) Bill 2020 which alter the existing process for site selection not proceed at this time.”
We plead with federal Labor Senators to avoid this extremely concerning circumvention of judicial process by voting against this Bill.
 
Yours sincerely,
Michele Madigan
 Josephite SA Reconciliation Circle

October 27, 2020 Posted by Christina Macpherson | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump, politics | Leave a comment

South Australian Upper House reaffirms the State’s law opposing nuclear waste dump

Mark Parnell MLC , It was a great day back in 2016 when we won the campaign to stop the ill-conceived proposal to turn South Australia into the World’s dumping ground for deadly high-level radioactive waste.  However, domestic nuclear waste and other radioactive subjects are still on the agenda of State Parliament.

Proposed Kimba Nuclear Waste Dump

Whilst the Federal Liberal Government seeks to push this unnecessary and divisive project through the Senate, the South Australian Upper House has reaffirmed its commitment to State law by opposing a domestic nuclear waste dump at Kimba or anywhere else in South Australia.  Dangerous long-lived radioactive waste currently stored under guard at Lucas Heights should stay there until a permanent solution is found, not shipped 1700kms to another temporary storage site in SA.  If this project proceeds, the Greens will ensure that a South Australian Parliamentary inquiry is held that properly consults all stakeholders, including the Barngarla Traditional Owners who were shamefully excluded from the original community ballot.

Banning Nuclear weapons

State Parliament has recognised the 75th anniversary of the dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  This horror has inspired 47 countries to ratify a 2017 UN Treaty that would ban nuclear weapons forever.  Only 3 more nations are needed for the Treaty to become International Law. So far, Australia is refusing to sign, for fear for offending our US allies.  You can add your voice here: https://icanw.org.au/

STOP PRESS: We’ve just learnt that the 50th nation has ratified the Treaty, which will now come into effect in 90 days.

Radiation Regulation

The State Government has re-written South Australia’s radiation protection laws.  Whilst most changes were administrative, there are still some fundamental problems, not least of which is that BHP’s Olympic Dam mine at Roxby Downs continues to be exempt from most State laws.  Both Liberal and Labor joined forces to ensure that BHP’s special treatment continues with their “Indenture” overriding laws that all other mining companies must comply with.

On a more positive note, a number of Green amendments to increase accountability and transparency were accepted.  We also secured an amendment that allows South Australia to set its own safety standards for radiation exposure and not be limited to outdated and weak standards applied elsewhere.

 

 

October 27, 2020 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Federal nuclear waste dump, politics, South Australia | Leave a comment

Nuclear waste storage in Australia

Japan plans to dump a million tonnes of radioactive water into the Pacific. But Australia has nuclear waste problems, too   The Conversation,October 23, 2020  Tilman Ruff. Associate Professor, Education and Learning Unit, Nossal Institute for Global Health, School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Margaret Beavis,  Tutor Principles of Clinical Practice Melbourne Medical School .  

 

Nuclear waste storage in Australia

This is what happens at our national nuclear facility at Lucas Heights in Sydney. The vast majority of Australia’s nuclear waste is stored on-site in a dedicated facility, managed by those with the best expertise, and monitored 24/7 by the Australian Federal Police.

But the Australian government plans to change this. It wants to transport and temporarily store nuclear waste at a facility at Kimba, in regional South Australia, for an indeterminate period. We believe the Kimba plan involves unnecessary multiple handling, and shifts the nuclear waste problem onto future generations.

The proposed storage facilities in Kimba are less safe than disposal, and this plan is well below world’s best practice.

The infrastructure, staff and expertise to manage and monitor radioactive materials in Lucas Heights were developed over decades, with all the resources and emergency services of Australia’s largest city. These capacities cannot be quickly or easily replicated in the remote rural location of Kimba. What’s more, transporting the waste raises the risk of theft and accident.

And in recent months, the CEO of regulator ARPANSA told a senate inquiry there is capacity to store nuclear waste at Lucas Heights for several more decades. This means there’s ample time to properly plan final disposal of the waste.

The legislation before the Senate will deny interested parties the right to judicial review. The plan also disregards unanimous opposition by Barngarla Traditional Owners.

The Conversation contacted Resources Minister Keith Pitt who insisted the Kimba site will consolidate waste from more than 100 places into a “safe, purpose-built, state-of-the-art facility”. He said a separate, permanent disposal facility will be established for intermediate level waste in a few decades’ time.

Pitt said the government continues to seek involvement of Traditional Owners. He also said the Kimba community voted in favour of the plan. However, the voting process was criticised on a number of grounds, including that it excluded landowners living relatively close to the site, and entirely excluded Barngarla people.

Kicking the can down the road

Both Australia and Japan should look to nations such as Finland, which deals with nuclear waste more responsibly and has studied potential sites for decades. It plans to spend 3.5 billion euros (A$5.8 billion) on a deep geological disposal site.https://theconversation.com/japan-plans-to-dump-a-million-tonnes-of-radioactive-water-into-the-pacific-but-australia-has-nuclear-waste-problems-too-148337

 

October 24, 2020 Posted by Christina Macpherson | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump | Leave a comment

South Australian Parliament rejected Kimba nuclear waste dump, but Morrison govt could still impose it

It sounds good that this Motion passed  in SA Parliament Legislative Council – credit to Mark Parnell MLC & SA Greens.

This ‘No Nuclear Waste Dump in SA’ Motion passed with Greens, ALP and SA Best support (State Liberal gov opposed the Motion).
The Motion opposes a Nuclear Waste Dump at Kimba or anywhere else in South Australia and commits support to the integrity of the SA Nuclear Prohibition legislation”.
BUT –

Even though Mark Parnell’s motion in the South Australian Parliament was successful last week it may be an illusory outcome as it seems that the Commonwealth government will have the constitutional superiority to override state laws with regard to the nuclear waste facility at Kimba

This is because the Commonwealth will rely on the free trade provision under section 92 of the Constitution as to the transport interstate of the nuclear waste while its storage and disposal falls under the external affairs power of section 51(xxix) as the safe management and disposal of nuclear waste is regulated under international convention and treaty rights

Regrettably the High Court in recent years has based many of its decisions rejecting state legislation on a broad interpretation of the external affairs power which in some circumstances has lead to virtually nonsensical conclusions

For this reason it is still essential to prevent the government’s proposals being carried out by legislative action

October 22, 2020 Posted by Christina Macpherson | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump | Leave a comment

Kimba residents have been sold a lemon – dubious financial gain from nuclear waste dump

Sandra Kanck  Nuclear Fuel Cycle Watch Australia, 22 Oct 20,

In The Saturday Paper 8/2/20 an article by Royce Kurmelovs about the Kimba nuclear waste dump was published.
Looking at it more than eight months on a couple of things stand out:
a) At that time $55 million had already been spent to ‘find a site and build community support’; and
b) Another $31m has been promised as part of a Community Benefit Scheme.
Two questions arise for me.
Who in the community has benefited from that initial spend of $55m? Shared round the community (except of course for the indigenous landholders who were deliberately excluded from the consultation), that’s roughly $88,000 per Kimba resident. However I suspect Kimba residents did not benefit, rather it was interstate consultants.
The promised extra $31m will not be made available until after the dump has been constructed. With a record federal budget deficit, what are the chances now of taxpayer money being directed towards this construction?
Maybe Kimba residents have been sold a pup.

October 22, 2020 Posted by Christina Macpherson | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump | Leave a comment

Nuclear waste dump: Will the Australian government compensate Kimba landowners for fall in their property values?

If the federal government’s proposed nuclear waste facility were built at the chosen site at Kimba and as a result property values in the region decreased as has been the case in other places around the world in not dissimilar circumstances what will the federal government do for the those who have suffered a diminution in their property values because of the facility

Based on past experience I suspect nothing

However if the government has promised huge economic benefits for the Kimba region – and it has certainly done so consistently for the past five years in order to win community support –  and these promises proved to be incorrect then would the residents and even general community members who have suffered a loss have a right of action against the federal government for what is tantamount to misleading and deceptive conduct in the normal legal context

On the face of it they would but unfortunately the government as a Crown instrumentality is exempt from any legal responsibility and liability in that regard

However the District Council of Kimba has been fully complicit in misleading or misinforming the community and should be liable for any damages incurred as a result of the Council’s  actions and conduct

Unlike the government the Council will not be treated as an instrumentality of the Crown and will therefore be fully liable with the liability extending personally to the individual councillors since there could  be no limitation on their personal liability like in a normal corporate situation

What I would suggest – but please ensure that I am not mentioned and it is recognised that I am not offering any legal advice – is for several ratepayers to formally approach the mayor and councillors asking them to obtain a proper legal opinion for open publication for the Kimba community addressing these issues and the possible outcomes

Any resistance on the part of the councillors in acceding to this request will only worsen their situation as it could be argued very strongly that this is necessary in order to ensure the continued stability and solvency of the District Council and protect the financial position of the ratepayers

You may need the help of a lawyer but the District Council should pay all expenses in investigating what has been suggested and in obtaining any legal and if necessary financial advice so that the ratepayers and other community members can be protected

Best of luck!

October 18, 2020 Posted by Christina Macpherson | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump | Leave a comment

Keep South Australia’s Nuclear Waste Storage Facility (Prohibition) Act 2000

Mark Parnell MLC , No nuclear waste dump anywhere in South Australia. 16 Oct 20, 
The atmosphere in State Parliament today has been positively radioactive. Before lunch, we debated a new Radiation Protection Bill and this afternoon we will see where the parties line up to support or oppose the proposed Kimba nuclear waste dump.
I was pleased this morning that the Upper House supported a number of Greens’ amendments which make the regulation of ionizing radiation more transparent. However, making the BHP Olympic Dam mine comply with State laws was too much for Liberal or Labor. Shamefully, this mine will continue to get special treatment and legal exemptions as they have for nearly 40 years. https://www.facebook.com/groups/1314655315214929

October 16, 2020 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Federal nuclear waste dump, South Australia | Leave a comment

Kimba’s potential water problem, if radioactive waste dump goes ahead

Paul Waldon   Fight to Stop a Nuclear Waste Dump in South Australia   12 Oct 20, Know Your Environment.
Tanks are a static water supply and they’re common in an agriculture environment, if that environment embraces radioactive waste it would be fair to say monitoring of such water is imperative. Remember not everyone in a rural environment is connected to government monitored mains water.
Any person with business acumen can see $3,000 x 1,100+ residents of Kimba for monitoring equipment will erode any government sweeteners pretty quick.

October 12, 2020 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Federal nuclear waste dump, South Australia | Leave a comment

Australian government’s controversial Nuclear Waste Bill delayed – not yet debated in Senate

10 Oct 20, The dump legislation didn’t make it on to the Senate floor for debate and voting …

I think the government just ran out of time, they didn’t withdraw the Bill

So over the next week Non Government Organisations,  and farmers and Traditional Owner s will be discussing how best to use the next month

October 10, 2020 Posted by Christina Macpherson | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump, politics | Leave a comment

Clean-up for Ranger uranium mine. Rum Jungle mine still a polluted mess

 

It’s costing a fortune but the Ranger uranium mine is gradually being cleaned up, Canberra Times, Chris McLennan  6 Oct 20 

Over the years many people questioned the decision to allow uranium to be mined inside one of Australia’s most famous and largest national parks – Kakadu.

But in 1980 that’s exactly what happened, an open-cut mine surrounded by a park famed for its natural beauty made even more famous by the hugely popular Paul Hogan movie, Crocodile Dundee.

Now the uranium is gone, dug out and sent off to nuclear power stations around the world and Australia’s longest continually operated uranium mine is almost done.

Nuclear power is making way for renewable energy.

Uranium has been mined at Ranger for more than three decades, producing in excess of 130,000 tonnes of uranium oxide.

The mine is being closed, Jabiru – the town built to service to the mine workers, is in the process of being handed over to Traditional Owners and the mining company is being closely watched as it delivers on its promise to clean up the site.

Cleaning up uranium mines is not something the Northern Territory does well – there is still a huge environmental mess at Rum Jungle closer to Darwin.

That uranium mine is a legacy of the Cold War.

Australia’s first large scale uranium mine was dug at Rum Jungle on behalf of our “Allies” in the UK and USA to fuel their nuclear weapon programs in the 1950s.

Now water fills that vast open cut, a lake as locals call it, and another attempt is going to have to be made to cap the radioactive tailings left behind, the first attempt, supposed to last a century, failed after 20 years.

Energy Resources Australia, a subsidiary of Rio Tinto, says it has spent more than $642 million in the past eight years on rehabilitation of the mountains of tailings complicated by a lake created from a vast flooded pit……….

This story It’s costing a fortune but the NT’s uranium mine is being cleaned up, gradually first appeared on Katherine Times. https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/6955634/its-costing-a-fortune-but-the-nts-uranium-mine-is-being-cleaned-up-gradually/?cs=14231

October 10, 2020 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Northern Territory, uranium, wastes | Leave a comment

Labor likely to amend the Nuclear Waste Bill, removing certainty about the Napandee dump happening

Labor’s position on nuclear waste bill means uncertainty remains over South Australian site, Guardian, Paul Karp @Paul_Karp 5 Oct 20,  Labor will try to amend a government bill so that the federal resources minister has to nominate the site for a nuclear waste dump, despite concerns within the ALP caucus the change could pave the way for the decision to be challenged in court.On Monday, the Labor caucus agreed it would try to amend the bill by removing a schedule which states the dump should be located at Napandee some 20km north-west of Kimba in South Australia. The caucus resolved to oppose the bill if the change was not supported.

The caucus resolution follows a recommendation by the shadow science minister, Brendan O’Connor, and despite vigorous opposition from senators Alex Gallacher and Kim Carr. They argued that making the minister select the site could leave the decision vulnerable to challenge.

The government’s bill, as it stands, nominates Napandee as the location for the dump and provides a compensation package – a formulation that prevents judicial review of the site selection……  https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/oct/05/labors-position-on-nuclear-waste-bill-means-uncertainty-remains-over-south-australian-site

October 6, 2020 Posted by Christina Macpherson | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump, politics | Leave a comment

Nuclear waste dump – a Federal abuse of a small rural town

Regina McKenzie   Fight To Stop a Nuclear Waste Dump in South Australia, 6 Oct 20
To watch the horror of a rural town, being torn apart , the tremendous amount of stress the people of Kimba are facing, wether it be the yes or no camp, no one deserves this.
I know that heavy weight of having this nuclear waste dump like a dark foreboding shadow hanging over your once secure close knit community, watching family, friends and acquaintance being ripped apart , the helplessness ones feels watching everything disintegrate around you.
DIIS have a lot to answer for the emotional and mental abuse this waste dump as caused on these small rural towns, separated from the rest of South Australia to bear such a large responsibility and to leave the rest of South Australia to watch in horror these little town tear each other apart, the mental anguish that will forever scar us, the rifts in family, and friends , what a pitiful federal government to do this to us, its abuse on a grand scale

October 6, 2020 Posted by Christina Macpherson | aboriginal issues, Federal nuclear waste dump, health, South Australia | Leave a comment

Federal government hiding its toxic nuclear waste Act under the cover of budget fuss

From A letter from Dr Margaret Beavis,
DR MARGARET BEAVIS, Medical Association for  Prevention of War, 6 Oct 20,
“Hiding behind the budget media extravaganza, tomorrow the Government will hold a senate vote to lock in Kimba as the site for highly radioactive nuclear waste.
**********
The bill will deny any juridical oversight or review, despite major flaws in the proposal. The proposed “temporary storage” of nuclear waste in Kimba is a second -rate cheap solution.
Countries like Finland are spending $5bn on deep geoplogical disposal which is world’s best practice.
**********
In contrast, this plan cost-shifts on to future generations, who are left to do the job properly at great expense.
**********
There are many other problems. These include deliberately misleading marketing, a deciding vote using a biased sample and a complete disregard of traditional owners,
                                                                    **********
Claims that moving the waste is urgently needed to continue nuclear medicine are patently false.  The federal nuclear regulator, ARPNSA, has been crystal clear that there is absolutely no rush. Low-level waste has been the main focus, yet the elephant in the room is intermediate waste that stays radioactive for 10,000 years.
                                                              **********
The people of Kimba remain deeply divided.. Kimba’s vote was biased towards businesses who may profit from the facility. It excluded farmers who live near the site.
                                                                **********
At Hawker last ye ar, a much more appropriate 50km radius was used, and the proposal was clearly rejected.
                                                              **********
This bill locks in a second-rate process and a second-rate facility that will be a major liability for South Australians in the future. There is plenty of time to do it right.
It is an old political trick to release bad news when no-one is paying attention, known as “taking out the trash”.
But this time the trash is highly radioactive. If this legislation passes, it will come back and haunt South Australians for generations to come.”

October 6, 2020 Posted by Christina Macpherson | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump | Leave a comment

Divisions in Labor, over nuclear waste dump plan

Federal Labor divided over plans to block SA’s nuclear waste dump facility, The Age, By Rob Harris, October 5, 2020 — A 40-year effort to establish a nuclear waste dump in remote South Australia faces a rocky passage through Federal Parliament after Labor signalled it is prepared to block the Morrison government’s attempts to resolve the long-running debate.

The decision, rubber-stamped by the federal caucus in lengthy debate on Monday, has sparked further divisions within the opposition, with veteran senators Alex Gallacher and Kim Carr expressing fierce criticism of their party’s position.

There are also concerns within federal Labor that its stance could unwittingly hand Prime Minister Scott Morrison a double-dissolution trigger should the crossbench sink the laws.

The government intends to introduce legislation to finally establish a low- and medium-level nuclear waste facility at Napandee, a farm on South Australia’s Eyre Peninsula, having spent seven years and more than $60 million finding a suitable home……..

Labor will seek to amend the laws so that the minister responsible, Resources Minister Keith Pitt, can use existing powers to nominate any site under the current legislation. Labor says the changes would still give the local community access to a significant community fund on offer and would ensure the decision be subject to a judicial review.

Seven Labor MPs spoke up in the debate over the legislation, which lasted for more than an hour………

Opposition science spokesman Brendan O’Connor said federal Labor supported the need for a national facility to store radioactive waste.

This government has had existing powers under the current legislation for the past seven years to determine a site, but under the guise of compensation has sought to remove proper scrutiny, through this proposed legislation,” he said.

“This is a contentious issue and should be subject to the highest levels of scrutiny to ensure that the principles of procedural fairness and natural justice have been applied given the national significance of this matter.”……..

A Senate committee last month recommended the legislation be supported but three members – the Greens’ Sarah Hanson-Young, Independent senator Rex Patrick and Labor senator Jenny McAllister – issued dissenting reports.

Senator McAllister said the proposed facility had not received the support of the relevant traditional owners in South Australia.   https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/federal-labor-divided-over-plans-to-block-sa-s-nuclear-waste-dump-facility-20201005-p5628p.html

October 6, 2020 Posted by Christina Macpherson | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump, politics | Leave a comment

Grossly inadequate Senate report on National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment Bill

The report released on 14 September 2020 by the majority of the Senate committee inquiring into the National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment Site Specification,Community Fund and Other Measures) Bill  is  both grossly deficient and biased and does no credit to the members of the committee.

**************************************
I can only put this down to a combination of lack of knowledge and possibly even ignorance on the part of both the committee members and the researchers from the committee secretariat of the subject of the inquiry which is of major and lasting importance to all of Australia and needs more than truck driving experience for its proper consideration.
**************************************

While I do not intend to comment on all of the report in detail I will refer to some aspects of the introduction being chapter 1 including the conduct of the inquiry but more extensively to the second part of the report dealing with support for the legislative changes and the evidence of the witnesses who appeared before the committee.

**************************************

……… In describing the background for the inquiry the committee has relied on rather older information which is surprising considering the very recent developments in the field of nuclear waste management which have been completely ignored in the report.
**************************************
……. it seems that the committee has heavily relied on the explanatory memorandum accompanying the bill and the subsequent ministerial statements and responses having blithely accepted them with little or no proper scrutiny of their content and accuracy.
**************************************
This also applies to the submissions by ANSTO and the Department of Industry Science Energy and Resources which did not elicit any questioning or testing of the accuracy of their content.
**************************************
……….. the heart of the intended legislative changes  will remove various fundamental rights including seeking judicial and administrative reviews.
**************************************
……….. It should have been obvious to the committee that the Barngarla will under no circumstances permit the storage and disposal of nuclear waste in any part of their lands within South Australia irrespective of what discussions and negotiations may take place even with an independent mediator.
**************************************
………. The conduct of the inquiry also leaves a lot to be desired since the committee failed – and seemingly deliberately – to call any experts on nuclear waste from overseas to provide proper advice and suggestions to the committee instead of relying exclusively on the technical evidence by or on behalf of the government.
This makes the majority report even less credible which is already the view of some overseas experts who are surprised at the deficiencies in the evidence to justify the main recommendation of the report.
**************************************
……. many of the supporting views are said to be based on general scientific or technical reasons but  some of these are made in sheer and blind acceptance of the government’s information without any testing or examination of their veracity..
**************************************
………… The concept of the local agricultural industry coexisting with the nuclear facility is completely disingenuous as is amply demonstrated by recent situations overseas including in particular in France and to suggest that the facility will not affect the agricultural environment and produce of Kimba is nonsensical.
**************************************
What is more the report has completely ignored the provisions of the Disposal Facilities Code (2018) of ARPANSA which provides at section 3.1.22 as to the criteria for the selection of a non-radiological site that “the immediate vicinity of the facility has no known significant natural resources   ………… and has little or no potential for agriculture or outdoor recreational use”
It follows that these two factors significantly displace the perceived economic benefits which should be a major consideration as to the facility’s proposed establishment..
**************************************
………..from surveys a large percentage of up to 80% of the South Australian population is against the facility which is also the stated position of the state’s parliamentary opposition.
The submissions in support of the facility by the three presumably knowledgeable bodies being the Nuclear Association and Academy of Science together with the local Chamber of Mines and Energy failed to provide any really technical or scientific information and seemed to more of a political nature judging by their brevity which I understood in the case of the Nuclear Association and probably the Chamber was to enable the start of a nuclear energy industry in this country.
**************************************
Again it has surprised me that the committee did not seek any meaningful explanations from these groups as presumably they would hold themselves out as having some expertise with regard to nuclear waste.
**************************************
The evidence and submissions in support of the facility by the local community including the District Council are self servicing and appear to swayed by the perceived financial grants and benefits provided by the government which surely must be understood to be creating a false economy doomed to ultimate failure……….
**************************************
Perhaps the most glaring examples of the insular and ignorant conduct of the community  supporters of the facility are their contentions that its establishment and the voting for its acceptance are applicable and relevant only to Kimba. Considering the importance of this issue to the whole nation and that it is to intended to be a central national facility it should and must extend well beyond their unrealistic and quite selfish attitude by is seen by their rather ludicrous contentions.
What is even more critical is that the inquiry made no attempt to ascertain the accuracy of these claims despite their national significance………..
**************************************
What really makes the majority report so unconvincing is that none of the evidence has been questioned or tested as to its competence and accuracy and the committee as chosen not to call evidence from international experts who would very quickly show the incompetence of the government as to the underlying technical issues of the inquiry to justify the legislative changes.
This becomes even worse when a principal witness on behalf of the government is accused of lying which in a court of law would have lead to a preferment for perjury……….
**************************************
………. the government has rejected many requests for detailed information of the radionuclides inventories and funding for an independent assessment and scrutiny of the government’s proposals which will no doubt be a consideration for ARPANSA in dealing with the licence applications
**************************************
Unlike the committee stating “that the issue of radioactive material is an emotive one” it is in fact very important and scientifically technical especially as it concerns present and long term safety of the whole population.
The committee has badly failed in its inquiry in both testing the credibility of the claims by the government and other supporters of the facility proposal and in neglecting any examination of the lack of expected and prescribed requirements including among other things the safety case and the radionuclides counts.

October 2, 2020 Posted by Christina Macpherson | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump, spinbuster | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »

1 This month

of the week – Australians for War Powers Reform (AWPR)

​To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity

– go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com/

  • Pages

    • 1 This month
    • Disclaimer
    • Kimba waste dump Submissions
      • NUCLEAR ROYAL COMMISSION
      • Submissions on Radioactive Waste Code 2018
      • SUBMISSIONS TO SENATE INQUIRY 18
    • – Alternative media
    • – marketing nuclear power
    • business and costs
    • – Spinbuster 2011
    • Nuclear and Uranium Spinbuster – theme for June 2013
    • economics
    • health
    • radiation – ionising
    • safety
    • Aborigines
    • Audiovisual
    • Autralia’s Anti Nuclear Movement – Successes
    • climate change – global warming
    • energy
    • environment
    • Fukushima Facts
    • future Australia
    • HEALTH and ENVIRONMENT – post Fukushma
    • media Australia
    • Peace movement
    • politics
    • religion – Australia
    • religion and ethics
    • Religion and Ethics
    • secrets and lies
    • Spinbuster
    • spinbuster
    • wastes
    • ethics and nuclear power – Australia
    • nuclear medicine
    • politics – election 2010
    • secrecy – Australia
    • SUBMISSIONS to 2019 INQUIRIES
    • weapons and war
  • Follow Antinuclear on WordPress.com
  • Follow Antinuclear on WordPress.com
  • Blogroll

    • Anti-Nuclear and Clean Energy Campaign
    • Beyond Nuclear
    • Exposing the truth about thorium nuclear propaganda
    • NUCLEAR INFORMATION
    • nuclear news Australia
    • nuclear-news
  • Categories

    • 1
    • ACTION
    • Audiovisual
    • AUSTRALIA – NATIONAL
      • ACT
      • INTERNATIONAL
      • New South Wales
      • Northern Territory
      • Queensland
      • South Australia
        • NUCLEAR ROYAL COMMISSION 2016
          • Nuclear Citizens Jury
          • Submissions to Royal Commission S.A.
            • significant submissions to 6 May
      • Tasmania
      • Victoria
      • Western Australia
    • Christina reviews
    • Christina themes
    • Fukushima
    • Fukushima 2022
    • General News
    • Japan
    • Olympic Dam
    • Opposition to nuclear
    • reference
    • religion and ethics
    • Resources
    • TOPICS
      • aboriginal issues
      • art and culture
      • business
        • employment
        • marketing for nuclear
      • civil liberties
      • climate change – global warming
      • culture
      • energy
        • efficiency
        • solar
        • storage
        • wind
      • environment
      • health
      • history
      • legal
      • media
      • opposition to nuclear
      • people
      • personal stories
      • politics
        • election 2013
        • election 2016
        • election 2019
        • Submissions Federal 19
      • politics international
      • religion and ethics
      • safety
        • – incidents
      • secrets and lies
      • spinbuster
        • Education
      • technology
        • rare earths
        • thorium
      • uranium
      • wastes
        • Federal nuclear waste dump
      • weapons and war
    • water
    • Weekly Newsletter
    • Wikileaks
    • women

Site info

Antinuclear
Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.
Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
  • Subscribe Subscribed
    • Antinuclear
    • Join 880 other subscribers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • Antinuclear
    • Subscribe Subscribed
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar
 

Loading Comments...