Matthew and Meagan Lienert – another declaration of faith in nuclear industry, ANSTO, ARPANSA, DIIS
Matthew and Meagan Lienert (No 53) Submission Senate Inquiry Re – Inquiry on the selection process for a National Radioactive Waste Management Facility at Kimba and Hawker in South Australia
My name is Meagan Lienert and I write to you as a long term resident of Kimba SA. After moving to Kimba 21 years ago as a school teacher, I married Matthew Lienert, a grain and sheep farmer and we own property at Buckleboo (around 38km North of Kimba) and on the Eyre Highway (around 18 km west of Kimba). We also own a local Engineering business in Kimba and I teach at the school part time. We are happy for our submission to be published and also willing to talk further to the committee if necessary.
We feel we have a good knowledge of the area and the people within the local and wider community. We are very passionate and active volunteers supporting many groups and sporting bodies in executive positions or as members, which also allows us to speak to a wide range of ages and groups within the community.
Our support of a site near Kimba for the Low to Intermediate Radioactive Waste Storage Facility has derived from wide research, exploration and listening to a range of views and experts. It was only once we felt assured that this facility would be safe in the immediate and long term future, that we made our decision to support the nominations to move into round 2 of the process.
The community has had a lot of opportunity to find out relevant and accurate information if we have wanted to. We strongly support a fair and transparent process and believe the government have done their best to ensure this over the past 3 years that Kimba has been involved. The following addresses the terms of reference that we believe shows this.
a) The financial compensation offered to applicants for the acquisition of land under the Nominations of Land Guidelines.
The financial compensation that is clearly stated under the Nominations of Land guidelines is appropriate for the search for a location and purchase if the site goes through to stage 3 of the process. It is necessary to be able to provide the landowner with compensation for the possible loss of production, although the amount received would be extremely low in comparison and also to compensate any inconvenience or interruption to the landowner’s practice/business. In addition, these landowners are providing an opportunity of a lifetime to our communities and region and we know that the compensation being offered has no influence on their decision to nominate their land.
b) How the need for ‘broad community support’ has played and will continue to play a part in the process, including;
- The definition of ‘broad community support’, and We understand broad community support to be about assessing all the information gathered from a wide range of sources on the views and opinions of the facility moving forward to the next stage of the process. This information as a collective of evidence will then be used to determine if a majority of the community are in support of the facility. We and many others we have asked have never been given a percentage of a vote or types of submissions as a guideline of ‘broad community support’ as claimed by some people. Broad community support must take into account those that will be mostly impacted in any way and should be based on evidence.ii) How ‘broad community support’ has been or will be determined for each process advancement stage; Broad community support is based on a collection of evidence gathered from assessing as much information on the views and reasons for those views. This evidence is from a wide range of groups and individuals including key stakeholders such as neighbours, local businesses including farming enterprises, as well as the local council, relevant local service clubs and also the whole local community. This evidence could be gathered through all of the following combined: formal and informal chats with departmental staff whilst in Kimba; a whole Kimba District council electorate formal vote; written evidence/submissions from key stake holders; and other evidence deemed necessary and relevant by the minister.
- 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;We understand that the necessary assessments have been and are being carried out in accordance with relevant laws to assess any Native Title Claim or relevant land use applications of the sites nominated in the Kimba area and that these assessments satisfy all necessary laws and requirements to ensure a thorough and appropriate process.
d) Whether and /or how the Government’s ‘community benefit program’ payments affect broad community and Indigenous community sentiment.
To provide more information in relation to this point of reference we feel it is important to talk about how people have formed their opinions at different stages.
The community benefit program was not something that we found out about until well after the first announcement in our community. Our first thoughts were to find out about the proposed facility, what it was, what it would store, how safe it was and how land around Kimba came to be nominated. We were aware that others in the community seemed to form their decision to be against the proposal for Kimba based on their previous knowledge of the word ‘nuclear’ and based their opinion on evidence from many historical events that had no relevance to such a facility. The negativity that derived from this spread quickly which is often normal in a small community. This was before many people could research the proposal and what it actually meant, especially to receive information from the government which clearly explained the facility and the search for this Australia wide. From our discussions in the community many against at this stage have since found out more and their support is now evident but not always public due to fear of upsetting those against.
Those with an open mind and wanting to know more investigated first then formed their opinion and not without many questions being answered first. The first questions people asked included: Number one was will it be safe for the land and people? What is a waste storage facility? What will be held in it? Why does Australia need a facility?
Our point is that the fact that there was a ‘community benefit program’ was not a major contributing factor for majority of people forming their opinions. Yes the ‘community benefit program’ has been a welcome injection of funds to our community at this stage (as the final decision of allocation of funds is still being made), and it along with other activities in the community over the past 2 years is creating a feeling of hope and a more positive future for Kimba. We are a proactive community working together for continuous improvement but to be able to access funds such as this for a wide range of projects and create other opportunities for a more sustainable future then this is a once in a lifetime opportunity.
It is a fact that if and when people are against change in society and other issues, they are the most vocal with the loudest voices and others can fear to be heard. They will also look for reasons why people do not agree with them and in this case the accusation by some that people are bribed and ‘only in it for the money’ is insulting and incorrect.
Therefore, we believe although the community benefit program is a welcome addition to the process we do not believe that people have based their support or non-support on this program.
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; and If we were to bring any new industry to the local community then we would only talk about it in our community and same should be the case in this situation. It is important to recognise that this facility is safe and will be regulated by ARPANSA with the sole purpose to ensure the facilities safety and protection of the people and the environment. Therefore, with the fact sheets and information from the government, ARPANSA and ANSTO that is accessible to all, there is no reason to be concerned and the decision to either go ahead or stay the same should lie solely with the community in question only.
The local communities directly involved are the ones that have been provided with continuous and accurate facts and information sessions in a variety of ways including written print, face to face discussions, a public presentation, private meetings with members, information sessions with relevant experts, an information session and question and answer from members from France, plus opportunities for Kimba locals to visit ANSTO in Sydney.
A concern has been presented by people against this facility to others on the Eyre Peninsula or wider South Australia, that it could affect the sale of agricultural produce because of the perception of ‘Radioactive’ near our grain or stock producing areas. This is also coming from people who know that the facility is safe and that there will be NO contamination. We believe this promotion of the ‘fear of perception’ has sparked the request to involve the wider Eyre Peninsula in a vote for or against the facility near Kimba.
But our point is that instead of using our time and money on raising a perceived concern about ‘perception’ we could all collectively work together and prove to the wider communities, state and nation as well as the buyers of produce, that the facility will be safe and there is no reason to be concerned or o use the facility to effect prices or sale of produce.
Therefore it has been proven that there will be no negative impact on the Kimba region, Eyre Peninsula or wider and therefore the decision should only be left up to the district council of Kimba. The decision should be left to the people that live here, work here, bring their families up here and that have a true knowledge and care for the community, its people and its future.
f) Any other related matters.
The opportunity that our community has had in this process has been varied. From our perspective it has been very beneficial and extremely positive. It has forced the whole community to look at our current situation, where we have come from over the past, the significant changes for the good and the bad and has also generated a greater interest in the future of the community and how everyone can contribute.
The process is new and different to anything we have been involved with as a community and it has presented each of us with challenges and sometimes confronted our knowledge and past beliefs. But at all stages it has been very open to the public and extremely informative.
Like when change occurs in any workplace, group or community there is some resistance and many questions and this is normal. There is always a mix of opinions and beliefs and people can only base this on the information they want to access and search for. Respect has had to play a large part in this process to respect each other’s opinions and rights to access information in different ways.
In the long term we recognise that all members of the community are doing what they feel is right for the community and based on the facts that we have extensively looked at and the knowledge that we have gained we know that this opportunity if pursued could secure the future of Kimba for many generations.
Lyn and Claire Kemp declare their faith in a nuclear waste dump for Kimba
Lyn & Claire Kemp (no 88) Submission To; Committee Secretariat, Senate Standing Committee on Economics re Proposed National Radioactive Waste Facility
We have been a resident in Kimba since 1959 and 1945 respectively. We are happy to provide the committee with this submission relating to the selection process for a national radioactive waste management facility in the Kimba District.
We have no objection to the hosting of a Radioactive Waste Facility on either of the sites chosen.
We think the process has been very fair and the information that has been made available to the residents has been good for the community.
The additional financial benefit to the land owner is minimal and has no bearing on any decision. Considering the government needs land for this project, this seems fair to us.
The community has had ample time to learn and discuss any issues about this facility with the staffed Office in the main street of Kimba.
There has been town meetings with our M.P. and delegations from overseas giving us an insight into what is involved and it is clear that there is no risk or impact on the farming industry at all neither locally or in the surrounding areas. I disagree that we need “broader community views” and believe we have no need to stretch boundaries outside the District Council of Kimba.
We can only see a positive outcome for our town.
- New jobs will be a start and fill some of the empty houses in Kimba.
- 2. We will receive more essential town services (Doctor) which our town has been struggling to keep over the last few years.
- 3. It will give an opportunity for existing businesses to expand and hopefully encourage new business into the town.
- 4. Improved internet and phone services.
- 5. The Benefit Fund is already in the process of being submitted and a number of facilities will benefit. The town is struggling and the population is declining. Our belief is twelve months after the Facility is built people will have forgotten it is there.
Peta Ashworth: vaguely supportive on Selection Process for Nuclear Dump Site
Professor Peta Ashworth School of Chemical Engineering University of Queensland Submission to Senate Re: Inquiry into the selection process for a national radioactive waste management facility in South Australia
As co-Chair of the Independent Advisory Panel (IAP) engaged by the Department of Industry, Innovation and Science (DOIIS) to provide advice on technical and community engagement considerations for the establishment of a National Radioactive Waste Management Facility (NRWMF), I am pleased to provide this submission to the Senate Inquiry (6th February, 2018 – 14th August, 2018).
(The first part of this submission describes the work of the Independent Advisory Panel (IAP)
I have focused my response, based on each of the parts within the TOR which requests commentary about:
“The appropriateness and thoroughness of the site selection process for a national radioactive waste management facility at Kimba and Hawker in South Australia, noting the Government has stated that it will not impose such a facility on an unwilling community…”.
I believe the open and transparent nature of the site selection process conducted by the Department was, and continues to be, appropriate and extremely thorough. This is clearly evidenced by all of the relevant information being made available and accessible on the Department’s website. It is also worth noting, the time and effort spent by departmental officers to engage with shortlisted communities from the outset of the process, was exemplary. This includes providing information and facilitating further information collection at the communities request. In many ways, their efforts represent a new way for governments to proactively engage with affected stakeholders and communities on such complex issues and are consistent with international best practice for community engagement.
A response to each of the specific Parts a – f referred to by the Senate Committee are detailed below:
a) the financial compensation offered to applicants for the acquisition of land under the Nominations of Land Guidelines;
The website and nomination process clearly states the successful property owner of the land selected for the NRWMF site would receive four times the value of the land (DOIIS, 2018). Given the significance of the NRWMF to Australia and our obligation under the ‘joint convention agreement’ with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) (DOIIS, 2016a. p.3), a payment that is above market value appears appropriate, fair and reasonable. The fact that 28 volunteer nominations were initially received by the Department provides additional evidence that this offer was judged as fair by those volunteering their land.
b) how the need for ‘broad community support’ has played and will continue to play a part in the process, including: i) the definition of ‘broad community support’, and
While many definitions of community exist, in the NRWMF process:
“There was a consistent view that the community should be limited to those in close proximity to the nominated site, and those that are likely to be directly affected by the proposal. This included nearby townships which would provide an economic or social base for the facility and its workers.” DOIIS, 2016a. p.8
Hence, boundaries were drawn for each community based on consultation by the Department with a range of local stakeholders for each of the sites. At all times the Department has consulted, and continues to consult, with local host communities to ensure the definition of community remains appropriate and relevant. A prime example of this is during the two consultation periods for Kimba. In consultation with the local community the preferred definition of community changed from “‘within a 50km radius’ of both sites”
(DOIIS, 2017, p.8) to “the community boundary be defined as ‘the Local Government Area of the District Council of Kimba.’”(DOIIS, 2017, p.9). Such a reflexive process helps to build trust in the community as it allows them an opportunity to provide direct input into the process.
- how ‘broad community support’ has been or will be determined for each process advancement stage
The need for ‘broad community support’ has always been a high priority of the site selection process. Within the criteria developed as part of the site selection framework and the MCSA, the criterion “Is there evidence of potential community support or opposition for the facility?” was given the highest weighting of 14.5% by the IAP (GHD, 2015. p.37). This clearly reflects its importance. However, it was agreed that this criterion could not be assessed through the usual MCSA process. Instead, it needed to be done in conjunction with potential host communities and affected stakeholders once they had time to consider all of the information about the NRWMF process.
Additionally, it was agreed that a combination of qualitative (observations, written submissions, face to face meetings and other engagement activities) and quantitative (surveys, polls) data would be required to inform the final decision making of the site selection process. The IAP cautioned that any insights in relation to community sentiment emerging from surveys, should be treated with care and only used in conjunction with all of the other information gathered through the consultation process.
For the Phase One process, initially a 120 day consultation period was undertaken. This resulted in the Barndioota site at Wallerberdina Station near Hawker being selected. With the subsequent nomination of two additional proposed sites in the Kimba region, Napandee and Lyndhurst, a further 90 day consultation period was undertaken by the Department in the Kimba area. This culminated in a poll being conducted by the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) on behalf of the Kimba District Council. The results showed that 57.4% of those polled supported moving to provided all available qualitative and quantitative information to the Minister to assist his decision making process of whether ‘broad community support’ to move to Phase Two existed in both circumstances.
Continuing the consultative and inclusive approach to community engagement and monitoring the ongoing sentiment in both communities the Department has utilised a number of mechanisms. These include, but are not limited to: the establishment of the Barndioota Consultative Committee and the Kimba Consultative Committee in each respective region to allow community members to be independently represented and raise local concerns with the government; recruitment of two Community Liaison Officers who live and work locally within Hawker or Kimba; and access to a number of experts who can provide more information about the NRWMF and answer questions that arise throughout the ongoing consultation. Phase Two (DOIIS, 2017). It is my understanding, the Department
- 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;Considerations for Indigenous support has played, and continues to play, an important part in the process. While Indigenous people are already considered as a key stakeholder group in the community definition, cultural heritage considerations were seen as additionally important. This was reflected in the MCSA under Community Well-being in the criterion “Is the site located in an area where development may impact culture and history?” (GHD, 2015, p. 37). This criterion was weighted by the IAP as a priority at 10% as part of the site selection process. It is my understanding that the Adnyamathanha people, who manage the Yappala Indigenous Protected Area neighbouring Barndioota, are working with the Department to assist in their undertaking of a cultural heritage assessment as a critical part of Phase Two.
Like other parts of the community, it is recognised that within the Adnyamathanha people, different individuals hold diverse views about the value of a NRWMF existing in their community. Some remain opposed while others are more positive, hoping for increased opportunities for training and employment for those living in their local community. The Department remains committed to ensuring the Indigenous people have a voice, with officers of the Department participating in local cultural training, to ensure their ongoing engagement and liaison with the local Indigenous people is at all times culturally sensitive. There is also an Indigenous representative included on the Barndioota Consultative Committee. By chance, the local Hawker Community Liaison Officer happens to be an Indigenous person. While this was not the reason for his recruitment into the position, it does provide another avenue for ensuring those from the Indigenous community feel comfortable when engaging with the NRWMF process. It also provides another conduit for Indigenous sentiment to be communicated to the Department.
- whether and/or how the Government’s ‘community benefit program’ payments affect broad community and Indigenous community sentiment;In relation to whether the “‘community benefit program’ payments affect broad community and Indigenous community sentiment” it is difficult to make an objective judgement in the absence of any independent research. A desktop review, by ter Mors, Terwel and Daamen in 2012, identified that little empirical work to examine the effectiveness of host community compensation in increasing community acceptance for a project, existed. However, their subsequent empirical research suggests that compensation can help build support for a project, but the likelihood of this doing so will be impacted by how closely, or adversely, the beliefs of the project proponents reflect the beliefs of the community members (Zaal, et al., 2014).The IAP held the view that a community benefit fund was appropriate, in recognition of the fact that, like many other proposed developments, the NRWMF process has provided some disruption to the daily lives of those living in the potential host communities. The fact that the ‘community benefit program’ is run as a competitive process, and all applications are considered by the Consultative Committee in each respective community, it helps to facilitate the fair distributed of the benefits package in an open and transparent process. Such considerations of distributive and procedural fairness are critical for building a social license to operate for any project and therefore seems appropriate in this circumstance (Moffat and Zhang, 2014).
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 definition of community in response to Part b (i) is directly related to this Part e. At all stages it was felt that those living in close proximity to the proposed location are those most likely to be affected by the siting of the NRWMF and therefore their views should be prioritised in the site selection process. Similarly, those communities also stand to potentially benefit from the process if the project is to go ahead. Therefore, it is my view the highest priority should be to continue to consult with locally affected stakeholder groups. While it is unlikely the wider (Eyre Peninsular or state-wide) community views would be considered as part of the site selection process, these communities are being kept informed as all information about the process is made available on the website. However they and every other Australian need to be informed of our obligations to the IAEA to ensure we can continue to utilise ANSTO for the production of nuclear medicine and further research.
f) any other related matters.
Finally, as a social scientist who, has been investigating public attitudes towards a range of energy generation technologies that are also not without controversy, it is important to reflect on the effectiveness of the site selection process of the NRWMF to date. In my experience, whenever a new technology with perceived high risks is presented to a community, there will be a mixed response in the local community (see for example: CSG:Gallois et al., 2016; CCS; Ashworth et al., 2015; Wind: Hall, Ashworth & Devine-Wright, 2012). Some community members will staunchly oppose, others will remain positive and even more are likely to sit on the fence and just wish for someone to make a decision. Regardless of such a divide, it is important to ensure a process for engaging in discussion can take place within a community without fear of reprisal.
This is particularly important in regional Australia where the changing nature of farming practices has seen many of the smaller farms being purchased and amalgamated into larger farms. This has meant that many local farming families who once resided in Australia’s small country towns have moved away. This, in turn, has put pressure on local businesses making it harder for them to be profitable based on a reduced demand for specific services. Therefore, the opportunity to host a NRWMF provides hope for some living in Hawker and Kimba to find an alternative revenue stream and keep their communities alive.
There is no doubt that bi-partisan support for the project will be critical to the success of finding a host site for the NRWMF and will also help communities move forward in their deliberations. Finding a suitable site has a long and fraught history in Australia that both political parties have tried to solve unsuccessfully for many years. I believe it is worth recognising that the voluntary process developed as part of the 2012 Act, and used for this process is unique. It provides an excellent example of Australia’s innovative approach to finding a solution to this complex issue. I believe the Department’s continued engagement with communities to ensure them a voice in the process should help the respective potential host communities to openly decide if they wish to continue along the proposed phases or not.
Denise Carpenter -in Hawker, anti-nuclear information has been refuted by experts
Denise Carpenter Submission to Senate Inquiry on site selection process for a national radioactive waste management facility in South Australia.
I personally have no issues with the site selection process used in our area (Hawker). The following information is supplied in support of my opinion.
• The land acquisition request was advertised in newspapers and everyone had the opportunity to put their land forward. The fact that neighbours have complained that they were not consulted is trivial as I would not consult with my neighbours if selling or renting my property.
• The financial compensation offered to applicants for their land is minuscule – 3 times current land value for the land acquired. In the case of Barndioota it is an area of only 100 hectares on a 25000 hectare property. • Community support is an interesting aspect of this proposed repository. The site is remote to ‘adjoining neighbours’, to the closest towns and is not visible from the closest sealed road. The repository will no doubt have many positive implications to the towns in its proximity. The local community has had ample opportunity to avail themselves of any information they need to make an evaluated decision. I find it interesting that broad community support is being considered as I can only see positive outcomes for the community which acquires the repository. I have never known community support to be a consideration for other businesses, ventures, opportunities in SA.
• The indigenous people are actively involved in this process, as members of the community, as landowners of an adjoining property and are represented on various committees which are looking at the proposed repository. Their traditional beliefs are being considered at each level.
• I don’t believe the community benefit program has affected the sentiment of the people in our area. Successful applicants have come from a diverse sector and comprise of groups that are both ‘for’ and ‘against’ the repository.
• Wider community views. I believe that it is not necessary to involve wider community views – it does not affect them either way and I can only see positive outcomes for the local community involved including jobs, retaining and hopefully increasing essential town services (school, hospital, sustain and encourage new local businesses).
• The opportunity for a small country SA town to have such a facility come to their area can mean the long term survival of the town, rather than the demise of another country community.
• I am comfortable with the information available from various sources, public meetings, Internet, local people on committees, Internet, face to face discussions, availability of guest speakers, radio interviews, newspapers, displays etc. Overall, people who are positive about the proposed repository, after researching information available, are in favour because of the benefits it offers. They, including myself, tend to be accepting of the proposal and are not vocal, nor do they influence others.
It is my opinion that people opposed to the proposal are a vocal group and have been known to be giving out information which can, and has, been refuted by experts. I hereby give my permission for my submission to be published on the net and it does not have to be kept private. I can be contacted as per the above details.
Ian Carpenter: nuclear waste dump would ensure survival of Hawker
Ian Carpenter. Submission to Senate Inquiry on Selection process for a national radioactive waste management facility in South Australia (Submission No.3)
I wish to make comments on the inquiry re the proposed nuclear repository in SA, in Hawker area more specifically.
As a long term resident of Hawker and having had two tourism businesses in Hawker, I am glad that the opportunity has arisen for Hawker to be considered as a location for a national repository
Re the land acquisition process. I am happy that this was well advertised and that the financial compensation for the area of land required is nominal and can’t be seen as an incentive for any landowner to offer part of their property.
I really can’t see why an Inquiry has been instigated as initially the community supported the idea and this was reflected in a ballot. Some of the local aboriginal people, the Adnymathanha, have voiced their opinions against it, but others have stated that they are in favour of it. Broad community support was established and heritage assessments, geological reports and cultural beliefs are all being taken into consideration.
The community benefit program has been embraced by people both for and against the repository as it has been seen as an opportunity to acquire financial assistance to enhance the services/businesses and employment opportunities in our area. I don’t believe people are ‘shallow enough’ to let this program influence their thoughts on the repository.
State or Australia wide community views should not be considered as the location of the repository will have no affect on their wellbeing, businesses or lifestyle.
We currently have a nuclear reactor operating at Lucas Heights and this has not deterred people from living and working there. In fact it has proven a tourist and financial attraction to them. There are uranium mines operating in SA. One of these, Beverly, is in our area and an in-situ leaching method is being used for extraction, which involves the injection of sulphuric acid and hydrogen peroxide, which is trucked in, and then the concentrate is trucked to Port Adelaide for shipping. There are no objections to this mining operation, so I cannot see any negatives in having a world best practise waste repository established here. The proposed site is remote to our town, is not visible from any recognised roads and will offer employment both onsite and for Hawker and Quorn businesses.
I trust that common sense will prevail and people who are currently vocal against the proposal seek more information, which is freely and widely available, to give them a better understanding on the benefits and safety measures in place.
The benefits for our towns and surrounding areas are obvious and far outweigh the negative suggestions being mooted by some people. This repository would ensure our towns survival and it is my understanding that such a repository will not affect the application for a World Heritage Listing in our area.
Chelsea Haywood sees nuclear waste dump as saving Hawker from a slow death
Chelsea Haywood. Submission to Senate Inquiry on Selection process for a national radioactive waste management facility in South Australia
My name is Chelsea Haywood and I purchased my house in Hawker 13 years ago. I lived in Waubra Victoria when the windfarm was in its proposal stage and was actively involved in the process of community education. I have 2 young children t1 that attends the school here, and the other just started pre entry at Kindy. Both my husband and myself work and devote a lot of our time to the community.
I am secretary of the Hawker Community Development Board, Chair of the Flindersfest Committee, Active on the Swimming Pool Committee while supporting my husband who is a volunteer ambo, on the EWG and BCC (both consulting committees for the project) how the need for ‘broad community support’ has played and will continue to play a part in the process, including:
the definition of ‘broad community support’ [she puts this in red]
broad community support should be kept to those that will be affected should this proposal move forward. By this I mean that there is no need to involve the entire state as it will not impact on them either way should the project go ahead or not. Those in the local area “Hawker” can already see the benefits such a facility can have for our area. Where as those from outside the area are concentrating on the stereo type the word nuclear brings to the state, while ignoring the broader picture, they do not care if Hawker dies a slow death due to lack of employment etc as it has no direct impact on themselves or their homes. The Government needs to talk more to those in Hawker and understand their support for the proposal as at the moment only the minority are being heard due to the yelling
how ‘broad community support’ has been or will be determined for each process advancement stage; [her red]
Remembering that I have children that may well have grandchildren here one day I wanted to make sure that it would be safe before even considering the idea Before moving onto round one I received a phone call asking for my thoughts on the said proposal. As I had spent the time to educate myself on the risks that such a site could pose I saw no need to oppose the proposal. Shall we continue to stage 3 and it is put to a formal vote I still will not be opposing as there are no risks to be found. I suggest that using a formal voting system such as what was used at Kimba would be more beneficial as people can vote without fear of repercussion
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; [her red]
Local Indigenous have been involved since the announcement of the proposal. I believe that if you want to take a stance on their behalf you need to talk to more than just a couple from the area and also check on what their response was a few months ago. I am more than happy to provide you with quite a few names of those that are for the project. Currently they are getting the best help possible from the Government to be able to collate their history with DNA and age testing, GPS marking of sacred sites so as to protect them for years to come with out this project this would never be documented for generations to come. Any problems found while surveying the sites geographically and historically which be taken into consideration when they decide on a final site.
whether and/or how the Government’s ‘community benefit program’ payments affect broad community and Indigenous community sentiment; [her red]
The benefit program was set up to help with the impact that the proposal has had on our district. So far we have people come from overseas to hold rallys against the proposal without a thought that maybe the district does want this. We have had state members visit the town and disregard any local problems (that have not stemmed from this) due to the minority yelling the loudest. Also people that are against the site have still applied for grant funds and succeeded without changing their stance on the proposal. The small injection of funds into the community has helped us to get things done that would otherwise take years of baking sales and fundraisers. This shows that the money other than assisting where required has not impacted on anyones thoughts on the proposal.
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 [her red]
Why should the entire state be given the option to vote into something that will have absolutely no impact on if it is to not go ahead, where as it has a massive impact on my community. Broad community should be held to the current area that is being used and could probably even be made smaller. If this site is to go ahead Quorn will still keep their tourism and the travellers through the town, they also have a greater population that is more diverse than Hawker.
This has the possibility to save employment in the town which is currently on the down fall and bring with it more families, which in turn boosts our available services. If Barndioota is selected it will hold no impact whatsoever for Adelaide, the Limestone Coast or elsewhere. IF you wish to give the entire state a say in the project I believe that everything that is then put forward to occur anywhere in this state should go to a statewide vote and cannot occur with out majority rules
This inquiry is supposed to be about the ‘site selection’ process, yet not one term of reference reflects this. If the site selection is the issue, surely your terms should reflect this and not how everything is impacting the local indigenous and the federal government ‘buying’ support.
As it stands my view on the site selection process was well handled. There was no need to get 300+ communities hopeful by alerting all towns of the properties tendered. We received notification once it was dwindled to 5 properties and straight away the government had an open door policy when it comes to questions and learning more about the proposal. There are many in the community that are for the proposal but due to hearing what happens if you are vocal have remained quiet. Similar things happen in districts when it comes to other proposals as well eg. Windfarms, Big Batteries. You will always have people against the proposals that yell the loudest so they can be heard, but when people dig a little deeper in a community they find that there is a lot more support to be found, they just don’t feel the need to yell and Hawker is the same at the moment. I would like to invite any of the Inquiry committee members to come and spend some time in Hawker (not just with the against group) and see exactly how much support is out there
Jeff Baldock (volunteered his land) : the Kimba waste dump selection vote a matter for locals only.
Jeff Baldock Submission To : Committee Secretariat, Senate Standing Committee on Ecomomics Re-Proposed National Radioactive Waste Management Facility From :- (Submission No.39)
I am a 60yr old, 3rd generation farmer from Kimba. Along with my wife, two sons, our daughter and their families including 7 grandchildren, we run our properties which produce cereals, legumes, oilseeds, sheep, meat and wool.
TERMS OF REFERENCE
A ) FINANCIAL COMPENSATION The compensation offered to the landowner for this project is in line with any other land sale in our area, that involves the purchase of a small portion of someone’s land to be used for a specific purpose.
B) BROAD COMMUNITY SUPPORT (i) The definition of “Broad Community Support”. (ii) How “Broad Community Support” has been or will be determined for each process advancement stage.
I believe Broad Community Support is anything over 50% of the people, who reside in our district council area, along with Council support and clear direct neighbour support.
- INDIGENOUS SUPPORT I am unaware of any real interest being shown from the Barngarla group from our area, other than a small group visited the Kimba sites but declined an offer to meet with the landowners. You will need to refer to the dept. who have had contact with them.(D) COMMUNITY BENEFIT PROGRAM
Being a small rural community that relies heavily on farming along with our ever shrinking population, means it is getting harder for the community to raise funds for projects/upgrades that need to be done for the various sporting and service clubs. The community benefit program will be a very welcome relief to the financial strain we all feel at times, however I don’t believe it would affect the way people will vote on the facility.
(E) WIDENING COMMUNITY VIEWS
I don’t believe people outside of the Kimba area should be involved in any vote on the process moving forward, as I don’t believe there will be any negative affect from this facility being built in Kimba. All the information sessions have been aimed at the Kimba community therefore I think it would be unfair to invite people outside this area to give an informed view. There is nothing to stop people outside the Kimba District Council area sending their views to the Minister or the Department, but they should not expect to be able to vote on the issue.
(F) OTHER RELATED MATTERS
In summary, I believe Kimba Residents have had every opportunity to fully understand this proposal. We have had visits from all types of experts in the fields of Nuclear Medicine, Radiation Safety, Geoscience, Waste Management and also activists from Friends of the Earth, Conservation Council and Medical Association for the Prevention of War. I have attended every session available to us.
The department has consistently asked everyone for suggestions of speakers with relevant expertise that the community may want to hear from. Anyone who claims they have not been ‘ informed’ has not been willing to be engaged in the process, which in my view has been extremely thorough.
Kimba is the only community that has participated in a proper vote conducted by the AEC, which showed a resounding 57.4% in favour from 88% of the community voting. This along with Council support and strong direct neighbour support, including unanimous support at one of the nominated sites, resulted in Minister Canavan , accepting both new nominations into Phase 2. Jeff Baldock (Napandee site nominator)
Andrew Baldock (offered his land for nuclear waste dump) dismisses objections to the plan
Andrew Baldock Submission to Senate Standing Committees on Economics Re – Proposed National Radioactive Waste Management Facility (Submission no. 38)
I am a 4th generation farmer in the Kimba District with all 4 of my grandparents being from pioneering farming families of the district. I farm with my wife Dale and soon to be 4 children as well as my brother and his wife and children, my sister and her husband and children, along with our parents.
Our family has been involved in this process from the outset with our family nominating a parcel of land in the initial round of applications which failed to progress to the technical assessment stage due to a lack of neighbouring support. We have since offered up a number of parcels of land to the community renomination process of which one site “Napandee” was put forward to support the community in re-entering the NRWMF assessment process as a result of strong community and neighbouring support.
I am pleased to be able to provide information to the inquiry on the appropriateness and thoroughness of the National Radioactive Waste Management Facility (NRWMF) site selection process in Kimba SA. I give my permission for this submission to be made public and would be available to speak with the Senate committee to answer any further questions on the Kimba process with particular reference to:
a) the financial compensation offered to applicants for the acquisition of land under the Nominations of Land Guidelines;
The financial compensation being offered to applicants is a one-off land purchase at 4 times the market rate for a 100ha parcel of land. I see this as being very fair and equitable and very much in line with any agricultural land sales for alternative use such as residential or industrial developments.
As nominated landholders we understand the site will be positioned on the most suitable 100ha portion of the nominated land holding. This is likely to have a considerable impact on the efficiencies of our farming operations and as a result quickly eroding any economic gain from the land sale.
This level of financial compensation is unlikely to be a driving factor for any nominating landholder especially in low value landholdings such as Kimba and Hawker. The 100ha site nominated equates to less than 1.4% of our farm operation, the sale of this land makes very little difference to our financial position. We see the siting of this facility in the district making a huge difference to the host community.
b) how the need for ‘broad community support’ has played and will continue to play a part in the process, including: i) the definition of ‘broad community support’, and ii) how ‘broad community support’ has been or will be determined for each process advancement stage;
I can only speak for the process in the Kimba community of which the community has been at the heart of the discussion from the very start of this process.
The idea of the community putting nominations forward for consideration come about as a result of a community consultation meeting held by local MP for Grey, Rowan Ramsey, who at the time was considering nominating his own farm. Our family attended this meeting which resulted in an overwhelming majority of attendees supporting local nominations into the process to give the community the opportunity to investigate the proposal further.
As a result of this early support for the concept a number of nominations were put forward by local landholders with two of those making the shortlist enabling the community to enter the initial community consultation process. This consultation provided a high level of community engagement with many opportunities for all interested parties to have their say. An extensive phone poll survey was also undertaken which showed a majority support to progress to the technical assessment stage across the district; however neighbouring support was low for the two nominated sites and as a result neither nomination progressed.
Following this decision there was a high level of disappointment amongst community members and as a result of community discussion a local community group investigated alternate sites within the community which would be suitable for renomination. There were a number of sites which were made publicly known about the possibility of nomination including engagement with neighbouring landholders and the local council. As a result, two sites “Napandee” and “Lyndhurst” were put forward for consideration to nominate to enter the NRWMF assessment process.
Once nominations were lodged for these properties the community was fortunate to have further community consultation and opportunities to express their views on the possibility of the Minister accepting these nominations into the technical assessment stage. This culminated in the council facilitating a very unique Electoral Commission vote resulting in an overwhelming majority of 57.4% support in progressing the nominations.
This level of broad community support as well as consideration of the views of neighbouring landholders, council engagement, views of interested individuals and groups not included in the voting region resulted in the minister being satisfied there is adequate support to warrant the nominations to progress to the technical assessment stage.
The local community as well as the broader community has opportunities to express their views on the proposal by means of community engagement and submissions on the proposal as the process runs and the local community has been assured another vote will be undertaken prior to the minister making a decision as to whether either site will progress to the licence application phase.
I believe that broad community support has been displayed throughout the process. There are many views that need to be considered with various weighting when considering the definition of broad community support. In theory anything over 50% should be considered as broad community. But when considering the views of those outside the district boundaries, the added weight of the neighbouring views etc. I think it needs to be left to the minister’s discretion as to what determines “broad community support” as there are to many variables to attempt to impose a mandated figure.
What has become very clear to me throughout this process is that no matter how well consulted, how robust the science is or how clear the consent from the local community is, the well established anti-nuclear movement will attack the process from another angle with no accountability for their claims.
Broad support can be shown in Kimba. The District Council of Kimba has actively participated in the process and has openly supported the process through to phase 2. As requested by the people in Kimba they arranged an Australian Electoral Commission vote for registered voters in the Kimba electorate so that it was fair to all. They also invited other people who were not on the Kimba electoral role but had a vested interest in Kimba to apply for a vote.
As per the NRWMF guidelines, direct neighbours support was very important. Of the two sites in Kimba there is 90% ‘direct neighbour’ support.
An Electoral Commission vote held in June 2017, returned a clear majority 57.4% support in favour for Kimba moving to Phase 2 (the consultation stage) of the project. I have seen many indications that support has been maintained since that time.
- whether and/or how the Government’s ‘community benefit program’ payments affect broad community and Indigenous community sentiment;I believe the community benefit program is a fair way of compensating the community for the disruption the nomination process has caused the community. This fairly modest level of community funding will ensure the nominated communities will have some lasting legacy projects for the good of the community, whether they host the project or not. Allowing for positive outcomes for communities having undertaken this process.
This level of funding is certainly not likely to influence people to support the project alone, the safety and integration of the facility along with the opportunities the siting of the facility presents, are the driving factors in people’s decision making
. d) 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 firmly believe that the main driving factor of any decision should be based on the outcome of a Kimba District Council boundary vote with extra consideration given to the sentiments of the immediate surrounding landholders.
This is the community which will be impacted by the siting of the facility and this is the community who has been thoroughly consulted on the facility. Those outside of the council boundary have had and should continue to have the opportunity to voice their opinions through means of consultation meetings with DISS as well as written correspondence. But to open the vote up beyond the council boundary would set a difficult precedence for any future development processes across the country.
It is very clear from the project brief and the science presented that this project will have no impact outside of the walls of the proposed facility apart from the economic and social benefit as a result of the construction works and ongoing employment and economic support.
a) any other related matters
I welcome the senate inquiry into this process as I hope it will provide assurity to all involved that the department and the minister’s office have gone above and beyond in their requirements to provide communities with information regarding the project and opportunities to voice their opinions regarding the proposal.
I can not imagine many other projects, government or privately run would have had the level of community engagement this has had. We have had a number of community votes so far including a full electoral commission vote just to consult as to weather the community is willing to discuss the project further. The process that has been run to date has been as thorough as I could imagine.
The reality is that you could run the process a hundred different ways and it will always be attacked by those opposed as a means to create division and distrust. I have the upmost confidence in the process that has been set out to measure community support.
I look forward to the findings on the enquiry
Jessica Morgan’s enthusiastic endorsement of ANSTO and the nuclear waste dump plan for Kimba
Jessica Morgan. Submission to Senate on Selection process for a national radioactive waste management facility in South Australia. (Submission no. 37)
My husband and I live and work in Hawker and are raising our three children here, our two oldest attend Hawker Area School and our youngest will be three this year. I have lived here for ten years and my husband over 20, we welcome this project. We believe it is a wonderful opportunity for our community and believe firmly in the benefits of increased employment. We also believe that this facility will ensure other essential services in our town, such as the hospital, police, and improved mobile phone coverage. We also hope that this project may assist in increasing student numbers at the school. In June 2016 when on a personal trip to Sydney I had the benefit of visiting ANSTO, I was taken on a tour which included going to level 13 and visiting the waste storage areas. I have stood next to and touched the canister containing the intermediate level waste with my 9 month old baby in a carrier on my chest, feeling totally confident of my own safety and that of my child. I left ANSTO very impressed not only in their contribution to our first class medical system, which Australia is so fortunate to have, but also the work in other areas of science and technology. Having seen the waste storage areas I saw first hand the need for the national waste facility to be located at another site. I also learnt the vast difference between the reactor at Lucas Heights and nuclear power reactors in other countries, with the main reactors coming to mind being Fukushima and Chernobyl. Nuclear electrical generation is a totally different undertaking to the ANSTO pursuits and we must distinguish between the two.
The financial compensation for the land is calculated at four times the land value of the area required, not the full property, is not a large windfall for the applicant. I question if the loss of productivity of the land area will be more than the compensation.
The definition of “broad community support” will differ between people, in my opinion 50% plus one is a majority and while I deem majority rules should apply I understand this will not be considered broad. Someone against the facility may say that broad community support is 65-70% in which case a minority may win. I have full confidence in the department deciding on the definition of broad community support.
The department has set up offices in the local communities, they are regularly here to answer questions, assist with grant applications and have organised tours to ANSTO. Heritage assessments are being carried out on the land and the project has both support and opposition from the Aboriginal community. I am most impressed with the level of community engagement and complement the department for their ongoing communication.
The first round of the community benefit program had applications from people who both support and oppose the proposed facility. The second round of applications closed in February and the successful grants will be announced in coming days. Once again there will probably be successful applications from people both opposed to and in support of the facility. Having almost $2 million dollars injected into our small community has seen some wonderful things happen.
The only people whose views should be taken into consideration are those living in the area and those actively involved with the community. Given the small population of our area, taking into the consideration the views of a wider area or the state would mean the decision would no longer be made by the local community. It must be remembered that there are almost 130 nuclear waste sitesall around Australia, someone living in Adelaide is already living near nuclear waste. The proposed land is not in a tourist area and cannot be seen from main roads. I estimate the nominated land is nearly 40km as the crow flies from Rawnsley Bluff, the city of Adelaide and most of its suburbs would fit in between.
Annie Clements happy to see nuclear waste dump powering Kimba community into the future
Annie Clements: Submission to Senate Standing Committee on Economics Subject: Proposed National Radioactive Waste Facility (Submission No 35)
I have lived in Kimba for sixty years and am an active member of the community including as a volunteer Ambulance Officer for the last 28 years. I am also a member of the Working for Kimba’s Future group. I am completely comfortable with the Low/Intermediate Nuclear Waste Facility in Kimba and believe that the process has been good.
We have two sites nominated in the Kimba district to host a Low/Intermediate Nuclear Waste Management facility. Both were put forward voluntarily and are 100 hectares each. The financial compensation offered was four times the value of the land. I think this is fair as it is just a small portion of the farm’s acreage. Both sites could hardly be described as prime farming land, more like marginal land.
In my opinion the process has been open and transparent from the beginning. Rowen Ramsey sent out a brochure announcing a town meeting in April 2015 to discuss the idea of nominating a site for a low/intermediate nuclear waste facility. When I attended the meeting I was surprised to see only around forty people there considering the very different subject. Those who did not attend cannot say that it was not advertised.
“Broad community support” probably means different things to different people. Looking at the meaning of broad in a dictionary includes – wide not narrow – generalised bold in effect or style – being tolerant in thought or opinion – need not be included or counted in a vote. In a state or federal election anyone who has 51% of votes would consider that they have been elected. The process here in Kimba deserves to be respected in the same way.
Minister Canavan announced that the two Kimba sites had been accepted to enter phase 2 after a postal vote that concluded on June 22 2017. This included everyone within the Kimba Council boundary. The post vote showed that 57% of those who chose to vote (which was 80 % of the whole district. 20 % chose not to vote) wanted to move forward for more consultation, assessment and information. Plus, the District Council is supportive and nearly all of the direct neighbours of the sites are supportive. I am very comfortable with this decision. There will be another vote later this year that will determine whether the facility can go to the next and final phase.
As far as indigenous involvement goes, I am aware that a few weeks ago a group of people I think from the Barngala tribe spent a few days in and around Kimba and met with the Department of Industry Innovation and Science staff. That’s good, since they are the right people to be involved.
Because the two Kimba sites have progressed to phase 2, we are eligible to receive the Community Benefit Program, just like the community near Hawker. Currently, 34 projects have been nominated and are being assessed. A broad range of groups, clubs and individuals have entered their projects and I’m sure all will be beneficial for the community.
The Kimba community has the advantage of receiving lots of information and education on the safety any risks and benefits of this facility. People outside our area could be influenced by anti nuclear scare campaigns and wild allegations that have no relevance to this facility. There will be no negative impact from this facility on land adjacent to it, let alone outside the district. I strongly believe that the boundary that was in place for the vote in April 2017 must be retained for the next vote i.e. the Kimba District Council boundary. Wudinna, a neighbouring town, is planning a large mine funded by a Chinese company. I see no reason why we in Kimba should have a vote on whether that goes ahead. The Kimba community should have the right to decide if we want this facility or not.
Some things that have happened during the process. Several town meetings – department of Industry Innovation and Science opened an office usually here, two days a week – appointment of a Community Liaison Officer – established the Kimba Consultative Committee – recently took nominations for a Kimba Economic working group – visits from experts in different fields including nuclear medicine – visit from Minister Canavan – also ARPANSA – a delegation of close neighbours to a nuclear waste facility in France – tours to the Lucas Heights nuclear facility open to anyone either for or against the facility. We really have had a good opportunity to learn, and this continues.
Australia needs a low/intermediate nuclear waste management facility. Some say why Kimba? Well I say why not Kimba? We need this facility to enable our small, struggling community to power into the future. Fifteen jobs and extra activity may not sound like much to city folk, but would make a huge difference to us, so we should be able to make that decision ourselves. If this economic committee wants to be helpful, it can at least give us that much respect, while we think about our economic future.
Margaret and Charlie Milton – excited at the prospect of Kimba nuclear waste dump
Margaret & Charlie Milton Submission to Senate Standing Committee on Economics economics Subject: Proposed National Radioactive Waste Facility
I have been a resident of the Kimba for 43 years, and my husband has been a resident for 53 years. We are happy to provide the Committee with this submission relating to ‘the appropriateness and thoroughness of the site selection process for a national radioactive waste management facility at Kimba…’.Personally, We have no objection to the potential to host a national radioactive waste facility on the two sites that have been nominated for selection in our Kimba District.
More importantly we think the process has been fair, the information we have received has been good, and we are getting everything we need to make the right decision for our community.
The additional financial benefit to land owner is minimal. Four times the market value of such a small parcel of land is negligible in the overall scheme of things. It takes a huge effort to make a living out of farming in our district, with big costs and big risks every single year. If one of our farmers makes some additional money from this land, that’s great. But it’s not going to make them wealthy in its own right. Considering the government needs land for a national project, this seems more than fair to me.
Community support is interesting aspect of this proposed facility. I have seen and learned about many positive implications on the town from this project going ahead.
Our community has had ample opportunity to learn more about the proposed facility. Any time we need to know more, there is a shopfront that is staffed on main street in Kimba
Early meetings with Rowan Ramsey MP gave us a good insight
We have had several Town Meetings
A French delegation visited Kimba to give us some insight into living near nuclear facilities. It seems to be no problem at all.
We have had meetings with Departmental members Some in the community have been fortunate to meet with Minister Canavan
Trips have been organised and funded to visit ANSTO to learn more about waste storage
It will be a huge lift for the local businesses in the development of the site.
There is no apparent risk to land prices or the prices of grain that is grown in the area. That has been a big concern by some farmers but there won’t be any negative impact on our farming community.
It will have a huge impact for the local businesses in general, that will cater for the influx of people who will infiltrate our community in the building of this Waste Facility.
Huge impact on businesses with tourism set to soar with the building of this Facility
Overall, We are very comfortable in the knowledge that the community has had ample opportunity to learn about the potential Facility. There has been plenty of media coverage (newspaper, social media, radio, television) and through the Department of Industry, Innovation and Science which is in the community most weeks 2 days per week. They have a display which shows what it will look like if built here and personally can see no impact on the surrounding area. We don’t know what the community will decide, but the process has been fair and open with lots of opportunity to learn and ask questions. We were asked to vote on whether to get more assessment and information about the opportunity and we voted yes. So that’s what’s happening. It would be unfair for us to not have the chance to learn more.
We disagree that we need ‘broader community views’ and the need to stretch the boundaries outside of our District Council. What is happening in our Community is exactly that: our community. As residents of Kimba for the last 43 years, plus ++ We see no reason that the rest of SA has a right to tell us what we can and can’t have. It is our back yard, not theirs. We are the community. We are all allowed our own personal opinions and feelings on this matter but, when we have to, we pull together as a community and are always there for each other.
From everything we have learned, we can only see positive outcomes for our town
. New jobs. It might only be 15 to start with but forcibly there may be more than that. What a bonus to fill some of the many empty house in our community, and an influx of students to our school which has diminishing numbers every year.
We are more likely to received essential town services: hospital, doctor (which we are struggling to keep), dentist (which we do not have). We need to keep the services we have but that has been a huge struggle in recent years.
The need for a Doctor to be based permanently in Kimba as currently we do not have a Doctor and have to travel to see one.
It’s an opportunity to support existing businesses and try and encourage new local business, which brings economic benefits to the town.
Businesses have been seeing a decline in customers as land is sold it is been purchased by neighbours to make larger farms Very few farms are being bought by farmers from out of the district. We need new people here and this is an opportunity for new community member.
Improved phone and internet service would be an added bonus for our community.
: The $2,000,000 Benefit Fund. What a bonus for a small community!! That’s just a ‘thank you’ for taking part. I am so glad to see friends and organisation in the town applying for funding of their projects. We know how hard we all work as volunteers and this is a really great thing. We can see such a bonus for the community with the opportunity to put forward grants to obtain money for thing that would not be because of lack in funding. It’s a win for social clubs, sporting facilities and anyone else who think they are eligible to put in a submission for funding.
So, we can see the opportunity for a small country town such as ours to have such a facility. It could ultimately mean long term survival for our community. The whole town is struggling. The CFS, the SES, Ambulance Service, they are all struggling for numbers in a declining population. We might not choose to support it, and we might not even be offered it (there is another location in Hawker too). But we should be able to decide for ourselves. It’s a shame we have to have this inquiry. Everything so far has been fair and reasonable.
Federal nuclear waste dump siting process is slammed by traditional owners
Traditional owners slam selection process
Kathryn Bermingham, Australian Associated Press, July 6, 2018
https://www.news.com.au/national/breaking-news/traditional-owners-slam-selection-process/news-story/68414362e51f77c35333dc453574dccb
A traditional owner of land identified as a possible site for a radioactive waste facility says an Aboriginal consultation process has left her feeling ostracised within her own family.
Regina McKenzie, an owner of Adnyamathanha country in South Australia’s Flinders Ranges, is calling on the government to abandon its “ineffective, inappropriate and incomplete” Aboriginal cultural heritage assessment.
The Senate’s Economics Reference Committee on Friday held a public hearing at Hawker, where Ms McKenzie is a resident, after a similar event on Thursday at Kimba, on the Eyre Peninsula.
Both towns have been earmarked as possible sites for the federal government’s National Radioactive Waste Management Project, which will initially store low and medium-level waste before a second centre is opened for medium-level material.
The Senate inquiry is focusing on the site selection process, which Ms McKenzie says has alienated culturally appropriate people from participation.
“(The process) has caused significant mental health issues within our broader Aboriginal community and continuing lateral violence within our immediate family,” her submission to the committee states. The process has left me feeling ostracised within my own family. I find myself constantly witnessing aggressive, misogynistic and culturally inappropriate behaviour from a select few who have been validated through the process.”
The committee on Friday heard from various community organisations, including the Hawker Community Development Board. In its submission, the group said the government’s benefit program, which provides business and community groups with funding, has given the town a boost. “Consensus among the community is that the community benefit program has assisted in the district getting some needed projects completed that may not otherwise occur,” the submission states. Our small country town that has been dwindling for years has the potential to harness this project and grow into the future.”
Labor Senator Alex Gallacher shows his pro nuclear colours at Hawker meeting on Nuclear Waste Dump Siting
Katrina Bohr No Nuclear Waste Dump Anywhere in South Australia, 6 July 18
In a conversation, he declared there is no difference between transporting uranium or radioactive waste.
He condones the continued export of nuclear medicines, which will continue to feed the waste here.
I felt during the proceedings that he wasn’t showing impartiality.
He made disparaging remarks about certain evidence presented during the day.
I like to know who. ….. https://www.facebook.com/groups/1314655315214929
Senator Rex Patrick in Whyalla – concerned that nuclear waste facility in South Australia is already a ‘done deal’
Senator talks nuclear, Whyalla News, Louis Mayfield , 6 July 18
Centre Alliance Senator Rex Patrick recently visited Whyalla ahead of two public hearings in Kimba and Hawker for the federal inquiry into the selection process for a national radioactive waste management facility.
Senator Patrick, who initiated the senate inquiry, said he was ‘very concerned’ how fair the selection process for the site had been so far.
“At these hearings we want to hear different perspectives from people in the community not so much on whether there should or shouldn’t be a facility, but on whether this process has been run fairly.”
Mr Patrick said there is a site in Western Australia which has ‘considerable support’ as a location for a nuclear waste facility, and believes it should be included in the nuclear discussion.
“We shouldn’t be holding back on that particular site. My worry is that even if we get across the line in Kimba or Hawker, we’ll have a bitterly divided community,” he said.
“It’s simply better to find a site with broad community support and recognise that as a very positive thing for such a facility That’s why I don’t want the Western Australia site ruled out.”
However Mr Patrick is concerned that the decision to establish a low-level nuclear waste facility in South Australia is already a ‘done deal’, given statements made by Resources Minister Matt Canavan……..https://www.whyallanewsonline.com.au/story/5511488/senator-talks-nuclear/
Melanie Orman’s confidence in Nuclear Waste Management Facility Taskforce is misplaced ? – responses to her Submission
Dave Dehelpe No Nuclear Waste Dump Anywhere in South Australia 6 July 18 Unless Mz Orman has dicovered a method of transporting the waste without passing through other towns or properties in S.A. then it is essential that the rest of S.A. claims the same voting rights that she wishes to deny all South Australians.
Steve Dale She says – “I do trust and believe that this facility will not have a negative impact of the community of Kimba” – too late, the sweaty desperation of the nuclear pushers has already caused a huge amount of damage to South Australians. “Trust” – I wouldn’t trust them as far as I could throw a container of High Level Waste (which they call “Intermediate” – trust blown already).
Picture below is from a UK radioactive waste management document – the UK call it High Level Waste (HLW) – our parliament (at the urging of ANSTO and nuclear lobbyists) passes a law to make us call it “Intermediate”. Oh what a tangled web they weave….. https://www.facebook.com/groups/1314655315214929/
1 This month
of the week – Australians for War Powers Reform (AWPR)
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
Antinuclear 