SUBMISSIONS TO SENATE INQUIRY 18

Well, the Senate Committee came up with a wishy washy support of the process for siting nuclear waste. They quoted extensively from the submissionss, but didn’t seem to have much of an idea of their own. Did they think that quoting the problem areas just let them off actually thinking about them?

The Greens, -Senator Hanson-Young, and Centre Alliance, Senator Rex Patrick contributed respectively – a Dissenting Report, and Additional Comments.

Coalition  Senators added a short Additional Comments –  nit=picking about the language in the Report, and saying that ex-Senator Grant Chapman had no conflict of interest in offering his land.

Analysing the submissions about nuclear waste plan, Noel Wauchope

Finally I have studied all 112 submissions, (with the exception of the 13 Confidential ones.)

Anti-nuclear submission number 58, and are in general, more thorough, and better referenced than the others.  Pro nuclear submissions number 40. Most of these are not comprehensive nor well documented, and tend to be repetitive .

Below are summaries, in alphabetical order of surnames, and each contains a link to the full submission to be found on this Antinuclear website.

The anti nuclear summaries are listed first.  Scroll below these – the pro nuclear summaries are then listed.

The Senate Inquiry  on Selection process for a national radioactive waste management facility in South Australia. has now 109  submissions published. 

Here are summaries of the submissions, listed alphabetically, as we go through them – first the summaries of those opposed to the process. 

• Adnyamathanha Traditional Lands Association (ATLA).(No 42)   Adnyamathanha Traditional Land Association (ATLA) is the peak body for all matters relating to land, culture, heritage, language and native title for Adnyamathanha people.  ATLA has consistently and publicly opposed the dump plan  and several times voted against it. Primarily, ATLA opposed the dump because it would destroy the environment and with that the cultural and spiritual values of their people. ATLA is in partnership with IBA to purchase the Wilpena Pound Resort. (And this is an argument that might more readily be understood by stupid white males).  The Flinders Ranges, a world-class destination of beauty – will be ruined as a tourist destination, and employing mainly Aboriginal people, if the area becomes the place for a radioactive waste dump. Indigenous opposition to the plan has been disregarded: ATLA was not even approached until the project entered phase 2. The government has suspended federal environmental and Aboriginal heritage protections. The process is headed for the Federal government overriding the Aboriginal Heritage Act of South Australia.
• Ashton, Leon.(No 73) Submission no. 79 Not 73 Leon Ashton lays bare Australian govt hypocrisy, double-talk, lies , in its process for selecting nuclear waste dump site. “I am not against having a LLW facility in Australia. I am against the way in which DIIS have gone about finding a quick fix for something that will affect all South Australians for centuries to come.  It should not be up to a small council area to overrule our Prohibition Act 2000, if we are to vote for something of such national importance.”He scrutinises the deception about Low Level Waste, when it’s clear that the facility is really for Intermediate Level Waste, and the conflict of interest in  Grant Chapman’s volunteering of his property. He explains the flawed nature of the community consultation process, and the threat to Flinders Ranges as iconic tourist location. He warns of forthcoming changes to “broad community support: as the deciding factor. My problem is a complete lack of trust with DIIS in the way in which they have treated ordinary people from Quorn, Hawker and Kimba
• Australian Conservation Foundation. (No 70) .  Comprehensive and well documented. ACF finds that “the federal government has never proven the need for the project or adequately  explored alternative management options. In particular, the proposed approach to intermediate level waste management is clearly not consistent with international best practice” . Proposed facility is unlawful in South Australia.
  Narrow Terms of Reference “We request the Committee adopt a broad construction and consider the wider context to this important national interest issue.” Present Inquiry a result of Australia’s history of failed radioactive waste management. (listed here) Need for a new approach
  “The planned national facility will not remove waste from hospitals or medical clinics, is not advancing the long-term disposal of intermediate waste and the claimed project benefits have not been adequately tested or proven.” Backs this with documentary evidence. Financial compensation in itself not unreasonable.  Community consent requires much wider community, and process was skewed. Adnyamathanha Traditional Lands Association remains totally opposed to the nuclear waste dump at Wallerberdina.
  Lack of government transparency. Plan for Intermediate Level Waste is not satisfactory. Uncertainty of project. Lack of trust in govt.
• The Australian Nuclear Free Alliance (ANFA) (Submission No 71)Once again, Aboriginal groups lead the struggle against  injustice and pollution of the land. Financial compensation divisive  and unfair. “Broad Community Support” – not clear. 2017 “survey did not include the specific views of the Traditional Owners from the area who should have been consulted from the start.” “Adnyamathanha people, who are the Traditional Owners of the Barndioota site, clearly oppose” the waste dump project. Government providing misleading and biased information.  “The Flinders Ranges is an iconic tourism area, of high cultural and archaeological significance, a flood zone and subject to seismic activity. Wallerberdina is rich in Adnyamathanha history” The dangers of transporting  wastes. Threat to agricultural industry. Interim disposal may become permanent disposal. This submisison well documented and referenced.
• .Australian Hu.man Rights Commission (sub No 60) predicts legal challenges that might stop nuclear waste dump plans for South Australia. “My problem is a complete lack of trust with DIIS in the way in which they have treated ordinary people from Quorn, Hawker and Kimba”
• The Azark Project -, Shire of Leonora and Goldfields Carbon Group (W.A.) (No. 110)  [Not anti-nuclear, but anti the selection process] all want the federal nuclear waste dump to be sited at Leonora. They are scathing about the selection process for Kimba and Hawker, S.A. “It seems that the selection of a site at Kimba is a predetermined decision by the federal government irrespective of the site suitability and the strong objections of a large community group which makes a complete mockery of the selection process.”                                                       They criticise the financial aspects as near bribery. They outline the process for Kimba and Hawker as lacking in any real knowledge or technical knowledge. By contrast, Leonora Shire conducted a 10 year investigation, with a detailed geological assessment, then wrote to the Department, with no response.                                                             A formal nomination, and further comprehensive letters resulted in a letter of rejection from Minister Canavan . The Department knew of the overwhelming suitability and superiority of the the Leonora site by world standards. The Department had pre decided on the S.A. sites, and stage-managed the entire process. “It is obvious that the federal government is using substantial and very costly means to overcome any opposition to its selection of a site which becomes part of the rather erroneous and in some instances quite deliberately misleading information provided to the respective communities”                                                            “As against this the Azark Project at Leonora can construct and commission a proper and highly efficient underground facility for less than $40 million with the advantages as to the suitability of the location and general features and that the facility would provide permanent and completely safe disposal of all levels of nuclear waste.” Leonora – a mining area, is obviously more suitable than an agricultural area                                                  Azark (Submission No 110) Attachment 1. Comparison between Leonora, Western Australia, site, and the South Australian sites now favoured for the nuclear waste dump. Leonora site, in contrast – is seismically stable, well above flood plain, no Aboriginal heritage issues, not agricultural or pastoral, suitable for underground waste storage.                     Azark (Submission No 110) Attachment 3 Leonora’s completed exhaustive sieismic surveys more intensive and informative than those planned for Kimba. More detail on rock status at Azark site. Environmental aspects. Transport system appropriate. More detail on why geologists and other experts chose this site as appropriate for a nuclear waste facility.            (Sub No 110) Attach 4. Short account ,with photos, states that the Kimba proposed model is adopted from the Spanish El Cabril Low Level Waste above-ground waste facility. Sceptical about the security especially re water leaking of this system. “This means that no trees with their roots will be allowed to grow for 300 years as the roots will rot under these conditions and the covering may well be susceptible to warrens and other digging by burrowing animals.   This will be just a big rubbish dump that will be there for ever and does not taken into consideration any seismic activity”
• Greg Bannon  (sub no 85) demolishes the case for Kimba/Hawker nuclear waste dump, in a trenchant Submission.  He backs up his argument with references, in 13 attachments.  Here I will merely quote some important points:  “This is a National issue and a National problem. Small, remote communities, whether at Kimba, the Flinders Ranges or anywhere else, should never be expected to make the decision alone to accept the toxic by-products of one industry’s lifetime production.”“Nuclear Medicine: It was impressed on the community that a primary reason for the NRWMF is the need to dispose of Australia’s radioactive medical waste. DIIS is the only official source of information, some of which implies that procedures such as CAT scans, X-Rays, and cancer treatments require the  use of radioactive isotopes. Plain scans, X-Rays and a vast majority of cancer treatments do not use such isotopes.”“It is a genuine and valid concern that ILRW may become stranded at this facility for any number of reasons.”“ILRW has been the “elephant in the room” from the Day 1 of this process. The emphasis has been on Low Level Radioactive Waste and, even today, people in our community say “it is a low level waste dump”.Bannon gives reasons – flooding, seimic activity – why Barndioota should never have made it to the short list
• Barngarla native title holders  (Sub No 56) do NOT support National Radioactive Waste Management Facility on their land – the nominated sites. They outline the chronology of consultation with Federal Government and the Department of Industry, Innovation and Science. They conclude that community consultation in relation to the site selection rocess for a National Radioactive Waste Management Facility (NRWMF) has been patently inadequate, bordering on non-existent.

• Bohr, Katrina. (Sub No 59)  Katrina Bohr is dissatisfied with the National Radioactive Waste Management Facility’s process for “Community Consultation”. She points out that Mr Frydenberg, Minister for Resources, publicly promised that wider views, (outside community zones) would be part of commitment to community consultation, but this is not happening. Indigenous opinion is opposed to the project. She touches on the issue of conflict of interest, regarding Grant Chapman, part owner of the proposed site at Barndioota.
• Cant, Brian. (Sub no 49)  Brian Cant Elected member District Council of Kimba finds a fatal flaw in the Department of Industry, Innovation and Science’s push to get local Kimba and Hawker area residents’ agreement to hosting a nuclear waste dump –  no clear meaning of “broad community support”
• Conservation Council South Australia – (No 55) No adequate case has been made for the establishment of a National Radioactive Waste Management Facility. No nominations should be accepted until the report from this Senate Inquiry has been released.  Conservation SA believes that there is a strong case for extended interim storage at ANSTO’s Lucas Heights reactor, particularly for the intermediate level waste created and already stored there.  They also question why all 3 sites selected are in South Australia – the State with specific legislation prohibiting nuclear waste dumping.  They are concerned about the financial aspects of the process, the vagueness around “Broad Community Support, Aboriginal opposition, and the lack of wider consultation. Opinions backed up with references.
• Cushway, Gary. Gary Cushway (Sub no. 6) shows up the lack of indigenous support for nuclear waste dump. 
 The ‘Community sentiment survey’ conducted by DISI in April 2016 recorded 3% support from the indigenous community for the Barndioota site to proceed to the next stage. He discusses conflict of interest due to the benefit money being offered, particularly in then case of the Flinders Ranges Council. ‘Broad support” calls for Sate and National State and National consultation, not just consultation with  a small local community area.
• Day, Ellenor. ( No 67)  Ellenor Day is concerned about conflict of interest in Barndioota nuclear waste site volunteered by Grant Chapman. Stating the numbers surveyed, she finds that the basis for which the government is stating they have broad community support for Barndioota is flawed. The very few Aboriginal supporters of the plan do not represent all Aboriginal people in the region. The communities of Hawker, Quorn, Cradock and Port Augusta should be consulted. Day calls for transparency:  members of the Barndioota Consultative Committee (BCC)  are paid allowances to sit on that committee. This situation should be stated clearly in their submissions to the Senate.
• Everybody for a NUclear Free Future – South Australian Chapter (no 109)  –ENUFF makes a powerful case, criticising “community consultation”, sham “Aboriginal involvement”, and the deception over “medical waste” as the purpose of the dump. This is the best of several submissions to the Senate Inquiry, that I have read so far. It can be heavy going for the reader, because it is densely informative.  For a start, I have summarised some of the major arguments.
• Environmental Defenders Office. (Sub No 43)  The Environmental Defenders office shows up flaws in Department of Industry, Science and Innovation’s report on nuclear waste siting, to come to the conclusion that neither for Kimba nor for Barndioota is there “broad community support” for a federal nuclear waste dump. There is almost unanimous indigenous opposition to the Barndioota site. The conclude :   “All Australians should have the right to have a say on this issue. Furthermore communities along any transport routes need to be informed of the risks and consulted in relation to the proposed sites before any site is chosen. This is an essential part of ascertaining support for the project “.
• Fels, Donald. (No 76)  Pastoralist Donald Fels says that the Huge Lucas Heights nuclear site of  450 hectares is the appropriate place for the storage of nuclear wastes, whereas Barndioota, South Australia, is an agricultural area, watger short and at risk of flooding and earthquakes.  The consultation process was not fair and equitable .
• Fels, Kay (No 63)  Kay Fels is a Flinders Ranges farmer. Her submission shows strong local knowledge of the Barndioota area. She’s concerned at the conflict of interest in the volunteering of the site. She opposes this site for nuclear waste dump because of effects on agriculture and tourism. The groundwater there is almost at surface level, at risk of radioactive pollution. The area is flood prone, and the site is on a severe fault line. Fels is scathing about the blanket of pro nuclear propaganda, the token consultative process, the “rubber-stamping” Consultative Committee, and the waffly evasive answers given to critics.
• Fels, Philip. (no 84) Philip Fels points out the lack of consultation with local Barndioota community in the nomination of the site proposed for nuclear waste dump. The Wilkatana Fault runs right up through this area, and and we have earth tremors weekly if not daily. The underground water table is at risk. Farming and tourism will be damaged by this project. “Our biggest worry of this process is the detrimental effect it will have and is already having on the local community as a whole.Along with my family we have never seen an event in this area cause so much angst and division in a once very proud close knit community which was the envy of many other communities.”
• Fergusson, Dave. A Quorn resident disgusted (No 106) at the hypocritical nuclear waste dump site process by Dept of Industry, Innovation and Science. In a refreshingly personal story, Fergusson lambasts the land nomination of Wallerberdina Station by Ex-Senator Mr Grant Chapman.  He exposes the hypocritical sales pitch by the Dept to an uninformed rural community. Fergusson was evicted from Hawker Community Development Board (HCDB)and Barndioota consultative Committee (BCC) meetings – for asking difficult questions, and for being an outsider – a Quorn resident. He exposes the hypocrisy of promises about jobs created by the nuclear waste dumping
• Flinders Local Action Group (no 73) Nuclear Waste Dump decision is a National matter – not just a local one. FLAG gives a detailed history of the inadequate and biased “community consultation” process. They question the financial aspects, and lack of public accountability for the money spent on propaganda for the waste dump, and the misleading use of “medicinal needs”to promote it. It should not be sited on Aboriginal land. It threatens the unique values of the Flinder scheme. ranges, environmentally, and as a tourist mecca.
• Friends of the Earth spell it out (sub No 86) on why Australia needs an Independent Commission of Inquiry into Australia’s Nuclear Waste Management. They question the alleged need for an off-site centralised nuclear waste facility, and recommend Lucas Heights as the scientifically best and safest site for interim waste storage. They condemn government misinformation and lack of clarity on types of nuclear waste. The National Radioactive Waste Management Act is grossly undemocratic and disempowers Traditional Aboriginal owners in multiple ways. “Community Consultation” is inadequate. Financial compensation pathetic in the long term. The government’s claims about job creation are implausible. This comprehensive submission is fully referenced and surely cannot be ignored by the Senate Committee.
• Gaweda, Leszek,    Leszek Gaweda  (sub No 54) sets out 8 grounds for opposing the nuclear waste dump siting selection process. He begins with the conflict of interest in the nomination of the Kimba site by  by ex Liberal politician Mr Grant Chapman, in Parliament was a strong supporter of a centralised nuclear waste facility. Best practice in the world for storage nuclear waste is to store it as close as possible to the production site (Lucas Heights in this case) not thousands of kilometres away. He points out that the local community is unaware that the majority of the wastes will be intermediate to high level, and that the minority – low level short-lived medical wastes – do not need a central specialised facility. Gaweda supports the Aboriginal resistance to the plan. Issues of groundwater pollution, flooding, and seismic activity make the area unsuitable for a nuclear waste dump. South Australia has already rejected nuclear waste dumping, with the Nuclear Waste Facility Prohibition Act 2000.
• Giles, Mnemosyne – MNEMOSYNE GILES’ powerful submission (Sub No 51) exposes the deceit in the National Radioactive Waste Management Facility (NRWMF)  plan. If the Senate Inquiry is really petty-mined, perhaps they might discard this one as “irrelevant to the guidelines”.  That would be a desperate tactic to avoid the deceit and pro nuclear bias that Giles exposes. She questions the very premise on which the NRWMF is based. She recommends that this Senate Inquiry lead on to a full independent Judicial inquiry into Australia,s radioactive nuclear waste and whether we should keep producing it. You just must read this one. Here’s a little taste:

  BROAD COMMUNITY SUPPORT  Why is the definition of this only now being questioned? For an honest straight forward process it should have been defined at the outset. Leaving it vague has caused uncertainty, confusion, and ultimately angst and division in previously harmonious districts..Whoever decided that small remote townships should be targeted to become willing hosts for the most toxic waste ever produced, and to make a decision which would affect all of us and future generations for thousands of years? South Australian land and people have already suffered contempt and abuse from nuclear /military actions and we will not accept disenfranchisement now. Both State and Federal Govts. (lab and Lib), ape the Finnish with a mantra of “not imposing” on any unwilling community. But this is disingenuous. Finland is a nuclear nation reliant upon nuclear power, so a small local community can have some sense that it is acting in the public interest in hosting a dump. Most Australians do not want Australia to be further implicated in the nuclear fuel cycle:this is probably why we are not being asked about this dump, or given the relevant information. This is not democracy. Finland also has very different geology, with plenty of water and has an absolute veto on the transport of nuclear material across its borders (which we do not have).

  This is not a local issue but a National and a State one.

• Hannan, Chloe.(Sub No 61)   Chloe Hannan: community mental health is a serious issue that is ignored in the nuclear waste dump site selection process. The Minister and the Department of Industry, Innovation & Science insisted that a nuclear waste dump would not be imposed on a community, but they did not set any clear target for ‘broad community support”. Just over 50% support is not good enough, and the process has left the community divided and feeling powerless. No clear information on the promised payments, which have been used to influence community consent, Hanan explains how the opinions of neighbouring communities have been ignored.  The changing rules around the process increases the mental distress of local opponents of the waste dump plan.
• Hughes, Eddie. Eddie Hughes MP- Nuclear Waste Dump Site Selection Process is Deeply Flawed. (Submission No. 57) The trigger for the engagement process is at the heart of why this is a seriously flawed approach. The trigger for the Flinders Ranges site was totally centred on the action of one person. That person does not live in the region; he lives in Adelaide. He is an absentee landlord. This absentee landlord nominated Wallerberdina Station which is under a pastoral lease. The absentee landlord is Grant Chapman, a former Liberal Party Senator. The process adopted by the Federal Government did not call for communities to nominate a site; it called for individuals with land tenure to nominate sites, a bizarre approach which then left communities to react.  The nomination of Wallerberdina was marked and will always be marked by a complete lack of respect for the Adnyamathanha.  The nomination process in Kimba also centred on the actions of individuals and has also led to community division. Lucas Heights can easily accommodate the long-lived intermediate waste for decades to come. That is where the expertise is and that is  where the more serious waste is generated.  What has happened to date should become a case study in how not to do it.
• Hunt, Darren and Kellie. (Sub No 80) Kimba farmers Darren and Kellie Hunt deplore the Australian government’s flawed process for selection of nuclear waste dump site. “We are farmers in the Buckleboo district of Kimba, where we live with our three young children. We are both active members of the Kimba community and have been dismayed at the ongoing division and stress this proposal had caused amongst community members.               Concerns we have include the lack of definition of what constitutes Broad Community Support, the use of financial incentive to coerce the community and the lack of consideration given to the potential implications to our agricultural industry.”
• Independent and Peaceful Australia Network IPAN (SA) (Sub No 30) demands that the project receive 90% support from all communities involved. That includes communities along the nuclear waste transport path, those dependent on the underground water in the wider surrounding area, and indeed Sttae and national support. IPAN deplores the lack of transparency on the types of waste, and on the storage details. Aboriginal communities should receive the vservices and infrastructure that they need – not as a bribe for accepting nuclear waste.
• James, Keri (No. 8) In a very brief submission, Ms James claims that the selection process is flawed. She questions indigenous involvement, wants wider Eyre Peninsula involvement, and “hopes for a nuclear-free future”. No details given
• Lienert, Leanne (Sub No 50)  In a very thoughtful submission Leanne Lienert is not necessarily opposed to nuclear waste dump, but very critical of the process. She questions the logisitics and location of such a site and the long term effects on vibrant farming/rural communities. .. those buying up land are also the ones now edging to gain financially from this current waste facility proposal.. the big picture cost of transporting radioactive waste from all over Australia to a small rural community doesn’t seem to be discussed in the consultation! Lienert details the many ways in which this process has divided the community. The Eyre Peninsula and the State of South Australia are involved and need to be consulted.  There are far too many discrepancies in the information, consultation process and long term impacts to have such a facility based at Kimba (or Hawker).  the consultation process has been an insult to the intelligence of rural people. 
• Madigan, Michele. (Sub No 26) 
  • Michele Madigan explains the dual nature of the government’s planned federal nuclear waste dump – i) a dump for LLW – placed there and never recovered or removed (most of this material will decay to background equivalent in 300 years) and

  (ii) a store for ILW to be kept above ground prior to being removed at a undefined future point by an undefined process to an unchosen site for promised deep burial (this material needs to be isolated from the wider environment for 10, 000 – 10K – years).

  Sr Madigan puts the case for the ILW being stored at Lucas Heights, where all security processes are already in place, until an independent agency can investigate the matter scientifically, without political bias. She also clearly explains the problematic nature of processes used to procure “community consent” regarding the indigenous community in particular.

• Major, Justine.  (No 16) Excellent one from Mrs Justine Major . Mrs Major is most concerned about the choice of farming land for a radioactive trash dump, and is very critical of the “community consultation” process.
• McKenzie, Ken .(No 78)  Adnyamathanha tribal elder, Ken McKenzie, rejects pressure to agree to nuclear waste dumping at Wallerberdina. He has watched the government process, and the anguish that it has caused to his people. “We keep being told the dump may not be put on Wallerberdina Station if the community does not want it, but this has changed again as Mr Canavan said this will not necessarily be the deciding factor on his decision.” (Submission no. 78)
• McKenzie, Regina. The Senate took a long time to publish this one –(Sub No 107)  perhaps because they recognised it as the most important one? Ms McKenzie, a very well informed traditional indigenous owner of the selected are at Barndioota, focuses on on the cultural heritage rights and interests of identified traditional owners and the State/Federal obligations  regarding those rights. The Department of Industry, Innovation and Science (DIIS) has ignored Australia’s commitment to United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous  Peoples. DIIS has poorly assessed Aboriginal cultural heritage, and engaged inappropriate consultants. Potential conflicts of interests in Grant Chapman’s nomination of the Barndioota site, and Key Hawker community representatives have not been addressed.
• McKenzie, Regina: attachment to Submission. Regina McKenzie Letter to Minister the Hon. Matthew Canavan. Here are some brief extracts:
  By ignoring the well-established Commonwealth Government consultation guidelines

  (available at www.environment.gov.au/epbc/publications/engage-early), it is our belief that

  the DIIS has caused significant reputational risk to the Commonwealth of Australia.
  Both the Native Title body (ATLA), and the relevant individual custodians for the project area

  have completely lost faith in the consultation process undertaken by the DIIS. The current

  program of Aboriginal community engagement for this project has all but collapsed and only

  non-relevant Aboriginal people remain on the consultative committee.
  In particular we note that the EPBC Act recognises the following three key documents as

  best practice for Aboriginal community engagement in Australia. These documents are

  particularly relevant to all projects that require approval by the Federal Minister for the

  Environment under existing EPBC Act processes:

  1. Commonwealth of Australia (COFA), 2016. Engage Early – Guidance for Proponents

  on Best Practice Indigenous Engagement for Environmental Assessments Under the

  EPBC Act’ (the Guidelines).

  2. Australian Heritage Commission (AHC), 2002. Ask First – A Guide to Respecting

  Indigenous Heritage Places and Values.

  3. Australia ICOMOS, 2013. Burra Charter and associated Practice Notes.
   
• The Medical Association for Prevention of War (Sub No 74) calls for  for an independent inquiry into the production and management of Australia’s nuclear waste. They question THE EXPANSION OF NUCLEAR MEDICINE PRODUCTION FOR EXPORT.  The proposed expansion of medical isotope production needs genuine cost/benefit analysis to make sure this is not a heavily subsidised product being sold into the global market at the expense of the Australian community both now and in the future. ANSTO has a narrative of global shortages, yet given falling demand and increasing global supply there is no shortage of Mo99 . The NEA/OECD predict a significant oversupply. There is no plan whatsoever for disposal of the additional long lived ILW generated. They deplore the misleading information provided to the rural communities now targeted for the nuclear waste dump.
• Mitchell, Colin. (sub No 25)  Colin Mitchell’s powerful submission to the Senate finds the national radioactive waste selection process to be deceitful, with serious issues omitted. He recommens  a different process, run by an independent agency, not connected with ANSTO or ARPANSA.
• Name Withheld (Submission No. 90) has serious concerns about the nuclear waste dump plan. “Taxpayer funded compensation above land value risks allegations of coercion.”  “Broad community support, in respect of radioactive waste management, must go beyond the immediate communities of Hawker and Kimba. ” “At the very least the communities through which radioactive waste will transit should be consulted.”  “

• No Dump Alliance.  (Sub No 45) South Australia’s No Dump Alliance Alliance is a broad cross-section of South Australian civil society, including Indigenous, public health, trade union, faith and environment groups, academics and concerned individuals. The Submission by South Australia’s No Dump Alliance clearly and powerfully covers the flawed process of “community support”, and states why the dump siting decision is a national matter, not just a local community one.  Aboriginal support would be crucial, but indigenous  people were not properly consulted, and in the main vehemently oppose the plan. With issues of safety/terrorism risks ignored, and “intermediate wastes” problems (stranded wastes) glossed over, the local community is not properly informed – more like bribed.  The supposed commercial value of the dump is far outweighed by the value of Flinders Ranges tourism .
• No Nuclear Waste Dump in Flinders Ranges‘ Submission [not yet published on Senate website] impresses with a strong critique of the nomination and selection process, and lack of social licence. Reminds of the importance of environmental impacts, and of Aboriginal cultural heritage.
• NO RADIOACTIVE WASTE ON AGRICULTURAL LAND IN KIMBA OR SOUTH AUSTRALIA – (Sub No 46)  local residents, farmers and business owners –  240 financial members consist mainly of people from Kimba and the broader Eyre Peninsula oppose nuclear waste dumping on farming land. The community consultation process has been flawed, divisive and lacks honesty, fairness and transparency. They recommend that the Minister sets a definite % for broad community support. They offer to consult with the Senate Committee of Inquiry, and to provide further consultation with a hearing. Their submission attaches 7 relevant documents.
• Noonan, David. (Sub No 31)  In a thoroughly referenced submission, David Noonan puts a compelling argument for the Senate Committee to recommend that this nuclear waste site selection process should end now. A Store in SA is unnecessary given the safe option of Extended Storage at Lucas Heights …..This Inquiry should find no manifest need for a nuclear waste Store in SA other than Federal agenda. There is no Safety, Licensing or technical reason to bring these nuclear wastes to South Australia.  The plan would necessitate requisition of an Eyre Peninsula Port for decades of intended shipments of ANSTO nuclear fuel waste, first due from the UK in circa 2020-21. The wastes would be stranded, above ground, for 100 + years, but with no plan for permanent underground disposal. An immediate adjoining property to the proposed site is an Indigenous Protected Area. The committee should find that nuclear waste dump siting on  Adnyamathanha country in the iconic Flinders Ranges is inappropriate and must stop forthwith.
•  Scott, Cameron, (Sub No 18)  Scott Cameron’s Submission to Senate finds process for selecting nuclear dump is misleading and faulty. I don’t believe it can be called a voluntary process when the nominator stands to receive a payment of four times the value of their land……The $2 million dollar community benefit fund can only be seen as a bribe for people to vote to go through to the next stage……., the affect that this could have on our exports hasn’t been taken into consideration at all….I have found them to be inconsistent and often misleading with their information…..I know that 2 Liberal party politicians were involved in land nominations both in Kimba and in Hawker and it would be interesting to see how many other Liberal associates have nominated around the country.
• Scott, Cameron. Supplementary submission. Secrecy on  CSIRO  Waste and Storage Facility at Woomera. Information is now held by Department of Industry Innovation and Science or via the Kimba Consultative Committee. That Committee looks to be rigged by the Government to justify broad community support..
• Christine Scott Submission No 14 Longterm Kimba resident.  Farming family. Deplores the division caused in the community because of this project.  “I strongly reject the presumption implied by the Government that one, or in Kimba’s case two individuals have the right to decide that: –(a) A nuclear dump can be placed in a grain growing area relying on export markets for its existence.(b) Can ignore their own State Law prohibiting such a dump.”“Regarding storing very long term Intermediate Level Wastes the decision is actually irreversible, surely broad community support should be at an absolute minimum 66%. This is the figure I understand is required for a constitutional change.”  She lists problems about the jobs promised, the type of waste, the unsuitability of Kimba, as compared with Lucas Heights for a nuclear waste storage location, the effect not only on agricultural land, but on overseas customers‘ perception of agricultural produce from  a nuclear waste dump area.
• Scott, Toni.(Sub No 44)   Toni Scott. In a submission with detailed facts and figures, and 5 attachments,  asks the question – Will the government hound the Kimba and Hawker communities until they support nuclear waste dumping?  She explains the reality that there is NOT community support for the nuclear waste dump, and that the Department of Industry, Science and Innovation has given no clear definition of what they mean by “broad community support”. She recommends that community support would need to be at least 70%, and that residents of the Eyre Peninsula and communities along potential freight routes should be consulted. South Australians should have the opportunity to have their say on the State Legislation prohibiting the building of any Radioactive Waste Facilities within our state.  Local communities should not have to bribed with promises of health and communication services that they should be entitled to, anyway. She deplores the biased composition of the  Kimba Consultative Committee, and the appointment of an openly pro nuclear  Community Liaison Officer. She demands clarity on the planned facility, type of radioactive trash and financial aspects.
• Sisters of St Joseph   Josephite Justice Office(No 68) find the Terms of Reference for Senate Inquiry on Nuclear Waste Dumping to be ‘grossly inadequate”. They point out the adverse financial risks of a nuclear waste dump set up in an agricultural area, the damage to tourism in the iconic Flinders Ranges. There is a lack of broad community support, and a disrespect for Aboriginal opinions and heritage. They ask the Senate to consider the long term consequences, for children, grandchildren and beyond.
• Stokes, Brett. Brett’s submission was sent to the Senate committee in February 2018, but still not published. He focuses on the narrow scope of the Community consultations and on the illegality of the campaign for nuclear waste dumping in South Australia.  Hundreds of Australian have signed a letter concerning this illegality.
• Brett Stokes’ appendices to his submission: Brett explains how the process towards a nuclear waste facility in South Australia has persistently been in breach of S.A. law. Section 13 of the Nuclear Waste Storage Facility (Prohibition) Act 2000 – prohibits spending public money to finance the pursuit of a nuclear waste facility
• Taylor, Anna. ( No 82) Anna Taylor: Lucas Heights is the appropriate place, with the technology and expertise, for temporary storage of nuclear wastes. “Without expansion Lucas Heights has the knowledge and expertise to manage this waste for decades to come until a permanent (not a temporary storage facility) solution is found. Operations at the Lucas Heights site are licensed for a further three decades, which has the highest concentration of people with nuclear expertise and radiation response capacity in Australia. ANSTO and ARPANSA have publicly identified storage at ANSTO as a credible and feasible option” “Community consultation” must include the Eyre Peninsula, all South Australians, and all populations along the transport route. The process was poor, and the people were not properly informed about the radioactive waste.
• Thomas, Janette. (no 36)  Janette Thomas explains the biased nature of the “community consultations for Barndioota as the site for nuclear waste dumping. She notes the inadequate discussion of intermediate Level Wastes being included in this temporary dump – before there is any plan for their permanent disposal . She provides (in attachments) evidence of the seismic danger in the area, and also of flooding risks. She outlines the costs of this whole process of persuasion.
• Tiller, Janet. (No 9) Janet Tiller has deep concerns over this  plan to dump radioactive trash on agricultural land. Also over the lack of inclusion of the wider community, with whole of Eyre Peninsula farming area at risk of losing  its “ Clean Green” image. And at the pro nuclear bias in the committee formed to manage the grant money.
• Tulloch, Bob. (No 87) Bob Tulloch dissects Australian govt’s nuclear waste dump “community consultation” and finds it dishonest. Department of  Industry, Innovation and Science (DIIS) apparently aimed to change the boundaries, in order to  manipulate the outcome of  community surveys. It constantly used misleading vernacular – e.g. using phrase “65% not opposed, to imply 65% in favour. The financial incentives are unbalanced and questionable. He gives two telling examples of deceptive behaviour by DIIS, and shows up the waflly and misleading responses of Resources Minister Canavan.
• Tulloch, Ruth. (No 62)   Ruth Tulloch finds  “community consultation” by National Radioactive Waste Management to be no more than  ” a huge, expensive marketing exercise “. She relates her personal experience of the process, from the original meeting at the Quorn Town Hall back in early 2016, through the phone survey, and many months of unsatisfactory consultations, with biased and inadequate information given. Questions to the French expert, about groundwater risks, seismic danger, flooding – were quickly shut down. she suggests  Lucas Heights as a suitable area for this temporary facility. She queries the validity of the coming vote on siting the waste dump – will it be “an ambiguous question that is written to get an outcome favourable for the departments Selection process”
• Tulloch, Sue. (No 32)  Sue Tulloch’s scathing criticism of the federal nuclear waste dump process and shambolic Barndioota Consultative Committee. An untenable process, as former senator Grant Chapman, who does not live in Barndioota area, nominated his property, unbeknownst to those either next door to the Barndioota site boundary, or in the surrounding  areas. Barndioota survey was full of errors and unsubstantiated generalisations, questionable methodology and data obtained.  Responses to my personal communications and meeting with Dept of Industry, Innovation and Science (DIIS) were inadequate – my questions were not addressed. Shambolic role of the Barndioota Consultative Committee (BCC)  Public observers (myself and another) not especially invited as speakers by the DIIS, were very obviously not welcomed. After being told the whole days’ business could not proceed if we stayed,( an invidious position to be put in), we were individually, forcibly escorted out by the DIIS representative      What a farcical example of ‘ensuring the community is fully engaged! The BCC is  a marketing exercise to manufacture community consent. Wider Australian community should be consulted. Most South Australians are unaware.
• Wakelin, Barry (no 23) Barry Wakelin (Submission no. 23) asks those very hard questions about the Kimba/Hawker nuclear waste dump plan. Here are a few of them: request the Australian National Audit Office to examine the use of taxpayers’ money at Kimba and Hawker for the purpose of “encouraging” the locals to see things the government’s way on nuclear waste.Any one who treated the government view with other than a YES was treated abysmally – and certainly with not one cent of taxpayer largesse to make the alternative case. It has been a disgrace to our democracy.Is it reasonable for the government to claim as has been made within the process, that Kimba can become a 300 year government supported town based on nuclear waste?the government moves their Campaign Office in to the Main Street, to promote the propaganda of the benefits of a dump, which no one else in Australia wants. – But there’s more!
• Wakelin, Christine. (no 22)  Christine Wakelin is very sceptical of National Radioactive Waste Management Facility Taskforce’s methods and plans, especially the propaganda about nuclear medicine. She questions the assumptions about “community support”, is concerned about the effect on the region’s agricultural economy.
• Walker. Barbara. (no 20)  Barbara Walker highlights the damaging impact of the waste dump on tourism, the flawed opinion surveys, harmful effects on Aboriginal people, and the illgality of the nuclear waste dump plan.
• Wauchope, Noel. (no 21)  Noel Wauchope Submission for the public good. Stresses importance of generalist, not just “expert” opinion being considered. Notes that, with no discussion, South Australia is already assumed to be the location for the dump. “Community support”must involve the wider South Australian and Australian community. Queries the type of wastes – Low Level and Intermediate Level being lumped together.
• Wetherby, Ken and Carole. Ken and Carole Wetherby demand that Eyre Peninsula remain ‘clean and green’. (Submission No.12) They emphasise the unique ability of the area to remain isolated from polluting industries, bounded as it is by Spencers Gulf, the Nullarbor Plain and pastoral land to the north. Essentially the ‘community benefit program’ is a bribe and that is what it should be called.   the level of community support required for acceptance should be set at a 2/3 majority- then stick to this figure – don’t ‘waffle. The establishment of a radioactive waste management facility at Kimba will have an effect on the whole of Eyre Peninsula, not just the Kimba Council area and we should all be allowed to have our say.
• Whittenbury, Holly. (no 81)   Holly Whittenbury on Nuclear dump siting- Aboriginal issues, tourism impact.  Ms Whittenbury strongly sees the siting decision as a State and National matter, not just a local one.  She highly values the opinions of  Adnyamathanha Indigenous groups, with their intrinsic connection to the land.  She warns on the tourism impact, and is strongly critical of the conflict of interest of nominations by white farmers, especially Grant Chapman.

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

PRO NUCLEAR SUBMISSIONS

Ashworth, Peta. (No 52) Professor Peta Ashworth  School of Chemical Engineering University of Queensland, co-Chair of the Independent Advisory Panel (IAP) carefully confines her discussion to exactly the Terms of Reference. She is impressed by the “open and transparent nature of the site selection process “and the way that the DIIS engages with “ affected stakeholders and communities “. She describes rather than comments herself on the process. Re financial compensation “ this offer was judged as fair by those volunteering their land.” In the NRWMF process:“There was a consistent view that the community should be limited to those in close proximity to the nominated site” . She skirts around the Indigenous question. “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.” Ashworth avoids expressing personal opinions, by regular use of the passive tense – “it was agreed” “ it is recognised”, “Indigenous people are considered”. She avoids making judgments, prefers giving sage social advice, but seems to conclude in favour of the process.

Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO)  (Submission No 58)  This submission does not address the Terms of Reference for the Senate Inquiry.  It is basically a hymn of praise to ANSTO itself – “its unique expertise to the production of lifesaving nuclear medicine” etc. It outline’s ANSTO’s strong involvement in providing information to the communities in Kimba and Hawker, on radiation and  radioactive materials. It has hosted many tours  of Lucas Heights (doesn’t say who paid for these, but probably the tax-payer) . Discusses Finland and Canada, and compares the NRWMF processes.  “In ANSTO’s view, the NRWMF site selection process is meeting or exceeding current international best practice across all aspects.”

Baldock, Andrew, (No. 38) Andrew Baldock (offered his land for nuclear waste dump) dismisses objections to the plan. He is sure that no-one would offer land just for the financial compensation. He outlines the history of the nominations and consultation process, and says that there will be another vote. AS to “broad community support” – he says “I think it needs to be left to the minister’s discretion as to what determines “broad community support”      “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.” He is confident that the project will have no negative impact. “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.”

Baldock, Bev. (Submission No. 72) Bev Baldock is comfortable with the information supplied by the Department of Industry, Innovation and Science and their experts. On community consultation – “I disagree that we need broader community support and feel the rest of South Australia should not have a say in what happens in our town and district.” She is very keen about the jobs and economic benefits that the project will bring to the community. (No facts, details or references supplied.

Heather Baldock’s sycophantic submission (No 64) supports nuclear waste dump for Kimba. Longterm farmer. “I am very excited by the opportunities that hosting the National radioactive low level disposal and intermediate storage facility would bring to our area. “ Financial compensation OK. “‘broad community support’ is the majority (more than 50%) of the Kimba District supportive of hosting the National Facility, “ “I don’t believe there is call for organisations, politicians, or individuals, or others outside of our district who don’t contribute to our local social and economic viability being considered in the ‘broad community support’. “ Community Benefit Fund has not influenced many people in their views. Though Ms Baldock thinks that the waste dump will boost the local economy, she still thinks that any community prepared to host such a dump deserves such financial benefits. “The wider Eyre Peninsula and even the state of SA have not had the same opportunities to become so learned. Therefore the community outside of Kimba is not in a position to make an informed decision as to whether Kimba should host a Facility. Also the facility will have no impact on the wellbeing or lifestyles of wider communities. “ “Activists and politicians who have been using the NRWMF project as a vehicle for their anti-nuclear stance should not be entitled to any say in the vote of whether Kimba moves to Phase 3.“ Baldock can barely contain her enthusiasm for ANSTO

Baldock, Jeff. (No 39) This is a very straightforward submission. Jeff Baldock (volunteered his land) sees the Kimba waste dump selection vote as a matter for locals only. He avoids the question of indigenous support – referring readers to Minister Canavan on this. He find the Community Benefit Program to be “a very welcome” relief from financial strain. He confines his discussion to the selection process, which resulted in a 57% “yes” vote in the local community.  Unusually, for a pro nuclear submission, Baldock does acknowledge the visits from the environmental movement, opposing the dump. He concludes that only the Kimbal local should vote on teh site selection. “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.”

Barford, Shaun.  (Sub 83) Kimba hotel owner. Shaun Barford approves of Nuclear Waste Dump Siting Process, thanks the “caring” Federal Government.

Pat Beinke (submission No.17) is very pleased with all the guest speakers,and very happy with the financial aspects (sycophantic in tone, no facts given)

Carpenter, Denise. (Sub mission No 1) Financial compensation OK. Indigenous people are represented, Community Benefit Program hasn’t influenced people. Nuclear waste dump will “mean the long term survival of the town”. Community well informed by DIIS.“I find it interesting that broad community support is being considered -I have never known community support to be a consideration for other businesses, ventures, opportunities in SA ” “I believe that it is not necessary to involve wider community views – it does not affect them”
“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”

Carpenter, Ian. (No. 3) Ian Carpenter Hawker long term resident. Glad Hawker has this opportunity. Financial compensation not an incentive for people to offer their land. This Inquiry not needed. Some indigenous people oppose the dump, but “Broad community support was established” (no facts given). Sees no need for the nuclear waste dump to be seen as problematic – sees “no negatives” “This repository would ensure our towns survival”.” It will not affect the application for a World Heritage Listing in our area. “

Clements, Annie (No 35) . Annie Clements –  happy to see nuclear waste dump “powering Kimba community into the future”. She is “completely comfortable” with a nuclear waste dump. Following all the expert advice given, and the above 50% votes, it’ all go.  “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.” They outline the history of the process toward a nuclear waste dump, with enthusiastic approval, and are very proud that they are so well informed by ANSTO. 

Cliff, Kerri and Trevor. ( No 65) Kimba Farming family, involved in community organisations.  They show a touching faith in Rowan Ramsey and the whole ANSTO pro nuclear propaganda.  “We have nothing but support for the proposal that one of these properties may become the successful host of the facility.” Financial compensation is OK. 50% vote is broad community support. Believe that Aborigines have had “a fair opportunity for input” As for consultation with Eyre Peninsula and wider community, Kerri says she has talked with many of them and they “have nothing but support for the project.” Confusion has been created by “a strong ‘fear’ campaign” .  “Eyre Peninsula and South Australia) will not be well informed enough to warrant a valid contribution to the discussion.”

Department of Industry Innovation and Science. (DIIS) (No. 40) Long submission with lots of annexures. Start by touting the importance of nuclear medicine., and disposing of low level medical wastes. Touches ever so lightly on intermediate level nuclear reactor wastes.  The history of searching for a dump site, and a reminder that “community engagement  and support” is not required by law: the decision is at the Minister’s discretion.  DIIS retains a permanent presence in the local community, and provides experts from ANSTO. “the department’s consultation process is open to receive submissions from any interested parties including from members of the public who reside outside the nominating communities.”

This submission is in essence a long story detailing the DIIS’ activities in the Fliners Ranges region, to develop community consent for the establishment of a nuclear waste dump .

Frank Harris (No. 24) (a bit more factual and detailed) spends some time touting his qualifications as a health physicist. States that the consultation is consistent with international best practice, quoting  Swedish Forsmark Repository. Waffles around the a question of “broad community support”.

Hawker Community Development Board (No 47) a staunch supporter of nuclear waste dump proposal. No problems with financial compensation. “Broad community support” involves just the local Hawker community, not outsiders. “The HCDB has been informed that the indigenous community hold a broad community support for the project ”  “. State-wide are more concerned about the state government piggy backing off the Federal facility and bringing in high level waste (this has been publicised numerous times as not being able to occur)”  “We are the ones that have looked at the potential benefits and negativity that the proposal brings and have chosen to support the proposal. State-wide lives will to continue as they currently are regardless of the facility occurring, whereas our lives have the potential to be enhanced.” “Our neighbours do not have to tell us if they are going to sell their house or rent it out to someone, so we fail to see how this is any different”

Haywood, Chelsea. (No 2) Chelsea Haywood Hawker Big community volunteer. Says only local residents should have a say “Outsiders “do not care if Hawker dies a slow death due to lack of employment etc”.There are no risks in the nuclear waste dump plan. Confident that the government will consider indigenous people – they’re “getting the best help possible” – but she is really quite vague on this. “Broad community should be held to the current area that is being used and could probably even be made smaller.”Opposes the S.A. State having any say. “If Barndioota is selected it will hold no impact whatsoever for Adelaide, the Limestone Coast or elsewhere.” Suggests that local people support the nuclear waste dump, but are intimidated into silence.

Heard, Ben Pro nuclear enthusiasm in Ben Heard’s submission (No 15) to the Senate. Posing as a great environmentalist, Heard downplays the importance of safety risks, confines community involvement to the immediate local community, glosses over the very toxic wastes included, and the fact that wastes will be stranded with no permanent dump planned.

Member of the Independent assessment Panel 2015-2016 seeking dump site. Non executive director of Bright New World. Wants expansion of Lucas Heights. Nuclear reactor.. Nuclear technologies improve human well-being- lists these benefits. No problem iwith financial compensation for land – have to pay 4 times over land value because alarm is attracted re nuclear.. Waffles on about “community Support” AEC vote of 57.4% of local residents and authorities to amount to “broad community support”.

Indigenous people – Aboriginal Advisory Committee and Bangarla people should be consulted, heritage surveys should be done. Community Benefit Programme “should be applauded” for “impacting community sentiment in a positive way” – will build trust.

District Council of Kimba boundary is an appropriate definition of community. Eyre Peninsula consideration is not appropriate.. He recommends several educational activities in information programme. Rest of Australia should not be consulted on siting choice. Must not :strip local communities of their agency” . Heard gives copious (22) references.

Hennessy, John (Sub No 7) , Hawker resident , is “bubbling with enthusiasm” for nuclear waste dump in Hawker. “Hawker has a great opportunity to become involved with the wonderful work ANSTO perform” “a once in a lifetime opportunity”  He comments on  apetition opposing the project, noting that most signatories come from outside Hawker. 

Johnson, Donna.  (No 27)  Donna Johnson is enthusiastic about the Kimba nuclear waste dump selection process. She very definitely believes that this is a matter for the local community only, not for Eyre Peninsula or the State. She is proud that the community is well informed by the experts from the NRWMF taskforce.  She believes that the process has been fair, that the “right” Aboriginal representatives are consulted, and the 50% plus one is sufficient to amount to broad community support. The project is for the community benefit, and the children’s future. Those who nominated their land did so solely for that reason.

Joyce, Jodie. (No 33) Jodie Joyce thinks that  the financial compensation offered to the land owners (four times the value of the land) is fair, and that those who volunteered their land were not motivated by the money. She gives a vague definition of “broad community support”. She says that Kimba is struggling, population declining, so “we are in need of a life line”. “ The possibilities this facility could provide a small failing community is endless with jobs, the infastructure and many beneficial health care related services.” Ms Joyce shows a touching faith in the Department of Industry Innovation and Science’s (DIIS)’s interaction with Aborigines, and Aboriginal support (but gives no evidence). Based on what sounds like a continuing blanket of propaganda from DIIS, and trips to ANSTO, she is confident that Kimba Community is the informed and only community to make the decision on siting the waste dump. She says that the community is NOT divided and that ” There is a handful of residents whom behaviour is subpar and I personally hope that they will keep their negative thoughts to themselves”

Kemp, Lyn and Claire (No.88) This submission is a declaration of faith in the nuclear industry . They say that Information provided to community has been good. Financial benefit to land owners “has no bearing on any decision”.  We don’t need broader views outside the District Council of Kimba . “We can only see a positive outcome for our town. “ – jobs, “more essential town services “, good for business – “The town is struggling and the population is declining.”

Kimba District Council. (No 19) Kimba District Council seems mainly concerned about getting finances and services, in return for hosting nuclear wastes.   “Council remains of the view that its Local Government area represents the best reflection of the wishes of its community.”       “Kimba has been visited by  a multitude of experts..”  “Associate Professor Geoff Currie believed that Kimba was now one of the most educated communities in the country on radioactive waste….”  “Council would expect that the Australia Government would provide specificity on what financial and service benefits it will provide, and how these will be administered through the National radioactive waste Management Act (2012) before a final ballot occurs.”

Koch, Daryl (No 75)  Daryl Koch has “no  concerns for a radioactive waste facility being built either here in the Kimba district or elsewhere.”, having visited ANSTO. He puts the argument for “broad community support”, and advocates an AEC vote, with direct neighbour support and District Council support. He says he will vote Yes “when I am assured that the facility can be built to international best practice and that there will be no adverse effect to people, the environment and our livelihood.” ( a somewhat contradictory statement when one reads on). Koch is very impressed with the Department of Industry Innovation and Science, and with ANSTO. He is most definite that only Kimba residents should have a say, because a nuclear waste facility will have no negative impact on Kimba oe elsewhere. “Nuclear activists have been questioning the ‘process’ and spread false information but they have no interest in Kimba”

Koch, Katrina. “(no. 28) Katrina Koch is sure that the financial compensation is not extravagant, as indeed, agricultural use would bring in more. The was te dump will not affect the neighbours. She sees “broad community support” as involving the local Kimba residents. Neighbours’ support is 90%’, and “any number over 50% is an indication of support for the project”. She is vague about Aboriginal support.  “The nuclear waste facility will benefit the community and the country as a whole.”

Lienert, Matthew and Meagan –Matthew and Meagan Lienert (No 53) Kimba resident. Teacher, married to farmer. Approve of financial compensation to land offered for site. “broad community support” – waffle a bit here about wide collection of evidence for the Kimba district. They feel that the assessments with Indigenous community “satisfy all necessary laws and requirements “ Waffles about Community Benefit Program. “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.” “we do not believe that people have based their support or non-support on this program”. “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 “

 Community consultation should not be widened: “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 “ “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”

“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.”

McInnis, Janice (Sub No 4)  – a nuclear waste dump will ensure the future for Hawker town. The standard arguments – “Broad community support means it is supported by a majority of people who live and work in that community.” ” local Indigenous support has been sought and will continue to be sought in the same way.” “I don’t believe that wider community views need to be taken into consideration as the project does not have a direct impact on them.” Anti nuclear arguments have ” been refuted by experts in the field.”

Milton, Margaret and Charlie. (N0.34) This yet another enthusiastic approval of the Kimba dump plan and the selection process. To them, the decision involves solely the local community. They view Kimba as pretty much a dying town, which will be saved by the dump. They base their confidence on their meetings with Rowan Ramsey, Matt Canavan, a team from France, and the ever present Department of Industry Innovation and Science. They list the benefits to the town, and conclude that “It’s a shame we

Morgan, Jessica.(no.37) Jessica Morgan  enthusiastically  endorses ANSTO and the nuclear waste dump plan for Kimba. This is another “act of faith”, in that she believes firmly in the plan (for the short term) as it will bring essential services, employment etc. ” 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.” Morgan thinks that the Lucas Heights nuclear reactor is so different from a commercial nuclear reactor, that (apparently)  its wastes are nothing to worry about.  Unsurprisingly Morgan believes that only the narrowly defined local area residents should decide, and anyway she has “full confidence in the department deciding on the definition of broad community support.” Unusually, for such a pro nuclear stance, Morgan does recognise that some Aborigines are opposed to the dump. She shows a lack of understanding of the types of waste planned for this Kimba dump, saying  “someone living in Adelaide is already living near nuclear waste.”

Pro nuclear enthusiasm in Ben Heard’s submission to the Senate. Posing as a great environmentalist, Heard downplays the importance of safety risks, confines community involvement to the immediate local community, glosses over the very toxic wastes included, and the fact that wastes will be stranded with no permanent dump planned.