Archive for the ‘National’ Category

The Australian Government has no legal base to impose a nuclear waste dump on South Australia

July 4, 2018

The Minister claims a need for this dump is generated by civilian radioisotope production & not from military use – therefore it cannot be legitimised under auspices of the S.51(vi) Defence umbrella.

there is no legal base for the Commonwealth to enforce State acceptance of radioactive waste.

ENuFF-SA Examining Commonwealth Power to Enforce Nuke Dump – part 1, 4th July 2018

SOUTH AUSTRALIAN LAW

  1. The 2015-16 $10+ million South Australian Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission found that: “The construction or operation of a facility for storage and disposal of nuclear waste, along with the importation or transport of nuclear waste, is unlawful in South Australia”. The amendment or repeal of the Nuclear Waste Storage Facility (Prohibition) Act 2000 (SA) would therefore be required prior to any substantive progress being made in further developing any proposal.
  2. “ 1 The Nuclear Waste Storage Facility (Prohibition) Act 2000 (SA)2 must be amended or repealed PRIOR TO ANY SUBSTANTIVE PROGRESS towards developing a radioactive waste facility in this State. 2.
  3. Portions of The Act which prohibit the establishment of nuclear waste storage facilities include:

S.8 against the construction or operation of such;

• S.9 making it illegal to import or transport nuclear waste, &

• S.13 “No public money to be used to encourage or finance construction or operation of nuclear waste storage facility”

S.13.1 also provides such prohibition “Despite any Act or law to the contrary ….”

  1. The newly elected Liberal Premier Steven Marshall has previously categorically stated: “A Marshall Liberal Government will not support the building of a nuclear waste repository in South Australia.“ 4 : & in answer to a February 2018 Election Survey the South Australian Liberal Party responded: “The Liberal Party supports the current Nuclear Waste Storage Facility (Prohibition) Act 2000“ 5 .
  2. 4. To date (June 2018) the NRWMF-T has expended $40+ million of taxpayers PUBLIC MONEY towards: not only encouraging ‘local communities’ acceptance for a nuclear waste storage facility within South Australia; but also financing active on-site preliminary works deemed essential to constructing said facility. Clearly & brazenly contrary to State Law.
  3. 5. It would appear that the NRWMF-T has failed to investigate nor even consider any implications arising from the current prime facie unlawful nature of their actions. Numerous sham ‘community consultation’ medleys; Taskforce presence in the field, & radiopharma promotions. Myriad ANSTO propaganda tours of Lucas Heights; French des visiteurs; community grants; ORIMA & AECOM contracts, & etc.. costing tens of millions. All done without first establishing any legal foundation.

Legally; fiscally; morally, & administratively negligent

FEDERAL LAW “Commonwealth Legislative Powers”

The Constitution confers the power to make laws on the Commonwealth Parliament. However, the power of the Commonwealth Parliament to make laws is limited to particular subjects. Most of these subjects are listed in sections 51 and 52. They include defence; external affairs; interstate and international trade; taxation; foreign, trading and financial corporations; marriage and divorce; immigration; bankruptcy; and interstate industrial conciliation and arbitration.” 6

  1. Amongst other dubious claims, Minister Canavan would have us believe that Federal Legislation allows him to run roughshod over State Law. But does the Emperor actually wear any clothes?
  2. 7. The previous South Australian Premier Jay Weatherill in 30 January 2018: “ Asked if the state government would pursue a High Court case against the Turnbull government if a national facility were approved in South Australia, Mr Weatherill said: “We would have to explore our options to see what steps can be taken.” “ 7 .
  3. 8. One of those steps would be to query whether Federal Parliament had Constitutional Authority to impose radioactive waste upon a State which had specific laws prohibiting such. Section 51 of the Australian Constitution describes the various Powers of the Federal Parliament, & there are 39 such capacities – none of which relate to things radioactive8 : whilst Section 118 obligates the Commonwealth to recognise & respect the public Acts of the States.
  4. To make things perfectly clear, included as Appendix 1 is the whole Section 51 of the Australian Constitution: we challenge anyone to demonstrate how Canberra can legally impose Commonwealth owned radioactive waste upon any State whose Legislation prohibits such – S.51. (xxvi) actually says that Federal Parliament needs to respect State Legislation. Prime facie there is no legal base for the Commonwealth to enforce State acceptance of radioactive waste.
  5. 10. The knowledge that the Feds don’t have Constitutional Power to dump radioactive waste upon the States is not rocket science & is not a new revelation.
  6. In fact back in the 1950s, when the expansion of the nuclear fission enterprise was seen as rapidly developing technology which Australia should embrace; Canberra took steps toward Constitutional change.
  7. 11. In 1956 Prime Minister Menzies sought to legitimise nationwide Commonwealth regulation of all things nuclear through the establishment of a Joint Parliamentary Committee on Constitutional Review: “The growth of nuclear physics, making possible the application of nuclear energy for practical purposes, is a phenomenon of the present century and alone this would explain the absence of any reference to it in the Commonwealth
  8. Constitution. ….. developments in the use of nuclear energy …. will inevitably …. reveal serious deficiencies in Commonwealth legal power …..“ 9 12. In the Committee’s November 1959 Final Report it categorically stated: “… the totality of constitutional power is insufficient to regulate and promote … the economic development of nuclear energy for all purposes. The power to regulate the use of nuclear energy for industrial or developmental purposes is almost entirely a matter for the States.“ 10
  9. 13. However the “… advice of the Joint Committee on Constitutional Review to amend the Australian Constitution to facilitate the development of a national nuclear industry was not taken up by the Menzies Government, or any subsequent federal administration.“.11
  10. 14. That path to Constitutional amendment failed to progress to a National Referendum because instead of going the whole hog, the Govt of the day apparently assumed it had all the legitimacy it needed thru S.51(vi) ‘Defence of the Realm’ powers12
  11. . 15. Hence the deficit of Commonwealth Power regarding civil & industrial radioactive waste facilities continues to this day. The Minister claims a need for this dump is generated by civilian radioisotope production & not from military use – therefore it cannot be legitimised under auspices of the S.51(vi) Defence umbrella.
  12. 16. The National Radioactive Waste Management Act [NRWMA 2012]13 came into effect on the 4th of April 2012. The objects of the Act are to safely & securely select establish & operate a facility for Commonwealth radioactive waste upon voluntarily nominated land. That Act does not signify ‘Defence’ at all, but relates to ‘….. controlled material within the meaning of the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Act 1998 that is of domestic origin; ….” 14: which “.. means any natural or artificial material, whether in solid or liquid form, or in the form of a gas or vapour, which emits ionizing radiation spontaneously. “ 15
  13. 17. Minister Canavan does not rely upon Constitutional Defence Powers to assert Federal dominance over the South Australian NWSF(P) 2000 Act: instead The Minister depends upon the NRWMA 2012 Part3 Section 11 ‘Authority to conduct activities’ scaffolded by S.12 ‘Application of State and Territory Laws’
  14. 18. However the Australian Constitution S.52(1) only allows Federal authority “…. over places acquired by the Commonwealth for public purposes “ – voluntarily nominated sites are by definition un-acquired.So any & all actions instigated by the Commonwealth upon the voluntarily nominated sites prior to acquisition are rendered unlawful.
  15. 19. Whilst also, as previously explained, the Australian Constitution S.51(xxv) AND S.118 both prohibit the Federal parliament from over-riding State Law. If the Commonwealth does not have Constitutional Power to over-ride State Laws & foist radioactive waste upon such; then likewise S.51(xxxi) denies lawful ability to acquire property in order to establish any site facilities.

Section 12 of the National Radioactive Waste Management Act 2012 is unConstitutional; whilst Section 11 can only be Constitutional AFTER a site has been acquired by the Commonwealth – an acquisition unsupported by any Constitutional authority. =============================================

1 Scarce, K. p107, SA_Govt, Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission – Final Report, May 2016

https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/assets.yoursay.sa.gov.au/production/2017/11/09/03/09/17/3923630b-087f-424b-a039- ac6c12d33211/NFCRC_Final_Report_Web.pdf 2 NWS(P) Act 2000, Parliament of South Australia. http://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdb/au/legis/sa/consol_act/nwsfa2000430/

3 Ibid

4 Marshall, S., 15th September 2016 “Nuclear Industry- Our Position” https://www.stevenmarshall.com.au/tags/infrastructure_policy? page=2 NB original whole text has been taken off-line since the 2018 State Election & Marshall now appears to be pro-dump.

5 p11, Conservation Council of S Aust, “SA Election Policy Backgrounder” 03 March 2018https://drive.google.com/file/d/1u_J9W1uxOTVXtQWuIpr8REOXGT68IDkX/view viewed 20/03/18

6 Federal Register of Legislation,’The Constitution’ – Overview, Commonwealth Legislative Powershttps://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2005Q00193

7 Owen M., 30 Jan 2018 in ‘The Australian’ https://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/state-politics/jay-weatherill- changes-mind-on-nuclear-dump-ahead-of-election/news-story/a11667e1cfcb443812ef0052bfc6fbef

8 PoA, 09 July 1900, ‘Commonwealth Constitution Section 51’ https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Powers_practice_n_procedures/Constitution/~/link.aspx? _id=AFF6CA564BC3465AA325E73053DED4AA&_z=z viewed 10/03/2018

9 PoA, pp50 – 01 October 1958, para 117-118 ‘Report from the Joint Committee on Constitutional Review’https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/House_of_Representatives_Committees? url=reports/1958/1958_pp50.pdf

10 PoA, pp108 – 26 November 1959, para 548 ‘Second Report from the Joint Committee on Constitutional Review’ https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/House_of_Representatives_committees? url=reports/1959/1959_pp108.pdf

11 Yeeles, pp18-20, 19 May 2015 http://nuclearrc.sa.gov.au//app/uploads/2016/03/Richard-Yeeles-19-05-2015.pdf

12 Op cit – PoA pp108 para 547

13 Federal Register of Legislation, Commonwealth Acts April 2012 https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2012A00029

14 Ibid 4 Definitions

15 Federal Register of Legislation ARPANSA 1998 S.13 Definitions http://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgibin/viewdoc/au/legis/cth/consol_act/arpansa1998487/s13.html#definition 3

APPENDIX ONE – EXTRACT FROM THE AUSTRALIAN CONSTITUTION

  1. Legislative powers of the ParliamentThe Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to:i trade and commerce with other countries, and among the States;

    ii taxation; but so as not to discriminate between States or parts of States;

    iii bounties on the production or export of goods, but so that such bounties shall be uniform throughout the Commonwealth;

    iv borrowing money on the public credit of the Commonwealth;

    v postal, telegraphic, telephonic, and other like services;

    vi the naval and military defence of the Commonwealth and of the several States, and the control of the forces to execute and maintain the laws of the Commonwealth;

    vii lighthouses, lightships, beacons and buoys; viii astronomical and meteorological observations; ix quarantine; x fisheries in Australian waters beyond territorial limits;

    xi census and statistics;

    xii currency, coinage, and legal tender;

    xiii banking, other than State banking; also State banking extending beyond the limits of the State concerned, the incorporation of banks, and the issue of paper money;

    xiv insurance, other than State insurance; also State insurance extending beyond the limits of the State concerned;

    xv weights and measures;

    xvi bills of exchange and promissory notes;

    xvii bankruptcy and insolvency;

    xviii copyrights, patents of inventions and designs, and trade marks;

    xix naturalization and aliens;

    xx foreign corporations, and trading or financial corporations formed within the limits of the Commonwealth;

    xxi marriage;

    xxii divorce and matrimonial causes; and in relation thereto, parental rights, and the custody and guardianship of infants;

    xxiii invalid and old-age pensions;

    xxiiiA the provision of maternity allowances, widows’ pensions, child endowment, unemployment, pharmaceutical, sickness and hospital benefits, medical and dental services (but not so as to authorize any form of civil conscription), benefits to students and family allowances;

    xxiv the service and execution throughout the Commonwealth of the civil and criminal process and the judgments of the courts of the States;

    xxv the recognition throughout the Commonwealth of the laws, the public Acts and records, and the judicial proceedings of the States;

    xxvi the people of any race for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws; xxvii immigration and emigration;

    xxviii the influx of criminals;

    xxix external affairs;

    xxx the relations of the Commonwealth with the islands of the Pacific;

    xxxi the acquisition of property on just terms from any State or person for any purpose in respect of which the Parliament has power to make laws;

    xxxii the control of railways with respect to transport for the naval and military purposes of the Commonwealth;

    xxxiii the acquisition, with the consent of a State, of any railways of the State on terms arranged between the Commonwealth and the State;

    xxxiv railway construction and extension in any State with the consent of that State;

    xxxv conciliation and arbitration for the prevention and settlement of industrial disputes extending beyond the limits of any one State;

    xxxvi matters in respect of which this Constitution makes provision until the Parliament otherwise provides;

    xxxvii matters referred to the Parliament of the Commonwealth by the Parliament or Parliaments of any State or States, but so that the law shall extend only to States by whose Parliaments the matter is referred, or which afterwards adopt the law;

    xxxviii the exercise within the Commonwealth, at the request or with the concurrence of the Parliaments of all the States directly concerned, of any power which can at the establishment of this Constitution be exercised only by the Parliament of the United Kingdom or by the Federal Council of Australasia;

    xxxix matters incidental to the execution of any power vested by this Constitution in the Parliament or in either House thereof, or in the Government of the Commonwealth, or in the Federal Judicature, or in any department or officer of the Commonwealth.

    END APPENDIX ONE

 

Advertisements

Donna Johnson: a pro nuclear submission regarding Kimba nuclear waste dump plan

July 2, 2018

Going through the pro nuclear submissions to the Senate Inquiry on Nuclear Waste Dump Site Selection.

(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.

Donna Johnson  Senate Standing Committees on Economics  Subject: Submission on Selection process for a national radioactive waste management facility in South Australia (Submission No 27)  Regarding a) the financial compensation offered to applicants for the acquisition of land under the Nominations of Land Guidelines;   she believes that  compensation offered is appropriate.  She knows the people who nominated  their land, and believes that their offers were made solely for the community benefit.

On (b) community support, She believes that  a 50% plus 1 vote for a site is adequate, and that neighbour support should be ‘factored in’ for the ultimate decision.  While the early surveys were inadequate, Ms Johnson believes that

Australian Electoral Commission poll provided surety, independence and an indisputable final result. I support the AEC vote and that process as a whole; it was beyond reproach. ‘

She is confident that the department has listened to our community and  will  help the community come to an informed decision.

On c) indigenous support, Ms Johnson believes that the process has been satisfactory –

“The Department should keep reaching out to the right spokespeople for the traditional owners to get this information.”

Ms Johnson is concerned for the economic future of the community’s children.  She is enthusiastic  about the plan ;

“The Community Benefits Program is breathing new life into our community and is an appropriate recognition for the journey and commitment that has been made by Kimba and its people in this search that is in the best interests for ALL Australians. We are incredibly fortunate to live in a country with facilities such as ANSTO’s Lucas Heights and its nuclear reactor providing life saving diagnosis and treatment options for vulnerable Australians. I understand more than one in two Australians will benefit from nuclear medicine in their lifetime. Make no mistake, this is a very noble cause with benefits for our entire nation.”

On 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;

“I support the AEC vote and that process as a whole. A change of boundaries after an initial voting result would destroy the integrity of the process.

“The boundaries used for that vote were fair, and it is entirely appropriate that those living in our community should be those who get a vote on this. If this potential facility were to come to our District it would have nothing to do with a fisherman in Port Lincoln nor anyone behind a desk in Adelaide. It affects those living in the Kimba District and it is a decision for those people alone.”

Ms Johnson is proud  that “Our community has made a significant investment in learning, researching and meeting experts to form considered and knowledgeable views”  – and compares it to the rest of the State, which has not bothered to learn about the Nuclear Waste Management Facility plan.

There is no grounds for them to now have influence over our choice to vote on an opportunity that can deliver higher sustained employment and important economic diversity for our community.”

  1. f) any other related matters

The result of the AEC vote is clear demonstration of the maturity of the Kimba community.  The education and information that has been provided has increased as we all learned together of the intricacies of radioactive waste and its safe use, transport, storage and disposal. It must be noted the final result showed a 57.4% YES vote for our community to take another step in ths process and receive more information and closer consideration.

 

Brett Stoke:s: Narrow “community consultation” on South Australian illegal plan for nuclear waste dump

June 27, 2018

 

 

Why has this submission not been published on Senate website?

From: Brett Stokes   Sent: Sunday, 18 February 2018  To:  Senate Standing Committees on Economics  Subject: Submission on Selection process for a national radioactive waste management facility in South Australia 

Terms of Reference addressed:

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;
======================================
Dear Committee Members

I am one of hundreds of South Australians who have signed the following Online Open Letter calling for police action against illegal threats to import nuclear waste and to establish nuclear waste dump(s).

Please take note of this community rejection of nuclear waste importation into South Australia.

Please take note of this community support for the laws which prohibit nuclear waste importation into South Australia. Please cease this process which threatens present and future South Australians and shows contempt towards South Australian law.

Best wishes
from Brett Stokes

Dear Commissioner of Police,

We are citizens of Australia who want action taken to enforce the law, including the South Australian Nuclear Waste Storage Facility (Prohibition) Act 2000 (abbreviated herein as the NWSF(P) Act 2000).

We are sick and tired of being threatened with illegal importation of nuclear waste.

We are sick and tired of public money being spent illegally to plan and promote illegal importation of nuclear waste.

We want action now to stop current threats of illegal importation of nuclear waste. We want action now to deter future threats of illegal importation of nuclear waste.

It is clear that the Nuclear Waste Storage Facility (Prohibition) Act 2000 has been breached.

During 2015 and 2016, s13 has been breached by spending of public money on many promotional and planning aspects of illegal nuclear waste importation, as briefly described in Appendix A.

Since early 2016, there has been an open conspiracy to breach s8 and s9, with planning and promotion of importation and storage of nuclear waste into South Australia, as briefly described in Appendix B.

There are ten year imprisonment penalties and multi million dollar fines for offences – these are very serious penalties, in accord with the gravity of the threat.

As well as these offences against the NWSF(P) Act 2000, there are also other offences, including fraud, which may become more apparent as your investigation proceeds.

Please act now to enforce the law.

Please act now to end this illegal threat.

Please act now to “protect the health, safety and welfare of the people of South Australia and to protect the environment in which they live”. (Quote from s3 Objects of Act of the NWSF(P) Act 2000)

Thank you for your attention to this important matter.

Signed (Name and Postcode)

Tim Baker 5081 signed on 2016-11-24 at 20:30 (ACDT)
Brett Stokes 5118 signed on 2016-11-24 at 21:15 (ACDT)
John Mcgovern 5472 signed on 2016-11-24 at 22:35 (ACDT)
Zac Eagle 5159 signed on 2016-11-24 at 23:29 (ACDT)
James DeAth 5155 signed on 2016-11-25 at 00:13 (ACDT)
Paigen Hunter 5433 signed on 2016-11-25 at 01:04 (ACDT)
Daryl Gibson 2430 signed on 2016-11-25 at 06:19 (ACDT)
Greg Waldon 5481 signed on 2016-11-25 at 06:27 (ACDT)
Tanya Hunter 5000 signed on 2016-11-25 at 06:38 (ACDT)
10 Paul Levai 5433 signed on 2016-11-25 at 07:31 (ACDT)
11 Fernando M. Gonçalves 5022 signed on 2016-11-25 at 07:54 (ACDT)
12 Edi Carlos de Oliveira 5085 signed on 2016-11-25 at 08:06 (ACDT)
13 Patsy Laver 2573 signed on 2016-11-25 at 09:30 (ACDT)
14 Ty Haddrick 5230 signed on 2016-11-25 at 09:37 (ACDT)
15 Mark Wallman 5013 signed on 2016-11-25 at 10:38 (ACDT)
16 Louise McCauley 5166 signed on 2016-11-25 at 10:42 (ACDT)
17 Brett Derschow 6722 signed on 2016-11-25 at 11:08 (ACDT)
18 Paddy Tobin 2663 signed on 2016-11-25 at 11:11 (ACDT)
19 Susan Thiselton 5690 signed on 2016-11-25 at 11:20 (ACDT)
20 Letitia Kemister 2777 signed on 2016-11-25 at 11:21 (ACDT)
21 Ros Betts 5212 signed on 2016-11-25 at 15:36 (ACDT)
22 Soli Goodes 5350 signed on 2016-11-25 at 16:02 (ACDT)
23 Tamara Otello 5159 signed on 2016-11-25 at 16:03 (ACDT)
24 Tim Bickmore 5204 signed on 2016-11-25 at 16:04 (ACDT)
25 Mary-Jean Richardson 5082 signed on 2016-11-25 at 16:48 (ACDT)
26 Jon Eykelkamp 5167 signed on 2016-11-25 at 16:55 (ACDT)
27 Anne Eykelkamp 5168 signed on 2016-11-25 at 17:24 (ACDT)
28 Jennifer Cropley 5251 signed on 2016-11-25 at 17:50 (ACDT)
29 Angela Imbesi 5031 signed on 2016-11-25 at 19:07 (ACDT)
30 Beverley Ellis 5163 signed on 2016-11-25 at 20:03 (ACDT)
31 Mira Bate 5473 signed on 2016-11-25 at 20:53 (ACDT)
32 Megan Jack 2484 signed on 2016-11-25 at 21:07 (ACDT)
33 Marlon Porter 3056 signed on 2016-11-25 at 21:13 (ACDT)
34 Tria Manley 3058 signed on 2016-11-25 at 21:16 (ACDT)
35 Eann Lister 3147 signed on 2016-11-25 at 21:20 (ACDT)
36 Jake Mcdonald 5700 signed on 2016-11-25 at 22:08 (ACDT)
37 Claudio Pompili 5092 signed on 2016-11-25 at 22:16 (ACDT)
38 Michal Dutkiewicz 5065 signed on 2016-11-25 at 23:33 (ACDT)
39 Marianna J 5085 signed on 2016-11-26 at 01:22 (ACDT)
40 Nick Kotaras 5064 signed on 2016-11-26 at 05:44 (ACDT)
41 Katherine Lloyd 5155 signed on 2016-11-26 at 06:37 (ACDT)
42 Janet Bridgland 5155 signed on 2016-11-26 at 06:56 (ACDT)
43 Clare Raffan 2194 signed on 2016-11-26 at 06:57 (ACDT)
44 Nigel Carney 5000 signed on 2016-11-26 at 07:05 (ACDT)
45 C Carney 3053 signed on 2016-11-26 at 07:17 (ACDT)
46 Antonia Everson 5121 signed on 2016-11-26 at 08:19 (ACDT)
47 Caroline Ashmeade 5082 signed on 2016-11-26 at 08:31 (ACDT)
48 Emma Thrussell 5038 signed on 2016-11-26 at 08:43 (ACDT)
49 Noel Wauchope 3162 signed on 2016-11-26 at 08:46 (ACDT)
50 Robyn Vickridge-Smith 5019 signed on 2016-11-26 at 08:51 (ACDT)
51 Ngatina Purnell-Webb 5730 signed on 2016-11-26 at 09:01 (ACDT)
52 s bunic 5732 signed on 2016-11-26 at 10:09 (ACDT)
53 Bjorn Wise 5163 signed on 2016-11-26 at 10:28 (ACDT)
54 Rhonda Baker 5066 signed on 2016-11-26 at 13:16 (ACDT)
55 Hau Ong 5009 signed on 2016-11-26 at 15:22 (ACDT)
56 Emma McGovern 4895 signed on 2016-11-26 at 16:39 (ACDT)
57 Mark Greathead 2037 signed on 2016-11-26 at 17:16 (ACDT)
58 Terry Field 5211 signed on 2016-11-26 at 17:32 (ACDT)
59 Kylie Greer 6503 signed on 2016-11-26 at 18:11 (ACDT)
60 Charlotte Markwick 5162 signed on 2016-11-26 at 20:04 (ACDT)
61 justin lyon 5062 signed on 2016-11-26 at 20:16 (ACDT)
62 Moira McGovern 5068 signed on 2016-11-26 at 20:55 (ACDT)
63 Lyndall Kay 5024 signed on 2016-11-26 at 20:57 (ACDT)
64 Joan Rooney 5008 signed on 2016-11-26 at 21:56 (ACDT)
65 simon rooney 5007 signed on 2016-11-26 at 22:05 (ACDT)
66 Dennis Bayly 5252 signed on 2016-11-26 at 22:09 (ACDT)
67 Ian LLoyd 5412 signed on 2016-11-26 at 22:13 (ACDT)
68 wendy nicholls 5092 signed on 2016-11-26 at 22:36 (ACDT)
69 Anna Hood 5173 signed on 2016-11-26 at 23:35 (ACDT)
70 Debbie Hage 5454 signed on 2016-11-26 at 23:40 (ACDT)
71 Kurt Ruzsicska 0841 signed on 2016-11-26 at 23:58 (ACDT)
72 4226 HANNAGAN 4226 signed on 2016-11-27 at 09:06 (ACDT)
73 Erin Knowles 2481 signed on 2016-11-27 at 12:10 (ACDT)
74 Henry Baker 5155 signed on 2016-11-27 at 13:27 (ACDT)
75 Deboeah Cowdrey 5126 signed on 2016-11-27 at 16:59 (ACDT)
76 Wendy Joseph 4350 signed on 2016-11-27 at 19:53 (ACDT)
77 Benny Zable 2290 signed on 2016-11-27 at 21:17 (ACDT)
78 Mark Aldridge 5121 signed on 2016-11-28 at 00:27 (ACDT)
79 Carolyn Janson 5109 signed on 2016-11-28 at 07:20 (ACDT)
80 Kristen Mackenzie 5013 signed on 2016-11-28 at 08:31 (ACDT)
81 Anada Jones 2776 signed on 2016-11-28 at 09:42 (ACDT)
82 Nathan Haddrick 5161 signed on 2016-11-28 at 10:15 (ACDT)
83 Elinor Hurst 5069 signed on 2016-11-28 at 10:48 (ACDT)
84 Christopher Kilgariff 5252 signed on 2016-11-28 at 11:14 (ACDT)
85 Rachel Hall 2776 signed on 2016-11-28 at 16:03 (ACDT)
86 Jim Douglas 5022 signed on 2016-11-28 at 19:19 (ACDT)
87 Helen McAfee 2880 signed on 2016-11-28 at 19:45 (ACDT)
88 Bogdan J 5085 signed on 2016-11-29 at 00:26 (ACDT)
89 Margaret Henry 5022 signed on 2016-11-29 at 06:51 (ACDT)
90 Robert Jameson 5092 signed on 2016-11-29 at 07:59 (ACDT)
91 Chantal Marong 5000 signed on 2016-11-29 at 08:40 (ACDT)
92 BOB BRITON 5016 signed on 2016-11-29 at 09:49 (ACDT)
93 lisa barter 5069 signed on 2016-11-29 at 13:26 (ACDT)
94 Margaret Hender 5092 signed on 2016-11-29 at 13:36 (ACDT)
95 Rita Thomas 5412 signed on 2016-11-29 at 22:29 (ACDT)
96 Susan Hall 5255 signed on 2016-11-30 at 08:18 (ACDT)
97 marg moate 5422 signed on 2016-11-30 at 10:57 (ACDT)
98 Lyn Stephens 5255 signed on 2016-11-30 at 11:18 (ACDT)
99 Angus Hards 5108 signed on 2016-11-30 at 11:43 (ACDT)
100 Braden Smith 3556 signed on 2016-11-30 at 12:10 (ACDT)
101 Janet Reid 5000 signed on 2016-11-30 at 13:08 (ACDT)
102 Lynne edmondson 5731 signed on 2016-11-30 at 13:14 (ACDT)
103 Kym Westhoff 5641 signed on 2016-11-30 at 14:54 (ACDT)
104 Jacqueline Dowden 5460 signed on 2016-11-30 at 15:02 (ACDT)
105 Suzanne Moss 5159 signed on 2016-11-30 at 15:21 (ACDT)
106 Joan Sandford 5097 signed on 2016-11-30 at 15:24 (ACDT)
107 Jocelyn Richards 5063 signed on 2016-11-30 at 15:43 (ACDT)
108 Reginald Wilton 5502 signed on 2016-11-30 at 15:47 (ACDT)
109 Joanne Freeling 5096 signed on 2016-11-30 at 16:59 (ACDT)
110 Mary Moody 2785 signed on 2016-11-30 at 17:28 (ACDT)
111 Darne Nelson 5096 signed on 2016-11-30 at 17:48 (ACDT)
112 Cindy Blake 3557 signed on 2016-11-30 at 18:28 (ACDT)
113 christine hamilton 3936 signed on 2016-11-30 at 20:48 (ACDT)
114 Bunna Lawrie 3066 signed on 2016-11-30 at 22:30 (ACDT)
115 Kayleen Grose 5113 signed on 2016-11-30 at 22:38 (ACDT)
116 Venessa Curnow 4870 signed on 2016-11-30 at 22:44 (ACDT)
117 Niall Anderson 2060 signed on 2016-11-30 at 22:53 (ACDT)
118 Kacie Mitchell 3350 signed on 2016-11-30 at 23:12 (ACDT)
119 Aura Moscoso 930000 signed on 2016-12-01 at 00:01 (ACDT)
120 Luke Hudson 5343 signed on 2016-12-01 at 00:04 (ACDT)
121 David Knight 5089 signed on 2016-12-01 at 00:13 (ACDT)
122 ryan cowley 5098 signed on 2016-12-01 at 00:14 (ACDT)
123 Kerrilyn Bridges 5133 signed on 2016-12-01 at 00:23 (ACDT)
124 Sharon Harding 5417 signed on 2016-12-01 at 00:31 (ACDT)
125 Jan Wilson 5043 signed on 2016-12-01 at 00:39 (ACDT)
126 J Sleep 5043 signed on 2016-12-01 at 00:43 (ACDT)
127 Tony Lincoln 4022 signed on 2016-12-01 at 00:54 (ACDT)
128 Michael Sneyd 5090 signed on 2016-12-01 at 01:09 (ACDT)
129 Mark Stirland 5096 signed on 2016-12-01 at 01:55 (ACDT)
130 Anna Geyer 5159 signed on 2016-12-01 at 01:56 (ACDT)
131 Bozena Buczkowska 5031 signed on 2016-12-01 at 01:57 (ACDT)
132 Tiffany Kirk 422q signed on 2016-12-01 at 02:12 (ACDT)
133 Angel Stojanov 5114 signed on 2016-12-01 at 02:40 (ACDT)
134 Hayley De La Rue 5162 signed on 2016-12-01 at 02:50 (ACDT)
135 Robyn Wood 5093 signed on 2016-12-01 at 03:14 (ACDT)
136 Lynette Pinnington 6114 signed on 2016-12-01 at 03:19 (ACDT)
137 jacqueline Cook 5113 signed on 2016-12-01 at 03:25 (ACDT)
138 Samantha Limburg 4001 signed on 2016-12-01 at 03:39 (ACDT)
139 Margret Pearce 5373 signed on 2016-12-01 at 03:41 (ACDT)
140 leslie ryan 2700 signed on 2016-12-01 at 03:42 (ACDT)
141 Andrew Rossiter 6122 signed on 2016-12-01 at 03:50 (ACDT)
142 Geoffrey Hearn 2749 signed on 2016-12-01 at 04:38 (ACDT)
143 Peter Jeffery 3654 signed on 2016-12-01 at 05:05 (ACDT)
144 Dane Amorosi 5086 signed on 2016-12-01 at 05:40 (ACDT)
145 Kylie Yarwood 5158 signed on 2016-12-01 at 06:05 (ACDT)
146 Eva Sherriff 5330 signed on 2016-12-01 at 06:15 (ACDT)
147 Rachael Faehrmann 2549 signed on 2016-12-01 at 06:22 (ACDT)
148 Leanne Benson 5107 signed on 2016-12-01 at 06:35 (ACDT)
149 Sarah Laing 2484 signed on 2016-12-01 at 06:43 (ACDT)
150 sue sprules 5262 signed on 2016-12-01 at 06:54 (ACDT)
151 Sally Innes 5250 signed on 2016-12-01 at 06:59 (ACDT)
152 Steve Gemmell 5011 signed on 2016-12-01 at 07:01 (ACDT)
153 Ralph Donise 5125 signed on 2016-12-01 at 07:06 (ACDT)
154 Eunika Adamczuk 4209 signed on 2016-12-01 at 07:12 (ACDT)
155 Deb Morgan 5072 signed on 2016-12-01 at 07:16 (ACDT)
156 Robert Letkiewicz 2780 signed on 2016-12-01 at 07:19 (ACDT)
157 paula tomlinson 4670 signed on 2016-12-01 at 07:23 (ACDT)
158 Bruce Roberts 5114 signed on 2016-12-01 at 07:23 (ACDT)
159 Robert Loo 5400 signed on 2016-12-01 at 07:27 (ACDT)
160 Mark Forest 4211 signed on 2016-12-01 at 07:28 (ACDT)
161 Kathy wardle 4560 signed on 2016-12-01 at 07:31 (ACDT)
162 Kristopher Best 5108 signed on 2016-12-01 at 07:35 (ACDT)
163 Mark Grice 5070 signed on 2016-12-01 at 07:35 (ACDT)
164 Tony Chamberlain 3155 signed on 2016-12-01 at 07:39 (ACDT)
165 Avron Foster 5076 signed on 2016-12-01 at 07:42 (ACDT)
166 Sam Ess 5118 signed on 2016-12-01 at 07:42 (ACDT)
167 syd toborek 4224 signed on 2016-12-01 at 07:44 (ACDT)
168 Simon Atherton 5114 signed on 2016-12-01 at 07:46 (ACDT)
169 Milan Stojsavljevic 5090 signed on 2016-12-01 at 07:47 (ACDT)
170 Rosmarie Rowan 5109 signed on 2016-12-01 at 07:47 (ACDT)
171 Tristan Dodson 5159 signed on 2016-12-01 at 07:49 (ACDT)
172 Julie Curtis 3029 signed on 2016-12-01 at 07:51 (ACDT)
173 Heather Black 2483 signed on 2016-12-01 at 07:51 (ACDT)
174 Lee-Anne Crawford 2483 signed on 2016-12-01 at 07:51 (ACDT)
175 Monique Bosenberg 5092 signed on 2016-12-01 at 07:56 (ACDT)
176 Louise Van Eyck 5244 signed on 2016-12-01 at 08:03 (ACDT)
177 Chris Gobin 5025 signed on 2016-12-01 at 08:03 (ACDT)
178 Meg Carr 2450 signed on 2016-12-01 at 08:09 (ACDT)
179 Kim de Ron 5252 signed on 2016-12-01 at 08:15 (ACDT)
180 Alexander Paredes 5252 signed on 2016-12-01 at 08:15 (ACDT)
181 Stephanie Kym 5015 signed on 2016-12-01 at 08:21 (ACDT)
182 Tony Robinson 2780 signed on 2016-12-01 at 08:22 (ACDT)
183 Cheryl Macklin 5254 signed on 2016-12-01 at 08:23 (ACDT)
184 Ky Wakefield 5048 signed on 2016-12-01 at 08:23 (ACDT)
185 Daphne King 5046 signed on 2016-12-01 at 08:56 (ACDT)
186 Dianne Ryan 4563 signed on 2016-12-01 at 08:59 (ACDT)
187 Steve Sloan 5048 signed on 2016-12-01 at 09:02 (ACDT)
188 Agnieszka Maksacheff 2800 signed on 2016-12-01 at 09:04 (ACDT)
189 Naomi Kazi 5092 signed on 2016-12-01 at 09:09 (ACDT)
190 Marilyn Timms 4570 signed on 2016-12-01 at 09:10 (ACDT)
191 Ken Ctabb 5112 signed on 2016-12-01 at 09:16 (ACDT)
192 Brett Ryan 4500 signed on 2016-12-01 at 09:20 (ACDT)
193 Marty McClelland 6743 signed on 2016-12-01 at 09:23 (ACDT)
194 Susanne Day 2756 signed on 2016-12-01 at 09:24 (ACDT)
195 mick James 5353 signed on 2016-12-01 at 09:25 (ACDT)
196 B Denherder 5351 signed on 2016-12-01 at 09:26 (ACDT)
197 Florence Morgan 5162 signed on 2016-12-01 at 09:28 (ACDT)
198 Karen Murphy 5113 signed on 2016-12-01 at 09:30 (ACDT)
199 philippa whyte 6765 signed on 2016-12-01 at 09:37 (ACDT)
200 Justin Talbot 6171 signed on 2016-12-01 at 09:39 (ACDT)
201 Carrol Collins 5016 signed on 2016-12-01 at 09:52 (ACDT)
202 LINDSAY RIDDOCH 5357 signed on 2016-12-01 at 10:15 (ACDT)
203 Daniel Tobi 4680 signed on 2016-12-01 at 10:27 (ACDT)
204 Helen Dee 7322 signed on 2016-12-01 at 10:28 (ACDT)
205 michael manuel 5168 signed on 2016-12-01 at 10:32 (ACDT)
206 Anna Stone 2470 signed on 2016-12-01 at 10:32 (ACDT)
207 Terry Campbell 3518 signed on 2016-12-01 at 10:34 (ACDT)
208 Donna James 4514 signed on 2016-12-01 at 10:34 (ACDT)
209 Liping Jiang 5008 signed on 2016-12-01 at 10:35 (ACDT)
210 peter telford 5253 signed on 2016-12-01 at 10:41 (ACDT)
211 Kathleen Rowland 5550 signed on 2016-12-01 at 10:52 (ACDT)
212 Sean Chapman 3810 signed on 2016-12-01 at 11:24 (ACDT)
213 Nadia Bish 3527 signed on 2016-12-01 at 11:34 (ACDT)
214 Helen Woolman 5108 signed on 2016-12-01 at 11:50 (ACDT)
215 Mariah Morgan 5162 signed on 2016-12-01 at 11:53 (ACDT)
216 Vanessa Sandford 5501 signed on 2016-12-01 at 11:53 (ACDT)
217 Jason Clancy 6105 signed on 2016-12-01 at 11:56 (ACDT)
218 Ray Gurney 2019 signed on 2016-12-01 at 12:09 (ACDT)
219 Birgit Banks 2460 signed on 2016-12-01 at 12:09 (ACDT)
220 Jeanette Tennyson 3073 signed on 2016-12-01 at 12:10 (ACDT)
221 Jane Braithwaite 5501 signed on 2016-12-01 at 12:13 (ACDT)
222 Rose Webb 5114 signed on 2016-12-01 at 12:24 (ACDT)
223 Kareena Harwood 5260 signed on 2016-12-01 at 13:10 (ACDT)
224 jennifer todd 4341 signed on 2016-12-01 at 13:14 (ACDT)
225 Gordana Carich 3037 signed on 2016-12-01 at 13:18 (ACDT)
226 N Wallace 5022 signed on 2016-12-01 at 13:24 (ACDT)
227 Kathryn Guerin 5109 signed on 2016-12-01 at 13:34 (ACDT)
228 cynthia Goldsworthy 5032 signed on 2016-12-01 at 14:04 (ACDT)
229 Nicole Howlett 4557 signed on 2016-12-01 at 14:12 (ACDT)
230 Brooke Gray 5113 signed on 2016-12-01 at 14:58 (ACDT)
231 Jane Shortt 5088 signed on 2016-12-01 at 16:05 (ACDT)
232 Nicky Bath 5158 signed on 2016-12-01 at 16:07 (ACDT)
233 Denis Fowler 5417 signed on 2016-12-01 at 16:09 (ACDT)
234 Rick Alvarez 5290 signed on 2016-12-01 at 16:23 (ACDT)
235 Ruth ONeill 5112 signed on 2016-12-01 at 16:29 (ACDT)
236 Glenn Wilson 3701 signed on 2016-12-01 at 16:36 (ACDT)
237 kevin kennewell 5422 signed on 2016-12-01 at 16:51 (ACDT)
238 Amanda Eden 5353 signed on 2016-12-01 at 16:59 (ACDT)
239 sandra cairns 3175 signed on 2016-12-01 at 17:14 (ACDT)
240 Christine Young 5400 signed on 2016-12-01 at 17:31 (ACDT)
241 Manfred Ihms 0810 signed on 2016-12-01 at 17:42 (ACDT)
242 Denise Ward 2480 signed on 2016-12-01 at 17:49 (ACDT)
243 Jarrad Edwards 5108 signed on 2016-12-01 at 18:00 (ACDT)
244 Kathy G 5162 signed on 2016-12-01 at 18:28 (ACDT)
245 Julz Black 5114 signed on 2016-12-01 at 19:01 (ACDT)
246 Kat K 5000 signed on 2016-12-01 at 19:57 (ACDT)
247 Johanna Thomas 2131 signed on 2016-12-01 at 20:23 (ACDT)
248 Candice Ford 2548 signed on 2016-12-01 at 20:35 (ACDT)
249 Catherine Miller 4558 signed on 2016-12-01 at 20:48 (ACDT)
250 Kathy Rikkerink 2229 signed on 2016-12-01 at 20:48 (ACDT)
251 Liisa Klingberg 5019 signed on 2016-12-01 at 20:54 (ACDT)
252 Ronald Creed 5575 signed on 2016-12-01 at 20:55 (ACDT)
253 Kay Schieren 3885 signed on 2016-12-01 at 20:59 (ACDT)
254 Melissa Trustrum 2285 signed on 2016-12-01 at 21:01 (ACDT)
255 Maree Mcglashan 3783 signed on 2016-12-01 at 21:08 (ACDT)
256 Lesley Flora 5032 signed on 2016-12-01 at 21:16 (ACDT)
257 Sally Green 4505 signed on 2016-12-01 at 21:21 (ACDT)
258 Tania Cummings 2777 signed on 2016-12-01 at 21:28 (ACDT)
259 Trevor Edwards 5212 signed on 2016-12-01 at 21:31 (ACDT)
260 Jill Fee 5265 signed on 2016-12-01 at 21:33 (ACDT)
261 Kevin Caire 5092 signed on 2016-12-01 at 21:49 (ACDT)
262 Allison Platts 5015 signed on 2016-12-01 at 22:11 (ACDT)
263 Monika Newman 2232 signed on 2016-12-01 at 22:49 (ACDT)
264 Tim Sellars 5210 signed on 2016-12-01 at 23:08 (ACDT)
265 Linda Seymour 4670 signed on 2016-12-01 at 23:17 (ACDT)
266 Steven Prime 5107 signed on 2016-12-02 at 00:03 (ACDT)
267 Cindy Hammet 5016 signed on 2016-12-02 at 05:48 (ACDT)
268 Brent Fox 5253 signed on 2016-12-02 at 06:37 (ACDT)
269 Richard Woolley 3465 signed on 2016-12-02 at 06:37 (ACDT)
270 Kerry Manthorpe 5607 signed on 2016-12-02 at 06:38 (ACDT)
271 Rosanne Newton 2576 signed on 2016-12-02 at 07:08 (ACDT)
272 sonja kim 3931 signed on 2016-12-02 at 07:09 (ACDT)
273 Mark Parsons 2454 signed on 2016-12-02 at 08:35 (ACDT)
274 Gail Hester 2480 signed on 2016-12-02 at 08:35 (ACDT)
275 peter duffy 4017 signed on 2016-12-02 at 08:37 (ACDT)
276 SHANN CARSE 7321 signed on 2016-12-02 at 08:43 (ACDT)
277 Ruby Ryan 2506 signed on 2016-12-02 at 08:45 (ACDT)
278 Marc field 2263 signed on 2016-12-02 at 08:55 (ACDT)
279 Clive Lohrey 7216 signed on 2016-12-02 at 08:56 (ACDT)
280 Rachael Kokke 3152 signed on 2016-12-02 at 09:13 (ACDT)
281 Donna Hooper 4078 signed on 2016-12-02 at 09:35 (ACDT)
282 Daniel Taylor 6107 signed on 2016-12-02 at 09:53 (ACDT)
283 William Long 3465 signed on 2016-12-02 at 10:04 (ACDT)
284 Kathleen McQuade 6532 signed on 2016-12-02 at 10:09 (ACDT)
285 Jonathan Mulcahy 2472 signed on 2016-12-02 at 10:33 (ACDT)
286 Rob Anderson 2473 signed on 2016-12-02 at 10:45 (ACDT)
287 leslea riddle 2650 signed on 2016-12-02 at 11:23 (ACDT)
288 Debra Haslam 2291 signed on 2016-12-02 at 11:27 (ACDT)
289 Merridy Briese 5640 signed on 2016-12-02 at 12:52 (ACDT)
290 scott heard 4825 signed on 2016-12-02 at 14:04 (ACDT)
291 Angela Morton 2680 signed on 2016-12-02 at 14:22 (ACDT)
292 Taliahia Mcmahon 5290 signed on 2016-12-02 at 15:11 (ACDT)
293 carmen l canino PR signed on 2016-12-02 at 15:44 (ACDT)
294 Lynne Baker 3465 signed on 2016-12-02 at 20:57 (ACDT)
295 martin allott 5107 signed on 2016-12-02 at 23:41 (ACDT)
296 Ken Linder 5308 signed on 2016-12-03 at 02:27 (ACDT)
297 Janet Turpie-Johnstone 3140 signed on 2016-12-03 at 07:42 (ACDT)
298 Helen Harpas 5062 signed on 2016-12-03 at 10:14 (ACDT)
299 gary burns 4558 signed on 2016-12-03 at 10:47 (ACDT)
300 Heather Barnes 5204 signed on 2016-12-03 at 15:16 (ACDT)
301 Deanne Orenda 5173 signed on 2016-12-03 at 16:37 (ACDT)
302 Jude Ludlam 6208 signed on 2016-12-03 at 22:13 (ACDT)
303 Shane Pluck 5041 signed on 2016-12-03 at 22:46 (ACDT)
304 steve schubert 5172 signed on 2016-12-04 at 11:19 (ACDT)
305 ROSANNA LONG 5089 signed on 2016-12-04 at 11:21 (ACDT)
306 Tristan Baker 6175 signed on 2016-12-04 at 21:36 (ACDT)
307 kieran franey 5047 signed on 2016-12-04 at 23:02 (ACDT)
308 Maria J 5085 signed on 2016-12-05 at 00:05 (ACDT)
309 Noah Farnan 4895 signed on 2016-12-05 at 00:43 (ACDT)
310 Karen Schipanski 5051 signed on 2016-12-05 at 11:24 (ACDT)
311 Hans Peter Andresen 5021 signed on 2016-12-05 at 11:50 (ACDT)
312 Chris Blackmore 5039 signed on 2016-12-05 at 12:13 (ACDT)
313 Lewis Aspy 5051 signed on 2016-12-05 at 17:29 (ACDT)
314 Roman J 5085 signed on 2016-12-05 at 18:58 (ACDT)
315 Scotty Mortimer 4228 signed on 2016-12-05 at 23:03 (ACDT)
316 chris Baker 5256 signed on 2016-12-06 at 08:54 (ACDT)
317 Ben mcgovern 5153 signed on 2016-12-06 at 12:37 (ACDT)
318 Harvey Stone 5051 signed on 2016-12-06 at 17:27 (ACDT)
319 T Ward 5000 signed on 2016-12-06 at 18:56 (ACDT)
320 Robert Morton 2480 signed on 2016-12-06 at 20:22 (ACDT)
321 Matthew Connell 5017 signed on 2016-12-06 at 23:25 (ACDT)
322 Shaun Williams 5554 signed on 2016-12-07 at 10:45 (ACDT)
323 Courtney Wylie 4311 signed on 2016-12-07 at 12:12 (ACDT)
324 Lily Woodward 2213 signed on 2016-12-07 at 12:12 (ACDT)
325 Simon Ruppert 5073 signed on 2016-12-09 at 15:43 (ACDT)
326 Hanna Law 5203 signed on 2016-12-09 at 22:27 (ACDT)
327 Les Gaweda 5159 signed on 2016-12-09 at 22:29 (ACDT)
328 Briony King 5554 signed on 2016-12-09 at 23:01 (ACDT)
329 Leeanne Kimberley 5092 signed on 2016-12-10 at 01:09 (ACDT)
330 Reg Gale 5602 signed on 2016-12-10 at 02:06 (ACDT)
331 Christine Lawrence 5113 signed on 2016-12-10 at 07:51 (ACDT)
332 Robert Webb 5039 signed on 2016-12-10 at 08:06 (ACDT)
333 Michael Kilowsky 5680 signed on 2016-12-10 at 08:10 (ACDT)
334 Brad Tsoumbris 5109 signed on 2016-12-10 at 09:47 (ACDT)
335 A Lee 5014 signed on 2016-12-10 at 10:32 (ACDT)
336 Deborah Hall 3465 signed on 2016-12-10 at 11:29 (ACDT)
337 Westley Tully 5169 signed on 2016-12-10 at 12:59 (ACDT)
338 Matthew Robinson 5051 signed on 2016-12-10 at 18:57 (ACDT)
339 Marianne Z 5112 signed on 2016-12-11 at 17:01 (ACDT)
340 Pinkie Bennett 5038 signed on 2016-12-11 at 17:23 (ACDT)
341 Kirsty Maynard 5031 signed on 2016-12-11 at 17:48 (ACDT)
342 Peter Pridham 5012 signed on 2016-12-11 at 18:14 (ACDT)
343 Jane Taylor 2515 signed on 2016-12-11 at 18:34 (ACDT)
344 Aaron Heritage 5167 signed on 2016-12-11 at 19:38 (ACDT)
345 Andrew Williams 5608 signed on 2016-12-12 at 00:31 (ACDT)
346 Joy Engelman 2800 signed on 2016-12-12 at 15:32 (ACDT)
347 Peter Cardwell 5032 signed on 2016-12-12 at 17:33 (ACDT)
348 Brett De Bruyn 5158 signed on 2016-12-12 at 22:32 (ACDT)
349 Renee DeBruyn 5163 signed on 2016-12-12 at 22:43 (ACDT)
350 Matt Ivo 5167 signed on 2016-12-12 at 23:50 (ACDT)
351 Chad White-Stevens 5152 signed on 2016-12-13 at 01:27 (ACDT)
352 Simon Tait 5048 signed on 2016-12-13 at 08:17 (ACDT)
353 Kym Mead 4051 signed on 2016-12-17 at 19:15 (ACDT)
354 Cameron Shipway 2480 signed on 2016-12-17 at 20:35 (ACDT)
355 Mark Roberts 5039 signed on 2016-12-19 at 22:01 (ACDT)
356 Holly Whittenbury 5112 signed on 2016-12-19 at 22:39 (ACDT)
357 Kim van Nieuwkerk 7262 signed on 2016-12-20 at 01:52 (ACDT)
358 Renny Bradtke 5000 signed on 2016-12-20 at 03:34 (ACDT)
359 mike ladd 5082 signed on 2016-12-20 at 10:12 (ACDT)
360 Kerry Laws 2095 signed on 2016-12-20 at 11:10 (ACDT)
361 Donna Cameron 2602 signed on 2016-12-20 at 18:53 (ACDT)
362 Debra Carlaw 5640 signed on 2016-12-21 at 13:56 (ACDT)
363 Stephen Low 5001 signed on 2016-12-23 at 06:14 (ACDT)
364 Tina Simos 5048 signed on 2016-12-23 at 11:25 (ACDT)
365 Angelina Seraglia 3105 signed on 2016-12-23 at 15:51 (ACDT)
366 Briony King 5554 signed on 2016-12-23 at 22:47 (ACDT)
367 Linda Thomson 5710 signed on 2016-12-24 at 18:38 (ACDT)
368 Giovanni Seraglia 3210 signed on 2016-12-26 at 00:22 (ACDT)
369 Emeile Rabot 5410 signed on 2016-12-26 at 21:22 (ACDT)
370 Lindy Van Houweninge 4161 signed on 2017-01-04 at 21:36 (ACDT)
371 Caleb Fairbrother 2333 signed on 2017-01-07 at 08:14 (ACDT)
372 Liz Russell 5164 signed on 2017-01-08 at 02:25 (ACDT)
373 James Smith 5050 signed on 2017-01-11 at 13:52 (ACDT)
374 Gary Field 5158 signed on 2017-01-12 at 16:50 (ACDT)
375 Elene Kontonikas 5032 signed on 2017-01-18 at 22:49 (ACDT)
376 Marie Buczynski 5069 signed on 2017-01-31 at 08:33 (ACDT)
377 TERRAH-LEE CANN 5118 signed on 2017-01-31 at 12:01 (ACDT)
378 grahame ranson 5540 signed on 2017-02-02 at 17:47 (ACDT)
379 John Paterson 4871 signed on 2017-02-02 at 18:20 (ACDT)
380 Holly Whittenbury 5112 signed on 2017-02-03 at 11:16 (ACDT)
381 John Landers 5064 signed on 2017-02-03 at 11:39 (ACDT)
382 Alicia Lee 5014 signed on 2017-02-03 at 12:10 (ACDT)
383 Ness Foster 5043 signed on 2017-02-03 at 16:16 (ACDT)
384 Alicia Gibson 5043 signed on 2017-02-04 at 02:05 (ACDT)
385 Daryl Gibson 2430 signed on 2017-02-04 at 08:49 (ACDT)
386 Charlotte Martin 5113 signed on 2017-02-04 at 09:20 (ACDT)
387 Sarah King 5051 signed on 2017-02-04 at 19:06 (ACDT)
388 Chloe Anglberger 5051 signed on 2017-02-04 at 19:10 (ACDT)
389 Lisa Bottroff 5238 signed on 2017-02-04 at 20:20 (ACDT)
390 J Burns 5653 signed on 2017-02-11 at 23:42 (ACDT)
391 Neville Arrowsmith 2518 signed on 2017-02-12 at 09:04 (ACDT)
392 James Readman 5051 signed on 2017-02-12 at 15:30 (ACDT)
393 Diane Moore 5112 signed on 2017-02-12 at 16:34 (ACDT)
394 Anna Taylor 5670 signed on 2017-02-12 at 22:43 (ACDT)
395 Hel Reynolds 2039 signed on 2017-02-15 at 06:23 (ACDT)
396 Andrew Hayward-Bannister 3959 signed on 2017-02-18 at 01:32 (ACDT)
397 Anne Jackson 4671 signed on 2017-02-25 at 05:57 (ACDT)
398 peter cosgrave 3467 signed on 2017-03-03 at 13:43 (ACDT)
399 bob davies 5106 signed on 2017-03-03 at 16:10 (ACDT)
400 Shaun Williams 5554 signed on 2017-03-03 at 16:50 (ACDT)
401 Sue-Ellen Campbell 3941 signed on 2017-03-03 at 20:16 (ACDT)
402 Noel Wauchope 3162 signed on 2017-03-04 at 11:55 (ACDT)
403 Karen Galway 5117 signed on 2017-03-04 at 12:21 (ACDT)
404 Joan Rooney 5008 signed on 2017-03-04 at 12:37 (ACDT)
405 Bronwen Nottle 5600 signed on 2017-03-04 at 13:24 (ACDT)
406 Les Boully 4655 signed on 2017-03-04 at 15:28 (ACDT)
407 Irene Tognetti 2500 signed on 2017-03-05 at 22:37 (ACDT)
408 Lesley Grace 5162 signed on 2017-03-06 at 02:34 (ACDT)
409 mara bonacci 3122 signed on 2017-03-06 at 14:53 (ACDT)
410 madison hunt 5571 signed on 2017-03-09 at 17:36 (ACDT)
411 Tom Wetherall 5000 signed on 2017-03-09 at 17:41 (ACDT)
412 Jesse Derrington 5253 signed on 2017-03-10 at 14:26 (ACDT)
413 Lee Ryan 5000 signed on 2017-03-10 at 14:30 (ACDT)
414 Claudio Pompili 5092 signed on 2017-03-10 at 15:51 (ACDT)
415 Aurelia Pompili 2046 signed on 2017-03-10 at 17:09 (ACDT)
416 Stephen Connolly 5091 signed on 2017-03-10 at 23:48 (ACDT)
417 Gayle Mather 5700 signed on 2017-03-11 at 10:04 (ACDT)
418 Marianne Z 5112 signed on 2017-03-11 at 10:31 (ACDT)
419 Liz Ports 5008 signed on 2017-03-11 at 13:18 (ACDT)
420 Margareta Holmdahl 5016 signed on 2017-03-12 at 01:02 (ACDT)
421 Chris mills 5461 signed on 2017-03-14 at 23:05 (ACDT)
422 Sue Willis 5605 signed on 2017-03-15 at 02:43 (ACDT)
423 Peter Darling 5355 signed on 2017-03-22 at 00:31 (ACDT)
424 Paula Mathews 5640 signed on 2017-03-23 at 07:20 (ACDT)
425 Anton Lunstedt 5481 signed on 2017-03-23 at 23:26 (ACDT)
426 Mark Gill 5007 signed on 2017-03-24 at 03:28 (ACDT)
427 Emma Paparella 5540 signed on 2017-03-24 at 07:22 (ACDT)
428 Gordana Grzentie 3021 signed on 2017-03-26 at 14:10 (ACDT)
429 Maree Thorburn 4370 signed on 2017-03-26 at 15:39 (ACDT)
430 kate laws 5114 signed on 2017-03-27 at 21:52 (ACDT)
431 Margaret Stuart 5700 signed on 2017-04-02 at 22:41 (ACDT)
432 anna taylor 5670 signed on 2017-04-09 at 00:21 (ACDT)
433 Lesley Flora 5032 signed on 2017-04-13 at 15:18 (ACDT)
434 Paigen Hunter 5433 signed on 2017-04-20 at 23:33 (ACDT)
435 Jennifer Thurmer 5084 signed on 2017-04-22 at 21:43 (ACDT)
436 Pinkie Bennett 5038 signed on 2017-04-23 at 19:26 (ACDT)
437 Jayne March 5241 signed on 2017-04-23 at 19:34 (ACDT)
438 Sue Willis 5605 signed on 2017-04-24 at 14:28 (ACDT)
439 Louise Jones 5000 signed on 2017-04-24 at 19:38 (ACDT)
440 Anthony Clark 5700 signed on 2017-04-24 at 19:40 (ACDT)
441 Vivianne McKenzie 5013 signed on 2017-04-24 at 20:18 (ACDT)
442 Alice Pryor 5000 signed on 2017-04-24 at 22:32 (ACDT)
443 KAREN GRAY 5000 signed on 2017-04-25 at 15:09 (ACDT)
444 Rob Davies 5000 signed on 2017-04-25 at 20:35 (ACDT)
445 Gary Goland 5201 signed on 2017-04-26 at 21:45 (ACDT)
446 Borat Kazakh 5108 signed on 2017-04-26 at 21:53 (ACDT)
447 Stephen Fisher 5041 signed on 2017-04-27 at 14:25 (ACDT)
448 jon Eykelkamp 5167 signed on 2017-04-28 at 09:16 (ACDT)
449 Bernadette Merrifield 5108 signed on 2017-04-28 at 17:26 (ACDT)
450 ian Bourne 5141 signed on 2017-05-05 at 21:31 (ACDT)
451 cindy hoskin 5540 signed on 2017-05-15 at 06:12 (ACDT)
452 Trevor Griffin 5063 signed on 2017-05-16 at 14:49 (ACDT)
453 Frances Manning 5159 signed on 2017-05-17 at 01:07 (ACDT)
454 Ian Carragher 2259 signed on 2017-05-21 at 08:36 (ACDT)
455 Dianne Starick 5731 signed on 2017-05-25 at 21:39 (ACDT)
456 Ian Modistach 5041 signed on 2017-06-02 at 10:50 (ACDT)
457 Anna Lorcan 4019 signed on 2017-06-07 at 15:55 (ACDT)
458 Jake Paynter 5049 signed on 2017-06-07 at 17:21 (ACDT)
459 Adam Broinowski 2602 signed on 2017-06-08 at 09:22 (ACDT)
460 Martin Cookson 5311 signed on 2017-06-08 at 16:35 (ACDT)
461 Trevor Hull 5070 signed on 2017-06-10 at 11:15 (ACDT)
462 Janine Swayne 5013 signed on 2017-06-11 at 11:50 (ACDT)
463 karen winnett 6330 signed on 2017-06-11 at 21:54 (ACDT)
464 Wendy Joseph 4350 signed on 2017-06-14 at 19:13 (ACDT)
465 Jodie Wilson 5211 signed on 2017-06-14 at 19:37 (ACDT)
466 John McGrath 5214 signed on 2017-06-14 at 20:22 (ACDT)
467 Scott Burke 5108 signed on 2017-06-14 at 20:38 (ACDT)
468 Dianne Quilliam 7320 signed on 2017-06-15 at 11:31 (ACDT)
469 Karrie Lannstrom 2880 signed on 2017-06-22 at 08:52 (ACDT)
470 Heather Stuart 5434 signed on 2017-06-23 at 23:08 (ACDT)
471 Anthony Clark 5700 signed on 2017-06-23 at 23:18 (ACDT)
472 Darcelle Heneker 5540 signed on 2017-06-24 at 08:42 (ACDT)
473 Gayle Mather 5700 signed on 2017-06-24 at 08:58 (ACDT)
474 Ron Barnes 2285 signed on 2017-06-27 at 22:57 (ACDT)
475 Rob Thompson 3071 signed on 2017-06-28 at 00:04 (ACDT)
476 Paula Mathews 5640 signed on 2017-06-28 at 06:58 (ACDT)
477 Leanne Goldsmith 5576 signed on 2017-06-28 at 07:25 (ACDT)
478 Mark Braithwaite 5600 signed on 2017-06-28 at 07:36 (ACDT)
479 Tim Larwood 5641 signed on 2017-06-28 at 07:43 (ACDT)
480 Kathy Lockwood 5640 signed on 2017-06-28 at 07:48 (ACDT)
481 Merridy Briese 5649 signed on 2017-06-28 at 08:08 (ACDT)
482 Trenna Montgomerie 5680 signed on 2017-06-28 at 08:51 (ACDT)
483 Carissa Austin 5341 signed on 2017-06-28 at 09:05 (ACDT)
484 mav hoffrichter 5690 signed on 2017-06-28 at 09:48 (ACDT)
485 Kylie Kidd 5640 signed on 2017-06-28 at 10:05 (ACDT)
486 Lisa Carr 5606 signed on 2017-06-28 at 11:00 (ACDT)
487 Michelle Hunt 5641 signed on 2017-06-28 at 12:07 (ACDT)
488 Carol Cummings 5652 signed on 2017-06-28 at 15:09 (ACDT)
489 Michelle Casserley 5606 signed on 2017-06-28 at 16:49 (ACDT)
490 Kristin Godby 3071 signed on 2017-06-28 at 17:16 (ACDT)
491 Cari Schuster 5640 signed on 2017-06-28 at 17:33 (ACDT)
492 Terri Thiel 5583 signed on 2017-06-28 at 18:27 (ACDT)
493 Megan Eramiha 5680 signed on 2017-06-28 at 18:30 (ACDT)
494 Lauren Kakoschke 5571 signed on 2017-06-28 at 18:33 (ACDT)
495 Rosemary Hislop 4510 signed on 2017-06-28 at 19:06 (ACDT)
496 Nyssa Bell 5680 signed on 2017-06-28 at 20:24 (ACDT)
497 Margaret Eckermann 5641 signed on 2017-06-28 at 21:08 (ACDT)
498 julie litchfield 5167 signed on 2017-06-28 at 21:10 (ACDT)
499 Shylie Harris 5641 signed on 2017-06-28 at 22:20 (ACDT)
500 Paul Sherry 5290 signed on 2017-06-29 at 05:32 (ACDT)
501 Di Lienert 5606 signed on 2017-06-29 at 06:24 (ACDT)
502 Amanda Lynch 5671 signed on 2017-06-29 at 06:50 (ACDT)
503 Abbey Wendland 5072 signed on 2017-06-29 at 07:39 (ACDT)
504 inta warner 5065 signed on 2017-06-29 at 08:51 (ACDT)
505 Mary Palkovics 5373 signed on 2017-06-29 at 10:35 (ACDT)
506 Tori Vasey 5680 signed on 2017-06-29 at 17:58 (ACDT)
507 Mandy Masters 5680 signed on 2017-06-29 at 21:03 (ACDT)
508 Colleen Guidera 5641 signed on 2017-06-30 at 10:31 (ACDT)
509 Therese Lawrie 5605 signed on 2017-07-01 at 20:22 (ACDT)
510 Brenton Eckermann 5641 signed on 2017-07-05 at 14:58 (ACDT)
511 Rachel Sinkinson 5434 signed on 2017-07-14 at 21:21 (ACDT)
512 Anne Taylor 5118 signed on 2017-08-10 at 14:59 (ACDT)
513 Jen Wilder 2010 signed on 2017-08-17 at 21:45 (ACDT)
514 Susan Brame 5023 signed on 2017-08-21 at 11:37 (ACDT)
515 Geraldine Gillen 5600 signed on 2017-08-22 at 05:50 (ACDT)
516 Leszek Gaweda 5159 signed on 2017-08-22 at 12:34 (ACDT)
517 Paul Richards 3056 signed on 2017-08-24 at 07:30 (ACDT)
518 Reg Gale 5602 signed on 2017-09-14 at 12:58 (ACDT)
519 Clair Schubert 5641 signed on 2017-09-18 at 11:28 (ACDT)
520 Mark Gill 5007 signed on 2017-11-08 at 03:34 (ACDT)
521 Janet Tiller 5641 signed on 2017-11-13 at 12:34 (ACDT)
522 Deborah Larwood 5641 signed on 2017-11-13 at 12:43 (ACDT)
523 Tom Harris 5641 signed on 2017-11-14 at 13:38 (ACDT)
524 SUSAN CRAIG 5158 signed on 2017-11-26 at 18:30 (ACDT)
525 Roslyn DeGaris 5062 signed on 2017-11-29 at 20:42 (ACDT)
526 DEBRA PAHL 5641 signed on 2017-12-04 at 07:32 (ACDT)
527 Jenny Sampson 5650 signed on 2017-12-04 at 14:59 (ACDT)
528 Emily Venning 5600 signed on 2017-12-04 at 21:01 (ACDT)
529 Beverley Spriggs 5600 signed on 2017-12-04 at 21:55 (ACDT)
530 Paul Oldham 5033 signed on 2017-12-04 at 22:52 (ACDT)
531 Lauren Chapman 5600 signed on 2017-12-05 at 05:37 (ACDT)
532 Geraldine Gillen 5600 signed on 2017-12-10 at 09:34 (ACDT)
533 padma carroll 3070 signed on 2018-01-06 at 19:32 (ACDT)
534 Kyren Merritt 3193 signed on 2018-01-07 at 14:41 (ACDT)
535 Alex Dinovitser 5076 signed on 2018-01-14 at 21:19 (ACDT)
536 Jo-Anne Waters 5608 signed on 2018-01-25 at 16:04 (ACDT)
537 Ian Giles 5608 signed on 2018-01-25 at 16:13 (ACDT)
538 Angela Paul 5051 signed on 2018-01-25 at 19:07 (ACDT)
539 Jewels Smith 5000 signed on 2018-01-30 at 13:30 (ACDT)

Appendix A

Breaches of s13 of the NWSF(P) Act 2000:

During 2015 and 2016, s13 has been breached by spending of public money on many promotional and planning aspects of nuclear waste importation, in particular the “Business Case” prepared by JacobsMCM for Kevin Scarce (Attorney General’s Department tender AGD 027852).

This “single-quote” Business Case document has been criticised because it was prepared by people with vested interests.

This “single-quote” Business Case document contains economic predictions which have been challenged by UniSA economists Barbara Pocock and Richard Blandy and by many others.

These economic predictions have been promoted as “facts” by Kevin Scarce and associates.

The amendment to s13 in early 2016 did not allow “spruiking” for nuclear waste importation, said Mark Parnell MLC.

– “The law now says that the Government can use public money to consult the community but they’re not to use public money for promoting or designing or even buying land for a nuclear waste dump.” – Mark Parnell MLC, April 2016

Many people have spoken out about the biased information and processes involved with the public funded Nuclear Schools Engagement Program, the public funded KNOW Nuclear advertising campaign, the public funded Your Say Nuclear advertising campaign and the public funded Nuclear Citizens Juries.

Therefore s13 has been breached during 2016 by participants in the Nuclear Schools Engagement Program, the KNOW Nuclear advertising campaign, the Your Say Nuclear advertising campaign and the Nuclear Citizens Juries.

The Nuclear Schools Engagement Program involved indoctrination of young children who were not all fooled:

“Listen to us more rather than spend days like today talking to us. Answer questions that deal with the negatives. Many questions were dodged by the experts.” Mt Lofty/Bridgewater Primary School.

“The day has provided an opportunity to find out more about nuclear storage in SA, but we feel as though the information has been biased and pro-nuclear” Streaky Bay/Ceduna.

“It was great to be given the opportunity and it was informative but all information has been very bias toward pro-nuclear. The other side needs to be heard!” Cleve Area School and Cowell Area School.

Appendix B

Threats and conspiracy to commit offences prohibited under s8 and s9 of the NWSF(P) Act 2000:

Since early 2016, there has been an open conspiracy to breach s8 and s9, with planning and promotion of importation and storage of nuclear waste into South Australia.

Detailed plans for importation and storage of nuclear waste into South Australia were produced in the “Business Case” prepared by JacobsMCM for Kevin Scarce (Attorney General’s Department tender AGD 027852).

These plans were then promoted by Kevin Scarce and associates.

 

South Australia: academia infested with nuclear promoters right at Universities’ top!

June 26, 2018

Correction to this post, thanks to reminder from Arnold Garnsey. I originally forgot to add these salient points:

UniSA Chancellor Jim McDowell is also Chair of the ANSTO Board & ex-CEO of BAE.
AdUni Chancellor is Nuclear Fuel Chain Royal Commissioner Kevin Scarce.

University of Adelaide and UniSA in merger talks, InDaily,   Bension Siebert- 19 June 18 The University of Adelaide and UniSA have announced historic talks to merge into a single university which they claim could be immediately placed within the world’s top 100 universities.

The governing councils of both universities have agreed to a six-month “period of collaboration” to negotiate a potential merger, according to a joint statement released by the universities today.

University of Adelaide Vice-Chancellor Professor Peter Rathjen and UniSA Vice-Chancellor David Lloyd will oversee a joint report into the prospective merger, to be delivered by the end of the year.

The university councils will decide on the viability and merits of a merger at that time.

In a joint statement, University of Adelaide Chancellor Kevin Scarce and UniSA Chancellor Jim McDowell say now is the right time to consider joining together as a single university.

“Now is the time to facilitate a conversation about whether uniting our universities would create a new internationally renowned university of scale that would be well placed to anticipate and respond to this changing landscape,” the statement reads……..
Merging the Adelaide University and UniSA was an ambition of former Labor Premier Jay Weatherill in 2015, but universities and both sides of federal politics were opposed to the idea. ……..

However, this morning Federal Education Minister Simon Birmingham, Premier Steven Marshall and SA Labor Leader Peter Malinauskas all congratulated the universities on the move. …..https://indaily.com.au/news/2018/06/19/breaking-university-adelaide-unisa-merger-talks/

Aboriginal traditional land owner informs Australian Senate on dodgy nuclear waste dump plan

June 25, 2018

Ed note. This submission has an important attachment – a  letter – which will later be published on this site

Regina McKenzie Selection process for a national radioactive waste management facility in South Australia  (Submission No.107)

This independent submission addresses the following key points of the Terms of Reference of the Australian:  Senate Economic Reference Committee inquiry (2018) into the appropriateness and thoroughness of the site.  selection process for a national radioactive waste management facility at Kimba and Hawker in South  Australia:

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

My name is Regina McKenzie and I am an identified (Aboriginal) Kuyani traditional owner for the area of land   currently subject to the National Radioactive Waste Management Facility Project (NRWMFP) at Barndioota, South Australia. I have extensive cultural knowledge of this portion of Adnyamathanha country and have  been working collaboratively with non Aboriginal specialist for well over ten years to investigate and report on  this area. Some of the projects that I have worked on in my cultural interest area include:

  • Numerous archaeological investigations with a number of Australian universities;
  • Palaeontology investigations with Flinders University, South Australia;
  • Aboriginal heritage investigations for NRM projects with multiple State Government agencies;
  • Archaeological investigations for SA Power Networks;
  • Archaeological training programs with the Heritage team of the South Australian Department of Premier  and Cabinet, Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation Division (DPC AARD) (now Department of State
  • Development Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation – DSD AAR);
  • Cultural heritage management planning for the Commonwealth Government’s Indigenous Protected Area  (IPA) program.
  • The development of large area cultural mapping protocols for the SA State Government;
  • The translation and spatial mapping of one of my Nation’s ancestral story lines that includes the  nominated NRWMFP area in Barndioota.

The reference committee should understand that the Adnyamathanha People are an historical conglomeration of multiple and individually identified Aboriginal tribal Nations, each of which has its own cultural interest area. The Adnyamathanha people, as a whole, hold native title over much of the Flinders Ranges and this is managed by a prescribed body corporate on behalf of all traditional groups by the Adnyamathanha Traditional Lands Association (ATLA). I would also like to note that only individual people, not organisations, can hold cultural knowledge and be considered as traditional owners (there is case law in South Australia to this affect). It is also vital that the committee appreciate the difference between Aboriginal cultural heritage laws and obligations (whether they be State or Federal), and Native Title laws, rights and interests. My submission is focussed on the cultural heritage rights and interests of identified traditional owners and the State/Federal obligations for those that wish to investigate /or harm Aboriginal cultural heritage.

Many of my concerns with the Aboriginal cultural heritage consultation process for the NRWMFP in Barndioota have been summarised in a recent letter to Minister Canavan (see Attached) [ed. note: This letter will be published on this site, as a separate post] . I would appreciate if the committee accepts the attached letter as part of my submission. I note that despite repeated requests to Minister Canavan’s office, I still have not received a response to this letter and many questions remain unanswered and concerns unresolved. I believe that these questions and concerns must be addressed for the DIIS consultation process to be considered effective.

In addition to my questions and concerns detailed in the attached letter, I would appreciate some clarification on the following:

  1. Australia’s commitment to Article 29.2. of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous  Peoples which notes:

States shall take effective measures to ensure that no storage or disposal of hazardous materials shall take place in the lands or territories of indigenous peoples without their free, prior and informed consent.

I would appreciate some clarification on the Australian Government’s or the the Department of Industry, Innovation and Science (DIIS) position on this United Nations charter and how it applies to proposed  developments on traditional Aboriginal lands and lands that contain significant cultural value to relevant Aboriginal people.

The DIIS, on behalf of the Commonwealth Government of Australia, took no steps during the nomination and shortlisting process to secure either the free, or the prior, or the informed consent of the Indigenous peoples who have significant cultural ties to the NRWMFP area in Barndioota. To the best of my knowledge, the DIIS believed that the Commonwealth Government did not need to consult with Aboriginal people in Barndioota because the proposed project area was not subject to Native Title. This was stated to myself and my sister when we first called the DIIS to enquire about the project after we heard about it on ABC news. This was also repeated by DIIS representatives at their initial public meetings in Hawker.

Importantly, and from an Aboriginal cultural heritage perspective, ATLA and the relevant cultural custodians of the Barndioota area have repeatedly advised the DIIS that they do not support the siting of the NRWMFP within our traditional country.

  1. The DIIS initially confused Aboriginal cultural heritage obligations with Native Title constraints and only consulted with affected Aboriginal people after repeated requests for information from myself and my sister
  1. The Aboriginal cultural heritage investigations undertaken to support the Barndioota NRWMFP have not been undertaken in accordance with the Commonwealth Government’s best practice requirements for investigating and reporting on Aboriginal cultural heritage (see attached letter). Importantly, this failure to adhere, recognise or use the Commonwealth best practice guidelines has led the DIIS to:
  • Consult with inappropriate Aboriginal people who do not hold cultural information for Barndioota, and
  • Completely ignore the significant cultural/gender restrictions associated with the NRWMFP area, and
  • Alienate relevant culturally appropriate people from participating in the NRWMFP assessment, and
  • Not have access to vitally important cultural information associated with the NRWMFP area.

These factors alone have made the DIIS Aboriginal cultural heritage assessment ineffective,  inappropriate, and incomplete. This significantly flawed consultation process needs to be completely abandoned as soon as possible because it has caused significant mental health issues within our broader Aboriginal community and continuing lateral violence within our immediate family. The NRWMFP Aboriginal consultation process has left me feeling ostracised within my own family and I find myself constantly witnessing aggressive, misogynistic and culturally inappropriate behaviour from a select few who have been validated through the DIIS Aboriginal cultural heritage assessment process.

  1. The DIIS has failed to abide by their own governance guidelines that they established for the Aboriginal cultural heritage consultative committee. There have been too many instances of aggressive and inappropriate behaviour that have not been recorded or addressed.
  1. The DIIS has inappropriately engaged a cultural heritage consultancy:
  • Against the wishes of both ATLA and the relevant cultural custodians of the NRWMFP area,
  • Without presenting any tangible proof that the consultancy has/can record the intangible values associated with large area cultural sites to a level that is similar to, or better than, that developed by DPC AARD,
  • Without developing the scope of work for the assessment with ATLA and the relevant cultural custodians of the NRWMFP area,
  • Without informing ATLA or the relevant cultural custodians of the agreed scope of work between the DIIS and the consultancy for the Aboriginal cultural heritage assessment
  1. The nomination and short-listing process of the Barndioota NRWMFP site failed to acknowledge the unique and intrinsic Aboriginal cultural heritage values of the associated cultural landscape. Many of these values have been documented by the State Government through extensive cultural mapping and archaeological investigations, and acknowledged by the Commonwealth Government for the neighbouring IPA program. Importantly, the failure to acknowledge the values of this cultural landscape also extended to a failure to recognise and acknowledge the nominated traditional custodians of the land subject to the NRWMFP area. These custodians are well known to DPC AAR who hold the contact details for the custodians of all of our recorded sites.
  1. Ministers Frydenberg and Canavan have both issued seperate commitments that no Aboriginal cultural heritage will be harmed through this project. The DIIS has been informed of the extensive archaeologyand all-encompassing intangible values associated with the NRWMFP area, and the impossibility of situating the NRWMFP and its associated road/power infrastructure without harming Aboriginal cultural heritage which includes our cultural beliefs, lore and customs. Could the committee please clarify the DIIS’/the Commonwealth Government’s understanding of what Aboriginal cultural heritage means and how the DIIS intend to avoid/not cause harm, particularly to our system of lore, custom and belief. We believe that this is a major constraint for the NRWMFP and that valuable public funds could have been saved if the relevant Ministers honour their commitments and resolved this matter early in the project.
  1. During Phase one, the DIIS never undertook any formal Acknowledgement of Country, and has never requested a formal Welcome to Country from any Adnyamathanha elder for any of the meetings held in Hawker.
  1. Retired Liberal Senator Chapman’s nomination of the Barndioota site has never been questioned either in the context of any potential political conflict of interest, or for his prior engagement in the Federal Senate and his involvement in past Senate committees who were tasked to investigate the establishment of above ground Nuclear waste facilities nearly two decades ago. We have been assured that the nomination of the Barndioota site is not related in any way to the current Liberal government or to the ex Senator’s prior profession. I would like this matter to be assessed in a transparent way.
  1. Key Hawker community representatives who support the NRWMFP in Barndioota have long term relationships with, and have worked for Wallerbedina Station for many years. This potential conflict of interest needs to be identified and acknowledged in a transparent manner.

Australian government’s hypocrisy in targeting South Australia for nuclear waste dump, shown up by Western Australian private offer

June 14, 2018

David Noonan, 13 June 18, Senator Rex Patrick has shown up the hypocrisy of the Federal Government in its expensive frenzy to foist a nuclear waste dump on rural South Australia. And in instigating the Senate Inquiry into this process, has set in motion the discrediting of the whole National Radioactive Waste Management Facility sham.

However, the propaganda by Western Australian private company Azark is not reliable, either. There is indigenous opposition to nuclear waste dumping in the Leonora region,Western Australia.  Western Australia’s Labor government may not support Azark’s low level waste dump plan, may have its own plan for WA.s radioactive waste. This WA private offer is for low level waste disposal and is not for the Fed govt proposed above ground 100 year Store for 10,000 yr nuclear fuel wastes and long lived intermediate level wastes.

This  exposes Federal govt’s plan to have two dumps in one, to “co-locate” a long lived waste Store’ along side a low level disposal site. It exposes their priority to dump Federal govt owned long lived nuclear wastes at an above ground “stranded wastes” dump in regional South Australia.

South Australia nuclear waste site a “done deal: claims Senator Rex Patrick https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/business/sa-business-journal/sa-nuclear-waste-site-a-done-deal-senator-rex-patrick/news-story/08524bb4dc5004f467462b1591a55b1f, The Advertiser, Erin Jones, Regional Reporter,   June 13, 2018 

Centre Alliance senator Rex Patrick told The Advertiser the decision to establish a low-level facility at one of two sites in South Australia appeared to be a “done deal” following the revelation.

In August, Azark Project made a nomination to include the commercial operation of an underground storage facility, near the remote central mining town of Leonora, north of Kalgoorlie.

The South Australian senator, who visited Leonora, said the proposal appeared to have “considerable support” and unlike the two SA sites near Kimba and Hawker, did not need taxpayer funds to proceed.

“Resources Minister Matt Canavan needs to properly engage the proponents of the proposed site near Leonora or risk the whole selection process being confirmed as an absolute sham,” he said.

“It appears as though the new site is a ‘faster runner’ in the race, but won’t be allowed to participate because the Minister is determined to rush to select one of the South Australian sites despite there being a divided community.”

Azark Project chairman George Gear said the WA site had no environmental, land rights or water issues, and the proposal had support of the 2900 people in Leonora Shire.

Mr Gear said he had no confidence in the specially-formed government taskforce considering sites for the waste facility, given Leonora was not on the table.

“Apart from this being a superior site located in a mining area and in solid rock, this wouldn’t cost the taxpayer any money as it’s a private company that will build this,” Mr Gear, a former minister in the Keating government, said.

“The taskforce to date has either spent or committed $40 million and they haven’t finalised the project.

“Azark has completed all of its due diligence at its own cost and has offered to make it available to the taskforce — this invitation was not accepted.”

Mr Gear said Azark Project had decided to pursue the plan on its own, but was expected to meet Mr Canavan in Perth, today.

The Government is expected to decide in coming months whether to build the waste facility in SA, after a final ballot of Kimba and Hawker districts, on August 20.

Mr Canavan has previously said “broad community support” would be needed for the waste facility to go ahead — although no arbitrary figure has been provided.

The two-year site selection process has divided both communities — those in favour believe it would create economic opportunities, while those opposed say it will jeopardise industries.

The district where the waste facility is located would be rewarded by the government with a $10 million community fund to spend on local projects.

Both districts were already benefiting from a $4 million grants fund as a reward for being involved in the site selection process.

Senator Patrick this year successfully pushed for a Senate inquiry into the site selection process used for the national waste facility and an outcome is expected only days before the ballot, on August 14.

In a submission to the inquiry, Kimba’s mayor said more information on financial rewards and jobs was needed before the community voted in the ballot.

Mr Canavan did not respond to questions before deadline.

Fake “Great Debate” exposed. Warren Centre’s “Future of Nuclear Energy in Australia” stacked with nuclear propagandists

June 8, 2018

Jim Green  Nuclear Fuel Cycle Watch South Australia, 7 June 18 

Dear Warren Centre, re the upcoming nuclear ‘debate’, I would be grateful for responses to these questions.

1. Why is this event called a ‘debate’ given that all speakers are pro-nuclear?

2. Will you amend the bio-note on the Warren Centre event webpage to note that Ben Heard’s so-called environment group ‘Bright New World’ accepts secret corporate donations?
3. During the ‘debate’, will it be made clear to the audience that Mr Heard’s group accepts corporate donations including secret corporate donations? Is such disclosure not required by the Warren Centre’s ethical guidelines?

4. The Warren Centre event webpage mentions Heard returning to his NGO roots. He has no NGO roots. Will you amend that claim?

5. During the ‘debate’, will you make it clear that Mr Heard’s contribution to the SA Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission was rejected by the Commission? Specifically, the final report of the Royal Commission said: “[A]dvanced fast reactors and other innovative reactor designs are unlikely to be feasible or viable in the foreseeable future. The development of such a first-of-a-kind project in South Australia would have high commercial and technical risk. Although prototype and demonstration reactors are operating, there is no licensed, commercially proven design. Development to that point would require substantial capital investment.”

6. Will you ensure that the audience attending this ‘debate’ is provided with some basic factual information that Mr Heard and the other two contributors to the ‘debate’ certainly won’t be volunteering, e.g.
— A$40 billion capital cost for two new reactors in the UK (A$20 billion each)
— A$16 billion capital cost for new reactors in France and Finland
— bankruptcy filing of Westinghouse due to catastrophic cost overruns building conventional reactors in the US (including A$13+ billion wasted on reactors in South Carolina that were cancelled last year).
— Westinghouse, Toshiba and a number of other utilities exiting the reactor construction business
— Ziggy Switkowski, head of the Howard government’s Nuclear Energy review, now says he believes “the window for gigawatt-scale nuclear has closed”, and that nuclear is no longer lower cost than renewables and that the levelised cost of electricity of the two is rapidly diverging in favour of renewables

7. Will you ensure that webinar participants are informed that Mr Heard has continued lobbying for the importation of 138,000 tonnes of high-level nuclear waste to SA despite being well aware of the overwhelming opposition of Aboriginal Traditional Owners?

8. What steps will you take to ensure that participants are provided with some credible information about high-temperature gas-cooled reactors given that these seem to be Mr Heard’s latest fixation? Some information is copied below.

9. If Mr Heard claims that high-temperature gas-cooled reactors are ‘meltdown-proof’, or other such inanities, what steps will you take to ensure that his falsehoods are corrected?
—————-
HIGH-TEMPERATURE GAS-COOLED REACTORS (HTGRs)
Excerpt from M. V. Ramana, April 2016, ‘The checkered operational history of high-temperature gas-cooled reactors’, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists,
“Proponents of HTGRs often claim that their designs have a long pedigree. … But if one examines that very same experience more closely – looking in particular at the HTGRs that were constructed in Western Europe and the United States to feed power into the electric grid – then one comes to other conclusions. This history suggests that while HTGRs may look attractive on paper, their performance leaves much to be desired. …
“Although Germany abandoned this technology, it did migrate to other countries, including China and South Africa. Of these, the latter case is instructive: South Africa pursued the construction of a pebble-bed reactor for a decade, and spent over a billion dollars, only to abandon it in 2009 because it just did not make sense economically. Although sold by its proponents as innovative and economically competitive until its cancellation, the South African pebble-bed reactor project is now being cited as a case study in failure. How good the Chinese experience with the HTGR will be remains to be seen. …

“From these experiences in operating HTGRs, we can take away several lessons – the most important being that HTGRs are prone to a wide variety of small failures, including graphite dust accumulation, ingress of water or oil, and fuel failures. Some of these could be the trigger for larger failures or accidents, with more severe consequences. … Other problems could make the consequences of a severe accident worse: For example, pebble compaction and breakage could lead to accelerated diffusion of fission products such as radioactive cesium and strontium outside the pebbles, and a potentially larger radioactive release in the event of a severe accident. …

“Discussions of the commercial viability of HTGRs almost invariably focus on the expected higher capital costs per unit of generation capacity (dollars per kilowatts) in comparison with light water reactors, and potential ways for lowering those. In other words, the main challenge they foresee is that of building these reactors cheaply enough. But what they implicitly or explicitly assume is that HTGRs would operate as well as current light water reactors – which is simply not the case, if history is any guide. …

“Although there has been much positive promotional hype associated with high-temperature reactors, the decades of experience that researchers have acquired in operating HTGRs has seldom been considered. Press releases from the many companies developing or selling HTGRs or project plans in countries seeking to purchase or construct HTGRs neither tell you that not a single HTGR-termed “commercial” has proven financially viable nor do they mention that all the HTGRs were shut down well before the operating periods envisioned for them. This is typical of the nuclear industry, which practices selective remembrance, choosing to forget or underplay earlier failures.” https://www.facebook.com/groups/1021186047913052/permalink/1962073860490928/

At long last – a remediation plan for Ranger Uranium Mine within Kakadu National Park, but will it work?

June 6, 2018

Northern Land Council, 5 June 2018     The Northern Land Council and Gundjeihmi Aboriginal Corporation welcome today’s public release of the Ranger Mine Closure Plan by Energy Resources of Australia. The plan is decades overdue and critical to the company meeting the objectives of rehabilitation.

The NLC and GAC, representing the Mirarr Traditional Aboriginal Owners of the mine site, will now review the plan and engage with stakeholders as part of the approval process. While not part of a public environmental impact statement process, the public release of the plan does provide the broader community with an opportunity to comment on the plan to the Australian government.

The Mine Closure Plan is of a very high level and even though Ranger’s closure is imminent, a significant amount of detailed planning and supporting studies remain outstanding. ERA and its parent company Rio Tinto must clearly demonstrate that they have sufficient resources devoted to mine closure to provide stakeholders with confidence that the objectives outlined in the closure plan can be met.

The Ranger plan remains unenforceable until it is approved by the federal Minister for Resources. The mine’s operational life must cease by January 2021, ahead of five years’ rehabilitation. The future of Aboriginal communities downstream of the mine and the World Heritage listed values of Australia’s largest national park are at stake.

ERA and Rio Tinto’s rehabilitation obligations include remediation of the site such that it can be incorporated in the surrounding Kakadu National Park. The final determination as to whether the area can be incorporated into the World Heritage area sits with the UNESCO World Heritage Committee, on advice from its expert advisory bodies the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS).

NLC contact: Martha Tattersall 0427 031 382 GAC contact: Kirsten Blair 0412 853 641

http://gac-v3.katalyst.com.au/media/W1siZiIsIjIwMTgvMDYvMDQvM3plYWpidjJ1al8yMDE4MDQwNl9HQUNfTkxDX3JlX0VSQV9SVU1fTUNQXzVfSnVuZV8yMDE4LnBkZiJdXQ/20180406%20GAC%20NLC%20re%20ERA%20RUM%20MCP%205%20June%202018.pdf

Unscientific, sloppy -that’s the Australian government’s process for selecting a nuclear waste dump!

May 29, 2018

Image courtesy  Kim Mavromatis

Kim Mavromatis No Nuclear Waste Dump Anywhere in South Australia, 28 May 18  The Federal Government  National Nuclear Waste Dump Selection Process for South Australia is like a B-grade horror movie plot.

Australian Federal Liberal Government’s Land Selection Criteria for a National Radioactive Nuclear Waste Dump proposed for South Australia :

· Nothing scientific about the land selection process – anyone can nominate their land, including Pro-Nuclear Ex-Federal Liberal politicians – and get paid 4 times what it’s worth.

· Doesn’t matter where the land is located.

· Don’t worry about your neighbours – their land will appreciate in value with a toxic radioactive Nuclear Waste Dump next-door.

· The majority of Aboriginal people, who say NO to a Nuclear Waste Dump, will be given the same amount of respect they received during British Nuclear testing at Maralinga and Emu Fields.

· Doesn’t matter if the region is a national icon and major tourism attraction.

· Don’t worry about seismic activity or if the area is prone to flooding.

· Doesn’t matter if the land nominated is in an important grain-growing region.

· Doesn’t matter that building a Nuclear Waste Dump facility in South Australia is against the law.

· You can trust politicians to keep their word – once in place the Nuclear Waste Dump won’t get changed from an Intermediate to High-Level Nuclear Waste Dump.

· Special Note : the new South Australian Premier Steven Marshall and the state Liberals said No to a Nuclear Waste Dump before the election.

· Most of the state won’t have a say in the Clayton’s consultation process – community support will only be solicited within a 50km radius of the Nuclear Waste Dump – and 2 million carrots will help bribe the locals.

· Don’t worry about Nuclear Waste accidents – there won’t be any and they won’t be catastrophic. It’s not irresponsible to ship nuclear waste half way across the country through populated Australian cities and towns, on busy public roads and highways, on ships and trains – no safety concerns – livelihoods won’t be lost – property values dive – who pays the insurance? – nothing to see here, move along.

· The Nuclear Waste Dump will be in operation for 100 years and monitored for 200-300 years, but don’t worry that Intermediate-Level Nuclear Waste can remain highly radioactive for 100,000 years and can be as hazardous as High-Level Nuclear Waste.

· Don’t worry that the temporary canisters holding the Nuclear Waste above ground are temporary because nothing is permanent.

· In 60 years, the nuclear industry hasn’t found a solution for Nuclear Waste, but she’ll be right mate, they’ll find a solution in the next 60 years.

· The Nuclear Waste Dumps proposed for South Australia are located near Kimba (Eyre Peninsula grain-growing region), 75kms from the Spencer Gulf coastline – and in the Flinders Ranges near Hawker (national icon and major tourism attraction), 29kms from Lake Torrens and 84kms north of Port Augusta.

Q&A

Q: Once in place how easy is it for politicians to change an Intermediate-Level Nuclear Waste Dump into a High-Level Nuclear Waste Dump?
A: Very easy.

Q: How long does it take High-Level Nuclear Waste to become harmless?
A: It never becomes harmless.

Q: Compare High-level Nuclear Waste (spent nuclear fuel) Radioactivity to Uranium ore?
A: After 30 years, High-Level Nuclear Waste is 10,000x more radioactive than uranium ore – after 140 yrs, 1,000x more radioactive – after 2,000 yrs, 100x more radioactive – after 43,000 yrs, 10x more radioactive – after 10 million yrs, same radioactivity as uranium ore (NWMO Nuclear Waste Management Org, Canada). https://www.facebook.com/groups/1314655315214929/

Environmental Defenders Office shows up flaws in Australian Government’s report on nuclear waste siting

May 26, 2018

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

Barndioota site:

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

The government’s commitment that it will not impose such a facility on an unwilling community raises the question of how to determine broad community support. If this is not forth coming, then we have an unwilling community and the proposed sites cannot be supported.

Five potential sites were shortlisted and following shortlisting, the government embarked on a consultation process. There were 2 sites in South Australia, one in each of the NT, Qld and NSW. The public consultation processes in relation to the five proposed sites seem to be in compliance with best practice consultation processes, according to the government reports.

However, our clients from the two South Australian communities argue that the consultation processes have not complied with best practice from the IAP2 public participation spectrum.1 Essential elements include wide participation, ability to participate effectively and access to and ability to understand relevant information in order to be able to make submissions in relation to the proposals. We believe the processes here fall short of these requirements

1
International Association for Public Participation https://www.iap2.org/

Additionally, the conclusions drawn from these processes, in our opinion, fall short of ‘broad community support’.

What is ‘broad community support’?

The criteria for moving forward with any of the proposed sites is ‘broad community support’. According to the World Bank Group, broad community support is required in cases where the business activity to be financed is likely to generate potential significant adverse impacts on communities or is likely to generate potential adverse impacts on indigenous peoples. In those cases, IFC clients are required to engage in a process of Informed Consultation and Participation (ICP).2

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

We are concerned that these participation processes do not imply a predetermined outcome namely obtaining rather than seeking broad community support.

a) Barndioota site:

There were only 36 submissions received regarding this site, out of a total adult population of 1331. This is a very small number and is of concern in terms of a proper consultation process. Comparing this to the other SA site, in Kimba where there were 582 submissions out of an adult population of 833. More work would need to be done before the government could conclude that they have ‘broad community support’ in relation to this site.

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

Recommendation 1:

An independent cultural heritage assessment be undertaken before the next stage is proceeded with. If indigenous opposition continues, this site is no longer to be considered as a potential site.

2 World bank Group ‘Engaging Citizens for Better Development Results’ An IEG Evaluation of World bank Group Citizen Engagement,
April, 2017, 4
3
Department of Industry, Science and Innovation National Radioactive Waste Management Facility, Community
Sentiment Survey, Wave 2 Report of Findings, April 2016, p57

Recommendation 2:

Revisit the consultation process to ensure effective participation from the community and consider extending it to become a nationwide consultation. The reason for the small number of submissions needs to be investigated and rectified before the ‘broad community support’ criteria can be said to have been achieved.

b) The Kimba site:

In the Kimba site consultation findings, the report says

“The sites received 582 submissions4 throughout the consultation period, of which 67 per cent were a standardised letter stating opposition to the nominations. Of the total number of submissions, only around 20 per cent were supportive of the proposal. The diverse views in the submissions largely reflected the views expressed in the community consultation processes.

A petition was received regarding the Cortlinye and Pinkawillinie5 nominations with 880 signatures opposing the facility.6 ”

Yet the report continues with ‘there is an encouraging base of support for moving forward to the next stage (around 51 per cent)’7 and that ‘a substantial proportion of the community (42 per cent) is strongly opposed.’

Referring to this as an encouraging base of support in light of the rest of the Report is at best, optimistic and at worst, misleading, in that 49 percent (or more) are opposed to moving forward to the next stage.

There is inconsistency in the conclusions based on the consultation process but whichever way it is read, it cannot be stated that there is ‘broad community support’ in Kimba. At best there may be some community support.

Recommendation 3:

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

4
According to the Phase 1 Summary Report, p.9, the adult population of Kimba is 880 people.
5
These combined to be referred to as Kimba
6
Phase 1 Summary Report, p.15
7
Para 4.2.6

In addition we have received relevant information from the Flinders Local Action Group ( FLAG), a not for profit group of concerned local residents. Between September and November 2016 FLAG undertook a community survey in two parts. The question asked was:

“Do you want a National Radioactive Waste Management Facility established at Wallerberdina Station/Barnidoota?

With the first survey 92% voted no and with the second survey 79% voted no.

Whether wider community views should be taken into consideration. The process to ascertain community views is of vital importance and must be done according to best practice.

The process and decision by the Federal Government is in our view of interest and importance to citizens across Australia. It should be noted that the community has no rights to challenge the merits of a decision made under the relevant legislation.

A further matter here is the safety of transport routes. This issue was raised in relation to the Sally’s flat site in NSW which is discussed in the Phase 1 Summary report from April 2016. One of the key findings was the proximity to Lucas Heights, from where the waste would be transported.8

The cradle to grave waste framework provides that waste be disposed of where it is produced. This minimises the risk involved in transporting waste and puts responsibility onto the manufacturer. This waste should be disposed of at or near to Lucas Heights. Failing this, an assessment of the risks of transporting the waste needs to be undertaken and all communities on these transport routes be consulted with in order for their consent to be obtained before a proposed site for the nuclear waste is chosen.

Recommendation 4:

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 .