Archive for the ‘Federal waste dump’ Category

South Australia radio talkback reveals the opposition to nuclear waste dumping in that State

October 7, 2018

I am always struck by the fact that opponents of the nuclear industry are very many unpaid people. Just people who care. Some are highly educated academically. Many are not – but then they take the trouble to find out, and speak with the authority of both their local knowledge and wider information.

As for nuclear proponents they’re a small number of paid individuals, with another small number of hangers on who expect financial benefits from the nuclear industry.

Barb Walker shared a post. on  Flinders Local Action Group– more  – https://www.facebook.com/search/top/?q=flinders%20local%20action%20group
ABC Radio Adelaide Evenings with Peter Goer. Talkback 4 Oct 18. This show was inundated with hundreds of South Australians phoning in and texting about the proposed nuclear waste dump. ALL SAID NO!  Are you listening DIIS and ANSTO !!!??….  IT’S A BIG NO FROM SOUTH AUSTRALIA!!! http://www.abc.net.au/…/adelaide/programs/evenings/evenings…

– (This part is the last half hour of a 3 hour program. To hear it you need to slide the button along to last sixth of the program)

Transcript:Noel Wauchope . Not a perfect transcript, but a good account of what each caller said 
Advertisements

Report shows that the “benefits” of a nuclear waste dump for rural South Australia are greatly exaggerated

August 20, 2018

20 August 2018  A new report into the claimed economic benefits to regional communities of the Federal Government nuclear waste facility has found the government has exaggerated the benefits, and not properly factored in insurance costs and other risks.

The report’s release comes as the Federal Government scrambles to fix up a controversial community ballot process in the wake of a Supreme Court injunction.  The ballot was due

to begin today (Monday) in the two affected communities of Kimba and Hawker.

“This whole process has been poorly conducted and horribly divisive from day one,” said Craig Wilkins, Chief Executive of the state’s peak environment body, Conservation SA.
“Knowing how reluctant many people in Kimba and the Flinders Ranges are to having a nuclear waste dump in their backyard, the Federal Government has greatly over-sold the economic benefits to try and buy community support.
“This report is a reality check for a community sick of the spin from the Federal Government,” he said.
Conservation SA commissioned economic think tank The Australia Institute to examine more closely Federal Government’s claims of an economic windfall for the affected communities.

The “Down in the Dumps” report compared the current Australian National Radioactive Waste Management Facility (NRWMF) plans with similar facilities overseas, and found a raft of exaggerated jobs and economic return claims.  For example, a proposed facility in Canada which is more than one hundred times larger with more functions and features, will cost only half as much to construct and operate.

As the report’s author, Dr Cameron Murray, states: ‘Either the waste facility is orders of magnitude larger than need for Australia’s nuclear waste, or the government has exaggerated the economic returns to the local community of the NRWMF facility’.

It also questioned the true value of the promised $31 million in local grants and infrastructure promises, as some of this appears to be double-counting, re-labelling of other programs or matched by cuts to other funding streams.

Adjusting the economic impact assessment to account for the exaggerated claims reduces the number of net full time jobs down to just 6.

“At the end of the day, the case for shifting waste across from Sydney to South Australia simply doesn’t stack up,” said Mr Wilkins.

“Why is the Federal Government pushing so hard to move Australia’s highest risk radioactive waste from Lucas Heights where it is safely and securely stored, to park it in SA in temporary sheds while they work out what to do with it?

“Wouldn’t it be better to work out the final disposal plan first, including the true cost and benefit to the local community, and then move it once when everything is sorted?
“Double handling is incredibly wasteful, is not international best practice, and makes no sense in terms of public health or radiation safety.

“It is time for the Federal Government to apologise, walk away and put in place a credible pathway for a long term, permanent solution to nuclear waste stored at Lucas Heights,” he said.
The full report can be found her
For comment:
Dr Cameron Murray, The Australia Institute, 0422 144 674
Craig Wilkins, Conservation SA, 0417 879 439

South Australians unaware of nuclear waste dump planned for Flinders Ranges

July 28, 2018

Susan Craig Fight To Stop Nuclear Waste Dump In Flinders Ranges SA, 24 July 18 

A national radioactive nuclear waste dump is proposed by the Federal Government for Flinders Ranges and Kimba and 99% of South Australian’s are not allowed to vote in the ballot being held next month – 20th August! Only people within a 50km radius of these sites are allowed.
Many South Australian’s do not know this is happening and we are being blindsided. Speak now before it’s too late. You may not have been given an official vote, but you do have a powerful voice. Voice your opinion now and make a noise by contacting your local government representative. Australia has a burgeoning nuclear waste problem and ANSTO at Lucas Heights has the capacity (500 hectares) and the expertise to continue to store Australia’s national nuclear waste for another three decades. This time frame should be used to develop a cohesive and intelligent permanent underground solution and currently our Federal Government has no plans in place to address this. Moving radioactive nuclear waste from one location to another doesn’t make any sense.

• The proposed site is for an ABOVE GROUND temporary facility, stored in above ground bins, 40kms from Wilpena Pound and in our wheat farming land at Kimba.
• Both low level and INTERMEDIATE radioactive waste will be stored.
• INTERMEDIATE level is classified HIGH GRADE in France and has a half- life of TENS OF THOUSANDS OF YEARS. The containers proposed for storage only last for a few hundred years.
• ANSTO have the capacity (500 hectares) and the expertise to continue storage at Lucas Heights for another three decades.
• We should use this time to prepare a PERMANENT UNDERGROUND intelligent and cohesive solution to Australia’s burgeoning nuclear waste.
• Not just move it from one site to another.
Mr. Canavan said and I quote: “It’s perfectly safe”. So why move it?
• ANSTO currently store 10 tonne of intermediate level nuclear waste at Lucas Heights NSW.
• Another similar quantity of intermediate level nuclear waste is arriving from Britain in a few years and proposed for South Australia.
• Current nuclear medicine using isotopes can be replaced with new technology using Cyclotrons which have a half-life of just hours rendering the waste benign. Awesome!
• Many countries around the world are moving to Cyclotrons for nuclear medicine and Australia should investigate this!
*ANSTO are developing a nuclear waste storage system called SYNROC it’s a synthetic casing for nuclear waste. However, this will only be used at LUCAS HEIGHTS and there is no intention of using SYNROC for the storage of nuclear waste proposed for South Australia.
The Federal Government is showing total disregard, disrespect and contempt for the people of South Australia, including the Adnyamathanha community of the Flinders Ranges. https://www.facebook.com/groups/344452605899556/

Holtec canisters for spent nuclear fuel do not meet safety requirements

July 25, 2018
The Holtec spent fuel casks are huge, as can be seen in the photo above, but only one half (1/2) inch thick. And, yet, Kris Pal Singh’s Holtec spent fuel canister-casks lack the continuous monitoring of pressure, temperature and radiation which its thicker German competitor CASTOR has. Holtec’s canisters are welded shut and lack removable lids, so that spent nuclear fuel cannot be checked or removed without destruction of the canister.

Welded shut and with no monitoring systems, India born and raised Kris Singh’s Holtec and France’s Areva spent fuel canisters stand in stark contrast to the German CASTOR which have two removable lids and where a “pressure sensor continuously measures pressure in the gap between the primary and secondary lid“, and the “system is wired to [the] Main Dosimetry Control Room“. There is a temperature sensor for continuous surface temperature monitoring, too. See “Operational Experience of Castor 440/84 Casks in Dukovany NPP” by Stanislav Kuba, 14th International Symposium on the Packaging and Paper # 022 Transportation of Radioactive Materials (PATRAM 2004), Berlin, Germany, September 20-24,

Not only is Holtec NOT the best standard available, but it fails to follow the requirements of the US Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board – that is, it is substandard (below the NWTRB standard, as well as below any  common sense standard).

Nuclear waste dump for Kimba, South Australia, -economic salvation or sacrifice zone?

July 25, 2018

Coalition’s Kimba nuclear dump exploits local area and puts nation at risk https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/coalitions-kimba-nuclear-dump-exploits-local-area-and-puts-nation-at-risk,11717 Noel Wauchope 23 July 2018,

How is a small rural town to cope with a proposition that may transform the community by providing an economic boon or be a long-term curse?

This is the dilemma facing the towns of Kimba and Hawker, both in the Eyre Peninsula, South Australia.

Individual landowners offered their land to the Turnbull Government for a radioactive waste storage site and the Government’s National RadioactiveWaste Management Facility (NRWMF) team swung into action.

There’s quite a hurry on, about this. Resources Minister Matt Canavan announced that, on 20 August, there will be a local ballot to gauge community support for a nuclear waste dump.

Following that, said Canavan:

“The decision will be made in the second half of this year … We do not want this overlapping with a Federal election.”

Much can be said about this plan, not least that it contravenes South Australian law. One might ask, too, why the inquiry stipulates South Australia when the waste to be stored would have to travel 1,700 km from the Lucas Heights nuclear reactor in Sydney? However, the most notable immediate ramifications concern its impact on Eyre Peninsula rural communities. 

As one local resident put it:

‘Stress levels are through the roof for a lot of people within our communities. People are getting sick, and some are just sick and tired of hearing about it, with many wanting the dump to just go away!’

And in the words of another resident:

‘Before a nuclear waste dump came into our lives, people enjoyed cultural activities together … Today it isn’t like that, a once close family ruined and torn apart all because of a proposed nuclear waste dump that could be put on Adnyamathanha traditional lands, which will destroy our culture and … cause cultural genocide.’

Community division is obvious when one reads the submissions that local and Eyre Peninsula residents have sent to a Senate Committee of Inquiry. The Inquiry called for submissions, stipulating fairly narrow Terms of Reference (TOR), about the ‘Selection process for a national radioactive waste management facility in South Australia’.

Among the 40 supporters of the plan, most are local residents, enthusiastic about hosting the waste dump.

Repeatedly, their submissions include phrases like ‘no negative impacts’ and ‘comfortable and satisfied with the prospect of hosting the proposed nuclear waste facility’ 

 Numbers below in brackets refer to the submission numbers listed on the Senate website.

John Hennessy( No 7), is   “bubbling with enthusiasm” for nuclear waste dump in Hawker. “Hawker has “ a once in a lifetime opportunity”

Jessica Morgan, (no.37) ” I have stood [at ANSTO] next to and touched the canister containing the intermediate level waste with my 9 month old baby in a carrier on my chest, feeling totally confident of my own safety and that of my child.”   

Annie Clements, (No 35) – happy to see nuclear waste dump “powering Kimba community into the future”.

And here we come to another aspect of their support for the waste dump plan. It’s not just that Kimba might be “powered into the future”. It’s the thought that Kimba might not have a future unless it hosts the dump.

Again and again this argument appears in the pro nuclear submissions:

This repository would ensure our towns survival   – Ian Carpenter.( No  3 )

Kimba is struggling, population is declining,… we are in need of a life line …. The possibilities this facility could provide a small failing community is endless  – Jodie Joyce (No 33)

this project  will ensure the long term viability of this small country town – Janice  McInnis, ( No 4 )

it will  save Kimba ” for many more generations to come– Melanie Orman (No 77)

A third, much repeated, theme in these submissions is that this matter concerns only the local community.

This is frequently expressed with the dismissal of the opinions of people outside the immediate area and also, at times, with downright hostility to those who oppose the dump:

‘People outside our area could be influenced by anti-nuclear scare campaigns and wild allegations that have no relevance to this facility.’ ~ Annie Clements (35)

‘Activists and politicians who have been using [this] project as a vehicle for their anti-nuclear stance should not be entitled to any say …’ ~ Heather Baldock (64)

Outsiders do not care if Hawker dies a slow death due to lack of employment etc – Chelsea Haywood (No. 2)

‘We disagree that we need “broader community views” and the need to stretch the boundaries outside of our District Council. What is happening in our Community is exactly that: our community.’  As residents of Kimba for the last 43 years, plus ++ We see no reason that the rest of SA has a right to tell us what we can and can’t have. It is our back yard, not theirs.  ….. . It’s a shame we have to have this inquiry. ~ Margaret and Charlie Milton (34)

These three themes – enthusiasm for the project, distrust of critics,  and resistance to the involvement of outsiders, merge into a kind of strong local patriotism allied to trusting loyalty to the federal government, which has run a huge informational campaign in the towns.

As to the 58 submissions opposing the plan, at least half come from residents of the Eyre Peninsula. As with the rest of the opponents, they do express a variety of arguments, but local submissions are most often concerned with the local area.

Above all, they are dissatisfied with the community consultation process, and the lack of clarity about what is meant by “broad community support”. They want the wider community, Eyre Peninsula, South Australia, to be consulted, and, indeed they see the federal nuclear waste facility as a national issue.    They also do not believe that the project has Indigenous support.

Readers of all 98 submissions can’t fail to notice that, on the whole, these 55 opposing ones have more comprehensive, detailed, and referenced writing, as compared with the pro nuclear ones. And this is certainly true of the very thoughtful and measured arguments of the farmers from the local areas concerned.

These raise some issues which are rarely mentioned on the pro-nuclear side:

  • concern about co-location of low and intermediate level wastes, especially the prospect of stranded “temporary” wastes, with no plan for final disposal;
  • transport dangers; 
  • seismic and flood dangers; 
  • impacts on agricultural markets and tourism; and
  • the fear that this waste dump would lead to a full-scale commercial importation of nuclear waste.

 Kay Fels,  a Flinders Ranges farmer.(No 63) ‘s submission is representative of the concerns of many others:

our stock (sheep and cattle) may also be stigmatised by the proximity of the waste dump and our organic status compromised  Agriculture and tourist industries will  be jeopardised as the clean, green image of the Flinders Ranges is tarnished  .    The sites are located in an area where the underground water table is almost at surface level. This could lead to contamination of the underground water source, so vital to the region. The location is also on a piedmont plain and prone to flooding

Given that the proposal is to store low level waste in an above ground facility, and temporarily store intermediate waste in that same facility, it seems ludicrous that this is even considered given the geological and environmental features and risks involved.

The consultation phase was a tokenism with ANSTO telling us what will be happening, how safe it is and pushing the affirmative – not a true reflection of the community’s views and concerns. The consultative committee is a rubber stamp

Many are strongly sceptical of the consultations held by the Department of Industry Innovation and Science (DIIS), and of the information campaign by Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) . There is strong criticism of the nomination of Wallerberdina property by non-resident former Liberal Senator Grant Chapman, with close links to the nuclear industry. They also claim hypocrisy of DIIS in biased and misleading information, and dismissal and indeed, exclusion of critics. 

  I am not against having a LLW facility in Australia. I am against the way in which DIIS have gone about finding a quick fix for something that will affect all South Australians for centuries to come.  It should not be up to a small council area to overrule our Prohibition Act 2000, if we are to vote for something of such national importance.”  My problem is a complete lack of trust with DIIS in the way in which they have treated ordinary people from Quorn, Hawker and Kimba – Leon Ashton (No 73)

there are far too many discrepancies in the information, consultation process and long term impacts to have such a facility based at Kimba (or Hawker).  the consultation process has been an insult to the intelligence of rural people.  –  Leanne Lienert (No. 50)

Sue Tulloch (no 32) makes a scathing criticism of the federal nuclear waste dump process and “shambolic “Barndioota Consultative Committee.  


Aboriginal voices are passionate, at the same time as providing factual information and references:

The Senate took a long time to publish this one – perhaps because they recognised it as the most important one? Regina McKenzie  (No 107) , a very well informed traditional indigenous owner of the selected are at Barndioota, focuses on the cultural heritage rights and interests of identified traditional owners and the State/Federal obligations  regarding those rights. The Department of Industry, Innovation and Science (DIIS) has ignored Australia’s commitment to United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. DIIS has poorly assessed Aboriginal cultural heritage, and engaged inappropriate consultants.  –

In this article, I have avoided the wider arguments expressed in the submissions, including the ones from organisations on both sides of the argument.  Through studying 98 submissions, I have tried to get to the feelings of the communities involved – to what it must be like, to be part of a community caught in this dilemma.

 Our biggest worry of this process is the detrimental effect it will have and is already having on the local community as a whole. Along with my family we have never seen an event in this area cause so much angst and division in a once very proud close knit community which was the envy of many other communities.  – Philip Fels (No 84)

The mental health and well-being of communities is completely ignored in this process and this is a serious issue that needs to be addressed in future frameworks and guidelines. This process makes communities feel powerless – no support is given to those with opposing views, it is a process that is heavily favoured towards those pro-nuclear and when the rules keep changing to suit those in favour it really gives people a sense of hopelessness. Chloe Hannan,  Kimba :  (No. 61)

As an outsider, I can’t really gauge this social situation. But, whatever the outcome of the federal government’s plan, Kimba and Hawker communities will never be quite the same again

Opinions against nuclear waste plan for Kimba and Hawker, South Australia

July 20, 2018

The 58 submissions to the Senate, opposing the plan for the process for selecting a nuclear waste dump site come from a variety of organisations and individuals, and include residents of Eyre Peninsula.

These are some points that came up as they answered the Term of Reference, especially  (f) Any related matters. (These submissions also generally gave full answers to the other 5 more narrow Terms of Reference)

Comprehensive criticism of the entire process. (ENUFF  Submission no. 109)    No justification for dump   (Wakelin B No. 23)  Why the assumption it has to be  South Australia.?     (Wauchope N. No.  21)   Flawed process (Hughes No. 57)   (Mitchell No. 25) Opposed to process, not necessarily to dump (Lienert L No. 50)  End the process  (Noonan, D No 31)  Longterm negative effects (Sisters of St Joseph No. 68 )

Nuclear wastes. Wants re-examination of waste plans (CCSA 55 )  Intermediate wastes   (Mitchell 25,  Scott C 14 ) Prelude to commercial waste import? (Name Withheld 90 )  Dangers Waste types ( Noonan, D31  Wauchope N  21 )  Lucas Heights best site  (Taylor A 82 )  stranded wastes (Tulloch S 32)

Issues of dishonesty – lack of trust  (Ashton 73)  Hypocrisy of DIIS   (Bannon 85  Fergusson 106) Biased committees (Scott T 44)  Biased and misleading information given  (Thomas 36 Tiller J 9   Tulloch B 87)  Dishonest process   (Tulloch R 62 ) Conflicts of interest (Cushway  6   Fels P 84  Fergusson 106 )

Illegality of setting up nuclear dump(Gaweda 54 Madigan 26 Scott T 44 Stokes B Tulloch S 32 Walker 20

Aboriginal  issues well beyond the Term of Reference about this. Strongly Aboriginal  In depth on Aboriginal interaction (ATLA No 42  MKenzie K 78  McKenzie R 107) History of Aboriginal interaction (Bangarla 56 )History. (Madigan 26   MKenzie K 78)

Seismic danger (Fels D 76  Thomas 36)
Floods groundwater (Fels K 63 Fels P 84  Thomas 36 )
Tourism   (Name withheld 92 Walker 20 )
Nuclear medicine not needing the dump (MAPW 74 )
Predicts legal action (AHRC 60)  
Mental health issues (Hannan 61)  
Wants a nuclear free world  (Keri 8 ) 
You can read more about these submissions, in the summaries at  https://antinuclear.net/submissions-to-senate-inquiry-18– and also find links to each full submission

A nuclear waste dump is seen as a bonanza, by some citizens in Australia’s small rural towns, Kimba and Hawer

July 18, 2018

The reasons why some Kimba and Hawker residents want a nuclear waste dump are set out in their submissions to the Senate Inquiry  on Selection process for a national radioactive waste management facility in South Australia ,    Almost every one of the the 40 supporting  submissions come from local residents,  several explaining that they have been very thoroughly informed by the Department of Industry, Innovation and Science, including tours of the Lucas Heights nuclear reactor.

These are some points that came up as they answered the Term of Reference, especially  (f) – Any related matters.

Survival of the town as reason to have the dump:  (submissions from Carpenter I, Carpenter D, Clements, Joyce, J, McInnis, J, Name Withheld, no 91, Stewart)

Opposition to misleading information from anti-nuclear activists (Joyce, J, Koch, D, McInnis, J) 

Need for dump for nuclear medicine (DIIS, SA ARPS)

Dump will have no negative impact (Lienert, M and M, Schmidt)

Dump good for local business (Kemp, SACOME)

Dump important for necessary expansion of Lucas Heights, (Heard,B)

Dump as beneficial to Australia,( Koch, K)

Very opposed to outsiders having a say (Hennessy, J)

Need detail on important financial benefits (Kimba District Council)

4 submissions spent time praising DIIS and ANSTO  (Ashworth, P , and Baldock B , Baldock H and ANSTO itself)

Needless to say, these pro nuclear submissions were almost unanimously in favour of the 5 Terms of reference – i.e that the financial compensation was OK,  the project has “broad community support”. indigenous people satisfactorily consulted, Community Benefit Program is fine, and community support should not be sought beyond the local area.

The few pro nuclear submissions that did not address those TORs are from – ANSTO. ORIMA, Orman, M, RDA Far North, SACOME) 

Australia’s nuclear guru Dr Adi Paterson says that only Intermediate Level Nuclear Waste Dump will be economic for Kimba community, South Australia

July 17, 2018

Tim Bickmore  No Nuclear Waste Dump Anywhere in South Australia. 16 July 18 “When I was speaking to Adi Paterson, who’s the CEO of ANSTO, I said, ‘I don’t really favour the intermediate-level waste coming here, because I worry about it becoming stranded waste if the political landscape changes.’

He said: ‘Why wouldn’t you want the intermediate-level waste? Without it, there’s no real economic benefit for the community.‘ So the CEO of ANSTO is telling me that, without the intermediate-level waste—and this will in the long run just be a low-level waste facility—there’s no economic benefit. “https://www.facebook.com/groups/1314655315214929/

The Australian Government’s frenzied plan for a nuclear “sacrifice zone” in Kimba or Hawker

July 15, 2018

Resources Minister Matt Canavan announced that on 20 August, there will be  a ballot to gauge community support for a nuclear waste dump near one of the small towns of Kimba and Hawker, about 450km north of Adelaide. The vote will be confined to the residents in the immediate local area.

“The decision will be made in the second half of this year” said Canavan ““We do not want this overlapping with a federal election”.

Indeed they don’t!  Heck! This nuclear garbage dump idea is a National matter. But Canavan, the Department of Industry, Innovation and Science, ANSTO, ARPANSA, and the rest of the nuclear lobby, are pitching it ONLY to the small farming communities of Kimba and Hawker, and resolutely keeping the rest of us in blissful ignorance.

Trekking Lucas Heights’ highly radioactive nuclear reactor wastes for 1700 km across Australia – to become a “temporary , i.e. stranded waste dump, is a dangerous idea. And unnecessary – Lucas Heights has the necessary space, technology, and expertise.

Nuclear medicine itself,  short-lived hospital radioactive wastes, do not need this. Hypocritically, the government  tells the Kimba and Hawker people that it’s a “medical necessity”  they’ll be Australia’s heroes. AT WHAT PRICE – now and for future generations?

A Senate Inquiry will report on this on 14 August. Too late to make a difference.  Read many brilliant submissions to this Inquiry, posted on this website. Summaries of these, with links to full submissions are at SUBMISSIONS TO SENATE INQUIRY 18.

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