Welcome to Eureka Street

back to site

Nuclear waste controversy continues in Federal Court

14 Comments

On Monday 6 March, the Barngarla Determination Aboriginal Corporation (BDAC) began action in the Federal Court in Adelaide to overturn the federal Ministerial declaration to selecting Napandee near Kimba as the proposed site for a national nuclear waste facility.

The Barngarla people, the Traditional Owners of Kimba, have consistently opposed the controversial nuclear waste plan. The federal government has spent millions of dollars fighting the Barngarla in court, despite the continued efforts of the Barngarla people who do not want their sites and stories disturbed by a nuclear waste facility.

This fourth manifestation of federal governments of either persuasion to impose a national radioactive waste dump continues to be one of the best kept environment secrets in the country on all levels. There are still unanswered questions regarding the project itself, the actual necessity for it, and the risks involved.

Capitalising on the small amount of coverage South Australian affairs have in the media in general outside our own state, three out of the four chosen sites in this serial campaign since 1998 have been in South Australia. No coincidence either that the precedent seemed to be long set by SA being the main place of choice for the British nuclear explosions and the following so called 'minor trials' of the 1950s and 1960s.

 

'While appreciating the Labor government’s strong commitment to the Voice, the question remains as to why, at the same time, federal Labor are doing so much to continue the Coalition’s determination to silence the voice of the Barngarla.'

 

It may be worth again touching on the risks involved. Recently, a WA mining company lost a tiny radioactive capsule on the long southward trek down to Perth. Eureka Street readers may have heard as the story became international news. The authorities were certainly anxious that it be found, warning in the meantime how dangerous it would be to touch. 

It seemed amazing that such a tiny entity could later be found in such vast territory of 1400 kms. Finding it was surely a classic triumph of the needle in the haystack success story. However, though certainly difficult, it was not  impossible because of the radioactive rays it was emitting. Those of us concerned about the previous federal government‘s campaign to regularly transport, not a tiny capsule with a half life of 30 years, but long lived Intermediate Level radioactive waste toxic for 10,000 years have been regularly and understandably puzzled by the almost absent media coverage about this far more dangerous waste in the proposed regular 1700 km monthly transports from ANSTO Lucas Heights.

Regarding the actual necessity for the dump, the Coalition government has repeated the mantra about the ‘100 hospitals and universities throughout the nation housing radioactive waste’ as a prime reason for needing the national facility. Even normally reputable news outlets like the Guardian have been known to fall back on these easily-accessible Resource Ministers’ media statements providing inaccurate information.

The reality is in huge contrast to these claims. In October of last year, SA environmental expert David Noonan discovered, through reading the Australian Radioactive Waste Agency's own detailed information, compelling evidence that directly contradicted the claims of multiple government officials, department personnel, and ARWA staff. 

Far from the claims that the proposed facility is ‘essential’ to prevent the nationwide ‘100 hospitals and universities’ being overwhelmed by the storage of nuclear medical waste products, Noonan’s research revealed the reality. Total Hospital existing and future LLW [low -level waste] is reported at only 3 m3 [three cubic metres]. Based on ARWA’s Report, all non-ANSTO sources produce on average only approx. 1.3 m3 per year of LLW over the next 100 years and produce approx. 1.34 m3 per year of Intermediate level waste ILW over the next 50 years.’ Not enough to necessitate the creation of a waste dump in Kimbra. In the words of environmentalists, ‘it’s ANSTO’s dump.’

Ignorance, (wilful or otherwise), by Parliamentarians about the matters of nuclear medicine is not confined to the Coalition. NSW Senator the Hon Tim Ayres was the presiding member for the absent Resources Minister, Madeleine King in the recent February Senate Estimates on these matters. Ayres' comments to SA Senator Barbara Pocock said it all: ‘But South Australians use X-rays. They use nuclear medicine. They use it for cancer treatments. They use it for all sorts of medical purposes’. When later conveyed to her, this statement drew the incredulity of Dr Margaret Beavis, GP and Co-Chair of ICAN Australia, and Vice-President Medical Association for Prevention of War. As Dr Beavis explains: ‘Nuclear medicine is used for medical imaging and to treat some cancers. Nuclear medicine should not be confused with X-rays, CT scans, MRIs, radiotherapy or chemotherapy, which are much more commonly used.’

The previous November Senate Estimates seemed to give Shaun Jenkinson CEO of Australian Nuclear Scientific and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) an almost uncritical forum for propagating ANSTO’s claims of the Kimba dump being essential for the survival of Australia’s nuclear medicine, even when challenged by the new SA Senator, economist Professor Barbara Pocock. In February’s recent Senate Estimates, Senator Barbara Pocock asked what contingency plans were in place to produce and store nuclear medicine if the facility didn't go ahead at Kimba. Jenkinson’s response was measured, admitting that there is room at ANSTO. 'We continually look at the storage capacity on site, and we of course look at the projected time for the national radioactive waste management facility. We work closely with ARWA, and, if there was to be a delay in that, we would be seeking approval for additional onsite storage until such time as a national radioactive waste management facility was ready.'

Cost has been, and is, no obstacle to either federal government to ensure their project goes ahead. As the recent BDAC briefing paper reveals, 'since 1 January 2017, the Commonwealth Government has spent close to $10 million on legal work for the nuclear waste dump and the AWRA (Australian Radioactive Waste Agency).' In the last year alone, the Commonwealth Government spent around $2 million, or approximately $40,000 every week, on a team of 14 lawyers to fight the Barngarla in court. Norman Waterhouse, the legal firm representing the Barngarla people, and the legal team working with Norman Waterhouse have endured all of the Commonwealth's litigation for fees of $500K in 2022. The Barngarla’s legal team has withstood tremendous pressure from the Commonwealth lawyers for a quarter of the cost to take the case.

While appreciating the Labor government’s strong commitment to the Voice, the question remains as to why, at the same time, federal Labor are doing so much to continue the Coalition’s determination to silence the voice of the Barngarla.

 

 

 


Michele Madigan is a Sister of St Joseph who has spent over 40 years working with Aboriginal people in remote areas of SA, in Adelaide and in country SA. Her work has included advocacy and support for senior Aboriginal women of Coober Pedy in their successful 1998-2004 campaign against the proposed national radioactive dump.

Main image: Barngarla Traditional Owners and supporters outside the Federal Court Adelaide, 6 March. (Jim Green)

Topic tags: Michele Madigan, South Australia, nuclear waste, Kimba, ANSTO, South Australia

 

 

submit a comment

Existing comments

Thank you for a well-reasoned article about the proposed nuclear waste facility at Kimba SA, Michelle. Your dedication to the movement to stop this is to be admired.

And congratulations to the Barngarla people and their supporters who have been protesting outside the Barngarla Determination Aboriginal Corporation (BDAC) in the Adelaide Federal Court to overturn this very unwise proposal.

Many have suspected that the Morrison government was secretly hoping to store any radioactive waste from the AUKUS pact proposal to construct nuclear powered submarines at the Australian Submarine Corporation, Osborne (near Port Adelaide) there as well.

And this would certainly involve highly radioactive wastes. Surely this is dangerous in a food growing area and tramples on the rights and customs of the local Barngarla people.

I agree with your final question about why is the Albanese government still pressing this Morrison government proposal if it is so positive about promoting a YES vote to the Indigenous Voice to Parliament.

One could also ask why the Albanese Government has decided to adopt the whole AUKUS pact proposal given the many concern from Australians - including within the ALP itself - and our neighbors in the Pacific and SE Asia


Andrew (Andy) Alcock | 16 March 2023  

I think the answer to your question was answered yesterday Michele with the unveiling of the Aukus deal. While the submarines do not carry nuclear weapons they are nuclear-powered and as reported, Australia will be responsible for the disposal of the nuclear waste. Given the submarines will be built in Osborne, South Australia, it is very likely SA will also be the place where the nuclear waste will be ‘dumped’ - perhaps this is why Labour is continuing the Coalition’s determination to silence the voice of Barngarla?

You are very gracious to think the Labor government has a ‘ strong commitment’ to the Voice, I wish I could be as kind. If the government were committed to our indigenous brothers and sisters having a Voice it would already be legislated. The political spin about the referendum only hits the pause button for the government on addressing the real issues our indigenous people face today. Alice Springs is/was an example of how out of touch this government is on the issues faced by our indigenous communities.



Anna | 16 March 2023  

Thanks for another timely and relevant article on this nasty ongoing un-necessary saga. The fight continues.


Andrew Williams | 17 March 2023  

Thank you Michele for the X-ray vision which shows the underlying truth of the situation. People who want the details should lap up this article. I am licking my lips after it.


Kay McPadden | 17 March 2023  

A very timely reminder of the real situation of Australia's indigenous people. Despite the Australian government's show of support for the indigenous Voice to Parliament , this legal case suggests that the Labor government's loyalty lies more with the nuclear industry, than with the people, especially Aboriginal people.
Michele Madigan reminds us of the continued push by the nuclear lobby to make South Australia the focus of nuclear activities - and always, very much involving the trashing of indigenous lands.
A much needed article, during this drought of corporate media coverage of this important legal case.


Noel Wauchope | 18 March 2023  

Thank you Michele for a very well written and informative account of the situation. It has given me information to substantiate and reinforce my arguments against the Dump.


Maddalena Rositano | 18 March 2023  

Excellent well researched article Michele. Great to see you getting the message out there. When AUKUS is being celebrated it is vital to keep the fight going!!


Lyn Longo | 18 March 2023  

Thank you Michele for all that information. I appreciate the distinction you have made between the types of nuclear waste. We are concerned about the First Nations people having a Voice. Here is a good example of why they need to be consulted, yet it seems the Govt. is spending millions of $$$s to prevent them having a Voice in this matter.


Elizabeth Morris | 18 March 2023  

Where would you suggest should be the location for a nuclear waste dump, Sr Madigan?


john frawley | 19 March 2023  

Under the Aukus agreement, Australia will be responsible for storing high-level nuclear waste from the decommissioned reactors.
And that is no easy feat. The US and UK naval reactors that will power both the Virginia-class subs and the future SSN-Aukus boats are fuelled by highly enriched uranium-235.

Once removed and decommissioned, any spent fuel from naval reactors is usually reprocessed to extract usable nuclear fuel for civilian generation and the remaining radioactive waste concentrated. The Australian government has promised not to reprocess spent fuel, which means it will probably be sent offshore.


Patricia Boylan | 19 March 2023  

Under the AUKUS pact, Australia will store high level nuclear waste from decommissioned reactors.
Why was this not discussed with Australians?
Storage of Nuclear Waste should be of serious concern to every Australian.

Did Prime Minister Anthony Albanese think keeping this under wraps would create trust in his government?

Once again, it looks like rural Australians will be sold out. Rural Australians, particularly Pitjantjatjara communities are still dying Under the agreement, Australia will be responsible for storing high-level nuclear waste from the decommissioned reactors.

And that is no easy feat. The US and UK naval reactors that will power both the Virginia-class subs and the future SSN-Aukus boats are fuelled by highly enriched uranium-235.

Once removed and decommissioned, any spent fuel from naval reactors is usually reprocessed to extract usable nuclear fuel for civilian generation and the remaining radioactive waste concentrated. The Australian government has promised not to reprocess spent fuel, which means it will probably be sent offshore from the fallout & impacts of British Governments Nuclear Testings in rural Australia in the 1960s.


P Boylan | 19 March 2023  

Thanks again for putting together the various factors showing the effects of the submarine decision landed on us all,, especially the likely increased pressure on the indigenous group trying to protect their country. Reminds us to review other effects as well.


Angela Carroll | 19 March 2023  

Thankyou John Frawley. Many articles published by Eureka Street over the years on this topic have made clear that the position of any needed federal nuclear waste dump needs to be determined by a skilled, knowledgeable and independent body based on genuine scientific evidence. Not a political decision as it has been for the last 40 years. It needs to be disposal site - not storage as in Kimba. In the meantime it is perfectly safe in the spacious ANSTO site where 95% is manufactured.
And after last week's revelations, Conservation Council of SA chief executive Craig Wilkins said on ABC News 17/3/2023...
..."We're talking about waste that needs to be kept safe from humans for tens of thousands of years, basically beyond our civilisation, so this needs to be an incredibly well-considered decision," he said.

"[There] needs to be a multi-billion-dollar project to house the waste."
Mr Wilkins told ABC Radio Adelaide that the proposed Kimba nuclear waste dump no longer made sense, and that any future site to store submarine reactor spent fuel should also accept waste that would have gone to Kimba.
"The proposed Kimba nuclear waste dump must now be dead in the water," he said.


Michele Madigan | 20 March 2023  

A very worthwhile and timely article. The issue of the way Australia manages its nuclear waste is of importance to all of us. With the AUKUS developments, it becomes even more significant for the government to have a coherent plan to deal with nuclear waste, rather than the piecemeal approach they have now. And the voices of Indigenous Australians need to be heard!


Robyn Jenkin | 22 March 2023  

Similar Articles

Storm brewing over Pacific nations as climate and debt crises collide

  • Cardinal Soane Patita Paini Mafi
  • 05 March 2023

Increasingly frequent and severe weather events are leaving Pacific Island nations struggling to rebuild. The region needs nearly US $1 billion per year in financing to adapt to climate change but with lengthy delays and complex grant applications, accessing funds is a challenge.

READ MORE