Senate Standing Committee on Economics PO Box 6100 Parliament House Canberra ACT 2600 Via email: [email protected] 10th April 2018 Dear Committee, The Australian Nuclear Free Alliance (ANFA) welcomes the opportunity to make a submission to the inquiry into the site selection process for a national radioactive waste management facility in South Australia. ANFA does not support the establishment of a national radioactive waste management facility and urges the government to look at all waste production and management options before imposing a facility on any community. The Australian Nuclear Free Alliance (ANFA) formed in 1997, bringing together Aboriginal people from across Australia with environmental non-government organisations and public health groups. The Alliance provides a platform for Aboriginal people and non-Aboriginal people around the country to raise their concerns with the nuclear industry. Many people involved are actively contesting the development of high-impact projects on their homelands; from uranium mines to radioactive waste dumps and fracking proposals. Since ANFA’s inception the scope of issues and the number of affected communities has grown. ANFA members now represent most Australian states and territories. Many people have passed away, great people who spent too much of their lives fighting to protect their country. We remember and honour them and their love for country and community. We have long memories; we remember the atomic weapons test at Maralinga and Emu Fields and the ongoing denial around the lost lives and health impacts for Aboriginal people. Many people were displaced from their homelands and there is still intergenerational sickness. There has been no justice following these horrific weapons testing programs despite the huge impact on human health and cultural disconnect. We remember the broken promises from uranium miners, the accidents, the leaks and the changes to our different countries. A 2009 European Commission report1 recognises the significant global inequality resulting from the fact that 70% of the world’s uranium resources are located beneath the lands of Indigenous peoples while the consumers of the electricity produced from that uranium are in developed countries. ANFA is part of a strong history of Aboriginal resistance to the nuclear industry. Aboriginal-led campaigns in Australia have seen uranium mining projects halted and plans for a radioactive waste dump frustrated and stalled. The nuclear industry continues to target Indigenous land for poisonous projects and Aboriginal people continue to resist. The industry and the government keep ignoring and dismiss the cost of this industry - we wonder who is going to count the loss of lives in the future to come, the cancers and sickness and the lands that have been polluted. Kevin Buzzacott Sue Coleman Haseldine Adam Sharah President Co-Chair Co-Chair Australian Nuclear Free Alliance 1 2009, Falck, W. E., JRC Scientific and Technical Reports, 'Towards a Sustainable Front-End of Nuclear Energy Systems', European Commission Joint Research Centre Institute for Energy, p8, p32. a) The financial compensation offered to applicants for the acquisition of land under the Nominations of Land Guidelines Financial gain for the landholder/s of a single site is in no way an appropriate means of identifying a site for a radioactive waste management facility. ANFA is deeply concerned that, as in the case of the proposed site at Wallerberdina Station in the Flinders Ranges, a site may be nominated by an absentee landlord with no ties to the local community and apparently no concern for the division and stress that the decision creates. In any case, financial gain for the landholder/s of a single site should not be the first step in a site selection process. In no way should the landholder/s of a single site profit from causing distress and division to a community, especially one rich in Indigenous culture and history. b) how the need for ‘broad community support’ has played and will continue to play a part in the process, including: i) the definition of ‘broad community support’, and The lack of a definition of “broad community support” is a significant cause for concern. To date, there is no definition of community and no definition of broad. It is unclear whether Traditional Owners not living in the area of a proposed facility will be considered to be part of the community. It is unclear how “broad community support” will be measured and by whom, despite claims by Minister Canavan of “majority support so far in the communities around Wallerberdina Station and Kimba”.2 Geographical and cultural boundaries should be clearly defined before any site selection process begins. ii) how “broad community support” has been or will be determined for each process advancement stage. Clearly, “broad community support” should be defined before it is measured. An Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) poll was undertaken in Kimba asking “Do you support a nomination for a site being progressed to Phase 2 for further consultation for a National Radioactive Low/Intermediate Level Waste Management Facility?”. It reported a 2 www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/state-politics/jay-weatherill-changes-mind-on-nuclear-dump- ahead-of-election/news-story/a11667e1cfcb443812ef0052bfc6fbef 57% yes response. Despite this, a media release3 from the Minister for Resources Matt Canavan dated 27 June 2017 stated that “we now know that across the community there is broad support”. This survey did not include the specific views of the Traditional Owners from the area who should have been consulted from the start. The Adnyamathanha people, who are the Traditional Owners of the Barndioota site, and their representative body the Adnyamathanha Traditional Lands Association (ATLA) have repeatedly expressed clear opposition. ANFA urges that the voices of Traditional Owners are heard and respected at an early stage in the process. Sue Haseldine-Coleman, a senior Kokatha-Mula woman and long time ANFA member whose lands have long been affected by the nuclear industry through historical weapons testing disputes claims of broad community support for the proposal and site: “They [Government] are not telling the truth about the consultations, we know damn well they haven’t got broad community support. They’re not even talking about the broader community, they’re just talking about the few people in town who support it. There are lots more people out bush who don’t want the dump, it won’t just affect one area, its the whole of South Australia they need to talk to.” “The consultation process keeps coming back to South Australia. They tried here and people said no, they tried the Northern Territory and people said no. Now they’re trying here again and we’re still saying no. Not here, not anywhere.”4 The role of government as proponent is biased and has consistently been a cause for misleading or biased information. One of the major concerns is the misinformation that a national radioactive waste facility is necessary for nuclear medicine. Communities are being told that without the facility, people will miss out on treatment. This is patently untrue as people in Australia currently have access to nuclear medicine procedures 5. The waste proposal has been a major cause of division and distress in the affected communities, with many instances of lifelong friends ceasing to speak over their stance on this issue. Amongst the affected communities is skepticism about the research undertaken on behalf of the government. The April 2016 Department Of Industry, Science And Innovation National Radioactive Waste management Facility Community Sentiment Survey Wave 2 Report Of Findings undertaken by ORIMA Research6 claimed that 65% of the general population of the Barndioota community were not opposed to the process continuing. The Flinders Local 3 http://minister.industry.gov.au/ministers/canavan/media-releases/kimba-sites-proceed-consideration- national-radioactive-waste 4 2018, Coleman Hasledine, S., personal communication, April 7th. 5 http://www.mapw.org.au/download/ten-more-questions-about-australia%E2%80%99s-nuclear- waste-february-2017 6 https://prod- radioactivewaste.industry.slicedtech.com.au/sites/prod.radioactivewaste/files/files/NRWMF%20Comm unity%20Sentiment%20Surveys%20Report.pdf Action Group undertook their own survey of their community and found that only 16% of the community was not opposed.7 The definition of community is a key issue and should be clearly defined before any progress is made on a proposal. Recognition that local Aboriginal engagement with the siting process is vital and should be broad and respectful with a right to veto before the proposal progresses. 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; ANFA has previously raised concerns about the far reaching powers of the National Radioactive Waste Management Act, including that the Aboriginal Heritage Act is not taken into consideration during the site selection phase.8 Several clauses within the Act are contrary to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which Australia endorsed in 2009. The Declaration has a provision promoting effective measures to be taken by the State, in regards to hazardous materials on Indigenous land. The Declaration reads: "States shall take effective measures to ensure that no storage or disposal of hazardous