South Australia's Multiple Land Use Framework

The South Australian Government has released a South Australian Multiple Land Use Framework, which seeks to minimise land use conflict and provide greater certainty for industry, communities and regulators for the benefit of South Australians. It also seeks to increase transparency and consistency in decision-making. This will enable more effective and targeted engagement with communities on land use change.

You can provide your feedback on the Framework, in particular the Guiding Principles and Key Engagement Mechanisms sections of the Framework. Following the engagement process, the framework will be revised before the government considers its release in mid-2016.

Comments closed

Mark Jones

18 Dec 2015

SA Multiple Land Use Framework Response

On page four some guiding principles are given with one being “Efficient processes” where it states “Streamline processes to remove unnecessary red-tape and duplication.” This is almost a motherhood statement as everybody would agree with those sentiments but it has to be remembered that one person’s red-tape is another person’s accountability. Accountability must not be compromised.

On page five it is stated “Stakeholders directly affected by land use decisions are engaged early ….” Then the key engagement mechanisms referred to on page six refer to collaboration with “key stakeholders”, a phrase that is not listed in the glossary. So what is the definition for the phrase “key stakeholder”?

One could take a guess that “key stakeholder” refers to the land holder whose property is being directly affected, for example, where the well is being drilled. This would be completely unacceptable as externalities generated do not respect property boundaries.

Unconventional gas extraction in the South East will put the aquifers at risk of contamination which then would pose a potential problem for the population of Mount Gambier and all the other communities which source all of their water from the aquifers. So for unconventional gas extraction in the South East, the key stakeholders are all people who obtain water from the aquifers, which is the entire population of the region.

On page five another guiding principle is “Evidence based” which goes on to state “Provide mechanisms and opportunities for community, businesses, industry and government to identify and share information to identify potential issues and opportunities for multiple and sequential land use outcomes.”

The obvious uncertainty here is what happens when conflicting information is presented as has already occurred? The logical response is that we default to the pre-cautionary principle.

On page ten a case study is given of the Gawler Ranges National Park where approved mineral and petroleum activities are allowed. In the Northern Territory, ERA’s Ranger mine was excised from the world heritage Kakadu National Park so as to allow uranium mining to proceed. In 2013 the mine was forced to stop production when a leach tank failed, spilling about one million litres of radioactive and acidic slurry. The company then indicated the funds for the clean-up were reliant on a second mine at the site being given approval. This is akin to black mail. So it appears that these models, although technically different are in actual fact very similar and can lead to massive problems.

Governments do get it wrong from time-to-time. Take for example the Federal government who has spent over $600 000 on a wind farm commissioner when numerous studies have found no scientific evidence that windmills cause any issues at all while refusing to appoint an unconventional gas commissioner when there is plenty of evidence of problems both locally and internationally with that industry.

In summary:

 In an effort to create a stream-lined process it is imperative that accountability is not compromised.

 All people who can be potentially affected are stakeholders who need to be consulted, not just the land owner on whose property the development is taking place.

 The onus of proof is on the proponent to prove the development is safe so when credible conflicting evidence is presented then the default position is the pre-cautionary principle.

 Mining and national parks are not a good combination as shown by the incident at Kakadu.

 Governments do not have a monopoly on wisdom.

Government Agency

yourSAy Engagement Team > Mark Jones

18 Dec 2015

Thank you for your comments Mark.

Sophie Henke

18 Dec 2015

The Multiple Land Use Framework I believe is already out of date and does not reflect the rapidly changing impacts that climate change has already had on SA, nor community concerns in Regional SA. The document is clearly driven by the needs of the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Sector , without regard to the needs of other land users or limited water supply.

Legislation is already weighted heavily towards the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Sector, and this framework in my opinion seeks to reinforce that, and influence future legislation in that sector’s interests.

Agricultural land should be exempt from invasive mining and petroleum activities. Multiple land use is just fancy wording for something that does not work in reality. Farmers have enough to contend with, drought for example, without the added stress from Mineral and Petroleum Resources Sector wanting access to their land.

The framework assumes the premise that co-existence can occur between the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Sector and Agriculture, without regard for the practices required to land manage and land care by farmers and graziers to produce their product.

The world is rapidly moving towards world food shortages, and fresh water shortages. The refugee crisis alone will be incomprehensible in a just few short years.

SA needs to be implementing strong legislation to protect aquifers for food growing and water supplies for Agriculture and Regional Communities. A complete rethink is needed about how the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Sector can fit in. A framework aimed at promoting appropriate land use should be the theme, not multiple land use.

With regards to Water and Food Security, SA is the driest state in Australia, and Australia is the driest inhabited continent on the planet. SA needs to be supporting land use based upon this looming crisis, and ensuring that the limited agricultural land in SA is protected along with aquifers necessary to support food production. Fresh water is in limited supply on the planet. It is a finite resource, recycled by the planet for billions of years. No amount of man man-made recycling processes will make up for the short fall in fresh water supply.

According to the U.S. Intelligence Community Assessment of Global Water Security, by 2030 humanity’s “annual global water requirements” will exceed “current sustainable water supplies” by 40%.

The Saudis are drinking desalinated water from the ocean – a process too expensive to irrigate farmland. Around the world aquifer drainage is occurring rapidly, such as in Saudi Arabia, USA, and China. In SA we are fortunate to have good water management systems in place and water allocation plans to prevent aquifer drainage. The Mining and Petroleum and Geothermal Acts should absolutely fall under the Water and Natural Resources Act and Regulations to ensure Water and Food Security well into the future in SA.

Government Agency

yourSAy Engagement Team > Sophie Henke

18 Dec 2015

Thank you Sophie for your comments. We have now received your full submission via email and will consider it over the coming weeks.

Irene Watson

17 Dec 2015

where can a follow up submission be emailed or forwarded to? I recall there was an email link on the site - has it now been removed?

Government Agency

yourSAy Engagement Team > Irene Watson

18 Dec 2015

Hi Irene. Submissions can be emailed to DSD.MultipleLandUseFramework@sa.gov.au or posted to Attention: Steve Campbell, Department of State Development, Reply Paid 84753, Adelaide SA 5001

Irene Watson

17 Dec 2015

First Nations peoples are often at a disadvantage when responding to colonial State inquires. This is due to the process itself, one which often does not comply with international standards of free prior and informed consent. Briefly I will offer the following observations; the time frame and opportunity to respond is in-equitable, First Nations do not have the level of resources to respond with the equivalent level of detail as development interests, this is because they have a greater opportunity and privilege to do so.

This proposed new framework will impact upon the future survival of First Nations Peoples. Without the time and resources to cover all of those areas of impact, I instead re-iterate concerns regarding the most immediate threats to the territories of the Tanganekald, Meintangk and Boandik peoples of the Coorong and the South East. We have survived genocide and ecocide of our territories and the ongoing state policies of assimilation. We are threatened again and the most imminent threat is to our future water and food security. This threat derives from the proposal to frack the lands of the South East. I have emailed a full submission which includes a submissions made to the Inquiry into Fracking.
Irene Watson, chairperson Kungari Association.

Government Agency

yourSAy Engagement Team > Irene Watson

18 Dec 2015

Thank you Irene for your comments - we have now received your full submission.

Peter Woolford

17 Dec 2015

As a landholder in SA I have only just become aware of the Multiple Land Use Framework and the new "debate and decide" approach within the National Radioactive Waste Management Facility Multi Criteria Site Analysis Model. The process still leaves a lot to be answered for and I feel doesn't have the best interest of SA's agricultural land at heart. Firstly the timing and haste of the engagement process during November - December one of the states busiest periods in agriculture, especially for SA's great grain industry. Secondly the length of time of the engagement process doesn't seem long enough for what is such an important issue.
My deepest concern is a National Nuclear Waste Management Facility that has been proposed in and on food producing land within SA which should not happen. To expose our many agricultural industries to any risk due to perception and the stigma attached to such a facility and the impact this could have on the states clean, green premium food a

Peter Woolford > Peter Woolford

17 Dec 2015

The impact this could have on the states clean, green premium food and wine reputation would seem irresponsible to say the least. One of SA's seven strategic priorities is premium food & wine from our clean environment. SA has only 4.2 million hectares of agricultural land out of 98 million hectares. How about adding land protection as well to a good engagement on land use and land use change in South Australia.

Government Agency

yourSAy Engagement Team > Peter Woolford

18 Dec 2015

Thank you for your comments Peter. With regards to the proposed sites for a National Nuclear Waste Management Facility, this process is run by the Commonwealth Government. The Commonwealth Department of Industry, Innovation and Science is currently seeking comments on behalf of the Minister (Minister Pyne) on the six proposed sites (http://www.radioactivewaste.gov.au/proposed-sites#1). Comments close on 11 March 2016 and I encourage you to have your say via the web link above.

David Black

17 Dec 2015

To whom it may concern,
I read the multiple land use frame work with concern.
“The smart and environmentally friendly use of land is vital to our states long term prosperity…” is true to the word. Some land uses by nature are symbiotic. The fencing and revegetation of creeks and planting wildlife corridors provides habitat for native animals increasing biodiversity, prevents soil erosion, offers shelter for farm animals and crops as well as offering opportunity for eco and farm tourism.
I am not against progress, the limestone coast region is already such a diverse region with many different industries co existing such as cropping, beef, wool, fat lambs, dairy, wine, cray fishing, wind power, tourism, forestry and all the associated service provides that support these industries. These industries occur together because they support each other.
Other activities such as gas extraction cannot co-exist with these activities without being detrimental to them.
I believe that the multiple land use frame work is to be used to justify mining and industrial gas fields within our food bowl and for this reason I cannot support it.
As a young farmer hoping to one day take over the family dairy farm, it hangs a cloud over the future of our operations, and makes me think twice about investing in agriculture in our region for a number of reasons:
The very nature of Hydraulic fracturing requires a large road and pipe network carving up farming land coupled with a huge increase in traffic making the day to day tasks such as moving cattle and machinery between blocks difficult and unsafe. It is my understanding that local governments will be required to upkeep these roads? Where is this extra funding going to come from?
Even though we are in high rainfall area in South Australia, we still rely on the aquifer for irrigation and drinking water for our livestock. Hydraulic fracturing uses a huge amount of water and toxic chemicals. Should these chemicals find their way into the water table our family farm will no longer be viable. Who would want to eat food that has been contaminated with petrochemical waste fluids? It takes so long to develop markets for produce and they can be lost overnight. As a state we would lose our clean green image and our reputation as a producer of safe high quality food. Industry claims that the waste water can be used for irrigation doesn’t help our clean green images ether. Gas companies tell us that hydraulic fracturing can be done safely. Time and time again, science has told us something is safe only to find out later on that it has devastating consequences that aren’t foreseen at the time. Best practice is only what we know at the time and you cannot prevent human error. We only have one aquifer. We need to think ‘What are the consequences if it goes wrong’ and is it worth the risk? I believe it is not.
As a dairy were use a lot of skilled tradesman and contractors throughout the year such as electricians, diesel mechanics, refrigeration mechanics and Irrigation experts. We get fuel and grain delivered, use hay, seeding and fertiliser spreading contractors. Stock agents and truck drivers to take stock to and from markets, as well as agronomists, vets and AI technicians. While we only milk 200 cows we employ one full time employee, one part time employee with the whole family helping out you can see we use a large and diverse range of services, with that money flowing on through the community.
The gas industry as standard practice avoids the use of local labour where possible, opting for fly in-fly out workers, housing them in mobile camps in shipping containers, and providing recreational facilities onsite to prevent the employees from going into the towns. Most of the equipment that is used isn’t made locally. As an industry, very little of the money is spent locally and of practically no benefit to local services of business. Of the times it does require local services, it creates a huge demand that disappears a quickly as it came. This boom bust cycle isn’t good for local business and will push up the price of some of the essential services we rely on to run our farm.
Given that world population is set to excide 10 billion by 2050, Quality farmland and clean water are only going to become more scares. We need both these resources if we are to feed the growing world population. So little of our state is considered arable farmland it should be given priority status and protected from invasive mining and gas fields.
Preventing invasive gas mining in our agricultural regions will give agribusiness the certainty it needs to invest in our region and grow our businesses to feed the increasing world population. Providing long term sustainable employment opportunities for the people of our region along the way.

Kind Regards
David Black

Government Agency

yourSAy Engagement Team > David Black

18 Dec 2015

Thank you for your comments David.

Anne Daw

16 Dec 2015

Please see my full submission that I have sent in. These comments are part of it. Under the title of “Equity, the Multiple Land Use Framework mentions land use decision-making will strive for fair dealings with all parties, recognising that not all land uses can be accommodated when determining multiple and sequential land use outcomes. Outcomes will be sought that harness innovative and flexible solutions but clearly outline the trade-offs and potential compensation that might be required to facilitate the best current and possible future land uses.” If the government are serious about keeping our ‘clean and green ‘ reputation, and protect our food bowl and water for now and generations to come, and take seriously the threat of climate change, then there is clearly no room for co-existence of agriculture and Petroleum or Mining Industry on high yielding land in South Australia. I wish to acknowledge and thank Premier Jay Weatherill and Minister Ian Hunter for attending COP21 in Paris. If this government is serious about climate change, it needs to recognize the emissions that come from both the mining industry and the petroleum industry. There are many problems with carbon, capture and storage including water getting into the area of the carbon dioxide, causing carbonic acid, which dissolves the minerals that are meant to contain the carbon dioxide. The Government must not give the Secretary General of the United Nations one impression, and then not address these industries.

I close with part of my speech from the Climate Change march, in Adelaide.

SA is the driest state in the driest inhabited continent in the world, with only 4.6% high yielding agricultural land. This land is at risk. Most of our amazing state is covered by mining and petroleum exploration and production, both industries directly contributing to climate change.

I believe the mining and petroleum industries cannot be trusted with our farmland. As a result of petroleum activities in SA, poisonous hydrocarbons have leached into groundwater. There have been pipeline leaks through corrosion and cracks, inappropriate disposal of waste water, oil spills, uncontrolled and unintended gas releases, land owner complaints, road incidents, heritage disturbance, sump waste being pushed over a cultural exclusion zone, 2 explosions and one fatality. Fracking pollutes

Government Agency

yourSAy Engagement Team > Anne Daw

16 Dec 2015

Thank you Anne for your comments - we have now received your full submission.

Debbie Nulty

15 Dec 2015

The Australian rural sector is highly dependent on export earnings, most Australian exporters are price takers, they do not set the world prices but usually accept the world prices. So when the value of the exchange rate increases, this decreases the value of the Australian dollar. In 2011 - 12 the Australian rural sector exported almost 40 billion worth of produce, but in Australian dollar terms this reduced by 18.9 billion, a 47 percent decrease in export income to the rural sector because of the high exchange rate attributable to the mining boom. The beef and veal industry has been negatively affected with export income being cut by $2.3 billion in 2011-12 and $8.5 billion over the mining boom. As I understand, since the beginning of the mining boom Australia's rural sector has lost $61.5 billion in export income. My opinion is that the mining boom has not been managed very well and has been allowed to expand with little consideration for the collateral damage which has been left along the way to Australian farmers and other sectors of the economy. It has not been in the National interest of the whole country, decisions that have been made by Government. The idea of further growth of the mining industry will benefit Australia is misunderstood. How can that be, as I understand 83% of mining companies are foreign owned, where does the bulk of the money go, not to Australia. I have watched "The Voices from the Gas fields" on u tube, spoken to affected landowners in Tara, Queensland and they do not give me any positive feed back regarding co-existence with invasive mining and gas activities on their own private land. This co-existence has been forced upon them. They are confronted daily with mining vehicles and trucks coming and going, dust, noise and invasion of their home and lifestyle for which all Australians value. These people are the collateral damage of the mining boom which has been allowed to progress disgracefully. Their right to farm efficiently has been taken away by the layout of the infrastructure having major farm management implications on farm by the infrastructure required for these mining activities. The farmers area of production is taken away by this infrastructure, their livestock's health and breeding ability due to stress from these activities. their livelihoods are threatened. Contamination issues are a high possibility to soil, water , livestock and a major worry is the legal implications to the farmer, their ability to pay their DEBT to the bank, and the risk to Australia's export markets, if a contamination incident occurs. The Livestock Production Assurance (LPA) National Vendor Declaration(NVD) is the main legal document for Australia's food safety reputation attached to our export markets, so WHO is liable after a farmer by law is required to sign this document, after mining activities have been forced on their property.The farmer must sign the LPA NVD before any stock can be moved off their property, between properties, if they have a different PIC, to saleyards, processors. In concluding this Multiple Land Use cannot exist between Agriculture and Mining activities, the risk is too high and why when a farmer pays the mortgage, council rates, emergency levies, insurance, it is their home for their families, their greatest asset they mostly will have for their retirement...How can another industry come and be allowed to piggy back uninvited on another's livelihood and family life and home and risk it all. I have not mentioned health and mental health of farming families. We all have witnessed what these implications can have on Australian farmers with the recent death of a wonderful father and farmer George Bender, he had this Multiple Land Use idea forced on him and look what happened? This a human Rights issue.......

Government Agency

yourSAy Engagement Team > Debbie Nulty

16 Dec 2015

Thank you for your comments Debbie.

Jill Coates

14 Dec 2015

Noting that "land" in South Australia includes aquaculture I assume it includes coastal marine, leases held by Aquaculture over the sea floor, and the interactions of surrounding land and marine users on aquaculture activities? Currently the SA Shellfish Quality Assurance Program (SASQAP) is mostly cost recovered from shellfish sectors. This risk assessed based program is conducted to ensure safe product for human consumption and the risks are assessed in the main from sanitary surveys conducted along shorelines for potential pollution points and water (and product) monitored accordingly through (SASQAP). Any new coastal land or marine activities which co-exist with aquaculture have the potential to increase pollution risks and the requirement for additional monitoring currently paid for mostly by Industry. The shellfish sectors have sought a review of the principles as they are applied to this costing arrangement mostly recovered from Industry suggesting "polluters" should pay the majority of costs. Current costs are already deemed to be too high by many businesses and further costs may be deemed unsustainable. I would appreciate this issue being considered in the strategy.
General point: Where naturally occurring mineral oil and gas resources exist on agricultural or marine environments, sustainable multiple use strategies must be employed for the benefit of all. On the other hand where choices can be made regarding a national storage facility for nuclear waste for example, it should not be on or near areas of food production, and in particular on or in agricultural land. Our agricultural land represents such a small proportion of the nation's total available landmass; there should be suitable sites meeting essential and desirable criteria for storage and which do not impact the nation's food security and in particular SA Premium Food and Wine strategy's clean green image, one the SA government and primary producers have worked so hard and invested so much in - particularly in recent times with trade missions to China. Jill Coates, Natural Oysters.

Government Agency

yourSAy Engagement Team > Jill Coates

16 Dec 2015

Thank you for your comment Jill. Based on the definition of land in the South Australian Multiple Land Use Framework, coastal marine leases held by Aquaculture over the sea floor and the interactions of surrounding land and marine users on aquaculture activities are included.

Liz Mickan

14 Dec 2015

Multi land use in definition means "more than one land use at the same time", therefore the mining and agricultural industries can not have the multi land use framework applied as they can not co-exist on the same piece of land. A choice has to be made. I would like to see the implementation of support for sustainable agricultural farming rather than the support for the mining industry and the quick buck that is not sustainable. Please protect Agricultural land so Australia has the ability to feed the world.
Wind farms and solar farms can coexist with the agricultural industry but not with the mining industry.

Government Agency

yourSAy Engagement Team > Liz Mickan

16 Dec 2015

Thank you for your comments Elizabeth.

Graeme McDonald

08 Dec 2015

It is clear that the Wind Farm Case Study on Page 12 is referring to the Hornsdale Wind Farm near Jamestown in the mid north of the state. The case study is misleading and should be removed from the document. Yes a mining management plan was developed by the Wind Farm operators and approved by the State Government but it was NOT done in collaboration or agreed to by the exploration company involved, but instead has been imposed upon them. The Hornsdale Wind Farm is located on top of known phosphate mineralisation that has been identified and now will be difficult to explore further or develop. So the case study is incorrect as there are negative impacts on land access for the exploration company involved despite being given the right to explore via exploration licences prior to the Wind Farm development approval.

Government Agency

yourSAy Engagement Team > Graeme McDonald

10 Dec 2015

Hi Graeme,
Thank you for your comment and we note your concerns. The Multiple Land Use Team will take your comments on board.

Nicola Dutton

25 Nov 2015

I agree that, provided it is managed effectively and properly, multiple land use could be of good benefit to land holders and regional communities in general. There is land that could be used for a different purpose than it is designated, but people do not wish to pay for the process, which can take valuable time, to change land use. For example an agricultural holding could also be used for on-farm industrial under multiple land use, such as a processing plant, which at the moment would require additional approvals. Whilst I dont support open slather, if done with common sense it could lead to more jobs.

Government Agency

yourSAy Engagement Team > Nicola Dutton

25 Nov 2015

Thank you Nicola for your comments.

Government Agency

yourSAy Engagement Team

23 Nov 2015

Here is an example of how a South Australian Multiple Land Use Framework can also be used to lay the foundation for good engagement:

The Eyre Peninsula Land Use Support (EPLUS) Program (http://www.pir.sa.gov.au/eplus) was established to assist landowners to interact effectively and confidently with the exploration and mining industry. In doing so, the Program creates a shared commitment to multiple land use, builds capacity of Eyre Peninsula communities, farming businesses and local industries and provides tools and support to fully understand and realise the opportunities for agribusiness by working collaboratively with explorers and mine developers.

The EPLUS Program uses the principles of the National Multiple Land Use Framework (Best use of resources, Coexistence, Strategic planning, Tailored participation of communities and landholders, Engagement and information, Decision making and accountability, Efficient processes and Accessible relevant information) to improve knowledge and understanding for landowners to effectively participate in the land access negotiation process (e.g. by developing guidelines, fact sheets, best practice handbooks, FAQs and information sharing opportunities).

State government agencies currently use the principles of the National Multiple Land Use Framework in their projects – a South Australian Multiple Land Use Framework is the next step in consolidating principles of good engagement for land use and land use change in South Australia.

Government Agency

yourSAy Engagement Team

23 Nov 2015

As a result of questions relating to the purpose, role and position of a South Australian Multiple Land Use Framework with regards to existing legislation, policies and processes, please find further information below:

The intent of a South Australian Multiple Land Use Framework is to outline South Australia’s policy position on multiple and sequential land use, while providing regulators, companies and businesses a benchmark for approaching stakeholder engagement. The Premier has previously announced that he intends to move away from the position of ‘announce and defend’, to one of ‘debate and decide’; appropriate stakeholder engagement is crucial to achieve this.

A South Australian Multiple Land Use Framework has been developed to align with the Better Together: principles of engagement (a foundation for engagement in the South Australian Government) (http://yoursay.sa.gov.au/better-together). Although there is no legislative lever for a South Australian Multiple Land Use Framework, it will be a useful tool to assist and compliment the state’s planning legislation (as well as other Acts that deal with multiple land use matters such as the National Parks and Wildlife Act, the Marine Parks Act, Natural Resources Management Act, Native Title Act, Mining Act, Petroleum and Geothermal Energy Act and Aboriginal Heritage Act). There is no intention for a South Australian Multiple Land Use Framework to replace existing legislation, regulations or statutory public consultation processes; where legislation is unclear about how stakeholder engagement should occur or where public consultation/engagement has been poorly conducted, the Framework can be used as a guide to achieving better stakeholder engagement outcomes.

dominic WYkanak

12 Nov 2015

Sovereignty of Aboriginal Islander Peoples has not been ceded so proposed nuclear waste dumps on the island of Australia should not be a LandUse as it is Objected to by Traditional Owners and Community as an international danger to Planet Sustainability and compromises the Survival of Future Generations of Our species and those species for which We share Global Custodinanship

Government Agency

yourSAy Engagement Team > dominic WYkanak

13 Nov 2015

Hi Dominic. Thank you for your comment. A South Australian Multiple Land Use Framework is designed to operate within established regulatory and policy frameworks; it will not alter existing land rights assigned under crown land, freehold or native title land or on pastoral leases.

The specific issues of nuclear waste, storage etc. are being discussed through the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission (http://nuclearrc.sa.gov.au/#fndtn-external-commission-visits). A consultation of ‘our role in the nuclear fuel cycle’ was also conducted through yourSAy earlier this year (http://yoursay.sa.gov.au/decisions/royal-commission-our-role-in-nuclear-energy/about). The Commission is still taking evidence and conducting inquiries and intends to report to the South Australian Governor no later than 6 May 2016.

Steve

dominic WYkanak

12 Nov 2015

Dear SAGovt, Premier, Interested Persons, Please do not allow Land in SA to be used for a nuclear waste dump and Please follow the Aboriginal Principles of 'Irati Wanti' and 'Leave the Poison in the Ground' by supporting a STOP to uranium and other 'poisonous' mining. I Object to a nuclear dump in LandUse.

Government Agency

yourSAy Engagement Team > dominic WYkanak

13 Nov 2015

Hi Dominic. Thank you for your comment. No decision has been made about nuclear waste, storage etc. in South Australia. The Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission website (http://nuclearrc.sa.gov.au/#fndtn-external-commission-visits) provides further information about the status of these investigations.

Steve

dominic WYkanak

12 Nov 2015

Dear South Australian Premier and Government, Please specifically identify the "specific questions posed in the Guiding Principles and Key Engagement Mechanisms sections of the Framework" , as We can find no specific questions with a question mark in that part of the document 'South Australian Multiple Land Use Framework' referred to on this WebPage, THAN..X..,CR WYkanak

Government Agency

yourSAy Engagement Team > dominic WYkanak

13 Nov 2015

Hi Dominic. Thank you for your comment. Good pick up! The Guiding Principles and Key Engagement Mechanisms are the main sections of the Framework and we are looking for stakeholder input on how these sections could be improved. I will arrange for the yourSAy text to be amended for clarity. Steve

dominic WYkanak > dominic WYkanak

13 Nov 2015

THAN..X.. Steve, will the 'South Australian Multiple Land Use Framework' text be changed and readvertised with questions posed in the text?, dominic

Government Agency

yourSAy Engagement Team > dominic WYkanak

13 Nov 2015

Hi Dominic. Unfortunately not as we have already printed and posted the South Australian Multiple Land Use Framework document to stakeholders. However, we are still keen to receive input into the Guiding Principles and Key Engagement Mechanisms. Essentially, we would like to know if they achieve the vision and desired outcome of the SA MLUF (i.e. what changes are recommended to improve the understanding and ability to implement a SA MLUF? Are additional principles or engagement mechanisms required?).

Steve