NATIONAL RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITY

Transcription

1 DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY, SCIENCE AND INNOVATION NATIONAL RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITY COMMUNITY SENTIMENT SURVEY WAVE 2 REPORT OF FINDINGS April 2016

2 Contents I. Summary of Findings... 1 A. Background... 1 B. General population community comparison... 2 Overall support... 2 Awareness... 3 Saliency... 5 Concerns and benefits... 6 C. Other groups community comparison Overall support Awareness Saliency II. Sallys Flat A. Support B. Benefits/concerns General population Other groups C. Awareness D. Saliency E. General Population survey outcomes F. Sample profiles III. Hale A. Support B. Benefits/concerns General population Other groups C. Awareness D. Saliency E. General Population survey outcomes F. Sample profiles IV. Cortlinye/Pinkawillinie A. Support B. Benefits/concerns General population Other groups C. Awareness D. Saliency E. General Population survey outcomes F. Sample profiles... 54

3 V. Barndioota A. Support B. Benefits/concerns General population Other groups C. Awareness D. Saliency E. General Population survey outcomes F. Sample profiles VI. Oman Ama A. Support B. Benefits/concerns General population Other groups C. Awareness D. Saliency E. General Population survey outcomes F. Sample profiles VII. Methodology A. Overview Six sites in five communities The community sentiment surveys Area definitions B. General population survey C. Neighbour survey D. Indigenous survey E. Business survey F. Field issues G. Research limitations Appendices Appendix A: General population questionnaire Appendix B: Neighbour questionnaire Appendix C: Indigenous questionnaire Appendix D: Business questionnaire Appendix E: Neighbour letters Appendix F: concerns and benefits across sites for Neighbours, Indigenous and Business surveys Appendix G: Table of themes from verbatim comments by site and survey

4 1 I. Summary of Findings A. Background Residents of five communities being considered as potential sites for the National Radioactive Waste Management Facility (NRWMF) were surveyed in late February and early March 2016 to ascertain their support for continuing to the next phase of the public consultation process. The survey covered: Awareness of the public consultation and the issue Saliency of the issue Support for continuing to the next phase of detailed planning Perceived concerns about locating the site in their community Perceived benefits A number of demographic characteristics including place of residence and distance from site The surveys included: 1. A telephone survey among a random sample of the general population of residents (n=2,036) 2. A separate mixed telephone / in-person attempted census of all near neighbours to the nominated property (n=228) 3. A separate in-person intercept survey of Indigenous members of two communities (n=179) 4. A telephone survey of local businesses (n=302) More details about each of the surveys is included in the methodology chapter of this report. Questionnaires are appended. This report provides results for all four surveys.

5 2 B. General population community comparison Overall support Figure 1: Overall support by community - General Population Sally's Flat 6 3 Hale 5 47% Cortlinye and Pinkawillinie 49% 5 Barndioota 35% 65% Oman Ama 50% < 49% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Opposed Refused Not opposed Q11. How much does it matter to you personally which way your community decides to go at the end of this first consultation period with the shortlisted sites? Q12. Do you strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose or strongly oppose your community continuing with the process to the detailed plan stage? Q14. Would you be willing to see your community continue to the next stage of the process, or do you not mind either way?

6 3 Awareness Figure 2: Awareness that site is under consideration by community - General Population Fully aware Partly aware Not aware / Refused Sally's Flat 89% 7% Hale 77% 9% 1 Cortlinye / Pinkawillinie 97% Barndioota 90% 7% Oman Ama 9 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Q9. Did you know that [COMMUNITY] has been under active consideration as a possible location for the national radioactive waste management facility from 28 nominated sites in Australia?

7 Sally's Flat Hale Cort / Pink Barndioota Oman Ama Sally's Flat Hale Cort / Pink Barndioota Oman Ama Sally's Flat Hale Cort / Pink Barndioota Oman Ama 4 Figure 3: Awareness of actual nominated site and consultation period by community - General Population 100% 90% 80% 70% 10% 1 5% 60% 1 50% 95% 9 40% 30% 20% 7 65% % 7% 80% 55% 47% 10% 29% 2 0% q10a Actual nominated site q10b Consultation period underway q10c Public comment period ends 11/3 Fully aware Partly aware Q10. And before this interview were you aware, partly aware or not aware of the following things: (a) the actual nominated site in your area is [DESCRIPTION] (b) There has been a consultation period underway with the community around each of the shortlisted sites (c) The public comment period finishes on 11 March 2016.

8 5 Saliency Figure 4: How much issue matters personally by community - General Population A lot A little Not at all Refused Don't know Sally's Flat 7 20% 8% Hale 6 25% 1 Cortlinye / Pinkawillinie 77% 1 Barndioota 70% 18% 10% Oman Ama % 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Q11. [I know you have only just become aware of this, but] how much does it matter to you personally which way your community decides to go at the end of this first consultation period with the shortlisted sites? Does it matter Figure 5: Why have not yet formed an opinion - General Population (all communities combined) 50% 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 3 30% 10% 1 1 5% 0% Don't have enough information Good arguments both ways Too far away to affect me Not really interested Can't make sense of information Q13. Why have you not formed an opinion on this topic? Is it because Base: Those with no opinion (n=336)

9 6 Concerns and benefits Concerns Table 1: Main perceived community concerns by community comparison across sites and surveys Sally s Flat Hale Cortlinye / Pinkawillinie Barndioota Oman Ama General Population Health and safety Water quality Farming land Water quality Health and safety Road transport risk Community spirit Produce - quality Farming land Health and safety Water quality Tourism Property prices Water quality Health and safety Cortlinye Neighbours Water quality Tourism Property prices Produce - price Produce - quality Water quality Community spirit Produce - quality Produce price Pinkawillinie Community spirit Produce - price Tourism Produce quality Water quality Health and safety Property prices Community spirit Economy Reputation Health and safety Property prices Health and safety Water quality Indigenous - Water quality - Health and safety - Air quality Air quality Business Health and safety Water quality Farming land Water quality Health and safety Road transport risk Community spirit Farming land Health and safety Tourism Health and safety Earthquake/ tremors Property prices Community spirit Water quality

10 7 Table 2: Main perceived personal concerns by community comparison across sites and surveys Sally s Flat Hale Cortlinye / Pinkawillinie Barndioota Oman Ama General Population Health and safety Water quality Road transport risk Water quality Health and safety Road transport risk Community spirit Produce - quality Produce price Tourism Property prices Health and safety Health and safety Property prices Water quality Cortlinye Produce - quality Produce - price Neighbours Property prices Health and safety Traffic Economy Produce - price Produce - quality Water quality Health and safety Pinkawillinie Property prices Farming land Produce - quality Tourism Health and safety Property prices Reputation Economy Community spirit Produce - price Produce - quality Community spirit Health and safety Water quality Indigenous - Water quality - Health and safety - Air quality Air quality Property prices Business Economy Water quality Tourism Property prices Tourism Economy People will leave the area Farming land Produce price Produce - quality Property prices Tourism Health and safety Air quality Accident/ waste leak Economy Tourism Community spirit Water quality Health and safety

11 8 Benefits Table 3: Main perceived community benefits by community comparison across sites and surveys Sally s Flat Hale Cortlinye / Pinkawillinie Barndioota Oman Ama General Population Ongoing jobs Construction jobs Financial benefit Ongoing jobs Construction jobs Economy Ongoing jobs Financial benefit Construction jobs Ongoing jobs Construction jobs Financial benefit Ongoing jobs Construction jobs Financial benefit Cortlinye Neighbours Construction jobs Ongoing jobs Awareness of area Financial benefit Upgrade infrastructure Upgrade local facilities Upgrade infrastructure Construction jobs Upgrade local facilities Ongoing jobs Pinkawillinie Upgrade local facilities Ongoing jobs Upgrade infrastructure Economy Upgrade local facilities Construction jobs Ongoing jobs Upgrade infrastructure Upgrade local facilities Economy Upgrade infrastructure Indigenous - Ongoing jobs Construction jobs Upgrade infrastructure - Construction jobs Ongoing jobs Upgrade local facilities Economy - Business Ongoing jobs Construction jobs Economy Ongoing jobs Construction jobs Economy Construction jobs Upgrade infrastructure Economy Ongoing jobs Ongoing jobs Construction jobs Economy Ongoing jobs Construction jobs Economy

12 9 Table 4: Main perceived personal benefits by community comparison across sites and surveys Sally s Flat Hale Cortlinye / Pinkawillinie Barndioota Oman Ama General Population Ongoing jobs Doctor/ Health Economy Ongoing jobs Upgrade local facilities Upgrade local facilities Upgrade infrastructure Ongoing jobs Construction jobs Ongoing jobs Upgrade infrastructure Economy Ongoing jobs Construction jobs Neighbours Construction jobs Ongoing jobs Upgrade infrastructure Upgrade local facilities Upgrade infrastructure Cortlinye Economy Upgrade local facilities Community spirit Upgrade infrastructure Pinkawillinie Upgrade local facilities Upgrade infrastructure Doctor/ Health Upgrade infrastructure Upgrade local facilities Economy Upgrade infrastructure Upgrade local facilities Secure waste storage rather than hospital Property prices Community spirit Construction jobs Ongoing jobs Ongoing jobs Indigenous - Secure waste storage rather than hospital Industry/ local business benefits More people in community - Construction jobs Ongoing jobs - Community spirit Business Economy Ongoing jobs Industry/ local business benefits Economy Ongoing jobs Industry/ local business benefits Construction jobs Economy More people in community Ongoing jobs Economy More people in community Ongoing jobs Construction jobs Ongoing jobs Upgrade infrastructure Economy

13 10 C. Other groups community comparison Overall support Table 5: Overall support by group and community (% not opposed) General public Neighbours Indigenous Business Sallys Flat 3 45% Hale 47% 0% 28% 60% Cortlinye / Pinkawillinie 5 17% (C) 40% (P) 57% Barndioota 65% 35% 9 Oman Ama 50% 40% 69% Q11. How much does it matter to you personally which way your community decides to go at the end of this first consultation period with the shortlisted sites? Q12. Do you strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose or strongly oppose your community continuing with the process to the detailed plan stage? Q14. Would you be willing to see your community continue to the next stage of the process, or do you not mind either way? Awareness Table 6: Overall awareness by group and community (% fully aware) General public Neighbours Indigenous Business Sallys Flat 89% 9 9 Hale 77% 100% 2 78% Cortlinye / Pinkawillinie 97% 99% (C) 100% (P) 97% Barndioota 90% 100% 78% 89% Oman Ama % Q9. Did you know that [COMMUNITY] has been under active consideration as a possible location for the national radioactive waste management facility from 28 nominated sites in Australia?

14 11 Saliency Table 7: Saliency by group and community (% a lot) General public Neighbours Indigenous Business Sallys Flat 7 89% 38% Hale 6 100% 60% 4 Cortlinye / Pinkawillinie 77% 98% (C) 90% (P) 7 Barndioota 70% Oman Ama 6 68% 4 Q11. [I know you have only just become aware of this, but] how much does it matter to you personally which way your community decides to go at the end of this first consultation period with the shortlisted sites? Does it matter

15 12 II. Sallys Flat A. Support Figure 6: Overall support by group Sallys Flat Not opposed = 3 Gen Pop (n=796) 5 10% 9% 1 9% Not opposed = Neighbours (n=54) 9 Not opposed = 45 % Business (n=100) % 7% Strongly oppose Oppose Not willing Refused Undecided Not bothered Willing Support Strongly support Q11. How much does it matter to you personally which way your community decides to go at the end of this first consultation period with the shortlisted sites? Q12. Do you strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose or strongly oppose your community continuing with the process to the detailed plan stage? Q14. Would you be willing to see your community continue to the next stage of the process, or do you not mind either way? Table 8: Overall support by neighbour household - Sallys Flat Sally's Flat Classification of household Frequency % of households Not oppose 1 Mixed 0 0% Oppose 24 50% No response 20 4 Permission denied (by at least one respondent in household) 3 Total % *Note: we are unable to display the results for households where permission was denied to link their data with their household identification, as including their results in the pattern of the results in the summary table would indirectly identify the household s opinion. Q11. How much does it matter to you personally which way your community decides to go at the end of this first consultation period with the shortlisted sites? Q12. Do you strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose or strongly oppose your community continuing with the process to the detailed plan stage? Q14. Would you be willing to see your community continue to the next stage of the process, or do you not mind either way?

16 13 Table 9: Support by region and major town General population, Sallys Flat (% not oppose) % not oppose Base size Region Bathurst region (south of site) Mudgee region (north of site) 40% 178 Orange region (west of site) 48% 34 Sallys Flat region (site surrounds) 20 Other region around Sallys Flat 47% 8 Total Major town Bathurst Mudgee Total *Note: results in grey font are based on small sample sizes and should be treated as being indicative only.

17 14 B. Benefits/concerns General population Figure 7: Top 5 personal concerns - General population, Sallys Flat 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 18% Health & safety 1 10% Water quality Road transport risks 9% 7% Land available for farming Property prices 4 No concerns Q15. I would like to now ask you about any concerns or negative impacts you think there might be for you or your community from hosting the national radioactive waste management facility? (b) And what, if any, concerns or negative impacts do you think could directly affect you personally? Figure 8: Top 5 personal benefits - General population, Sallys Flat 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Jobs (ongoing) DK/ need more info Health Construction benefits (inc jobs Dr) Facilities investment 9 No benefits Q16. I would like to now ask you about any benefits you think there are for you or your community from hosting the national radioactive waste management facility. (b) And what, if any, benefits do you think there are for you personally?

18 15 Figure 9: All perceived concerns - General population, Sallys Flat Health and safety Water quality Road transport risk Farming land Property prices Accident/ waste leak Community spirit Location too close to people Reputation Produce - quality General environmental concerns Long term impacts/ effect on future generations Tourism Traffic Air quality Economy Job opportunities Unknown risks Produce - price Negatively impact on recreation area/ pursuits High level waste Town an increased terrorism target Radioactive nature of the waste Earthquake/ tremors Intermediate level waste Noise Ugly People will leave the area Security of the waste Poor communication between Govt and community Negatively impact area's natural beauty Soil contamination Government not trusted Protesters/ activists will target town Impact on indigenous community/ land Other Don't know/ need more information None 7% 1 5% 8% 9% 8% 5% 10% 15% 8% 9% 8% 7% 9% 10% 10% 15% 18% 1 19% 2 28% 3 Other mentions included Risk of waste leaking/ accident General environmental impact Unknown risks Health and safety, particularly for future generations 4 4 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Single greatest concern for self All concerns for self All concerns for community Q15. I would like to now ask you about any concerns or negative impacts you think there might be for you or your community from hosting the national radioactive waste management facility? (a) First, what, if any, concerns or negative impacts do you think there might be for your community? (b) And what, if any, concerns or negative impacts do you think could directly affect you personally? (c) Which of these is the single biggest concern or possible negative impact for you personally?

19 16 Figure 10: All perceived benefits - General population, Sallys Flat Ongoing jobs Doctor/ Health 2 Community spirit Economy 8% Construction jobs Secure waste storage rather than hospital 2 Upgrade infrastructure 5% Industry/ local business benefits Upgrade local facilities Tourism Financial benefit 9% More people in community Education benefits Property prices Awareness of area Reputation Negative comment Only landowner will benefit Other mentions include: Health infrastructure Other Don't know/ need more info None 59% 9 9 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Single greatest benefit for self All benefits for self All benefits for community Q16. I would like to now ask you about any benefits you think there are for you or your community from hosting the national radioactive waste management facility. (a) First, what, if any, benefits do you think there might be for your community? (b) And what, if any, benefits do you think there are for you personally? (c) Which of these is the single biggest possible benefit for you personally?

20 Health & safety Water quality Farming land available Road transport risks Tourism No concerns Water quality Tourism Property prices Health & safety Economy No concerns Health & safety Water quality Farming land available Tourism Air quality No concerns 17 Other groups Figure 11: Top 5 community concerns by group - Sallys Flat 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% % 30% 57% 5 20% 10% 0% 3 28% 2 19% 15% 10% 2 19% 1 15% 1 2 General population Neighbours Business Q15. I would like to now ask you about any concerns or negative impacts you think there might be for you or your community from hosting the national radioactive waste management facility? (a) First, what, if any, concerns or negative impacts do you think there might be for your community?

21 Health & safety Water quality Road transport risks Farming land available Property prices No concerns Property prices Health & safety Economy Traffic Tourism No concerns Economy Water quality Tourism Property prices Health & safety No concerns 18 Figure 12: Top 5 personal concerns by group - Sallys Flat 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 7 69% 65% 65% % 4 10% 0% 18% 1 10% 9% 7% 7% 1 8% 7% 7% General population Neighbours Business Q15. I would like to now ask you about any concerns or negative impacts you think there might be for you or your community from hosting the national radioactive waste management facility? (b) And what, if any, concerns or negative impacts do you think could directly affect you personally?

22 Ongoing jobs Construction jobs Financial benefit Economy Infrastructure investment No benefits Construction jobs Ongoing jobs Facilities investment Infrastructure investment Area awareness / profile No benefits Ongoing jobs Construction jobs Economy Infrastructure investment Don't know / need more info No benefits 19 Figure 13: Top 5 community benefits by group - Sallys Flat 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 87% 30% 59% 55% 20% 10% 0% 2 2 9% 8% 5% % 7% 5% General population Neighbours Business Q16. I would like to now ask you about any benefits you think there are for you or your community from hosting the national radioactive waste management facility. (a) First, what, if any, benefits do you think there might be for your community?

23 Ongoing jobs Don't know / need more info Health benefits (inc Dr) Construction jobs Facilities investment No benefits Construction jobs Ongoing jobs Facilities investment Infrastructure investment No benefits Economy Ongoing jobs Business opportunities Construction jobs Community spirit No benefits 20 Figure 14: Top 5 personal benefits by group - Sallys Flat 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% % 8 30% 20% 10% 0% 5% General population Neighbours Business Q16. I would like to now ask you about any benefits you think there are for you or your community from hosting the national radioactive waste management facility. (b) And what, if any, benefits do you think there are for you personally?

24 21 C. Awareness Figure 15: Awareness that site is under consideration by group Sallys Flat Fully aware Partly aware Not aware / Refused General population 89% 7% Neighbour 9 Business 9 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Q9. Did you know that [COMMUNITY] has been under active consideration as a possible location for the national radioactive waste management facility from 28 nominated sites in Australia? Figure 16: Awareness of actual nominated site and consultation period by group Sallys Flat 100% 90% 80% 70% 10% 5% 60% 50% 40% 30% % 7 87% 8 7% 8 20% 10% 29% 37% 0% Gen pop Neighbour Business Gen pop Neighbour Business Gen pop Neighbour Business Actual nominated site Consultation period underway Public comment period ends 11/3 Fully aware Partly aware Q10. And before this interview were you aware, partly aware or not aware of the following things: (a) the actual nominated site in your area is [DESCRIPTION] (b) There has been a consultation period underway with the community around each of the shortlisted sites (c) The public comment period finishes on 11 March 2016.

25 22 D. Saliency Figure 17: How much issue matters personally by group Sallys Flat A lot A little Not at all Refused Don't know General population 7 20% 8% Neighbours 89% 9% Business 38% 2 37% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Q11. [I know you have only just become aware of this, but] how much does it matter to you personally which way your community decides to go at the end of this first consultation period with the shortlisted sites? Does it matter Figure 18: Why have not yet formed an opinion General population, Sallys Flat 50% 45% 40% 35% 39% 30% 25% 29% 20% 15% 19% 10% 1 5% 0% Don't have enough information Good arguments both ways Too far away to affect me Not really interested Can't make sense of information Q13. Why have you not formed an opinion on this topic? Is it because Base: Those with no opinion (n=115)

26 23 E. General Population survey outcomes Please see Section 8 for a glossary of terms and sources used in this table and more methodological information about the Sallys Flat general population survey. For field outcome and methodological information for other surveys, please refer to the same section. Table 10: Survey outcomes General population, Sallys Flat Sallys Flat 18+ Population: 35,714 Number of Sallys Flat dwellings: 19,407 Number of available telephone numbers: 11,586 Accessible adults: 21,321 Telephone numbers called: 2,903 Invalid numbers: 298 Valid numbers: 2,605 Fax machine, business number, no English, resides elsewhere, number disconnected Household refusals: 621 No contact made: 1, households interviewed 796 people interviewed Callback, answering machine, no answer Household response rate: 2 Sample error +/-5%

27 24 F. Sample profiles Table 11: Residency Profile Sallys Flat General population Neighbours Business 0-10km.5% 11-20km 3.0% (n=796) (n=54) (n=100) Distance from site 21-30km km 15.7% 41km+ 76. In town 73.5% 80.0% Lives On property <5 acres % On property 5+ acres 14.8% 15.0% Other 0.0% 1.0% Owns 75. Housing Rents 9.9% Boards 10. Other 4.5% < 11 years % Tenure in local area years % 21+years % 37.0% Refused 0.0% 0.0% 1.0% Single person household 15.9% Size of household 2-person household 56.5% 3+ person household 27.

28 25 Table 12: Demographic Profile Sallys Flat General population Neighbours Business (n=796) (n=54) (n=100) Male 48.9% % Gender Female 50.8% 40.7% 36.0% Unspecified % 0.0% % 13.0% % Age % % 24. Refused 0.0% 0.0% Indigenous Yes 3.7% 0.0% 2.0% % % % People employed by business in local area % % % % Can't say 1.0% Tourism 1.0% Agriculture, Fishing and Forestry 6.0% Construction 23.0% Retail trade 17.0% Business industry Accommodation and food services Financial or insurance services Professional, technical and scientific services Rental, hiring or real estate 7.0% 2.0% 2.0% 3.0%

29 26 General population Neighbours Business (n=796) (n=54) (n=100) Education and training 4.0% Healthcare and social assistance Arts and recreation services Transport, postal or warehousing Property, administrative and support services 3.0% 4.0% 2.0% 1.0% Business industry (continued) Information, media or telecommunications 1.0% Wholesale trade 4.0% Manufacturing 10.0% Public administration or safety 0.0% Mining 0.0% Electricity, Gas, water and waste services Personal and other services 0.0% 10.0%

30 27 III. Hale A. Support Figure 19: Overall support by group Hale Gen Pop (n=668) 39% 1 10% 15% Not opposed = 47% 1 Not opposed = 0% Neighbours (n=3) 100% Not opposed = 28% Indigenous (n=102) 57% 1 5% 5% 15% Not opposed = 60% Business (n=100) 28% 7% 5% 1 5% 2 15% Strongly oppose Oppose Not willing Refused Undecided Not bothered Willing Support Strongly support Q11. How much does it matter to you personally which way your community decides to go at the end of this first consultation period with the shortlisted sites? Q12. Do you strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose or strongly oppose your community continuing with the process to the detailed plan stage? Q14. Would you be willing to see your community continue to the next stage of the process, or do you not mind either way? Table 13: Overall support by neighbour household Hale Hale Classification of household Frequency % of households Not oppose 0 0% Mixed 0 0% Oppose 2 2 No response 7 78% Permission denied (by at least one respondent in household) 0 0% Total 9 100% *Note: we are unable to display the results for households where permission was denied to link their data with their household identification, as including their results in the pattern of the results in the summary table would indirectly identify the household s opinion. Q11. How much does it matter to you personally which way your community decides to go at the end of this first consultation period with the shortlisted sites? Q12. Do you strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose or strongly oppose your community continuing with the process to the detailed plan stage? Q14. Would you be willing to see your community continue to the next stage of the process, or do you not mind either way?

31 28 Table 14: Support by region and major town General population, Hale (% not oppose) % not oppose Base size Region Major town Alice Springs region 47% 624 Other region around Hale 5 44 Total 47% 668 Alice Springs 47% 624 Total 47% 624

32 29 B. Benefits/concerns General population Figure 20: Top 5 personal concerns - General population, Hale 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 2 2 Water quality Health & safety 8% 7% 5% Road transport risks 4 Air quality Tourism No concerns Q15. I would like to now ask you about any concerns or negative impacts you think there might be for you or your community from hosting the national radioactive waste management facility? (b) And what, if any, concerns or negative impacts do you think could directly affect you personally? Figure 21: Top 5 personal benefits - General population, Hale 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 5% Local economy Jobs (ongoing) Facilities investment/ upgrade Infrastructure investment / upgrade DK/ need more info 8 No benefits Q16. I would like to now ask you about any benefits you think there are for you or your community from hosting the national radioactive waste management facility. (b) And what, if any, benefits do you think there are for you personally?

33 30 Figure 22: All perceived concerns - General population, Hale Health and safety Water quality Road transport risk Job opportunities People will leave the area Property prices Community spirit Reputation Accident/ waste leak Tourism General environmental concerns Air quality Economy Long term impacts/ effect on future generations Farming land Location too close to people Intermediate level waste High level waste Traffic Earthquake/ tremors Town an increased terrorism target Radioactive nature of the waste Negatively impact on recreation area/ pursuits Produce - price Produce - quality Impact on indigenous community/ land Ugly Unknown risks Noise Security of the waste Protesters/ activists will target town Soil contamination Poor communication between Govt and community Government not trusted Negatively impact area's natural beauty Other Don't know/ need more information None 5% 7% 5% 8% 8% 5% 7% 8% 5% 8% 8% 7% 10% % 2 20% 2 28% 30% Other mentions include: Impact on indigenous land General environment concerns Safety concerns over the long term (accidents) People will leave the town 4 4 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Single greatest concern for self All concerns for self All concerns for community Q15. I would like to now ask you about any concerns or negative impacts you think there might be for you or your community from hosting the national radioactive waste management facility? (a) First, what, if any, concerns or negative impacts do you think there might be for your community? (b) And what, if any, concerns or negative impacts do you think could directly affect you personally? (c) Which of these is the single biggest concern or possible negative impact for you personally?

34 31 Figure 23: All perceived benefits - General population, Hale Economy Ongoing jobs Upgrade infrastructure Upgrade local facilities Property prices 5% 5% 8% 2 39% Construction jobs 38% More people in community Doctor/ Health Financial benefit Industry/ local business benefits 1 Secure waste storage rather than hospital Negative comment Tourism Community spirit Only landowner will benefit Awareness of area Education benefits Reputation Other mentions include: Keep people in town Pay less tax Other Don't know/ need more info None 35% 85% 8 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Single greatest benefit for self All benefits for self All benefits for community Q16. I would like to now ask you about any benefits you think there are for you or your community from hosting the national radioactive waste management facility. (a) First, what, if any, benefits do you think there might be for your community? (b) And what, if any, benefits do you think there are for you personally? (c) Which of these is the single biggest possible benefit for you personally?

35 Water quality Health & safety Road transport risks Farming land available Tourism No concerns Produce - quality / reputation Produce - price / value Water quality Reputation Community spirit No concerns Health & safety Water quality Air quality Farming land available Community spirit No concerns Water quality Health & safety Road transport risks Tourism Accident / waste spill No concerns 32 Other groups Figure 24: Top 5 community concerns by group - Hale 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 100% 100% 100% 40% 30% 67% 67% 6 60% 20% 10% 0% 30% 28% 1 10% 8% 20% 30% 2 18% 7% % 10% 28% General population Neighbours Indigenous Business Q15. I would like to now ask you about any concerns or negative impacts you think there might be for you or your community from hosting the national radioactive waste management facility? (a) First, what, if any, concerns or negative impacts do you think there might be for your community?

36 Water quality Health & safety Road transport risks Air quality Tourism No concerns Water quality Produce - quality / reputation Produce - price / value Health & safety Traffic No concerns Health & safety Water quality Air quality Farming land available Community spirit No concerns Tourism Economy People will leave the town Water quality Health & safety No concerns 33 Figure 25: Top 5 personal concerns by group - Hale 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 100% 100% 100% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 2 2 8% 7% 5% 4 67% 67% 6 50% 28% 18% 1 17% 18% 9% 9% 7% 7% 5 General population Neighbours Indigenous Business Q15. I would like to now ask you about any concerns or negative impacts you think there might be for you or your community from hosting the national radioactive waste management facility? (b) And what, if any, concerns or negative impacts do you think could directly affect you personally?

37 Ongoing jobs Construction jobs Economy Financial benefit Infrastructure investment No benefits Infrastructure investment No benefits Ongoing jobs Construction jobs Infrastructure investment Economy Secure storage of waste No benefits Ongoing jobs Construction jobs Economy Infrastructure investment Financial benefit No benefits 34 Figure 26: Top 5 community benefits by group - Hale 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 88% 30% 67% 20% 10% 39% 38% 2 35% % 0% 1 8% 5% 7% General population Neighbours Indigenous Business Q16. I would like to now ask you about any benefits you think there are for you or your community from hosting the national radioactive waste management facility. (a) First, what, if any, benefits do you think there might be for your community?

38 Economy Ongoing jobs Facilities investment Infrastructure investment Don't know / need more info No benefits Infrastructure investment No benefits Ongoing jobs Community spirit More people in the town Secure storage for the waste Business opportunities created No benefits Economy Ongoing jobs Construction jobs Business opportunities created Infrastructure investment No benefits 35 Figure 27: Top 5 personal benefits by group - Hale 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% % 67% 6 20% 3 10% 0% 5% 15% 1 8% 8% 5% General population Neighbours Indigenous Business Q16. I would like to now ask you about any benefits you think there are for you or your community from hosting the national radioactive waste management facility. (b) And what, if any, benefits do you think there are for you personally?

39 36 C. Awareness Figure 28: Awareness that site is under consideration by group Hale Fully aware Partly aware Not aware / Refused General population 77% 9% 1 Neighbour 100% Indigenous 2 15% 6 Business 78% 8% 1 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Q9. Did you know that [COMMUNITY] has been under active consideration as a possible location for the national radioactive waste management facility from 28 nominated sites in Australia? Figure 29: Awareness of actual nominated site and consultation period by group Hale 100% 90% 80% 3 70% 60% 1 15% % 100% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 65% 67% 67% 58% 58% 9% 5 9% % 5% 5% Gen pop Neighbour Indigenous Business Gen pop Neighbour Indigenous Business Gen pop Neighbour Indigenous Business Actual nominated site Consultation period underway Public comment period ends 11/3 Fully aware Partly aware Q10. And before this interview were you aware, partly aware or not aware of the following things: (a) the actual nominated site in your area is [DESCRIPTION] (b) There has been a consultation period underway with the community around each of the shortlisted sites (c) The public comment period finishes on 11 March 2016.

40 37 D. Saliency Figure 30: How much issue matters personally by group Hale A lot A little Not at all Refused Don't know General population 6 25% 1 Neighbours 100% Indigenous 60% 29% 8% Business % 5% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Q11. [I know you have only just become aware of this, but] how much does it matter to you personally which way your community decides to go at the end of this first consultation period with the shortlisted sites? Does it matter Figure 31: Why have not yet formed an opinion General population, Hale 50% 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% % 15% 10% 1 5% 0% Don't have enough information Good arguments both ways Not really interested 7% Too far away to affect me Can't make sense of information Q13. Why have you not formed an opinion on this topic? Is it because Base: Those with no opinion (n=135)

41 38 E. General Population survey outcomes Please see Section 8 for a glossary of terms and sources used in this table and more methodological information about the Hale general population survey. For field outcome and methodological information for other surveys, please refer to the same section. Table 15: Survey outcomes General population, Hale Hale 18+ Population: 19,764 Number of Hale dwellings: 10,179 Number of available telephone numbers: 2,794 Accessible adults: 5, 425 Telephone numbers called: 2,794 Invalid numbers: 364 Valid numbers: 2,430 Fax machine, business number, no English, resides elsewhere, number disconnected Household refusals: 869 No contact made: households interviewed 668 people interviewed Callback, answering machine, no answer Household response rate: 2 Sample error +/-

42 39 F. Sample profiles Table 16: Residency Profile Hale General population Neighbours Indigenous Business 0-10km 0.0% (n=668) (n=3) (n=102) (n=100) Distance from site 11-20km 0.0% 21-30km km 0.9% 41km+ 99.0% In town 93.0% % On property <5 acres 5.7% 5.9% 4.0% Lives On property 5+ acres % 12.0% Indigenous community 0.0% % Other 0.0% 2.9% 0.0% Owns 69.8% 10.8% Housing Rents 16.9% 47. Boards 11.8% 27.5% Other 1.5% 14.7% < 11 years 30.7% 0.0% % Tenure in local area years 29.8% 66.7% % 21+years 38.5% % Refused 1.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.0% Size of household Single person household 21.0% 14.7% 2-person household person household 16.8% 52.0%

43 40 Table 17: Demographic Profile Hale General populati on Neighbours Indigenous Business (n=669) (n=3) (n=102) (n=100) Male % 52.9% 60.0% Gender Female 48.8% % Unspecified 0.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% % % 38. Age % 14.7% % Refused 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% Indigenous Yes % 100.0% 2.0% 1 8.0% % People employed by business in local area % % % % % Can't say 1.0% Tourism 9.0% Agriculture, Fishing and Forestry 3.0% Construction 9.0% Retail trade 27.0% Business industry Accommodation and food services Financial or insurance services Professional, technical and scientific services 7.0% 0.0% 5.0%

44 41 General populati on Neighbours Indigenous Business (n=669) (n=3) (n=102) (n=100) Rental, hiring or real estate Education and training Healthcare and social assistance Arts and recreation services Transport, postal or warehousing Property, administrative and support services 2.0% 5.0% 4.0% 4.0% 5.0% 1.0% Business industry (continued) Information, media or telecommunications 1.0% Wholesale trade 2.0% Manufacturing 4.0% Public administration or safety 0.0% Mining 2.0% Electricity, Gas, water and waste services Personal and other services 1.0% 9.0%

45 42 IV. Cortlinye/Pinkawillinie A. Support Figure 32: Overall support by group Cortlinye/Pinkawillinie Not opposed = 5 Gen Pop (n=184) % 5% 1 29% Not opposed = 17% Neighbours Cortlinye (n=81) 79% 1 Not opposed = 40% Neighbours Pinkawillinie (n=48) 5 10% 27% Not opposed = 57% Business (n=35) 37% 9% 9% 3 Strongly oppose Oppose Not willing Refused Undecided Not bothered Willing Support Strongly support Q11. How much does it matter to you personally which way your community decides to go at the end of this first consultation period with the shortlisted sites? Q12. Do you strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose or strongly oppose your community continuing with the process to the detailed plan stage? Q14. Would you be willing to see your community continue to the next stage of the process, or do you not mind either way?

46 43 Table 18: Overall support by neighbour household - Cortlinye/Pinkawillinie Cortlinye Classification of household Frequency % of households Not oppose 4 15% Mixed 1 Oppose 15 5 No response 6 2 Permission denied (by at least one respondent in household) 1 Pinkawillinie Classification of household Frequency % of households Not oppose 4 2 Mixed 1 Oppose 10 5 No response 2 1 Permission denied (by at least one respondent in household) 1 Total % *Note: we are unable to display the results for households where permission was denied to link their data with their household identification, as including their results in the pattern of the results in the summary table would indirectly identify the household s opinion. Q11. How much does it matter to you personally which way your community decides to go at the end of this first consultation period with the shortlisted sites? Q12. Do you strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose or strongly oppose your community continuing with the process to the detailed plan stage? Q14. Would you be willing to see your community continue to the next stage of the process, or do you not mind either way? Table 19: Support by region and major town General population, Cortlinye / Pinkawillinie (% not oppose) % not oppose Base size Region Major town Kimba region Other region around Cortlinye 19% 18 Total KIMBA Total *Note: results in grey font are based on small sample sizes and should be treated as being indicative only.

47 44 B. Benefits/concerns General population Figure 33: Top 5 personal concerns - General population, Cortlinye/Pinkawillinie 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% Q15. I would like to now ask you about any concerns or negative impacts you think there might be for you or your community from hosting the national radioactive waste management facility? (b) And what, if any, concerns or negative impacts do you think could directly affect you personally? 50% 40% 30% 47% 20% 10% 0% 18% 17% 17% 1 Community spirit Produce - quality/ reputation Produce - price/ value Farming land available 1 Property prices No concerns Figure 34: Top 5 personal benefits - General population, Cortlinye/Pinkawillinie 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 7 Q16. I would like to now ask you about any benefits you think there are for you or your community from hosting the national radioactive waste management facility. (b) And what, if any, benefits do you think there are for you personally? 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 1 Facilities investment 8% 7% 7% 5% Infrastructure investment Ongoing jobs Local economy Construction jobs No benefits

48 45 Figure 35: All perceived concerns - General population, Cortlinye/Pinkawillinie Community spirit Health and safety Farming land Produce - price Property prices Produce - quality Accident/ waste leak Intermediate level waste Road transport risk High level waste Reputation Radioactive nature of the waste People will leave the area Location too close to people Economy Long term impacts/ effect on future generations Job opportunities Negatively impact on recreation area/ pursuits Tourism Water quality Air quality General environmental concerns Ugly Traffic Government not trusted Security of the waste Soil contamination Unknown risks 1 18% 1 1 5% % % 25% 9% 20% 4 Poor communication between Govt and community Negatively impact area's natural beauty Protesters/ activists will target town Town an increased terrorism target Impact on indigenous community/ land Earthquake/ tremors Other mentions include: Poor process for consultation by government Lack of trust for the government Negative impact on agriculture/ way of life, including for future generations Health and safety Noise 1 Other 7% 10% Don't know/ need more information 47% None 47% 1 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Single greatest concern for self All concerns for self All concerns for community Q15. I would like to now ask you about any concerns or negative impacts you think there might be for you or your community from hosting the national radioactive waste management facility? (a) First, what, if any, concerns or negative impacts do you think there might be for your community? (b) And what, if any, concerns or negative impacts do you think could directly affect you personally? (c) Which of these is the single biggest concern or possible negative impact for you personally?

49 46 Figure 36: All perceived benefits - General population, Cortlinye/Pinkawillinie Upgrade local facilities Economy 7% 29% Ongoing jobs 7% 35% Community spirit Doctor/ Health 1 Upgrade infrastructure 8% 20% More people in community 8% Property prices Industry/ local business benefits Construction jobs Financial benefit Tourism 5% 3 3 Education benefits Negative comment Secure waste storage rather than hospital 7% Only landowner will benefit Awareness of area Reputation Other mentions include: Broaden employment opportunities Improve telecommunication services Improve healthcare services Other 5% Don't know/ need more info None % 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Single greatest benefit for self All benefits for self All benefits for community Q16. I would like to now ask you about any benefits you think there are for you or your community from hosting the national radioactive waste management facility. (a) First, what, if any, benefits do you think there might be for your community? (b) And what, if any, benefits do you think there are for you personally? (c) Which of these is the single biggest possible benefit for you personally?

50 Community spirit Produce - quality / reputation Farming land available Produce - price / value Reputation No concerns Community spirit Produce - quality / reputation Produce - price / value Property prices Reputation No concerns Community spirit Produce - price / value Property prices Produce - quality / reputation Economy No concerns Community spirit Farming land available Health & safety Property prices Produce - quality / reputation No concerns 47 Other groups Figure 37: Top 5 community concerns by group - Cortlinye/Pinkawillinie 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% % 79% 78% 30% % 48% 20% 4 10% 0% 25% % 1 5% 29% 29% General population Neighbours - Cortlinye Neighbours - Pinkawillinie Business Q15. I would like to now ask you about any concerns or negative impacts you think there might be for you or your community from hosting the national radioactive waste management facility? (a) First, what, if any, concerns or negative impacts do you think there might be for your community?

51 Community spirit Produce - quality / reputation Produce - price / value Farming land available Property prices No concerns Produce - quality / reputation Produce - price / value Health & safety Community spirit Property prices No concerns Property prices Farming land available Produce - price / value Community spirit Produce - quality / reputation No concerns Farming land available Produce - price / value Produce - quality / reputation Property prices Economy No concerns 48 Figure 38: Top 5 personal concerns by group - Cortlinye/Pinkawillinie 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 77% % 70% 30% 20% 10% 0% 18% 17% 17% % 10% % 50% 50% General population Neighbours - Cortlinye Neighbours - Pinkawillinie Business Q15. I would like to now ask you about any concerns or negative impacts you think there might be for you or your community from hosting the national radioactive waste management facility? (b) And what, if any, concerns or negative impacts do you think could directly affect you personally?

52 Ongoing jobs Financial benefit Construction jobs Economy Facilities investment No benefits Construction jobs Facilities investment Ongoing jobs Infrastructure investment Economy No benefits Facilities investment Ongoing jobs Infrastructure investment Economy Construction jobs No benefits Construction jobs Economy Ongoing jobs Infrastructure investment Facilities investment No benefits 49 Figure 39: Top 5 community benefits by group - Cortlinye/Pinkawillinie 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 78% 30% 20% 10% 35% % % 35% 29% 27% % % 3 0% General population Neighbours - Cortlinye Neighbours - Pinkawillinie Business Q16. I would like to now ask you about any benefits you think there are for you or your community from hosting the national radioactive waste management facility. (a) First, what, if any, benefits do you think there might be for your community?

53 Facilities investment Infrastructure investment Ongoing jobs Economy Construction jobs No benefits Economy Facilities investment Community spirit Infrastructure investment Tourism No benefits Facilities investment Infrastructure investment Health benefits (e.g. Dr) Economy Construction jobs No benefits Economy Ongoing jobs More people in the town Construction jobs Facilities investment No benefits 50 Figure 40: Top 5 personal benefits by group - Cortlinye/Pinkawillinie 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 7 85% 65% 5 20% 10% 2 19% 15% 1 2 0% 1 8% 7% 7% 5% 10% 7% 5% 8% 1 1 9% 9% General population Neighbours - Cortlinye Neighbours - Pinkawillinie Business Q16. I would like to now ask you about any benefits you think there are for you or your community from hosting the national radioactive waste management facility. (b) And what, if any, benefits do you think there are for you personally?

54 51 C. Awareness Figure 41: Awareness that site is under consideration by group Cortlinye/Pinkawillinie Fully aware Partly aware Not aware / Refused General population 97% Neighbour - Cortlinye 99% Neighbour - Pinkawillinie 100% Business 97% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Q9. Did you know that [COMMUNITY] has been under active consideration as a possible location for the national radioactive waste management facility from 28 nominated sites in Australia? Figure 42: Awareness of actual nominated site and consultation period by group Cortlinye/Pinkawillinie 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 95% 100% 98% % 100% % 80% 80% 30% 20% 10% 0% Gen pop Neighbour - C Neighbour - P Business Gen pop Neighbour - C Neighbour - P Business Gen pop Neighbour - C Neighbour - P Actual nominated site Consultation period underway Public comment period ends 11/3 Business Fully aware Partly aware Q10. And before this interview were you aware, partly aware or not aware of the following things: (a) the actual nominated site in your area is [DESCRIPTION] (b) There has been a consultation period underway with the community around each of the shortlisted sites (c) The public comment period finishes on 11 March 2016.

55 52 D. Saliency Figure 43: How much issue matters personally by group Cortlinye/Pinkawillinie A lot A little Not at all Refused Don't know General population 77% 1 Neighbours - Pinkawillinie 90% 10% Neighbours - Cortlinye 98% Business 7 20% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Q11. [I know you have only just become aware of this, but] how much does it matter to you personally which way your community decides to go at the end of this first consultation period with the shortlisted sites? Does it matter Figure 44: Why have not yet formed an opinion General population, Cortlinye/Pinkawillinie 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 6 50% 40% 30% 20% % 15% 0% Good arguments both ways Don't have enough information Not really interested Can't make sense of information Too far away to affect me Q13. Why have you not formed an opinion on this topic? Is it because Base: Those with no opinion (n=17)

56 53 E. General Population survey outcomes Please see Section 8 for a glossary of terms and sources used in this table and more methodological information about the Cortlinye/Pinkawillinie general population survey. For field outcome and methodological information for other surveys, please refer to the same section. Table 20: Survey outcomes General population, Cortlinye/Pinkawillinie Cortlinye / Pinkawillinie 18+ Population: 883 Number of Cortlinye / Pinkawillinie dwellings: 327 Number of available telephone numbers: 226 Accessible adults: 610 Telephone numbers called: 226 Invalid numbers: 30 Valid numbers: 196 Fax machine, business number, no English, resides elsewhere, number disconnected Household refusals: 48 No contact made: households interviewed 184 people interviewed Callback, answering machine, no answer Household response rate: 59% Sample error +/-7%

57 54 F. Sample profiles Table 21: Residency Profile Cortlinye/Pinkawillinie General population Neighbours (Cortlinye) Neighbours (Pinkawillinie) Business 0-10km 2. (n=184) (n=3) (n=3) (n=35) Distance from site 11-20km 2.7% 21-30km km 8.8% 41km+ 15.5% In town 61.7% 60.0% Lives On property <5 acres % On property 5+ acres % Other 0.0% 0.0% Owns 88.7% Housing Rents 8. Boards 1.0% Other 2. < 11 years 7.0% 9.9% % Tenure in local area years 15.9% % years % 68.9% 80.0% Refused 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Size of household Single person household person household person household 7.7%

58 55 Table 22: Demographic Profile Cortlinye/Pinkawillinie General population Neighbours (Cortlinye) Neighbours (Pinkawillinie ) Business (n=184) (n=) (n=) (n=35) Male % Gender Female 48.9% % 57. Unspecified 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% % 24.7% 22.9% Age % % 14. Refused 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Indigenous Yes % 0.0% 0.0% 1 5.7% % People employed by business in local area % % % % Can't say 2.9% Tourism 0.0% Agriculture, Fishing and Forestry 45.7% Construction 0.0% Retail trade 14. Business industry Accommodation and food services Financial or insurance services Professional, technical and scientific services 2.9% 2.9% 0.0%

59 56 General population Neighbours (Cortlinye) Neighbours (Pinkawillinie ) Business Rental, hiring or real estate Education and training Healthcare and social assistance Arts and recreation services Transport, postal or warehousing Property, administrative and support services 0.0% % 2.9% 5.7% 0.0% Business industry (continued) Information, media or telecommunications 0.0% Wholesale trade 2.9% Manufacturing 0.0% Public administration or safety 0.0% Mining 0.0% Electricity, Gas, water and waste services Personal and other services 0.0% 8.

60 57 V. Barndioota A. Support Figure 45: Overall support by group Barndioota Not opposed = 65% Gen Pop (n=146) 29% 8% 20% 30% 0. Not opposed = 35% Neighbours (n=17) 59% 1 2 Not opposed = Indigenous (n=77) 9 Not opposed = 9 Business (n=28) 7% 18% 18% 50% Strongly oppose Oppose Not willing Refused Undecided Not bothered Willing Support Strongly support Q11. How much does it matter to you personally which way your community decides to go at the end of this first consultation period with the shortlisted sites? Q12. Do you strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose or strongly oppose your community continuing with the process to the detailed plan stage? Q14. Would you be willing to see your community continue to the next stage of the process, or do you not mind either way? Table 23: Overall support by neighbour household Barndioota Barndioota Classification of household Frequency % of households Not oppose 3 27% Mixed 0 0% Oppose 4 3 No response 4 3 Permission denied (by at least one respondent in household) 0 0% Total % *Note: we are unable to display the results for households where permission was denied to link their data with their household identification, as including their results in the pattern of the results in the summary table would indirectly identify the household s opinion. Q11. How much does it matter to you personally which way your community decides to go at the end of this first consultation period with the shortlisted sites? Q12. Do you strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose or strongly oppose your community continuing with the process to the detailed plan stage? Q14. Would you be willing to see your community continue to the next stage of the process, or do you not mind either way?

61 58 Table 24: Support by distance, region and major town General population, Barndioota (% not oppose) % not oppose Base size Region Hawker region (north east of site) 8 38 Quorn region (south of site) 57% 106 Other region around Barndioota 100% 2 Total 65% 146 Major town Hawker 8 37 Quorn 6 97 Total 69% 134 *Note: results in grey font are based on small sample sizes and should be treated as being indicative only.

62 59 B. Benefits/concerns General population Figure 46: Top 5 personal concerns - General population, Barndioota 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 7% Tourism Property prices Health & safety Water quality Reputation 59% No concerns Q15. I would like to now ask you about any concerns or negative impacts you think there might be for you or your community from hosting the national radioactive waste management facility? (b) And what, if any, concerns or negative impacts do you think could directly affect you personally? Figure 47: Top 5 personal benefits - General population, Barndioota 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 9% 8% Construction jobs Jobs (ongoing) Infrastructure investment Business opportunities Local economy 7 No benefits Q16. I would like to now ask you about any benefits you think there are for you or your community from hosting the national radioactive waste management facility. (b) And what, if any, benefits do you think there are for you personally?

63 60 Figure 48: All perceived concerns - General population, Barndioota Tourism Property prices Health and safety Water quality Accident/ waste leak Road transport risk High level waste Ugly Farming land Produce - quality Long term impacts/ effect on future generations Location too close to people People will leave the area Negatively impact on recreation area/ pursuits Economy Impact on indigenous community/ land Community spirit Reputation Earthquake/ tremors Intermediate level waste Traffic General environmental concerns Air quality Security of the waste Negatively impact area's natural beauty Job opportunities Protesters/ activists will target town Poor communication between Govt and community Government not trusted Soil contamination Town an increased terrorism target Radioactive nature of the waste Unknown risks Noise 7% 5% 5% 7% 8% 5% % Other mentions include: Earthquake concerns Concerns about natural beauty Produce - price Other 5% Don't know/ need more information None 59% 59% 3 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Single greatest concern for self All concerns for self All concerns for community Q15. I would like to now ask you about any concerns or negative impacts you think there might be for you or your community from hosting the national radioactive waste management facility? (a) First, what, if any, concerns or negative impacts do you think there might be for your community? (b) And what, if any, concerns or negative impacts do you think could directly affect you personally? (c) Which of these is the single biggest concern or possible negative impact for you personally?

64 61 Figure 49: All perceived benefits - General population, Barndioota Construction jobs Ongoing jobs Industry/ local business benefits Tourism Upgrade local facilities Community spirit Economy Upgrade infrastructure Property prices 9% 8% 15% % 45% Secure waste storage rather than hospital Financial benefit 2 More people in community Negative comment Awareness of area Education benefits Doctor/ Health Only landowner will benefit Other mentions include: Infrastructure created Financial boost for residents and businesses Reputation Other Don't know/ need more info None % 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Single greatest benefit for self All benefits for self All benefits for community Q16. I would like to now ask you about any benefits you think there are for you or your community from hosting the national radioactive waste management facility. (a) First, what, if any, benefits do you think there might be for your community? (b) And what, if any, benefits do you think there are for you personally? (c) Which of these is the single biggest possible benefit for you personally?

65 Health & safety Water quality Tourism Earthquake concerns Community spirit No concerns Tourism Produce - quality / reputation Water quality Health & safety Produce - price / value No concerns Water quality Health & safety Air quality Farming land available High level / overseas waste No concerns Tourism Health & safety Earthquake concerns Water quality Accident / waste spilling No concerns 62 Other groups Figure 50: Top 5 community concerns by group Barndioota 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 87% 8 30% 59% 5 60% 5 20% 10% 0% 1 15% 1 8% 7% % 29% 39% 25% 18% 7% 39% General population Neighbours Indigenous Business Q15. I would like to now ask you about any concerns or negative impacts you think there might be for you or your community from hosting the national radioactive waste management facility? (a) First, what, if any, concerns or negative impacts do you think there might be for your community?

66 Tourism Property prices Health & safety Water quality Reputation No concerns Produce - quality / reputation Tourism Health & safety Water quality Produce - price / value No concerns Water quality Health & safety Air quality Farming land available High level / overseas waste No concerns Tourism Health & safety Accident / waste spilling Air quality No concerns 63 Figure 51: Top 5 personal concerns by group Barndioota 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% % 20% 59% % 35% 29% 5 55% 40% 6 10% 25% 0% 7% 5% 7% General population Neighbours Indigenous Business Q15. I would like to now ask you about any concerns or negative impacts you think there might be for you or your community from hosting the national radioactive waste management facility? (b) And what, if any, concerns or negative impacts do you think could directly affect you personally?

67 Ongoing jobs Construction jobs Financial benefit Facilities investment Infrastructure investment No benefits Economy Infrastructure investment Facilities investment Construction jobs Tourism No benefits Construction jobs Ongoing jobs Economy Facilities investment Community spirit No benefits Ongoing jobs Construction jobs Economy Infrastructure investment More people in the town No benefits 64 Figure 52: Top 5 community benefits by group Barndioota 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 9 40% 30% 65% 68% 20% 10% 0% 45% 38% 2 15% % 29% 18% 1 50% General population Neighbours Indigenous Business Q16. I would like to now ask you about any benefits you think there are for you or your community from hosting the national radioactive waste management facility. (a) First, what, if any, benefits do you think there might be for your community?

68 Construction jobs Ongoing jobs Infrastructure investment Business opportunities Economy No benefits Economy Facilities investment Infrastructure investment Community spirit Tourism No benefits Construction jobs Ongoing jobs Tourism Facilities investment Infrastructure investment No benefits Economy Ongoing jobs More people in the town Construction jobs Business opportunities No benefits 65 Figure 53: Top 5 personal benefits by group Barndioota 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 9 40% % 20% 3 39% 10% 0% 9% 8% 18% 18% 18% 1 18% 18% 1 1 General population Neighbours Indigenous Business Q16. I would like to now ask you about any benefits you think there are for you or your community from hosting the national radioactive waste management facility. (b) And what, if any, benefits do you think there are for you personally?

69 66 C. Awareness Figure 54: Awareness that site is under consideration by group Barndioota Fully aware Partly aware Not aware / Refused General population 90% 7% Neighbour 100% Indigenous 78% 9% 1 Business 89% 7% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Q9. Did you know that [COMMUNITY] has been under active consideration as a possible location for the national radioactive waste management facility from 28 nominated sites in Australia? Figure 55: Awareness of actual nominated site and consultation period by group Barndioota 100% 90% 80% 7% 2 70% 60% 10% 7% 50% 100% 100% 40% 30% 20% 8 77% % 55% 7 47% 6 10% 0% Gen pop Neighbour Indigenous Business Gen pop Neighbour Indigenous Business Gen pop Neighbour Indigenous Business Actual nominated site Consultation period underway Public comment period ends 11/3 Fully aware Partly aware Q10. And before this interview were you aware, partly aware or not aware of the following things: (a) the actual nominated site in your area is [DESCRIPTION] (b) There has been a consultation period underway with the community around each of the shortlisted sites (c) The public comment period finishes on 11 March 2016.

70 67 D. Saliency Figure 56: How much issue matters personally by group Barndioota A lot A little Not at all Refused Don't know General population 70% 18% 10% Neighbours 8 1 Indigenous 9 Business % 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Q11. [I know you have only just become aware of this, but] how much does it matter to you personally which way your community decides to go at the end of this first consultation period with the shortlisted sites? Does it matter Figure 57: Why have not yet formed an opinion General population, Barndioota 50% 45% 40% 4 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 18% 10% 1 5% 0% Good arguments both ways Don't have enough information Not really interested Too far away to affect me Can't make sense of information Q13. Why have you not formed an opinion on this topic? Is it because Base: Those with no opinion (n=23)

71 68 E. General Population survey outcomes Please see Section 8 for a glossary of terms and sources used in this table and more methodological information about the Barndioota general population survey. For field outcome and methodological information for other surveys, please refer to the same section. Table 25: Survey outcomes General population, Barndioota Barndioota 18+ Population: 1,331 Number of Barnioota dwellings: 727 Number of available telephone numbers: 266 Accessible adults: 487 Telephone numbers called: 266 Invalid numbers: 38 Valid numbers: 228 Fax machine, business number, no English, resides elsewhere, number disconnected Household refusals: 59 No contact made: households interviewed 146 people interviewed Callback, answering machine, no answer Household response rate: 50% Sample error +/-10%

72 69 F. Sample profiles Table 26: Residency Profile Barndioota General population Neighbours Indigenous Business 0-10km 0.0% (n=146) (n=17) (n=77) (n=28) Distance from site 11-20km 0.0% 21-30km km km+ 72.5% In town 75.8% On property <5 acres 5.5% 5.9% 28. Lives On property 5+ acres 18.7% 4.9% 7. Indigenous community 0.0% % Other 0.0% 2.9% 0.0% Owns 80.0% 9. Housing Rents % Boards 2.0% 18. Other % < 11 years % 11.7% 21. Tenure in local area years 21.7% % 35.7% 21+years % 67.5% 35.7% Refused 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 7. Size of household Single person household % 2-person household % 3+ person household 8.7% 45.5%

73 70 Table 27: Demographic Profile Barndioota General population Neighbours Indigenous Business (n=146) (n=17) (n=77) (n=28) Male % Gender Female 49.9% 52.9% Unspecified 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% % % 11.8% 27. Age % 58.8% 24.7% % 5. Refused % 0.0% Indigenous Yes % 100.0% 0.0% % People employed by business in local area % % % Can't say 0.0% Tourism 7. Agriculture, Fishing and Forestry 25.0% Construction 10.7% Retail trade 21. Business industry Accommodation and food services Financial or insurance services Professional, technical and scientific services 10.7% 0.0% 3.

74 71 General population Neighbours Indigenous Business (n=146) (n=17) (n=77) (n=28) Rental, hiring or real estate Education and training Healthcare and social assistance Arts and recreation services Transport, postal or warehousing Property, administrative and support services 0.0% % % Business industry (continued) Information, media or telecommunications 0.0% Wholesale trade 0.0% Manufacturing 0.0% Public administration or safety 0.0% Mining 3. Electricity, Gas, water and waste services Personal and other services 0.0% 7.

75 72 VI. Oman Ama A. Support Figure 58: Overall support by group Oman Ama 0. Not opposed = 50% Gen Pop (n=242) 4 9% 7% 15% 1 Not opposed = 40% Neighbours (n=25) 5 1 8% 8% 1 Not opposed = 69% Business (n=39) 2 5% 3 18% 15% Strongly oppose Oppose Not willing Refused Undecided Not bothered Willing Support Strongly support Q11. How much does it matter to you personally which way your community decides to go at the end of this first consultation period with the shortlisted sites? Q12. Do you strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose or strongly oppose your community continuing with the process to the detailed plan stage? Q14. Would you be willing to see your community continue to the next stage of the process, or do you not mind either way? Table 28: Overall support by neighbour household - Oman Ama Oman Ama Classification of household Frequency % of households Not oppose 8 30% Mixed 1 Oppose 8 30% No response 9 3 Permission denied (by at least one respondent in household) 1 Total % *Note: we are unable to display the results for households where permission was denied to link their data with their household identification, as including their results in the pattern of the results in the summary table would indirectly identify the household s opinion. Q11. How much does it matter to you personally which way your community decides to go at the end of this first consultation period with the shortlisted sites? Q12. Do you strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose or strongly oppose your community continuing with the process to the detailed plan stage? Q14. Would you be willing to see your community continue to the next stage of the process, or do you not mind either way?

76 73 Table 29: Support by distance, region and major town General population, Oman Ama (% not oppose) % not oppose Base size Region Inglewood region (west of site) 45% 127 Leyburn region (northeast of site) 48% 24 Millmerran Woods region (north of site) 5 49 Goldfields region (east of site) 6 30 Other region around Oman Ama 48% 12 Total 50% 242 Major town Inglewood 38% 112 Milmerran Woods 57% 39 Total *Note: results in grey font are based on small sample sizes and should be treated as being indicative only.

77 74 B. Benefits/concerns General population Figure 59: Top 5 personal concerns - General population, Oman Ama 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% Q15. I would like to now ask you about any concerns or negative impacts you think there might be for you or your community from hosting the national radioactive waste management facility? (b) And what, if any, concerns or negative impacts do you think could directly affect you personally? 50% 40% 30% 37% 20% 10% 0% 2 2 Health & safety Property prices 1 1 Water quality Community Reputation spirit / cohesion No concerns Figure 60: Top 5 personal benefits - General population, Oman Ama 100% 90% 80% 70% 88% Q16. I would like to now ask you about any benefits you think there are for you or your community from hosting the national radioactive waste management facility. (b) And what, if any, benefits do you think there are for you personally? 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Local economy Jobs (ongoing) Construction jobs Facilities investment/ upgrade Community spirit / cohesion No benefits

78 75 Figure 61: All perceived concerns - General population, Oman Ama Health and safety Property prices Water quality Community spirit Road transport risk Long term impacts/ effect on future generations Accident/ waste leak Negatively impact on recreation area/ pursuits 1 8% 1 17% 1 17% 5% 5% 9% Reputation Farming land Job opportunities Produce - quality Economy Produce - price People will leave the area Tourism Air quality Intermediate level waste General environmental concerns High level waste Traffic Location too close to people Town an increased terrorism target 10% Earthquake/ tremors Ugly Unknown risks Soil contamination Government not trusted Protesters/ activists will target town Radioactive nature of the waste Negatively impact area's natural beauty Poor communication between Govt and community Security of the waste Impact on indigenous community/ land Other mentions include: Risk of waste leaking/ accident, particularly for water contamination Noise 9% Other 8% Don't know/ need more information 38% None 37% 1 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Single greatest concern for self All concerns for self All concerns for community Q15. I would like to now ask you about any concerns or negative impacts you think there might be for you or your community from hosting the national radioactive waste management facility? (a) First, what, if any, concerns or negative impacts do you think there might be for your community? (b) And what, if any, concerns or negative impacts do you think could directly affect you personally? (c) Which of these is the single biggest concern or possible negative impact for you personally?

79 76 Figure 62: All perceived benefits - General population, Oman Ama Ongoing jobs Economy Doctor/ Health 10% 29% Community spirit Upgrade local facilities Property prices 8% Financial benefit 17% Upgrade infrastructure Awareness of area 7% Construction jobs Industry/ local business benefits More people in community Reputation 2 Tourism Negative comment Only landowner will benefit Secure waste storage rather than hospital Education benefits Other Don't know/ need more info None 5% Other mentions include: Improve telecommunications services Improve work opportunities in the town 4 88% 88% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Single greatest benefit for self All benefits for self All benefits for community Q16. I would like to now ask you about any benefits you think there are for you or your community from hosting the national radioactive waste management facility. (a) First, what, if any, benefits do you think there might be for your community? (b) And what, if any, benefits do you think there are for you personally? (c) Which of these is the single biggest possible benefit for you personally?

80 Property prices Water quality Health & safety Community spirit Reputation No concerns Property prices Community spirit Health & safety Reputation Economy No concerns Property prices Water quality Community spirit Tourism Health & safety No concerns 77 Other groups Figure 63: Top 5 community concerns by group - Oman Ama 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% % 10% % 40% 40% 28% 3 15% 15% 1 10% 3 General population Neighbours Business Q15. I would like to now ask you about any concerns or negative impacts you think there might be for you or your community from hosting the national radioactive waste management facility? (a) First, what, if any, concerns or negative impacts do you think there might be for your community?

81 Health & safety Property prices Water quality Community spirit Reputation No concerns Property prices Reputation Community spirit Economy Health & safety No concerns Property prices Economy Tourism Health & safety Water quality No concerns 78 Figure 64: Top 5 personal concerns by group - Oman Ama 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% % 10% 0% % % % 8% 8% 8% General population Neighbours Business Q15. I would like to now ask you about any concerns or negative impacts you think there might be for you or your community from hosting the national radioactive waste management facility? (b) And what, if any, concerns or negative impacts do you think could directly affect you personally?

82 Ongoing jobs Construction jobs Financial benefit Economy Facilities investment No benefits Construction jobs Ongoing jobs Infrastructure investment Economy Facilities investment No benefits Ongoing jobs Construction jobs Economy Infrastructure investment Facilities investment No benefits 79 Figure 65: Top 5 community benefits by group - Oman Ama 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 60% 20% 10% 0% 29% 2 17% 10% 8% 4 28% 28% 20% 20% 20% 3 28% 2 15% 15% 4 General population Neighbours Business Q16. I would like to now ask you about any benefits you think there are for you or your community from hosting the national radioactive waste management facility. (a) First, what, if any, benefits do you think there might be for your community?

83 Economy Ongoing jobs Construction jobs Facilities investment Community spirit No benefits Infrastructure investment Facilities investment Community spirit Construction jobs Ongoing jobs No benefits Construction jobs Ongoing jobs Economy Infrastructure investment More people in the town No benefits 80 Figure 66: Top 5 personal benefits by group - Oman Ama 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 88% 80% 69% 20% 10% 0% % 10% 8% 8% 5% General population Neighbours Business Q16. I would like to now ask you about any benefits you think there are for you or your community from hosting the national radioactive waste management facility. (b) And what, if any, benefits do you think there are for you personally?

84 81 C. Awareness Figure 67: Awareness that site is under consideration by group Oman Ama Fully aware Partly aware Not aware / Refused General population 9 Neighbour 9 Business 100% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Q9. Did you know that [COMMUNITY] has been under active consideration as a possible location for the national radioactive waste management facility from 28 nominated sites in Australia? Figure 68: Awareness of actual nominated site and consultation period by group Oman Ama 100% 90% 80% 5% 70% 60% 50% 40% % 80% % 20% 47% 59% 10% 0% Gen pop Neighbour Business Gen pop Neighbour Business Gen pop Neighbour Business Actual nominated site Consultation period underway Public comment period ends 11/3 Fully aware Partly aware Q10. And before this interview were you aware, partly aware or not aware of the following things: (a) the actual nominated site in your area is [DESCRIPTION] (b) There has been a consultation period underway with the community around each of the shortlisted sites (c) The public comment period finishes on 11 March 2016.

85 82 D. Saliency Figure 69: How much issue matters personally by group Oman Ama A lot A little Not at all Refused Don't know General population Neighbours 68% 8% 2 Business 4 15% 3 10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Q11. [I know you have only just become aware of this, but] how much does it matter to you personally which way your community decides to go at the end of this first consultation period with the shortlisted sites? Does it matter Figure 70: Why have not yet formed an opinion General population, Oman Ama 50% 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 2 20% 10% 5% 1 1 8% 0% Don't have enough information Too far away to affect me Not really interested Good arguments both ways Can't make sense of information Q13. Why have you not formed an opinion on this topic? Is it because Base: Those with no opinion (n=45)

86 83 E. General Population survey outcomes Please see Section 8 for a glossary of terms and sources used in this table and more methodological information about the Oman Ama general population survey. For field outcome and methodological information for other surveys, please refer to the same section. Table 30: Survey outcomes General population, Oman Ama Oman Ama 18+ Population: 2,845 Number of Oman Ama dwellings: 1,422 Number of available telephone numbers: 447 Accessible adults: 894 Telephone numbers called: 447 Invalid numbers: 65 Valid numbers: 382 Fax machine, business number, no English, resides elsewhere, number disconnected Household refusals: 136 No contact made: households interviewed 242 people interviewed Callback, answering machine, no answer Household response rate: 47 % Sample error +/-7%

87 84 F. Sample profiles Table 31: Residency Profile Oman Ama General population Neighbours Business 0-10km km 6.8% (n=242) (n=25) (n=39) Distance from site 21-30km km 11.0% 41km+ 34.5% In town % Lives On property <5 acres On property 5+ acres Owns 81.7% Housing Rents 9. Boards 3.8% Other 4.8% < 11 years % 17.9% Tenure in local area years 22.7% 16.0% 20.5% 21+years % 61.5% Refused 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Single person household 15. Size of household 2-person household person household 10.

88 85 Table 32: Demographic Profile Oman Ama General population Neighbours Business (n=241) (n=25) (n=39) Male % 51. Gender Female % 48.7% Unspecified 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% % % Age % 44.0% % Refused 0.0% 0.0% Indigenous Yes 4.8% 0.0% 0.0% % People employed by business in local area % % % Can't say 0.0% Tourism 7.7% Agriculture, Fishing and Forestry 28. Construction 2. Business industry Retail trade 12.8% Accommodation and food services Financial or insurance services Professional, technical and scientific services 12.8% 0.0% 0.0%

89 86 General population Neighbours Business (n=241) (n=25) (n=39) Rental, hiring or real estate 2. Education and training 7.7% Healthcare and social assistance Arts and recreation services Transport, postal or warehousing Property, administrative and support services % 0.0% Business industry (continued) Information, media or telecommunications 0.0% Wholesale trade 0.0% Manufacturing 5. Public administration or safety 0.0% Mining 0.0% Electricity, Gas, water and waste services Personal and other services 0.0% 7.7%

90 87 VII. Methodology A. Overview The Minister for Resources, Energy and Northern Australia is considering a list of potential sites for the National Radioactive Waste Management Facility (NRWMF) and on 13 November 2015 announced the sites shortlisted for further assessment. Six sites in five communities have been part of a consultation process through to March Community sentiment surveys will be one consideration in identifying which of the six sites will continue with the consultation process. Six sites in five communities Sallys Flat is 16.5 km to the east of the historic gold mining village Hill End (population 484) in the Central West region of NSW. The postcode of 2850, of which Sallys Flat is part, contains numerous small villages (total population 14,478), and Sallys Flat is included in the Bathurst Regional Council which has a population of 38,521, a population density of 0.10 persons per hectare, and which covers 3,820km2. The nearest towns of significant size and potential service centres for a facility at Sallys Flat are Bathurst (64km to the south, population 33,110) and Kandos (population 1,284), 41km to the east. The wider Bathurst District area has a fractionally higher than average proportion of Indigenous people (approximately ). The Hugh district of the Northern Territory, of which Hale is part, has a population of just under 1,000 8 of which is Indigenous. 140km southeast of Alice Springs (population 36,000, 3 Indigenous), the remote community of Hale is relatively close (60km) to Ltyentye Apurte, also known as Santa Teresa, an Arrernte Indigenous community (population 555). Also relatively nearby is Titjikala, an Aboriginal community with a population of 201 (although there is no direct road between the two communities and access is via Alice Springs). Hale is near the Todd River, which occasionally flows through Alice Springs. Cortlinye and Pinkawillinie are both located in the District Council of Kimba within the Eyre and Western Regions of South Australia, and share the same postcode (5641). The total population of the District Council of Kimba was 1,125 in 2009, in a total land area of 3,986 km 2. The nearest town is Kimba (population 670), which is 45km to the southeast of Pinkawillinie and 17.5km southeast of Cortlinye. The Indigenous population in the immediate region is small Barndioota is located in Flinders Ranges Council of South Australia (postcode 5434). Barndioota is closest to Hawker (area population 492, of which 10% Indigenous), with Quorn (population 1,068, 1 Indigenous) around 70km to the south and Port Augusta (population 13,500, 19% Indigenous) around 100km south. Oman Ama is located in the region of Darling Downs, Queensland (postal code 4352). In the 2006 Census the population of Oman Ama included 133 people and in the wider Coolmunda area, 290 people. It is located approximately midway between Goondiwindi 114km to the west (population 5,629) and Warwick 86 km to the east (population 12,357) on the Cunningham Highway, and is also close to the community of Inglewood (population 1,069, 23km to the west). Inglewood has a higher than average Aboriginal population (7% - about double the state average).

91 88 The community sentiment surveys Four separate surveys were conducted in order to gauge community sentiment in these five communities: (1) A general population survey (2) A near neighbours survey (3) A separate survey of Indigenous people in two communities where Indigenous people represent a relatively large proportion of the population (4) A survey of businesses The general population survey was a random survey of the adult (18+) population within a designated area around the proposed site. People were interviewed by telephone (computer assisted telephone interviewing) following a rigorous random sampling procedure. The results of the random general population survey were used to determine community sentiment, and were supported by three other supplementary surveys of special populations. The first of these supplementary surveys was the near neighbours survey. Near neighbours were defined as those owning, residing on, or using properties that adjoin the actual proposed site for the NRWMF. The near neighbours survey involved an attempted census of all such properties, but a non-probability method of recruiting and interviewing individuals was undertaken on each property. Non-probability surveys use non-random sampling methods to obtain an approximate representation of the population of interest. They are generally employed where there is a lack of sample frame from which to randomly sample, as in the case of neighbours as defined above. The near neighbours survey was conducted using a combination of on-site face-to-face and telephone interviews. The second of the supplementary surveys was the Indigenous survey. Although people describing themselves as being of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander origin were surveyed through the random general population survey, it was recognised at the design stage that Indigenous peoples are often poorly represented through random telephone surveys. The Indigenous surveys were conducted by ORIMA s specialist Indigenous field force using an in-person non-probability intercept method in two communities with disproportionately large Indigenous populations Hale (NT) and Barndioota (SA). The third of the supplementary surveys was the business survey. Local business telephone numbers were sourced from the Yellow Pages and True Local searches, and then manually filtered to exclude businesses located outside of a designated radius of the proposed site. Business owner/managers were surveyed by telephone using computer-assisted telephone interviewing (CATI). It is important to reemphasise that due to sample frame and logistical restrictions, all three supplementary surveys used non-probability sampling methods. The results from these surveys should therefore be considered indicative only. They provide important contextual information from special populations to support the statistically representative general population survey results.

92 89 Area definitions One of the overarching considerations for the surveys was the definition of the geographic areas to be included for each community. Considerable time and effort was spent to define the areas in ways that were meaningful to the local communities and that also followed several clear principles. The principles applied were: 1. To start with a localised 360 region around each site (a default radius of 50km was used, and only adapted where necessary to conform to principles 2 through 4). 2. To include or exclude population centres in the surrounding area in accordance with the views of the immediate communities as provided to the Department of Industry, Innovation and Science in the initial stages of the consultation period. 3. To include the towns or cities which would be primary service centres that would support any facility. 4. To include the remaining areas of any local government area which was predominantly in the circular 50km target area. Final areas were defined using a combination of distance from the site to generate a starting circular region, and then where necessary local government boundaries were used to apply principle 4 and Australian Bureau of Statistics Statistical Area Level 2 (SA2) boundaries were used were used to apply principle 3. The areas were then mapped by Geoscience Australia and exported as images (see below) and as.shp files which were used for the extraction of within-scope sample for the main community survey. Barndioota (SA) Used the base 50km radius, expanded to include the remainder of the primary local government area.

93 90 Hale (NT) Expanded the base radius out to the primary service centre (Alice Springs) and then used SA2s to include all of that service centre. Cortlinye / Pinkawillinie (SA) Used the overlapping 50km radius around the two nearby sites, plus including the small additional section of the primary local government area included inside the main area. Oman Oma (Qld) Used a simple 50km radius around the site.

94 91 Sallys Flat (NSW) Used a 40km radius to reach the primary service centre (Bathurst), and used SA2s to include all of Bathurst and all of Mudgee as the secondary potential service centre for the site (including the main transport route to Mudgee).