Residents opposed to building a radioactive waste facility on South Australian agricultural land say the government's site selection process has been divisive and lacks transparency.
But others in the community say the process has been fair and thorough and the resistance is unfounded.
The Senate's Economics Reference Committee on Thursday held a public hearing at Kimba, on the Eyre Peninsula, and will on Friday hold another at Hawker, in SA's Flinders Ranges.
Both have been earmarked as possible sites for the federal government's National Radioactive Waste Management Project, which will initially store low and medium-level waste before a second centre is opened for medium-level material.
The Senate inquiry is focusing on the site selection process with the No Radioactive Waste on Agricultural Land in Kimba or SA group, made up of 240 members, believing it was mishandled by the government.
"The department ... has shown many inconsistencies throughout the consultation process over the past two years," the group's submission to the committee states.
It group says the government provided "vague and inconsistent" answers about how many jobs will be required to run the facility and how much money a community would receive to host it.
It goes on to say the state's image as "clean, green" and "our country's food bowl" should be protected and the facility should not be built in an area with potential for agricultural use.
But Andrew Baldock, a fourth-generation farmer in the district, said people in Kimba were largely supportive of the plan.
He said an Australian Electoral Commission vote taken in the local electorate in 2017 returned a clear majority 57.4 per cent in favour of the town moving to the consultation stage.
"I believe that broad community support has been displayed throughout the process," he said in his submission to the committee.
Mr Baldock, who has nominated a parcel of his own land as a potential site, said the compensation rate of four times the market value was "very fair and equitable".
He said anti-nuclear groups speaking out against the plan had "no accountability for their claims".
"No matter how well-consulted, how robust the science is or how clear the consent from the local community is, the well-established anti-nuclear movement will attack the process from another angle," he said.
