Return
to contents
RADIOACTIVE RACISM IN AUSTRALIA
Jim Green <jim.green@foe.org.au>
ph 0417 318368
Friends of the Earth, Australia
February 2006
1. Introduction
Chain Reaction article
2. British nuclear
tests in Australia
3. Defeated plan for
a nuclear waste dump in South Australia
4. Current proposal for a nuclear waste
dump in the Northern Territory
5. Uranium mining
5.1 Introduction
5.2 Jabiluka &
Ranger
5.3 Beverley
5.4 Roxby Downs
6. Alliance Against Uranium
7. Further comments, quotes &
articles
======================================
Acronyms
ALRM - Aboriginal Legal Rights Movement
ANSTO - Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation
ARPANSA - Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency
CRWMB/A - Commonwealth Radioactive Waste Management Bill/Act
DEST - Department of Education, Science and Training (Australian
Government)
EIS - Environmental Impact Statement
FoEA - Friends of the Earth, Australia
ISV - in-situ vitrification (of contaminated debris at Maralinga)
LLILW - long-lived intermediate-level waste
LLW - Low-level waste
MARTAC - Maralinga Rehabilitation Technical Advisory Committee
NLC - Northern Land Council
SLILW - Short-lived intermediate-level waste
TAG - Technical Assessment Group (advised on Maralinga rehabilitation
from 1986.)
======================================
1.
INTRODUCTION
The nuclear industry feeds off, profits from, and reinforces racism.
The industry and its political allies have a long history of forcing
uranium mines, nuclear reactors, radioactive waste dumps, and weapons
tests on the land of Indigenous peoples.
The industry also feeds off and reinforces imperialist, colonial
patterns: colonies and Third World countries are generally home to the
filthiest uranium mines, they have often been used for weapons testing,
and are sometimes used as radioactive waste dumping grounds.
This paper details some aspects of 'radioactive racism' in Australia.
The final section also includes some articles about radioactive racism
in the US and other countries.
The paper is uneven in its coverage of various issues (not to mention
issues which are not covered at all) and will hopefully be updated over
time.
===============================================
RADIOACTIVE RACISM IN AUSTRALIA
Jim Green
Chain Reaction (magazine of Friends of the Earth, Australia)
Winter 2006.
The nuclear industry feeds off, profits from, and reinforces racism.
Both the military and civil arms of the industry have a long history of
forcing uranium mines, nuclear reactors, radioactive waste dumps, and
nuclear weapons tests on the lands of Indigenous people.
The history of radioactive racism is one of oppression, but also one of struggle and, sometimes, remarkable victories.
The British bomb tests
From 1952 to 1963, a series of nuclear weapons tests took place at
Maralinga and Emu Field in South Australia, and on the Monte Bello
Islands off the coast of Western Australia. It is likely that some of
the uranium used in the weapons tests in SA came from mines on
Aboriginal land in SA.
The tests, carried out by the British government with the full support
of the Australian government, included 12 nuclear bomb tests and a
large number of 'minor' tests involving radioactive materials.
Permission was not sought for the tests from affected Aboriginal groups such as the Pitjantjatjara, Tjarutja and Kokatha.
A major test named Totem 1 was detonated on October 15th, 1953 at Emu
Field. The blast sent a radioactive cloud – which came to be known as
the Black Mist – over 250 kms northwest to Wallatinna and down to
Coober Pedy. The Totem I test is held responsible for a sudden outbreak
of sickness and death experienced by Aboriginal communities.
The 1985 report of the Royal Commission into the British Atomic Tests
in Australia found that the Totem 1 test was fired under wind
conditions which a study had shown would produce unacceptable levels of
fallout, and that the firing criteria did not take into account the
existence of people at Wallatinna and Melbourne Hill down wind of the
test site.
So-called "Native Patrol Officers" patrolled thousands of square
kilometres of land to try to ensure that Aboriginal people were removed
before nuclear tests took place. Signs were erected in some places –
written in English, which few of the effected Aborigines could
understand.
A number of Aboriginal people were moved from Ooldea to Yalata, a
mission station 150 kms west of Ceduna, prior to the 1956-57 series of
tests at Maralinga. Yalata was outside the tribal lands of the
Pitjantjatjara, who comprised the majority of the relocated people. The
trauma of forced relocation, combined with the conditions at Yalata,
drove many to rebellion, crime, violence and alcohol.
Despite the forced relocation to Yalata, movements by Aboriginal people
still occurred throughout the Maralinga region at the time of the
tests. It was later realised that a traditional Aboriginal route
crossed through the testing range. For the Aboriginal people who still
walked the Western Desert, many living traditionally, radiation
exposure caused sickness and death. There are tragic accounts of
families sleeping in the bomb craters.
In the mid- to late-1990s, the Australian government carried out a
clean-up of the Maralinga nuclear test site. It was done on the cheap
and even now, kilograms of plutonium remain buried in shallow, unlined
pits in totally unsuitable geology.
As nuclear engineer and Maralinga whistleblower Alan Parkinson said of
the 'clean-up' on ABC radio on August 5, 2002: "What was done at
Maralinga was a cheap and nasty solution that wouldn't be adopted on
white-fellas land."
Despite the residual contamination, the federal government is
attempting to off-load responsibility for the land onto the Maralinga
Tjarutja and the government is dressing-up this self-serving manoeuvre
as an act of reconciliation. The real agenda was spelt out clearly in a
1996 government document which states that the clean-up was "aimed at
reducing Commonwealth liability arising from residual contamination."
Talking straight out
Same Country. Same People. Same Poison. Enough is Enough.
In February 1998, the federal government announced its intention to
build a national radioactive waste dump in central South Australia.
One of the patterns of radioactive racism is that Indigenous
communities are divided, dislocated and disempowered, and thus all the
more vulnerable to the next assault from the nuclear industry. The
victory in the campaign to prevent the imposition of a nuclear waste
dump in SA was an exception to the general pattern.
The Kupa Piti Kungka Tjuta – a senior Aboriginal women's council,
comprising women who suffered the effects of the British nuclear
testing program – played a leading role in the campaign against the
dump, as did the Kokatha and Barngala Traditional Owners.
Aboriginal people were coerced into signing clearances for test
drilling of short-listed sites for the proposed dump. The federal
government made it clear that if clearances for test drilling were not
granted by Aboriginal groups, drilling would take place anyway.
Aboriginal people were between "a rock and a hard place" according to
Stewart Motha from the Aboriginal Legal Rights Movement: "If Aboriginal
groups do get involved in clearances they face the possibility that the
Government will point to that involvement as an indication of consent
for the project. If they refuse to participate, who will protect
Aboriginal heritage, dreaming and sacred sites?"
Aboriginal groups did reluctantly engage in surveys resulting in the
signing of so-called Heritage Clearance Agreements. One risk was that
those agreements would be misrepresented by the federal government as
amounting to Aboriginal consent to the construction and operation of
the dump. That risk was in fact realised.
In 2002, the federal government tried to buy-off Aboriginal opposition
to the dump. Three Native Title claimant groups – the Kokatha, Kuyani
and Barngala – were offered $90,000 to surrender their Native Title
rights, but only on the condition that all three groups agreed. The
Kokatha and Barngala refused, so the government's ploy failed. Dr.
Roger Thomas, a Kokatha elder, said: "Our Native Title rights are not
for sale. We are talking about our culture, our lore and our dreaming.
We are talking about our future generations we're protecting here. We
do not have a "for sale" sign up and we never will."
On July 7, 2003, the federal government used the Lands Acquisition Act
1989 to seize land for the dump. Native Title rights and interests were
annulled. This took place with no forewarning and no consultation with
Aboriginal people or the South Australian government.
On July 14, 2004, the federal government abandoned the plan to build a
radioactive waste dump in SA. The decision reflected the strength and
persistence of the campaign against the dump. The victory was also
helped by the ruling of the full bench of the Federal Court in June
2004 that the government had illegally used the urgency provision of
the Land Acquisition Act.
The Kupa Piti Kungka Tjuta wrote in an open letter: "People said that
you can't win against the Government. Just a few women. We just kept
talking and telling them to get their ears out of their pockets and
listen. We never said we were going to give up. Government has big
money to buy their way out but we never gave up. We told Howard you
should look after us, not try and kill us. Straight out. We always talk
straight out. In the end he didn't have the power, we did."
('Talking Straight Out', a book about the Kungka Tjuta's campaign, is
available for purchase via the website: <www.iratiwanti.org>.)
Dumping on Northern Territorians
The Howard government's plan to dump nuclear waste on Aboriginal land
in SA was defeated. But now the government is attempting to impose a
nuclear waste dump on the Northern Territory.
Three sites are being considered – Hart's Range and Mt Everard near
Alice Springs, and Fisher's Ridge near Katherine. None of these sites
was short-listed when environmental and scientific criteria were used
to locate potential dump sites in the 1990s.
The federal government failed in its attempt to dump radioactive waste
in SA in large part because of its heavy-handed, undemocratic and
racist handling of the issue. But the government appears to have drawn
the opposite conclusion. It now wants to impose a nuclear waste dump on
the NT and is behaving in a still more thuggish manner than it did in
SA.
Draconian legislation was passed through the federal parliament in
December 2005 to by-pass normal decision-making processes in relation
to the proposed dump. This legislation – the Commonwealth Radioactive
Waste Management Act 2005 – undermines environmental, public safety and
Aboriginal heritage protections. It prevents the Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984 from having effect during
investigation of the sites, and it excludes the Native Title Act 1993
from operating at all.
The proposed dump is opposed by a number of Aboriginal groups including
the Central Lands Council. Many were incensed by federal science
minister Brendan Nelson, who repeatedly said that the proposed dump
sites were "in the middle of nowhere".
Canberra foists nuclear waste on Aboriginal communities
Central Lands Council, July 15, 2005
The Director of the Central Land
Council, Mr David Ross said today that there had been no approach from
the Federal Government about a locating a nuclear waste dump in Central
Australia.
"I think people in Canberra just looked at a map and thought it looked remote and empty.
"However, the two proposed sites in
Central Australia – Mt Everard and Harts Range – are close to people's
homes and communities," he said.
"We have all watched the courageous
struggle of the Kupa Piti Kungka Tjutas to stop this dump being built
on their country nearby in SA, and some of those women have recently
visited Alice Springs to talk about their experience. It would seem
that the Australian Government has not learnt anything from the defeat
of the waste dump proposal in SA.
Walk in the sand with us, traditional owners urge PM
ABC, October 4, 2005
Traditional owners of land near Alice
Springs earmarked for a national nuclear waste dump have called for the
Prime Minister and Science Minister to visit the area and meet with
them.
The Athenge Lhere group are
traditional owners of the Mount Everard site, which is north of Alice
Springs. It is one of three sites in the Northern Territory being
considered by the Federal Government for the dump.
Kathleen Martin Williams, who is one
of the traditional owners, says a visit may help the ministers
understand the community's reservations.
"I'd like Johnny Howard and his
sidekicks, especially that Brendan Nelson, to come here take off their
shoes and walk in the red sand with us," she said.
"Maybe they will appreciate our country. Maybe."
Traditional owners take their fight to Canberra
Central Lands Council, November 3, 2005
Traditional owners of the two proposed waste dump sites in Central Australia are taking their fight to Canberra.
Steven McCormack, who lives close to
the Mt Everard site said that a nuclear waste dump would be devastating
for him and his family.
"This land is not empty – people live
right nearby. We hunt and collect bush tucker here and I am the
custodian of a sacred site within the boundaries of the defence land.
We don't want this poison here.
Uranium mining
Racism in the uranium mining industry in Australia typically involves some or all of the following tactics:
* ignoring the concerns of Traditional Owners insofar as the legal and political circumstances permit;
* divide-and-rule tactics;
* bribery;
* humbugging Traditional Owners – exerting persistent, unwanted pressure until the mining company gets what it wants;
* providing Traditional Owners with false or misleading information; and
* threats, most commonly legal threats.
Ranger, Jabiluka and the Mirarr Traditional Owners
Mining company ERA and the Howard government were determined to
override the opposition of the Mirarr Traditional Owners to the
Jabiluka uranium mine in the NT. ERA and the government were defeated
after an extraordinary international campaign led by the Mirarr.
The Jabiluka mine site has been rehabilitated and the Mirarr have a
veto over any future development of the mine. However, ERA still hopes
to mine Jabiluka at some stage in the future, and it still operates the
Ranger uranium mine near Jabiluka.
Yvonne Margarula, Mirarr Senior Traditional Owner, wrote in a 2005
submission to a parliamentary uranium inquiry: "Along with other
Aboriginal people the Mirarr opposed uranium mining when the Government
approached us in the 1970s. The old people were worried about the
damage mining would do to country and the problems that mining would
bring for Aboriginal people.
"The Government would not listen and forced the Ranger uranium mine on
us, but the old people were right and today we are dealing with
everything they were worried about. Uranium mining has completely
upturned our lives – bringing a town, many non-Aboriginal people,
greater access to alcohol and many arguments between Aboriginal people,
mostly about money.
"Uranium mining has also taken our country away from us and destroyed
it – billabongs and creeks are gone forever, there are hills of
poisonous rock and great holes in the ground with poisonous mud where
there used to be nothing but bush.
"Mining and the millions of dollars in royalties have not improved our quality of life."
Beverley
Heathgate Resources, owned by General Atomics, succeeded in imposing
the Beverley uranium mine on the Adnyamathanha people in north-east SA
in the late 1990s.
The company negotiated with a small number of Native Title claimants,
but did not recognise the will of the community as a whole. This
divide-and-rule strategy, coupled with the joint might of industry and
government, resulted in inadequate and selective consultation with the
Adnyamathanha people.
Adnyamathanha woman Jillian Marsh wrote in a submission to a 2002-03
Senate inquiry: "Initial negotiation was misrepresentative,
ill-informed, and designed to divide and disempower the Adnyamathanha
community. ... The resulting meeting was held under appalling
conditions. The company (Heathgate Resources) censored the entire
meeting with the assistance of [a Liberal member of the SA Parliament]
and the State Police. One Adnyamathanha man that stood up and asked for
an independent facilitator from the floor to be elected was immediately
escorted by two armed Police holding him on either side (by his arms)
to the outside of the building."
The late Mr Artie Wilton, the last living Wilyaru man (Adnyamathanha
full initiate), said in June 2000 that he was never consulted about the
Beverley uranium mine and never agreed to the Beverley or Honeymoon
mining projects. "The Beverley Mine must be stopped, dead stopped," Mr
Wilton said.
Kelvin Johnson, an Adnyamathanha man from Nepabunna, said in a June
2000 statement: "We protest at the treatment of our people being forced
into an unfair process of negotiation. We protest because our land is
being damaged against our wishes. We protest because Native Title
legislation is not helping our country. We protest because the State
Government and the Mining Industry refuse to listen to our concerns. We
protest because it is our right and our responsibility to look after
this country."
In May 2000, SA's STAR Force police responded brutally to a peaceful
protest at the Beverley mine site, and used pepper spray on an 11 year
old Adnyamathanha girl.
Roxby Downs
The racism associated with the Roxby Downs uranium mine in South
Australia is enshrined in legislation. WMC Resources was granted
completely unjustifiable legal privileges under the SA Roxby Indenture
Act. This legislation overrides the Aboriginal Heritage Act, the
Environment Protection Act, the Water Resources Act and the Freedom of
Information Act. The new mine owner, BHP Billiton, refuses to
relinquish these legal privileges.
One particularly notorious incident in the history of the Roxby mine
concerned the laying of a water pipeline on Arabunna land in the
mid-1990s. The dispute over the pipeline led to violence, terrorism,
imprisonment, and the death of one person.
Jan Whyte and Ila Marks summarised the controversy in the July 1996
edition of Chain Reaction: "It appears that WMC has embarked on a
course of side-stepping consultation with the Arabunna as the
traditional custodians. It has also taken similar actions in regard to
the Kokotha, the traditional custodians for the actual mine site. One
method used by mining companies to side-step proper consultation
processes is documented in North America and Canada as well as
Australia. Mining companies incorporate small Aboriginal groups in
areas under dispute and give them financial support. These groups are
then regarded as the official representatives for that area and mining
companies proceed to consult with them. Thus, it seems as if the
companies are going through the correct legal processes whereas, in
fact, they are ignoring parties who have legitimate interests."
ABC Radio National's 'Background Briefing' program investigated the
controversy over the expansion of Roxby in the 1990s; see the
transcript at: <www.geocities.com/olympicdam/articles>.
===============================================
2. BRITISH NUCLEAR
TESTS IN AUSTRALIA
Racism and atomic testing have gone hand in hand since 1945. Examples
include US and British testing on Pacific islands, and French testing
in the Pacific and Algeria.
From 1952 to 1963, a series of nuclear weapons tests took place at
Maralinga and Emu Field in South Australia, and on Monte Bello Island
off the coast of Western Australia. It is highly likely that some of
the uranium used in the weapons tests at Maralinga came from mines on
Aboriginal land in South Australia.
The tests, primarily under the control of the British government,
included 12 atomic blasts as well as hundreds of "minor" tests. The
twelve major nuclear tests were as follows:
Operation Hurricane (Monte Bello Islands, Western Australia)
* 3 October, 1952 - 25 kilotons - plutonium
Operation Totem (Emu Field, South Australia)
* 'Totem 1' - 15 October, 1953 - 9.1 kilotons - plutonium
* 'Totem 2' - 27 October, 1953 - 7.1 kilotons - plutonium
Operation Mosaic (Monte Bello Islands, Western Australia)
'G1' - 16 May, 1956 - Trimouille Island - 15 kilotons
'G2' - 19 June, 1956 - Alpha Island - 60 kilotons
Operation Buffalo (Maralinga, South Australia)
'One Tree' - 27 September, 1956 - 12.9 kilotons - plutonium
'Marcoo' - 4 October 1956 - 1.4 kilotons - plutonium
'Kite' - 11 October, 1956 - 2.9 kilotons - plutonium
'Breakaway' - 22 October, 1956 - 10.8 kilotons - plutonium
Operation Antler (Maralinga, South Australia)
'Tadje' - 14 September, 1957 - 0.9 kilotons - plutonium
'Biak' - 25 September, 1957 - 5.7 kilotons - plutonium
'Taranaki' - 9 October, 1957 - 26.6 kilotons - plutonium
(For comparison, the bombs which destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki in
1945 were about 10-15 kilotons TNT equivalent.)
The general attitude of white settlers towards Aborigines was
profoundly racist; Aboriginal society was considered one of the lowest
forms of civilisation and doomed to extinction. Their land was
considered empty and available for exploitation - 'terra nullius'. The
British nuclear testing program was carried out with the full support
of the Australian government. Permission was not sought for the tests
from affected Aboriginal groups such as the Pitjantjatjara, Tjarutja
and Kokatha.
In "Fallout – Hedley Marston and the British Bomb Tests in Australia"
(Wakefield Press, 2001, p.32), Dr. Roger Cross writes: "Little mention
was made of course about the effects the bomb tests might have on the
Indigenous Australian inhabitants of the Maralinga area, a community
that had experienced little contact with white Australia. In 1985 the
McClelland Royal Commission would report how Alan Butement, Chief
Scientist for the Department of Supply wrote to the native patrol
officer for the area, rebuking him for the concerns he had expressed
about the situation and chastising him for "apparently placing the
affairs of a handful of natives above those of the British Commonwealth
of Nations". When a member of staff at Hedley Marston's division
queried the British Scientist Scott Russell on the fate of the
Aborigines at Maralinga, the response was that they were a dying race
and therefore dispensable."
Ernest Titterton, a leading member of the so-called Atomic Weapons
Tests Safety Committee and the main apologist for the British tests,
told a 1984 hearing of the Royal Commission into British Nuclear Tests
in Australia that if the Aborigines objected to the tests, they could
have voted the government out. Yet Aboriginal people did not gain
voting rights until 1967. And they accounted for a very small minority
of the Australian population.
Little or no attention was paid during the British nuclear testing
program in Australia to the increased vulnerability of Aboriginal
people to the radiological effects of the tests. That increased
susceptibility was due to a range of factors including lack of clothing
and footwear, a diet conducive to biological magnification of
radioactivity, movement patterns, language barriers, and general health
status. Conversely Aboriginal people generally lacked protections
available to others such as reticulated water, hard permanent dwellings
with dust proofing, remotely sourced food, food storage facilities
which afforded some radiological protection, laundry/bathroom and
drainage facilities;
Studies of the health impacts of the weapons tests have excluded
non-urban Aboriginal people (e.g. the study by Wise and Moroney, first
presented to the Royal Commission, which states: " Two population
groups are excluded from the calculations. They are the aboriginals
living away from populations centres and personnel involved directly in
nuclear test activities ..." (Keith N. Wise and John R. Moroney,
Australian Radiation Laboratory, May 1992, "Public Health Impact of
Fallout from British Nuclear Weapons Tests in Australia, 1952 – 1957",
Dept. of Health, Housing and Community Services, ARL/TRI05 ISSN
0157-1400, p.2.)
The damage to Aboriginal people went far beyond the radiological
impacts; it was was radiological, psycho-social and cultural. The
nuclear test program contaminated great tracts of traditional land and
transformed independent and physically wide ranging peoples into
semi-static and dependent groups. Forced relocation to government- and
mission-controlled enclaves was one of the traumas.
For testimonies from the Kupa Piti Kungka Tjuta, see
<www.iratiwanti.org>.
Monte Bello Islands
Operation Hurricane (Monte Bello Islands, Western Australia)
* 3 October, 1952 - 25 kilotons - plutonium
Operation Mosaic (Monte Bello Islands, Western Australia)
'G1' - 16 May, 1956 - Trimouille Island - 15 kilotons
'G2' - 19 June, 1956 - Alpha Island - 60 kilotons
While the Monte Bello Islands off the coast of Western Australia were
uninhabited, the nuclear tests conducted there spread radioactivity
across large portions of mainland Australia. The 1985 report of the
Royal Commission (p.261) concluded: "The presence of Aborigines on the
mainland near Monte Bello Islands and their extra vulnerability to the
effect of fallout was not recognised by either [Atomic Weapons Research
Establishment - UK] or the Safety Committee. It was a major oversight
that the question of acceptable dose levels for Aborigines was
recognised as a problem at Maralinga but was ignored in setting the
fallout criteria for the Mosaic tests."
For information on the presence of Aborigines on the mainland in the
vicinity of the Monte Bellos, the British authorities relied upon such
authoritative documents as the Pocket Book of Western Australia.
Emu Field
Operation Totem (Emu Field, South Australia)
* 'Totem 1' - 15 October, 1953 - 9.1 kilotons - plutonium
* 'Totem 2' - 27 October, 1953 - 7.1 kilotons - plutonium
"The Government used the Country for the Bomb. Some of us were living
at Twelve Mile, just out of Coober Pedy. The smoke was funny and
everything looked hazy. Everybody got sick. Other people were at Mabel
Creek and many people got sick. Some people were living at Wallatinna.
Other people got moved away. Whitefellas and all got sick. When we were
young, no woman got breast cancer or any other kind of cancer. Cancer
was unheard of. And no asthma either, we were people without sickness."
--- from <www.iratiwant.org>
At the time of the two 'Totem' nuclear tests at Emu Field in South
Australia, the area was used, as the Royal Commission reported, for:
"... hunting and gathering, for temporary settlements, for
caretakership and spiritual renewal." (p.152)
A major test named Totem 1 was detonated on October 15th, 1953.
The blast sent a radioactive cloud - which came to be known as the
Black Mist - over 250 kms northwest to Wallatinna and down to Coober
Pedy. The Totem I test is held responsible for a sudden outbreak of
sickness and death experienced by Aboriginal communities, including
members of the Kupa Piti Kunga Tjuta and their extended families. The
Royal Commission found that the Totem 1 test was fired under wind
conditions which a study had shown would produce unacceptable levels of
fallout, and that the firing criteria did not take into account the
existence of people at Wallatinna and Melbourne Hill down wind of the
test site (p.151).
In relation to the two Totem tests, the Royal Commission found that
there was a failure at the Totem trials to consider adequately the
distinctive lifestyle of Aborigines and their special vulnerability to
radioactive fallout, that inadequate resources were allocated to
guaranteeing the safety of Aborigines during the Totem nuclear tests,
and that the Native Patrol Officer had an impossible task of locating
and warning Aborigines, some of whom lived in traditional lifestyles
and were located over more than 100,00 square kilometres (p.173).
Maralinga
Operation Buffalo (Maralinga, South Australia)
'One Tree' - 27 September, 1956 - 12.9 kilotons - plutonium
'Marcoo' - 4 October 1956 - 1.4 kilotons - plutonium
'Kite' - 11 October, 1956 - 2.9 kilotons - plutonium
'Breakaway' - 22 October, 1956 - 10.8 kilotons - plutonium
Operation Antler (Maralinga, South Australia)
'Tadje' - 14 September, 1957 - 0.9 kilotons - plutonium
'Biak' - 25 September, 1957 - 5.7 kilotons - plutonium
'Taranaki' - 9 October, 1957 - 26.6 kilotons - plutonium
A number of Aboriginal people were moved from Ooldea to Yalata, a
mission station 150 kms west of Ceduna, prior to the 1956-57 series of
tests at Maralinga, and this included moving people away from their
traditional lands. Yalata was outside the tribal lands of the
Pitjantjatjara who comprised the majority of the relocated Aborigines.
Conditions drove many to rebellion, crime, violence and alcohol.
So-called "Native Patrol Officers" patrolled thousands of square
kilometres of land to try to ensure Indigenous people were removed
before nuclear tests took place. Signs were erected in some places -
written in English, which few of the effected Aborigines could
understand.
Despite the forced relocation to Yalata, movements by Aboriginal people
still occurred throughout the region at the time of the tests. It was
later realised that a traditional Aboriginal route crossed through the
Maralinga testing range. For the Aboriginal people who still walked the
Western Desert, many living traditionally, radiation exposure caused
sickness and death. There are tragic accounts of families sleeping in
the bomb craters.
In relation to the Buffalo series of tests in 1956, the Royal
Commission found that regard for Aboriginal safety was characterised by
"ignorance, incompetence and cynicism", and that the site was chosen on
the false premise that it was no longer used by the Traditional Owners.
Aboriginal people continued to inhabit the Prohibited Zone for six
years after the tests. The reporting of sightings of Aborigines was
"discouraged and ignored", the Royal Commission found. (p.323)
The British Government paid A$13.5 million compensation to the
Maralinga Tjarutja in 1995. Other Indigenous victims - including
members of the Kupa Piti Kungka Tjuta - have not been compensated and
have received no apology.
------------------------>
Flawed Maralinga 'Clean-up'
"What was done at Maralinga was a cheap and nasty solution that
wouldn't be adopted on white-fellas land."
-- Nuclear engineer Alan Parkinson, ABC Radio National, 'Breakfast',
August 5, 2002.
In the late-1990s, yet another 'clean-up' of the contaminated Maralinga
land was carried out. As with the previous three 'clean-ups', it was
flawed and considerable radiological contamination remains. Before the
latest 'clean up', kilograms of plutonium were buried in shallow,
unlined pits in totally unsuitable geology ... and after the 'clean
up', kilograms of plutonium are still buried in shallow, unlined pits
in totally unsuitable geology.
Despite the residual contamination, the federal government is
attempting to off-load responsibility for the land onto the Maralinga
Tjarutja and the government is dressing-up this self-serving manoeuvre
as an act of reconciliation.
The real agenda was spelt out clearly in a 1996 government document
which states that the clean-up was "aimed at reducing Commonwealth
liability arising from residual contamination."
A large majority of the contamination resulted not from the nine
nuclear blasts at Maralinga and Emu but from so-called minor trials
from the early 1950s to 1963. The purpose of the trials was to
physically test the safety and security of nuclear weapons in case of
accident, and some experiments were designed to improve the trigger
mechanisms. The trigger mechanisms of the weapons were subjected to
chemical explosions, heat and other tests. The resultant destruction
produced plumes of radioactive material in the form of fine particles.
These particles fell to earth over a wide area of the test range and in
some cases, beyond it. The 'minor trials' contaminated Maralinga with
approximately 8,000 kg of uranium, 24 kg of plutonium, and 100 kg of
beryllium.
In March 2000, the then Minister for Industry, Science and Resources,
Senator Nick Minchin, declared Maralinga safe after $108 million had
been spent on the clean-up. However, the clean-up generated a great
deal of controversy, most of it generated by scientists who worked on
the project, namely:
* Mr. Alan Parkinson. In 1989, Mr. Parkinson, a nuclear engineer,
developed some 30 options for rehabilitation of the Maralinga atomic
bomb test site. In August 1994, he was appointed the Government's
Representative to oversee the whole of the clean-up project and was
also a member of the government's advisory committee (MARTAC). In
December 1997, he was removed from both appointments for questioning
the management of the project.
* Mr. Dale Timmons, a geochemist involved in the in-situ vitrification
(ISV) of contaminated debris at Maralinga.
* Professor Peter Johnston, adviser to the traditional owners, the
Maralinga Tjarutja, and Professor of Applied Nuclear Physics at the
Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology.
Parkinson's view is that the clean-up was significantly flawed,
especially the shallow burial of plutonium-contaminated debris. Prof.
Johnston's view is that the clean-up was successful overall despite
poor project management by the Australian Government. Mr. Timmons has
not commented on the overall status of the clean-up, restricting his
comments to the ISV component in which he was heavily involved.
The federal Department of Education, Science and Training (DEST)
clearly failed to properly manage the Maralinga clean-up. This is of
concern because DEST is responsible for ongoing projects such as
nuclear dumping proposals. Professor Johnston wrote in a submission to
ARPANSA:
"In the Maralinga Rehabilitation Project, DEST had no in-house capacity
for engineering or scientific assessment of its contractors for a
substantial part of the project. It had internal engineering support
for the early part of the project but that individual was removed. As a
consequence, DEST contracted for services in extremely deficient ways,
e.g. the Geosafe contract contained no performance criteria." (The
Geosafe contract was for vitrification of contaminated debris.)
"In the case of Maralinga, there were mitigating circumstances that
kept the project going forward but in a sub-optimal way. These were the
MARTAC [Maralinga Rehabilitation Technical Advisory Committee] advisory
group, the Maralinga Consultative Group as well as ad-hoc advice sought
from ARPANSA at various times. While these groups greatly aided in the
successful completion of the project, there were still very large
expenditures and significant hazards resulting from the deficient
management of the project by DEST." (Johnston, written submission)
Inevitably the poor project management had adverse consequences for the
clean-up. Professor Johnston's presentation for a February 2004 ARPANSA
forum in Adelaide listed some examples:
"DEST concluded a contract with Geosafe Australia for technical
services that contained no performance criteria. Draft documents
prepared by DEST have often been technically wrong due to a lack of
technical input. Non-technical public servants made decisions where
technical expertise was needed. Technical advice often not sought
except from a contractor."
Mr. Parkinson illustrates DEST's inadequate project management
capabilities in his submission to ARPANSA (cited below):
"A glaring example of the lack of expertise in project management is
provided by the appointment by the department of GHD to manage the ISV
phase of the Maralinga project. In spite of the fact that several
aspects of GHD's performance on the earlier phases of the project were
less than satisfactory, and the fact that they had absolutely no
knowledge or experience of the complex process and equipment of ISV,
the department appointed them Project Manager and Project Authority.
And those responsible cannot claim they were not aware of GHD's
ignorance in the ISV technology; it was spelled out in writing to them.
It is almost a fundamental requirement for the project manager to have
a good knowledge and some experience of the project - in this case GHD
had none. To emphasise the department's lack of project management
skills, they also appointed GHD Project Authority, in which position
they should have had a detailed knowledge of the process and equipment.
No wonder the Maralinga project became such a failure."
Consultation with the Maralinga Tjarutja was inadequate. Prof. Johnston
et al note in the conference paper (cited below):
"The Australian Government responded to these [Royal Commission]
recommendations by forming in February 1986, a Technical Assessment
Group (TAG) to address the technical conclusions stemming from the
Royal Commission and a Consultative Group was formed as a forum for
discussion of the program. TAG's task was to provide the Australian
Government with options for rehabilitation rather than a
recommendation. Membership of the Consultative Group was as envisaged
by the Royal Commission for the Maralinga Commission but with
additional representatives of the West Australian Government. Notably
this structure which formed the basis for the entire rehabilitation
project left the traditional owners and the South Australian Government
out of direct decision making. It ensured that real authority remained
with bureaucrats within the Department of Primary Industries and Energy
which obtained advice from TAG and later the Maralinga Rehabilitation
Technical Advisory Committee (MARTAC)."
The roles of these groups is explained in the same paper by Johnston et
al :
"The Maralinga Consultative Group met on an ad hoc basis during the TAG
investigations in order to provide information on the progress of
scientific studies, planning the rehabilitation work, during the
rehabilitation work and in the preparation of the final reports. The
consultative group was established to discuss and monitor the TAG
studies was re-established in 1993 involving South Australian
Government and Maralinga Tjarutja to discuss the MRP. It first met in
March 1994. During 1997 and 1998, while a great deal of the
rehabilitation work was done, there were few meetings of either MARTAC
or the consultative group."
The most problematic aspect of the project was the decision to abandon
ISV in favour of shallow burial of plutonium contaminated debris in
totally unsuitable geology. The Australian Government claims that ISV
was abandoned because of safety concerns following an explosion on
March 21, 1999. However, the use of ISV was curtailed even before the
explosion and the decisions to curtail and then abandon ISV were
clearly motivated by cost-cutting objectives. This is revealed by
numerous statements in the project documentation. To give some examples:
* an October 1998 paper by MARTAC said: "The recent consideration of
alternative treatments for ISV for these outer pits has arisen as a
result of the revised estimate for ISV being considerably above the
project budget."
* a July 17, 1998 paper written by the chair of MARTAC gives the
following criteria for considering options for the Taranaki pits: time
savings; cost savings; nature of waste form; potential for exposure of
waste; and efficiency of operation.
* at an April 13, 1999 meeting, Garth Chamberlain from GHD, the
construction company which was appointed as project manager (despite
having little knowledge about ISV and no experience with the
technology), said it was a much easier, quicker and cheaper option to
exhume and bury debris rather than using ISV.
As Prof. Johnston et al. note in their conference paper (cited below),
the decision to abandon ISV: "... was announced to the Maralinga
Consultative Group in the middle of a meeting in July 1999 without the
consent of the other members of the Consultative Group, particularly
Maralinga Tjarutja and South Australia. ... The Consultative Group has
continued to meet through 2000 and 2001, but there was diminished
confidence in the consultative process as a result of the Commonwealth
unilateral decision to abandon ISV."
The unilateral decision to abandon ISV was taken despite previous
agreement that no changes to the clean-up methodology would be taken
without discussing the proposed changes with the Maralinga Tjarutja.
Senator Minchin said in a May 1, 2000 media release that: "As the
primary risk from plutonium is inhalation, all these groups have agreed
that deep burial of plutonium is a safe way of handling this waste." By
"these groups" the Minister meant ARPANSA, the Maralinga Tjarutja and
South Australian Government. The Minister's statement was false on two
counts. Firstly, the burial of plutonium-contaminated debris was not
'deep' no matter how loose the definition - the soil cover is just 5
metres. Secondly, the Maralinga Tjarutja certainly did not agree to the
decision to abandon ISV in favour of burial - in fact they wrote to the
Minister disassociating themselves from the decision (Senate Estimates,
May 3, 2000).
The Australian Senate passed a resolution on August 21, 2002, which
reads as follows:
That the Senate-
(a) notes:
(i) that the clean up of the Maralinga atomic test site resulted in
highly plutonium-contaminated debris being buried in shallow earth
trenches and covered with just one to two metres of soil,
(ii) that large quantities of radioactive soil were blown away during
the removal and relocation of that soil into the Taranaki burial
trenches, so much so that the contaminated airborne dust caused the
work to be stopped on many occasions and forward area facilities to be
evacuated on at least one occasion, and
(iii) that americium and uranium waste products are proposed to be
stored in an intermediate waste repository and that both these
contaminants are buried in the Maralinga trenches;
(b) rejects the assertion by the Minister for Science (Mr McGauran) on
14 August 2002 that this solution to dealing with radioactive material
exceeds world's best practice;
(c) contrasts the Maralinga method of disposal of long-lived, highly
radioactive material with the Government's proposals to store low-level
waste in purpose-built lined trenches 20 metres deep and to store
intermediate waste in a deep geological facility;
(d) calls on the Government to acknowledge that long-lived radioactive
material is not suitable for near surface disposal; and
(e) urges the Government to exhume the debris at Maralinga, sort it and
use a safer, more long-lasting method of storing this material.
The Australian Senate passed another resolution on October 15, 2003,
which inter alia condemned the Maralinga clean-up. The resolution was
as follows:
That the Senate:
(a) notes:
(i) that 15 October 2003 marks the 50th anniversary of the first
atomic test conducted by the British government in northern South
Australia;
(ii) that on this day "Totem 1", a 10 kilotonne atomic bomb, was
detonated at Emu Junction, some 240 kilometres west of Coober Pedy;
(iii) that the Anangu community received no forewarning of the test;
(iv) that the 1984 Royal Commission report concluded that Totem 1 was
detonated in wind conditions that would produce unacceptable levels of
fallout, and that the decision to detonate failed to take into account
the existence of people at Wallatinna and Welbourn Hill;
(b) expresses its concern for those indigenous peoples whose lands and
health over generations have been detrimentally affected by this
and subsequent atomic tests conducted in northern South Australia;
(c) congratulates the Kupa Piti Kungka Tjuta – the Senior Aboriginal
Women of Coober Pedy - for their ongoing efforts to highlight the
experience of their peoples affected by these tests;
(d) condemns the Government for its failure to properly dispose
of radioactive waste from atomic tests conducted in the Maralinga
precinct; and
(e) expresses its continued opposition to the siting of a low-level
radioactive waste repository in South Australia.
DEST's mishandling of the Maralinga project complicated its attempt to
build a nuclear waste dump in SA from 1998-2004. Prof. Johnston argued
in his written submission to ARPANSA that DEST had failed to
demonstrate an ability to properly manage the dump project:
"The applicant for a licence [DEST] does not have the technical
competence required to manage the contracts of a proposed operator. The
operator who may have the necessary technical competence is not a
co-applicant. I am not convinced the applicant will have effective
control of the project. I believe the application has not demonstrated
that the applicant has the capacity to ensure that it can abide by the
licence conditions that could be imposed under Section 35 of the ARPANS
Act because of a lack of technical competence in managing its
contractors."
Mr. Parkinson's statements include:
* "The Maralinga Rehabilitation Project: Final Report", Medicine,
Conflict and Survival, Vol.20, 2004, pp.70-80, London: Frank Cass.
* "Maralinga: The Clean-Up of a Nuclear Test Site", Medicine and Global
Survival, Volume 7, Number 2, February 2002,
<www.ippnw.org/MGS/V7N2Parkinson.html>
* Maralinga Rehabilitation Project, 2000,
<www.mapw.org.au/conferences/mapw2000/papers/parkinson.html>.
* "Maralinga: Clean-Up or Cover-Up?" Australasian Science, July, 21
(6), 2000, p.16.
* comments in ABC Radio National, Background Briefing program,
"Maralinga: The Fall Out Continues", April 16, 2000,
<www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/bbing/stories/s120383.htm>
* numerous articles posted at <www.geocities.com/jimgreen3>
* Comments on the MARTAC report, April, 2003,
<www.geocities.com/jimgreen3/martac.html>.
* second-round submission to ARPANSA repository inquiry, which used to
be posted at: <www.arpansa.gov.au/reposit/nrwr.htm>.
Prof. Johnston's statements include:
* written submission number 256 to ARPANSA repository inquiry, which
used to be posted at: <www.arpansa.gov.au/reposit/nrwr.htm>.
* presentation to ARPANSA repository forum, February 26, 2004, which
used to be posted at <www.arpansa.gov.au/reposit/nrwr.htm>.
* P.N. Johnston, A.C. Collett, T.J. Gara, "Aboriginal participation and
concerns throughout the rehabilitation of Maralinga", presented at the
Third International Symposium on the Protection of the Environment from
Ionising Radiation, Darwin, 22-26 July 2002, IAEA-CSP-17, IAEA, Vienna,
2003, p.349-356. (Posted on the IAEA website.)
Statements from Mr. Timmons are posted at:
* <www.geocities.com/jimgreen3/martac.html>
* <www.geocities.com/jimgreen3/timmons.html>
===============================================
3. DEFEATED PLAN FOR
A NUCLEAR DUMP IN SOUTH AUSTRALIA
Same Country. Same People. Same Poison. Enough is Enough.
In February 1998, the federal government announced its intention to
build a national nuclear waste dump in central South Australia.
There were parallels between the atrocities inflicted on Aboriginal
people during the British nuclear testing program and the plan for a
national radioactive waste dump:
* the dump represented another forced imposition of radiological toxins.
* Aboriginal land was seized in support of the dump just as it was for
the weapons tests. This alienation included but went beyond the
annulment of formal Native Title rights and interests over the dump
site, as part of the the Federal Government's compulsory acquisition of
land for the dump.
One of the patterns of radioactive racism is that Indigenous
communities are divided, dislocated and disempowered, and thus all the
more vulnerable to the next assault from the nuclear industry. The
victory in the campaign to prevent the imposition of a nuclear waste
dump in SA was a welcome exception to the general pattern. The Kupa
Piti Kungka Tjuta - a senior Aboriginal women's council, comprising
women who had suffered the effects of the British nuclear testing
program - played a leading role in the campaign against the dump, as
were the Kokatha and Barngala Native Title claimant groups.
The campaign of the Kupa Piti Kungka Tjuta was widely supported and
celebrated.
In 2000, the Kungka Tjuta were awarded the Jill Hudson Award for
Environmental Protection from the Conservation Council of SA
(<www.ccsa.asn.au/esa/hudson.htm>).
The Kupa Piti Kungka Tjuta also received a regional 'SA Great' award
for contribution to the environment. (Advertiser, December 16, 2000.)
Mrs. Eileen Kampakuta Brown, a member of the Kungka Tjuta, was awarded
an Order of Australia on Australia Day, January 26, 2003 for her
service to the community "through the preservation, revival and
teaching of traditional Anangu (Aboriginal) culture and as an advocate
for indigenous communities in Central Australia". On March 5, 2003, the
Australian Senate passed a resolution noting "the hypocrisy of the
Government in giving an award for services to the community to Mrs.
Brown but taking no notice of her objection, and that of the
Yankunytjatjara/Antikarinya community, to its decision to construct a
national repository on this land."
Representatives of the Kungka Tjuta, Mrs. Eileen Kampakuta Brown, a
Yankunytjatjara/Antikarinya elder, and Mrs. Eileen Wani Wingfield, a
Kokatha elder, were awarded the prestigious international Goldman Prize
in 2003 for their campaign to prevent the dump
(<www.goldmanprize.org>).
Commenting on the Goldman Award, The Adelaide Advertiser argued in an
April 15, 2003 editorial:
"Award of the Goldman Environmental Prize to Aboriginal elders Eileen
Kampakuta Brown and Eileen Wani Wingfield for their dogged opposition
to the planned radioactive waste dump is recognition and inspiration.
The two women are survivors of the atomic tests at Maralinga in the
1950s. They are also a timely rebuff to the Federal Government's
continued message that opposition to the low level dump is synonymous
with hysteria and ignorance.
Half a century on, these two women have lived with the lethal impact
and the Berlin Wall of denial that followed Maralinga.
Their misgivings [about the dump] are the misgivings of the
overwhelming majority of their fellow South Australians.
If only this award would be accompanied by Federal Government
acceptance that their dump decision is unfair and unwarranted."
The dump was opposed by Native Title claimant groups, the Kokatha and
the Barngala. It was opposed by the Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander Commission. (ATSIC). Acting Chair of ATSIC, Lionel
Quartermaine, argued in a submission to ARPANSA: "The Nulla Wimila
Kutju Regional Council is fully supportive of the Kupa Piti Kungka
Tjuta ... who have been vocal in their opposition to the proposed
[repository] siting. Many witnessed the effects on their people of the
Atomic Tests conducted in their country in the 1950s. It is patently
unfair that these should now once again face the prospect of being at
risk of radiation exposure." (Submission No.242, previously posted at
<www.arpansa.gov.au/reposit/nrwr.htm>. See also: "ATSIC in fear
of N-dump leakage", by Rebecca DiGirolamo, The Australian, December 16,
2003, p.4.)
An April 14, 2003 letter from the Federal Environment Department's
Indigenous Advisory Committee states:
"The Kupa Piti Kungka Tjuta, senior Aboriginal women of north SA,
fundamentally oppose this nuclear waste dump which they see as the
imposition of poison ground onto their traditional lands.
The Kokatha people, as registered native title claimants, oppose the
nuclear waste dump and the intended acquisition and annulment of their
native title rights and interests.
Throughout the EIS process under the EPBC Act, the Native Title
claimants and other community members feel that there has not been
adequate consultation. Traditional owners have also not been able to
find out about the intended legal approach of the Commonwealth
Government in carrying out key aspects of the proposed project."
Those concerns were ignored in the federal Environment Department's
Environmental Assessment Report Report (March 2003) and by the
Environment Minister David Kemp, who approved the dump project. Kemp's
approval was the final stage of an Environmental Impact Assessment
process under the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Convention
Act 1999 - a farcical process whereby Federal Government departments
wrote, 'reviewed' and approved the Environmental Impact Statement.
The Federal Government's Government's approach to 'consultation' was
spelt out in a document leaked in 2002 (Department of Education,
Science and Training, 2002, "Communication Strategy: Announcement of
Low Level Radioactive Waste Site in SA"). The document states: "Tactics
to reach Indigenous audiences will be informed by extensive
consultations currently being undertaken ... with Indigenous groups."
In other words, sham 'consultation' was used to fine-tune the
government's pro-dump propaganda.
Aboriginal groups were coerced into signing agreements consenting to
test drilling of short-listed sites for the proposed dump. The Federal
Government made it clear that if consent for test drilling was not
granted by Aboriginal groups, that drilling would take place anyway. A
clear signal of the Government's intent to proceed regardless of
Aboriginal support for or engagement in the process came on April 30,
1999, when the Federal Government issued a Section 9 notice under the
1989 Land Acquisition Act which gave the government legal powers to
conduct work on land that it might acquire to site the dump.
Aboriginal groups were put in an invidious position:
* they could attempt to protect specific cultural sites by engaging
with the Federal Government and signing agreements, at the risk of
having that engagement being misrepresented or misunderstood as consent
the dump per sé; or
* they could refuse to engage in the process, thereby having no say in
the process whatsoever.
Aboriginal groups were between "a rock and a hard place" according to
Stewart Motha from the Aboriginal Legal Rights Movement, which
represented the Antakirinja, Barngarla, and Kokatha people in
negotiations over the dump. Mr. Motha said, "If Aboriginal groups do
get involved in clearances [for test drilling] they face the
possibility that the Government will point to that involvement as an
indication of consent for the project. If they refuse to participate,
who will protect Aboriginal heritage, dreaming and sacred sites?" (ALRM
newsletter, 1999.)
According to Parry Agius, manager of the ALRM's Native Title Unit, "The
nuclear waste repository issue highlights the inadequacy of native
title rights as they are currently constituted under the Native Title
Act and is a showcase for the consequences of the 10 Point Plan. While
native title purports to recognise Aboriginal peoples' particular
relationship to the land, and the negotiations we are currently
undertaking are aimed at protecting Aboriginal heritage, the
commonwealth government may extinguish these rights by compulsory
acquisition." (ALRM newsletter, 1999.)
Dr. Roger Thomas, a Kokatha man, told an ARPANSA forum on February 25,
2004:
"The Commonwealth sought from the native title claim group the
opportunity to carry out site clearances. They presented to us, as a
native title group, some 58 sites that they would like us to consider
for the purpose of cultural significance clearance. Of the 58, there
were seven sites that they saw as being the priority locations for
where they had intentions to want to locate the waste repository. I
would like it to be registered that, of the 58, the senior law men and
women had difficulty and made it quite clear that there was no intent
on their part to want to give any agreement to any of those sites. ...
The point of concern and controversy for us is that we were advised -
and we were told this by the various agencies involved - 'If you don't
proceed with signing the agreement, the Federal Government will acquire
it under the constitution legislation.' From our point of view, we not
only had the shotgun at our head, we also were put in a situation where
we were deemed powerless. If this is an example of the whitefella
process and system that we've got to comply with as Indigenous
Australians, then we attest that this whole process needs to be
reviewed and looked at and we need to be given under the convention of
the United Nations the appropriate rights as Indigenous first nation
people. Our bottom line position is that we do not agree with any waste
material of any level being dumped, located or deposited in any part of
this country."
Aboriginal groups did reluctantly engage in surveys resulting in the
signing of so-called Heritage Clearance Agreements. Heritage assessment
surveys were conducted by three groups:
* Antakirinja, Barngala and Kokotha Native Title Claimant Groups,
working jointly and with the same legal representatives;
* Andamooka Land Council Association, with separate legal
representation;
* Kuyani Association, represented by an adviser.
One risk was that those agreements would be misrepresented by the
Federal Government as amounting to Aboriginal consent to or even
support for the dump per sé. That risk was in fact realised.
Federal Government politicians and bureaucrats repeatedly made
reference to the surveys and the resulting Agreements without noting
that those Agreements in no way amount to consent to the dump. The
following excerpt from Senate Hansard provides an example of this type
of misrpresentation-by-omission (30 October, 2003, p.16813, question
2118):
Senator Allison (Australian Democrats) asked the Minister representing
the Minister for Science, upon notice, on 18 September 2003:
(e) have any Indigenous groups consented to the construction and
operation of the repository at the site known as Site 40a; if so, which
groups;
(f) have any Indigenous groups stated that Site 40a has no particular
Indigenous heritage values; if so, which groups.
Senator Vanstone — The Minister for Science has provided the following
answer to the honourable senator's question:
(e) The site has been cleared for all works associated with the
construction and operation of a national repository, with regard to
Aboriginal heritage, by the Aboriginal groups with native title claims
over the relative site as well as other groups with heritage interests
in the region. These groups are the Antakirinja, Barngala and and
Kokotha Native Title Claimant Groups, the Andamooka Land Council
Association and the Kuyani Association.
(f) See answer to (e).
There is no recognition whatsoever in the above statement from the
Federal Government of Aboriginal opposition to the dump.
Likewise, a DEST official told an ARPANSA forum on December 17, 2001
that: "... those Aboriginal groups that have heritage interests in
those lands we have consulted extensively with them, and each of the
three sites that are going through environmental impact assessment has
been inspected by these Aboriginal groups and have cleared for the
construction and operation of the repository." (Transcript at
<www.arpansa.gov.au/rrrp_for.htm>).
The same misrepresentation-by-omission occurs in the Environment
Department's Environmental Assessment Report regarding the planned dump
(<www.ea.gov.au>) and in numerous other Federal Government
statements.
This misrepresentation-by-omission has occurred repeatedly despite the
fact that the Heritage Clearance Agreements specifically note
Aboriginal opposition. One such Agreement, between the Federal
Government and the Antakarinja Native Title Group, the Barngarla Native
Title Group and the Kokatha Native Title Claimant Group, dated May 12,
2000, includes the following clauses:
E. The agreement to undertake Work Area Clearances is not to be deemed
as consent, and the COMMONWEALTH do not under this Agreement seek such
consent, by the Claimants to the establishment of a NRWR in the Central
North Region of South Australia.
I. The COMMONWEALTH acknowledges that there is "considerable
opposition" to the NRWR within the Aboriginal community of the region,
but notwithstanding that the Claimants have made a commitment that the
heritage clearance and the contents of the Work Area Clearance Report
will not be influenced by such opposition.
The Federal Government never publicly released those clauses of the
Agreement.
Federal government politicians and bureaucrats acknowledged Aboriginal
opposition to the dump - but infrequently, and generally only when
attention was drawn to their attempts to misrepresent Heritage
Clearance Agreements as amounting to consent to the dump.
DEST stated in the Draft Environment Impact Assessment (ch.11): "The
preferred site and two alternatives have been identified by Aboriginal
groups as not containing areas of significance for Aboriginal cultural
heritage, and have been cleared for all works associated with the
construction and operation of the national repository." That statement
assumes that the cultural significance of northern SA region can be
reduced to relatively small, discrete sites of significance - a false
assumption. It conflicts with the true significance of the region to
Aboriginal people.
Ironically, the Draft Environment Impact Assessment (ch.11) also
expresses a clearer understanding:
"As described in two of the work area clearance reports, many of the
region's landscape features have important spiritual associations.
Numerous spiritual pathways or Tjukurrpa trails extend for hundreds of
kilometres, linking this region with the central desert areas and to
cultural areas north and west. They also link to the eastern lakes and
Flinders Ranges region. In this respect the area of investigation
straddles an area of particular cultural interest. The interconnected
nature of the cultural environment means that to the Aboriginal groups
concerned, the locations proposed for the potential repository sites,
even though very small, cannot be viewed as isolated entities, but need
to be considered within the broader cultural perspective of Aboriginal
beliefs. The gibber plains are commonly associated with significant
Tjukurrpa and the fact that almost all of the work areas (including the
three under consideration) were located on gibber plains made their
clearance for development more difficult."
Likewise, the Draft Environment Impact Assessment (ch.11) also states:
"Of specific concern to Aboriginal groups was the potential of the
project to adversely affect the values that the landscape of the
central–north region of South Australia has for them. These values
include most importantly cultural heritage values, not expressed solely
as sites or places that might be physically avoided, but in a number of
religious narratives, generically called Tjukurrpa, that incorporate
different parts of the regional landscape."
Since DEST evidently had some appreciation of the nature of Aboriginal
cultural connections to the land, it was unfortunate that DEST
consistently expressed - even in the same chapter of the Draft EIS -
the contrary view that cultural significance attaches only to discrete
sites.
Native Title Rights and Interests
In 2002, the Federal Government tried to buy-off Aboriginal opposition
to the dump. Three Native Title claimant groups - the Kokatha, Kuyani
and Barngala - were offered $90,000 to surrender their Native Title
rights, but only on the condition that all three groups agreed. Two of
the groups - the Kokatha and Barngala - refused, so the government's
ploy failed.
Dr. Roger Thomas, a Kokatha man, told an ARPANSA forum on February 25,
2004: "The most disappointing aspect to the negotiations that the
Commonwealth had with us, as Kokatha, is to try to buy our agreement.
This was most insulting to us as Aboriginal people and particularly to
our elders. For the sake of ensuring that I don't further create any
embarrassment, I will not quote the figure, but let me tell you, our
land is not for sale. Our Native Title rights are not for sale. We are
talking about our culture, our lore and our dreaming. We are talking
about our future generations we're protecting here. We do not have a
"for sale" sign up and we never will."
According to The Age, the meetings took place at a Port Augusta motel
in September 2002 and the Commonwealth delegation included
representatives of the Department of the Attorney-General, the
Department of Finance and the Department of Education and Science and
Training. (Penelope Debelle, "Anger over native title cash offer", The
Age, May 17, 2003.)
The Age article quotes Dr. Thomas saying: "The insult of it, it was
just so insulting. I told the Commonwealth officers to stop being so
disrespectful and rude to us by offering us $90,000 to pay out our
country and our culture."
The Age article quotes Kokatha Land Council representative Andrew
Starkey saying "It was just shameful. They were wanting people to sign
off their cultural heritage rights for a minuscule amount of money. We
would not do that for any amount of money."
"Our heritage is not for sale", said Andrew Starkey (The Australian,
27/2/03).
The Australian quoted solicitor Philip Teitzel, representing the
Barngala people, said they had rejected the $90,000 because many South
Australians objected to a radioactive waste dump in their state.
("Blacks veto cash for N-dump site rights", Rebecca DiGirolamo, The
Australian, February 27, 2003.)
On July 7, 2003, the Federal Government used compulsory land
acquisition powers under the Lands Acquisition Act 1989 (Senator Nick
Minchin, Minister for Finance and Administration, Media Release, July
7, 2003). By so doing, Native Title rights and interests were annulled.
This took place with no forewarning and no consultation with Indigenous
groups, the South Australian Government, the holders of the pastoral
lease on the dump site, or with any other section of the Australian
community.
The victory
On July 14, 2004, the federal government abandoned the plan to build a
radioactive waste dump in SA. The decision reflected the strength and
persistence of the campaign against the dump. The victory was also
helped by the ruling of the full bench of the Federal Court in June
2004, that the government had illegally used the urgency provision of
the Land Acquisition Act.
The government could still have used the Land Acquisition Act (though
not the urgency provision) to once again seize control of the land. But
with an election approaching, the government decided to cut its losses.
Open letter from the Kupa Piti Kungka Tjuta after the victory
August 2004
People said that you can't win against the Government. Just a few
women. We just kept talking and telling them to get their ears out of
their pockets and listen. We never said we were going to give up.
Government has big money to buy their way out but we never gave up. We
told Howard you should look after us, not try and kill us. Straight
out. We always talk straight out. In the end he didn't have the power,
we did. He only had money, but money doesn't win.
Happy now – Kungka winners. We are winners because of what's in our
hearts, not what's on paper. About the country, bush tucker, bush
medicine and Inma (traditional songs and dances). Big happiness that we
won against the Government. Victorious. And the family and all the
grandchildren are so happy because we fought the whole way. And we were
going away all the time. Kids growing up, babies have been born since
we started. And still we have family coming. All learning about our
fight.
We started talking strong against the dump a long time ago, in 1998
with Sister Michelle. We thought we would get the Greenies to help us.
Greenies care for the same thing. Fight for the same thing. Against the
poison.
Since then we been everywhere talking about the poison. Canberra,
Sydney, Lucas Heights, Melbourne, Adelaide, Silverton, Port Augusta,
Roxby Downs, Lake Eyre. We did it the hard way. Always camping out in
the cold. Travelling all over with no money. Just enough for cool drink
along the way. We went through it. Survivors. Even had an accident
where we hit a bullock one night on the way to Roxby Downs. We even
went to Lucas Heights Reactor. It's a dangerous place, but we went in
boldly to see where they were making the poison - the radiation. Seven
women, seven sisters, we went in.
We lost our friends. Never mind we lost our loved ones. We never give
up. Been through too much. Too much hard business and still keep going.
Sorry business all the time. Fought through every hard thing along the
way. People trying to scare us from fighting, it was hard work, but we
never stopped. When we were going to Sydney people say "You Kungkas
cranky they might bomb you", but we kept going. People were telling us
that the Whitefellas were pushing us, but no everything was coming from
the heart, from us.
We showed that Greenies and Anangu can work together. Greenies could
come and live here in Coober Pedy and work together to stop the dump.
Kungkas showed the Greenies about the country and the culture. Our
Greenie girls are the best in Australia. We give them all the love from
our hearts. Family you know. Working together – that's family. Big
thank you to them especially. We can't write. They help us with the
letters, the writing, the computers, helped tell the world.
Thank you very much for helping us over the years, for everything.
Thank you to the Lord, all our family and friends, the Coober Pedy
community, Umoona Aged Care, the South Australian Government and all
our friends around Australia and overseas. You helped us and you helped
the kids. We are happy. We can have a break now. We want to have a rest
and go on with other things now. Sit around the campfire and have a
yarn. We don't have to talk about the dump anymore, and get up and go
all the time. Now we can go out together and camp out and pick bush
medicine and bush tucker. And take the grandchildren out.
We were crying for the little ones and the ones still coming. With all
the help - we won. Thank you all very much.
No Radioactive Waste Dump in our Ngura – In our Country!
Kupa Piti Kungka Tjuta
Ivy Makinti Stewart
Eileen Kampakuta Brown
Eileen Unkari Crombie
Emily Munyungka Austin
Angelina Wonga
Tjunmutja Myra Watson
Coober Pedy, South Australia
('Talking Straight Out', a wonderful book about the Kungka Tjuta's
campaign, is available for purchase, check the website for details:
<www.iratiwanti.org>.)
===============================================
4.
CURRENT PROPOSAL FOR A NUCLEAR WASTE DUMP IN THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
The Howard government's plan to dump nuclear waste on Aboriginal land
in SA was defeated. But now the government is attempting to impose a
nuclear dump on the Northern Territory - despite having made
unequivocal promises not to do so before the 2004 federal election.
Three sites are being considered - Hart's Range and Mt Everard in
Central Australia, and Fisher's Ridge near Katherine. None of these
sites was short-listed when environmental and scientific criteria were
used to locate potential dump sites in the 1990s.
Along with low and intermediate level waste from around Australia, the
dump would take highly radioactive waste from reprocessed spent fuel
rods from the nuclear reactor at Lucas Heights in Sydney.
The federal government failed in its attempt to dump radioactive waste
in SA in large bart because of its heavy-handed, undemocratic and
racist handling of the issue. But the government appears to have drawn
the opposite conclusion. It now wants to impose a nuclear waste dump on
the Northern Territory and is behaving in a still more heavy-handed and
undemocratic manner.
Draconian legislation was passed through the federal parliament in 2005
to by-pass normal decision-making processes in relation to the proposed
nuclear waste dump. This legislation undermines environmental, public
safety and Aboriginal heritage protections.
The proposed dump is opposed by a number of Indigenous groups including
the Central Lands Council.
The Northern Land Council (NLC) has expressed conditional support for
the dump but the conditions have not been met. As the Senate report
into the Commonwealth Radioactive Waste Management Bill 2005 said
(paragraph 1.41): "It is clear that the NLC's support for the
legislation is conditional on traditional owners retaining a final veto
right concerning the location of a waste facility on the basis of
sacred site and environmental considerations. The bill in its current
form does not appear to meet this requirement." (Senate Employment,
Workplace Relations and Education Legislation Committee, November 2005.)
Nor did the Commonwealth Radioactive Waste Management Act in its final
form meet the NLC's requirement.
The limited support for a dump in the NT (Indigenous and
non-Indigenous) appears to be predicated on the assumption that there
will be appropriate compensation. But when the plan was to build a dump
in South Australia, there was never any offer of compensation ... just
one attempt to buy off Indigenous opposition to the dump which was
rejected by the Kokatha and Barngala Native Title claimants.
More information on the NT nuclear dump plan:
* Nuclear Territory News <www.ntnews.info/breaking.php>
* Environment Centre Northern Territory <www.ecnt.org>
* Alice Action <groups.yahoo.com/group/aliceaction>
* NT nuclear dump wiki: <en.wikinews.org/wiki/
Opposing_a_nuclear_waste_dump_in_the_Northern_Territory>
* Friends of the Earth <www.foe.org.au>
Contact: Alice Action
E: <aliceactioninfo@yahoo.com.au>
Alice Action meets every Wednesday 6pm at ALEC, 39 Hartley St, Alice
Springs.
Commonwealth Radioactive Waste Management Act 2005
The federal government states that the Commonwealth Radioactive Waste
Management Act (CRWMB) 2005 is intended, in the government's words, to
"provide legislative authority to undertake the various activities
associated with the proposed facility; override or restrict the
application of laws that might hinder the facility's development and
operation; and provide for the acquisition or extinguishment of rights
and interests related to land on which the facility may be located."
The Commonwealth Radioactive Waste Management Act (CRWMA) 2005 was
passed through the federal parliament in December 2005. It excludes
State and Territory laws where they would 'regulate, hinder or prevent'
investigation of sites, construction of the nuclear waste dump and
transportation of nuclear waste. It prevents the Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984 and the Environment
Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 from having effect
during investigation of the sites. The Act excludes the Native Title
Act 1993 and the Lands Acquisition Act 1989 from operating at all. The
government ignored requests from the Central and Northern Land Councils
that Traditional Owners retain a right to veto specific sites on
environmental or heritage grounds.
Section 3D of the CRWMB 2005 states that: "No person is entitled to
procedural fairness in relation to a Minister's approval."
Section 6 of the CRWMB 2005 states:
"Application of Commonwealth laws
(1) The following laws have no effect to the extent that they would,
apart from this section, regulate, hinder or prevent the doing of a
thing authorised by section 4:
(a) the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act
1984;
(b) the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.
(2) The regulations may prescribe another law, or a provision of
another law, of the Commonwealth for the purposes of this subsection.
The prescribed law or provision has no effect to the extent that it
would, apart from this subsection, regulate, hinder or prevent the
doing of a thing authorised by section 4."
Then science minister Brendan Nelson said in Parliament on 1/11/05:
"the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984
and the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
will not apply to the site investigation phase of the project."
Part 3 of the CRWMB 2005 states that: "The Minister may, in his or her
absolute discretion, declare in writing that all or specified rights or
interests in land in the Northern Territory specified in the
declaration are required for providing all-weather road access to the
selected site (or selected part of a site)."
Part 3 makes further provision for procedural fairness to be ignored:
"No person is entitled to procedural fairness in relation to the
Minister's making of a declaration."
Part 3, section 9 (Acquisition or extinguishment) states that:
"... any rights or interests in the selected site (or selected part of
a site) that have not already been acquired by the Commonwealth, or
extinguished, are by force of this section:
(a) acquired by the Commonwealth or extinguished; and
(b) freed and discharged from all other rights and interests and from
all trusts, restrictions, dedications, reservations, obligations,
mortgages, encumbrances, contracts, licences, charges and rates."
Part 4 - Conducting activities in relation to selected site - provides
for another raft of exemptions from state/territory laws.
------------------------>
Dumping Ground
By Eve Vincent
Signature
January 2006
<http://s7digital.com/signature/sig-stories.php?id=532>
Julius Bloomfield, a traditional landowner from Mount Everard, north of
Alice Springs, hands me a yellow felt circle, carefully cut out. It's
an imperfect shape, but an eloquent piece of felt. The yellow dot, an
attached note explains, is for "the sun on our flag, and renewable
energy". It also symbolises yellow cake, and a target. Bull's eye.
When EVE VINCENT met Julius in mid-September 2005, the Arrente people
of Mount Everard suspected that when it came to a decision about where
to put a national radioactive waste repository, their views would count
for very little. By December, they were proved right.
In July 2005 Dr Brendan Nelson, Federal Minister for Education, Science
and Training, finalised a list of possible sites for a nuclear waste
dump: Mount Everard, on the Tanami Road 40 kilometres north west of
Alice; Harts Range, on the Plenty Highway 165 kilometres north east of
Alice; and Fishers Ridge on the Stuart Highway 47 kilometres south of
Katherine. All three sites are on Commonwealth-owned Defence Department
land. According to Nelson, the three potential sites will be assessed
for their suitability over the next three years.
Public opposition to the waste dump runs high in the Territory, and
enjoys the bipartisan support of Clare Martin's Labor Government and
the Country Liberal Party Opposition. Currently, various State and
Territory regulatory laws and prohibitions apply to the transporting
and dumping of nuclear waste, reflecting strong community concern about
the practice.
However, in October 2005 Nelson unveiled a Bill that puts beyond doubt
the Commonwealth's power to proceed with their plans. The Bill was
subsequently passed in December.
The Commonwealth Radioactive Waste Management Bill strips the powers of
both the Northern Territory Government and the relevant Aboriginal Land
Councils, which represent traditional owners, to oppose the dump.
The Bill decrees that all relevant Aboriginal heritage legislation and
the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
"will not apply to the site investigation phase of the project".
It confers discretionary powers on the responsible minister, who may
declare one of the three sites as suitable. The Bill also extinguishes
all interests — such as Native Title — that the Commonwealth does not
already hold in the site.
Finally, just in case any confusion remains, the Bill ensures the
Commonwealth has the express authority to do anything "necessary or
incidentally required to proceed with the establishment and operation
of the facility, as well as the transport of waste".
By this stage of the Bill's initial October reading, Warren Snowden,
Labor member for the Territory seat of Lingiari, had been kicked out of
the House of Representatives chamber. Snowden could not help himself
from interjecting. "Outrageous!" he interrupted. "This is outrageous.
[Nelson]'s outrageous."
The Northern Territory's Chief Minister, Clare Martin, was also furious
with the Federal Government's radical move. The NT Parliament
immediately moved a resolution condemning their inability to
scrutinise, review or appeal the dump proposal.
It's certainly an extraordinarily heavy-handed power grab. (Or it would
be, if the arrogant, anti-democratic thrust of so much Government
comment and legislation hadn't rendered the extraordinary, very
ordinary.)
Territorians are angry that they've been lied to about the dump. In the
lead up to the 2004 Federal election, Environment Minister Ian Campbell
made this statement in Darwin: 'The Commonwealth is not pursuing any
options anywhere on the mainland ... Northern Territorians can take
that as an absolute categorical assurance.' The things you say, when
you're trying to win votes.
Nelson's justification for the Bill was highly emotive.
The Government needs to have finalised its plan for the disposal of
radioactive waste before the regulatory body ARPANSA will license the
construction of a new nuclear research reactor at Lucas Heights in
suburban Sydney. The closing passages of the Bill's reading stated that
Lucas Heights, which produces medical isotopes, saves people's lives
everyday. This is grossly misleading.
Dr Bill Williams, from the Medical Association for the Prevention of
War, has noted that "from February to May 2000, while the [Lucas
Heights] reactor was shutdown for maintenance, we simply imported all
our technetium [an isotope used in nuclear medicine], without any
reported adverse patient outcomes".
Dr Williams also cites research in the US which suggests that
alternative production methods of technetium are not far off.
Development and commercialisation of new technology could mean Lucas
Heights' existence is unjustifiable within years.
Let's remember why the Government's last attempt to impose a waste dump
on an unwilling community went so disastrously wrong. In 1998 the
Federal Government began a push to locate a national nuclear waste dump
in South Australia's arid north.
The move was deeply unpopular in South Australia. So much so that, in
2003, the Federal Government awarded a $300,000 contract to a
Melbourne-based PR firm to sell the plan to a hostile public. The
public didn't buy it. In fact, in demonstrating its contempt for
community opinion, the Federal Government cemented the passionate
resolve of South Australians.
With the South Australian community behind him, Mike Rann's Labor
Government eventually took the Federal Government to court over the
issue. On 24 June last year the Federal Court found that the
Commonwealth Government had misused the 'urgency provisions' in a
hurried compulsory acquisition of the relevant land parcel. The Howard
Government decided an appeal would be too costly, (as in, it might cost
them marginal Adelaide seats in the 2004 Federal election) and
announced its decision to abandon the plan two weeks later.
Since 1998, when the waste dump plan for South Australia was first
mooted, the Kupa Piti Kungka Tjuta, a council of Senior Aboriginal
women based in Coober Pedy in the State's north, had insisted that they
had a responsibility to care for their country. See our photo story for
more about their campaign, which effectively argued that the Government
was ignorant, and that they (the Kungkas or women) held valuable local
knowledge. The Government thought the country was dead, meaningless,
remote. The Kungkas showed it was alive, filled with meanings and home.
The Kungkas wrote many letters to politicians explaining that they had
to look after the land, life and the future. Some of the Kungkas signed
these letters — which were drafted out loud and then written up in the
campaign office — with small, neat crosses.
Theirs then is a story about contesting power, with an unlikely
outcome. Or is it?
When Governments move radical proposals to extend their own power,
communities respond in kind.
------------------------>
WASTE DUMP - TRADITIONAL OWNERS TAKE THEIR FIGHT TO CANBERRA
3 November 2005
<www.clc.org.au/media/releases/2005/nov05_waste.asp>
Traditional owners of the two proposed waste dump sites in Central
Australia are taking their fight to Canberra .
Both groups have sent letters to the Minister for Education, Science
and Training, Brendan Nelson, Senator Scullion , Minister for
Aboriginal Affairs Amanda Vanstone and other politicians.
They have also listened to presentations from Australian Nuclear
Science and Technology Organisation and the Department of Education
Science and Training.
However, both groups have decided that the proposal has no positive
benefits for them.
The traditional owners are concerned about safety and the future
security of a nuclear waste dump, the waste being transported on the
roads that they use every day, the negative impact on businesses like
Alcoota Aboriginal Corporation's cattle company, the impact on their
traditional country and the ability to hunt and get bush tucker,
pollution of the water in the event of an accident and the future for
their grandchildren.
Chairman of the Alcoota Aboriginal Corporation, William Tilmouth said
that the company was extremely worried about its beef sales if there
was a nuclear waste dump nearby.
"Other pastoralists have also expressed concern over the perception by
the public that the beef will be contaminated. The cattle industry out
here prides itself on being clean and green.
"We were lied to before the last election. Even Dave Tollner admitted
that on Stateline last week. Now is the time for Senator Scullion to
stand up for his constituents in Central Australia and cross the
floor," Mr Tilmouth said.
Lindsay Bookie runs a tourist business further east along the Plenty
Highway and said that a waste dump would impact heavily on him
"I have talked to the tourists who come to my camp and they say they
wouldn't come anymore because it would spoil the area. I am really
worried about all those trucks along that road too. There are so many
accidents along there - it wouldn't be at all safe."
Steven McCormack, who lives close to the Mt Everard site said that a
nuclear waste dump would be devastating for him and his family.
"This land is not empty - people live right nearby. We hunt and collect
bush tucker here and I am the custodian of a sacred site within the
boundaries of the defence land. We don't want this poison here.
------------------------>
CANBERRA FOISTS NUCLEAR WASTE ON ABORIGINAL COMMUNITIES
15 July 2005
<www.clc.org.au/media/releases/2005/jul05_nuclear.asp>
The Director of the Central Land Council (CLC), Mr David Ross said
today that there had been no approach from the Federal Government about
a locating a nuclear waste dump in Central Australia.
"I think people in Canberra just looked at a map and thought it looked
remote and empty.
"However, the two proposed sites in Central Australia - Mt Everard and
Harts Range – are close to people's homes and communities," he said.
"There must be a process for consent."
"No-one wants a nuclear waste dump in their backyard and I am sure that
traditional owners will have deep concerns about their safety, risks to
the environment and the transportation of the nuclear waste.
"In September last year the Australian Government assured Territorians
there would be no waste dump sites in the NT.
"The next we hear about it, the sites have already been chosen.
Minister Nelson's media statement today does not even acknowledge that
the Territory Government has already legislated to ban the transport
and disposal of federal nuclear waste in the Territory and this
position is also supported by the Leader of the Opposition, Jodeen
Carney.
"The views of Territorians - both black and white – do not seem to be
important to this government.
"We have all watched the courageous struggle of the Kupa Piti Kungka
Tjutas to stop this dump being built on their country nearby in SA, and
some of those women have recently visited Alice Springs to talk about
their experience. It would seem that the Australian Government has not
learnt anything from the defeat of the waste dump proposal in SA.
------------------------>
SCULLION AND TOLLNER A DISGRACE ON NUCLEAR DUMP
13 October 2005
<www.clc.org.au/media/releases/2005/20051013_scullion_tollner_dump.asp>
Senator Scullion says he has crossed the floor to vote against the dump
in the past and will continue to do so in the future.
"I already crossed the floor to support a motion that says the
Commonwealth shouldn't do this," he said.
"Now, any motion of that type, I will also cross the floor to support
or if there's any legislation that comes before the Senate that can
prevent the Commonwealth from providing this in the Northern Territory
I'll vote against it".
(ABC NT Local News 19 August 2005)
The Central Land Council says that the introduction of two pieces of
legislation into Parliament today to allow a nuclear waste dump in the
Northern Territory shows an outrageous disregard for the views of
Territorians.
CLC director David Ross said some Arrernte people had already clearly
and loudly said 'no' to the proposal to have a nuclear dump site in
Central Australia and the Central Land Council was organising further
meetings with all traditional owners of the two proposed sites to
ensure that they were aware of the issue and could give their views.
It is a statutory function of the CLC to seek the views of Aboriginal
people about developments on country to which they are affiliated.
"The Government knew we were holding meetings next week with Arrernte
traditional owners of the country which may be affected and it has
accepted an invitation to those meetings to put its case.
However, this action completely obliterates any pretence that these
traditional owners' views will make a difference to the outcome,
although the Government formally asked us to consult people," Mr Ross
said.
"Senator Scullion has conveniently forgotten his former commitment to
prevent the dump.
"It's not too late Senator Scullion. You can still redeem your
integrity by crossing the floor to represent your constituents," he
said.
"To add insult to injury, David Tollner and Nigel Scullion's joint
press release on the issue is just a mumbo jumbo of outright lies.
"To pretend that Australians will be denied life-saving
radiopharmaceuticals if the dump is stopped is alarmist rubbish and
Territorians deserve better from their elected representative.
"At the very least, one would expect our elected representatives to
reflect the views of their constituents and to tell the truth. They do
neither," Mr Ross said.
------------------------>
Walk in the sand with us, traditional owners urge PM
October 4, 2005
<www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200510/s1474339.htm>
Traditional owners of land near Alice Springs earmarked for a national
nuclear waste dump have called for the Prime Minister and Science
Minister to visit the area and meet with them.
The Athenge Lhere group are traditional owners of the Mount Everard
site, which is north of Alice Springs.
It is one of three sites in the Northern Territory being considered by
the Federal Government for the dump.
Kathleen Martin Williams, who is one of the traditional owners, says a
visit may help the ministers understand the community's reservations.
"I'd like Johnny Howard and his sidekicks, especially that [Education
Minister] Brendan Nelson, to come here take off their shoes and walk in
the red sand with us," she said.
"Maybe they will appreciate our country. Maybe."
The Northern Territory's Environment Minister, Marion Scrymgour, says
she told the Athenge Lhere group this morning that the Territory
Government strongly opposes the dump.
Ms Scrymgour says the traditional owners' opposition to a dump being
placed on their country is just as legitimate as any resident in urban
Australia.
"A lot of the traditional owners in the central Australian region are
saying you know not in our back yard," she said.
"Sorry but these sites and these areas are significant to us. They have
significant dreaming areas ... and it shouldn't be in these areas."
------------------------>
Traditional owners urge rejection of nuclear dump law
ABC
November 3, 2005
Traditional owners from two central Australian regions earmarked for a
nuclear waste dump have voiced their disgust about having the facility
forced on them.
Seven senior men and women from the Harts Range and Mount Everard areas
near Alice Springs fronted the media this morning to make their
opposition to a dump known.
Legislation has passed the House of Representatives, allowing the
Federal Government to force the facility on the Territory.
Two of the proposed sites are in central Australia.
The traditional owners at today's press conference called on the
Territory's CLP Senator Nigel Scullion to cross the floor and vote
against the dump legislation in the Senate.
------------------------>
No nuclear dumps: traditional owners
By Stephanie Peatling
November 1, 2005
<www.smh.com.au/news/national/no-nuclear-dumps-traditional-owners/2005/10/31/1130720481813.html>
Traditional owners of two of the proposed three sites for a nuclear
waste dump in the Northern Territory have urged the Federal Government
to look elsewhere for the facility, saying they are worried about the
implications for the environment and the health of their people.
The Central Land Council held meetings with the traditional owners of
the Alcoota-Harts Range and Mt Everard sites, near Alice Springs, a
fortnight ago and has formally told the Minister for Science, Brendan
Nelson, of the owners' opposition.
But under legislation to be debated by Parliament this week, Dr Nelson
will gain the power to dismiss all objections to the site he eventually
chooses for the nuclear waste dump.
"Of primary concern is the need to keep their country safe and healthy
for present and future generations, and to be able to continue to use
their country for hunting and getting bush tucker," says a letter
written by the council outlining the owners' concerns.
People are living close to the two proposed sites and are worried about
the long-term health and environmental effects should the dump go ahead.
"They fought hard to get their country back and they believe they
should not be the ones to have to live with radioactive waste on their
land," the letter says.
A delegation of senior traditional owners will visit Canberra next week
to protest against the three proposed sites for the dump.
The Federal Government is responsible for finding a site suitable for
permanent storage of nuclear waste produced by federal facilities such
as Sydney's Lucas Heights reactor.
It resumed the search last year after a campaign by the South
Australian Government and local groups forced it to abandon plans to
put the dump near Woomera.
Three sites are being considered, two of them on land looked after by
the Central Land Council. The other is on Northern Land Council land.
The Northern Land Council has given its support for a waste dump in the
NT if it can be done with the co-operation of traditional owners and
without endangering environmental or sacred site considerations.
Legislation due to be debated this week will give Dr Nelson the power
to over-ride NT laws designed to prevent the building of a nuclear dump
in the territory.
It will also allow him to dismiss objections raised by traditional
owners and prevent appeals under federal environmental or heritage
protection laws.
The Opposition's science spokeswoman, Jenny Macklin, said the new
legislation would "crush all opposition to the dump, including that of
the Central Land Council".
"It's time for the Science Minister to listen to the concerns of the
local community, instead of ramming through legislation designed to
silence dissent," she said.
------------------------>
"Talking straight out" to the Territory
MEDIA RELEASE
October 30, 2005
The Kupa Piti Kungka Tjuta – a council of senior Aboriginal women from
outback town Coober Pedy are heading to Alice Springs to launch the
book of their campaign, which stopped a nuclear waste dump in SA.
"This is a big story. You don't have to start at the beginning; we've
already done a lot of work," explain the Kungkas, who will also meet
with Traditional Owners of the two proposed sites while visiting the
Alice.
Territorians now face a protracted battle with the Federal Government
who are currently drafting new laws to "put beyond doubt the
Commonwealth's power" to build a nuclear waste dump in the NT.
The Federal Government are surely learning from their SA blunders, but
the Kungkas are intent that communities in the Northern Territory can
learn too, "Be strong like us. Don't be scared of the Government. We
weren't scared and we're elderly ladies."
"Talking Straight Out" will be launched at 6pm on Friday November 4 at
the Todd Mall Lawns. It is a 120 page full-colour book, self-published
from an underground office.
Over six years the women travelled the country, "talking straight out".
They called their campaign Irati Wanti – the poison, leave it.
Whether instructing federal politicians to "get your ears out of your
pockets and listen", starring in documentaries or hosting international
guests, the Kungkas generosity, courage and cheeky spirit are
infectious, and are bound to inspire many Northern Territorians.
"We just want to say to everyone don't give up, just keep going. We
kept on going and we won."
------------------------>
Nuclear waste dump debate
ABC Stateline
21/10/2005
Reporter: Melinda James
<www.abc.net.au/stateline/nt/content/2005/s1487960.htm>
MELINDA JAMES (journalist):
Does you public statement today mean that the Land Council effectively
supports the waste dump being built in the Northern Territory?
NORMAN FRY (Northern Land Council):
Not really, what we are saying is that if it is inevitable that the
Territory is going to get it we want Territorians to be involved, the
current Northern Territory government has dealt Territorians out of
that equation, we want an amendment to the Commonwealth Radioactive
Waste Management Bill, that allows Territorians in the form of
traditional land owners who own half the NT, to be informed about this,
and if the Territory is going to get it, then we have some say about
where it goes, and what sorts of benefits and other issues are
available and on offer for us.
MELINDA JAMES:
Well you have just finished a full council meeting with all 80 members
attending where any alternative sites suggested, or did any traditional
owners indicate that they actually wanted a nuclear waste dump on there
land?
NORMAN FRY:
The Commonwealth people that are handling this from Brendan Nelsons
port folio, came to the NLC some months ago to talk to with us and they
came to our full council meeting, and they gave a good briefing, a
comprehensive briefing, to the full council about what the repository
would look like above ground and what a trench would look like…
MELINDA JAMES:
But what kind of benefits do you think having a waste facility on
aboriginal land would bring to traditional owners, for e.g. are
traditional owners actively seeking a site now?
NORMAN FRY:
No they are not. But as we know the Commonwealth government right now
have introduced the Commonwealths Radioactive Waste Management Bill
which overrides sacred sites legislation, and aboriginal land rights as
well, and may very well have components of compulsory acquisitions in
it, which would simply override the Land Councils and the Land Rights
Act and all our Cultural and Heritage Rights, what we are seeking to do
is have a seat at the table with the Commonwealth, and like I said if
it is going to come to the Territory, because as you know the
Commonwealth is pretty cranky with all of the states about this ... and
when the arguments starts to distill down the NT politically is
obviously the weakest in the federation and is more than likely we will
end up with it in the NT. And given that 50% of the entire land mass of
the NT is owned by traditional aboriginal people, what were calling for
from our full council meeting is for A)- an amendment to go that a land
council and there are four of them in the NT, the Central Land Council,
the Anindilyakwa Land Council, and the Tiwi Land Council, so that if
this is going to happen in any of their jurisdictions, then the
traditional owners will have the final say and that their sacred sites
protection their heritage will be protected, and at the same time I
believe the NT Government…
------------------------>
Little Indigenous support for nuclear dump, group says
December 9, 2005
<www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200512/s1527236.htm>
The organisation representing traditional owners near a proposed
nuclear waste dump site in the Northern Territory says most Indigenous
Territorians do not want the facility.
Legislation passed the Senate yesterday allowing the dump to be built
at one of three sites in the Northern Territory.
The Northern Land Council (NLC) backed amendments allowing for an
alternative dump site to be proposed by Aboriginal land owners.
But the Jawoyn Association's acting director, John Ah Kit, a former
Labor government minister, says the NLC should not be speaking for
others.
"I haven't heard of any other traditional owners that have been
consulted yet," he said.
"The concern the Jawoyn people have with the Northern Land Council ...
supporting a resolution, there was no consultation with the Jawoyn
Association nor the traditional owners."
He says the proposed sites need to be scientifically assessed and the
results made public.
"If they could prove that it's safe and secure there at Fishers Ridge
they would be looking towards the Jawoyn traditional owners providing
their blessings, but you know we need to wait and see whether that is
something that the Commonwealth can convince the Jawoyn people that it
is a safe and secure site," he said.
Mr Ah Kit says now the legislation allowing the facility has passed the
Senate, the focus must be on finding the best site.
"I understand the Territory Government is now willing to cooperate with
the Commonwealth and find a suitable site in the Northern Territory and
that may not be Fishers Ridge, it may be somewhere else and personally
I would certainly like to see that if it is in the Territory as the
Commonwealth's stated, then it should be in the most secure and safest
location in the Territory," he said.
------------------------>
Indigenous owners stage dump protest in Sydney
November 6, 2005
<www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200511/s1498776.htm>
Traditional owners from the Northern Territory have gathered outside
Lucas Heights nuclear reactor in Sydney to rally against plans to place
a nuclear waste facility on their land.
The 14 owners are from Harts Range and Mt Everard in Central Australia
- two of the three possible sites identified by the Federal Government.
They were travelling with the Central Land Council's David Ross; the
Member for the Central Australian seat of MacDonnell, Alison Anderson,
and the Territory's Deputy Chief Minister, Syd Stirling.
Mr Stirling will meet tomorrow with senators who could vote down the
Commonwealth's nuclear legislation.
He will also be present a petition with 9,000 signatures to the
Territory's CLP Senator Nigel Scullion.
Mr Stirling says the Territory's campaign against the dump is gathering
interest and support.
"We'll test that tomorrow of course ... we'll have a range of meetings
with a number of senators that we can get hold of before the debate and
the vote in the Senate," he said.
------------------------>
Traditional owners reject N-dump sites
November 1, 2005
<www.smh.com.au/news/National/Traditional-owners-reject-Ndump-sites/2005/11/01/1130720537294.html>
Traditional owners in the Northern Territory have rejected two of three
possible sites proposed by the federal government for a nuclear waste
facility.
Aboriginal people living in small communities and outstations near the
commonwealth-owned sites have serious concerns for their safety should
the building of the low-level waste dump go ahead.
Science Minister Brendan Nelson has compiled a shortlist of three
possible locations for a Commonwealth Radioactive Waste Management
Facility.
These are Defence Department properties at Mount Everard and Harts
Range near Alice Springs and Fishers Ridge, near Katherine, in the
Northern Territory.
But the Central Land Council (CLC) this week circulated a letter
stating it opposes a nuclear waste dump on or near their traditional
land.
The CLC said traditional landowners on both sites had recently informed
them they were strongly opposed to any nuclear waste management
facility being located on any part of their country.
The CLC has formally notified Dr Nelson and Labor deputy leader Jenny
Macklin of landholders' concerns.
"Of primary concern is the need to keep their country safe and healthy
for present and future generations, and to be able to continue to use
their country for hunting and getting bushtucker," the letter says.
"Despite assurances that the radioactive waste will be carefully
managed their view is that the radioactive waste facility poses serious
long-term risks to country and people.
"Many Aboriginal people live near the sites in small communities and
outstations and they are extremely worried about the proposals.
"They fought hard to get their country back and they believe they
should not be the ones to have to live with radioactive waste on their
land."
Dr Nelson has introduced into parliament laws which will over-ride the
Native Title Act and NT laws aimed at preventing the establishment of a
nuclear waste dump in the territory.
In its letter, the CLC described the push to override landholders'
rights and NT laws as "a deeply disturbing development".
------------------------>
Traditional owners to keep up dump protests
September 20, 2005
<www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200509/s1463888.htm>
A group of traditional owners has returned from an anti-nuclear meeting
in South Australia with plans to hold a rally on the streets of Alice
Springs.
The group is from Mount Everard, north of Alice Springs, which is one
of three sites in the Northern Territory identified as a possible
location for a national nuclear waste dump.
A spokesman for the group, Julias Bloomfield, says they learnt many
things about nuclear waste at the meeting in Quorn, near Port Augusta.
Mr Bloomfield says they are worried about sickness coming to their
country.
"We love our bush, we love our bush tucker and we don't want any waste
dump there any radiation, any radiation around," he said.
Mr Bloomfield says the community will continue to fight the proposal
and they want to hold a protest march in Alice Springs against the dump
in the near future.
------------------------>
Nuclear 'poison' not welcome
By Nigel Adlam
14 September 2005
<www.ntnews.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,7034,16599192%255E13569,00.html>
A GROUP of traditional owners last night told the Federal Government
that they don't want a nuclear waste facility on their land in Central
Australia.
The site is at Mount Everard, 25km northwest of Alice Springs.
Traditional owner Benedict Stevens said she didn't want "poison'' from
the Lucas Heights nuclear plant in Sydney brought to Arrernte country.
"The Government says it is safe waste, but if it is so safe why are
they thinking about bringing it halfway across the country to our
land?'' she asked.
"The Government may think this place is remote but this is our home.
"The land is crucial to our way of life and we must protect the stories
and dreamings that are significant to our law, our culture and our
people.''
Ms Stevens said the Arrernte people were disappointed that Canberra had
decided to "dump'' nuclear waste on their land.
"The Government has already taken our land away from us,'' she said.
"We have learned to live with that. But now they want to destroy that
land by putting a waste dump there.''
Ms Stevens said there had been no consultation with the traditional
owners.
"The Government does not respect our way of life,'' she said.
The Mount Everard site is on Commonwealth land surrounded by Aboriginal
land.
Science Minister Brendan Nelson said consultation with Territorians
would start next month.
But he has said there will be no "mucking about'' and the nuclear waste
facility will be built in the Territory.
------------------------>
Open Letter from the Kupa Piti Kungka Tjuta
July 19, 2005
We are the Kupa Piti Kungka Tjuta - Senior Aboriginal Women's Council
of Coober Pedy. We have already fought the waste dump here in South
Australia. The Government wanted to put the dump in our country and we
won the fight last year.
We've heard the Government is saying they will put the dump in the
Northern Territory next. We just wanted to say to everyone don't give
up, just keep on going. We kept on going and we won. We were always
talking strong, over and over.
Lotta people live up north and we have got family, many grandchildren,
living in Alice Springs. One place is only 20 kms from Alice, that's
too close. And what about the rivers and creeks? And all the floods?
And don't forget about the underground water. It's very important.
We say keep the poison in Sydney at Lucas Heights where they make it.
We have been saying that all along. We don't want the poison in trucks,
driving along any road. It's just too dangerous.
Manta winki - the whole country has the Tjukur - the Dreaming. One
Australia, it was whitefellas who cut it up on a map, made the borders.
No difference between Coober Pedy and Alice Springs. Northern Territory
and South Australia. It's all the same country and we gotta look after
it. The whole lot.
We are making a book that will be ready soon about our fight to stop
the dump. All our words, the letters we wrote, and pictures of
everywhere we went to talk against the dump. We were fighting for a
long time but it was worth it to look after our beautiful desert
country. We are making the book for all our kids to learn how to fight
for the country. You fellas in the Northern Territory can read the book
and learn too. And you're kids.
Be strong like us. Don't be scared of the Government. We weren't scared
and we are elderly ladies!
Eileen Kampakuta Brown, Emily Munyungka Austin, Ivy Makinti Stewart,
Tjunmutja Myra Watson
Kupa Piti Kungka Tjuta
Coober Pedy
------------------------>
Indigenous leader questions dump plans
ABC NT Local News
28 July 2005
<www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200507/s1424105.htm>
The leader of an Aboriginal community neighbouring a proposed site for
a Commonwealth nuclear waste dump wants more information about its
potential impact given how close it is to the community and a sacred
site.
Fisher's Range, 40 kilometres south of Katherine, is one of three
defence sites being considered in the Northern Territory.
Robert Lee from the Jawoyn Association says Banatjarl shares the road
to Fisher's Range.
"It's next to where I live, it's only four kilometres away and I'm not
too impressed at this stage," he said.
Mr Lee says they are keen for objective information about the proposal.
"How can it be best managed, not going to damage the environment, the
sacred sites and stuff because we've got a sacred site not very far
away."
Mr Lee says he will meet Government officials next week to get
objective information about the dump.
But he says they have concerns about its potential impact, particularly
as there are also important underground aquifers.
Northern Territory Country Liberal Party Senator Nigel Scullion says
issues like Mr Lee has raised will be considered when the site is
chosen.
------------------------>
NT Govt vows to fight nuclear dump decision
Saturday, 16 July , 2005
<www.abc.net.au/am/content/2005/s1415444.htm] >
ANNE BARKER: The remote community of Harts Range, north-east of Alice
Springs, is home to about 240 people.
This small Indigenous community is well off the beaten track – 150
kilometres along the Plenty Highway towards the Queensland border – an
ideal place for a nuclear waste dump, according to Federal Science
Minister Brendan Nelson.
BRENDAN NELSON: And if the people of Sydney can comfortably live with a
nuclear reactor that conducts research and produces isotopes for
industry, and for medical use, why on earth can't people in the middle
of nowhere have low level and intermediate level waste?
===============================================
5.
URANIUM MINING
===============================================
5.1
Introduction
There is a long history of racism in the uranium mining industry in
Australia. Typically it involves some or all of the following tactics:
* divide-and-rule tactics.
* threats, most commonly legal threats.
* bribery.
* humbugging Traditional Owners, i.e. persistent pressure until the
mining company gets what it wants.
* ignoring the concerns of Traditional Owners insofar as the legal and
political circumstances permit.
Battles over uranium mining have of course been closely connected to
struggles over land rights. For example, in the mid to late 1970s, the
federal Land Rights Act stated that Aborigines had the right to claim
vacant crown land where they could establish traditional ownership. The
uranium-rich Alligator River district in the Northern Territory came
into this category, and Justice Fox - head of the Ranger Uranium
Inquiry - recommended that it be declared Aboriginal land. However,
under the Act, an Aboriginal veto of mining on their land could be
overridden if the government considered mining to be in the "national
interest" - and the Fraser government used the "national interest"
clause to override Aboriginal opposition to the Ranger uranium mine.
The Fox Report (May 1977, p,60) said: "There can be no compromise with
the Aboriginal position; either it is treated as conclusive, or it is
set aside ...... We have given careful attention to all that has been
put before us by them or on their behalf. In the end, we form the
conclusion that their opposition should not be allowed to prevail."
Vincent Forrester, former chairperson of the Northern Territory
National Aboriginal Conference, summarises the problem of dependence on
royalties: "We must break this dependency on mining activity for money
for essential services. It is morally bankrupt. No Aboriginal community
should be put in the position of deciding on development that is tied
to the uranium industry. Until all Aboriginal service matters are met
by direct grants from federal treasury, our people have little choice
in this matter." (1984, "Uranium Mining and Aboriginal People",
<www.sea-us.org.au/blackuranium.html>.)
===============================================
5.
2 Jabiluka & Ranger
Mining company ERA and the Howard government were determined to
override the opposition of the Mirarr Traditional Owners to the
Jabiluka uranium mine in the NT. After an extraordinary international
campaign led by the Mirarr, mining company ERA and the government were
defeated. The mine site has been rehabilitated and the Mirarr have a
veto over any future development of the mine. ERA still has hopes of
mining Jabiluka at some stage in the future, and it still operates the
Ranger uranium mine near Jabiluka.
See the website of the Mirarr Traditional Owners.
<www.mirarr.net>.
<www.mirarr.net/references.html>
<www.mirarr.net/media/index.html>
See the Mirarr/Gundjehmi submission #44 to the 2005-06 federal uranium
inquiry. <www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/isr/uranium/subs.htm>
Here is the English version of the opening statement from that
submission, by Senior Traditional Owner Yvonne Margarula.
Al-gangila al-Mirarr al-redweleng bolk-Mirarr ngalengarre gun-wok.
Statement from Mirarr Senior Traditional Owner Yvonne Margarula
Submission to 2005 Federal Parliament Uranium Inquiry
We Mirarr People have a long [over 30 years] experience with uranium
exploration and mining on our traditional lands.
No other Aboriginal community in Australia has experienced the impacts
of uranium mining for such a sustained period.
Along with other Aboriginal people the Mirarr opposed uranium mining
when the Government approached us in the 1970s.
The old people were worried about the damage mining would do to country
and the problems that mining would bring for Aboriginal people.
The Government would not listen and forced the Ranger uranium mine on
us, but the old people were right and today we are dealing with
everything they were worried about.
Uranium mining has completely upturned our lives – bringing a town,
many non-Aboriginal people, greater access to alcohol and many
arguments between Aboriginal people, mostly about money.
Uranium mining has also taken our country away from us and destroyed it
– billabongs and creeks are gone forever, there are hills of poisonous
rock and great holes in the ground with poisonous mud where there used
to be nothing but bush.
I do not like visiting the Ranger mine and seeing what has happened to
my father's country. This land has been ruined forever. We don't
believe that the mining company should only be protecting the Kakadu
National Park outside the Ranger area; we don't want the Ranger Project
Area to be sacrificed. We want the company to keep the impact of the
mine as small as possible but it has been growing little by little ever
since it began.
Although the uranium mining at Ranger is taking place on Mirarr
country, overall we have not truly benefited from the mine. Our lives
are worse since the government decided to allow uranium mining. When
the government started the mine and the national park at the same time
in 1979, a lot of Aboriginal people came into the area for the first
land claim in Australia and the promise of uranium and Kakadu Park
royalty monies.
We went from four or five families and around fifty Aboriginal people
in 1975 to over 500 today. There has been a lot of fighting for many
years between the Mirarr Traditional Owner's of Ranger and Jabiluka and
other Aboriginal people.
Mining and the millions of dollars in royalties have not improved our
quality of life.
For 25 years we Mirarr People, the Traditional Owners of Ranger, were
pushed to the outside by non-Aboriginal people in government, mining
companies and Aboriginal organisations and by other Aboriginal people
who did their bidding and who were favoured by them.
Other Aboriginal Associations in Kakadu, with the help of government
and the mining company, started using Jabiluka Mine money to set up
social service programs like the Women's Resource Centre and the Night
Patrol. The mining company ERA even provided their own staff to
coordinate the CDEP project.
They tried to divide the Aboriginal community in Kakadu but they did
not succeed.
The Mirarr did not use these services because it was being funded by
poison money from a uranium mine that will destroy a sacred site.
We told the government that it wasn't right that in Arnhem Land
communities they fund all the social services, but we are forced to
have a uranium mine to provide the money for service provision in
Kakadu.
The Women's Resource Centre and Night Patrol have since closed down,
and we initiated the setting up of an independent CDEP for all of
Kakadu's outstation residents because of arguments between the Mirarr
and the Djabulugku Association, of which we are members.
Mining made us, the Traditional Owners, feel like outsiders until we
established the Gundjeihmi Aboriginal Corporation in 1995. Before then
the Gagudju Association was too big a group and could never truly
represent the interests of the Mirarr Traditional Owners, along with
many other clans.
Since then we have developed a strong voice in our own right and have
made many important contributions to Kakadu. Some of these include
economic development studies, helping establish a process to examine
Jabiru's future irrespective of mining, establishing an independent
organisation for service delivery to Kakadu's outstations, funding
diesel for electricity on the outstations, saving and carefully
investing royalty money, and arguing for greater Aboriginal involvement
in the running of Kakadu National Park. We have also recently helped
set up the Kakadu Youth Centre in Jabiru.
We have made these decisions through our Committee at the Gundjeihmi
Aboriginal Corporation. Many of these things should have been done by
the Land Council, by the Commonwealth Government or the Northern
Territory Government – but they were not.
Along with our professional staff, we had to think, organise and even
pay for many of these initiatives. Once non-Aboriginal people in
government and the mining companies got what they wanted, once Ranger
was up and running, all our problems were ignored.
Everyone started looking at Kakadu's problems only when the government
announced that the Jabiluka uranium mine should happen. All of a sudden
there were many people interested in us and our problems and a lot of
money was spent telling the world that more mining could happen and
that things would be different this time.
Around this time (1997-1998) many decisions were made about things we
didn't speak about in the KRSIS process and none of these things have
lasted. None of the promises last but the problems always do.
We are very worried about any further mining. We are worried because as
Traditional Owners we must both look after country and look after
people. If the country is poisoned people's lives could be ruined, if
the