Muckaty Traditional Owners defeat Lib-Lab-NLC dump plan

19 June 2014 – fantastic victory for Muckaty Traditional Owners in their battle to stop the imposition of a nuclear waste dump by the federal government! Here are some videos, photos and information.

 

Updates and more info:

www.beyondnuclearinitiative.com

https://twitter.com/hashtag/muckaty

https://www.google.com.au/search?q=muckaty

https://www.facebook.com/beyond.nuclearinitiative.1

Blog of court proceedings www.beyondnuclearinitiative.com/blog

Photos:

http://beyondnuclearinitiative.com/photos/

https://www.facebook.com/beyond.nuclearinitiative.1

https://twitter.com/search?q=%23muckaty&mode=photos

Videos

http://beyondnuclearinitiative.com/video/

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_sort=video_date_uploaded&search_query=muckaty

http://vimeo.com/search?q=muckaty

Audio

http://beyondnuclearinitiative.com/audio/

Radioactive Show 28.06.2014

A week after the win against the Muckaty Nuclear Waste Dump, hear from activists in Melbourne about their reflections on the 7 year campaign. With Michaela Stubbs, Jessie Boylan, Hannah Walters and Gem Romuld this show explores connections between city activists and Traditional Owners standing up for their country in the desert. We consider what we mean by acting in solidarity, and how the win at Muckaty strengthens the broader fight for a nuclear free world.

File Download

– See more at: http://www.3cr.org.au/radioactive/podcast/radioactive-show-28062014#sthash.QJwpyXiv.dpuf

Radioactive Show 28.06.2014

A week after the win against the Muckaty Nuclear Waste Dump, hear from activists in Melbourne about their reflections on the 7 year campaign. With Michaela Stubbs, Jessie Boylan, Hannah Walters and Gem Romuld this show explores connections between city activists and Traditional Owners standing up for their country in the desert. We consider what we mean by acting in solidarity, and how the win at Muckaty strengthens the broader fight for a nuclear free world.

File Download

– See more at: http://www.3cr.org.au/radioactive/podcast/radioactive-show-28062014#sthash.QJwpyXiv.dpuf

Radioactive Show 28.06.2014

A week after the win against the Muckaty Nuclear Waste Dump, hear from activists in Melbourne about their reflections on the 7 year campaign. With Michaela Stubbs, Jessie Boylan, Hannah Walters and Gem Romuld this show explores connections between city activists and Traditional Owners standing up for their country in the desert. We consider what we mean by acting in solidarity, and how the win at Muckaty strengthens the broader fight for a nuclear free world.

File Download

– See more at: http://www.3cr.org.au/radioactive/podcast/radioactive-show-28062014#sthash.QJwpyXiv.dpuf

Radioactive Show 28 June 2014 − A week after the win against the Muckaty Nuclear Waste Dump, hear from activists in Melbourne about their reflections on the 7 year campaign. With Michaela Stubbs, Jessie Boylan, Hannah Walters and Gem Romuld this show explores connections between city activists and Traditional Owners standing up for their country in the desert. File Download or to listen online click here.

————————————————————————-

Above: Alice Springs, 19 June 2014.

Above: Dianne Stokes and Nat Wasley

Above: Dianne Stokes: “I am proud and still in shock. We want to tell the world we stood up strong.”

Above: Bunny Naburula: “We have fought for seven long years.”

Above: 19 June 2014, Alice Springs

Above: Marlene Bennett and Nat Wasley, 19 June 2014.

Above: Marlene Bennett: “Today will go down in the history books of Indigenous Australia on par with the Wave Hill Walk-off, Mabo and Blue Mud Bay. The Warlmanpa Nation has won an eight-year battle against the might and power of the Commonwealth Government and Northern Land Council. Justice has prevailed and this is a win for all Territorians.”

Above: Mitch: “They forgot that the women of that land were fighting for their unborn grandchildren.”

Above: Barb Shaw: “This is what happens when black and white stand together as a collective.”

Above: Valda Shannon: “I want thank everyone who has stood with us all the way through this 8 year struggle. This has been a long an exhaustive journey. We have been silenced excluded but we kept our voices up.”

Above: Media conference in Alice Springs announcing the victory.

Above: Maurice Blackburn lawyer Lizzie O’Shea: “So proud to represent Traditional Owners of Muckaty Station and am thrilled the Cwth has agreed not to rely on the nomination.”

Above: Muckaty Traditional Owner and hip-hop artist Kylie Sambo. “Today we are here to tell you that we have won. My family has taught me how to fight. We are so relieved.”

Above: Adam Sharah: ‘Victory is sweet. We smashed the racist nuke industry today. Relaxing with strong women of Muckaty Land Trust.’

Above: Doris Kelly

Above: Doris Kelly, Gladys Brown and Elaine Peckham

Above: Senior Warlmanpa law man Dick Foster with Paddy Gibson.

———————————————————————

‘Justice has prevailed’: Muckaty nuclear waste plan finally dumped.

Beyond Nuclear Initiative, Media Release, June 19, 2014

Traditional Owners and campaigners are celebrating today after learning that plans for a national nuclear waste dump at Muckaty in the Northern Territory have been scrapped.

The Commonwealth Government has committed to not pursue the proposed Muckaty site, the announcement coming mid-way through a federal court trial examining the site nomination process. (A federal court action lodged in 2010 began went to trial on June 2, with hearings in Melbourne and Tennant Creek. The hearing scheduled for Darwin has now been vacated.)

A delegation of Traditional Owners has travelled from Tennant Creek to speak with supporters and media in Alice Springs.

Marlene Nungarrayi Bennett, Warlmanpa woman said, “Today will go down in the history books of Indigenous Australia on par with the Wave Hill Walk-off, Mabo and Blue Mud Bay. The Warlmanpa Nation has won an eight-year battle against the might and power of the Commonwealth Government and Northern Land Council. Justice has prevailed and this is a win for all Territorians.”

Penny Williams Namikilli said “ngulayilpa wanganya ngurru-ku partta-wurru mar-darnjaku marjumarju kula yanjaku. kuyayi ngurru kirlka kan-jin-mi, mayi parnta.” [Translated from Warlmanpa: We talked about our land to keep the waste away off the land, not to put it there. We want it to remain clean with bush tucker.]

Milwayi Traditional Owner Gladys Nungarrayi Brown said, “The land is important, we have to keep it clean without radioactive waste. Our ancestors walked around that land and were always looking after it-generation after generation they kept handing that knowledge on. We have to keep passing on that knowledge to future generations.”

The Commonwealth government announced in 2005 that it would pursue three sites in the Northern Territory for a national dump, passing legislation to override NT government opposition. Amendments made in 2006 allowed additional site nominations from Aboriginal Land Councils.

The Northern Land Council offered Muckaty for assessment in 2007, despite opposition from many Traditional Owners. A determined community campaign gained support from trade unions, public health and human rights organisations around the country. Annual demonstrations in Tennant Creek pledged direct action against any attempts to build the dump.

Beyond Nuclear Initiative convenor Natalie Wasley said “Next month will mark ten years since the SA nuclear dump plan was stopped by the Kupa Piti Kungka Tjuta and supporters. Any further attempts to impose nuclear waste on Aboriginal people considered politically expendable will be defeated.”

Dianne Stokes, Milwayi kurtungurlu and Yapa Yapa kirtta said, “We will be still talking about our story in the communities up north so no one else has to go through this. We want to let the whole world know that we stood up very strong. We want to thank the supporters around the world that stood behind us and made us feel strong.”

Kylie Sambo, Milwayi Kurtungurlu and hip-hop artist said, “I joined the campaign four years ago when I wrote my hip hop song Muckaty. My sister always told me stories about our mothers dreaming, where it traveled to and from. That land means a lot to us, that’s why we stand up to protect it. My sister always encouraged me to stand up for our people and our country, my uncle and grandfather would be very happy and proud of what we have done. We are in Alice Springs with good news that we have WON the fight, If you think something is not going the right way then you stand up and speak, because if we in the centre of the Northern Territory can stand up and win then so can you.”

Court proceedings in Melbourne revealed that compensation for the radioactive dump would be in the form of roads, houses and education scholarships. This funding is desperately needed in the region, with a recent estimate that Tennant Creek alone needs around 400 houses to meet current demand.

Ms Wasley concluded, “This radioactive ransom must end. We call for the repeal of the National Radioactive Waste Management Act, which explicitly targets Aboriginal Land for a waste dump. It is time for a national commission to examine radioactive waste production and all options for management.”

———————————————————————

June 26 update from Nat Wasley – Beyond Nuclear Initiative

Dear nuclear-free friends

We received fantastic news late last week, that the Commonwealth Government has committed not to pursue plans for a national radioactive waste dump at Muckaty, 120km north of Tennant Creek in the Northern Territory!

Some more information about the last few weeks of the campaign is outlined below; please hang in there to the end as this bulletin wraps up with some ideas for connecting and contributing to Beyond Nuclear Initiative’s ongoing work.

1- The Federal Government has agreed not to act on Muckaty nomination

The announcement that Muckaty will not be pursued for a nuclear dump came mid-way through the Federal Court trial examining the process under which the nomination of Muckaty was made by the Northern Land Council and accepted by the Commonwealth Government in 2007. Lawyers from Maurice Blackburn Social Justice Practice and Ron Merkel QC were acting pro bono for Traditional Owners challenging the site nomination.

Two weeks of the trial were completed with hearings in Melbourne, Tennant Creek and on country at Muckaty outstation. The Northern Land Council and Commonwealth Government agreed on June 19 to settle with the Applicants by committing not to act on the proposal or nomination, so the hearings scheduled for Darwin (June 23-July 4) were cancelled.

A blog of the court proceedings is posted online at the updated BNI website www.beyondnuclearinitiative.com/blog and photos posted at www.beyondnuclearinitiative.com/photos

The Muckaty win follows the successful campaign by the Kupi Piti Kungka Tjuta to stop a nuclear dump in SA and has been built from the ground up in Tennant Creek with help from supporters across the NT and country. Over the last 7 years, the community has marched in Tennant Creek every year, hosted trade union delegations, written songs and poems, made films and toured photo exhibitions. People have travelled tirelessly around the country to build awareness and support, having conversations over cups of tea in regional areas and walking the corridors of Canberra Parliament House to lobby Ministers.

The community used the annual May 25 rally and media attention on the federal court proceedings to reiterate they would continue campaigning until the dump was stopped- including blocking the road if needed.

Traditional Owners and the wider community in the Barkly region are very excited and relieved and looking forward to a big celebration on July 4 in Tennant Creek. Everyone is welcome to come along, contact me if you would like further details.

We will then set about collating photos, footage and other materials from the campaign, so stay tuned for the call out to copy and/or send these to the Arid Lands Environment Centre for archiving.

Federal Government is still pushing for a site on Aboriginal Land to be nominated within three months

While the Muckaty plan has been shelved, the federal government immediately starting pressuring NT Aboriginal Land Councils to nominate an alternate site within three months.

This replicates the rushed process of the first nomination that was heavily criticised during the federal court proceedings. BNI will maintain an active watch and ear to the ground on this issue. We hope that before throwing another dart at the map, the government will consider launching an independent commission that examines all facets of radioactive waste production, including options for minimisation, as well as all options for management. This call for a commission is supported by peak bodies including the Public Health Association of Australia and Australian Council of Trade Unions.

You can also sign up at the BNI website to make a recurring donation to the project. www.beyondnuclearinitiative.com/donate

Stay in touch – and thankyou for your contribution to this long running campaign 

Finally for now, we invite you to have a browse around and subscribe to the new upgraded BNI website to receive updates via a low volume email service.

I was asked by Muckaty mob to finish this note with a huge thanks to everyone who has been part of this campaign and supported the community to be heard- every action, letter, conversation, trip to Tennant, fundraising gig and movie night has helped bring about this victory!!

Thanks to your support and actions, Muckaty will be nuclear waste dump free.

———————————————————————

Muckaty: our case is like Mabo, our land is ours to protect

We’ve been fighting for eight years to stop a waste dump on our land. We brought people from different Dreamings, different clans together for this victory

Kylie Sambo

19 June 2014

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/19/muckaty-our-case-is-like-mabo-our-land-is-ours-to-protect

Protesters against the placement of a nuclear waste dump at Muckaty Station walk to the Tennant Creek courthouse on Tuesday, June 10 2014. Photograph: AAPIMAGE

They’ve finally heard us. Tennant Creek, where my people, the Warlmanpa and Warumungu live, won’t become Australia’s first waste dump. We’ve been fighting for eight years to stop the dump, and the government did nothing about it. Finally, we had to take them to court before they understood that we were serious, that we didn’t want a waste dump in the Muckaty area.

My whole family and other extended families, the communities around the Tennant Creek region, and other people who are living there have all been supporting us these past few years, as we’ve been doing our rallies and speaking up.

They’ve come on board and joined us, marched with us in Tennant Creek. This year has been a very good outcome. A lot of people from different Dreamings, different family groups, different clans have come together in our struggle. I believe this is an impressive way to show we stick together, we fight together.

I was worried a bit that the case would go the other way. My sister kept saying, “We’re going to win this one, we’re going to win this one!” My mind was set that the decision was going to be made in March next year. When I got the news, I was shocked that we won. I’ll travel back to Tennant Creek and celebrate this weekend. I’ll probably celebrate all week.

I believe that our case is similar to the Mabo case, and the legal struggles other communities have been fighting against the government for years to protect their land. That’s what we’re doing.

How many times has the government seen people fighting for their country, and yet they keep doing this. They have to understand us: our land means a lot to Aboriginal people because it’s ours, because it’s ours to protect.

———————————————————————

Muckaty station nuclear waste dump will not go ahead: Aboriginal Traditional Owners succeed in legal challenge

Maurice Blackburn statement, 19 June 2014

http://www.mauriceblackburn.com.au/about/media-centre/media-statements/2014/muckaty-station-nuclear-waste-dump-will-not-go-ahead-aboriginal-traditional-owners-succeed-in-legal-challenge/

Plans to build a nuclear waste dump on Aboriginal land at Muckaty Station near Tennant Creek will not go ahead after the Commonwealth agreed not to act upon the nomination of the site by the Northern Land Council (NLC).
Leading social justice law firm Maurice Blackburn has been acting for Traditional Owners opposed to the dump in a four-year legal fight that was two weeks into a Federal Court trial when it was resolved.
The parties plan to ask that Justice Anthony North of the Federal Court dismiss the proceedings, which were due to continue in Darwin next week. This settlement is without any admission of liability.
Elizabeth O’Shea, head of Maurice Blackburn’s social justice practice said:
“Aboriginal people at Muckaty have been fighting this plan for more than seven years and are overjoyed to have secured this outcome.
“We are thrilled to share in the relief and excitement our clients are feeling, knowing that their country will not be the site of the country’s first nuclear waste dump.”
The matter has been run by Maurice Blackburn on a pro bono basis.  Barristers including Ron Merkel QC and David Yarrow have also acted pro bono.
“Just like the class actions and other landmark cases brought by Maurice Blackburn, our pro bono cases provide access to justice and make a real difference in terms of public accountability”, Ms O’Shea said.
Lorna Fejo, a Traditional Owner said:
“I feel ecstatic. I feel free because it was a long struggle to protect my land. I feel really happy about this decision because my children, grandchildren and great grandchildren can go to Namerini safely. This is what Australia is: it is a free land and Traditional Owners must always be free to express what they want done on their land.
“My grandmother gave me that land in perfect condition and other lands to my two brothers, who are now deceased. It was our duty to protect that land and water because it was a gift from my grandmother to me. And now that I am 84 years old, and I have had to fight hard to protect this land for my grandchildren and great grandchildren, it is now a gift which I will be able to pass onto them in its perfect condition, like I had received it.”
LEGAL BACKGROUND
A fee simple estate in Muckaty Station was granted to the Muckaty Aboriginal Land Trust (MLT, a respondent to the proceeding) in 1999 following a claim under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 (Cth) (ALRA). The MLT holds Muckaty Station on trust under the ALRA for the benefit of the traditional Aboriginal owners of Muckaty Station and of other Aboriginal persons entitled to enter upon or use the land in accordance with Aboriginal tradition.
The Northern Land Council (NLC, also a respondent) is a body established under ALRA to supervise and administer Aboriginal land trusts in respect of areas in the Northern Territory including Muckaty Station.  The NLC is responsible under ALRA for giving lawful directions to and acting on behalf of the MLT for the benefit of the traditional Aboriginal owners of and the Aboriginal people holding an interest in Muckaty Station.
In June 2007, the NLC purported to nominate a portion of Muckaty Station as a potential site for the management and storage of radioactive waste.
Traditional Owners alleged in the action that the NLC failed to take appropriate steps to ensure the traditional Aboriginal owners understood the nature and purpose of the nomination, and failed to obtain proper consent before nominating the site.
Legal proceedings against the Commonwealth and the NLC were commenced in June 2010. The Federal Court trial began on 2 June 2014.

———————————————————————

Activists win seven-year fight to protect Muckaty, minister still seeks dump site

Saturday, June 21, 2014
By Mara Bonacci, Alice Springs

https://www.greenleft.org.au/node/56681
When Muckaty traditional owners first heard about a proposed waste dump on their land seven years ago, it didn’t seem like such a bad idea. Many thought it was a general rubbish tip that would recycle, sell reclaimed materials and provide work opportunities for people living in the remote area of the Northern Territory. Millions of dollars were promised for roads and scholarships. In an area with few employment prospects or education opportunities, it is little wonder the offer seemed attractive.
Then came the truth. The proposal was not for a tip, but for radioactive waste. The money would not go straight to traditional owners, but to the Northern Land Council (NLC) to be held in a charitable trust. It seemed there was more to the proposal than met the eye.
This month, a seven-year grassroots campaign against the dump and a four-year federal court challenge against the federal government and the NLC came to an end when the NLC withdrew its nomination of the Muckaty site. That eliminated the need for their officials to take the stand at court in Darwin after evidence was heard from traditional owners in Tennant Creek.
The first that Warlmanpa traditional owner Marlene Nungarrayi Bennett heard about the dump proposal was on the radio. One of the witnesses questioned in court at Tennant Creek, she told of her surprise at first hearing about it on the radio and how she set about educating herself, her family and community about the proposal. Once she learned the truth about the potential impacts of a radioactive waste dump, she was firmly opposed to it going ahead.
Traditional owner Dianne Stokes, who has been a staunch and tireless campaigner against the dump since it was nominated by the NLC in 2007, was also initially in favour of it because of the benefits it would supposedly bring to the community.
It was not until Beyond Nuclear Initiative (BNI) campaigners came to Tennant Creek and explained what the waste would be, how far it had to be transported to get there and the risks associated with it, that she realised it was not a proposal she could support.
In a statement she said: “We will be still talking about our story in the communities up north so no one else has to go through this. We want to let the whole world know that we stood up very strong. We want to thank the supporters around the world that stood behind us and made us feel strong.”
With the support of BNI, over the past seven years, the community has marched in Tennant Creek annually, hosted trade union delegations, written songs and poems, made films and toured photo exhibitions.
People have travelled tirelessly around the country to build awareness and support, having conversations in regional areas and lobbying ministers at Parliament House in Canberra. Supporters have held fundraisers and information nights around Australia.
Kylie Sambo, Milwayi Kurtungurlu and hip-hop artist, said: “I joined the campaign four years ago when I wrote my hip-hop song ‘Muckaty’. My sister always told me stories about our mothers dreaming, where it travelled to and from.
“That land means a lot to us, that’s why we stand up to protect it. My sister always encouraged me to stand up for our people and our country, my uncle and grandfather would be very happy and proud of what we have done.
“We are in Alice Springs with good news that we have won the fight. If you think something is not going the right way then you stand up and speak, because if we in the centre of the Northern Territory can stand up and win then so can you.”
The remote area where the dump was proposed may seem to the government, industry and city-dwellers to be a safe and reasonable place to dump radioactive waste. It has, however, a vibrant community, strong Aboriginal culture and many people call it home. Radioactive waste is not something anyone wants next door. This is possibly part of the reason the government wants to relocate the waste from where it is now stored at Lucas Heights in southern Sydney.
A successful campaign by the Kupi Piti Kungka Tjuta to stop a nuclear dump in South Australia 10 years ago led the federal government to push for a dump in the Northern Territory. The risk remains that a dump may be proposed elsewhere in Australia.
Although the federal government has withdrawn its push for a radioactive waste facility at Muckaty, Minister for Indigenous Affairs Nigel Scullion said: “I would hope it [the end of court action] would offer opportunities for a second nomination of a northern site.”
The people of Muckaty and anti-nuclear activists say: “Not here, not anywhere.” This people-powered fight will continue if another site is nominated.
[Mara Bonacci is an anti-nuclear campaigner based in Alice Springs.]

———————————————————————

Parliamentary speech by Greens Senator Scott Ludlam

http://scott-ludlam.greensmps.org.au/content/speeches-parliament/muckaty-congratulations-speech-parliament

Senator LUDLAM (Western Australia): Tonight, I want to pay my respects to the Aboriginal elders of the Muckaty lands in the Barkly region, their families and their supporters around the country. I understand that only a tiny handful of MPs in this place could even find Muckaty on a map and bear no knowledge of the rich history of the place. For white politicians on the other side of the continent, the Barkly region is essentially regarded as the absolute middle of nowhere. There is nowhere better to park Australia’s 60-year inventory of spent nuclear fuel, which is industrial waste that will still be carcinogenic a thousand generations from now, decaying silently away into future geological ages. Everything it touches, for all those future lifetimes of people who will never know our names, becomes not just contaminated but contaminating.

Every country that embarked on the nuclear experiment that lit up the mid-20th century with the light of a thousand suns has its own millennial legacy of spent nuclear fuel and reprocessing wastes. No country has come up with a solution that will keep it isolated for tens of thousands of years. Presently, nearly all of Australia’s radioactive waste is banked adjacent to the Lucas Heights reactor on the outskirts of Sydney. A small amount of it is contracted to return to Australia from Europe next year. This impending shipment was the trigger for the process that came to a dramatic end in the federal court in Melbourne last week.

Late in 2005, the Howard government used its command of the numbers in both houses of parliament to ram through a bill mandating that Australia’s radioactive waste would be trucked into the Northern Territory and dumped at one of three possible defence department sites-in other words, on land stolen from people who had been living and singing that country since before the last ice age. The Greens opposed this bill. The Democrats opposed it. The Labor Party stridently opposed it. But numbers matter in here and, on that night, we didn’t have them.

I want to acknowledge the communities of people who spoke up for each of those three sites, the pressure and uncertainty placed on you, the stress on your families, and the leadership you showed in stepping up and saying no. All of you were unfairly targeted in a process with no procedural, scientific or democratic legitimacy.

Within a year, the fatal flaws in this bankrupt proposal were evident even to senior members of the Howard government. An amendment bill was pushed through here late in 2006 to add an illusion of due process to this amoral preamble: communities can now volunteer a site for the dump. Only sites in the Northern Territory, constitutionally weaker than the states, would be considered. Within what seemed like mere hours, a site was nominated by the Northern Land Council, and this place, Muckaty, which no whitefella outside the Barkly Region had ever heard of, was suddenly at the top of the Commonwealth government’s target list. The cause and effect, and who really originated the Muckaty nomination, we will probably never know. But we do know that, from day one, this was a process driven from Canberra, not Tennant Creek.

Fourteen years earlier, the High Court had struck down the offensive legal fiction of terra nullius; but, even so, when government bureaucrats and politicians with more immediate things on their minds go looking for somewhere to dump the nation’s most poisonous garbage, they go looking for empty lands, places in the middle of nowhere, places like Muckaty Station. And when they climb out of their shiny land cruisers, they discover that it is not empty at all. They discover it is a real place, not just a rectangle on their GPS-a place with a history and a story that proceeds history and many stories told in languages they will never bother to learn. Imagine their surprise to discover that this terra nullius is inhabited-inhabited by the formidable Dianne Stokes and her family, by Bunny Ngaparula, an elder who somehow seems to get younger every year, and by the deadly Kylie Sambo. They are confronted by Mark Lane Jangala and Ronald Brown and by Lorna Fejo and Dick Foster. They are challenged by mighty allies from further afield-Mitch from Arrende country and Donna Jackson from the Larrakia nation, and many, many others. Collectively, these unwelcome strangers are told to pack up their cars, their fancy maps and their 100,000-year-contamination nightmare and go the hell home.

If you are going to be thrown into a campaign like this without warning, you are going to need allies. Profound respect to Nat Wasley, her partner Paddy and up and coming anti-nuclear campaigner, Jalinyba. Natty, you are one of the most kickass organisers I have ever had the honour to work with. There is my dear friend Dave Sweeney, who has long been the backbone of the Australian Conservation Foundation’s anti-nuclear work and is the author of the best one-liners in the business. There is also Jim Green from Friends of the Earth in Melbourne, one of the country’s most dedicated and tenacious campaigners. There are so many others, but to name just a few: Cat Beaton and Lauren Mellor, Hillary Tyler and Justin Tutty, you stepped up when the old people needed your help. Ellie Gilbert and Peter Sutton, Leanne Minshull and Michael Fonda, you saw the need and did not look away. There is Jagath Dheera-Sekara, Rod Lucas and everyone at the Jumbunna Indigenous House of Learning, and dear Dimity Hawkins. My Western Australian Anti-Nuclear family – Jo Vallentine and the staunch BUMP crew – just one powerful piece of a national campaign that finally delivered. And then there is everyone at the Arid Lands Environment Centre and the Environment Centre Northern Territory, FoE Melbourne and ACE campaigners – nearly all of them volunteers. For every demonstration, every banner drop, every early morning occupation of Martin Ferguson’s electorate office, it has all been worth it.

There is Felicity Ruby, who worked with me for years. As we discovered, after the 2007 election, those Labor politicians who had been so staunch from opposition, turned silent when they actually had a chance to do something about Muckaty from government. They maintained their silence as Minister Martin Ferguson took this piece of procedural abuse designed by Prime Minister John Howard and then stepped up the aggression. We held off the Rudd government’s waste dump legislation for two years. But in 2012 the Labor Party took legislative responsibility for driving this obscene theft of country over the raised voices of traditional owners and their supporters-and we will not forget this.

The appalling behaviour of the Labor Party in sliding seamlessly from condemnation to continuity makes recognition of the handful of ALP members who did buck the party line that much more important. I particularly want to acknowledge local MPs Gerry McCarthy and Elliott Macadam, backed by NT Chief Minister Paul Henderson; and, federally, Senator Louise Pratt, who tragically had to give her valedictory speech earlier this evening; Melissa Parke, the member for Fremantle; and, more recently, Senator Nova Peris, who brings heart and history to her opposition to this project. The rest of the Labor caucus stand condemned by your silence and by the votes you cast when you finally combined with the Abbott opposition to defeat the Greens in March 2012.

I also want to acknowledge those in the trade union movement who stood up when it mattered, particularly the ACTU and Unions NT, and also the MUA, the ETU and the Fireys, representing those first on the scene when things go horribly wrong at facilities like this. The failure of parliament to uphold its obligations to the mob, yet again, left it to the community movement and to a small but focused legal team as the last line of defence. George Newhouse, Mark Cowan, Steven Lennard and David Yarrow, thanks are owed for your generosity and your expertise. Ron Merckel QC, Julian Burnside QC and the brilliant Lizzie O’Shea, lawyer to the people-last week, you did it, and broke the Commonwealth government’s resolve in the Federal Court and brought this shameful episode to an end. As a quick aside, you could have followed and supported this whole extraordinary contest if you were listening to the radioactive show on radio 3CR. Thank goodness for the community broadcasters.

There is a reason why the nuclear industry seeks high isolation sites for its proposed waste dumps: stable geology, deep groundwater, low seismic activity, no people, no mineral resources. Muckaty actually meets none of these preconditions, but put that down to a jittery government running before an artificial deadline. The reason the industry likes these remote, high isolation sites is that there is no form of engineered barrier that can contain spent nuclear fuel for such immense periods of time. They know this material will burn its way out eventually, and so they want to put it as far from the suburbs in which they live as possible.

What the mob in the Barkly want to know is, if it is too dangerous to leave where it is, guarded by a Federal Police detail and ticking away under 24/7 monitoring by technicians with lab coats and PhDs, how does dumping it in a shed surrounded by a chain-link fence on a cattle station somehow make it safe?

The campaign to support Dianne and the Muckaty mob was born out of this dismal injustice; racism, with a 25,000-year half-life. The NLC negotiated for $12 million for the 300-year head lease. It works out at a little bit over $800 a week, with the land passing back to the mob sometime in the 24th century. Beads and blankets, not laced with smallpox but with caesium.

We must never do this to an Australian community again. The Muckaty mob won this time, but it cost them, in stress to families, division in the community and time away from home. The Kunkas in South Australia had to go through this trauma a decade earlier. They won too. The mob at Cosmo Newberry were in the firing line when Pangea came calling in 1999 with a proposal to dump 20 per cent of the world’s spent nuclear fuel. It took us a year to beat that. The Navajo prevailed over a similar project at Yucca Mountain in Nevada in the United States. What do all these projects have in common? The expectation that it is aboriginal communities that should bear the burden. This has to stop.

The Greens propose a new way forward. Its most important element is that it does not assume, as a foregone conclusion, that it should fall to some remote Aboriginal community to take responsibility for this poisonous time capsule. In fact, the most important thing we could do now would be to admit that there is no scientific or community consensus that a remote shed surrounded by barbed wire is anything like an appropriate management strategy for this material. It is time, as Dave Sweeney would put it, for a process, not a postcode.

We propose therefore an independent commission on radioactive waste management to run an open, deliberative process that acknowledges, as a starting condition, that if material is dangerous in Sutherland Shire, it will still be dangerous in the Barkly. It is time to leave the politics outside the room and bring together the best minds in the country, learning from 60 years of overseas experience, to design a long-term strategy of custodianship and eventually, perhaps, isolation of radioactive waste. It will confront us with the question of whether we should be producing this material at all.

Yes, it has to go somewhere. Maybe it ends up in Synroc bricks. Maybe it ends up two miles below the surface. Maybe it stays right where it is while smarter people than us work out how to contain it for periods approaching eternity. But, as we have been saying for nearly eight years, it will not be going to Muckaty. You mob were too deadly. You beat them. Take a rest and tell your story, and maybe this time a few more people will be listening.

Above and below – Former Labor MP Martin Ferguson drove legislation through parliament permitting the imposition of a dump with no Aboriginal consultation or consent. Mr Ferguson ignored countless requests for meetings with Muckaty Traditional Owners.

———————————————————————

Muckaty Mob Win Battle To Stop Nuclear Dumping Ground

By Chris Graham, 19 Jun 2014

https://newmatilda.com//2014/06/19/muckaty-mob-win-battle-stop-nuclear-dumping-ground

The Warlmanpa people of Central Australia are this morning celebrating a sensational legal victory over government plans to dump nuclear waste on their land. Chris Graham reports.

The ‘Mob from Muckaty Station’ have scored a stunning victory over attempts by the Northern Land Council and the Commonwealth Government to dump nuclear waste on their land.

In what was shaping up as a true ‘David vs Goliath battle’, the Commonwealth this week pulled out of ongoing litigation over plans to build a nuclear waste dump on the land of the Warlmanpa people, north of Tennant Creek in Central Australia.

And the fall out is going to be huge, particularly for the Northern Land Council (NLC).

For the last seven years, the NLC has been maintaining it obtained the proper consent of Traditional Owners of land at Muckaty Station to build the Commonwealth waste dump.

But the Warlmanpa people – who have an interest in the land – say they were never properly consulted, and never gave their agreement.

They challenged the NLC’s claims around consent in the Federal Court, which is already two weeks into hearings. The case was set to re-convene in Darwin on Monday, and run for at least another two weeks.

But last night, the Warlmanpa people received confirmation the Commonwealth had guaranteed it would not rely on the consent nominations provided by the NLC.

The withdrawal comes just days before Northern Land Council officials were due to take the stand to face the same sort of intense grilling senior Warlmanpa custodians had been subjected to by NLC lawyers in Tennant Creek last week.

The shock withdrawal has fuelled speculation the NLC was seeking to avoid damaging scrutiny of its handling of the nomination process.

Ron Merkel QC, for the Warlmanpa people, had already told the Federal Court that an anthropology report which underpinned the waste dump nomination – and which had been changed significantly – should be considered to have been written by the NLC’s principal lawyer, Ron Levy.

Paddy Gibson, a researcher with the Jumbunna Indigenous House of Learning at the University of Technology, Sydney has been working with the Warlmanpa people since the dump was first announced.

“The Warlmanpa people who opposed the dump had been subjected to a fierce cross examination by NLC barristers, who were trying to denigrate their cultural knowledge,” Gibson told New Matilda.

“But the Traditional Owners have held the line, and they’ve insisted all along that the anthropology report underpinning the nomination was wrong, and that the process that the NLC used was completely inadequate.

“People said in their evidence that they felt intimidated and shut out of the process.

“The NLC are refusing to admit wrongdoing as part of this deal. However, by avoiding the Darwin court hearings I firmly believed they’ve dodged a bullet.”

By withdrawing, the Federal Court made no determination on the matter, and the NLC and Commonwealth also avoided having both a judgment and costs awarded against them.

“Today in a Darwin press conference, NLC CEO Joe Morrison said that he did not want anymore Traditional Owners to be subjected to the fierce cross examination that took place in Tennant Creek,” Gibson said.

“It was an NLC barrister who did that. It was an NLC barrister who attempted to denigrate the cultural knowledge of senior Warlmapna people for three hours in these cross examination sessions.”

For their part, the Warlmanpa people are celebrating. Kylie Sambo, a young Warlmanpa leader told New Matilda this morning her people were relieved the matter was finally over.

“I feel relieved that we don’t have to keep going. We’re happy and we’re proud. That land means a lot to us because of our culture, our beliefs and our totems and dreaming that went through there,” Sambo said.

“I believe [the NLC] didn’t want to go through that humiliation of what they really done. But it’s better now that they actually backed off. It’s good for us.”

But Sambo said her people weren’t quite done fighting yet. They’re now turning their attention to getting the Northern Territory land council boundaries shifted, so they no longer come under the jurisdiction of the NLC.

“Hopefully we can continue to try and push the boundary for the NLC back up north a bit.

“We had a good trust there but then they broke it. It’s going to be tough, we stood and fought for eight long years and I think we can take on anything now.”

The Warlmanpa are also considering a push by Traditional Owners for the Commonwealth to honour an agreement reached as part of the process which would provide education benefits in exchange for land.

It emerged during proceedings that the federal Department of Education had been involved in negotiations with Traditional Owners to provide $1 million in scholarships for local children, if they agreed to make their land available for the waste dump.

“I think that is very, very stupid idea for us to sell our land to get better education and scholarships,” Sambo said.

“As an Australian we should be already entitled to that.”

The Commonwealth Government will now have to look elsewhere for somewhere to dump their nuclear waste, after also earlier losing a battle with the South Australian Government.

———————————————————————

Lauren Mellor (ECNT), 20/6/14:

Bob Gosford: the conduct of the NLC has been an absolute disgrace over 8 long bitter years in which they made no attempt to reconcile, settle or include the majority of muckaty traditional owners in discussions on this highly divisive and contested project. Easy to scapegoat so-called ‘out-side interests’ as interfering, perhaps you missed the years of public outreach events led by Muckaty mob opposed to the dump calling for support to have this nomination overturned? The NLC has played an even more divisive role than the federal government amongst the community to try and push through its dodgy nomination, and senior staff that facilitated this nomination would have been raked over the coals in court next week if they hadn’t offered to settle. The hearings in Tennant clearly proved NLC did not gather the correct evidence on which to nominate muckaty – court next week would have proved that that was a deliberate act. There’s not a scrap of credibility left to cling to for either gov or NLC over this long running debacle – a sad missed opportunity to reform a thoroughly rotten organisation by Joe Morrison.

———————————————————————

Maritime Union of Australia:

Dumped! National Radioactive Waste Won’t Be Disposed Of At Muckaty

June 19, 2014

http://www.mua.org.au/dumped_national_radioactive_waste_won_t_be_disposed_of_at_muckaty

After a long campaign by traditional owners, unions and progressive organisations across the country, the Commonwealth Government has committed not to pursue plans for a national radioactive waste dump at Muckaty, 120km north of Tennant Creek in the Northern Territory.

The campaign to oppose the dump began in 2005, with strong support and involvement of the MUA.

Upon hearing the news, Assistant National Secretary Ian Bray dispatched the following message to traditional owners:

“Dear Muckaty Traditional Owners,

On behalf of the Maritime Union of Australia I want to warmly congratulate you on your historic victory to protect your land from radioactive waste.

When the Commonwealth Government first announced plans to use Muckaty lands as a dump for nuclear waste, it was simply assumed by most that it was an inevitability – a done deal.

Yet your spirit, smarts and sheer tenacity have resulted in a great Australian victory for the underdog.

I know that Muckaty Traditional Owners – and many others who supported your cause – have travelled tirelessly across the country to build awareness and support.

I know that behind the scenes many have worked diligently on organising continual letters, rallies, meetings, community conversations, trips to Tennant Creek, fundraising gigs, and movie nights.

What a magnificent thing it is that all this effort has finally paid off handsomely.

MUA members are often required to move radioactive waste, so it is an issue that resonated strongly with our members from the start.

We are proud to have stood with you in your fight and we are overjoyed that you have been successful.

I am certain that the bonds we have forged during this long struggle will remain strong for many, many years to come.

Your great victory is an inspiration to all of us who fight for justice in the face of overwhelming power.

I hope you celebrate long and hard – you truly deserve it.

Yours sincerely,

Ian Bray

MUA Assistant National Secretary

———————————————————————

The Northern Land Council has played a disgraceful role, selling out Traditional Owners. To give just one example − of many − the NLC supported legislation by John Howard and Martin Ferguson that allows the imposition of a nuclear waste dump on Aboriginal land with no Aboriginal consultation of consent. Below is an asinine, self-serving statement from the NLC and see also an even worse NLC statement at this link.

http://blogs.crikey.com.au/northern/2014/06/19/northern-land-council-settles-muckaty-claim/

———————————————————————

NLC settles on Muckaty

http://www.nlc.org.au/media-releases/article/nlc-settles-on-muckaty/

June 19, 2014

NLC CEO Joe Morrison addresses the media today.

OUT of concern for relations among the Aboriginal clans which comprise the Muckaty Aboriginal Land Trust, the Northern Land Council has agreed to settle the Federal Court challenge to the Commonwealth Government’s proposal to establish a nuclear waste facility at Muckaty.

The settlement, offered by the lawyers representing opponents of the facility, was signed off by the parties in Melbourne late yesterday.

In June 2007, the NLC nominated a site for the facility on 225 hectares in the south-east section of the Muckaty Aboriginal Land Trust area. The Commonwealth approved the site in September 2007.

“The NLC notes that its acceptance of the offer is done without any admission of liability – that is, without any admission that the nomination was made in error,” said NLC Chief Executive Officer Joe Morrison.

Mr Morrison said the NLC remains satisfied that it made the nomination with the consent of traditional owners and after consultation with other Aboriginal people with interests in the land.

“In fact, the applicants’ own evidence, heard in Tennant Creek last week, acknowledged that the NLC had consulted broadly and appropriately, with the involvement of all affected groups, and that consent was given to the nomination in accordance with Aboriginal tradition,” he said.

“The NLC maintains that the nomination was not affected by any relevant error and that the legal challenge would have failed.

“However, it is apparent for various reasons – largely due to outside pressures, including pressures caused by divisive litigation – that a number of individuals have shifted their position since the nomination and no longer want the facility to be constructed on the nominated land.

“Because of the divisions within the Aboriginal community, the NLC is now of the view that it would be preferable if the Commonwealth did not act on the nomination. The Commonwealth has agreed with our proposition.

“This position has, of course, been endorsed by the NLC’s Executive Council, which now wants to help the restoration of good relations among the Muckaty families.”

———————————————————————

Muckaty radioactive waste dump plan dumped

ACF Media Release, 19 June 2014

http://www.acfonline.org.au/news-media/media-release/muckaty-radioactive-waste-dump-plan-dumped

The Federal Government’s decision to end the plan for a national radioactive waste dump at Muckaty, north of Tennant Creek in the NT, is a win for Traditional Owners, the environment and responsible radioactive waste management in Australia, the Australian Conservation Foundation said today.

The Federal Government today committed not to act on the Northern Land Council’s contested nomination of Muckaty as the site for a national radioactive waste dump.  The decision comes during a Federal Court hearing initiated by Traditional Owners opposed to the dump plan and conducted on a pro bono basis by law firm Maurice Blackburn.

“Muckaty was always a bad deal – it is a profound relief it will now never be a done deal,” said ACF nuclear free campaigner Dave Sweeney.

“This result is a tribute to the tenacity and courage of the many Traditional Owners who have been tireless in their defence of country and culture for more than seven years.

“It is also a stark reminder of the failure of successive federal governments to adopt an effective and responsible approach to radioactive waste management and highlights the need for a new approach to this old problem.

“After decades of division and secrecy it is time to do things differently and better.  Instead of searching for a vulnerable postcode for a dump it is now time to advance a credible process for management of radioactive waste,” he said.

ACF and other civil society groups, including the ACTU and the Public Health Association, have long called for an independent, expert and public national commission to explore options for responsible radioactive waste management in Australia.

“Muckaty is the latest in a series of failed attempts to impose a dump on unwilling communities in both South Australia and the NT,” Dave Sweeney said. “It was a secretive and ill-considered deal that has properly failed the test.

“We can all be pleased this proposal is finished, but no other Australian community should have to face the pressure and heartache the Muckaty community has experienced.

“It is time to stop the flawed and failed search for a short term political fix and instead adopt an open, evidence-based approach on how to manage a long term human and environmental health hazard.”

———————————————————————

Muckaty nuclear dump defeat is a huge victory for Aboriginal Australia

Elizabeth O’Shea (Maurice Blackburn lawyer)

19 June 2014

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/19/muckaty-nuclear-dump-defeat-is-a-huge-victory-for-aboriginal-australia

Today, the Commonwealth Government has agreed not to act upon the nomination of land at Muckaty Station as a site for Australia’s first radioactive waste dump. The resolution comes seven years after the nomination, four years after the court case was started, and two weeks into a seven week trial. The matter has settled with no admission of liability. Maurice Blackburn’s social justice practice conducted this case on a pro bono basis, and we couldn’t be prouder of the outcome or happier for our clients.

Muckaty Station, 110km north of Tennant Creek, is an Aboriginal land trust under the Aboriginal land rights act. In the 1990s, the Aboriginal land commissioner, justice Gray, was tasked with working out who were the traditional owners of that particular country and the nature of land tenure under customary law. He wrote a report and handed the land back to Aboriginal people on the basis of his findings.

This means the land is owned outright by Aboriginal people, like most people own their homes. Under the law, the land is dealt with according to customary law or agreed processes. The idea is that Aboriginal people are in charge of their land, with the Northern Land Council (NLC) acting on their behalf. It is a statutory scheme that now seems quite visionary, especially in relation to the small minded attitudes that underpinned the Intervention and its successor, the Stronger Futures regime.

Understandably, the return of land to Aboriginal people is a source of immense pride for many. Aboriginal people treat their customary obligations seriously and with dignity, undercutting many of the old lines about Aboriginal people from the reactionary songbook.

In relation to Muckaty, there may be many Aboriginal people who have an interest in the land under customary law. The NLC is charged with dealing with land according to certain rules. They have legal duties to obtain informed consent from people who have primary spiritual responsibility for country, but also to give those with an interest in the land the opportunity to express their views.

In 2005, the Howard government introduced legislation to facilitate the building of Australia’s first radioactive waste dump. The Commonwealth had sites that it owned already and could use, but the NLC lobbied to introduce a provision which permitted Aboriginal people to volunteer a site.

In 2006, the NLC began negotiations with the Commonwealth about a nomination of a site on the Muckaty land trust. The proposed nomination was immediately contentious. Eventually, the Commonwealth offered $12m in the event that the nomination was declared to be the site of the dump. The NLC say they obtained consent and consulted with the right people. The deal was signed in 2007.

There is no doubt that some traditional owners consented to the nomination. It is easy to see why – these are some of the poorest people in Australia and this is a lot of money, though it starts to look quite miserly when compared with international examples.

However, there are five key dreamings on Muckaty that are relevant to this site. The NLC’s stated position was that one sub-branch of one dreaming group were exclusively able to consent to the nomination. Representatives of every other dreaming oppose the dump.

This contrasts with justice Gray’s report, which clearly articulates how decisions about country in the Central Desert area are made collectively, by consent. It is also troubling for other reasons. This proposal is not a microwave tower, or a railway or even a mine. This proposal involves burying radioactive waste on country, within a short distance from a significant sacred site. Even if, as the Commonwealth maintains, it will be safe within a couple of hundred years, it arguably involves permanent sterilisation of land under customary law. The consultation for a proposal of this significance should have been thorough, so people knew exactly what it was they were consenting to, but also that any dissent was treated seriously and as potentially a reason not to proceed with the proposal.

The court heard evidence last week from traditional owners and witnesses on behalf of the applicants seeking to stop the dump. The court was presented with a united front from traditional owners, who explained that the consultation process was confusing and unclear, with people not certain about the location of the proposed dump or who that land belonged to. Meetings were very tense and people felt like they weren’t listened to. The witnesses told the court that they were not told who would be getting the money or how it would be managed.

The NLC maintains it has done everything properly. The traditional owners maintain that they were ridden over roughshod and the anthropology which identified the relevant people to speak for country was mistaken. Hopefully, this is an opportunity for the NLC to reflect on their processes and try to get it right.

This has been hard fought litigation and we are proud to have given voice to the resilience and determination of our clients. In the seven years since this nomination was made, the movement to stop a dump on Muckaty has grown. Local council, unions, community groups all got on board and stood firm in their opposition to the dump.

But the truth is that this is a much bigger issue than the court case. This is an opportunity to rethink these issues from a public policy perspective. These remain some of the most important discussions we can have. If you are a person who places importance on the rights of Aboriginal people, the protection of the environment or simply good governance, you have a duty to be part of them.

—-

More on this story

Muckaty nuclear dump plan shelved by Northern Land Council

Muckaty nuclear dump will sever Indigenous ties to heritage, court hears

Indigenous landowner claims she was threatened over Muckaty nuclear dump

Nuclear waste dump would ‘dispossess’ Indigenous landowners in NT

Indigenous elder speaks out at NT nuclear waste dump trial

Muckaty station compensation no ‘bucket of money’, court told

Traditional owners fear nuclear waste will poison land, court told

Traditional landowners fighting nuclear waste dump get their day in court

———————————————————————

Muckaty Station: Northern Land Council withdraws nomination of site of first nuclear waste dump

June 19, 2014

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-06-19/northern-land-council-withdraws-muckaty-creek-nomination/5535318

The Northern Land Council has withdrawn its nomination of Muckaty Station north of Tennant Creek as the site for Australia’s first nuclear waste dump.

A small section of Muckaty Station, about 600 kilometres north of Alice Springs, was put forward by the council to store Australia’s low and intermediate-level nuclear waste.

The waste is currently stored at Lucas Heights in Sydney before being sent to France.

The NLC nominated the site on behalf of members of the Ngapa group eight years ago, but four other clans have laid claim to the land and say it is adjacent to a sacred site.

Those traditional owners have been challenging the nomination in the Federal Court, arguing they were not consulted and did not give their consent.

Traditional owner Kylie Sambo says the court action came after eight years of fighting, and played a pivotal role in the NLC’s decision.

“We had a really strong argument. We haven’t been consulted properly for our own country. We know our land, the story, the songs, the dreamings. That’s why we stand up and spoke for ourselves,” she told ABC News 24.

We haven’t been consulted properly for our own country. We know our land, the story, the songs, the dreamings. That’s why we stand up and spoke for ourselves

Traditional owner Kylie Sambo

“There would be no way in the world that I would let a nuclear waste dump come to my grandfather’s country, because I have fought very hard to get the country back and we’re not just going to give it away just like that.”

She says the NLC should have been “upfront and honest with the people of the country”.

“I was surprised that they did things the wrong way. I knew at the start that they did wrong things, but I didn’t know that it was this bad until I heard it in court, of how they went about the nomination.

“But what I strongly believe is that they should’ve done it better instead of doing it under the table or behind closed doors as people say.”

She says she is proud by how the community came together to fight the proposal.

“When [the NLC] came up they saw most of our friends and family and extended family members standing up, talking strong to the media. I think they got scared,” she said.

“There’s going to be a big celebration. Other families and other supporters from around Australia could come and celebrate this victory with us.”

NLC seeks to ‘reconcile’ with divided families

NLC head Joe Morrison maintains the land council consulted the right groups, but says it is a tragedy the nomination has divided families.

“That division and argument are the most unfortunate consequences of this whole case being brought about and its being whipped up by special interests groups, pursuing their own agendas,” he said.

“I am determined that those relations at Muckaty be now repaired.

“The most pressing task for the Northern Land Council is to bring families back together and reconcile.”

Lizzie O’Shea from Maurice Blackburn lawyers, which represents the traditional owners, says the Commonwealth flagged the decision in recent days.

“We’ve always felt that these concerns about the process for the nomination were valid and that they needed to be put before a judge and considered carefully so we’re thrilled that we’ve had the opportunity to do that,” she said.

“But the Commonwealth has now decided not to rely on the nomination.”

The Federal Court has dismissed the case and both parties have agreed to pay their own costs.

The Commonwealth had promised about $12 million in compensation to the NLC if the dump proceeded.

More on this story:

Muckaty Station land rights challenge begins in Federal Court

Court hears cultural stories at proposed nuclear dump site

Muckaty Station owners reject $12m waste dump offer

Related Story: Muckaty Station land rights challenge begins in Federal Court

Related Story: Court hears cultural stories at proposed nuclear dump site

———————————————————————

Muckaty Radioactive Dump defeated at last

http://scott-ludlam.greensmps.org.au/muckaty

After eight long years, the hard fought battle to keep Muckaty free of radioactive waste, is over.

This is an extraordinary win for the elders and their families who have sought to protect country on behalf of all of us. They should never have had the burden of dealing with Australia’s radioactive waste laid on them, first by the Howard Government, and then by the Rudd/Gillard Government. Now that burden is lifted.

It is essential that Australia’s disgraceful history of targeting Aboriginal communities to host our 60-year legacy of spent reactor fuel is never repeated again.

The Greens propose the Commonwealth Government immediately establish an independent Commission on Radioactive Waste Management to undertake a deliberative process that is procedurally fair, scientifically rigorous, and properly informed.

In the meantime, this win belongs to all those who stood up against this appalling proposal.
(read more about the Waste Commission proposal here: http://greens.org.au/nuclear-waste)

———————————————————————

Media release by Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane

National Radioactive Waste Management Facility

19 June 2014

http://www.minister.industry.gov.au/ministers/macfarlane/media-releases/national-radioactive-waste-management-facility

The Australian Government will not proceed with the nomination of the Muckaty Station site for the construction of a National Radioactive Waste Management Facility.

The National Radioactive Waste Management Act 2012 requires the voluntary nomination of a site and an agreement to any nomination from people or groups with relevant rights and interests.

The Government has agreed to a request from the Northern Land Council that the site, which was nominated in 2007, should not be considered for a waste management facility.

The Government will hold further discussions to identify a suitable alternative site. If a suitable site is not identified through these discussions the Government will commence a new tender process for nominations for another site in accordance with the Act.

[NB: FOLLOWING SENTENCE IS NOT TRUE] The Government is committed to ensuring Australia has an appropriate facility for the management of radioactive waste that is created within Australia, largely as a result of medical procedures.

———————————————————————

Statement from Labor Senator Nova Peris congratulating Muckaty Traditional Owners

Follow the link: https://twitter.com/NovaPeris/status/479556196223823874/photo/1

Senator Peris is one of a very small number of ALP politicians who spoke out – contraulations also to Gerry McCarthy. Most voted for Martin Ferguson’s racist legislation permitting the imposition of a nuclear dump on Aboriginal land with no consultation or consent.

———————————————————————

Northern Territory Muckaty waste dump plan abandoned

The Australian, June 19, 2014, Pia Akerman

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/northern-territory-muckaty-waste-dump-plan-abandoned/story-e6frg6nf-1226959705496

THE federal government will persevere with plans for a nuclear waste dump in the Outback despite losing its preferred site during a protracted legal challenge.

Muckaty Station, 110km north of Tennant Creek, was chosen as a potential waste site by the Howard government in 2007.

The site was volunteered by the Northern Land Council, in a deal that was estimated to deliver the NLC $11 million and the Northern Territory government an initial $10m, plus about $2m a

year from other governments once the facility was operational.

A legal challenge by some elders who say they did not consent to the proposed nuclear waste facility was launched in 2010, with the trial running this month in Melbourne and the Northern Territory.

Today the Federal Court has been asked to dismiss the proceedings, on the basis that the commonwealth has agreed not to act upon the Muckaty nomination.

Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane said the site was off the agenda following a request from the NLC.

The council will be given the opportunity to nominate an alternative location.

“The government will hold further discussions to identify a suitable alternative site,” Mr Macfarlane said.

“If a suitable site is not identified through these discussions the government will commence a new tender process for nominations for another site in accordance with the Act.

“The National Radioactive Waste Management Act 2012 requires the voluntary nomination of a site and an agreement to any nomination from people or groups with relevant rights and interests.

“The government is committed to ensuring Australia has an appropriate facility for the management of radioactive waste that is created within Australia, largely as a result of medical procedures.”

The NLC said it had agreed to settle the case out of concern for relations among the Aboriginal clans which comprise the Muckaty Aboriginal Land Trust.

“The NLC notes that its acceptance of the offer is done without any admission of liability — that is, without any admission that the nomination was made in error,” said NLC chief executive officer Joe Morrison.

Mr Morrison said the NLC remained satisfied that it made the nomination with the consent of traditional owners and after consultation with other Aboriginal people with interests in the land.

“The NLC maintains that the nomination was not affected by any relevant error and that the legal challenge would have failed,” he said.

“However, it is apparent for various reasons — largely due to outside pressures, including pressures caused by divisive litigation — that a number of individuals have shifted their position since the nomination and no longer want the facility to be constructed on the nominated land.

“Because of the divisions within the Aboriginal community, the NLC is now of the view that it would be preferable if the commonwealth did not act on the nomination. The commonwealth has agreed with our proposition.”

The settlement will be without any admission of liability and Maurice Blackburn, which has represented the dump’s opponents, will not seek costs.

The firm’s social justice practice head Elizabeth O’Shea said their clients were thrilled.

“Aboriginal people at Muckaty have been fighting this plan for more than seven years and are overjoyed to have secured this outcome,” she said.

Australian Conservation Foundation anti-nuclear campaigner Dave Sweeney said the government could not begin again with a search for a “vulnerable postcode” to dump on.

“Muckaty was a bad idea from day one,” he said.

“We now need to move away from a 20-year failed search for a vulnerable community to dump on.”

The trial heard there was no realistic alternative to the Muckaty site.

Ron Merkel QC, representing Mark Lane Jangala and other opponents of the waste dump, said the case would have been dropped by now if there was any realistic alternative to Muckaty.

“Everything has been explored,” he said, adding that the prospect of a nuclear waste dump was inconsistent with a duty owed to ancestors to care for the land, and nuclear waste was akin to introducing “poison” to the soil.

Traditional owner Lorna Fejo said she had fought hard to protect the land for her children and grandchildren.

“My grandmother gave me that land in perfect condition and other lands to my two brothers, who are now deceased,’’ she said in a statement.

“It was our duty to protect that land and water because it was a gift from my grandmother to me.’’

She said she would now be able to pass it on in perfect condition.

With AAP

———————————————————————

Land council abandons Muckaty dump push

June 19, 2014, Neda Vanovac

http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/land-council-abandons-muckaty-dump-push-20140619-3af4c.html

The Northern Land Council (NLC) has abandoned its push to locate a national nuclear waste dump on Muckaty Station in the Northern Territory.

A surprises settlement was offered by lawyers for opponents of the dump and was signed off on Wednesday in Melbourne.

It comes halfway through a roving series of Federal Court hearings to take evidence from a number of Aboriginal clans from the station, 120km north of Tennant Creek, who said their wishes were overruled by a fifth clan and the NLC, who worked together to nominate the site.

The groups have been battling the dump for seven years since Muckaty was formally nominated in 2007.

The NLC says it settled out of concern for relations among the clans.

“The NLC notes that its acceptance of the offer is done without any admission of liability – that is, without any admission that the nomination was made in error,” CEO Joe Morrison said on Thursday.

Lawyers for the traditional land owners at Muckaty Station said their clients were overjoyed with the outcome.

“Every step of the process was opposed by people on the ground, and that may be one reason why they’ve decided to no longer rely on litigation,” Maurice Blackburn lawyer Elizabeth O’Shea told reporters in Melbourne.

Traditional owner Lorna Fejo said she had fought hard to protect the land for her children and grandchildren.

“My grandmother gave me that land in perfect condition and other lands to my two brothers, who are now deceased,” she said in a statement.

“It was our duty to protect that land and water because it was a gift from my grandmother to me.”

She said she would now be able to pass it on in perfect condition.

The Australian government has subsequently dumped plans to locate the facility at Muckaty.

Following a request from the NLC the site is off the agenda, Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane said.

The council will be given the opportunity to nominate an alternative location.

“If a suitable site is not identified … the government will commence a new tender process for nominations for another site,” Mr Macfarlane said.

———————————————————————

Muckaty could still house nuclear dump

AAP, 19 June 2014

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/aap/article-2661965/Muckaty-house-nuclear-dump.html

Opponents of a nuclear waste dump in the Northern Territory have won the battle, but perhaps not the war.

The Northern Land Council has three months to nominate another site for Australia’s nuclear waste storage facility after abandoning the Muckaty site, following a seven-year battle with Aboriginal traditional owner groups who launched a Federal Court challenge against the NLC for what they said was inadequate consultation and a failure to obtain informed consent from all traditional owners.

The NLC settled with opponents of the dump midway through a trial that had travelled from Melbourne to Tennant Creek and Muckaty, and was due in Darwin next week.

“The NLC have walked away without being held truly accountable,” said Gerry McCarthy, local member for the Barkly tablelands, of which Muckaty is a part.

He now hopes for a scientific approach to locating the dump, which previous reports said would suit conditions in the northwestern corner of South Australia.

“Science will prove this facility needs to go to the driest part of this continent, (with) a water table very deep and preferably contaminated by salt, and also an area of minimal infrastructure that provides access to what will be low to intermediate-level waste coming home from France shortly,” he said.

Australian Conservation Foundation spokesman Dave Sweeney told AAP that for 20 years, successive governments had tried to find a “remote and vulnerable community and a remote place to dump Australian waste”.

He said the federal government needed “an open, inclusive, evidence-based assessment of the range of radioactive waste management options available” for responsible and effective long-term storage.

Clan members think the NLC capitulation is not the end of the matter, with Marlene Bennett saying they were “still feeling slightly apprehensive”.

Both sides maintain they would have won, with NLC CEO Joe Morrison saying it walked away to protect the Muckaty clans.

Five groups lay claim to the site nominated for the facility, with interwoven dreamings and intermarriages, resulting in divided families.

“I was disturbed by the fractures created in the community,” Mr Morrison said.

“At stake here is the fundamental right of Aboriginal people to decide for themselves how their land is to be used; (they) should be able to arrive at those decisions without the influence of outside groups who have their own agendas.”

But Natalie Wasley of the Beyond Nuclear Initiative said if concern for the community was so strong, the NLC could have acted seven years ago when the schism first appeared.

She denied her organisation had influenced traditional owners.

“It’s patronising to say traditional owners have been pushed around, told what to say and manipulated by interest groups, because clearly people are intelligent, articulate and able to make up their own minds about this decision,” she told AAP.

Federal Minister for Indigenous Affairs Nigel Scullion told ABC he hoped for another nomination of a northern site at Muckaty, not susceptible to the conflicts of the first.

Mr McCarthy said the NT couldn’t refuse the dump, which “should never be forced on a community due to constitutional exploitation”.

Spent nuclear fuel rods are due to be returned to Australia from France by mid-2015, and traditional owners are ready to continue their fight if Muckaty is circled again.

———————————————————————

Civil debate needed next time around

Centralian Advocate, Editorial, 20/06/2014

THE longwinded debate over the proposed nuclear waste dump at Muckaty Station is finally over.

The traditional owners have spoken and their voices have been heard with the Northern Land Council yesterday revoking its controversial offer to the Federal Government.

Some onlookers may suggest the closing decision was a result of a carefully constructed argument pitched by the defendants’ legal team, but it was the voice of the people that inevitably prevailed.

Fighting for what you believe in may not always be the easiest task. It can, however, be extremely rewarding if time, effort and dedication is maintained.

The Muckaty case has proven that even in the roughest times and in the toughest circumstances, individuals will unite and stand up for their rights. The traditional owners, and the greater community, have pushed their way through a prolonged and often painful battle.

It has also proved that no amount of money – no matter how great or small – can buy a communal treasure.

The Federal Government put their offer on the table, but refusal was inexorable – they weren’t going to budge. Small town community groups – in all their shapes, sizes and forms – will always have a voice. They will rise above the hardest circumstances, influence decision-making to the best of their ability, and continue to lobby against those who pose a potential threat.

In this case, they have challenged the Big Guys and come out on top.  …

———————————————————————

Muckaty dumped

Centralian Advocate, 20/06/2014

A LANDMARK swing by the Northern Land Council to dump Muckaty Station as its site of choice for storing nuclear waste has ended seven years of division among traditional owner groups in Central Australia. The NLC, which nominated the site about 120km north of Tennant Creek in 2007, made the shock announcement yesterday morning stating they were withdrawing the nomination because of divisive litigation and because “a number of individuals have shifted their positions”.

Warlmanpa woman Marlene Nungarrayi Bennett said she was shaking with excitement. “Today will go down in the history books of indigenous Australia on par with the Wave Hill Walk -off, Mabo and Blue Mud Bay,” she said. “We have showed the Commonwealth and the NLC that we will stand strong for this country. The NLC tried to divide and conquer us but they did not succeed.”

Reports say a surprise settlement was offered by lawyers for opponents of the dump and was signed off on Wednesday in Melbourne. The case was scheduled to be heard next week in Darwin.

Campaigner Paddy Gibson, who attended the court proceedings, said Darwin would have been a “bloodbath”. “The NLC didn’t have a leg to stand on.”

Lawyers supporting those against the site argued the NLC did not consult the relevant dreaming groups who passed through the land and its nomination was therefore invalid.

But Chief Executive Officer Joe Morrison said the NLC stood by its nomination processes. “The NLC maintains that the nomination was not affected by any relevant error and that the legal challenge would have failed,” he said.

Maurice Blackburn’s lawyer Lizzie O’Shea, who represented the opponents of the dump, said it was their view the NLC did not comply with the law.

“The clients presented a united front and told the judge the process had been flawed,” she said.

“This has been a hard fought litigation, not an easy battle by any stretch.”

The NLC will be given the opportunity to nominate an alternative location.

———————————————————————

Muckaty: A Little Lift For An Otherwise Black Day

By Chris Graham, 20 Jun 2014

Muckaty: A Little Lift For An Otherwise Black Day

Tomorrow is a black day for Aboriginal Australia. But at least one mob from the red centre have something to celebrate, writes Chris Graham.

Saturday marks the 7th anniversary of the Howard government launching an unprecedented assault on the lives of Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory.

Shortly after midday on June 21, 2007 – in the shadow of a federal election that threatened the annihilation of the Liberal-National Government – Prime Minister John Howard and Indigenous Affairs Minister Mal Brough announced the Northern Territory intervention, a policy that, with the backing of Labor, saw the suspension of the basic human rights of some of the nation’s most vulnerable citizens.

Seven years on, virtually every aspect of Aboriginal life in the Territory is demonstrably worse. School attendance is down. Alcohol-related violence is up. Unemployment and homelessness is entrenched. Incarceration rates are at world record levels. And reports of attempt suicide and self-harm have more than quadrupled.

The NT intervention continues today, having been extended by the Rudd and Gillard governments for another decade.

Not much to celebrate in that.

But some Central Australian blackfellas will be celebrating tomorrow… and the day after that… and the day after that.

Earlier this week, the Warlmanpa people – Traditional Owners of land in and around Muckaty Station, north of Tennant Creek – won a stunning victory in the Federal Court.

If you’re looking for a happy Aboriginal story to finish off an otherwise depressing political week, then watch this video, which explains what happened.

The law firm which ran the case pro-bono – Maurice Blackburn – has posted the video on YouTube. And a warning to New Matilda readers: It’s a bit of a tear-jerker, albeit a really happy one.

Elizabeth O’Shea, an Associate with Maurice Blackburn is interviewed in the video about the legal struggle.

“Aboriginal people have been fighting against a nomination of their land to be Australia’s first nuclear waste dump,” O’Shea says.

“That nomination was made seven years ago and they’ve been fighting every step of the way, which has ultimately now been resolved with the Commonwealth agreeing not to rely on that nomination.

“They’ve shown real courage and determination standing up to two really significant figures of authority in their lives (the Northern Land Council and the Commonwealth Government).

“That determination I think was not lost upon the Commonwealth in the evidence given in recent days.

“This has been hard fought litigation. We’ve had to struggle against the Commonwealth and the Northern Land Council every single step of the way.

“It’s taken four years to get to trial and our clients have shown resilience and determination, and we’ve tried to reflect that in the way we’ve approached this legal case.

“So we’re really proud to have taken it this far, and to have gotten a really good result for our clients.”

The most touching moment of the video is the moment when Nat Wasley from the Beyond Nuclear Initiative – a key group which backed the Warlmanpa people – breaks the news of the legal victory to Warlmanpa elders earlier this week.

The last word, however, belongs to Dianne Stokes, one of the senior Warlmanpa women who has helped lead the fight against the waste dump from day one.

“Adam Giles (Chief Minister of the Northern Territory), I want to let him know that if he wants to ignore our stories, our informations, he’s not going to keep the report from us,” says Stokes.

“Let him come and listen to us what we gonna tell him. We gonna tell him right here on this land.”

Land that is now safe from radioactive waste.

Happy Friday people!

———————————————————————

Muckaty could still house nuclear dump

AAP, 19 Jun 2014

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2014/06/19/muckaty-could-still-house-nuclear-dump

The Northern Land Council has abandoned its push to locate a national nuclear waste dump on Muckaty Station in the Northern Territory.

Marlene Bennett might be “popping out of her skin” with relief that a national nuclear waste dump will not be located on her ancestors’ lands, but her people remain wary.

The Northern Land Council (NLC) announced on Thursday that it had settled with opponents of the dump and that Federal Court proceedings currently underway would be dismissed.

“We’ll probably have one of the first good sleeps we’ve had in eight years,” Ms Bennett told AAP.

“However, we’re still wary.”

Plans to locate a national radioactive waste storage facility at Muckaty have been in development since 2006, with several Aboriginal clans from the Muckaty Land Trust challenging the NLC’s determination that the Lauder family of the Ngapa clan were rightful owners of the land that would house the dump, 120km north of Tennant Creek.

There has been no admission of liability in settling the court case, with the NLC maintaining it consulted properly and obtained informed consent.

Opponents say it was secretive and shut out rightful owners of the site in favour of the Lauders.

“I think NLC should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves,” Ms Bennett said.

“They’re supposed to be there to protect the interests of indigenous people, protect the land, law, culture, rights. They’re not there to try and divide family groups, damage their relationships, all for that big dollar sign.”

The federal government offered $12 million, including a charitable trust for the whole community, a new road and
educational scholarships, but that will now be scrapped.

Kwementyaye Lauder, who has since passed away, was key in negotiating the dump.

“Like many people in this region she understood poverty and understood the importance of opportunity; it was this she was trying to create for the families of the region,” NLC CEO Joe Morrison said.

Healing a fractured community was the main reason given for dropping the case, but may be easier said than done.

“We need to forgive that cousin for what she’s done, because she was used,” Ms Bennett said.

“Rich and powerful people will do what they want because they have the money; they don’t care who they hurt, they just have to find the right person for the right price. I think it’s insulting that they targeted her and had discussions with her under the table.”

The NLC maintains these claims are fraudulent.

“I feel sad we have been fighting all these years,” said senior Milwayi traditional owner Bunny Nabarula, 84.

“They tried to separate people. This hurt my feelings.”

It took a Federal Court challenge to make the NLC listen, said Kylie Sambo.

“If you keep committing to the fight and keep going and never stop then the victory will be yours,” she told AAP.

But she echoed the comments of a number of family members that the NLC had broken their trust; they are seeking a boundary shift so Tennant Creek might once again be part of the Central Land Council, which has been sympathetic to their battle against the facility.

Although the federal government has accepted the withdrawal of the Muckaty site nomination, federal Minister for Indigenous Affairs Nigel Scullion told the ABC he hopes a second nomination can be made.

———————————————————————

Federal Court goes to Muckaty

June 14, 2014
By Mara Bonacci

https://www.greenleft.org.au/node/56628

Seven years after Muckaty Station was nominated as a radioactive waste dump site, a Federal Court challenge has begun in Tennant Creek, 500 kilometres north of Alice Springs and 120 kilometres south of the proposed dump site.
In 2007, the Northern Land Council (NLC) nominated Muckaty to the Commonwealth. The Federal Court challenge is based on the argument that the traditional owners were not properly consulted and they did not give consent.
The case began in Melbourne on June 2. Ron Merkel QC, appearing for traditional owners opposed to the waste dump, said the NLC’s nomination was a breach of the rights of traditional owners under the Aboriginal Land Rights Act NT (ALRA).
He said the federal government could not be considered an “innocent third party” in this breach of rights, given its close collaboration with the NLC through the nomination process.
Under ALRA, for a nomination to progress, the full council of the NLC needs to be satisfied that there is consent from traditional owners whose land will be affected. Such a resolution did pass council, but Merkel told the court: “The explanation provided to Full Council [about the nature of the agreement] was so woefully deficient that it doesn’t meet any standards of bona fides … and moves into maladministration.”
Merkel cited email correspondence in which the NLC’s legal officer, Ron Levy, said further consultations would have been “fraught with political risk” because they would give opportunity for “dissidents” within the Muckaty group to cause “mayhem”.
The Commonwealth Radioactive Waste Management Act (2005) was clearly designed to shut down legal avenues for Aboriginal people wanting to challenge the nomination of their land for a waste dump. The John Howard government went out of its way to ensure Aboriginal traditional owners were explicitly stripped of their rights in the 2005 act.
The land council produced two anthropological reports for the waste dump commission in 2006. The first report was 50 pages and the second was 20. The emphasis in the original report on shared responsibility for sites across Muckaty by all clan groups was absent in the second report. It was the second report that was eventually given to the minister to substantiate the NLC’s contention that exclusive traditional ownership of the nominated waste dump site is held by the narrow “Lauder branch of the Ngapa clan”.
The week of court proceedings in Melbourne focused on technical and anthropological evidence. However, the court has agreed to sit for two weeks in Tennant Creek to provide an opportunity for Justice Anthony North to see and experience the country being talked about and hear evidence from traditional owners. Questioning has focussed on the nomination process and their connections to the land.
The court was taken to the proposed dump site on June 9. Senior Warlmanpa man Dick Foster, one of the applicants challenging the waste dump, explained the dreaming stories that are significant to the nominated site and how these impact on the rights and responsibilities of different clan groups.
Bunny Nabarula, an 84-year-old Warlmanpa elder who has been a leading spokesperson in the campaign against the dump for seven years, also gave evidence on site. Nabarula alleged that the NLC have strongly supported the small family group who nominated the dump, while trying to exclude those opposed to the waste dump from access to some consultation meetings.
Nabarula argued that her clan, the Milwayi, have primary responsibility for the nominated site, but also that numerous clans have overlapping dreamings and responsibilities in the area, meaning that they would all need to be involved in major decisions such as the introduction of a nuclear waste dump.
Court proceedings will continue in Darwin.
If the government’s argument is accepted by the Court, the nomination of Muckaty as a nuclear waste dump will stand even if the traditional owners are found to have never consented to the nomination.
It may be months before a decision is made on this case. Justice North made it clear that his final decision could not in any way be based on the morality of putting a nuclear waste dump at Muckaty: “I’m not sitting here looking at the moral arguments, if I was I would have an easy answer.”

———————————————————————

The bipartisan nuclear war against Aboriginal people

Jim Green, Online Opinion, 11 July 2014

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=16489&page=0

The nuclear industry has been responsible for some of the crudest racism in Australia’s history. This radioactive racism dates from the British bomb tests in the 1950s and it has been evident in more recent debates over nuclear waste.

Since 2006 successive federal governments have been attempting to establish a nuclear waste dump at Muckaty, 110 kms north of Tennant Creek in the Northern Territory. A toxic trade-off of basic services for a radioactive waste dump has been part of this story from the start. The nomination of the Muckaty site was made with the promise of $12 million compensation package comprising roads, houses and scholarships. Muckaty Traditional Owner Kylie Sambo objected to this radioactive ransom: “I think that is a very, very stupid idea for us to sell our land to get better education and scholarships. As an Australian we should be already entitled to that.”

While a small group of Traditional Owners supported the dump, a large majority were opposed and some initiated legal action in the Federal Court challenging the nomination of the Muckaty site by the federal government and the Northern Land Council (NLC).

The Howard government passed the Commonwealth Radioactive Waste Management Act, overriding the Aboriginal Heritage Act, undermining the Aboriginal Land Rights Act, and allowing the imposition of a nuclear dump with no Aboriginal consultation or consent. ‘Practical reconciliation’ was the Howard government’s mantra.

Labor voted against the Commonwealth Radioactive Waste Management Act, with Labor parliamentarians describing it as “extreme”, “arrogant”, “draconian”, “sorry”, “sordid”, and “profoundly shameful”. At its 2007 national conference, Labor voted unanimously to repeal the legislation. Yet after the 2007 election, the Labor government passed legislation − the National Radioactive Waste Management Act (NRWMA) − which was almost as draconian and still permitted the imposition of a nuclear dump with no Aboriginal consultation or consent. Hooray for hypocrisy.

Then Prime Minister Kevin Rudd highlighted the life-story of Lorna Fejo (a.k.a. Nanna Nungala Fejo) during the National Apology in February 2008. At the same time, the Rudd government was stealing her land for a nuclear dump. Fejo said: “I’m very, very disappointed and downhearted about that [Muckaty legislation]. I’m really sad. The thing is − when are we going to have a fair go? Australia is supposed to be the land of the fair go. When are we going to have fair go? I’ve been stolen from my mother and now they’re stealing my land off me.”

Shamefully, the NLC supported legislation disempowering the people it is meant to represent. (The NLC is also facing a legal challenge from Traditional Owners in relation to the bauxite mine in north-east Arnhem Land.)

Labor’s Resources Minister Martin Ferguson drove the disgraceful NRWMA through parliament. He refused countless requests to meet with Traditional Owners opposed to the dump. Muckaty Traditional Owner Dianne Stokes said: “All along we have said we don’t want this dump on our land but we have been ignored. Martin Ferguson has avoided us and ignored our letters but he knows very well how we feel. He has been arrogant and secretive and he thinks he has gotten away with his plan but in fact he has a big fight on his hands.”

Dianne Stokes has not been alone. Many Traditional Owners were determined to stop the dump and they have been supported by the Beyond Nuclear Initiative, a pro bono legal team led by legal firm Maurice Blackburn, the Australian Nuclear Free Alliance, key trade unions including the Australian Council of Trade Unions, church groups, medical and public health organisations, local councils, the Australian Greens, and environmental groups such as Friends of the Earth, the Australian Conservation Foundation and the Environment Centre NT.

The Federal Court trial finally began in June 2014. After two weeks of evidence, the NLC gave up and agreed to recommend to the federal government the withdrawal of the nomination of Muckaty for a nuclear dump. The Abbott government accepted the recommendation (Tony Abbott himself might have been called to appear at the trial had it proceeded).

As a result of their surrender, the NLC and the Commonwealth did not have to face cross-examination in relation to numerous serious accusations raised in the first two weeks of the trial − including claims that the NLC rewrote an anthropologists’ report. Kylie Sambo said: “I believe [the NLC] didn’t want to go through that humiliation of what they really done. But it’s better now that they actually backed off. It’s good for us.”

Lorna Fejo said: “I feel ecstatic. I feel free because it was a long struggle to protect my land.”

Marlene Nungarrayi Bennett said: “Today will go down in the history books of Indigenous Australia on par with the Wave Hill Walk-off, Mabo and Blue Mud Bay. We have shown the Commonwealth and the NLC that we will stand strong for this country. The NLC tried to divide and conquer us but they did not succeed.”

Dianne Stokes said: “We will be still talking about our story in the communities up north so no one else has to go through this. We want to let the whole world know that we stood up very strong. We want to thank the supporters around the world that stood behind us and made us feel strong.”

After the celebrations, one immediate challenge for Muckaty Traditional Owners is to continue their campaign to have land council boundaries shifted so they can be represented by the Central Land Council instead of the NLC. Kylie Sambo said: “Hopefully we can continue to try and push the boundary for the NLC back up north a bit. We had a good trust there but then they broke it. It’s going to be tough, we stood and fought for eight long years and I think we can take on anything now.”

What did self-styled Aboriginal leaders such as Warren Mundine and Noel Pearson have to say about the Muckaty dispute? Nothing. In eight years they never once spoke up in support of Muckaty Traditional Owners. Likewise, Australia’s self-styled ‘pro-nuclear environmentalists’ − Adelaide University’s Barry Brook, uranium industry consultant Ben Heard, and others − never once voiced concern about the imposition of a nuclear dump on an unwilling Aboriginal community and their silence suggests they couldn’t care less about the racism of the industry they so stridently support.

Dumping on South Australia

The failed attempt to establish a dump at Muckaty followed the failed attempt to establish a dump in South Australia. In 1998, the Howard government announced its intention to build a nuclear waste dump near Woomera in South Australia. Leading the battle against the dump were the Kupa Piti Kungka Tjuta, a council of senior Aboriginal women from northern SA. Many of the Kungkas personally suffered the impacts of the British nuclear bomb tests at Maralinga and Emu in the 1950s.

The proposed dump generated such controversy in SA that the federal government hired a public relations company. Correspondence between the company and the government was released under Freedom of Information laws. In one exchange, a government official asked the PR company to remove sand-dunes from a photo to be used in a brochure. The explanation provided by the government official was that: “Dunes are a sensitive area with respect to Aboriginal Heritage”. The sand-dunes were removed from the photo, only for the government official to ask if the horizon could be straightened up as well. Terra nullius.

In 2003, the federal government used the Lands Acquisition Act 1989 to seize land for the dump. Native Title rights and interests were extinguished with the stroke of a pen. This took place with no forewarning and no consultation with Aboriginal people.

The Kungkas continued to implore the federal government to ‘get their ears out of their pockets’, and after six years the government did just that. In the lead-up to the 2004 federal election − after a Federal Court ruling that the federal government had acted illegally in stripping Traditional Owners of their native title rights, and with the dump issue biting politically in SA − the Howard government decided to cut its losses and abandon the dump plan.

The Kungkas 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.”

The Kungkas victory had broader ramifications − it was a set-back for everyone who likes the idea of stripping Aboriginal people of their land and their land rights, and it was a set-back for the nuclear power lobby. Senator Nick Minchin, one of the Howard government ministers in charge of the failed attempt to impose a nuclear dump in SA, said in 2005: ”My experience with dealing with just low-level radioactive waste from our research reactor tells me it would be impossible to get any sort of consensus in this country around the management of the high-level waste a nuclear [power] reactor would produce.” Minchin told a Liberal Party council meeting that ”we must avoid being lumbered as the party that favours nuclear energy in this country” and that ”we would be political mugs if we got sucked into this”.

Nuclear War

Muckaty Traditional Owners have won a significant battle for country and culture, but the problems and patterns of radioactive racism persist. Racism in the uranium mining industry involves ignoring the concerns of Traditional Owners; divide-and-rule tactics; radioactive ransom; ‘humbugging’ Traditional Owners (exerting persistent, unwanted pressure); providing Traditional Owners with false information; and threats, including legal threats.

One example concerns the 1982 South Australian Roxby Downs Indenture Act, which sets the legal framework for the operation of BHP Billiton’s Olympic Dam uranium mine in SA. The Act was amended in 2011 but it retains exemptions from the SA Aboriginal Heritage Act. Traditional Owners were not even consulted. The SA government’s spokesperson in Parliament said: “BHP were satisfied with the current arrangements and insisted on the continuation of these arrangements, and the government did not consult further than that.”

That disgraceful performance illustrates a broader pattern. Aboriginal land rights and heritage protections are feeble at the best of times. But the legal rights and protections are repeatedly stripped away whenever they get in the way of nuclear or mining interests. Thus the Olympic Dam mine is largely exempt from the SA Aboriginal Heritage Act. Sub-section 40(6) of the Commonwealth’s Aboriginal Land Rights Act exempts the Ranger uranium mine in the NT from the Act and thus removed the right of veto that Mirarr Traditional Owners would otherwise have enjoyed. NSW legislation exempts uranium mines from provisions of the NSW Aboriginal Land Rights Act. Native Title rights were extinguished with the stroke of a pen to seize land for a radioactive waste dump in SA, and Aboriginal heritage laws and land rights were repeatedly overridden with the push to dump nuclear waste in the NT.

Most of those laws are supported by the Coalition and Labor. Radioactive racism in Australia is bipartisan.

The Muckaty battle has been won, but the nuclear war against Aboriginal people continues − and it will continue to be resisted, with the Aboriginal-led Australian Nuclear Free Alliance playing a leading role.

Fukushima apologies and apologists

Jim Green, Climate Spectator, 12 March 2014

www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2014/3/12/energy-markets/fukushima-apologies-and-apologists

It has been a sad and sorry year in Japan’s Fukushima Prefecture. Three years after the March 2011 nuclear disaster and Japan is nowhere near recovering.

ABC journalist Mark Willacy neatly described the recurring pattern: “At first TEPCO denies there’s a problem at the crippled Fukushima plant. Then it becomes obvious to everyone that there is a problem, so the company then acknowledges the problem and makes it public. And finally one of its hapless officials is sent out to apologise to the cameras.”

In February 2013, TEPCO president Naomi Hirose apologised for false information which led a parliamentary panel to cancel an on-site inspection of the Fukushima plant. TEPCO even managed to lie in its website apology, according to the Asahi Shimun newspaper.

In March 2013, a rat found its way into an electrical switchbox resulting in a power outage that left 8800 nuclear fuel assemblies without fresh cooling water for 21-29 hours. TEPCO delayed notifying the Nuclear Regulation Authority and local municipal officials about the incident. “We sincerely apologise. We are deeply regretful over the delay in reporting the incident and for causing anxiety to residents,” said TEPCO representative Yoshiyuki Ishizaki.

On March 29, TEPCO belatedly acknowledged that the company’s failings were responsible for the Fukushima disaster. Hirose apologised: “Our safety culture, skills, and ability were all insufficient. We must humbly accept our failure to prevent the accident, which we should have avoided by using our wisdom and human resources to be better prepared.”

In April, TEPCO discovered that at least three of seven underground storage pools were seeping thousands of litres of radioactive water into the soil. Hirose travelled to Fukushima to apologise for the leaks.

TEPCO acknowledged a further five leaks and spills of contaminated water in April, including a spill of around 110,000 litres from a polyethylene-lined tank (TEPCO waited two days before informing the Nuclear Regulation Authority about this spill). Some of the leaks were continuing because TEPCO was unable to locate their source. Hirose apologised for the fiasco: “We have been causing tremendous trouble. We are very sorry.”

After finding high levels of tritium and strontium in an observation well in June, TEPCO withheld the information for nearly three weeks. TEPCO executive Akio Komori visited the Fukushima prefectural government office on June 19 to apologise.

In July, it was revealed that TEPCO knew about radioactive groundwater leaks into the ocean a month before it publicly disclosed the problem. TEPCO’s general manager Masayuki Ono apologised: “We would like to offer our deep apology for causing grave worries for many people, especially for people in Fukushima.” TEPCO president Hirose also apologised: “We’ve been trying to reform, but we repeated the same mistake. Obviously, our effort is not enough. We are really sorry.”

Also in July, Hirose apologised to two local mayors for seeking permission from the Nuclear Regulation Agency to restart reactors at the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa nuclear plant without first consulting local officials: “We sincerely apologise for your having had cause to criticise us for making hasty and sloppy decisions without giving considerations to local opinions.” In October, Niigata Prefecture governor Hirohiko Izumida − who effectively holds a veto over reactor restarts at Kashiwazaki-Kariwa − said TEPCO must address its “institutionalised lying” before it can expect to restart reactors.

In early August, TEPCO apologised to residents in Fukushima Prefecture, the surrounding region and the larger public for causing inconveniences, worries and trouble arising from contaminated water leaks.

At an August 21 media conference, TEPCO executive Zengo Aizawa apologised for the latest tank leak and said: “The problem of contaminated water is the largest crisis facing management and we will place priority on dealing with the issue.” At an August 26 media conference, Hirose apologised: “Contaminated water has been leaking from tanks. What should never happen, has been happening, and we deeply apologise for the repeated worries that we have caused. We are very sorry.”

On August 29, Hirose apologised to fishermen whose livelihoods have been affected by radioactive pollution from the Fukushima plant. But Hiroshi Kishi, head of a federation of more than 1000 fisheries cooperatives nationwide, said his members had no faith in TEPCO’s ability to fix the mess it had created. “We think your company’s management of contaminated water has collapsed,” he said. “We are extremely worried as it’s creating an immeasurable impact on our country’s fishing industry and will continue to do so in the future.”

In September, Hirose offered a blanket apology: “We deeply apologise for the greater anxiety caused by the accident at Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power station.”

Also in September, Dale Klein, former head of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission and current chair of TEPCO’s ‘Nuclear Reform Monitoring Committee’, told TEPCO that it was stumbling from “crisis to crisis” and that: “It appears that you are not keeping the people of Japan informed. These actions indicate that you don’t know what you are doing … you do not have a plan and that you are not doing all you can to protect the environment and the people.” Hirose apologised: “I apologise for not being able to live up to your expectations.”

In October, Hirose apologised to the Nuclear Regulation Authority for sloppy standards at Fukushima, as yet another problem with radiation-polluted water emerged. “The problems have been caused by a lack of basic checks,” NRA secretary general Katsuhiko Ikeda told Hirose. “I can’t help but say that standards of on-site management are extremely low at Fukushima Daiichi.”

In November, Hirose apologised to the estimated 150,000 local residents who have been forced to leave their homes due to radiation levels, and may in some cases never be able to return: “I have visited Fukushima many times, met the evacuees, the fishing union, the farmers, many people whose businesses have been damaged very much. I feel very sorry for them.”

In December, secretary-general of the ruling Liberal Democratic Party Shigeru Ishiba apologised after describing citizens participating in anti-nuclear protests outside the Japanese parliament as “engaging in an act of terrorism by causing excessive noise”. People were protesting against disgraceful new secrecy legislation which will deter nuclear whistleblowers from coming forward and deter journalists from reporting such information.

In December, another blanket apology from Hirose: “We deeply apologise to all residents around the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station, as well as the broader society, for the concern and anxiety that has arisen on account of the accident at the power station.”

Hirose began 2014 with a New Year’s speech in which he acknowledged that TEPCO was incapable of adequately dealing with problems in 2013, and was continually responding late to issues as they arose.

Hirose said TEPCO will do its best “not to have any problems” in 2014. Fat chance.

Nuclear apologists

Sadly, nuclear apologists have been slow to apologise for peddling misinformation. Adelaide-based nuclear advocate and conspiracy theorist Geoff Russell and Adelaide University’s Barry Brook insist that the Fukushima disaster was “deathless” despite a growing number of scientific studies giving the lie to that claim.

Last year the World Health Organisation released a report which concluded that for people in the most contaminated areas in Fukushima Prefecture, the estimated increased risk for all solid cancers will be around 4% in females exposed as infants; a 6% increased risk of breast cancer for females exposed as infants; a 7% increased risk of leukaemia for males exposed as infants; and for thyroid cancer among females exposed as infants, an increased risk of up to 70% (from a 0.75% lifetime risk up to 1.25%).

Estimates of the long-term cancer death toll include:

  • a Stanford University study that estimates “an additional 130 (15-1100) cancer-related mortalities and 180 (24-1800) cancer-related morbidities”;
  • an estimate of 1000-3000 cancer deaths by physicist Ed Lyman (based on an estimated collective whole-body radiation dose of 3.2 million person-rem to the population of Japan); and
  • an estimate of around 3000 cancer deaths, from radiation biologist and independent consultant Dr Ian Fairlie.

[Update: Dr Fairlie’s latest estimate is about 5,000 deaths, based on UNSCEAR’s March 2014 collective dose estimates.]

Indirect deaths must also be considered, especially those resulting from the failure of TEPCO and government authorities to develop and implement adequate emergency response procedures. A September 2012 editorial in Japan Times noted that 1632 deaths occurred during or after evacuation from the triple-disaster; and nearly half (160,000) of the 343,000 evacuees were dislocated specifically because of the nuclear disaster. A January 2013 article in The Lancet notes that “the fact that 47 per cent of disaster-related deaths were recognised in Fukushima prefecture alone indicates that the earthquake-triggered nuclear crisis at the Fukushima power plant caused extreme hardship for local residents.”

In Fukushima Prefecture, 1656 people have died as a result of stress and other illnesses caused by the 2011 disaster according to information compiled by police and local governments and reported last month. That number exceeds the 1607 people in Fukushima Prefecture who were drowned by the tsunami or killed by the preceding earthquake.

“The biggest problem is the fact that people have been living in temporary conditions for so long,” said Hiroyuki Harada, a Fukushima official dealing with victim assistance, “People have gone through dramatic changes of their environment. As a result, people who would not have died are dying.”

The claim by Brook and Russell that Fukushima was “deathless” has no basis in truth. They ought to take a leaf from Naomi Hirose’s book, bow deeply and apologise.

Jim Green is the national nuclear campaigner with Friends of the Earth, Australia.

Nuclear security and Australia’s uranium exports

Jim Green, 8 April 2014, Online Opinion

http://onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=16197

The March 24−25 Nuclear Security Summit (NSS) in the Netherlands was attended by representatives from over 50 countries. The NSS issued a banal communiqué, almost all of which was decided in advance. The closest the communiqué comes to substance is to identify a range of “voluntary measures” which states “may consider taking” such as publishing information about national laws, exchanging good practices, and further developing training of personnel involved in nuclear security. Elsewhere the communiqué is beyond parody: “Sharing good practices, without detriment to the protection of sensitive information, might also be beneficial.”

To be fair, useful work is being done in some countries to tighten nuclear security. But it’s too little and too slow, and the concept of nuclear security is too narrowly defined. The very first dot-point in the NSS communiqué insists that “measures to strengthen nuclear security will not hamper the rights of States to develop and use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes”.

Victor Gilinsky, a former member of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, noted in 2009 that “even so-called arms controllers fall over themselves trying to establish their bona fides by supporting nuclear energy development and devising painless proposals …” That mentality was in evidence at the NSS. Gilinsky advocates a reversal of priorities: “Security should come first − not as an afterthought. We should support as much nuclear power as is consistent with international security; not as much security as the spread of nuclear power will allow.”

Nuclear security architecture

The NSS website says that Summit participants “laid the basis for an efficient and sustainable nuclear security architecture, consisting of treaties, guidelines and international organisations.”

But there was no discussion, and no outcomes, regarding vital architecture such as the flawed Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). The security threats posed by nuclear weapons arsenals were beyond the scope of the NSS, and the discussion on nuclear weapons was vacuous and steered well away from the failure of the nuclear weapons states to fulfil their NPT disarmament obligations. US President Barack Obama’s ultra-lite contribution to the NSS went no further than a reworking of the old saying that a single nuclear bomb can ruin your whole day: “Just one nuclear weapon exploded in a city … would badly destabilize our security, our economies, and our very way of life.”

Nor did the NSS produce any outcomes regarding another vital piece of nuclear architecture: the flawed safeguards system of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). A recent report about the safeguarding of nuclear fuel cycle facilities, by the Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Project at the University of Texas, concludes: “Theoretical solutions to improve IAEA safeguards have been discussed for decades. However, proprietary, economic, and sovereignty concerns have limited the extent to which countries and private companies have implemented these theoretical solutions. Even in states that cooperate with the IAEA and apply sophisticated accounting mechanisms, such as Japan, safeguards at fuel-cycle facilities currently cannot come close to achieving their explicit goal of providing timely warning of a suspected diversion of one bomb’s worth of fissile material. The prospects are even worse in states that resist cooperation and may wish to keep open their weapons option, such as Iran, and at facilities that employ first-generation safeguards.”

Yet the NSS did not even consider the safeguards system. The broad problem was succinctly explained by former South Australian Premier Mike Rann many years ago, before he decided that his political ambitions were more important than speaking truth to power: “Again and again it has been demonstrated here and overseas that when problems over safeguards prove difficult, commercial considerations will come first.”

Australia’s uranium customers

Nuclear security standards are demonstrably inadequate in a number of Australia’s uranium customer countries. Nuclear security risk factors in Russia include political instability, ineffective governance, pervasive corruption, and the presence of groups determined to obtain nuclear materials. A March 2014 report by Harvard University’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs notes that Russia has the world’s largest nuclear stock­piles stored in the world’s largest number of buildings and bunkers, and that underfunding raises serious questions about whether effective nuclear security and accounting systems can be sustained.”

In a 2011 report, the US Director of National Intelligence discussed nuclear smuggling in Russia: “We assess that undetected smuggling of weapons-usable nuclear material has occurred, but we do not know the total amount of material that has been diverted or stolen since the dissolution of the Soviet Union. We judge it highly unlikely that Russian authorities have been able to recover all of the stolen material.”

Nuclear security lapses have repeatedly made headlines in the USA over the past two years. Examples include:

  • the Air Force removed 17 officers assigned to guard nuclear-armed missiles after finding safety violations, potential violations in protecting codes and attitude problems;
  • Air Force officers with nuclear launch authority were twice caught napping with the blast door open;
  • an inspection by the Department of Energy’s Inspector General found that Los Alamos National Laboratory failed to meet its goal of 99% accuracy in accounting for the lab’s inventory of weapons-grade nuclear materials, including plutonium;
  • a report by LBJ School of Public Affairs at Texas University detailed inadequate protection of US commercial and research nuclear facilities;
  • at least 82 missile launch officers from an Air Force base in Montana face disciplinary action for cheating on monthly proficiency tests or for being aware of cheating and failing to report it. Former missile-launch control officer Bruce Blair said cheating “has been extensive and pervasive at all the missile bases going back for decades”;
  • missile launch officers in two different incidents were found to have violated security regulations designed to prevent intruders from seizing their ICBM-firing keys;
  • nineteen officers at Minot Air Force Base, North Dakota, were forced to surrender their launch authority because of performance and attitude problems;
  • the Navy has opened an investigation into accusations of widespread cheating by sailors at an atomic-reactor training school in South Carolina;
  • the congressionally mandated Advisory Panel on the Governance of the Nuclear Security Enterprise says that drastic reforms are crucial to address “systemic” management shortcomings at the National Nuclear Security Administration; and
  • former military contractor Benjamin Bishop will plead guilty to providing nuclear-arms secrets and other classified information to his Chinese girlfriend.

Time magazine describes the most embarrassing lapse: “In the U.S. in 2012, an 82-year old nun and two other peace protestors broke into Y-12, a facility in Tennessee that contains the world’s largest repository of highly enriched uranium (HEU) in metal form and until the incident was colloquially known as “the Fort Knox of HEU” for its state-of-the-art security equipment. The nun bypassed multiple intrusion-detection systems because faulty cameras had not been replaced and guards at the central alarm station had grown weary of manually validating sensors that produced frequent false alarms. When the protestors started hammering on the side of a building that contains enough HEU for hundreds of weapons, the guards inside assumed the noise was coming from construction workers that they had not been told were coming. She and her fellow protestors were eventually challenged by a single guard.”

The United States’ credibility is also undermined by its failure to ratify the 2005 amendment to the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Materials and the International Convention on the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism. Moreover US federal government budget requests and allocations for nuclear security have been reduced repeatedly since 2011, with programs such as the Global Threat Reduction Initiative, the International Material Protection and Cooperation program, Securing the Cities, and a program to replace HEU research reactor fuel with low-enriched uranium, suffering.

Another ‘good news’ story from the NSS was an announcement that Japan would send “hundreds of kilograms” of HEU and separated plutonium to the US. But Japan continues to expand its stockpile of 44 tons of separated plutonium (nine tons in Japan, 35 tons at reprocessing plants in Europe) and it continues to advance plans to start up the Rokkasho reprocessing plant which would result in an additional eight tons of separated plutonium annually. With no hint of irony, the US/Japan joint statement announcing the plan to send HEU and separated plutonium from Japan to the US concludes: “Our two countries encourage others to consider what they can do to further HEU and plutonium minimization.”

There is a long history of lax nuclear security in Japan. The US has raised concerns about inadequate security at Rokkasho and other nuclear plants in Japan. In November 2013, Japan’s Nuclear Regulation Authority admonished the Japan Atomic Energy Agency for failing to take appropriate measures to protect its Monju prototype fast-breeder reactor from potential terrorist attacks.

The March 2014 report by Harvard University’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs details significant nuclear security gaps in a number of countries that import uranium − or want to import uranium − from Australia. For example it states that India’s approach to nuclear security is “highly secretive”; the threats India’s nuclear security systems must confront “appear to be significant”; India faces challenges “both from domestic terrorist organizations and from attacks by terrorist organizations based in Pakistan”; India also confronts “significant insider corruption”; and the risk of theft or sabotage in India “may be uncomfortably high”.

So what is Australia doing?

So what is the Australian government doing about the vital problem of inadequate nuclear security standards in uranium customer countries? And what are the uranium mining companies operating in Australia doing about the problem? The short answer is: nothing. They adopt a head in the sand approach, just as they ignored the disgraceful nuclear safety standards in Japan that led to the Fukushima disaster.

There are simple steps that could be taken − for example uranium exports could be made contingent on customer countries ratifying the amendment to the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Materials, and the International Convention on the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism.

Jim Green is the national nuclear campaigner with Friends of the Earth

Queensland campaign against uranium mining

Adam Sharah

Chain Reaction #120, March 2013, www.foe.org.au/chain-reaction

In October 2012, Queensland’s Liberal-National Party (LNP) government broke a commitment made repeatedly before and after the state election by overturning the ban on uranium mining. The Newman government set up an independent Uranium Mining Implementation Committee (UMIC) to investigate and implement a plan to open a uranium industry in Queensland.

The areas most likely to be mined are Westmoreland near the NT border, Valhalla and other sites near Mt Isa, and Ben Lomond located 50kms from Townsville, though evidence exists there are plans for exploration at numerous other sites throughout Queensland.

Unless Queensland ports are opened up to uranium shipments, yellowcake will be trucked over vast distances by road-trains across Queensland to ports in the Northern Territory and South Australia. In recent submissions the UMIC confirmed North Queensland Bulk Port’s capacity to manage the transportation, storage and shipping of radioactive yellowcake. If these submissions are successful radioactive yellowcake may be trucked through Queensland communities and shipped over the Great Barrier Reef via Mackay Port, Townsville Port or Abbott Point.

In a submission dated 17 December 2012, the Acting Deputy Chief Executive Officer of North Queensland Bulk Port Corporation, Gary Riches, stated: “The Port of Mackay is capable of handling the break bulk cargo typically associated with the development and maintenance of mining and associated infrastructure. The uranium industry is seen as an opportunity to utilise existing terminal capacity delivering economies of scale and improving economic activity in Central and Regional Queensland.”

Barry Holden, CEO of Townsville Port, told the ABC the port was capable of resuming uranium export: “It’s just another product, it’s handled in containers as we understand it. If it’s a legal trade in Queensland, given that we’re a government-owned corporation, then I’d expect it would be handled through the port, yes indeed.”

In an interview with the ABC in response to the submissions, Mark Bailey from Keep Queensland Nuclear Free stated: “The Ports have made it very clear in writing that they want to export radioactive uranium through the Port and across the Great Barrier Reef. This means radioactive yellowcake being regularly transported through the streets of either Mackay or Townsville. To protect tourism jobs, local residents and the reef we call upon the Newman government to rule out exporting uranium through the Ports. A very real risk is if there is a fiery accident involving a uranium truck, the local area could be contaminated with radioactivity.”

In early 2013, Queensland graziers expressed their concerns about Queensland resuming uranium mining. Due to inadequate clean-up efforts and the lack of containment of radioactive dust, to this day the former Mary Kathleen mine located on the Selwyn Range between Concurry and Mt Isa remains a toxic legacy. In 1984, over a million litres of saline, metal and radionuclide rich water was released from Mary Kathleen’s evaporation ponds during a wet season. Thirty years later, toxic waste water is still being drained via purposely-built seepage systems. At the Cameron River, due to the use of mined rocks sourced from the site for the construction of bridges, apart from weeds, plant species are unable to grow. Though it is common knowledge amongst locals that the creeks are not safe for swimming or fishing, there are no signs in place to warn of the dangers.

In December 2013, Mark Bailey and myself campaigned in Mackay, Cairns and Townsville to raise awareness about the dangers associated with uranium mining. Although Townsville’s burgeoning economy is entirely reliant on mining, the community response has been encouraging. In Townsville a local action group called CAMBL − Citizens Against Mining Ben Lomond − has formed. Due to a toxic spill in Townsville in the 1980’s, local residents are concerned about the transportation of uranium through a primary source of Townsville’s water, the Burdekin River catchment − the second largest catchment draining into the Great Barrier Reef after the Fitzroy River catchment.

A toxic spill in the Burdekin catchment could be catastrophic for the largest living structure on Earth, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, a unique ecosystem already under threat due to dredging to accommodate proposed port and shipping lane expansions. In April 2013, Tim Badman from the International Union for Conservation of Nature told the ABC that shipping yellowcake would be a “new threat to the Great Barrier Reef” and a “surprising activity to find in any natural world heritage site”. Russell Reichelt from the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority agrees it would be a concern.

CAMBL is using a report issued by the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology to boost their objection to the Ben Lomond uranium mine: “With only six months to go until uranium mine applications are lodged in Queensland, we are deeply concerned that this isn’t enough time for proper peer reviewing of this new study and for any new knowledge to be applied to assessing any North Queensland uranium mines,” CAMBL spokesperson Mark Harrison said. “One of the aspects from this study is that in areas with high rainfall it spreads even further. We have that here. These mining companies are going to tell us that they’re going to do everything by the book, but they can’t guarantee 100 per cent that this can’t happen and that’s the main issue.”

French company Minatome undertook trial mining at Ben Lomond in the early 1980s. Federal MP Bob Katter spoke at length about Ben Lomond in Parliament on 1 November 2005. He noted that Minatome initially denied reports of a radioactive spill, but then changed its story and claimed that the spill posed no risk and did not reach the water system from which 210,000 people drank.

Katter continued the story: “For the next two or three weeks they held out with that story. Further evidence was produced in which they admitted that it had been a dangerous level. Yes, it was about 10,000 times higher than what the health agencies in Australia regarded as an acceptable level. After six weeks, we got rid of lie number two. I think it was at about week 8 or week 12 when, as a state member of parliament, I insisted upon going up to the site. Just before I went up to the site, the company admitted − remember, it was not just the company but also the agency set up by the government to protect us who were telling lies − that the spill had reached the creek which ran into the Burdekin River, which provided the drinking water for 210,000 people. We had been told three sets of lies over a period of three months.”

In 2014, the Australian Nuclear Free Alliance, Friends of the Earth and Keep Queensland Nuclear Free will extend the campaign to include central and far north west and central Queensland. The pro-mining right-wing political landscape, the economic apartheid and desperation experienced by remote Aboriginal communities, the geographical isolation of the proposed uranium mine sites and the sheer vastness of the areas threatened by mining exploration, combine to present a unique set of challenges for the campaign.

Many of the same Aboriginal family groups whose Traditional Lands are already mined for uranium in the NT, or are under threat due to the proposed national nuclear waste dump at Tennant Creek, have close cultural and family ties to groups in the regional towns located near the sites earmarked for uranium mining and exploration in Queensland. Providing a platform for resistance for Aboriginal groups opposed to uranium mining on their Country will require intensive and careful strategic planning and commitment and consistent funding.

Adam Sharah is an anti-nuclear campaigner with the Australian Nuclear Free Alliance.

More information:

  • Australian Nuclear Free Alliance: www.anfa.org.au
  • Keep Queensland Nuclear Free: https://www.facebook.com/KeepQldNuclearFree
  • Citizens Against Mining Ben Lomond: https://www.facebook.com/CitizensAgainstMiningBenLomondCambl

Fukushima apologies and apologists

Jim Green

Chain Reaction #120, March 2013, www.foe.org.au/chain-reaction

It has been a sad and sorry year in Japan’s Fukushima Prefecture. Three years after the March 2011 nuclear disaster at the TEPCO plant and Japan is nowhere near recovering.

ABC journalist Mark Willacy neatly described the recurring pattern: “At first TEPCO denies there’s a problem at the crippled Fukushima plant. Then it becomes obvious to everyone that there is a problem, so the company then acknowledges the problem and makes it public. And finally one of its hapless officials is sent out to apologise to the cameras.”

In February 2013, TEPCO President Naomi Hirose apologised for false information which led a parliamentary panel to cancel an on-site inspection of the Fukushima plant. TEPCO even managed to lie in its website apology according to the Asahi Shimun newspaper.

In March 2013, a rat found its way into an electrical switchbox resulting in a power outage that left 8,800 nuclear fuel assemblies without fresh cooling water for 21−29 hours. TEPCO delayed notifying the Nuclear Regulation Authority and local municipal officials about the incident. “We sincerely apologise. We are deeply regretful over the delay in reporting the incident and for causing anxiety to residents,” said TEPCO representative Yoshiyuki Ishizaki.

On March 29, TEPCO belatedly acknowledged that the company’s failings were responsible for the Fukushima disaster. Hirose apologised: “Our safety culture, skills, and ability were all insufficient. We must humbly accept our failure to prevent the accident, which we should have avoided by using our wisdom and human resources to be better prepared.”

In April, TEPCO discovered that at least three of seven underground storage pools were seeping thousands of litres of radioactive water into the soil. Hirose travelled to Fukushima to apologise for the leaks.

TEPCO acknowledged a further five leaks and spills of contaminated water in April, including a spill of around 110,000 litres from a polyethylene-lined tank (TEPCO waited two days before informing the Nuclear Regulation Authority about this spill). Some of the leaks were continuing because TEPCO was unable to locate their source. Hirose apologised for the fiasco: “We have been causing tremendous trouble. We are very sorry.”

After finding high levels of tritium and strontium in an observation well in June, TEPCO withheld the information for nearly three weeks. TEPCO executive Akio Komori visited the Fukushima prefectural government office on June 19 to apologise.

In July, it was revealed that TEPCO knew about radioactive groundwater leaks into the ocean a month before it publicly disclosed the problem. TEPCO’s general manager Masayuki Ono apologised: “We would like to offer our deep apology for causing grave worries for many people, especially for people in Fukushima.” TEPCO President Naomi Hirose also apologised: “We’ve been trying to reform, but we repeated the same mistake. Obviously, our effort is not enough. We are really sorry.”

Also in July, Hirose apologised to two local mayors for seeking permission from the Nuclear Regulation Agency to restart reactors at the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa nuclear plant without first consulting local officials: “We sincerely apologise for your having had cause to criticise us for making hasty and sloppy decisions without giving considerations to local opinions.” In October, Niigata Prefecture Governor Hirohiko Izumida − who effectively holds a veto over reactor restarts at Kashiwazaki-Kariwa − said TEPCO must address its “institutionalised lying” before it can expect to restart reactors.

In early August, TEPCO apologised to residents in Fukushima prefecture, the surrounding region and the larger public for causing inconveniences, worries and trouble arising from contaminated water leaks.

At an August 21 media conference, TEPCO executive Zengo Aizawa apologised for the latest tank leak and said: “The problem of contaminated water is the largest crisis facing management and we will place priority on dealing with the issue.” At an August 26 media conference, Hirose apologised: “Contaminated water has been leaking from tanks. What should never happen, has been happening, and we deeply apologise for the repeated worries that we have caused. We are very sorry.”

On August 29, Hirose apologised to fishermen whose livelihoods have been affected by radioactive pollution from the Fukushima plant. But Hiroshi Kishi, head of a federation of more than 1,000 fisheries cooperatives nationwide, said his members had no faith in TEPCO’s ability to fix the mess it had created. “We think your company’s management of contaminated water has collapsed,” he said. “We are extremely worried as it’s creating an immeasurable impact on our country’s fishing industry and will continue to do so in the future.”

In September, Hirose offered a blanket apology: “We deeply apologise for the greater anxiety caused by the accident at Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power station.”

Also in September, Dale Klein, former head of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission and current chair of TEPCO’s ‘Nuclear Reform Monitoring Committee’, told TEPCO that it was stumbling from “crisis to crisis” and that: “It appears that you are not keeping the people of Japan informed. These actions indicate that you don’t know what you are doing … you do not have a plan and that you are not doing all you can to protect the environment and the people.” Hirose apologised: “I apologise for not being able to live up to your expectations.”

In October, Hirose apologised to the Nuclear Regulation Authority (NRA) for sloppy standards at Fukushima, as yet another problem with radiation-polluted water emerged. “The problems have been caused by a lack of basic checks,” NRA secretary general Katsuhiko Ikeda told Hirose. “I can’t help but say that standards of on-site management are extremely low at Fukushima Daiichi.”

In November, Hirose apologised to the estimated 150,000 local residents who have been forced to leave their homes due to radiation levels, and may in some cases never be able to return: “I have visited Fukushima many times, met the evacuees, the fishing union, the farmers, many people whose businesses have been damaged very much. I feel very sorry for them.”

In December, secretary-general of the ruling Liberal Democratic Party Shigeru Ishiba apologised after describing citizens participating in anti-nuclear protests outside the Japanese parliament as “engaging in an act of terrorism by causing excessive noise”. People were protesting against disgraceful new secrecy legislation which will deter nuclear whistleblowers from coming forward and deter journalists from reporting such information.

In December, another blanket apology from TEPCO President Naomi Hirose: “We deeply apologise to all residents around the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station, as well as the broader society, for the concern and anxiety that has arisen on account of the accident at the power station.”

Hirose began 2014 with a New Year’s speech in which he acknowledged that TEPCO was incapable of adequately dealing with problems in 2013, and was continually responding late to issues as they arose.

Hirose said TEPCO will do its best “not to have any problems” in 2014. Fat chance.

Nuclear apologists

Sadly, nuclear apologists have been slow to apologise for peddling misinformation. Adelaide-based nuclear advocate and conspiracy theorist Geoff Russell and Adelaide University’s Barry Brook insist that the Fukushima disaster was “deathless” despite a growing number of scientific studies giving the lie to that claim.

Last year the World Health Organisation released a report which concluded that for people in the most contaminated areas in Fukushima Prefecture, the estimated increased risk for all solid cancers will be around 4% in females exposed as infants; a 6% increased risk of breast cancer for females exposed as infants; a 7% increased risk of leukaemia for males exposed as infants; and for thyroid cancer among females exposed as infants, an increased risk of up to 70% (from a 0.75% lifetime risk up to 1.25%).

Estimates of the long-term cancer death toll include:

  • a Stanford University study that estimates “an additional 130 (15-1100) cancer-related mortalities and 180 (24-1800) cancer-related morbidities”;
  • an estimate of 1,000-3,000 cancer deaths by physicist Ed Lyman (based on an estimated collective whole-body radiation dose of 3.2 million person-rem to the population of Japan); and
  • an estimate of around 3,000 cancer deaths from radiation biologist and independent consultant Dr Ian Fairlie.

Indirect deaths must also be considered, especially those resulting from the failure of TEPCO and government authorities to develop and implement adequate emergency response procedures. A September 2012 Editorial in Japan Times noted that 1,632 deaths occurred during or after evacuation from the triple-disaster; and nearly half (160,000) of the 343,000 evacuees were dislocated specifically because of the nuclear disaster. A January 2013 article in The Lancet notes that “the fact that 47% of disaster-related deaths were recognised in Fukushima prefecture alone indicates that the earthquake-triggered nuclear crisis at the Fukushima power plant caused extreme hardship for local residents.”

In Fukushima Prefecture, 1,656 people have died as a result of stress and other illnesses caused by the 2011 disaster according to information compiled by police and local governments and reported in February 2014. That number exceeds the 1,607 people in Fukushima Prefecture who were drowned by the tsunami or killed by the preceding earthquake.

“The biggest problem is the fact that people have been living in temporary conditions for so long,” said Hiroyuki Harada, a Fukushima official dealing with victim assistance, “People have gone through dramatic changes of their environment. As a result, people who would not have died are dying.”

The claim by Barry Brook and Geoff Russell that Fukushima was “deathless” has no basis in truth. They ought to take a leaf from Naomi Hirose’s book, bow deeply and apologise.

Jim Green is the national nuclear campaigner with Friends of the Earth, Australia. A referenced version of this article is available from jim.green@foe.org.au

The People’s Movement Against Nuclear Energy in India

Gem Romuld

Chain Reaction #120, March 2013, www.foe.org.au/chain-reaction

Idinthakarai is a beautiful fishing village flanked by coconut and banana trees on one side and ocean on the other. Chooks, goats and cows roam the streets or stand tethered out the front of colourful houses whose front walls proudly proclaim who married who.

Festival music blares across the town of 15,000 people, fish are laid out to dry and women sit in doorways rolling beedis. Among the banana and coconut trees, slender wind turbines catch the breeze while on the flipside, perched on the ocean’s edge is the Koodankulam Nuclear Power Plant (KKNPP). While the Indian Government insists it is a measure of progress and power, viewed from Idinthakarai the KKNPP’s distinctive white and orange domes symbolise a long and anguished struggle.

I first heard about the KKNPP in 2012, when news reached Australia of over two thousand fisherfolk taking to the sea in their boats in protest, blocking the access channel to the plant. Situated near the southernmost tip of India in the state of Tamil Nadu, the KKNPP stares down the beach at the heart of the movement, the People’s Movement Against Nuclear Energy based in their proudly dubbed “Republic of Idinthakarai”. The KKNPP was first planned and agreed between the Indian Government and the Soviet Union in 1988. The subsequent dissolution of the Soviet Union held up the project for a decade, before its revival in the late 1990s and the beginning of construction in 2002.

Opposition has always existed, flaring up in the aftermath of Fukushima and with the spread of information about radiation contamination and its effect on health. The effects of radiation on health are well documented in India, courtesy of existing nuclear projects and in particular the uranium mine at Jadugoda, in the northern state of Jharkhand. Jadugoda has been mining uranium for over 40 years, enough time for radiation to damage genetic codes and work its way up the food chain via leaking tailings dams and the unlucky river into which they flow.

The people living around the KKNPP are acutely aware of their vulnerability. Ziggy Switkowski’s absurdist words ring in my ears, spoken three days after the Fukushima disaster: “the best place to be whenever there’s an earthquake is at the perimeter of a nuclear plant because they are designed so well” … but it’s not just the fear of disaster that enrages the local community; it’s also the quality of the construction itself and the effect of the plant’s discharge on fish. The fisherfolk are worried about the effect of the hot water discharge from the plant on the reproductive cycles of the fish that form the basis of their livelihoods.

Another catalyst for concern is the prosecution in Russia of the procurement director of ZiO-Podolsk, a Russian company supplying crucial components to nuclear power plants including the KKNPP, for corruption and fraud. Shutov, the procurement director, has been charged for purchasing low-grade materials and selling them as high-grade materials for components and parts. Even the official story of the plant is littered with defects and flaws and its “immediate commissioning” has been announced and re-announced so many times that it’s become a running joke with Idinthakarai residents.

The KKNPP has claimed several times to be generating power, but the locals beg to differ. The ‘tsunami colony’, a settlement of people displaced by the Asian tsunami of 2004, sits 500m from the plant. They keep a vigilant watch for steam, noise and any of the signs that they observed when it was running tests: nothing. The KKNPP is obviously troubled but the real concern is the determination of the Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd to get it working.

Repression

The full force of the government, the media and the police are behind the effort to stifle resistance. Bedazzling in its complexity and sophistication, nuclear energy has become a tool for the Indian establishment to demonstrate its modernity and progress. Nuclear energy is apparently vital to the national project and anyone opposed to it is therefore classified as “anti-national”.

But, despite suffering repression and slander, resistance to the KKNPP is alive and well. If the church bells ring in Idinthakarai, the fisherfolk come in from the sea and all the townspeople gather for a meeting or to take their grievances down the beach towards the nuclear plant. The protests against the KKNPP are strictly non-violent but police have responded with full force to intimidate and suppress the movement. There in the so-called “world’s largest democracy”, fisherfolk defending their livelihoods in peaceful opposition to a nuclear power plant are charged with “sedition” and “war against the Indian state” among many other political offences.

The local authorities have failed to comply with the Supreme Court verdict to drop thousands of false charges laid on protesters. So they are flies stuck in legalistic honey, some with as many as 190 charges against them, unable to leave the “Republic of Idinthakarai” for fear of arrest beyond the safe haven of the town. One of the movement leaders, Pushparayan, was not even permitted to travel to another village to attend his father’s funeral. He hadn’t seen his father for two years as he was under ‘village arrest’, and was denied a proper farewell.

People’s Movement Against Nuclear Energy

The People’s Movement Against Nuclear Energy headquarters sit opposite a majestic Catholic church with a large sheltered space for protest meetings. The thatched shelter is hung with info-sheets and photos, graphically depicting the victims of Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Chernobyl and the deformed children of Jadugoda town, which hosts India’s 45-year-old uranium mine. Banners also line the space, bearing signatures and faces pledging solidarity and commitment to shutting down the KKNPP.

There’s a board showing the number of days the relay protest fast has been running. It reached 900 days on January 31. Behind that board is a gold-framed picture bearing four faces − the people that have paid for dissent with their lives. Two people died during protests and two while held in police custody for protest charges because they were denied their medications. Alongside these horrific events of state repression runs the multi-faceted war of attrition, including the confiscation of passports, and the police harassment of the women of Idinthakarai.

The communities around the KKNPP have empowered several men, including S.P. Udayakumar and M. Pushparayan, to act as leaders and public spokespeople for the People’s Movement Against Nuclear Energy, however it is generally acknowledged that the steely determination of the women is what keeps the movement going. Sundari, an Idinthakarai local, spoke of the abuses she suffered in prison, and the openness with which the police admitted that they were making her an example with the intention of deterring other women from taking a stand against the KKNPP. The war of attrition led by the police will not stifle the battle of the women of Idinthakarai to defend their community and to reach out in solidarity to the other communities in India facing nuclear projects.

An open letter by the women and children of Idinthakarai states: “We realise more than ever that our struggle is not against nuclear energy alone. Our demand is to be allowed to pursue a life style based on truth, justice and hard work. Our adherence to this has made us raise crucial questions about democracy and governance, about the way decisions are being taken in our country and how the well being of the marginalised are neglected and trampled upon.”

The Australian and Indian governments are currently arranging a uranium export deal. In 2011, the Labor Party reversed its policy against uranium exports to countries that haven’t signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, specifically to allow exports to India. The Coalition government is now carrying the project forward, despite popular opposition at mine sites, along the transport routes, at the sites of nuclear power stations and in places flagged for radioactive waste dumps in Australia and worldwide. Selling uranium to India makes Australia an accomplice in risky nuclear projects and cruel repression of the communities surrounding nuclear power plants. It also facilitates the expansion of India’s nuclear weapons arsenal − if not directly, then certainly indirectly: imported uranium frees up India’s domestic sources for use in weapons production.

In three days of conversations, impressions, shared walks and meals, we began to sense what life is like living a peoples’ movement against a nuclear power station. We recorded interviews and tried to act as conduits between anti-nuclear movements in Australia and this gorgeous town where we hope Australian uranium never lands.

It doesn’t really matter where the uranium comes from; the people of Idinthakarai are adamant that no uranium should fuel the KKNPP and that 2014 is the year to shut it down, completely.

Gem Romuld is co-ordinator of the Anti-nuclear & Clean Energy (ACE) collective at Friends of the Earth, Melbourne.

Australian yellowcake fuels Ukrainian fires

Dave Sweeney

Chain Reaction #120, March 2013, www.foe.org.au/chain-reaction

As the deeply disturbing events unfolding in the Ukraine highlight, troop mobilisations, sabre-rattling and suppression of civilian critics are becoming the hallmarks of President Vladimir Putin’s Russia.

Australia, along with most Western nations, has condemned the Russian escalation and called for restraint and dialogue. Such a call is important but needs to be accompanied by action to ensure it penetrates the thick walls of the Kremlin.

One clear and potent action that Australia could take to amplify our diplomatic dissent would be to halt our fledgling yellowcake trade with Russia. Uranium is a dual use fuel: it provides the power fuel for nuclear reactors and the bomb fuel for nuclear weapons − and the distinction between the two sectors is more one of political convenience than practical effect.

Russia’s arsenal of over 14,000 nuclear weapons has an explosive yield equivalent to 200,000 Hiroshima bombs and President Putin has stated that any reduction in these numbers would only serve make its nuclear arsenal “more compact but more effective”. Putin has declared that a nuclear arsenal “remains one of the top priorities of Russian Federation policy” and that Russia will develop “completely new strategic [nuclear] complexes.”

In both 2007 and 2008 Russia threatened Poland with nuclear strikes from missiles it would base at its enclave of Kaliningrad following Polish approval for US missile defence bases in Poland.

Australia’s connection with the Russian nuclear industry escalated in 2007 when Prime Minister John Howard and President Putin inked a uranium supply agreement at the APEC summit in Sydney.

The deal was widely criticised by environment, proliferation and human rights groups, delayed by the political fallout from Russia’s 2008 invasion of Georgia and subject to detailed assessment from the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties (JSCOT), the Federal Parliament’s watchdog of Australian treaty deals and international agreements.

JSCOT heard evidence highlighting concerns and deficiencies within the Russian nuclear industry, including an International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) estimate that only half of Russia’s nuclear materials have been reasonably secured. Informed by these real world concerns and evidence, JSCOT recommended a mix of caution and action in relation to planned Australian uranium sales.

The majority JSCOT report argued that the government should not advance any sales until a series of essential pre-conditions were met. These included a detailed analysis of Russia’s nuclear non-proliferation status, the complete separation of Russia’s civil and military nuclear sectors, reductions in industry secrecy, independent safety and security assessments of Russian nuclear facilities and action on nuclear theft and smuggling concerns.

Importantly JSCOT urged that “actual physical inspection by the IAEA occurs” at any Russian sites that may handle Australian uranium and recommended that “the supply of uranium to Russia should be contingent upon such inspections being carried out.”

Despite these concerns successive Australian governments have furthered the fiction that the Russian nuclear sector is secure and safe. And put undue and unproven confidence in the myth that nuclear safeguards − meant to stop the cross-pollination of the military and civil nuclear sectors − actually work. International inspections and scrutiny are limited or absent and perceived commercial interests have been given precedence over proven safety and security concerns.

In late December 2010 the first shipment of Australian uranium, sourced from Energy Resources of Australia’s troubled Ranger mine in Kakadu − itself the site of a spectacular and severe contamination event last December − arrived in Russia.

The former Chair of JSCOT, Labor MP Kelvin Thompson, has made an urgent called for the uranium sales deal to be reviewed in the light of current tensions between Russia and Ukraine. And it would appear most Australians agree with this common sense proposition. A 2008 survey found 62% of Australians opposed uranium exports to nuclear weapons states compared to 31% in favour. An International Atomic Energy Agency survey of 1,000 Australians in 2005 found 56% believed the IAEA safeguards system was ineffective − nearly double the 29% who considered it effective.

Putting the promises of an under-performing resource sector ahead of evidence-based assessment has seen Australia squander a real chance to advance nuclear non-proliferation − however, we still have the ability and the responsibility to make a difference. Foreign Minister Bishop must stop wringing hands and act decisively to halt any chance of fuelling arms.

President Putin’s civil atomic aspirations exceed the capacity of Russia’s nuclear sector while his military ones have no place on a habitable planet. Neither should be fuelled by Australian uranium.

Dave Sweeney is nuclear free campaigner for the Australian Conservation Foundation

Nuclear winter

Summary: There are many, repeatedly-demonstrated links between nuclear power and weapons. Recent research demonstrates that severe global climatic consequences would follow a limited regional nuclear war involving 100 Hiroshima-size bombs targeting cities.

Prof. Alan Robock from Rutgers University and Prof. Brian Toon from the University of Colorado summarise recent research on the climatic impacts of nuclear warfare: “A nuclear war between any two countries, each using 50 Hiroshima-sized atom bombs, such as India and Pakistan, could produce climate change unprecedented in recorded human history. This is less than 0.05% of the explosive power of the current global arsenal. Nuclear arsenals with 50 nuclear weapons can produce a global pall of smoke leading to global ozone depletion. The smoke, once in the stratosphere, heats the air, which speeds up reactions that destroy ozone, and also lofts reactive chemicals by altering the winds.

More information:

* Starr, Steven, October 2009, ‘Catastrophic Climatic Consequences of Nuclear Conflict’, paper commissioned by the International Commission on Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament, www.icnnd.org/research/Starr_Nuclear_Winter_Oct_09.pdf

* Starr, Steven, 12 March 2010, ‘The climatic consequences of nuclear war’, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, www.thebulletin.org/web-edition/op-eds/the-climatic-consequences-of-nuclear-war

* Climatic Consequences of Nuclear Conflict – references and links to articles by Prof. Alan Robock, Prof. Brian Toon and others http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/nuclear

* Robock, Alan, 2009, Nuclear winter, www.eoearth.org/article/Nuclear_winter

* Robock Alan, and Brian Toon, December 30, 2009, ‘South Asian Threat? Local Nuclear War = Global Suffering’, Scientific American, www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=local-nuclear-war



Nuclear Famine

nuclearfamine.org and see the publications listed at nuclearfamine.org/about-steven-starr/

The long-term environmental consequences of a nuclear war between the US and Russia could kill most humans and land animals. An India-Pakistan nuclear war could cause 2 billion people to starve to death. Nuclear war threatens all nations and peoples.


Nuclear power, warfare and global famine

Jim Green, Chain Reaction #115, August 2012, www.foe.org.au/chain-reaction/

A nuclear war using as few as 100 weapons would disrupt the global climate and agricultural production so severely that the lives of more than a billion people would be at risk, according to research findings released in April by International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War and its Australian affiliate, the Medical Association for Prevention of War.

Working with data produced by scientists who have studied the climate effects of a hypothetical nuclear war between India and Pakistan, author Dr. Ira Helfand and a team of experts in agriculture and nutrition determined that plunging temperatures and reduced precipitation in critical farming regions, caused by soot and smoke lofted into the atmosphere by multiple nuclear explosions, would interfere with crop production and affect food availability and prices worldwide.

The report finds that:

  • There would be a significant decline in middle season rice production in China. During the first four years, rice production would decline by an average of 21% and over the next six years the decline would average 10%.
  • Increases in food prices would make food inaccessible to hundreds of millions of the world’s poorest. Even if agricultural markets continued to function normally, 215 million people would be added to the rolls of the malnourished over the course of a decade. Significant agricultural shortfalls would lead to panic and hoarding on an international scale, further reducing accessible food.
  • The 925 million people in the world who are already chronically malnourished would be put at risk by a 10% decline in their food consumption.

Dr Helfand said: “The death of one billion people over a decade would be a disaster unprecedented in human history. It would not cause the extinction of the human race, but it would bring an end to modern civilization as we know it.”

Power and proliferation

The report on the catastrophic potential of nuclear warfare has important implications for the ongoing debate over nuclear power. Apologists for the nuclear industry trot out any number of furphies in their efforts to distance nuclear power from WMD proliferation, but the facts are in. There is a long history of ostensibly peaceful nuclear programs providing political cover and technical support for nuclear weapons programs − and an expansion of nuclear power can only exacerbate the problem.

Of the 10 nations to have produced nuclear weapons:

  • Six did so with political cover and/or technical support from their supposedly peaceful nuclear program – India, Pakistan, Israel, South Africa, North Korea, and France.
  • The other four nuclear weapons states (US, Russia, China, UK) developed nuclear weapons before nuclear power − but there are still significant links between their peaceful and military nuclear programs (e.g. routine transfer of personnel).
  • Eight of the 10 nations have nuclear power reactors and those eight countries account for nearly 60% of global nuclear power capacity.

Examples of the direct use of nuclear power reactors in weapons programs include the following:

  • North Korea’s nuclear weapons tests have used plutonium produced in an ‘Experimental Power Reactor’.
  • Power reactors are used in India’s nuclear weapons program − this has long been suspected and is no longer in doubt since India refuses to allow eight out of 22 reactors (and its entire thorium/plutonium program) to be subject to International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards inspections.
  • The US has used power reactors in recent years to produce tritium for use in ‘boosted’ nuclear weapons.
  • The 1962 test of sub-weapon-grade plutonium by the US may have used plutonium from a power reactor.
  • France’s civilian nuclear program provided the base of expertise for its weapons program, and material for weapons was sometimes produced in power reactors.
  • Magnox reactors in the UK had the dual roles of producing weapon grade plutonium and generating electricity.
  • Pakistan may be using power reactor/s in support of its nuclear weapons program.

Nuclear power programs have facilitated and provided cover for weapons programs even without the direct use of power reactors to produce material for weapons. Nuclear power programs provide a rationale for the acquisition and use of:

  • uranium enrichment technology (which can produce low enriched uranium for power reactors or highly enriched uranium for weapons);
  • reprocessing technology (which separates spent nuclear fuel into three streams − uranium, high-level waste, and weapons-useable plutonium); and
  • research and training reactors (which can produce plutonium and other materials for weapons, and can also be used for weapons-related research).

The nuclear weapons programs in South Africa and Pakistan were outgrowths of their power programs although enrichment plants, not power reactors, produced most or all of the fissile (explosive) material used in weapons.

Research and training reactors, ostensibly acquired in support of a power program or for other civil purposes, have been a plutonium source for weapons in India and Israel and have been used for weapons-related research and experiments in numerous other countries including Iraq, Iran, South Korea, North Korea, Taiwan, Yugoslavia, and possibly Romania.

Nuclear power programs can facilitate weapons programs even if power reactors are not actually built. Iraq provides a clear illustration of this important point. While Iraq’s nuclear research program provided much cover for the weapons program from the 1970s to 1991, stated interest in developing nuclear power was also significant. Iraq pursued a ‘shop til you drop’ program of acquiring dual-use technology, with much of the shopping done openly and justified by nuclear power ambitions.

According to Khidhir Hamza, a senior nuclear scientist involved in Iraq’s weapons program: “Acquiring nuclear technology within the IAEA safeguards system was the first step in establishing the infrastructure necessary to develop nuclear weapons. In 1973, we decided to acquire a 40-megawatt research reactor, a fuel manufacturing plant, and nuclear fuel reprocessing facilities, all under cover of acquiring the expertise needed to eventually build and operate nuclear power plants and produce and recycle nuclear fuel. Our hidden agenda was to clandestinely develop the expertise and infrastructure needed to produce weapon-grade plutonium.”

Power and proliferation − two sides of the same coin and a major factor to consider when weighing different energy options, all the more so in light of the report on nuclear warfare and global famine.

Jim Green is the national nuclear campaigner with Friends of the Earth, Australia.

The report, ‘Nuclear Famine: A Billion People at Risk − Global Impacts of Limited Nuclear War on Agriculture, Food Supplies, and Human Nutrition’, is posted at mapw.org.au/download/nuclear-famine-findings Videos are posted on youtube − search ‘nuclear famine’.

More information on the links between nuclear power and WMD proliferation is posted at https://nuclear.foe.org.au/power-weapons/

Public opinion – nuclear power in Australia

In this webpage: public opinion regarding nuclear power, followed by public opinion regarding uranium mining.


Public support for nuclear power in Australia has jumped up and down quite significantly over the past decade and has never reached 50% support. Part of the variation could be explained by polling questions, sample sizes etc. Some poll results are as follows:

  • 2019: 44% support for nuclear power, 40% opposition.[1] (51% believe nuclear power would help lower power prices, 26% disagree.)
  • 2015: 26.6% support for nuclear power in South Australia (level of opposition not surveyed).[2]
  • 2013: 30% support for nuclear power, 53% opposition.[3]
  • 2011 (after the Fukushima disaster): 34% support for nuclear power, 61% opposition (Roy Morgan poll).

Opposition to a locally-built nuclear power plant is clear:

  • 2019: 28% “would be comfortable living close to a nuclear power plant”, 60% would not.
  • 2011: 12% of Australians would support a nuclear plant being built in their local area, 73% would oppose it. (Morgan poll)
  • 2006: 10% Australians would strongly support a nuclear plant being built in their local area, 55% would strongly oppose it. (Newspoll)

Opinion polls clearly show that renewables are far more popular than nuclear power:

  • 2015: An IPSOS poll found support among Australians for solar power (78‒87%) and wind power (72%) is far higher than support for coal (23%) and nuclear (26%).[4]
  • 2015: When given the option of eight energy sources, 84% included solar in their top three, 69% included wind, 21% included gas and only 13% included solar.[5]
  • 2013: Expanding the use of renewable energy sources (71%) was the most popular option to tackle climate change, followed by energy-efficient technologies (58%) and behavioural change (54%), with nuclear power (17.4%) a distant fourth.[6]

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/jun/18/australians-support-for-nuclear-plants-rising-but-most-dont-want-to-live-near-one

[2] Paul Starick, 13 March 2015, ‘Voters reject Premier Jay Weatherill’s agenda to transform the state’, www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/voters-reject-premier-jay-weatherills-agenda-to-transform-the-state/story-fni6uo1m-1227262025901

[3] John McAneney et al., 14 Oct 2013, ‘Why don’t Australians see nuclear as a climate change solution?’, http://theconversation.com/why-dont-australians-see-nuclear-as-a-climate-change-solution-19099

[4] http://www.ipsos.com.au/Ipsos_docs/Solar-Report_2015/Ipsos-ARENA_SolarReport.pdf

[5] http://www.solarquotes.com.au/blog/climate-institute-poll-finds-australians-support-renewables/

[6] John McAneney et al., 14 Oct 2013, ‘Why don’t Australians see nuclear as a climate change solution?’, http://theconversation.com/why-dont-australians-see-nuclear-as-a-climate-change-solution-19099

Why don’t Australians see nuclear as a climate change solution?

14 October 2013

http://theconversation.com/why-dont-australians-see-nuclear-as-a-climate-change-solution-19099

John McAneney, Deanne Bird, Katharine Haynes, Rob van den Honert – Macquarie University

This survey found that more respondents oppose nuclear power than support it (53% versus 30%).

Expanding the use of renewable energy sources (71%) is the most popular option to tackle climate change, followed by energy-efficient technologies (58%) and behavioural change (54%). Nuclear power (17.4%) is a distant fourth.


Nuclear power in Australia: A comparative analysis of public opinion regarding climate change and the Fukushima disaster

Deanne Bird, Katharine Haynes, Rob van den Honert, John McAneney, Wouter Poortinga − Macquarie University

Energy Policy, 3 October 2013
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421513009713
or download PDF
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421513009713/pdfft?md5=b76349b6d01dedd516e3783c3e25f95f&pid=1-s2.0-S0301421513009713-main.pdf

1101 respondents in Australia -aged 18+
Overall 2012 figures – 41.4% opposition to nuclear power in Australia compared to 24.4% support (+17% difference)
Overall 2010 figures – 31.7% opposition to nuclear power in Australia compared to 29% support. (+2.7% difference)

… indicating the impact of the Fukushima disaster on public opinion.


Support for nuclear power has melted away

Jim Green, 11 April 2011, The Punch

http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/support-for-nuclear-power-has-melted-away

A poll by Roy Morgan Research several days into the Fukushima nuclear crisis found that 61 per cent of Australians oppose the development of nuclear power here, nearly double the 34 per cent level of support. Thus the growth in support for nuclear power over the past five years has been totally erased … and then some.

While there was undoubtedly growing support for nuclear power until Fukushima, the issue has been the subject of a great deal of hype and spin. In 2009, for example, a flurry of media reports and commentary followed the release of a Nielsen poll which found that support for nuclear power had risen to 49 per cent and had overtaken the level of opposition. But in fact the poll found that 49 per cent of Australians supported “considering the introduction of nuclear power in Australia”. There is of course a big difference between supporting nuclear power and supporting its consideration.

Then there was an unfortunate web-poll conducted by the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation in 2009 to gauge attitudes towards nuclear power. “I am against it” was easily winning, so an enterprising ANSTO staff member changed “I am against it” to “It is one of the options”. A journalist got wind of the subterfuge and ANSTO issued a public apology.

The hyping of nuclear power includes the repeated claim that environmentalists are turning in support of nuclear power. Truth is, you could count the number of pro-nuclear environmentalists on the fingers of one hand. Two hands if you count the likes of eco-warrior turned “sustainability consultant” Patrick Moore, whose consulting is sustained by funding from the US Nuclear Energy Institute.

While the polls were trending upwards for nuclear power in Australia until recently, Roy Morgan Research points out that the longer term trend is in the other direction. In 1979, the “yes” vote for nuclear power beat the “no” vote by 17 per cent; now it trails by 27 per cent.

The PR problem only gets deeper for nuclear advocates. Sooner or later, plans for nuclear power must be accompanied by a postcode, and few of us want to live anywhere near a nuclear reactor. The Morgan poll found that just 12 per cent of us would support a nuclear plant being built in our area, 13 per cent would be anxious but not oppose it, and 73 per cent would oppose it.

And if nuclear advocates weren’t already feeling punch-drunk, consider the November 2007 federal election − the first time in decades that a major political party took a pro-nuclear power policy to an election. As the election loomed, the Howard government tried to avoid mention of its pro-nuclear policy, but the issue was bubbling away in local electorates. During the election campaign at least 22 Coalition candidates publicly distanced themselves from the government’s policy. The policy was − and was seen to be − a liability and it was ditched immediately after the election.

No such PR problems for renewable energy. A 2007 Australian Research Group survey found that an overwhelming majority of Australians support greater investment in wind power, solar power and energy efficiency, while support for nuclear power came a distant last at 33 per cent. A 2009 poll commissioned by the Clean Energy Council found 80 per cent support for prioritising the development of renewables and just 15 per cent support for prioritising nuclear power.

While nuclear power is off the agenda for the foreseeable future, that still leaves the elephant in the room − King Coal. The debate turns on polarised opinions about the capabilities of renewable energy sources. Some say that a clean, green, renewable energy future is feasible and inexpensive. Some say it is a hideously-expensive pipe-dream.Few would be surprised if the truth lay between those extremes.

Two of the most likely candidates to provide large-scale electricity in Australia are solar thermal power with storage (e.g. in molten salts), and geothermal “hot rocks” using underground heat to drive turbines.

Solar with storage is available, but it is about twice as expensive as other low-carbon electricity sources and four times as expensive as coal. It will certainly become cheaper, but we don’t know how much cheaper.

For geothermal hot rocks, a great deal of exploration and development is underway in Australia, but we’ve yet to see large-scale geothermal electricity generation.

There may be a need for “bridging” energy sources, with the most likely candidates being greater use of gas and also greater use of bioenergy such as the use of crop wastes to generate electricity.

But for Australia, much depends on the development of solar and geothermal. One logical policy would be to axe the many and varied fossil fuel subsidies, which amount to several billion dollars each year even by the most conservative estimates, and to use those funds to support solar and geothermal.

Jim Green is the national nuclear campaigner with Friends of the Earth.


Australian attitudes towards nuclear power are typical:

A 2005 IAEA survey of attitudes in 18 countries found that about two-thirds of those expressing an opinion opposed building new reactors. South Korea was the only one of the 18 countries with majority support for new reactors.

A 2011 survey covering 24 countries found 62% of respondents opposed nuclear power and 69% opposed the construction of new reactors.


PUBLIC OPINION  – URANIUM MINING IN AUSTRALIA


In general terms, public opinion in Australia is evenly divided on the topic of uranium mining. A 2008 Newspoll found 47% of Queenslanders opposed uranium mining compared to 45% support. A 2008 Newspoll found 48% of Western Australians supported a ban on uranium mining compared to 38% in favour of uranium mining. A 2011 poll found almost half the voters contacted by Western Australian Opinion Polls opposed uranium mining in WA, with 32% strongly opposed; 32% support uranium mining but only 5% were strong supporters; and only 28% of swinging voters supported uranium mining.

A 2011 Morgan poll illustrates how sensitive the results are to the framing of the question. When asked if they support exporting uranium for ‘peaceful purposes’, respondents were 59:34 in favour. When the same respondents were asked if they support exporting uranium to other countries for their ‘nuclear power needs’, the result was 44:50.

A 2012 opinion poll by the Lowy Institute found 61% of Australians opposed uranium sales to India, nearly double the number in support (33%). The number strongly opposed (39%) was more than four times the number strongly in support (9%). A 2008 poll by the Lowy Institute found that 88% agreed that Australia should “only export uranium to countries which have signed the global Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty”.

A 2008 survey found 62% of Australians opposed uranium exports to nuclear weapons states compared to 31% in favour. An International Atomic Energy Agency survey of 1,000 Australians in 2005 found 56% believed the IAEA safeguards system was ineffective − nearly double the 29% who considered it effective.

There is also scepticism towards the mining industry generally. in a 2011 poll only 11% said “all Australians” benefited a lot from the mining boom compared to 68% for mining company executives, 48% for mining company shareholders, and 42% for “foreign companies”.

Undermining nuclear disarmament diplomacy

Chain Reaction #119, Nov 2013, www.foe.org.au/chain-reaction

Documents obtained by the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) in August through freedom of information reveal that the Gillard government refused to endorse an 80-nation statement delivered at this year’s Non-Proliferation Treaty meeting in Geneva because it referred to a Red Cross resolution with which Australia fundamentally disagrees, and because it had concerns that the statement was designed to build support for a ban on nuclear weapons.

The declassified diplomatic cables, ministerial briefings and foreign ministry emails show that Australia’s opposition to the landmark Red Cross resolution – adopted by the international movement in November 2011 – prompted Australian Red Cross chief executive officer Robert Tickner to seek an explanation from then foreign minister Bob Carr, who responded to his letter but deliberately withheld information about Australia’s true position. Foreign ministry official Caroline Millar was fearful that to do so would “add oxygen” to the issue.

Former prime minister Malcolm Fraser and former foreign minister Gareth Evans were critical of Australia’s decision not to endorse the humanitarian statement. Responding to a letter from Mr Fraser, then prime minister Julia Gillard explained that Australia did not support it because “a push for a near-term ban on nuclear weapons formed part of the context of the statement’s intention”. Canberra is opposed to any moves to delegitimise the use or possession of nuclear weapons.

Canberra considers a ban on nuclear weapons to be incompatible with its continued reliance on US “extended nuclear deterrence”, which it claims “has provided security and stability in our region for more than 60 years and [has] underpinned regional prosperity”. Australia now hopes to steer other nations away from pursuing a ban on nuclear weapons, the documents reveal.

Tim Wright, Australian director of ICAN, said: “We were disappointed to learn that Australia plans to undermine the work of progressive nations and non-government organisations to advance a global ban on nuclear weapons. It should instead be driving international efforts for such a treaty. Despite their enormous destructive potential, nuclear weapons are the only weapons of mass destruction not yet subject to a total ban.

“Australia cannot credibly advocate nuclear disarmament while claiming that US nuclear weapons guarantee our security and prosperity. Not only is this a ludicrous notion; it is also a dangerous one because it signals to other nations that nuclear weapons are useful and necessary,” Wright added. “It is now clear that the Rudd and Gillard governments were interested only in maintaining the status quo of disarmament inaction. The Abbott government should join the vast majority of nations, and the Red Cross, in rejecting nuclear weapons for all.”

In February 2014 the Mexican government will host a major conference on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons, which is likely to be the first major test of the new Australian government’s commitment to nuclear disarmament. ICAN is encouraging the foreign ministry to report on the human toll of British nuclear testing in South Australia and Western Australia in the 1950s and 1960s, and to commission research on the effects of a regional nuclear war in Asia Pacific on the global climate and agricultural production.

“This would contribute to the evidence base key to informing policy choices about nuclear weapons and their elimination,” said Dr Bill Williams, who chairs ICAN in Australia. “The most startling new scientific evidence in relation to the effects of nuclear weapons is the severe, prolonged and global cooling, drying and darkening that would be caused by the millions of tons of soot and smoke injected into the upper atmosphere following the use of even a tiny fraction of the world’s nuclear weapons.”

Gem Romuld, ICAN outreach coordinator in Australia, is encouraging more humanitarian and environmental organisations in Australia to adopt nuclear disarmament as part of their work, in the same way that Australian Red Cross has done. “Banning nuclear weapons is everyone’s responsibility,” she said. “The general public need to take nuclear weapons personally and insist that the Australian government take stock and get real on abolishing these weapons of mass destruction.”

Sources:

  • International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, media release
  • Philip Dorling, 2 October 2013, ‘ALP nuclear backflip linked to US defence’, Sydney Morning Herald, tinyurl.com/dorling-smh