Angelaki Journal of the Theoretical Humanities ISSN: 0969-725X (Print) 1469-2899 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cang20 RADIOACTIVE WASTE AND AUSTRALIA'S ABORIGINAL PEOPLE Jim Green To cite this article: Jim Green (2017) RADIOACTIVE WASTE AND AUSTRALIA'S ABORIGINAL PEOPLE, Angelaki, 22:3, 33-50 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0969725X.2017.1387364 Published online: 09 Nov 2017. Submit your article to this journal View related articles View Crossmark data Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cang20 Download by: [T&F Office Locations], [Joel Phipps] Date: 09 November 2017, At: 03:26 ANGELAKI journal of the theoretical humanities volume 22 number 3 september 2017 rom 1998 to 2004 the Australian federal F government tried – but failed – to impose a national radioactive waste repository on Abori- ginal land in South Australia (SA). From 2006 to 2014 the government tried to impose a repo- sitory on Aboriginal land in the Northern Terri- tory, but that also failed. Now the government has embarked on its third attempt and once again it is trying to impose a repository on Aboriginal land despite clear opposition from Traditional Owners. The latest proposal is for a repository in the Flinders Ranges, 400 kilometres north of Ade- laide in SA, on the land of the Adnyamathanha jim green Aboriginal Traditional Owners. The proposed repository site is adjacent to the Yappala Indigenous Protected Area (IPA).1 “The RADIOACTIVE WASTE IPA is right on the fence – there’s a waterhole that is shared by both properties,” says Yappala AND AUSTRALIA’S Station resident and Adnyamathanha Traditional ABORIGINAL PEOPLE Owner Regina McKenzie.2 The waterhole – a tra- ditional women’s site and healing place – is one of fi many archaeological and culturally signi cant The whole area is Adnyamathanha land. It is sites in the area that Traditional Owners have Arngurla Yarta (spiritual land). The pro- 3 registered with the SA government. posed dump site has springs. It also has Two Adnyamathanha associations – Viliwar- ancient mound springs. It has countless thou- inha Aboriginal Corporation and the Anggu- sands of Aboriginal artefects [sic]. Our ances- mathanha Camp Law Mob – wrote in a tors are buried there. 4 November 2015 statement: Hookina creek that runs along the nominated site is a significant women’s site. It is a regis- Adnyamathanha land in the Flinders Ranges Downloaded by [T&F Office Locations], [Joel Phipps] at 03:26 09 November 2017 tered heritage site and must be preserved and has been short-listed for a national nuclear protected. We are responsible for this area, waste dump. The land was nominated by the land and animals. former Liberal Party Senator Grant Chapman. Adnyamathanha Traditional We don’t want a nuclear waste dump here on Owners weren’t consulted. Even Traditional our country and worry that if the waste comes Owners who live next to the proposed here it will harm our environment and muda dump site at Yappala Station weren’t con- (our lore, our creation, our everything). We sulted. This is an insult. call on the Federal Government to withdraw ISSN 0969-725X print/ISSN 1469-2899 online/17/030033-18 © 2017 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group https://doi.org/10.1080/0969725X.2017.1387364 33 radioactive waste the nomination of the site and to show more The dispute over the waste repository propo- respect in future. sal will probably be resolved in 2017. It has been heavily shaped by previous disputes – in par- Regina McKenzie describes getting the news ticular, a successful Traditional Owner-led cam- that the Flinders Ranges site had been chosen paign to prevent the imposition of a national from a shortlist of six sites across Australia: waste repository in SA from 1998 to 2004 (dis- “We were devastated, it was like somebody cussed below), and a successful Traditional had rang us up and told us somebody had Owner-led campaign to prevent the imposition passed away. My niece rang me crying … it of a national waste repository at Muckaty was like somebody ripped my heart out.”5 Station, Northern Territory, from 2006 to 2014. The federal government says that “no indi- vidual or group has a right of veto” over the pro- posed national repository.6 That wording presumably means that the repository may go earlier attempt to impose a ahead despite the government’s acknowledge- repository in south australia, ment that “almost all Indigenous community 1998–2004 members surveyed are strongly opposed to the In 1998, the federal government announced its site continuing.”7 intention to build a national radioactive waste Adnyamathanha Traditional Owner Dr repository near the rocket and missile testing Jillian Marsh, who in 2010 completed a Ph.D. range at Woomera. thesis8 on the strongly contested approval of The proposed repository generated such con- the Beverley uranium mine in SA, puts the troversy in SA that the federal government debate over the proposed repository in a hired a public relations company. Correspon- broader context in an April 2016 statement: dence between the company and the govern- The First Nations people of Australia have ment was released under Freedom of been bullied and pushed around, forcibly Information laws.11 In one exchange, a govern- removed from their families and their ment official asked the public relations country, denied access and the right to care company to remove sand-dunes from a photo for their own land for over 200 years. Our to be used in a brochure. The explanation pro- health and wellbeing compares with third vided by the official was that: “Dunes are a sen- world countries, our people crowd the jails. sitive area with respect to Aboriginal Heritage.” Nobody wants toxic waste in their back yard, The sand-dunes were removed from the photo – this is true the world over. We stand in solidar- fi ity with people across this country and across only for the government of cial to ask if the the globe who want sustainable futures for horizon could be straightened up as well. communities, we will not be moved.9 The government’s approach to “consultation” with Aboriginal people was spelt out in an Successive federal governments appear to internal 2002 document which details the gov- have been fixated on the idea of attempting to ernment’s A$300,000 public relations cam- Downloaded by [T&F Office Locations], [Joel Phipps] at 03:26 09 November 2017 impose a repository on the land of unwilling paign.12 The document states: “Tactics to reach Aboriginal communities. Regina McKenzie Indigenous audiences will be informed by exten- said on ABC television in May 2016: sive consultations currently being undertaken […] with Indigenous groups.” In other words, Almost every waste dump is near an Aborigi- “ ” ’ ’ a questionable consultation process was used nal community. It s like, yeah, they re only a fi ’ bunch of blacks, they’re only a bunch of to ne-tune the government s promotional mess- ’ Abos, so we’ll put it there. Don’t you think ages. The government s approach sat uneasily that’s a little bit confronting for us when it with the principle of informed consent enshrined happens to us all the time? Can’t they just in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights leave my people alone?10 of Indigenous Peoples.13 34 green This issue of questionable “consultation” made it clear that if consent was not granted, arises time and time again, most recently with drilling would take place anyway. Aboriginal the discussion initiated by a Royal Commission groups were put in an invidious position. They (discussed below) into “building confidence” in could attempt to protect specific cultural sites the safety of nuclear waste repository proposals. by engaging with the federal government and West Mallee Protection (WMP), representing signing agreements, at the risk of having that Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people from engagement being misrepresented as consent Ceduna in western SA, responded as follows:14 for the repository; or they could refuse to engage in the process, thereby limiting their fi fi WMP nds this question super cial and capacity to protect cultural sites. offensive. It is a fact that many people have Dr Roger Thomas, a Kokatha man, told an dedicated their time and energy to investi- Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear gating and thinking about nuclear waste. It Safety Agency (ARPANSA) forum on 25 Feb- is a fact that even elderly women that made 15 up the Kupa Piti Kungka Tjuta – a senior ruary 2004: Aboriginal women’s council – committed years of their lives to stand up to the proposal The Commonwealth sought from the native for a low-level facility at Woomera. title claim group the opportunity to carry out site clearances. They presented to us, as They didn’t do this because of previously a native title group, some 58 sites that they inadequate “processes” to “build confidence” would like us to consider for the purpose of as the question suggests but because: cultural significance clearance. Of the 58, there were seven sites that they saw as A) Individuals held a deep commitment to being the priority locations for where they look after country and protect it from a sub- had intentions to want to locate the waste stance known as “irati” poison which repository. I would like it to be registered stemmed from long held cultural knowledge. that, of the 58, the senior law men and B) Nuclear impacts were experienced and women had difficulty and made it quite continued to be experienced first hand by clear that there was no intent on their part members and their families predominately to want to give any agreement to any of from nuclear testing at Emu Field and Mara- those sites […] The point of concern and con- linga but also through exploration and troversy for us is that we were advised – and mining at Olympic Dam.