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. we were told this by the various agencies C) They epitomized and lived by the world- involved –“If you don’t proceed with view that sustaining life for future gener- signing the agreement, the Federal Govern- ations is of upmost [sic] importance and ment will acquire it under the constitution that this is at odds with the dangerous and legislation.” long lasting dangers of all aspects of the nuclear industry. From our point of view, we not only had the shotgun at our head, we also were put in a The insinuation that the general population or situation where we were deemed powerless.
Downloaded by [T&F Office Locations], [Joel Phipps] at 03:26 09 November 2017 target groups such Kupa Piti Kungka Tjuta or If this is an example of the whitefella the communities in the Northern Territory process and system that we’ve got to that succeeded them and also fought off a comply with as Indigenous Australians, nuclear dump for Muckaty were somehow then we attest that this whole process needs deficient in their understanding of the impli- to be reviewed and looked at and we need cations and may have required “confidence to be given under the convention of the building” is highly offensive. United Nations the appropriate rights as Indigenous first nation people. Our bottom Aboriginal groups were coerced into signing line position is that we do not agree with “Heritage Clearance Agreements” consenting any waste material of any level being to test drilling of shortlisted sites for the pro- dumped, located or deposited in any part of posed repository in SA. The federal government this country.
35 radioactive waste
Aboriginal groups did participate in Heritage inspected by these Aboriginal groups and Clearance Agreements and, as feared, that par- have cleared for the construction and oper- 17 ticipation was repeatedly misrepresented by ation of the repository. the federal government as amounting to Abori- The same misrepresentation-by-omission ginal consent for the repository. occurs in the federal Environment Department’s Federal government politicians and bureau- Environmental Assessment Report18 (“sites, and crats repeatedly made reference to the surveys designated access routes to them, were cleared and the resulting Agreements without noting for all works associated with the construction that those Agreements in no way amounted to and operation of a waste repository”) and in consent to the repository. The following other federal government documents. excerpt from Senate Hansard provides an Misrepresentation-by-omission occurred example of this type of misrepresentation-by- repeatedly despite the fact that the Heritage omission:16 Clearance Agreements specifically noted Abori- Senator Allison (Australian Democrats) ginal opposition. One such Agreement, between asked the Minister representing the Minister the federal government and the Antakirinja for Science, upon notice, on 18 September Native Title Group, the Barngarla Native Title 2003: Group and the Kokatha Native Title Claimant (e) have any Indigenous groups consented to Group, dated 12 May 2000, includes the follow- the construction and operation of the reposi- ing clauses: tory at the site known as Site 40a; if so, which groups; E. The agreement to undertake Work Area (f) have any Indigenous groups stated that Clearances is not to be deemed as consent, Site 40a has no particular Indigenous heri- and the COMMONWEALTH do not under tage values; if so, which groups; this Agreement seek such consent, by the – Senator Vanstone The Minister for Science Claimants to the establishment of a NRWR has provided the following answer to the hon- [National Radioactive Waste Repository] in ’ ourable senator s question: the Central North Region of South Australia. (e) The site has been cleared for all works associated with the construction and oper- I. The COMMONWEALTH acknowledges ation of a national repository, with regard that there is “considerable opposition” to to Aboriginal heritage, by the Aboriginal the NRWR within the Aboriginal commu- groups with native title claims over the rela- nity of the region, but notwithstanding that tive site as well as other groups with heritage the Claimants have made a commitment interests in the region. These groups are the that the heritage clearance and the contents Antakirinja, Barngarla and Kokatha Native of the Work Area Clearance Report will not Title Claimant Groups, the Andamooka be influenced by such opposition. Land Council Association and the Kuyani Association. In 2002, the federal government tried to buy off (f) See answer to (e). Aboriginal opposition to the proposed reposi-
Downloaded by [T&F Office Locations], [Joel Phipps] at 03:26 09 November 2017 tory. Three Native Title claimant groups – the There is no recognition of Aboriginal opposition Kokatha, Kuyani and Barngarla – were offered to the repository in the above statement. A$90,000 to surrender their Native Title fi Likewise, (then) departmental of cial Mr Jeff rights, but only on the condition that all three Harris told an ARPANSA forum on 17 Decem- groups agreed. The Age newspaper reported ber 2001 that: that the meetings took place at a Port Augusta […] those Aboriginal groups that have heri- motel in September 2002 and that the Common- tage interests in those lands we have con- wealth delegation included representatives of sulted extensively with them, and each of the Department of the Attorney-General, the the three sites that are going through Department of Finance and the Department of environmental impact assessment has been Education and Science and Training.19
36 green
The government’s proposal was refused. the hypocrisy of the Government in giving an Kokatha Traditional Owner Dr Roger Thomas award for services to the community to Mrs. said: “The insult of it, it was just so insulting. I Brown but taking no notice of her objection, told the Commonwealth officers to stop being so and that of the Yankunytjatjara/Antikarinya disrespectful and rude to us by offering us community, to its decision to construct a national repository on this land.25 $90,000 to pay out our country and our culture.”20 Thomas told an ARPANSA forum on 25 The Kungkas continued to implore the February 2004: federal government to “get their ears out of their pockets,” and after six years the govern- The most disappointing aspect to the nego- tiations that the Commonwealth had with ment did just that. In the lead-up to the 2004 us, as Kokatha, is to try to buy our agree- federal election, with the repository issue ment. This was most insulting to us as Abori- causing the government political damage, and ginal people and particularly to our Elders. following a Federal Court ruling that the gov- For the sake of ensuring that I don’t ernment had illegally used urgency provisions further create any embarrassment, I will in the Lands Acquisition Act,26 the government not quote the figure, but let me tell you, decided to abandon the repository proposal. The our land is not for sale. Our Native Title Kungkas wrote in an open letter: rights are not for sale. We are talking about our culture, our lore and our dreaming. We People said that you can’t win against the are talking about our future generations Government. Just a few women. We just we’re protecting here. We do not have a kept talking and telling them to get their “for sale” sign up and we never will.21 ears out of their pockets and listen. We never said we were going to give up. Govern- Andrew Starkey, also a Kokatha man, said: ment has big money to buy their way out but “It was just shameful. They were wanting we never gave up.27 people to sign off their cultural heritage rights for a minuscule amount of money. We would controversial clean-up of the ”22 not do that for any amount of money. maralinga nuclear test site In 2003, the federal government used the Lands Acquisition Act 1989 to seize land for The 1998–2004 debate over nuclear waste the repository. Native Title rights and interests dumping in SA overlapped with a controversy were extinguished with the stroke of a pen.23 over a clean-up of the Maralinga nuclear This took place with no forewarning and no con- weapons test site in the same state.28 sultation with Aboriginal people. The 1985 report of a Royal Commission into Leading the battle against the proposed repo- the British atomic bomb tests documents the sitory were the Kupa Piti Kungka Tjuta, a effects of the bomb test program on Traditional council of senior Aboriginal women from north- Owners.29 Permission was not sought for the ern SA.24 Many of the Kungkas personally suf- tests from affected Aboriginal groups such as
Downloaded by [T&F Office Locations], [Joel Phipps] at 03:26 09 November 2017 fered the impacts of the British nuclear bomb the Pitjantjatjara, Tjarutja and Kokatha. The tests at Maralinga and Emu Field in the 1950s. use of atomic weapons contaminated great Mrs Eileen Kampakuta Brown, a member of tracts of traditional land. Forced relocation the Kungka Tjuta, was awarded an Order of was one of the traumas. The damage was phys- Australia on Australia Day, 26 January 2003 ical/radiological, psychological and cultural. for her service to the community “through the The controversy surrounding the clean-up of preservation, revival and teaching of traditional Maralinga in the late 1990s – the fourth Anangu (Aboriginal) culture and as an advocate attempted clean-up of the site – did nothing to for indigenous communities in Central Austra- resolve long-standing, multifaceted problems lia.” On 5 March 2003, the Australian Senate associated with the atomic testing program passed a resolution noting and its aftermath.
37 radioactive waste
Nuclear engineer Alan Parkinson was the That the Senate – federal government’s senior representative on (a) notes: the project and later released vast amounts of (i) that the clean up of the Maralinga atomic information, including internal information, test site resulted in highly plutonium-con- about the flawed clean-up30 – and he wrote a taminated debris being buried in shallow earth trenches and covered with just one to book on the topic.31 Parkinson said of the two metres of soil, clean-up: “What was done at Maralinga was a (ii) that large quantities of radioactive soil ’ cheap and nasty solution that wouldn tbe were blown away during the removal and ”32 adopted on white-fellas land. relocation of that soil into the Taranaki Dr Geoff Williams, an officer with the Com- burial trenches, so much so that the contami- monwealth nuclear regulator ARPANSA, said nated airborne dust caused the work to be in a leaked e-mail that the clean-up was beset stopped on many occasions and forward by a “host of indiscretions, short-cuts and area facilities to be evacuated on at least cover-ups.”33 one occasion, and US scientist Dale Timmons, who was (iii) that americium and uranium waste pro- involved in the in situ vitrification phase of ducts are proposed to be stored in an inter- mediate waste repository and that both the project, said the government’s technical these contaminants are buried in the Mara- report on the clean-up was littered with “gross linga trenches; ”34 misinformation. (b) rejects the assertion by the Minister for Australian nuclear physicist Prof. Peter Science (Mr McGauran) on 14 August 2002 Johnston (now working at ARPANSA) noted that this solution to dealing with radioactive that there were “very large expenditures and sig- material exceeds world’s best practice; nificant hazards resulting from the deficient (c) contrasts the Maralinga method of dispo- management of the project.”35 sal of long-lived, highly radioactive material Prof. Johnston (and others) noted in a confer- with the Government’s proposals to store ence paper that Traditional Owners were low-level waste in purpose-built lined excluded from any meaningful input into trenches 20 metres deep and to store inter- mediate waste in a deep geological facility; decision making concerning the clean-up.36 (d) calls on the Government to acknowledge The paper notes that Traditional Owners were that long-lived radioactive material is not represented on a consultative committee but suitable for near surface disposal; and – fi key decisions such as abandoning vitri cation (e) urges the Government to exhume the of plutonium-contaminated waste in favour of debris at Maralinga, sort it and use a safer, shallow burial in unlined trenches – were more long-lasting method of storing this taken without consultation with the consultative material. committee or any separate discussions with Tra- ditional Owners. The Australian Senate passed another resolution Federal government minister Senator Nick on 15 October 2003, which inter alia con- Minchin said in a 1 May 2000 media release demned the Maralinga clean-up.39 The resol- Downloaded by [T&F Office Locations], [Joel Phipps] at 03:26 09 November 2017 that the Maralinga Tjarutja Traditional Owners ution was as follows: “have agreed that deep burial of plutonium is a safe way of handling this waste.” However, That the Senate: the burial of plutonium-contaminated waste (a) notes: (i) that 15 October 2003 marks the 50th anni- was not deep and the Maralinga Tjarutja Tra- versary of the first atomic test conducted by ditional Owners did not agree to shallow waste the British Government in northern South – burial in unlined trenches in fact they wrote Australia; to the minister explicitly dissociating them- (ii) that on this day “Totem 1”, a 10 kilotonne 37 selves from the decision. atomic bomb, was detonated at Emu Junc- The Australian Senate passed a resolution on tion, some 240 kilometres west of Coober 21 August 2002, which reads as follows:38 Pedy;
38 green
(iii) that the Anangu community received no Announcing the establishment of the Royal forewarning of the test; Commission in March 2015, SA Premier Jay (iv) that the 1984 Royal Commission report Weatherill said: concluded that Totem 1 was detonated in wind conditions that would produce unaccep- We have a specific mandate to consult with table levels of fallout, and that the decision to Aboriginal communities and there are great detonate failed to take into account the exist- sensitivities here. I mean we’ve had the use ence of people at Wallatinna and Welbourn and abuse of the lands of the Maralinga Tjar- Hill; utja people by the British when they tested (b) expresses its concern for those indigenous their atomic weapons.42 peoples whose lands and health over gener- ations have been detrimentally affected by However, the SA government’s handling of this and subsequent atomic tests conducted the Royal Commission process systematically in northern South Australia; disenfranchised Aboriginal people from the (c) congratulates the Kupa Piti Kungka Tjuta start. The truncated timeline for providing feed- – the Senior Aboriginal Women of Coober back on draft Terms of Reference disadvan- – Pedy for their ongoing efforts to highlight taged people in remote regions, people with the experience of their peoples affected by little or no access to e-mail and the internet, these tests; and people for whom English is a second (d) condemns the Government for its failure language. There was no translation of the draft to properly dispose of radioactive waste from atomic tests conducted in the Maralinga pre- Terms of Reference, and a regional communi- cinct; and cations and engagement strategy was not devel- (e) expresses its continued opposition to the oped or implemented by the SA government. siting of a low-level radioactive waste reposi- Aboriginal people repeatedly expressed frus- tory in South Australia. tration with the Royal Commission process. One example was the submission of the Anggu- Just over a decade after the Maralinga clean-up, mathanha Camp Law Mob (Adnyamathanha fi a survey revealed that nineteen of the eighty- ve Traditional Owners who are also fighting contaminated waste pits have been subject to 40 against the plan for a national radioactive erosion or subsidence. waste repository on their land):43
the current plan to import Why we are not satisfied with the way this intermediate- and high-level nuclear Royal Commission has been conducted: waste Yaiinidlha Udnyu ngawarla wanggaanggu, wanhanga Yura Ngawarla wanggaanggu? – Aboriginal people in SA currently face a propo- always in English, where’s the Yura Nga- sal to import intermediate- and high-level warla (our first language)? nuclear waste as a money-making venture. A Royal Commission established by the SA gov- The issues of engagement are many. To date
Downloaded by [T&F Office Locations], [Joel Phipps] at 03:26 09 November 2017 ernment in 2015 to investigate commercial we have found the process of engagement opportunities across the nuclear fuel cycle rec- used by the Royal Commission to be very ommended against almost all the proposals it off putting as it’s been run in a real Udnyu considered – enrichment, fuel fabrication, (whitefella) way. Timelines are short, infor- nuclear power and spent fuel reprocessing – mation is hard to access, there is no interpreter service available, and the meet- on economic grounds.41 However, the Royal ings have been very poorly advertised […] Commission strongly endorsed and promoted a plan to import 138,000 tonnes of high-level A closed and secretive approach makes nuclear waste (about one-third of the world’s engagement difficult for the average person total) and 390,000 cubic metres of intermedi- on the street, and near impossible for Abori- ate-level waste. ginal people to participate.
39 radioactive waste
The Royal Commission made some efforts to Scarce said “well maybe I’m talking to the overcome early deficiencies – such as the wrong people” and we said “well what other appointment of a (non-Aboriginal) regional people are you going to talk to? We’re ’ engagement officer and some limited efforts to Native Title claimants, we re Native Title translate written material. However, the Royal Traditional Owners from all over this country […] this land […] so who else are Commission continued to attract criticism you going to pluck out of the air to talk to” from Aboriginal people and organisations until […]we’ve stuck to our guns and we still fi (and indeed after) it released its nal report in totally oppose it. That’s every Native Title May 2016. group in South Australia. Judging from submissions to the Royal Com- mission, and from other sources, it is clear that the plan to import nuclear waste for storage and the ghosts of maralinga disposal in SA is overwhelmingly opposed by Aboriginal people.44 A striking feature of submissions to the Royal The Aboriginal Congress of SA, comprising Commission from Aboriginal people and – people from many Aboriginal groups across groups and other literature concerning the – the state, endorsed the following resolution at nuclear waste import proposal is the frequent an August 2015 meeting:45 reference to the Maralinga (and Emu Field) bomb tests and their aftermath. We, as native title representatives of lands The ongoing relevance of the atomic bomb and waters of South Australia, stand firmly tests was noted by the Royal Commission in in opposition to nuclear developments on its final report:47 our country, including all plans to expand uranium mining, and implement nuclear Applied to the South Australian context, the reactors and nuclear waste dumps on our impact of atomic weapons testing at Mara- land […] Many of us suffer to this day the linga in the 1950s and 1960s remains very devastating effects of the nuclear industry significant to Aboriginal people. Those and continue to be subject to it through tests, and subsequent actions, have left extensive uranium mining on our lands and many Aboriginal people with a deep scepti- country that has been contaminated. cism about the ability of Government to ensure that any new nuclear activities We view any further expansion of industry as would be undertaken safely. The damage an imposition on our country, our people, caused by the atomic tests carried out by our environment, our culture and our the British Government is still felt pro- history. We also view it as a blatant disregard foundly by many Aboriginal South Austra- for our rights under various legislative instru- lians, particularly those from communities ments, including the founding principles of that were directly affected. In these commu- this state. nities, nuclear activities in general are often associated with the detrimental effects of the The Royal Commission acknowledged strong events at Maralinga. This sentiment was Downloaded by [T&F Office Locations], [Joel Phipps] at 03:26 09 November 2017 Aboriginal opposition to its nuclear waste reflected in many submissions from Aborigi- – import proposal but it treated that opposition nal individuals and groups received by the not as a red light but as an obstacle to be circum- Commission. vented. In mid-2016 Tauto Sansbury, Chairper- son of the SA Aboriginal Congress, said:46 The Royal Commission’s report then stressed the need to put as much distance as possible In our second meeting with [Royal Commis- between the bomb tests and the current waste sioner Kevin Scarce] we had 27 Native Title import proposal: groups from all around South Australia. We had a vote on it. And it was unanimous For a specific proposal on land in which there that the vote said “no we don’t want it”.It are Aboriginal rights and interests, it would was absolutely unanimous. Commissioner be necessary to demonstrate to Aboriginal
40 green
communities’ satisfaction how the develop- Johnston drew clear links between the mis- ment would be different to the atomic management of the Maralinga clean-up and the testing and how lessons had been learned likelihood of a repeat performance with the pro- 48 from the past. posed national repository. He summarised some Likewise, SA government promotional of his concerns with the Maralinga clean-up material designed for Aboriginal people states thus: “ bluntly: What the South Australian Govern- DEST [Department of Education, Science ment is talking about now, the nuclear waste dis- and Training] concluded a contract with 49 posal, it is different to Maralinga.” Geosafe Australia for technical services that Yet efforts to distance Maralinga from the contained no performance criteria. Draft current nuclear waste import proposal appear documents prepared by DEST have often to have had little success. There are some indis- been technically wrong due to a lack of tech- putable differences between the bomb tests and nical input. Non-technical public servants current proposals (temporal, spatial, technologi- made decisions where technical expertise cal) but the disrespect shown towards Aborigi- was needed. Technical advice often not sought except from a contractor.51 nal people, then and now, is one of a number of common threads. That viewpoint is Johnston drew connections between the Mar- expressed, for example, in a statement written alinga clean-up and the government’s appli- by Aboriginal people at a meeting at Port cation to ARPANSA to build a national Augusta on 3 September 2016. The statement radioactive waste repository in SA: read, in part: The applicant for a licence [DEST] does not The Government says the nuclear waste have the technical competence required to dump proposal is different to the atomic manage the contracts of a proposed operator. bomb tests, but Inaadi vasinyi – radiation The operator who may have the necessary is radiation, poison is poison. Governments technical competence is not a co-applicant. stripped Aboriginal people of land, land I am not convinced the applicant will have rights and heritage protections for atomic effective control of the project. I believe bomb tests and uranium mining, and the application has not demonstrated that exactly the same thing will happen with the the applicant has the capacity to ensure high-level nuclear waste dump. Aboriginal that it can abide by the licence conditions Traditional Owners have first-hand experi- that could be imposed under Section 35 of ence. Poisoned water, poisoned plants, poi- the ARPANS Act because of a lack of tech- soned animals, poisoned people.50 nical competence in managing its contractors.52 Moreover, Aboriginal perspectives are informed by events more recent than the Perspectives on the current nuclear waste bomb tests. The tests took place more than import proposal are shaped not only by the fifty years ago, but the clean-up of Maralinga experience of the atomic bomb tests but also Downloaded by [T&F Office Locations], [Joel Phipps] at 03:26 09 November 2017 in the late 1990s is recent history. The flawed by the more recent clean-up of Maralinga. clean-up exacerbated concerns about a pro- – posed national repository in SA the proposal the uranium industry advanced by the federal government in 1998 and abandoned in 2004. As might be expected, Aboriginal experiences with the uranium indus- such connections and concerns were voiced by try have shaped attitudes towards the nuclear environmental and anti-nuclear groups, and waste import proposal. The establishment of by affected Traditional Owners, but they were the Beverley and Beverley Four Mile uranium also voiced by others such as Prof. Peter John- mines in SA was a deeply troubling and divisive ston (then at Melbourne University, now at issue for Adnyamathanha Traditional Owners.53 ARPANSA). Thus the Anggumathanha Camp Law Mob
41 radioactive waste
noted in its submission to the Royal apply or whether the government should Commission:54 insist on the more modern act applying? What consultation was there? Our past experiences in dealing with mining companies and Government regulat- The Hon. G.E. GAGO (Governing Austra- ory bodies has [sic] not been empowering lian Labor Party Member of the Legislative for us; quite the opposite. This makes us Council): I have been advised that BHP very mistrustful of the Government’s were satisfied with the current arrangements ability or willingness to represent our inter- and insisted on the continuation of these ests and fully include us in any decision arrangements, and the government did not making. Since colonisation our lands and consult further than that. resources have been severely depleted, damaged and in some cases completely The Hon. M. PARNELL: To take a slightly destroyed against our wishes, without our different tack, is the minister able to identify consent, and in the name of development the key differences between the 1979 act and so we ask Who stands to benefitthemost the 1988 act that made the older act so much from development? And at what cost to more attractive to BHP Billiton in relation to our environment? Aboriginal heritage?
In the centre-north of SA, BHP Billiton’s The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have been advised Olympic Dam (Roxby Downs) mine is exempt that the 1979 act does not have a mandatory consultation provision equivalent to the from provisions of the SA Aboriginal Heritage 1988 act for determining sites and/or author- Act 1988: the mine must partially comply with ising damage, disturbance or interference. an old (1979) version of the Act that was never However, contemporary administrative law proclaimed. As the Royal Commission noted principles, particularly in relation to pro- in its final report (somewhat euphemistically), cedural fairness, necessitate the same or “the predecessor to the Aboriginal Heritage similar consultation. Act, the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1979 (SA) applies with some qualification.”55 The Hon. M. PARNELL: It seems that there That arrangement was further enshrined in is a lot less consultation involved. It just seems remarkable that the minister has SA law when the Roxby Downs Indenture Act talked about this good corporate citizen and was amended in 2011. Traditional Owners hoping that their goodness will continue were not even consulted about the 2011 amend- into the future, yet when it comes to being ments. A government parliamentarian said in obliged to consult with Aboriginal commu- the SA parliament on 24 November 2011: nities they opt for the lowest standard that “BHP were satisfied with the current arrange- they can get. ments and insisted on the continuation of these arrangements, and the government did Had the Royal Commission drilled into the poli- not consult further than that.”56 tics that allowed BHP Billiton and the SA Labor A section of the parliamentary exchange is and Liberal Parties to endorse and enact such an Downloaded by [T&F Office Locations], [Joel Phipps] at 03:26 09 November 2017 reproduced here:57 arrangement, the Commission may have arrived at a better understanding of the reasons for The Hon. M. PARNELL (Greens Member of Aboriginal scepticism about and opposition the Legislative Council): I understand there towards the current nuclear waste import propo- have been negotiations in relation to an Indi- sal. However, the Royal Commission opted out genous land use agreement and other nego- “ tiations, but what negotiations did the of the debate, stating: Although a systematic government undertake with, for example, analysis was beyond the scope of the Commis- the Aboriginal Legal Rights Movement or sion, it has heard criticisms of the heritage pro- other Aboriginal groups in relation to tection framework, particularly the consultative whether this old act should continue to provisions.”58
42 green
Despite its acknowledgement that it had not South Australian Government granted per- systematically analysed the matter, the Royal mission for the trial mine in September Commission arrived at unequivocal, favourable 1997 based on statements drafted by conclusions, asserting that mining proponent Heathgate Resources in accordance with South Australian Mining frameworks for securing long-term agree- Act 1971 regulations. This enabled Heath- ments with rights holders in South Australia, gate to extract uranium without either a including Aboriginal communities […] full impact assessment or a formal mining provide a sophisticated foundation for secur- licence. This arrangement sparked contro- ing agreements with rights holders and host versy and public concern over the Beverley communities regarding the siting and estab- proposal. lishment of facilities for the management of used fuel.59 Second, when an environmental impact study (EIS) was commissioned, its limited terms of Such statements were conspicuously absent in reference and lack of Adnyamathanha partici- submissions from Aboriginal people and pation during the community consultation organisations. phase highlighted fundamental flaws in Moreover, there is an abundance of evidence South Australia’s regulatory system. Despite that consultation and heritage protection frame- a call for policy reform over several decades works fall a long way short of being “sophisti- in Australia to bring greater uniformity across states and territories, the impact assess- cated.” The Beverley uranium mine is a case ment process remains fragmented and highly in point. Adnyamathanha Traditional Owner diverse, and in some states, including South Dr Jillian Marsh summarises the Beverley Australia, governance and assessment con- assessment and approval process. Far from tinues to lag behind best practice. A key being sophisticated, it was deeply problematic issue in the Beverley case was the effective and, for many Adnyamathanha people, disem- exclusion of Indigenous perspectives and powering. Marsh writes:60 inability to acknowledge and address conflicts of interest within the Indigenous community. During the mid-1990s three Adnyamathanha In an important media statement by Elders persons sought recognition as the “named from the Nepabunna Community after the applicants” on claims intended to be filed EIS was concluded for the Beverley Mine, as registered claims to the National Native Adnyamathanha Elder Artie Wilton publicly Title Tribunal. Under the Native Title Act, stated he: “was never consulted and has “named applicant” status would confer a never agreed to the Beverley and Honeymoon “right to negotiate” about mining and to mining projects […] the Beverley Mine must secure what is legally known as consent be stopped, dead stopped. determination or recognition under the Native Title Act. Prior to the amalgamation Finally, concerns were raised during the EIS of these claims and during the exploration process that the requirements of the South phase of the Beverley project, each named Australian Aboriginal Heritage Act 1988
Downloaded by [T&F Office Locations], [Joel Phipps] at 03:26 09 November 2017 applicant entered into private negotiations had not been fulfilled and that Traditional with Heathgate Resources, claiming to act Owners who were part of the native title as representatives of the Adnyamathanha negotiations had their views suppressed, yet community. The negotiated consent for a there was never a request made by the Minis- native title mining agreement that was pro- ter for Aboriginal Affairs to rectify this duced was reached “under duress”, accord- matter. Nor was there any declaration from ing to public media statements claiming native title negotiators about the conflicting that the Yuras had been forced into interests regarding economic development signing off. and cultural heritage protection.
A three-phase approach was used to facili- The Royal Commission did not recommend a tate mining at the Beverley site. First, the strengthening of frameworks for Aboriginal
43 radioactive waste
consultation or heritage protection. On the con- scepticism about proponents’ economic trary, the Commission argued that existing, claims, concerns that the Royal Commission flawed frameworks should be regarded as “soph- and the government downplayed environmental isticated” and should used to progress the and public health risks, and distrust that the nuclear waste import proposal. The Royal Com- government could deliver the project on time mission’s final report said that “[…] there are and on budget. established and sophisticated frameworks that A key factor in the Jury’s rejection of the have supported deliberation on complex issues waste import proposal – perhaps outweighing in the past, through which Aboriginal commu- any other concern – was that Aboriginal nities in South Australia should be people had spoken loudly and in near-unison approached.”61 in opposition. The Jury’s report said: an unexpected twist in the There is a lack of aboriginal consent. We believe that the government should accept aftermath of the royal commission that the Elders have said NO and stop ignor- After the SA Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Com- ing their opinions. The aboriginal people of mission handed its final report to the SA govern- South Australia (and Australia) continue to ment in May 2016, the government established a be neglected and ignored by all levels of gov- ernment instead of respected and treated as “Consultation and Response Agency” (CARA). equals. Ostensibly, CARA was tasked with a statewide consultation process but it was seen by many The Citizen Jury’s report further stated: as a promotional exercise. Despite the pro- motion of the waste import proposal by the gov- Aboriginal people are the custodians of the ernment, CARA, the Royal Commission, and land. They have a long-standing connection other key players (not least the Adelaide Adver- with the land. We need to consider the tra- tiser), CARA reported in November 2016 that ditional owners and current residents of the over three rounds of telephone surveys, just 31 land; not only of the final location of the per cent of South Australians supported the pro- nuclear waste facility, but also the lands posal while 53 per cent were opposed and 16 per that the waste is transported through. 62 ’ cent were undecided. CARA s report further Many Aboriginal people have no or little trust stated: in government based on lack of transparency and lack of attempts to fix previous issues. Many [Aboriginal] participants expressed There is a legacy of government implement- concern about the potential negative ing processes that are harmful to indigenous impacts on their culture and the long-term, people. There is too much unfinished generational consequences of increasing the business […] state’s participation in the nuclear fuel fi cycle. There was a signi cant lack of The South Australian Government has a support for the government to continue pur- legacy of: Downloaded by [T&F Office Locations], [Joel Phipps] at 03:26 09 November 2017 suing any form of nuclear storage and dispo- a. consulting indigenous people in flawed sal facilities. Some Aboriginal people processes that does not allow Aboriginal indicated that they are interested in learning people to exercise free, informed, and mean- more and continuing the conversation, but ingful consent. Instead, we need systems of 63 these were few in number. engagement. b. not receiving free, informed and meaning- Also in November 2016, a Citizens’ Jury, ful consent from indigenous people in the established by the SA government and com- past in all matters, including nuclear. posed of 350 South Australians, released its c. engaging in practices that lead to the dis- 64 report. Two-thirds of the Jury members ruption of trust in indigenous people; for rejected the waste import proposal “under example, Maralinga. any circumstances.” Their reasons included d. engaging in practices that disrupt
44 green
indigenous people’s connection to country, We will stand our ground and maintain what for example the stolen generation and con- we have said all along: “No waste dump in struction of sites like Olympic Dam (p. 128 our Ngura (Country).” I will take this to of the Royal Commission Report). A our YNTAC AGM and discuss with our nuclear waste facility is inherently an impo- members what the Premier is now saying, sition on connection to country […] to run a Statewide Referendum, and rally my community to use our rights to veto Many Aboriginal communities have made it and say no to this unjust and insane idea of clear they strongly oppose the issue and it storing and disposing of nuclear waste from is morally wrong to ignore their wishes […] other countries.69 Jay Weatherill said that without the consent of traditional owners of the land “it In any event, support for the waste import wouldn’t happen”. It is unethical to back- proposal collapsed in the immediate aftermath track on this statement without losing auth- of the Citizens Jury’s report. The largest opposi- enticity in the engagement process. tion party, the Liberal Party, announced that it would campaign against the proposal in the lead- “ Premier Weatherill acknowledged the over- up to the March 2018 state election.70 The small ” whelming opposition of Aboriginal people to but influential Nick Xenophon Team also the waste import proposal during an ABC announced that its candidates would campaign 65 radio interview in November 2016. Weatherill against the waste import proposal, having pre- “ ’ ’ also said that there s no doubt that there sa viously adopted a neutral position on the … massive issue of trust in government [ ] issue.71 The SA Greens, with two elected repre- ’ ’ that s why we started the whole citizen s jury sentatives in the upper house of the SA parlia- ” process into the nuclear waste import ment, have opposed the proposal from the 66 proposal. outset. In light of the above comments by the Thus the SA Labor government does not have Premier, and in light of the strength of the numbers in parliament to initiate a referendum. ’ Citizen Jury s rejection of the waste import pro- Likewise, the government does not have the posal and the strength of Aboriginal opposition, numbers to repeal or amend the SA Nuclear it was expected that the Premier would abandon Waste Storage Facility (Prohibition) Act 2000, the proposal. Instead, he announced that he which imposes major constraints on the ability wanted the proposal to be subject to a statewide of the government to move forward with the referendum and that affected Aboriginal Tra- nuclear waste import proposal. ditional Owners would have a right of veto over any related developments on their lands.67 Narungga Traditional Owner Tauto Sansbury systemic, bipartisan racism said in response: On 10 October 2016, federal Labor and (Liberal/National) Coalition parliamentarians The high level nuclear waste dump is over- endorsed a formal motion of “racial toler- Downloaded by [T&F Office Locations], [Joel Phipps] at 03:26 09 November 2017 whelmingly opposed by Traditional Owners ance” in the House of Representatives.72 and the wider community and the Premier’s announcement is a divisive move to get his The motion, moved by Prime Minister own way. It is deeply disappointing that Malcolm Turnbull, stated inter alia that the fi Aboriginal communities must continue to House of Representatives reaf rmed a com- fight this issue when we have so many other mitment to reconciliation with Aboriginal issues to deal with.68 and Torres Strait Islander people and to redressing “profound social and economic Karina Lester, chairperson of the Yankunyt- disadvantage.” jatjara Native Title Aboriginal Corporation Referring to the bipartisan resolution, Turn- (YNTAC) and daughter of atomic test survivor bull spoke of a “20 year-old unity ticket Yami Lester, said: perhaps, celebrating and reaffirming the
45 radioactive waste
Australian values of fair go and mutual respect While there is evidence of systemic – and often for all regardless of how they look, how they bipartisan – racism in the pursuit of nuclear pro- worship or where they come from.”73 jects in Australia, that is not to say that Aborigi- Bill Shorten, leader of the federal Labor nal people have been passive victims. A Party, said in May 2016 that “systemic racism campaign led by Aboriginal people persuaded is still far too prevalent” in Australia.74 An the federal government to abandon plans for a examination of the pursuit of nuclear projects national radioactive waste repository in SA in in Australia – atomic bomb tests and their after- 2004. A campaign led by Muckaty Traditional math, uranium mines and radioactive waste Owners persuaded the federal government to repositories – tends to confirm the prevalence abandon plans for a national radioactive waste of systemic racism in Australia. That examin- repository in the Northern Territory in 2014. ation further reveals a “unity ticket”–biparti- And current plans for national san, systemic racism in the pursuit of nuclear and international waste reposi- projects. That “unity ticket” is nothing that tories are being fiercely contested the major political parties should be celebrating. by Aboriginal people in SA, with Systemic, bipartisan racism was evident in a great deal of civil-society the South Australian nuclear waste import support. debate until the SA Liberal Party withdrew its support in November 2016 (the Liberal Party disclosure statement has said little about Aboriginal opposition to the proposal, instead emphasising questionable No potential conflict of interest was reported by economic claims as well as the lack of broad the author. public support). Systemic, bipartisan racism was evident in the passage of the National Radioactive Waste notes Management Act 2012 through the federal par- 1 Australian Government, “New Indigenous Pro- liament. The Act allows the imposition of a tected Area Creates Opportunities for Yappala national radioactive waste facility on Aboriginal Community,” 22 Jan. 2014,
Downloaded by [T&F Office Locations], [Joel Phipps] at 03:26 09 November 2017 3 Scribe Archeology, VYAC Yura Malka. Cultural evident in the Northern Territory: sub-section Landscape Mapping of the VYAC Yappala Group of ’ 40(6) of the Commonwealth s Aboriginal Land Properties, Draft Report, Aug. 2015,
46 green
5 Murphy-Oates, “Adnyamathanha People Gear- 15 ARPANSA Inquiry Public Hearing, 25 Feb. 2004, Up to Save their Land from Nuclear Waste Dump.”
47 radioactive waste
iratiwanti.php3?page=news&id=244&start=0& query=Id%3A%22committees%2Festimate% year=2004> (accessed 21 Oct. 2016). 2F977%2F0011%22> (accessed 21 Oct. 2016). 28 Information on the project is posted at
Downloaded by [T&F Office Locations], [Joel Phipps] at 03:26 09 November 2017 36 P.N. Johnston, A.C. Collett, and T.J. Gara, following: Frank Young (Amata community “Aboriginal Participation and Concerns member); Mike Williams, Mimili community; throughout the Rehabilitation of Maralinga,” Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara; Bobby presentation to the Third International Sym- Brown; James Brown; Campbell Law; Kaurna; posium on the Protection of the Environment Anggumathanha Camp Law Mob; Kokatha Aborigi- from Ionising Radiation, Darwin, 22–26 July nal Corporation; Frank Young. Submission from 2002, 349–56,
48 green
Corporation; Yankunytjatjara Native Title Aborigi- Indenture) Amendment Bill,” 24 Nov. 2011, nal Corporation (YNTAC); Yandruwandha Yawar-
Downloaded by [T&F Office Locations], [Joel Phipps] at 03:26 09 November 2017 53 Marsh, “ACriticalAnalysisoftheDecision- 67 Idem, “Premier Jay Weatherill Effectively Making Protocols used in Approving a Commercial Buries Nuclear Waste Dump Proposal with Mining License for Beverley Uranium Mine in Vague Promise of Statewide Referendum,” The Adnyamathanha Country: Toward Effective Indigen- Advertiser 14 Nov. 2016,
49 radioactive waste
Media Release, 14 Nov. 2016, Downloaded by [T&F Office Locations], [Joel Phipps] at 03:26 09 November 2017 22r4472%22> (accessed 21 Oct. 2016). 76 Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission Report 237. Jim Green PO Box 222 Fitzroy, VIC 3065 Australia E-mail: [email protected]