Djadi – Dugarang Volume: 5 Issue:2 November 2003

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Djadi – Dugarang Volume: 5 Issue:2 November 2003 • Killing off the case for Terra Nullius • International – gas vs. heritage in Navajo country • Yorta Yorta update • Secrecy on Land Rights denied • High Court cruelling Native Title - Pearson • Noonkanbah battle recalled The Newsletter of the Indigenous Social Justice Association Djadi – Dugarang Volume: 5 Issue:2 November 2003 Land Rights? … or … Land Wrongs? September 2003 A Non-Corporate View Editorial Australia's Indigenous A History of Invasion and WELCOME to the second Peoples lived the latter life Genocide that continues to this issue of Volume 5. In this style. War, for the purposes of day. "Oh, not the Black Newsletter we will be looking obtaining Land from another Armband View again," I hear at the subject of Land. The Tribe or Nation was unknown. someone sigh. This was brought about by the Traditional Lands of the No my Friend, more of the Traditional Owners. Always single fact that coveting the Lands of others was Culturally White Blindfold View and Was, Always Will Be, another fine example of the Aboriginal Land. And Torres inappropriate. Put simply, the Spirits of your Land are not Constructed Silences exampled Strait Islander Land also. Land in the previous that was, and remains, Stolen. mine. They must of course be respected but they have no Newsletter. This period of the Like our Children, like our Black and White Relationships bearing on my Culture or Wages, like our Culture. has been termed 'The Culture Everything Stolen. Spirituality. That can only be found on my Land. Land, Wars.' Windschuttle is Historically, and Culturally, regardless of which Tribe or currently the newest of those Land has been viewed, used Nation owned it, was also to be who feel the great need to and abused differently by shared by others outside of the rewrite the real Joint History. It different Peoples in different Tribe or Nation using that matters not what they say, the times. The so-called Land. For example, during use Truth remains inviolate. Civilisations of Europe adopted of the Trade Routes which The first article comes from a culture whereby Land criss-crossed Australia. From Henry Reynolds looking at the became wealth to the North to South, from East to Windschuttle fabrication of individual who professed West. Those using the Trade History and especially that part ownership of it. Land was just Routes who died were allowed dealing with the Ownership of another commodity to be to be buried with all due Land by the Traditional bought and sold, the end being Custom and Respect of their Owners. to become even richer by the own Lands. Children born were purchase or the use of it. given the appropriate Cultural Other articles deal with the Territorial wars were fought , necessities also. The Lands British atomic tests 50 years and still continue to this day. were shared, not owned. These ago that were similar to the The Falklands War procedures were not, of course, American tests up at Bikini between England and unique to the mainland of Atoll, whereby the health and Argentina is but one example Australia. Historically, the safety of the locals were of this. Torres Strait Islanders had an criminally not fully considered. extensive Trade Route system. Noel Pearson considers the Land to those living in a latest decisions of the High more "primitive" culture either Ownership of Land just was Court, including the disgraceful followed the European Way or not an issue and sadly only decision made against the shared the Land within their became a destructive issue for Yorta Yorta Peoples. We have own Tribal groupings. Land the Cadigal/Eora People of the analysis of that decision also. was never to be individually greater Dharrug Nation on 26 owned but became as one with January, 1788. When Captain Tony Abbott harangues the the individual and collectively Phillip and his human cargo Traditional Owners for not with the Tribe or Nation. The came ashore and raised the totally embracing Capitalism in Land was to be respected by all British flag on behalf of mad their Culture. and shared by all, along with its King George, then the rot, We look also at the current relevant resources, by all. The literally, set upon us. fashion of Land negotiations only areas of recognition were being entered into outside of the Sites for Men and Women's The rest as they say, is History. the High Court. Very much a Business and those Sites sacred case of 'damned if you do, to both or either. VOLUME 5 I SSUE 2 D J A D I - D U G A R A November 2003 N G damned if you don't.' Ms. throats – not warriors or Tasmanian Aboriginal Jackie Huggins gives us her patriots. linguistics published in the important view of the Native 20th century. But leaving that Title Act of 1993. Much then turns on this aside, two points should be question. Remove this building made. We have no idea at all of We revisit Noonkanbah in block and much of the what percentage of total the Kimberley's and look at the argument in The Fabrication of Aboriginal vocabularies were issues of today. We 'walk' the Aboriginal History collapses. It ever recorded - particularly by Country reading Reports of is not possible, as some the informants whose work is current Land Rights struggles reviewers have wished, to cast reprinted in Roth. and compare and contraire doubt on Windschuttle's vision what is happening here to what of terra nullius while leaving A modern authority has is occurring in Canada and the the rest untouched. The written: "Only limited and United States to the First soundness of argument and generally quite unreliable notes Peoples Nations. evidence in this area are all- and materials, mostly word lists important. and some sentence materials, We also report on the had been collected in the ongoing struggles of the Torres He begins at a high level of Tasmanian languages, from Strait Islanders to continue to generalisation. Unless it can be which only a superficial picture build upon the Mabo High proved to the contrary, it must of them can be obtained. Those Court decision. be assumed that hunters and few short texts that are gatherers have no sense of land available are of dubious value, All this and more, so let us ownership. It is a heroic claim, proceed. as they were compiled by which flies in the face of 200 Europeans, with, it seems, little Killing off the case for years of jurisprudence and at real knowledge of the terra nullius least 150 years of ethnography. languages." Other scholars Windschuttle provides no support this proposition. So THE AGE evidence, no references to while we know how many August 23, 2003 ground this heroic proposition. THERE is no doubt about words were listed by European We are expected to receive it as witnesses, we have no idea of Keith Windschuttle's ambition. an axiom that is beyond how many were not. He seeks to bring the concept argument. But it is not a good of terra nullius back to life. start. And things get worse. N.J.B. Plomley, the doyen of That is a central feature of The Tasmanian Aboriginal Fabrication of Aboriginal The most powerful scholarship, observed that "we History. He tells us that the proposition we are presented are quite ignorant of the range notions of the exclusive with is that the Aborigines did of Aboriginal thought because possession of territory and the not have a word for property. so few topics were explored in defence of it either by law or This argument has caught the conversation with them". All force "were not part of the public's eye and has been Windschuttle can legitimately repeated numerous times in Aborigines' mental universe". say is that words for land do In short, the Tasmanians "did reviews. Clearly it has been not appear in the vocabularies not own the land". The concept seen to be a clincher - an printed in Roth. That is a of property was "not part of argument of great discursive much-diminished claim. their culture". power. But the most serious Much follows from this But we should begin with problem with the Windschuttle assertion. The incoming Windschuttle's own words: position is that he did not Europeans were not taking land "The Aborigines did not even consult the most important have a word for it. None of the belonging to someone else. contemporary work on They introduced tenure to a four vocabularies of Tasmanian Tasmanian languages - place where none had Aboriginal language compiled Plomley's 1976 book, A Word previously existed. Aboriginal in the 19th century, nor any of List of the Tasmanian attacks on the settlers had the lists of their phrases, Aboriginal Languages. The nothing to do with resisting sentences or songs, contained result of 26 years' research in encroachments on their land the word 'land'. Nor did they Australia and Europe, it because they had no sense of have words for 'own', 'possess' represents a benchmark in or 'property' or any of their trespass. relevant scholarship - an derivatives." In the absence of such authority that cannot lightly be motivation, they must have The source for these claims dismissed. So how does been spurred to violence by is a series of appendices in the Plomley's work help us to baser, more personal motives - 1899 book, The Aborigines of pursue the question of land by the desire for vengeance and Tasmania, by H. Ling Roth. ownership? At first sight, it for plunder. Therefore, the Given the great significance of would appear to support the Tasmanians were not at war the linguistic evidence, it is Windschuttle position.
Recommended publications
  • A Submission to the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission
    Roman Oszanski A Submission to the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission Preamble I have chosen not to follow the issues papers: their questions are more suited to those planning to expand the nuclear industry, and many of the issues raised are irrelevant if one believes that, based on the evidence, the industry should be left to die a natural death, rather than being supported to the exclusion of more promising technologies. Executive Summary The civil nuclear industry is in decline globally. [Ref charts on existing reactors, rising costs]. It is not an industry of the future, but of the past. If it were not for the intimate connection to the military industry, it would not exist today. There is no economic advantage to SA in expanding the existing industry in this state. Nuclear power does not offer a practical solution to climate change: total lifetime emissions are likely to be (at best) similar to those of gas power plants, and there is insufficient uranium to replace all the goal fired generators. A transition to breeder technologies leaves us with major problems of waste disposal and proliferation of weapons material. Indeed, the problems of weapons proliferation and the black market in fissionable materials mean that we should limit sales of Uranium to countries which are known proliferation risks, or are non- signatories to the NNPT: we should ban sales of Australian Uranium to Russia and India. There is a current oversupply of enrichment facilities, and there is considerable international concern at the possibility of using such facilities to enrich Uranium past reactor grade to weapons grade.
    [Show full text]
  • Dollars for Death Say No to Uranium Mining & Nuclear Power
    Dollars for Death Say No to Uranium Mining & Nuclear Power Jim Green & Others 2 Dollars for Death Contents Preface by Jim Green............................................................................3 Uranium Mining ...................................................................................5 Uranium Mining in Australia by Friends of the Earth, Australia..........................5 In Situ Leach Uranium Mining Far From ‘Benign’ by Gavin Mudd.....................8 How Low Can Australia’s Uranium Export Policy Go? by Jim Green................10 Uranium & Nuclear Weapons Proliferation by Jim Falk & Bill Williams..........13 Nuclear Power ...................................................................................16 Ten Reasons to Say ‘No’ to Nuclear Power in Australia by Friends of the Earth, Australia...................................................................16 How to Make Nuclear Power Safe in Seven Easy Steps! by Friends of the Earth, Australia...................................................................18 Japan: One Year After Fukushima, People Speak Out by Daniel P. Aldrich......20 Nuclear Power & Water Scarcity by Sue Wareham & Jim Green........................23 James Lovelock & the Big Bang by Jim Green......................................................25 Nuclear Waste ....................................................................................28 Nuclear Power: Watt a Waste .............................................................................28 Nuclear Racism .................................................................................31
    [Show full text]
  • Official Hansard No
    COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES SENATE Official Hansard No. 2, 2003 WEDNESDAY, 5 MARCH 2003 FORTIETH PARLIAMENT FIRST SESSION—FOURTH PERIOD BY AUTHORITY OF THE SENATE INTERNET The Journals for the Senate are available at: http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/work/journals/index.htm Proof and Official Hansards for the House of Representatives, the Senate and committee hearings are available at: http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard SITTING DAYS—2003 Month Date February 4, 5, 6 March 3, 4, 5, 6, 18, 19, 20, 24, 25, 26, 27 May 13, 14, 15 June 16, 17, 18, 19, 23, 24, 25, 26 August 11, 12, 13, 14, 18, 19, 20, 21 September 8, 9, 10, 11, 15, 16, 17, 18 October 7, 8, 9, 13, 14, 15, 16, 27, 28, 29, 30 November 3, 4, 24, 25, 26, 27 December 1, 2, 3, 4 RADIO BROADCASTS Broadcasts of proceedings of the Parliament can be heard on the following Parliamentary and News Network radio stations, in the areas identified. CANBERRA 1440 AM SYDNEY 630 AM NEWCASTLE 1458 AM BRISBANE 936 AM MELBOURNE 1026 AM ADELAIDE 972 AM PERTH 585 AM HOBART 729 AM DARWIN 102.5 FM SENATE CONTENTS WEDNESDAY, 5 MARCH Business— Rearrangement............................................................................................... 9199 Migration Legislation Amendment (Contributory Parents Migration Scheme) Bill 2002 and Migration (Visa Application) Charge Amendment Bill 2002— Second Reading............................................................................................. 9199 In Committee................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Gundjehmi Aboriginal Corporation Speech
    Medical Association for Prevention of War www.mapw.org.au Archived Resource: Paper from IPPNW XIIIth World Congress 1998 Gundjehmi Aboriginal Corporation Speech Author: Jacqui Katona Date: 1998 I speak here today on behalf of the Mirrar people, my family and my countryman who oppose the development of Jabiluka. I'd like to acknowledge the Wurundjeri people, traditional owners of this area, for their liberation is linked to our own and although is takes place in other forums we know their experienced is intimately linked with Aboriginal people across Australia. My people come from Kakadu. One of the best known destinations for many international visitors because of the important and visible connection between my people and the land, Kakadu is our home. It is the place which nurtures our families, and provides us with obligations to protect and maintain our heritage, our future, and our past. For us the threat of Jabiluka is an issue of human rights. Kakadu's unique cultural and natural properties are not only recognised by our people but also by the rest of the world in its inscription on the world heritage list. Even the World Heritage committee recognises that human rights are connected with it's own Convention. It has said: that human rights of indigenous peoples must be taken into account in the protection of world heritage properties; that conservation of country must take place with direction from indigenous people, and; that the continuing violation of human rights places properties in danger because of our integral relationship with the land. The continuing dominance of government and industry organisation over the authority of our people erodes our rights on a daily basis.
    [Show full text]
  • Chain-Reaction-#114-April-2012.Pdf
    Issue #114 | April 2012 RRP $5.50 The National Magazine of Friends of the Earth Australia www.foe.org.au ukushima fone year on • Occupy Texas Can we save the • Fighting Ferguson’s nuclear dump Murray-Darling? • A smart grid and seven energy sources • How low can uranium export policy go? 1 Chain Reaction #114 April 2012 Contents Edition #114 − April 2012 Regular items Publisher FoE Australia News 4 FoE Australia Contacts Friends of the Earth, Australia Chain Reaction ABN 81600610421 FoE Australia ABN 18110769501 FoE International News 8 inside back cover www.foe.org.au youtube.com/user/FriendsOfTheEarthAUS Features twitter.com/FoEAustralia facebook.com/pages/Friends-of-the-Earth- MURRAY-DARLING NUCLEAR POWER & FUKUSHIMA Australia/16744315982 AND RIVER RED GUMS Fighting Ferguson’s Dump 20 flickr.com/photos/foeaustralia Can we save the Natalie Wasley Chain Reaction website Murray-Darling Basin? 10 Global Conference for a www.foe.org.au/chain-reaction Jonathan La Nauze Nuclear Power Free World 22 Climate change and the Cat Beaton and Peter Watts Chain Reaction contact details Murray-Darling Plan 13 Fukushima − one year on: PO Box 222,Fitzroy, Victoria, 3065. Jamie Pittock photographs 24 email: [email protected] phone: (03) 9419 8700 River Red Gum vegetation Australia’s role in the survey project 14 Fukushima disaster 26 Chain Reaction team Aaron Eulenstein Jim Green Jim Green, Kim Stewart, Georgia Miller, Rebecca Pearse, Who is to blame for the Richard Smith, Elena McMaster, Tessa Sellar MIC CHECK: Fukushima nuclear disaster? 28 Layout
    [Show full text]
  • The Mirarr: Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow
    The Mirarr: yesterday, today and tomorrow. A socioeconomic update. Prepared by the GUNDJEIHMI ABORIGINAL CORPORATION August, 2010 Published in Australia in 2010 by the Gundjeihmi Aboriginal Corporation, 5 Gregory Place, Jabiru, Northern Territory. Text: Andrew Masterson Additional contributions: Justin O’Brien, Geoffrey Kyle Editing: Andrew Masterson Design and layout: Tristan Varga-Miller/The Mojo Box Photography: Dominic O’Brien Additional photography: Craig Golding, Graphics: Sahm Keily Printed by Sovereign Press, Ballarat, Victoria All rights reserved. Copyright 2010, Gundjeihmi Aboriginal Corporation. Apart from fully credited brief excerpts used in the process of review or fair dealing, no part of this document may be reproduced in any form without the express written consent of the copyright holder. ISBN 978-0-9808312-0-7 Cover photo: Djabalukga Wetlands, Kakadu National Park 2 The Mirarr: yesterday, today and tomorrow Contents Executive Officer’s Report 8 Board of Directors 11 Acronyms 12 Closing the Gap 13 Our Past, Our Future 15 The Gudjeihmi Aboriginal Corporation, Past and Present 19 Staff Profiles 25 Cultural Development 29 Community Development 41 Healthy Lives 47 Economic Development 51 Land, Water, People 59 Looking to the Future 67 Financial statements 73 The Mirarr: yesterday, today and tomorrow 3 About this report The Mirarr: yesterday, today and tomorrow: a socioeconomic update sets out to summarise the activities of the Gundjeihmi Aboriginal Corporation in its mission to meet the needs and aspirations of its owners and constituents, the Mirarr people. The report traces the history of the Corporation. It describes its current holdings and business model, and outlines the exciting opportunities present in the next period of its operations.
    [Show full text]
  • Margarula V Rose [1999] NTSC 22 PARTIES
    Margarula v Rose [1999] NTSC 22 PARTIES: YVONNE MARGARULA v SCOTT ROSE TITLE OF COURT: SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY JURISDICTION: SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY EXERCISING TERRITORY JURISDICTION FILE NO: JA79 of 1998 (9810168) DELIVERED: 12 March 1999 HEARING DATES: 15, 22 and 23 February 1999 JUDGMENT OF: RILEY J REPRESENTATION: Counsel: Appellant: D. Dalrymple Respondent: R. Webb; J. Whitbread Solicitors: Appellant: Dalrymple & Associates Respondent: Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions Judgment category classification: B Judgment ID Number: ril99005 Number of pages: 36 ril99005 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY OF AUSTRALIA AT DARWIN Margarula v Rose [1999] NTSC 22 No. JA79 of 1998 IN THE MATTER OF the Justices Act AND IN THE MATTER OF an appeal against conviction and sentence handed down in the Court of Summary Jurisdiction at Darwin BETWEEN: YVONNE MARGARULA Appellant AND: SCOTT ROSE Respondent CORAM: RILEY J REASONS FOR JUDGMENT (Delivered 12 March 1999) [1] On 1 September 1998 the appellant was found guilty of having trespassed unlawfully on enclosed premises, namely a large storage container owned by Energy Resources of Australia (herein ‘ERA’), contrary to s5 of the Trespass Act. She was convicted and ordered to pay a $500 fine and $20 victim levy. She appeals against both conviction and sentence. The grounds of appeal, which were amended at the beginning of the hearing, appear in the document filed on 16 February 1999. 1 [2] At the hearing before the learned Magistrate many facts were agreed and the only witnesses called were Mr Holger Topp, an employee of ERA, and the appellant.
    [Show full text]
  • Collection Name
    PEOPLE FOR NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT (PND) WA PND (WA) was formed in 1982 emanating from a meeting held 22 December 1981 at 306 Murray Street, Perth by representatives from a number of groups, including Campaign Against Nuclear Disarmament (CANE), United Nations Association, WA Peace Committee, Women Against Uranium Mining, Community Aid Abroad, Uniting Church Social Justice Division, Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom and the Medical Society for the Prevention of War. PND’s original goal was to organise a rally on Palm Sunday, April 4. PND regularly protested against the visit to Fremantle by nuclear powered warships and conducted a campaign to have the US military base at Exmouth closed down. They also assisted in the successful election to the Senate of Nuclear Disarmament Party candidate, Jo Vallentine. PND ceased to exist within a formal membership and committee structure in 2004 but several key organizers and members still get together to respond to nuclear issues on an “as needed” basis. MN ACC meterage / boxes Date donated CIU file Notes 2867 8121A 2.38m 17 April 1991 BA/PA/01/0166 8451A 1m 1996 BA/PA/01/0166 8534A 85cm 16 April 2009 BA/PA/01/0166 9725A 61cm 28 December 2011 BA/PA/01/0166 10202A 1.36m 14 January 2016 BA/PA/01/0166 SUMMARY OF CLASSES BOX LISTING (ACC 8121A) FOLDER LISTING (ACC 9725A) FOLDER LISTING (ACC 8451A) FOLDER LISTING (ACC 10202A) FOLDER LISTING (ACC 8534A) REQUEST USING DATE RANGE DESCRIPTION THIS NUMBER ACC 8121A/Box 1 1982-1985 Correspondence – File; “The Eastern Front” re Eastern European nuclear
    [Show full text]
  • Australian Conservation Foundation
    SUBMISSION NO. 8 TT on 12 March 2013 Australian Conservation Foundation submission to the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties on the Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the United Arab Emirates on Co- operation in the Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy May 2013 Introduction: The Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) is committed to inspiring people to achieve a healthy environment for all Australians. For nearly fifty years, we have worked with the community, business and government to protect, restore and sustain our environment. ACF welcomes this opportunity to comment on the Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the United Arab Emirates for Co-operation in the Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy. ACF has a long and continuing interest and active engagement with the Australian uranium sector and contests the assumptions under-lying the proposed treaty. ACF would welcome the opportunity to address this submission before the Committee. Nuclear safeguards Uranium is the principal material required for nuclear weapons. Successive Australian governments have attempted to maintain a distinction between civil and military end uses of Australian uranium exports, however this distinction is more psychological than real. No amount of safeguards can absolutely guarantee Australian uranium is used solely for peaceful purposes. According the former US Vice-President Al Gore, “in the eight years I served in the White House, every weapons proliferation issue we faced was linked with a civilian reactor program.”1 Energy Agency, 1993 Despite successive federal government assurances that bilateral safeguard agreements ensure peaceful uses of Australian uranium in nuclear power reactors, the fact remains that by exporting uranium for use in nuclear power programs to nuclear weapons states, other uranium supplies are free to be used for nuclear weapons programs.
    [Show full text]
  • No-Uranium Sales from Olympic Dam
    THE NEED TO ASSESS A FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVE: NO-URANIUM SALES FROM OLYMPIC DAM Briefing written by David Noonan for the Australian Conservation Foundation, Friends of the Earth and Conservation SA For more information on BHP's proposed expansion of the Olympic Dam mine visit nuclear.foe.org.au/olympic-dam June 2019 Mining giant BHP has made a formal application to expand the Olympic Dam mine in northern South Australia. In 1982 the Roxby Downs (Indenture Ratification) Act created a legal framework for the development and the copper-uranium – silver-gold mine was opened in 1988. BHP’s current expansion plan follows an earlier decision to defer the transition to a massive open cut operation and is focussed on expanding the current underground operations. The planned mine expansion has significant environmental and public health implications, particularly in relation to water consumption and radioactive risk. This briefing explores the need for federal and state assessment of BHP’s expansion plans to actively consider a project configuration that would see no uranium included in the mine’s future mineral sales or exports. Both state and federal laws recognise the need to properly assess feasible alternatives to a proponent’s preferred project configuration. This is a required part of due process in the public interest to facilitate informed public participation and decision making in any Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process. The Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) and other ENGO’s have long maintained there is no net benefit to our environment or community from the nuclear power industry and recommended that existing Olympic Dam operations and any proposed mine expansion should not sell uranium.
    [Show full text]
  • Memories of Japan in Australian Anti-Nuclear Activism
    PORTAL Journal of GENERAL ARTICLE (PEER REVIEWED) Multidisciplinary Transnational Memory and the Fukushima International Studies Disaster: Memories of Japan in Australian Vol. 17, No. 1/2 Jan 2021 Anti-nuclear Activism Alexander Brown Corresponding author: Dr Alexander Brown, JSPS International Research Fellow, Department of Studies on Contemporary Society, Faculty of Integrated Arts and Social Sciences, Japan Women’s University, Kawasaki, Japan; Honorary Associate, School of International Studies and Education, Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, © 2021 by the author(s). This Australia. [email protected] is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5130/pjmis.v17i1-2.7094 Attribution 4.0 International Article History: Received 13/03/2020; Revised 02/06/2020; Accepted 08/06/2020; (CC BY 4.0) License (https:// Published 28/01/2021 creativecommons.org/ licenses/by/4.0/), allowing third parties to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format and to Abstract remix, transform, and build upon the material for any This paper argues for the importance of transnational memories in framing Australian purpose, even commercially, anti-nuclear activism after the Fukushima disaster. Japan looms large in the transnational provided the original work is nuclear imaginary. Commemorating Hiroshima as the site of the first wartime use properly cited and states its of nuclear weapons has been a long-standing practice in the Australian anti-nuclear license. movement and the day has been linked to a variety of issues including weapons and Citation: Brown, A. 2021.
    [Show full text]
  • 2011-2012 Annual Report from the Bush to the Boardroom
    ANFA Australia Nuclear Free Alliance 2011-2012 Annual Report from the bush to the boardroom Contents pg 1 Foreword pg 2 ANFA Committee 2011-2012 pg 3 Activities & projects pg 3 Dirt Cheap – film remake pg 3 BHP Billiton Annual General Meeting pg 4 ASEN Training camp pg 4 Manuwangku, Under the Nuclear Cloud exhibition pg 4 Japan solidarity activities pg 5 ANFA presence at John Butler concert pg 5 Students of Sustainability conference pg 5 Lizards Revenge protest festival pg 5 Walkatjurra Walkabout pg 6 National Congress of Australia’s First Peoples – Roundtable pg 6 Uranium Education pack pg 6 Sovereignty pg 6 YouTube Channel launched pg 7 Campaign Updates & News pg 7 Election outcomes Income May 11 Jun 11 Jul 11 Aug 11 Sep 11 Oct 11 Nov 11 Dec 11 Jan 12 Feb 12 Mar 12 Apr 12 TOTAL pg 7 Olympic Dam - Deferral and court challenge pg 9 Muckaty proposed waste dump Donations 0.00 41,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 41,000.00 pg 10 Ranger uranium mine Internal Income transf er 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 19,357.10 0.00 0.00 19,357.00 pg 10 Ranger 3 Deeps expansion pg 11 West Australia Nuclear Free Alliance Reimbursed Expenses 0.00 0.00 0.00 351.55 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 351.55 pg 11 Wiluna proposed uranium mine Expense pg 12 Death notices pg 13 ANFA 2011 National Meeting Statement Administration Expense 0.00 0.00 4,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4,000.00 pg 15 2012 - 2013 Calendar Campaign Costs 0.00 0.00 0.00 842.63 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 842.63
    [Show full text]