aboriginal issues « Antinuclear

Friends of the Earth condemns shameful Radioactive Waste Management Bill, offers positive alternatives

Friends of the Earth,. to Senate Committee on National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment (Site Specification, Community Fund and Other Measures) Bill 2020 [Provisions] Submission 54

The National Radioactive Waste Management (NRWM) Amendment Bill is deeply flawed and should be rejected. Further, the existing Act is deeply flawed and should be repealed.

The proposal to proceed with the nuclear waste facility despite the unanimous opposition of the Barngarla Traditional Owners is unconscionable and must not be allowed to stand. Shamefully, the federal government excluded Barngarla Traditional Owners from a ‘community ballot’ held in 2019. Therefore the Barngarla Determination Aboriginal Corporation initiated a separate, confidential postal survey of Traditional Owners, conducted by Australian Election Company. This resulted in 100% of respondents voting ‘no’ to the proposed nuclear facility. If the results of the two ballots are combined, the overall level of support falls to just 43.8% of eligible voters (452/824 for the government-initiated
ballot, and 0/209 for the Barngarla ballot) ‒ well short of the government’s benchmark of 65% for ‘broad community support’.

There is no consent from Barngarla Traditional Owners let alone free, prior and informed consent. The National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment Act systematically disempowers and dispossesses Traditional Owners, and the Amendment Bill worsens the situation and strips Traditional Owners of their legal review rights. Legal advice in a Feb. 2020 report by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights notes that the Bill “would enable native title to be extinguished, without the consent of the traditional owners”, and it raises further concerns about the Bill’s intention to permit the acquisition of land for an access route without any Parliamentary oversight or right of appeal.

The Act, the Bill, and the proposed nuclear waste facility are all inconsistent with the United Nations’ Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD Committee) has said that Australia’s historically “racially discriminatory land practices have endured as an acute impairment of the rights of Australia’s indigenous communities”. Imposing a nuclear waste facility on Barngarla Country will clearly exacerbate the problems identified by the CERD Committee

In 2017, the CERD Committee expressed concern “about information that extractive and development projects are carried out on lands owned or traditionally owned by Indigenous Peoples without seeking their prior, free and informed consent” and recommended that Australia “ensure that the principle of free, prior and informed consent is incorporated into the Native Title Act 1993 and in other legislation as appropriate, and fully implemented in practice”.

The Senate Committee should recommend rejection of the NRWM Amendment Bill, and rejection of the proposed nuclear waste facility, in light of the clear opposition of the Barngarla Traditional Owners. The Senate Committee should also recommend that the government follow the advice of the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination to “ensure that the principle of free, prior and informed consent is incorporated into the Native Title Act 1993 and in other legislation as appropriate, and fully implemented in practice”.

It should be noted that the willingness to override the rights and interests of the Barngarla Traditional Owners is opposed by the SA Labor Party. The SA Labor Party argues that Traditional Owners ought to have a right of veto over nuclear projects given the sad and sorry history of the nuclear industry in SA, stretching back to the British atomic bomb tests. That position dates from 2017, if not earlier. In 2017, then Premier Jay Weatherill wrote to then Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull recommending that the federal government adopt the policy of allowing a right of veto by affected Traditional Owners in relation to the planned national nuclear waste facility.

Deputy Leader of the Opposition Susan Close says that SA Labor is “utterly opposed” to the “appalling” process which led to the announcement regarding the Kimba site.1 The SA ALP State Conference on 13 October 2018 endorsed a resolution which pledged to support Traditional Owners in the Kimba region in their struggle to prevent a national nuclear waste facility being constructed on their country. The 2018 State Conference resolution further
committed the SA Labor Party to “support communities opposing the nomination of their lands or region for a dump site, and any workers who refuse to facilitate the construction and operation or transport and handling of radioactive waste material destined for any contested facility or sites including South Australian Port communities.”

The federal government’s willingness to override the rights and interests of Traditional Owners, and to strip them of further rights (including legal appeal rights) through the NRWM Amendment Bill, makes for a sad contrast with the situation in Canada. Earlier this year, the Saugeen Ojibway Nation voted against plans for a nuclear waste repository near Lake Huron after a lengthy consultation period. The Canadian government then announced that it will respect the decision and will no longer target the site.2

Illegal under SA law: The proposed nuclear waste facility is illegal under South Australia’s
Nuclear Waste Facility (Prohibition) Act, introduced by the SA Liberal Government in the
year 2000 and strengthened by the SA Labor Government in 2002. The federal government is expected to take the draconian and unacceptable step of using regulations to specifically override the SA Nuclear Waste Facility (Prohibition) Act. South Australians are opposed to the proposed nuclear waste facility: a 2015 survey found just 15.7% support for a nuclear waste dump, and a 2018 survey found that those who strongly agreed with stopping the dump outnumbered those who strongly disagreed by a factor of three (41:14).

1 https://www.transcontinental.com.au/story/6454080/state-labor-party-weighs-in-on-nucleardebate/?
cs=1538
2 https://phys.org/news/2020-02-tribal-vote-nixes-radioactive-storage.html

Breaching NH and MRC siting guidelines: Only 4.5% of South Australia is arable land. It is of deep concern that a radioactive waste could be allowed to jeopardise the Eyre Peninsula’s agricultural industries. Indeed the government’s proposal is a clear breach of the National Health and Medical Research Council’s ‘Code of Practice for Near-Surface Disposal of Radioactive Waste in Australia’ which states that “the site for the facility should be located
in a region which has no known significant natural resources, including potentially valuable mineral deposits, and which has little or no potential for agriculture or outdoor recreational use”.

1 https://www.transcontinental.com.au/story/6454080/state-labor-party-weighs-in-on-nucleardebate/?

cs=1538
2 https://phys.org/news/2020-02-tribal-vote-nixes-radioactive-storage.html

Long-lived intermediate-level waste: Measured by radioactivity, long-lived intermediate level
waste currently stored at ANSTO’s Lucas Heights site in NSW accounts for an overwhelming majority (>90%) of the waste destined for the nuclear waste facility in SA. There is no logic behind the proposal to move intermediate-level waste from interim abovegroundstorage at Lucas Heights to interim above-ground storage at the Kimba site. The proposed double-handling is illogical, it exposes communities to unnecessary risk, and ARPANSA’s Nuclear Safety Committee has indicated that it is not consistent with international best practice.

It beggars belief that double-handling ‒ and the movement of long-lived intermediate-level waste from a site with greater safety and security provisions to a site with lesser provisions ‒ is even being contemplated. This absurd situation demonstrates the incompetent handling of this matter by successive ministers and departmental officials over many years. The Senate Committee should recommend that portfolio responsibility for this matter is shifted
from Industry, Innovation and Science to another minister and department (e.g. health) who might do a better job.

The existing 2012 Act is flawed
Friends of the Earth Australia wishes to emphasise that not only is the NRWM Amendment Bill deploy flawed, the existing National Radioactive Waste Management Act 2012 (NRWMA) is undemocratic in many respects. The Act should either be repealed or radically amended to remove clauses which disempower Australians and in particular First Nations.The current Bill does the exact opposite..

A 2017 report released by Friends of the Earth Australia points to serious problems with the NRWMA.

Monash University fifth-year law student Amanda Ngo ‒ is posted at www.nuclear.foe.org.au/nrwma

The NRWMA gives the federal government the power to extinguish rights and interests in land targeted for a radioactive waste facility. In so doing the relevant Minister must “take into account any relevant comments by persons with a right or interest in the land” but there is no requirement to secure consent from Traditional Owners.

Aboriginal Traditional Owners, local communities, pastoralists, business owners, local councils and State/Territory Governments are all disadvantaged and disempowered by the NRWMA.

The NRWMA goes to particular lengths to disempower Traditional Owners. The nomination of a site for a radioactive waste facility is valid even if Aboriginal owners were not consulted and did not give consent. More precisely, the NRWMA states that consultation should be conducted with Traditional Owners and consent should be secured ‒ but that the nomination of a site for a radioactive waste facility is valid even in the absence of consultation or consent.

The NRWMA has sections which nullify State or Territory laws that protect the archaeological or heritage values of land or objects, including those which relate to Indigenous traditions. The Act curtails the application of Commonwealth laws including the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984 and the Native Title Act 1993 in the important site-selection stage. The Native Title Act 1993 is expressly overridden in relation to land acquisition for a radioactive waste facility. The NRWMA has been criticised in both Senate Inquiries and a Federal Court challenge to an earlier federal government attempt to impose a national radioactive waste facility at
Muckaty in the Northern Territory.

The NRWMA also puts the federal government’s radioactive waste agenda above environmental protection as it seeks to curtail the application of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. A senior government official told a public meeting in Hawker in 2016 that the NRWMA is based on ‘world’s best practice’. In fact, the legislation systematically disempowers local communities and Traditional Owners and weakens environmental protections. It needs to be radically amended or replaced with legislation that protects the environment and gives local communities and Traditional Owners the right to say ‘no’ to radioactive waste facilities.

Some positive proposals
Previous, failed attempts to establish a Commonwealth radioactive waste facility (repository and store) assumed the need for off-site, centralised facilities. This assumption continues with the current project configuration. However, a closer examination indicates both that this assumption may not be warranted and that there are major information gaps that need to be addressed before informed decisions can be made.

An important, preliminary task is to establish an accurate and up-to-date inventory of Australia’s radioactive waste stockpiles. That must include consideration of the nature and adequacy/inadequacy of current storage conditions, and the nature and adequacy/inadequacy of institutional control. Serious consideration of those issues is necessary if informed decisions about future waste management options are to be made, yet successive Governments have largely ignored these issues and information on waste inventories is superficial and unhelpful. The government should adopt a more nuanced approach which may allow it to make progress in a contested public policy area where previous governments have failed. This approach would involve:

(i) Differentiating waste that needs to be moved vs. waste that does not need to be moved, consistent with the net-benefit clause in the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Act – the ARPANS Act. This in turn would require a more detailed inventory than has been compiled to date and consideration of issues (detailed in a 2014 briefing paper3 co-authored by Friends of the Earth) such as the number of legacy waste sites and
the adequacy/inadequacy of existing storage sites. The failure to actively address these basic issues has worked against progression to the resolution of this contentious public issue in recent decades.

(ii) Differentiating waste arising from the operations of the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) from non-ANSTO waste. ANSTO is quite capable of managing its own waste, at least in the medium term. Permanent disposal of ANSTO waste should be explored and addressed in subsequent decades, keeping in mind
that ANSTO is likely to be operating at its current site for many decades to come.

Importantly, the current national facility proposal at Kimba explicitly does not seek to dispose of ANSTO’s most problematic radioactive wastes.

(iii) Differentiating low level radioactive wastes from long-lived intermediate-level waste. Plans to move intermediate-level waste from Lucas Heights (and elsewhere) to an above-ground store co-located with the low-level waste repository, and then to an unspecified site at an unspecified later date, make no sense from a policy perspective and
they significantly raise public-acceptance obstacles. The current co-location proposal would mean double handling i.e. transport to the interim national store then future transport to a currently non-determined disposal site. Such an approach would be likely fail the net benefit test that ARPANSA would need to apply in response to any license application

With a detailed inventory completed, thorough consideration of all waste management options is required. That work should be carried out by a dedicated National Commission or comparable public inquiry mechanism. A detailed discussion on how that Commission might be constituted and the issues it might address is contained in the 2014 briefing paper.4 For ANSTO waste, ongoing storage at Lucas Heights needs consideration. Relevant government agencies (and others) have acknowledged that ongoing radioactive waste storage at Lucas Heights is a viable option:

• Andrew Humpherson, ANSTO: “Lucas Heights is a 70-hectare campus with something like 80 buildings. It’s a large area. We’ve got quite a number of buildings there which house radioactive materials. They’re all stored safely and securely and all surrounded by a high-security perimeter fence with Federal Police guarding. It is the most secure facility we have got in Australia.”6
• Dr Clarence Hardy, Australian Nuclear Association: “It would be entirely feasible to keep storing it [radioactive waste] at Lucas Heights …”7
• Then ARPANSA CEO John Loy: “Should it come about that the national approach to a waste repository not proceed, it will be necessary for the Commonwealth to devise an approach to final disposal of LLW from Lucas Heights, including LLW generated by operation of the RRR [Replacement Research Reactor]. In the meantime, this waste will
have to be continued to be handled properly on the Lucas Heights site. I am satisfied, on the basis of my assessment of the present waste management plan, including the license and conditions applying to the waste operations on site, that it can be.”8
• Department of Education, Science and Tourism: “A significant factor is that ANSTO has the capacity to safety store considerable volumes of waste at Lucas Heights and is unlikely to seek the holding of frequent campaigns to disposal of waste holdings generated after the initial campaign.”9

• Dr Ron Cameron, ANSTO, when asked if ANSTO could continue to manage its own waste:
“ANSTO is capable of handling and storing wastes for long periods of time. There is no difficulty with that. I think we’ve been doing it for many years. We have the capability and technology to do so.”5
3 Friends of the Earth, Beyond Nuclear Initiative, Australian Conservation Foundation, November

2014, ‘Responsible Radioactive Waste Management in Australia: The Case For An Independent
Commission Of Inquiry’, https://nuclear.foe.org.au/wp-content/uploads/Responsible-Radioactive-

4 Ibid. proposing double handling. With a detailed inventory completed,

5 ARPANSA forum, Adelaide, 26 February 2004,
http://web.archive.org/web/20040610143043/http://www.arpansa.gov.au/reposit/nrwr.htm#for
um
6 September 2008, www.abc.net.au/news/2008-09-22/new-nuclear-waste-site-for-sydney/517372
7 ARPANSA forum, Adelaide, 26 February 2004,
http://web.archive.org/web/20040610143043/http://www.arpansa.gov.au/reposit/nrwr.htm#for

6 September 2008,
7 ARPANSA forum, Adelaide, 26 February 2004,

8 April 2002, Decision by the CEO of ARPANSA on Application to construct the Replacement Research
Reactor at Lucas Heights. Reasons for Decision”, p.30.
9 Application to ARPANSA, 2003, Vol.iii Ch.9 Waste – Transfer and Documentation p.5.

May 29, 2020 Posted by Christina Macpherson | aboriginal issues, AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump, politics | Leave a comment

A WASTE OF TIME – submissions re radioactive waste dump Inquiry- ONLY TECHNICAL MATTERS will be considered

Noel Wauchope 27 May 20 It looks like the Senate Committee inquiring into the Bill to amend the National Radioactive Waste Management Act 2012 will limit the scope of their inquiries to mainly technical and scientific information. This will be done for two reasons.

The first reason is to bolster ANSTO’s position for getting all the licences for the facility at Napandee as described in ARPANSA’s submission since there are strong and real doubts that ANSTO will not succeed in getting them.

This would make the whole selection process a futile and unnecessary exercise without a result. We all know that this cost millions of dollars.

The second reason is that by concentrating on the technical factors the Committee will be able to avoid dealing with the more emotive questions based on the differences within the community, the outcome of the Parliament’s Joint Committee on Human Rights and the destroying of Native Title and other matters. The result is that many of fine submissions to the Committee will now be simply ignored as they do not include technical data.

What hope does the general community have?

May 27, 2020 Posted by Christina Macpherson | aboriginal issues, AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump | Leave a comment

A tribute to the Maralinga traditional owners

This is a critical and never-ending land management responsibility which the Maralinga people, who suffered the environmental and health effects of the nuclear tests, have shouldered on behalf of the Australian community.

He was able to relate to Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people, cabinet ministers and homeless people alike. He treated everyone with candour and respect.

By word and deed he refused to accept that Aboriginal people were inferior

Why Archie Barton and the Maralinga traditional owners are the unsung heroes of the British nuclear test program in Australia https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-05-25/andrew-collett-on-archie-barton-unsung-heroes-of-maralinga-tests/12272284 By Andrew Collett

Politicians, bureaucrats, scientists and advisers come and go. The traditional owners must plug on with the management and rehabilitation of their land — on behalf of us all.

Andrew Collett is an Adelaide barrister and one of the lawyers who has represented the Maralinga traditional owners since 1984. Find out more about the story of the people of Oak Valley and Yalata in a new ABC TV documentary, Maralinga Tjarutja, available to stream now on iview.

The traditional owners of the 100,000 square kilometre Maralinga Lands didn’t only shoulder the harsh legacy of the British nuclear testing while it was happening in the 1950s and 60s.

To this day, they are managing the still contaminated test sites in far-west South Australia on behalf of Australia and Britain.

For this they receive little recognition and inadequate financial assistance — despite having established extremely constructive and enduring relationships with Australian scientists and government representatives.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander readers are advised that the following article contains names and images of people who have died.

The Maralinga people were kept away from their lands and from any knowledge about what happened in the nuclear tests from 1955 until they obtained land rights and finally returned to their lands in 1985 — an isolation of 30 years, or well over a generation in Aboriginal terms.

For that 30 years the Maralinga people were kept at the Lutheran Mission at Yalata, away from their traditional lands, isolated from their Pitjantjatjara and Yankunytjatjara communities over 400 kilometres to the north and from much of their vibrant Western Desert tradition and ceremony.

They fell prey to social and cultural isolation and deteriorating health outcomes.

When they returned to their traditional lands in 1985, having been granted land rights to all their lands apart from the test sites, a royal commission was sitting in London examining what had happened during the Maralinga nuclear tests and why.

A constructive partnership with governmen Continue reading →

May 26, 2020 Posted by Christina Macpherson | aboriginal issues, AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, reference, wastes, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Regina McKenzie comments on Felicity Wright’s submission about the National Radioactive WAste Dump

Regina McKenzie It not only aged me, but I have a horrible sickness due to the horrible stress and the personal attacks , this will stay with me, might even be the cause to blow my candle out, I watch Kimba with a sad heart, knowing all the heartache and the tremendous weight on the people’s back , Felicity Flowerdew that’s a strong letter from a strong woman, who I am proud to say is my friend https://www.facebook.com/groups/1314655315214929/4288145791199185/?comment_id=4290354100978354&notif_id=1589981324123690&notif_t=group_comment

May 21, 2020 Posted by Christina Macpherson | aboriginal issues, AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, personal stories | Leave a comment

Felicity Wright: appalled at effect on Aboriginal communities of decision on National Radioactive Waste Dump Site

Felicity Wright – Submision to Senate Committee on National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment (Site Specification, Community Fund and Other Measures) Bill 2020 [Provisions] Submission 98

I am a resident of the Eyre Peninsula. Whilst the bulk of this email has been taken from the ACF template I
confirm that I endorse the contents fully. As an ally and advocate for Indigenous peoples for more than 30 years
I was appalled at the terrible toll fighting the nuclear waste facility in the Flinders Ranges took upon my friends.
I watched one of my closest friends visibly age as she surrendered her art practice and her enjoyment of life to
dedicate herself to challenging it.

It does not escape my attention that the Eyre Peninsula is a significant distance from the east coast and few
politicians would be familiar with the area. Neither would their electorates, therefore it looks like a convenient
location to store something highly problematic.

I have deep concerns about the federal governments proposed changes to the National Radioactive Waste
Management Act. The government has not made a clear case about the need for the planned national facility at Kimba and the process has been restricted and inadequate.

In particular, I am concerned that the planned changes:
• restrict or remove options for judicial review of the government’s site selection under current laws
• unreasonably reduce the rights and options of the Barngarla Traditional Owners and other directly
impacted parties and have not been made with proper consultation
• exempt key environmental and cultural heritage protection laws from being used.
• fail to make any clear or compelling radiological or public health case for doubling handling the long-lived
intermediate level waste (ILW) at significant public expense
• do not provide any certainty about the long-term management of Australia’s radioactive waste
• are not consistent with international best practice in relation to siting, community consultation or
procedural fairness around radioactive waste
• do not recognise or respect long standing South Australian legislation prohibiting any federal radioactive
waste facility

Against the current context of uncertainty and disruption due to the impact of Covid 19 the further uncertainty
and contest generated by the federal government’s approach to radioactive waste is not helpful or justified.
I urge the Committee not to support the proposed changes to the current legislation and instead call for a
dedicated comprehensive review of management options in order to best realise responsible radioactive waste
management in Australia.

May 19, 2020 Posted by Christina Macpherson | aboriginal issues, AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump | Leave a comment

Katrina Lester: major South Australian Aboriginal groups not consulted in Kimba nuclear waste dump decision.

Katrina Lester, Submission No 49 to Senate Committee Inquiry on National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment (Site Specification, Community Fund and Other Measures) Bill 2020 I, Karina Lester make this submission on behalf of concerned members of the the
Yankunytjatjara Native Title Aboriginal Corporation RNTBC (YNTAC) (SCD2006/001), the
De Rose Hill – Ilpalka Aboriginal Corporation RNTBC (DRHIAC) (SCD2005/001), the
Tjayiwara Unmuru Aboriginal Corporation RNTBC (TUAC) (SCD2013/001), and the First
Nations of South Australia Aboriginal Corporation (FNSAAC).

At this stage, the aforesaid concerned members are opposed to the National Radioactive Waste Management National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment (Site Specification, Community Fund and Other Measures) Bill 2020. This is on the basis that there has been no engagement or consultation with the aforementioned concerned members, or the organisations of which they are a part.

While we acknowledge that the specified site for the radioactive waste management facility lies in the Barngarla Native Title Determination Area, this land has significance for a wider group of Aboriginal people, including members of YNTAC, DRHIAC, TUAC and FNSAAC.

The Bill overrides the proposed use of the specified site is thus a matter of significance for Aboriginal people
from across South Australia, whose non-native title rights and interests would be affected by
the construction and operation of a radioactive waste management facility at this site.

We particularly wish to raise concern about the way section 34GB overrides the application of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984 (ATSIHPA) and the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBCA), in relation to the activities authorised under section 34G of the Bill.

Many of the activities contemplated by section 34G have the potential to be highly destructive to Aboriginal sites and objects which would otherwise be protected by ATSIHPA. These activities also have the potential to cause serious environmental damage of the kind that would otherwise be prevented by the EPBCA. Parliament should not allow the introduction into legislation of provisions that undermine the fundamental objects and functionality of essential legislation like the ATSIHPA and the EPBCA.to be negotiated for damage to the heritage and environment of our ancestors. Should our ancient rights and interests be overridden, we will take appropriate action in in court to ensure
justice for our people and their environment.

We would welcome the opportunity to discuss further this submission if requested. Please feel
free to contact me by email at: in this regard.

Yours sincerely,
Karina Lester
Director: Yankunytjatjara Native Title Aboriginal Corporation
Tjayiwara Unmuru Aboriginal Corporation
Member: De Rose Hill – Ilpalka Aboriginal Corporation
First Nations of South Australia Aboriginal Corporation
Lodged on behalf of Karina Lester by:
Osker Linde
Deputy Principal Legal Officer
South Australian Native Title Services

April 27, 2020 Posted by Christina Macpherson | aboriginal issues, AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump | Leave a comment

Australian govt’s devious ploy to further dispossess the Bangarla Aboriginal people

First Nations communities continue to be left behind, Eureka Street, Michele Madigan -22 Apr 20 “………..As well as their own real fears for their health in the COVID-19 pandemic as documented in their recent submission (number 25) to the Senate Standing Economics Legislation Committee of Inquiry the Barngarla peoples of South Australia’s Eyre Peninisula are being forced to counter attempts to further their dispossession in new schemes by federal government. The Barngarla Determination Aboriginal Committee (BDAC) plead with the federal government to delay the current procedures so that the public hearings regarding the site of the federal nuclear waste facility in the Kimba region may take place ‘on Country’ rather than by teleconference, which would greatly disadvantage their cause.

Even more seriously, the BDAC submission (among others) denounces the purposeful strategy by the Resources Minister in refusing to make a formal declaration. Instead, the Minister made ‘a policy decision’ in naming the chosen site of Napandee, having ‘presented it as a declaration’.

BDAC points out, ‘The Government is now seeking to legislate directly, as an indirect but very effective means to prevent judicial oversight.’ That is, the Minister is seeking to change the current legislation of the National Radioactive Waste Management Act so that Parliament itself will ‘select’ Napandee as the site and thereby stopping any judicial oversight of anything untoward in the long administrative process to date.

As the BDAC submission summarises, ‘This is highly concerning to the Barngarla people as it should be to all Australians.’

In the last few days, the federal Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights has written a report critical of the treatment of Barngarla Traditional Owners. It is a unanimous report, endorsed by Coalition members of the Committee.

And there we have it. As Aboriginal communities still await the needed funding to ensure their survival during this pandemic, the wheels of another government ministry are confidently seeking to further dispossess and disempower by such proposed legislation. Shameful indeed.

Michele Madigan is a Sister of St Joseph who has spent the past 38 years working with Aboriginal people in remote areas of SA, in Adelaide and in country SA. Her work has included advocacy and support for senior Aboriginal women of Coober Pedy in their campaign against the proposed national radioactive dump. https://www.eurekastreet.com.au/article/first-nations-communities-continue-to-be-left-behind?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Eureka%20Street%20Daily%20-%20Wednesday%2022%20April%202020&utm_content=Eureka%20Street%20Daily%20-%20Wednesda

April 23, 2020 Posted by Christina Macpherson | aboriginal issues, AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump, politics, secrets and lies, spinbuster | Leave a comment

During the pandemic, health and wellbeing of the First Nations people is disregarded, as usual.

First Nations communities continue to be left behind, Eureka Street, Michele Madigan, 22 April 2020

During the crisis that sweeps over us all, there has been a strong implicit admission by government that the health and wellbeing of the First Nations people in Australia has been long disregarded; Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are the only group listed as vulnerable over the age of just 50 — a full two decades below that of the general population so listed.

On the other hand, while there have been literally billions of dollars allocated to the crisis in general and to very many organisations, it is astounding that the most vulnerable group of all remains at the bottom of the pile. First Nations people themselves and their allies remain nonplussed at the clear lack of resources allocated to First Nations people. No one left behind? The facts suggest otherwise.

Who else in our nation is living in housing with another 26 or so people?

This huge, rarely mentioned and ongoing deeply shameful situation regarding the health and housing of First Nations people comes into sharp relief by the present crisis…….

https://www.eurekastreet.com.au/article/first-nations-communities-continue-to-be-left-behind?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Eureka%20Street%20Daily%20-%20Wednesday%2022%20April%202020&utm_content=Eureka%20Street%20Daily%20-%20Wednesda

April 23, 2020 Posted by Christina Macpherson | aboriginal issues, AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL | Leave a comment

Parliamentary committee finds that Kimba nuclear waste dump law may breach Indigenous human rights

Kimba nuclear waste dump law risks breaching Indigenous human rights, committee finds https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-04-16/risk-kimba-nuclear-dump-may-breach-human-rights-committee-says/12154474

ABC North and West SA By Gabriella Marchant 17 Apr 20, A cross-party parliamentary committee has found “significant risk” that local Indigenous groups were not consulted about a proposed nuclear waste facility to a standard required under international law.

Key points:

The committee says the rights of Indigenous peoples to influence the site may not be sufficiently protected
The Federal Government has a bill before parliament to legislate the facility at Kimba on SA’s Eyre Peninsula
Resources Minister Keith Pitt says he wants to work with the local people at all stages of the project to protect cultural heritage

A report by the Joint Committee on Human Rights found that given Barngarla traditional owners unanimously vetoed the proposed facility, the Federal Government’s decision to press ahead with a bill to build it risked breaching Barngarla rights to culture and self-determination.

The proposed site outside Kimba on South Australia’s Eyre Peninsula is on land traditionally associated with the Barngarla people and would store Australia’s low to medium-level radioactive waste, most of which is created by nuclear medicine.

Two non-binding independent ballots were conducted to gauge community support for the proposal; one for residents in the local government area surrounding the site, the other among Barngarla Determination Aboriginal Corporation members, who largely did not qualify for the first ballot.

While more than 60 per cent of voters in the Kimba local government ballot supported the facility, 100 per cent of Barngarla voters rejected the proposal.

Rights ‘may not be sufficiently protected’

The committee found the site’s nomination seemed to “rest heavily on the local council ballot from which native title holders were excluded, which the Minister uses as evidence of local community support”.

“Given the nature and extent of the consultation … it appears the right of Indigenous peoples to influence the outcome of decision-making processes affecting them may not be sufficiently protected by this bill,” it said.

Barngarla traditional owner Jason Bilney said he felt betrayed by then-resources minister Matt Canavan.

“He assured us that you put the votes together, and he did not put the votes together,” Mr Bilney said.

Senator Canavan said he never made that assurance, rather that “both ballots would be considered, which they have been”.

Native title does not currently exist

Keith Pitt, who has since replaced Senator Canavan as Resources Minister, said the Government “wants to work with the Barngarla people at all stages of the project to protect cultural heritage and make sure traditional owners can access skills training and employment opportunities”.

He also said Barngarla native title did not currently exist at the facility’s proposed site despite the “potential for unregistered cultural heritage to exist in the area”.

Mr Pitt said the Government had not ruled out amendments to the bill, which allows for future expansions of the site after seeking comment from traditional owners.

Labor member of the committee Steve Georganas said amendments were necessary, given obligations to “consult much more broadly than mere comment prior to any government acquisition” under international human rights law.

The bill remains before parliament and will likely not be voted on for some time amid disruptions from the coronavirus pandemic.

April 18, 2020 Posted by Christina Macpherson | aboriginal issues, AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump | Leave a comment

Uniting Church, South Australia, rejects National Radioactive Waste Bill as discriminatory against Aboriginal people

Uniting Church of Australia

Synod of South Australia Submission No.11

Submission to the Senate Economics Legislation Committee – RE: Inquiry into National Radioactive

Waste Management Amendment (Site Specification, Community Fund and Other Measures) Bill
2020

On behalf of the Uniting Church in South Australia, we make this submission to express our views
regarding the National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment Bill. The Uniting Church in South
Australia stands proudly in covenantal relationship with the Uniting Aboriginal Islander Christian
Congress (UAICC). The UAICC have expressed distress for the National Radioactive Waste
Management Act to specify a site near Kimba for a nuclear waste facility. Our paramount concern is
the lack of consultation by the federal government with the Barngarla people, the Traditional Owners
of the site.

***

The explanatory memorandum of the Bill states, “The Commonwealth engaged extensively with
communities and undertook an evidence-based approach to gathering and analysing the available
information about each of the shortlisted sites to consider various aspects of site suitability and
identify key risks.” The notion that the Commonwealth engaged extensively with the community
regarding the facility in Kimba is not adequate truth telling. The federal government excluded
Barngarla Traditional Owners from a ‘community ballot’ in 2019. The Barngarla Determination
Aboriginal Corporation initiated a separate, confidential postal survey of Traditional Owners,
conducted by Australian Election Company. This resulted in 100% of respondents voting ‘no’ to the
proposed nuclear facility. The Uniting Church in South Australia stands against the oppression of First
People. We urge the Commonwealth to truly engage with the Barngarla people and hear their voices.

***

The longstanding relationship between the Uniting Church in South Australia and the UAICC has been
life giving. Uniting Church personnel have learnt to see beyond earthly possessions. Likewise, to truly
respect the relationship between First People and their Country. We lament the historical wrongs
done to First People such as the dispossession of land. We stand in solidarity with First People against
stopping such inequalities. We urge the Commonwealth to empower First People by listening to their
voices.

***

We recommend that:

1. The Senate Economics Legislation Committee should recommend the withdrawal or rejection of the
National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment Bill 2020 (in which case a number of following
recommendations are redundant) and repeal of the National Radioactive Waste Management
Amendment Act.

***
2. The Committee should recommend repeal of the NRWM Act 2012 Section 12(1)(c) & 13(1), and of
the Bill’s sections 34GA(1)(c) and 34GB(1), as unacceptable draconian overrides of existing State and
Commonwealth legal protections for Indigenous people’s heritage and traditions.

***

3. The Committee should undertake a review of the potential impact of the existing Act, the proposed

amendments and the proposed nuclear waste facility on Aboriginal rights, interests and traditions …..

***

4. The Committee should assess the compatibility of the Act, the Bill with the UN Declaration on the Rights

of Indigenous People, in particular the right of free, prior and informed consent..

***

5 The Committee should recommend that the federal government adopt the proposal from the then

South Australian Premier Jay Weatherell, in 2017, that traditional owners should have a right of veto

over any proposed nuclear waste facility on their lands…….

***

6. The Committee should recommend withdrawal or rejection of the Bill on the grounds that the

government’s own benchmark for broad community support has not been met (43.8% support

among eligible voters in the combined ballots)

***

7. The Committee should recommend that the Bill is withdrawn, and the federal government’s nuclear

waste agenda put on hold, until such time as public opinion among other relevant stakeholders is

determined (including state-wide opinion in South Australia, and opinion along potential transport

corridors

https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Economics/RadioactiveWaste/Submissions?fbclid=IwAR0v5FeP2_iTZbTmkrFA3HNLS29dko4g2NgxUR7UaiuSUyVDh62bDFOLxwA

April 14, 2020 Posted by Christina Macpherson | aboriginal issues, AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump | Leave a comment

The lingering horror of the nuclear bomb tests at Maralinga

The lesser known history of the Maralinga nuclear tests — and what it’s like to stand at ground zero https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-03-24/maralinga-nuclear-tests-ground-zero-lesser-known-history/11882608, ABC Radio National By Mike Ladd for The History Listen I thought I knew all the details about Maralinga, and the nuclear bomb tests that took place there six decades ago.But when I set out to visit ground zero, I realised there were parts of this Cold War history I didn’t know — like Project Sunshine, which involved exhuming the bodies of babies.

Maralinga is 54 kilometres north-west of Ooldea, in South Australia’s remote Great Victoria Desert.

Between 1956 and 1963 the British detonated seven atomic bombs at the site; one was twice the size of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima.

There were also the so-called “minor trials” where officials deliberately set fire to or blew up plutonium with TNT — just to see what would happen.

One location called “Kuli” is still off-limits today, because it’s been impossible to clean up.

I went out to the old bomb sites with a group of Maralinga Tjarutja people, who refer to the land around ground zero as “Mamu Pulka”, Pitjantjatjara for “Big Evil”.

“My dad passed away with leukaemia. We don’t know if it was from here, but a lot of the time he worked around here,” says Jeremy Lebois, chairperson of the Maralinga Tjarutja council.

Thirty per cent of the British and Australian servicemen exposed to the blasts also died of cancer — though the McClelland royal commission of 1984 was unable to conclude that each case was specifically caused by the tests.

It’s not until you stand at ground zero that you fully realise the hideous power of these bombs.

Even after more than 60 years, the vegetation is cleared in a perfect circle with a one kilometre radius.

“The ground underneath is still sterile, so when the plants get down a certain distance, they die,” explains Robin Matthews, who guided me around the site.

The steel and concrete towers used to explode the bombs were instantly vaporised.

The red desert sand was melted into green glass that still litters the site.

Years ago it would have been dangerous to visit the area, but now the radiation is only three times normal — no more than what you get flying in a plane.

The Line of Fire

Australia was not the first choice for the British, but they were knocked back by both the US and Canada.

Robert Menzies, Australia’s prime minister at the time, said yes to the tests without even taking the decision to cabinet first.

David Lowe, chair of contemporary history at Deakin University, thinks Australia was hoping to become a nuclear power itself by sharing British technology, or at least to station British nuclear weapons on Australian soil.

“In that period many leaders in the Western world genuinely thought there was a real risk of a third world war, which would be nuclear,” he says.

The bombs were tested on the Montebello Islands, at Emu Field and at Maralinga.

At Woomera in the South Australian desert, they tested the missiles that could carry them.

The Blue Streak rocket was developed and test-fired right across the middle of Australia, from Woomera all the way to the Indian Ocean, just south of Broome.

This is known as “The Line of Fire”

The Line of Fire from Woomera to Broome is, funnily enough, the same distance from London to Moscow,” Mr Matthews says.

Just as the Maralinga Tjarutja people were pushed off their land for the bomb tests, the Yulparitja people were removed from their country in the landing zone south of Broome.

Not all the Blue Streak rockets reached the sea. Some crashed into the West Australian desert.

The McClelland royal commission showed that the British were cavalier about the weather conditions during the bomb tests and that fallout was carried much further than the 100-mile radius agreed to, reaching Townsville, Brisbane, Sydney and Adelaide.

“The cavalier attitude towards Australia’s Indigenous populations was appalling and you’d have to say to some extent that extended towards both British and Australian service people,” Professor Lowe says.

There are also questions over whether people at the test sites were deliberately exposed to radiation.

“You can’t help but wonder the extent to which there was a deliberate interest in the medical results of radioactive materials entering the body,” Professor Lowe says.

“Some of this stuff is still restricted; you can’t get your hands on all materials concerning the testing and it’s quite likely both [British and Australian] governments will try very hard to ensure that never happens.”

Project Sunshine

We do know that there was a concerted effort to examine the bones of deceased infants to test for levels of Strontium 90 (Sr-90), an isotope that is one of the by-products of nuclear bombs.

These tests were part of Project Sunshine, a series of studies initiated in the US in 1953 by the Atomic Energy Commission.

They sought to measure how Sr-90 had dispersed around the world by measuring its concentration in the bones of the dead. Young bones were chosen because they were particularly susceptible to accumulating the Sr-90 isotope.

Around 1,500 exhumations took place, in both Britain and Australia — often without the knowledge or permission of the parents of the dead. Again, it was hard to prove conclusively that spikes in the levels of Strontium 90 during the test period caused bone cancers around the world.

The Maralinga tests occurred during a period that Professor Lowe describes as “atomic utopian thinking”.

“Remember at that time Australians were uncovering pretty significant discoveries of uranium and they hoped that this would unleash a vast new capacity for development through the power of the atom,” he says.

Some of the schemes were absurdly optimistic.

Project Ploughshare grew out of a US program which proposed using atomic explosions for industrial purposes such as canal-building.

In 1969 Australia and the US signed a joint feasibility study to create an instant port at Cape Keraudren in the Kimberley using nuclear explosions.

The plan was dropped, but it was for economic not environmental or social reasons.

The dream (or was it a nightmare?) of sharing nuclear weapons technology with the British was never realised. All Australia got out of the deal was help building the Lucas Heights reactor.

The British did two ineffectual clean-ups of Maralinga in the 1960s.

The proper clean-up between 1995 and 2000 cost more than $100 million, of which Australia paid $75 million.

It has left an artificial mesa in the desert containing 400,000 cubic metres of plutonium contaminated soil.

The Maralinga Tjarutja people received only $13 million in compensation for loss of their land, which was finally returned to them in 1984. As we were leaving the radiation zone, the Maralinga Tjarutja people spotted some kangaroos in the distance.

Over the years some of the wildlife has started to return.

Mr Lebois takes it as a good sign.

“Hopefully, hopefully everything will come back,” he says.

March 24, 2020 Posted by Christina Macpherson | aboriginal issues, AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, history, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Barngarla Aboriginal people take legal action against Australian govt’s planned Kimba nuclear waste dump

Indigenous group fights on to stop SA dump https://www.9news.com.au/national/indigenous-group-fights-on-to-stop-sa-dump/d72f3453-28e8-4182-a9bb-6c9390098bf6?fbclid=IwAR3l91JVzBoJhkIhnf49 Feb 21, 2020 Native title holders on South Australia’s Eyre Peninsula are continuing their court fight to stop the federal government establishing a nuclear waste dump near Kimba.

The government recently named a site on a local station as the location for the dump which will take Australia’s low to medium level nuclear waste material.

The government’s decision was informed in part by a ballot of local residents which supported the proposal.

But it’s that ballot that the Barngarla people are fighting in new Federal Court action.

They’re appealing against a court judgment last year that the council had not acted wrongly in excluding about 200 native title holders from the vote.

Counsel for the Barngarla, Daniel O’Gorman SC, told the court on Friday that their request to take part in the ballot should have been granted.

“They, therefore, are part of the community,” he said.

“This was a ballot of the community, the Kimba community. They are the native title holders of the land surrounding the sites in question.

“Therefore, we submit, they clearly had an interest in the ballot, they clearly had an interest in the dump and whether it goes ahead or not.

“Their mere standing as native title holders, warranted them being included as part of the community.”

The ballot ultimately returned about 62 per cent support for the dump, which then Resources Minister Matt Canavan accepted as broad community backing.

Those still opposed to the dump going ahead include some locals, environmental groups as well as indigenous communities.

Earlier this month, legislation to allow construction of the waste facility was introduced to federal parliament.

The underpinning laws allow for acquisition of land for the facility as well as a $20 million payment for the community to help establish and maintain the site which is expected to operate for at least 100 years.

The Federal Court’s ruling on the Barngarla appeal is expected to be handed down on a date to be fixed.

February 24, 2020 Posted by Christina Macpherson | aboriginal issues, AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump, legal, politics | Leave a comment

Australian government pushes on with nuclear dump, tramples on indigenous rights

Kimba nuke decision dumps on Indigenous rights, https://indaily.com.au/opinion/2020/02/13/kimba-nuke-decision-dumps-on-indigenous-rights/ The federal government’s decision to place a a nuclear waste storage site at Kimba on SA’s Eyre Peninsula turned deaf ears to the opposition of the area’s native title holders, argue Jim Green and Michele Madigan.

The federal government recently announced that it plans to establish a national nuclear waste ‘facility’ near Kimba on South Australia’s Eyre Peninsula.

It will comprise a permanent dump for low-level nuclear waste, and an ‘interim’ store for long-lived intermediate-level waste.

Shamefully, the federal government has decided to move ahead despite the unanimous opposition of the Barngarla Traditional Owners, native title holders over the area.

The federal government refused a request from the Barngarla Determination Aboriginal Corporation (BDAC) to include traditional owners in a community ballot held last year.

So BDAC initiated a legal action protesting their exclusion. The court case is ongoing and an outcome is expected soon.

BDAC also engaged the Australian Election Company to conduct a confidential postal ballot. Not a single Barngarla Traditional Owner voted in favour of the dump.

BDAC wrote to the government calling for the dump proposal to be abandoned in light of their unanimous opposition, and stating that BDAC will take whatever steps are necessary to stop it being imposed on Barngarla Country against their will.

The National Radioactive Waste Management Act systematically discriminates against Australia’s First Nations.

For example, the nomination of a site for a nuclear dump is valid even if Aboriginal traditional owners were not consulted and did not give consent.

And the Act has sections which nullify or curtail the application of laws such as the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984, and the Native Title Act 1993.

The federal government recently announced that it plans to amend the Waste Management Act. While the Act is sorely in need of an overhaul, the planned amendments aren’t those that are needed. Clauses in the Act that dispossess and disempower traditional owners will remain untouched.

The SA Labor Party argues that traditional owners ought to have a right of veto over nuclear projects given the sad and sorry history of the nuclear industry in SA, stretching back to the British atomic bomb tests.

Deputy Leader of the Opposition Susan Close says that SA Labor is “utterly opposed” to the “appalling” process which led to the recent announcement regarding the Kimba site.

Compare that to the federal government, whose mind-set seems not to have advanced from the ‘Aboriginal natives shall not be counted’ clause in the Constitution Act 1900.

As Barngarla Traditional Owner Jeanne Miller says, Aboriginal people with no voting power are put back 50 years, “again classed as flora and fauna.”

The current debate follows a history of similar proposals ‒ all of them defeated, with traditional owners repeatedly leading successful campaigns.

In 2004, after a six-year battle, the Howard government abandoned plans for a national nuclear waste dump in SA. The Kupa Piti Kungka Tjuta ‒ a senior Aboriginal women’s council ‒ congratulated the government for belatedly getting their ‘ears out of their pockets’.

In 2016, the plan to import high-level nuclear waste from around the world was abandoned after a Citizens’ Jury noted the lack of Aboriginal consent and concluded that “the government should accept that the Elders have said NO and stop ignoring their opinions.”

And last year, the federal government abandoned plans for a national nuclear dump in the Flinders Ranges, a plan that was fiercely contested by Adnyamathanha Traditional Owners.

SA Premier Steven Marshall is rightly proud of his record promoting the growth of renewable energy in SA.

And he’s proud of his significant role in putting an end to the plan to import high-level nuclear waste from around the world.

So where will the Premier ‒ whose portfolio includes Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation ‒ stand on this latest nuclear controversy?

He needs, as the Kungkas put it, to get his ears out of his pockets and to respect the unanimous opposition of the Barngarla First Nation.

Dr. Jim Green is the national nuclear campaigner with Friends of the Earth Australia. Michele Madigan is a Sister of St Joseph who has spent the past 40 years working with Aboriginal people across SA.

February 15, 2020 Posted by Christina Macpherson | aboriginal issues, AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump, politics | Leave a comment

Barngarla Native Title Holders excluded from vote on Kimba nuclear waste dump

Kim Mavromatis shared a link.Fight To Stop Nuclear Waste In The Flinders Ranges

BARNGARLA EXCLUDED AND THEIR VOTE NOT ACKNOWLEDGED BY CANAVAN TO MANIPULATE THE VOTE IN DODGY SCOMO GOVT PROCESS

Combined Kimba Community and Barngarla independent vote : 452 Yes, for the nuclear waste dumps, from 1,033 eligible voters, equates to 43.75% in favour, which does not constitute broad community support. It is obvious why Canavan and the Scomo Fed Govt EXCLUDED the Barngarla Native Title Holders from the community vote and ignored the Barngarla Independent vote (not one Barngarla traditional owner voted yes) to get the radioactive nuclear waste dumps over the line. And the other percentages Canavan quotes in his media release need to be scrutinised. If your property is across the road, apparently you are not a neighbour???????

Watch the film and please share – The BARNGARLA SAY NO to Radioactive Nuclear Waste Dumps on their Traditional Lands, near Kimba on Eyre Peninsula in South Australia.

https://vimeo.com/382855709

February 10, 2020 Posted by Christina Macpherson | aboriginal issues, AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump | Leave a comment

Bangarla legal case: voting manipulation brought about “Yes” vote for Kimba nuclear waste dump ballot

Kimba radioactive waste debate hits court as Barngarla community says its concerns have been ‘ignored’

An Aboriginal corporation will launch a fresh legal battle over the Federal Government’s decision to store radioactive waste near Kimba, saying traditional owners’ views were “ignored”. Michelle Etheridge, Regional Reporter, The Advertiser, 4 Feb 2020,

An Aboriginal corporation says it is likely to launch a new legal challenge over the Federal Government’s decision to use farming property Napandee, near Kimba, to store radioactive waste.

It comes as the Barngarla Determination Aboriginal Corporation is already set to return to the Federal Court on February 21.

The organisation, which represents native title holders, is appealing Justice Richard White’s decision in July to dismiss its claim against Kimba Council.

It had argued the council discriminated against native title holders when it decided to exclude those who did not live in the area from a community ballot to gauge support for the radioactive waste storage site.

The Barngarla community conducted its own postal ballot, with all of the 83 traditional landowners who responded rejecting the proposal. It followed the Kimba vote – conducted on the Government’s behalf – finding 62 per cent of respondents were in favour of the facility, which would come with a $31 million community funding package.

In a statement, the Barngarla corporation this week said it would “likely” launch new judicial review proceedings after the results of its ballot were “ignored”.

The Federal Government has maintained that a nuclear waste site must have “broad community support”.

“The only reason why there was a yes vote was because Barngarla were excluded, and this has then been used as the justification to allow the facility to be built, entirely ignoring Barngarla’s views,” the Barngarla statement said. “The Barngarla stand with most of the farming industry against this proposal. However, the more important issue now is the fact that voting manipulation has allowed for the decision to occur.”………https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/business/sa-business-journal/kimba-radioactive-waste-debate-hits-court-as-barngarla-community-says-its-concerns-have-been-ignored/news-story/255f1f0cbbc8ccc33aabae7dad03089a

February 6, 2020 Posted by Christina Macpherson | aboriginal issues, AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump | 1 Comment

« Previous Entries Next Entries »

Antinuclear

Australian news, and some related international items