Antinuclear

Australian news, and some related international items

Aboriginal Rights: Michael Anderson: No treaty or contract valid if the parties are at war

Ghillar, Michael Anderson, Convenor of Sovereign Union of First Nations and Peoples in Australia, and Head of State of the Euahlayi Peoples Republic www.sovereignunion.mobi Under international law and domestic contractual law–no treaty or contract can be classified as legal if we are under the ‘rules and disciplines of war’. If our First Nations Peoples are not fully aware of these facts, then any contract entered into, treaty or otherwise, can be argued to be invalid.

Ghillar, Michael Anderson, Convener of the Sovereign Union, last surviving member of the founding four of the Aboriginal Embassy and Leader of the Euahlayi Nation said from Goodooga today:

The upcoming Sovereign Union Gathering of Nations sponsored by the Yorta Yorta Nation will focus on key rights that we have as First Nations Peoples of this continent. These rights are now supported by international laws and developing international customary legal norms, for example, as collated inHuman Rights at Your Fingertips published by the Federal Attorney-General’s department: https://www.humanrights.gov.au/sites/default/files/hrayf_2012.pdf

One international legal norm is the progressive recognition of redress for past wrongdoings perpetrated by ambitious French, Portuguese, English, Dutch, Spanish and German colonialists.

What is interesting, however, is understanding that the Pope in Rome was instrumental in instigating invasions of other countries. In order to settle the Spanish, Portuguese, French and English wars across the English Channel/La Manche, the key warring parties had to find a third party to mediate an end to their violent clashes against each other in the 1400s and 1500s. History shows that they turned to God’s representative on earth, the Pope, seen as the ‘divine ruler’.

It should be remembered that during the internal wars over land titles in England, the key players also turned to God’s representative, the Pope (Innocent III) and his ‘disciples’, and that to break the tyranny of King John of England, it was a Catholic Archbishop of Canterbury, Stephen Langton, who drafted the Magna Carta that King John agreed to on 15 June 1215.

Having mediated European struggles over land and resources, the Pope then issued new decrees which divided the world up for the warring parties to rape, pillage and plunder in order to end the wars in Europe. Thus began the flow of Papal Bulls (seals) whereby an order of the Pope, supposedly representing the biblical Judeo-Christian God on earth, divided the world up for kingdoms such as Portugal, Spain, England and France to invade under the Doctrine of Discovery, which became deeply entrenched. This alleged Christian right to usurp the lands and the usufructuary rights of the native inhabitants, ‘pagans’ and ‘infidels’ was decreed in The Bull Romanus Pontifex (Nicholas V), January 8, 1455 and The Bull Inter Caetera (Alexander VI), May 4, 1493 which instructed the invaders to ‘overthrow’ and ‘vanquish’ ‘barbarous’ nations, ‘and all other infidels whatsoever’ and ‘enemies of Christ wheresoever placed’ and ‘subdue certain gentile or pagan peoples living between, who are entirely free from infection by the sect of the most impious Mahomet and to preach and cause to be preached to them the unknown most sacred name of Christ’. In order ‘more zealously to pursue … this most pious and noble work’ ‘to conserve their right and possession’ it is ‘supported by … the Apostolic See with favors and graces’. The ‘Christian rule’ acquired ‘by the right of conquest’ ‘from the lands of infidels or pagans’ ‘all those provinces, islands, harbours, and seas whatsoever’. First Nations Peoples were also decreed to remain unarmed by preventing trade in ‘iron instruments, wood to be used for construction, cordage, ships and any kinds of armor’.[1]

The Doctrine of Discovery had its origin in the biblical text, which was articulated by the Papacy in Rome and circulated as supreme authority by the Papal Bulls. These Judeo-Christian decrees were the basis for the right of ‘First Discoverers’ to plunder and enslave, and in so doing asserted that the word of God had superior force over pre-existing claims and right of occupation.

Therefore, the zealous taking of lands during the imperial colonial expansion was promoted as a God-given right. The justification was that lands would be classified as terra nullius (nobody’s land)and uncivilised, if populated by those who did not believe in Jesus Christ or an equivalent.

Then comes the Mabo High Court case in 1992Limited though the questions were, the High Court took a giant step to firstly overturn existing legal precedents and to recognise the continuing proprietary interests and usufruct rights of the First Nations Peoples in Australia. But the conviction of those who made the decision was counteracted by their cowardice in refusing to recognise the decision of Chief Justice Willis in the NSW Supreme Court caseR v Bonjon 1841, in which Willis held that the colonists are the intruders and Aboriginal Peoples are the ‘sovereigns of the soil’. Willis CJ is also reported as ruling:

But the frequent conflicts that have occurred between the colonists and the Aborigines within the limits of the colony of New South Wales make it, I think, sufficiently manifest that the Aboriginal tribes are neither a conquered people, nor have tacitly acquiesced in the supremacy of the settlers. …

I repeat that I am not aware of any express enactment or treaty subjecting the Aborigines of this colony to the English colonial law, and I have shown that the Aborigines cannot be considered as Foreigners in a Kingdom which is their own.

This cowardice of the High Court judges that I speak of, is where the High Court realised that they were between a rock and a hard place with the Mabo case. At paragraph 29 they lamented:

… It is not possible, a priori, to distinguish between cases that express a skeletal principle and those which do not …

In other words, had the High Court known where this case would lead, they may not have agreed to hear the case in the first place.

So the judges in Mabo had to stretch a very long bow when they ruled that Australia was ‘settled’ on an ancient English legal foundation, which was the feudal land system. The irony of this decision falls into two categories:

·      the concept of terra nullius (or land belonging to no-one)

·      the law of feudalism and its legal impacts which are null and void, because feudalism disappeared from the English legal system in 1660.

In order to justify the alleged Crown Land ownership in Australia, the High Court resurrected a non-existent ancient land law system belonging to Britain, while feudalism has no legal authority in common law anywhere in the world, except in Australia.

The end of feudalism in England, permitted private ownership of land throughout the United Kingdom and destroyed the King’s or Queen’s right to own all the land. But by the High Court ruling that land tenure in Australia is based on feudalism, the judges could find that the king came and claimed all the land as his. This ties in with Governor Darling denouncing the Batman Treaty in Victoria, because no other person but the king could sign away land.

The related legal question is: Does ‘feudalism’ have any legal validity today?

Like the justices of the High Court, lawyers who are committed to the Bar and the Bar Association of Australia, are just big cowards and fear challenging what needs to be challenged and what is justly correct. This cowardice is represented by the lawyers following black letter law, e.g. in the Native Title Act. Don’t rock the boat!

The question that we, as First Nations People, must ask next is: Are we happy with the current situation and, if not, what is our next move?

Having asked this question, I put it to all our First Nations Peoples, who are proposing to come to our Gathering of Nations to give thought to the following:

In Native Title applications, the question that the lawyers ask the applicant group is: ‘Do you have the ability to prove your connection to Country under your Law and customs at the time of ‘British Sovereignty’. (N.B. should state alleged British Sovereignty). If we are to prove our connection to Country at the time of alleged ‘British Sovereignty’, we need to go back to Justice Willis’s New South Wales Supreme Court decision in R v Bonjon 1841, which has never been overturned. The High Court in Mabo indirectly observed R v Bonjon 1841 (without it being mentioned) by ruling that our proprietary law rights have their authoritative origins in our own pre-existing and continuing Law and customs. As the Mabo decision ruled at paragraph 65, these rights under our Law and custom are inalienable and no foreign parliament, such as Australia and its federated States and its two mainland Territories, have the legal capacity to take them from us:

65. … Native title, though recognized by the common law, is not an institution of the common law and is not alienable by the common law..

In other words, the High Court in Mabo ruled that they are inalienable rights and that the Commonwealth Parliament and its State and Territory counterparts cannot legislate to take them away, because they are inherent sovereign rights that belong to another authoritative jurisdiction, independent of the colonial occupying power. This is why the expert on the Australian Constitution, Professor George Williams, says Aboriginal people need not ask for sovereignty, they should simply assert it under their Law and customs.

So, the next question is: How does the Australian authority maintain its power over us? The answer is very simple. What gives this answer its fluency and authority comes from the Orders issued to Governor Phillip, in which the Colonial Secretary’s Office and the British Admiralty, now known as the War Office, instructed him on 12 August 1786 to apply the ‘rules and disciplines of war’ when establishing the colony of New South Wales:

… you are to observe and follow such orders and directions from time to time as you shall receive from us, or any other of your superior officers according to the Rules and Disciplines of War … [2]

There is no evidence that this lawful instruction from England was ever repealed and the history of Australia thereafter clearly demonstrates that the State police are used as their military wing to crush Aboriginal resistance, which is made to look like acts of civil disobedience that is dealt with under the criminal law. Conversely, the Howard government did use the military to enforce the Northern Territory Intervention.

Politicians, through their propaganda and electioneering, argue for and on behalf of the public that ‘law and order’ is a key policy objective, but the electorate does not realise that the act of war is being perpetrated against our First Nations Peoples and is written into these pretended ‘law and order’ control mechanisms. This is evidenced by the fact that First Nations people sit in jails around this country in large numbers, including our youth and children, for alleged offences that non-First Nations People would never go to jail for. The colonial administrators argue this when they use the term ‘recidivism’ (the tendency of a convicted person to reoffend) and they catch our people in these nets of incarceration with the three-strike rule principle and ‘paperless arrests’, but these only apply to First Nations people, because this is who they are targeting.

The Native Title Act is in itself a law that attacks our inherent rights and, in fact, diminishes these rights to a point where they no longer exist. In short, this is yet again another act of war against First Nations Peoples.

It therefore follows under international law and domestic contractual law–no treaty or contract can be classified as legal if we are under the ‘rules and disciplines of war’.

It further follows that, if our First Nations Peoples are not fully aware of these facts, then any contract entered into, treaty or otherwise, can be argued to be invalid.

These and other issues must be addressed if we are to get the justice due to us.

It is imperative that we as First Nations People know all the wrongdoings, so as to ensure that we have a clear understanding of our legal rights now and going forward. To act in a knee-jerk reaction will cause us all to be in the same boat as the Noongar people in south-west Western Australia now find themselves.

We will be making the call, not the colonists.

Our rights, our future–never forget it.

SovereignUnionSourcewww.nationalunitygovernment.org/content/no-treaty-or-contract-valid-if-parties-are-war

Advertisements

November 15, 2018 Posted by | aboriginal issues, AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, history, legal, reference | Leave a comment

Legal action in Western Australia means delay, uncertainty, for Cameco’s Yeelirrie uranium mine

October 29, 2018 Posted by | legal, uranium, Western Australia | Leave a comment

Injunction to halt Kimba nuclear waste ballot remains, Wallerberdina needs similar injunction

Jim Green shared a link. Fight To Stop Nuclear Waste Dump In Flinders Ranges South Australia, Sept 7 18 – The District Council of Kimba today attended conciliation in the Australian Human Rights Commission with representatives of Barngarla Determination Aboriginal Corporation and the Department of Innovation, Industry and Science, with parties agreeing to continue ongoing discussions in the hope a resolution satisfactory to all can be reached.

The interlocutory injunction restricting Council from conducting the National Radioactive Waste Management Facility site selection ballot remains in place.

As conciliation is a confidential process, Council will be making no further comment, but remains committed to keeping members of the Kimba community informed as new information becomes available. https://www.facebook.com/groups/344452605899556/?multi_permalinks=822945051383640%2C822909001387245%2C822613141416831%2C822573228087489&notif_id=1536234627130021&notif_t=group_activity

The Federal Government no longer pushing exclusively for a vote to determine support for a nuclear waste facility at Kimba and opal licence fees set to increase – News for the 7th of September 2018, read by Tom Rohde.

September 7, 2018 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump, legal | Leave a comment

Aboriginal group’s call for inclusion in nuclear waste vote now goes to the Human Rights Commission

Aboriginal group ‘just want to be included’ in vote on proposed nuclear waste dump in SA http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-08-23/sa-nuclear-waste-dump-vote-in-discrimination-claim/10157678, By court reporter Rebecca Opie, The Human Rights Commission has been asked to decide whether an Aboriginal group should have a say on the location of a proposed nuclear waste dump in regional South Australia.

A community vote on the proposed dump on the Eyre Peninsula was referred to the commission following accusations it discriminated against Aboriginal native title holders.

The Barngarla Determination Aboriginal Corporation last week won a Supreme Court injunction against the District Council of Kimba, postponing the postal vote which was scheduled to be sent out last Monday.

The group argued the vote of about 800 Kimba residents contravened the Racial Discrimination Act by not including native title holders. On Thursday, the group’s lawyer Daniel O’Gorman SC said the matter had been referred to the Human Rights Commission which could be a “shorter route to the finish line” than proceeding through the court.

He said he would urge the commission to give the matter urgent consideration, but he was still waiting to hear back regarding the timeline.

Outside court, Linda Dare from the Barngarla Determination Aboriginal Corporation said it was not fair her family could not have their say.

“It’s depressing that we don’t get to have a say over our country,” she said.

“Everybody else gets to have a say — the Government and everybody else, the Kimba residents — but it’s my family that’s missing out. “We don’t want it. It is on our country — they can’t give it to us then take it away just like that. It’s not right.”

Native title holders ‘just want to to be included’

During last week’s hearing, the court heard the majority of the 211 native title holders lived outside the council’s boundaries, and that excluding them from the vote had the effect of “nullifying or impairing their rights”.

The group’s lawyer Mr O’Gorman said his clients had no issue with the vote going ahead, they just wanted to be included in it.

“That’s all they want, they just want to be included, they don’t want to be treated any differently because their rights are Aboriginal rights,” he said.

“There is no justification for excluding people on the basis of native title rights.”

Michael Burnett, representing the District Council of Kimba, told the court the fairest manner for the council to conduct the vote was to comply with “the statutory procedure that applies in the case of elections”.

“It’s not a vote that has direct consequences … it’s part of a range of consultations that will be taken into account,” he said.

Mr Burnett said there were direct consultations taking place with native title holders about the proposed sites, a claim which Mr O’Gorman rejected.

August 24, 2018 Posted by | aboriginal issues, AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump, legal | Leave a comment

Supreme Court keeps the halt on Kimba nuclear waste dump vote

23 August 18

At the supreme court today supporting the Barngarla people.

The case has been sent to the Human Rights Commission, which is great to see they recognise this as a human rights issue.

The injunction remains in place

This has been a good day in court

August 23, 2018 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, legal | Leave a comment

Legal challenge against nuclear waste community vote for Hawker?

Injunction stalls one nuclear waste dump community vote‘The Barngarla people have won a Supreme Court injunction 
against the vote in Kimba, with the Hawker ballot 
still scheduled to open Monday.’ By Brooke Fryer

‘A community vote on whether a nuclear waste facility should be built on
South Australia’s Eyre Peninsula near Kimba has been stalled,
after a group argued the poll was discriminatory. …

‘NITV News understands a similar legal challenge for Hawker is being considered. … 

‘The court heard an example is that a person who owns a property at Kimba
but lives away from the district would be entitled to vote,
but a person who holds native title rights and lives away would not. … ‘

‘Mr Dare says the Barngarla people opposed to a nuclear waste dump
stand alongside the Adnyamathanha people who are also
facing the prospect of a waste dump on their land.

‘”Of course we stand behind them in their pursuit
to not let this waste dump go on their country also.” … ‘
www.sbs.com.au/nitv/article/2018/08/17/injunction-stalls-one-nuclear-waste-dump-community-vote

August 20, 2018 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, legal | Leave a comment

Barngarla Aboriginal people win injunction to halt nuclear waste dump vote

South Australian Aboriginal group wins injunction to halt nuclear ballot http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-08-16/aboriginal-group-wins-injunction-to-halt-nuclear-ballot/10129292, By Claire Campbell  

August 17, 2018 Posted by | aboriginal issues, AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump, legal | Leave a comment

Journalists’ rights in danger, if Julian Assange is prosecuted for Wikileaks

Judges Hear Warning on Prosecution of WikiLeaks https://www.courthousenews.com/judges-hear-warning-on-prosecution-of-wikileaks/  July 24, 2018MARIA DINZEO   NAHEIM, Calif. (CN) – Prosecuting WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange for publishing leaked documents related to the 2016 presidential election would set a terrible precedent for journalists, the top lawyer for The New York Times said Tuesday.

Addressing a room full of federal and circuit judges at the Ninth Circuit’s annual judicial conference, David McCraw, the deputy general counsel for The New York Times, explained that regardless of how one feels about Assange and traditional news outlets receiving the same kind of deference over publishing leaked materials, his prosecution would be a gut punch to free speech.

“I think the prosecution of him would be a very, very bad precedent for publishers,” McCraw said. “From that incident, from everything I know, he’s sort of in a classic publisher’s position and I think the law would have a very hard time drawing a distinction between The New York Times and WikiLeaks.”

McCraw went on to clarify that while Assange employs certain methods that he finds discomfiting and irresponsible, such as dumping unredacted documents revealing the personal information of ordinary people, Assange should be afforded the same protections as a traditional journalist.

“Do I wish journalism was practiced in a certain way, like it is with The New York Times, The Washington Post, or The Wall Street Journal? Of course. But I also think new ways of publishing have their value. Our colleagues who are not only challenging us financially but journalistically have raised an awareness that there are different ways to report,” McCraw said.

“But if someone is in the business of publishing information, I think that whatever privilege happens to apply – whatever extension of the law that would apply – should be there. Because the question isn’t whether he’s a journalist. It’s in that instance was he committing an act of journalism.”

Assange has long considered himself a journalist operating no differently than other news outlets. This has complicated matters, because if Assange can be prosecuted for publishing leaked information, why not prosecute news organizations like The New York Times?

Earlier this month, a grand jury returned an indictment against twelve Russian military spies for hacking into the servers and emails of the Democratic National Committee and state election officials, stealing documents and staging the release of those documents to interfere with the 2016 presidential election. While the indictment did not name Assange and WikiLeaks specifically, it has been widely suggested that WikiLeaks received the materials and could very well be the group referred to in the indictment as “Organization Number 1.”

Barry Pollack, who represents Assange in an ongoing criminal investigation in the Eastern District of Virginia, weighed in on the indictment Tuesday.

“If you read the indictment that just came out on Russians and you look at what Organization Number 1, which is clearly WikiLeaks, is alleged to have done in that indictment, it is doing exactly what The New York Times and The Washington Post do every day of the week,” Pollack said. “He [Assange] is communicating with a source, the source provides him with information, he publishes that information.

“There are no questions about the truthfulness or accuracy or authenticity of that information. And then he encourages the source to give him more information. He says ‘don’t give it to my competitors, give it to me. This story will have more impact if I publish it.’”

Pollack and McCraw spoke as part of a panel titled “The Law of Leaks,” a session on how the United States has ramped up efforts to prosecute people who have leaked state secrets. Thirteen people have been prosecuted under the first law against leaking state secrets, the Espionage Act of 1917, most under the Obama administration.

President Donald Trump has waged an unprecedented war against the media, taking to Twitter last year to call the media “the enemy of the American people.”  Yet no publisher has ever been indicted over leaks, and both McCraw and Pollack expressed doubts about whether it will happen any time soon.

“Unlike firing off a tweet, bringing a prosecution requires a career professional prosecutor to sign off on the prosecution, so there also is a tremendous check there that doesn’t exist in some of the rhetoric we hear,” Pollack said.

“Prosecutions of journalists would be difficult,” McCraw said. “I think they’d be unpopular, I think they’d be wrong, and I think they’d be unsuccessful. I see this PR campaign against the press as almost an alternative to legal measures.”

 

July 28, 2018 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, legal, media | Leave a comment

New Laws Will Allow the Use of Military to Break Protests

 Sydney Criminal lawyers, By Paul Gregoire | 


The Turnbull government recently introduced legislation into parliament designed to lower the threshold for calling out the Australian Defence Force (ADF) to assist state police forceswith public incidents.

The Defence Amendment (Call Out of the Australian Defence Force) Bill 2018 revises Part IIIAAA of the Defence Act 1903, which was inserted into the Act in the lead up to the 2000 Sydney Olympics.

Currently, the military can only be called upon by state and territory authorities when they’ve exhausted all other options. The new bill would allow for a call out request to be actioned, when it’s decided that ADF personnel can “enhance” the ability of state police in dealing with an incident.

The new legislation also allows the PM and other authorised ministers to send in the troops when state authorities haven’t requested assistance, but Commonwealth interests are at stake. And it provides ADF members with enhanced search capabilities and limited shoot-to-kill powers.

A much broader scope

Australian attorney general Christian Porter told journalists that the Lindt Café siege, along with the potential for a Paris terrorist attack-style incident being carried out in Australia, make streamlining the process of calling out “SAS or commando regiments” necessary.

However, the call out powers don’t just apply to terrorism. They target “domestic violence.” This is a broad term set out under section 119 of the Australian Constitution, which provides that the federal government should protect states and territories against invasion and rebellion.

Indeed, Mr Porter has stated that the ADF could be sent in to quell widespread rioting. While civil liberties advocates stress that these new powers have the potential to be used upon peaceful protests and industrial actions.

Against strikes and demonstrations

Civil Liberties Australia CEO Bill Rowlings points out that the bill allows the government to call out the ADF to protect declared infrastructure. “Given the current government’s policies, troops are likely to be called out around coal-fired power stations and ports that export coal,” he explained.

“The federal government can use the army to break environmental protests just like the government did in the late 1940s to break coal strikes,” Mr Rowlings told Sydney Criminal Lawyers. “And this new law makes it clear troops can again be used to break strikes.”

The legislation also provides that military personnel can use lethal force during certain civilian incidents. Proposed section 51N(3) outlines that this can be done in the protection of an individual’s life, to take action against an aircraft or vessel, as well as in the protection of declared infrastructure.

Military police

The Defence Call Out Bill makes “it sound like the military will only be supporting local police, yet troops under this law get powers to detain, search and question Australians,” Mr Rowlings made clear. These are “powers that ought to be exercised only by police.”

……… An incremental erosion“A real danger of laws like these are how they might be used by a more extreme government in five, ten or twenty years from now.” Mr Rowlings warned. He added that current situations in Turkey and Hungary should serve as “cautionary examples.”

The Defence Call Out Bill is currently being reviewed by the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, which is accepting submissions until 31 July.

The new bill comes on the back of more than 70 pieces of legislation that have been enacted at the federal level since 9/11 in the name of national security and counterterrorism, which have consistently been whittling away at citizens’ civil rights.

“Before 9/11, Australians had very few, legally-enforceable rights,” Mr Rowlings concluded. “Today, Australians have none except those that parliament hasn’t yet turned its mind to overturning or abolishing.”https://www.sydneycriminallawyers.com.au/blog/new-laws-will-allow-the-use-of-military-to-break-protests/

July 19, 2018 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, legal | Leave a comment

Brett Stokes-Submission on “community consultation” and the illegality of the campaign for a nuclear waste dump in South Australia

 

Why has this submission not been published on Senate website?

From: Brett Stokes   Sent: Sunday, 18 February 2018  To:  Senate Standing Committees on Economics  Subject: Submission on Selection process for a national radioactive waste management facility in South Australia 

Terms of Reference addressed:

e)     whether wider (Eyre Peninsular or state-wide) community views should be taken into  consideration  and,  if  so,  how  this  is  occurring  or  should  be occurring;
======================================
Dear Committee Members

I am one of hundreds of South Australians who have signed the following Online Open Letter calling for police action against illegal threats to import nuclear waste and to establish nuclear waste dump(s).

Please take note of this community rejection of nuclear waste importation into South Australia.

Please take note of this community support for the laws which prohibit nuclear waste importation into South Australia. Please cease this process which threatens present and future South Australians and shows contempt towards South Australian law.

Best wishes
from Brett Stokes

Dear Commissioner of Police,

We are citizens of Australia who want action taken to enforce the law, including the South Australian Nuclear Waste Storage Facility (Prohibition) Act 2000 (abbreviated herein as the NWSF(P) Act 2000).

We are sick and tired of being threatened with illegal importation of nuclear waste.

We are sick and tired of public money being spent illegally to plan and promote illegal importation of nuclear waste.

We want action now to stop current threats of illegal importation of nuclear waste. We want action now to deter future threats of illegal importation of nuclear waste.

It is clear that the Nuclear Waste Storage Facility (Prohibition) Act 2000 has been breached.

During 2015 and 2016, s13 has been breached by spending of public money on many promotional and planning aspects of illegal nuclear waste importation, as briefly described in Appendix A.

Since early 2016, there has been an open conspiracy to breach s8 and s9, with planning and promotion of importation and storage of nuclear waste into South Australia, as briefly described in Appendix B.

There are ten year imprisonment penalties and multi million dollar fines for offences – these are very serious penalties, in accord with the gravity of the threat.

As well as these offences against the NWSF(P) Act 2000, there are also other offences, including fraud, which may become more apparent as your investigation proceeds.

Please act now to enforce the law.

Please act now to end this illegal threat.

Please act now to “protect the health, safety and welfare of the people of South Australia and to protect the environment in which they live”. (Quote from s3 Objects of Act of the NWSF(P) Act 2000)

Thank you for your attention to this important matter.

Signed (Name and Postcode) Continue reading

June 27, 2018 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump, legal | Leave a comment

Supreme Court appeal lodged against Yeelirrie uranium mining approval decision

9/3 /18  The Conservation Council of WA (CCWA) and members of the Tjiwarl Native Title group have announced the filing of an appeal against the Supreme Court’s recent decision which upheld the environmental approval for the Yeelirrie uranium mine proposal.

The Supreme Court challenge brought by CCWA and Native Title holders sought to overturn the environmental approval for the mine issued in the final days of the Barnett Government, against the advice of the WA Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) and the Minister’s own appeal decision. If it goes ahead, the project will cause the extinction of multiple species unique to the Yeelirrie area.

CCWA Director Piers Verstegen said allowing the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the law to go unchallenged would be bad for the environment and bad for democracy.

“The decision to appeal this judgement highlights our commitment to preventing extinction and upholding what we believe are fundamental principles of environmental law.

“If this decision is allowed to stand then the Environment Minister could sign off on the extinction of multiple species with the stroke of a pen, despite what the EPA and appeals processes say.

“According to the Supreme Court ruling, we can have a detailed, thorough, publicly funded environmental assessment process, with all the key information examined in the public domain, followed by a rigorous appeals process, and then the Minister can totally disregard that whole process and make a different decision based on different information that is not available to the public.

“This treats the EPA and its environmental assessment as something to be casually dismissed. Western Australians expect and deserve better government than that.

“CCWA and community groups fought for WA’s environmental protection laws and the EPA. Now, it is again up to community to defend the integrity of those laws and processes in the courts. This is essential to uphold due process in environmental decisions, and to restore confidence in the EPA.

“The WA Environmental Protection Act was never intended to be used to sanction the extinction of wildlife, and it is our responsibility to do everything we can to ensure that it is not used in this way.

“The Yeelirrie approval knowingly allows extinction of multiple species and this should never be contemplated. We must stand up for all creatures, great and small.

“Allowing the extinction of any creature could open the door for other species to be treated in the same way.  Numbats, cockatoos and other wildlife could be next, so we can’t allow it to start here.”

Vicky Abdullah, Tjiwarl Native Title Holder, said, “We have fought long and hard to protect Yeelirrie and to stop the uranium project, so we will not stop now.

 “This appeal shows that we will continue to fight for our country and our people, and hope that the Court of Appeal will see that the decision to approve the Yeelirrie uranium project was wrong”. 

 

March 14, 2018 Posted by | legal, Western Australia | Leave a comment

Julian Assange loses bid to have UK arrest warrant withdrawn 

 

Why is the Australian government giving no help to this Australian citizen?

 ABC News 14 Feb 18A British judge has upheld an arrest warrant for Julian Assange, saying the WikiLeaks founder should have the courage to come to court and face justice after more than five years inside Ecuador’s London embassy.

Key points:

  • Mr Assange can seek to appeal, though his lawyers did not say whether he would
  • He faces arrest if he leaves Ecuador’s London embassy
  • His attorney argues that arresting him was no longer proportionate or in the public interest

Judge Emma Arbuthnot rejected arguments by Mr Assange’s lawyers that it is no longer in the public interest to arrest him for jumping bail in 2012 and seeking shelter in the embassy to avoid extradition to Sweden.

Prosecutors there were investigating allegations of sexual assault and rape made by two women, which Mr Assange has denied.

Judge Arbuthnot did not mince words in her ruling at Westminster Magistrates’ Court, saying that by jumping bail, Mr Assange had made “a determined attempt to avoid the order of the court”.

She said Mr Assange appeared to be “a man who wants to impose his terms on the course of justice”.

Mr Assange can seek to appeal, though his lawyers did not immediately say whether he would.

Swedish prosecutors dropped their investigation last year, saying there was no prospect of bringing Mr Assange to Sweden in the foreseeable future.

But the British warrant for violating bail conditions still stands, and Mr Assange faces arrest if he leaves the embassy.

Mr Assange’s lawyers had asked for the warrant to be withdrawn since Sweden no longer wants him extradited, but the judge rejected their request last week.

His attorney had gone on to argue that arresting him was no longer proportionate or in the public interest.

Lawyer Mark Summers argued the Australian was justified in seeking refuge in the embassy because he had a legitimate fear that US authorities want to arrest him for WikiLeaks’ publication of secret documents.

Judge Arbuthnot dismissed another plank of Mr Assange’s case — a report from a UN working group which said the 46-year-old was being arbitrarily detained.

“I give little weight to the views of the working group,” the judge said, noting that Mr Assange had “restricted his own freedom for a number of years”.

Julian Assange’s bid for freedom
While court hearings for Julian Assange’s bid for freedom are interesting steps in a long running saga, the end game is far more complicated, writes Lisa Millar.

Mr Assange’s lawyer had argued that the five-plus years Mr Assange had spent inside the embassy were “adequate, if not severe” punishment for his actions, noting that he had health problems including a frozen shoulder and depression….

..The ruling leaves the long legal impasse intact. Apart from the bail-jumping charge — for which the maximum sentence is one year in prison — Mr Assange suspects there is a secret US grand jury indictment against him for WikiLeaks’ publication of classified documents, and that American authorities will seek his extradition.

Mr Assange’s lawyers say he is willing to face legal proceedings in Britain, but only if he receives a guarantee that he will not be sent to the US to face prosecution. That is not an assurance Britain is likely to give. ……http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-02-14/julian-assange-loses-bid-to-have-uk-arrest-warrant-withdrawn/9444540

 

February 14, 2018 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, legal, politics international | Leave a comment

Yeelirree uranium project Court decision – “a bad decision, but not the end decision”

‘Sad day for our people, our land’: Appeal fails against Yeelirrie uranium mine in WA’s Mid West, http://www.watoday.com.au/wa-news/sad-day-for-our-people-our-land-appeal-fails-against-yeelirrie-uranium-mine-in-was-mid-west-20180208-h0vrpr.html

Conservationists and Tjiwarl traditional owners will continue to fight the approval for a uranium mine in central WA despite losing a Supreme Court appeal.

Former state environment minister Albert Jacob gave the green light to Cameco’s Yeelirrie mine proposal in January last year, just 16 days before the pre- election caretaker mode began.

The Conservation Council of WA and traditional owners fear unique subterranean fauna in the area will be made extinct if the project proceeds.

Chief Justice Wayne Martin determined on Thursday that the appeal against the ministerial decision should be dismissed. Costs will be determined at a later date.

 CCWA executive director Piers Verstegen told reporters outside court the decision was disappointing but only a setback for their battle.  “It’s absolutely not the end of the road for Yeelirrie or the other uranium mines that are being strongly contested here in Western Australia,” he said.

Tjiwarl native title holder Vicky Abdullah said the court case was only part of the campaign . “This is a very disappointing and sad day for our people, our land, and our future,” she said. “We have fought long and hard to protect Yeelirrie and stop the uranium project. “It’s a bad decision, but it’s not the end decision.”

The ministerial endorsement was subject to 17 conditions, including the Canadian company undertaking further surveys and research into stygofauna and troglofauna to minimise impacts on the tiny underground creatures.

Mr Verstegen said he always knew the appeal would result in either the uranium approval being ruled invalid or the environmental laws being exposed as inadequate.

“Today’s ruling shows that indeed our environmental laws are deeply inadequate,” he said.

There is still a federal decision pending, with the WA appeal delaying the process by months.

“It is now up to the commonwealth government to take a rigorous approach to the environmental assessment of this project rather than just relying on the shonky assessment that was done under the Barnett government,” Mr Verstegen said.

“We call on the federal government not to approve extinction at Yeelirrie.”

Mr Verstegen said advice would be sought on whether further legal action was possible. Regarding costs, he said lawyers would argue it was a public interest case and they should not have to bear the full costs.

February 9, 2018 Posted by | legal, uranium, Western Australia | Leave a comment

South Australian Premier Jay Weatherill may take High Court action against proposed Federal Nuclear waste Dump

Jay Weatherill changes mind on nuclear dump ahead of election, https://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/state-politics/jay-weatherill-changes-mind-on-nuclear-dump-ahead-of-election/news-story/a11667e1cfcb443812ef0052bfc6fbef THE AUSTRALIAN 30 Jan 18, MICHAEL OWEN, SA Bureau Chief, Adelaide @mjowen

Jay Weatherill has held open the possibility of High Court action to stop a national nuclear waste dump in South Australia, despite his own failed proposal for the state to take the world’s most dangerous radioactive material.

The Labor Premier’s threat comes more than 13 years after his predecessor Mike Rann won a High Court challenge against Howard government plans to establish a national nuclear waste dump at Olympic Dam in the state’s north.

Radioactive waste is stored at more than 100 sites throughout Australia, with 656 cubic metres of intermediate waste at Lucas Heights in southern Sydney.

Asked if the state government would pursue a High Court case against the Turnbull government if a national facility were approved in South Australia, Mr Weatherill said: “We would have to explore our options to see what steps can be taken.”

The change of heart on nuclear waste, seven weeks before the state election, has taken the federal government by surprise as it considers three South Australian sites for a national low- and medium-level facility.

  • The state opposition accused Mr Weatherill of being “deceptive, sneaky and tricky”, noting the Premier had backed down last year on his own proposal to import the world’s nuclear waste only after a bungled community- consultation process and criticism from the state Liberal Party and Aboriginal groups.

Federal Resources Minister Matt Canavan told The Australian the Turnbull government was running a bipartisan process in communities that broadly supported the placement of a facility, including three South Australian properties — two near Kimba, on the Eyre Peninsula, and Wallerberdina Station, near Hawker in the ­Flinders Ranges.

Senator Canavan said the second phase of consultation had started only after landowners volunteered their land for consideration and the community was found to “broadly support continuing the conversation”.

Up until now, the South Australian government has been supportive of this process … I wonder why the Premier would go against what is majority support so far in the communities around Wallerberdina Station and Kimba?” Senator Canavan said.

Mr Weatherill, who campaigned in regional South Australia this week, said his government now “opposed any further involvement in the nuclear fuel cycle, including waste repositories” whether high or low level.

This is despite establishing in 2015 a royal commission to pursue a greater involvement in the nuclear fuel cycle, including a proposal for South Australia to build a permanent facility to house the world’s high-level nuclear waste in return for more than $100 billion over 120 years. Mr Weatherill abandoned the plan last year. “The process they (federal government) have adopted is not one we support; it shouldn’t be driven by landowners, it should be driven by, essentially, communities and we think that the Aboriginal community also should be given special consideration,” he said.

January 31, 2018 Posted by | Federal nuclear waste dump, legal, politics, South Australia | Leave a comment

Greens Members of Parliament arrested at anti Adani coal mine protest

Greens MPs arrested and fined at Adani protest, as Indian miner is referred to consumer watchdog, The New Daily 6 Nov 17,  Two NSW Greens MPs have been arrested and fined for protesting against the proposed Adani Carmichael coalmine, while another front was opened in the long-running battle against the development.

Jeremy Buckingham and Dawn Walker were among 17 people arrested on Wednesday morning for trespassing at the controversial site, 270 kilometres west of Bowen in Queensland.

Mr Buckingham and Ms Walker were fined $250 each after being issued with a police infringement notice for trespassing unlawfully at a place of business.

“I’m proud to stand with activists in defence of climate and country, and respect all those people around Australia and internationally who want to stop the Adani coal project,” Mr Buckingham said in a statement on Wednesday.

“Although we are MPs from NSW this is an issue of national and international significance. Adani represents a line in the sand for all those concerned about climate change who do not want to see a new coal precinct opened up in Australia.”

Ms Walker said the proposal was “tearing Indigenous communities apart” and was offering “a sub standard agreement to traditional owners for their land”.

About 5am on Wednesday, Queensland Police were alerted that 35 people were blockading the railway construction site near the proposed mine.

Fourteen protesters entered the site and climbed onto vehicles and machinery about 6am, a police spokesman told The New Daily.

A woman in her 60s locked herself to a boundary gate with a metal bike lock around her neck. Police were working to remove her.

Seventeen people were arrested for trespass and failure to comply with direction. Nine of those people were issued with infringement notices after moving on.

Eight people continued to fail to comply and they remained under arrest on Wednesday afternoon……    http://thenewdaily.com.au/news/state/qld/2017/12/06/adani-greens-mps-arrested-accc/ 

December 8, 2017 Posted by | legal, Queensland | Leave a comment