Dear 43 Things Users,

10 years after introducing 43 Things to the world, we have decided we have met our last goal: completing the incredible experience that has been 43 Things. Please join us in giving one last cheer to all the folks who have shared their goals with the world, as well as all the people who have worked at The Robot Co-op to build this incredible website. We won a Webby Award, published a book, and brought happiness to a lot of people.

Starting today, 43 Things users can export their goals and entries from the site. Starting August 15, we will make the site “read only”. 43 Things users will still be able to view the site and export their content, but we won’t be taking any new content from users. We hope to leave the site up for folks to see and download their content until the end of the year. Ending on New Year’s Eve takes us full circle.

It has been a long ride (one of our original goals was to "build a company that lasts at least 2 years” - we beat that one!) While we wish the site could live on, it has suffered from a number of challenges - changes in how people use the site, the advertising industry, and how search engines view the site. We wish the outcome was different – but we’ve always been realistic about when our goals are met and when they aren't.

As of today, you will be able to download your goals and entries. See more about that on the FAQ page. Thanks for 10 great years of goal-setting and achieving.

- The Robots.

Export My Content
2 people want to do this.

Stop the nuclear industry


People doing this

Recent activity

Anne GoddardJoin the nuclear industry dots...

by Dr. Alison Broinowski
(Published with permision from the Author for not-for-profit public awareness purposes)

“In late June and early July, just as the Howard Government was dispatching the army to Aboriginal communities to deal with sexual abuse, the U.S. military was involved for two weeks in northern Australia in the biggest ever joint exercise, Talisman Sabre.

Most Australians saw no connection.

Military training areas, uranium mines, sites for future nuclear waste dumps and now Aboriginal land seized by the Commonwealth are dots across the Australian map.

Several of them are connected by the Adelaide-Darwin railway. Having been many times promised, the $1.3 billion link from Alice Springs to Darwin was surprisingly found viable in 1999. By January, 2004, the train was running. The only tenderer, according to research at University of Technology Sydney, was the FreightLink consortium led by Halliburton (then headed by US vice-president Dick Cheney), with state, territory and federal contributions.

FreightLink owns the railway and can operate it for 50 years. It has contracted UK firm Serco, to staff and service the train.

Serco, which manages British nuclear power plants, gained a reputation in 2000 for sacking workers without AWAs at Australian naval bases in Jervis Bay.

In November, 2006, FreightLink was reported to be facing its third annual loss in a row. It tried to sell a majority stake in the railway for $360 million, without success. The owners promised to invest an additional $14 million over three years, presumably betting on the line’s long-term profitability.

It must expect – or have been promised – the railway will serve the potentially lucrative nuclear and defence industries.

Between 2004 and 2006, the Australian and U.S. governments announced more collaboration between American forces and the ADF, including missile defence (Star Wars) training, and interoperability. Several defence facilities in northern Australia have been built or expanded:

at Bradshaw and Delamere in the Northern Territory, Shoalwater Bay in Queensland and Yampi Sound and Geraldton in Western Australia.

The railway passes near several bases, the biggest uranium deposits in the world and the mines at Olympic Dam (Roxby Downs), Beverley, Ranger and Honeymoon.

Freightlink’s main business now is transporting iron ore, manganese and uranium to Darwin for export. In June, 2006, just before Prime Minster John Howard set up a nuclear power inquiry, businessmen Hugh Morgan, Robert Champion de Crespigny and Ron Walker registered Australian Nuclear Energy. It later emerged they had discussed with Mr Howard a plan to build a nuclear plant near Port Augusta.

(Learn more about Hugh:
> snip from Wikipedia

In June 2006, Hugh Morgan formed the company Australian Nuclear Energy with Fairfax chairman Ron Walker and fellow mining executive Robert Champion de Crespigny, planning to build nuclear power plants in Australia. Morgan has a 20% stake in the company.

Controversially, Prime Minister John Howard revealed that he had a discussion with Mr Walker about the company days before he announced an inquiry into nuclear power (the inquiry predicted that Australia could have 25 nuclear reactors producing a third of the country’s electricity by 2050)

Formerly an outspoken opponent of Aboriginal Land Rights (Morgan claimed Native Title threatened Australia’s sovereignty), Morgan has more recently spoken of reconciling mining with Aboriginal welfare. With newly introduced, less transparent conservation agreements under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act , Morgan has flagged how an internationally owned nuclear waste repository could now be built (such as the one recently announced on Aboriginal land).

see more about Ron and Robert

The railway would take uranium ore to Darwin for export, enrichment and fabrication, and bring it back to Port Augusta as nuclear fuel for the reactor. The spent fuel
would then go back by rail to Darwin for export, or return to the NT for disposal at a waste site.

The only “suitable” sites for disposal of nuclear waste under federal government control are in the NT. If the Commonwealth takes control of as many as 80 Aboriginal communities through five-year leases in the name of
protecting children, it will put vast land areas at the Federal Government’s discretion.

The Government has begun to repeal parts of its 1999 legislation prohibiting nuclear activities.

But it is unlikely before the 2007 election to say where or how Australian nuclear waste will be stored.

The U.S., meanwhile, has more than 47,000 tonnes of high-level nuclear waste to get rid of, because its new site at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, does not meet safety requirements.

The controlling American interest in the railway indicates Australia will store American waste too.

It takes more than the Ghan railway to connect the dots in an election year. A lot more is happening than Australians are being told.


Dr Alison Broinowski is a former Australian diplomat
and is now a visiting fellow at the Australian National
University’s Faculty of Asian Studies. Her latest book
is Allied and Addicted. 6 years ago

Anne GoddardFast Breeder Reactors... their history... poison legacy!

Robots scour sea for atomic waste – UK, The Observer
Full story…

Submarines search for radioactive material dumped off the Scottish coast in the 1980s

snips…(CAPS mine)

Although the UKAEA KEPT NO PRECISE ACCOUNTS for building and running Dounreay, it is known to have cost several billion pounds.

“We built the first fast breeder reactor to generate electricity for a national grid”.
For 40 years, test reactors – part of Britain’s fast breeder reactor construction programme – operated there but the technology turned out to be messy. Fast breeders use liquid metal coolants and their contaminated remnants still await removal. “At the time, engineers were only interested in building reactors. No one thought how we might dismantle them,”

The UK Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA), owners of Dounreay, was eventually fined 140,000 pounds at Wick Sheriff Court last year for ‘very grave errors’ that led to the beach’s contamination. The authority’s safety director, Dr John Crofts, admitted the release represented “an unacceptable legacy.”

Two kilometres of beach outside the Dounreay nuclear plant have been closed since 1983, and fishing banned, when it was found old fuel rod fragments were being accidentally pumped into the sea. 6 years ago

Anne GoddardNuclear power and water scarcity

by Dr Jim Green

By next week we will have 12,000 copies of a professionally-designed version of this infosheet… timed for National Water Week, October 21-27. Please let FoE know if you want a bundle – at


Friends of the Earth, Australia
PO Box 222 Fitzroy, Victoria 3065.
Ph: (03) 9419 8700
Email: at

A number of problems associated with the nuclear industry are much-discussed – the contribution of “peaceful” nuclear programs to the proliferation of nuclear weapons, the nuclear waste legacy, and the risk of catastrophic accidents or attacks. Less well understood are the serious impacts of the nuclear industry on water resources.

Water scarcity is already impacting on the power industry in Australia, largely because of our heavy reliance on water-guzzling coal-fired plants. Introducing nuclear power – the most water-intensive of all electricity sources – would exacerbate those problems.

Current problems and issues in Australia include:

. expensive long-distance water transportation to some power plants because of dwindling local water supplies;
. reduced electrical generating capacity and output at some coal and hydro plants;
. increased prices for water;
. higher and more volatile electricity prices;
. relaxation of laws and regulations concerning usage of river water and groundwater for some power plants;
. increased risks of blackouts; and
. intensified competition for scarce water resources between power plants, agriculture, residences, industries, environmental flows, etc.

The Commonwealth-State Ministerial Council on Energy met in early 2007 to discuss the impact of water shortages on electricity generation, and has requested regular updates from the National Electricity Market Management Company.

Current problems have led power utilities to explore alternatives such as the use of wastewater, groundwater or desalination. There is also an expectation that new plants are more likely to be built on the coast and use seawater. The use of dry (air) cooling systems may become more common but air-cooled plants are more expensive, less efficient and emit more greenhouse gases.

The Energy Supply Association of Australia notes that: ‘Australia is a water constrained continent and the issue of adequacy of water supplies for generator cooling purposes is already becoming problematic in some areas. There are restrictions on the volume of water that generators may draw and in some States this is beginning to present as a limitation on the amount of electricity that some baseload generators may be able to deliver in hot months’.

Nuclear Power Plants

Water for a nuclear power plant can be sourced from a river, lake, dam, or the ocean. The water has two uses – it is converted to steam to drive a turbine, and cooling water converts the steam back to water.

Nuclear power plants consume large amounts of water – typically 13-24 billion litres per year, or 35-65 million litres per day.

A December 2006 by the Commonwealth Department of Parliamentary Services states: ‘Per megawatt existing nuclear power stations use and consume more water than power stations using other fuel sources. Depending on the cooling technology utilised, the water requirements for a nuclear power station can vary between 20 to 83 per cent more than for other power stations.’

Water outflows from nuclear plants expel relatively warm water which can have adverse local impacts in bays and gulfs, as can heavy metal and salt pollutants.

The US Environmental Protection Agency states: ‘Nuclear power plants use large quantities of water for steam production and for cooling. When nuclear power plants remove water from a lake or river for steam production and cooling, fish and other aquatic life can be affected. Water pollutants, such as heavy metals and salts, build up in the water used in the nuclear power plant systems. These water pollutants, as well as the higher temperature of the water discharged from the power plant, can negatively affect water quality and aquatic life.’

A US report, ‘Licensed to Kill: How the Nuclear Power Industry Destroys Endangered Marine Wildlife and Ocean Habitat to Save Money’, details the nuclear industry’s destruction of delicate marine ecosystems and large numbers of animals, including endangered species. Most of the damage is done by water inflow pipes, while there are further adverse impacts from the expulsion of heated water.
See the report and video at:

Reactors in numerous European countries have been periodically taken off-line or operated at reduced output because of water shortages driven by climate change, drought and heat waves. Nuclear utilities have also sought and secured exemptions from operating conditions in order to discharge overheated water.

‘Coal-fired power plants have large water requirements for cooling and steam generation, but these are dwarfed by the water needs of nuclear power. Some nuclear power plants can use seawater for cooling, but problems emerge when they are situated on bays and gulfs, for there the warm discharge water can accumulate and have a large impact on the local marine ecology.’
- Tim Flannery, 2007 Australian of the Year

Comparing Energy Sources

The water consumption of renewable energy sources and energy efficiency and conservation measures is negligible compared to nuclear or coal. Tim Flannery notes that hastening the uptake of renewable energy sources such as wind, solar, and geothermal ‘hot rocks’ will help ease the water crisis as well as reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Water consumption of different energy sources:
(litres per kilowatt-hour of electrical output)
Nuclear ............. 2.3
Coal ............. 1.9
Oil ............. 1.6
Combined Cycle Gas .. 0.95
Solar PV ….......... 0.11
Wind ............. 0.004

Operating a 2,400 Watt fan heater for one hour consumes: 0.01 litres of water if wind is the energy source, 0.26 litres if solar PV is the energy source, 4.5 litres if coal is the energy source, or 5.5 litres if nuclear power is the energy source.

More Information:

  • National Electricity Market Management Company, April 2007, “Potential drought impact on electricity supplies”,

Anne Goddarddirty power and dirty politics???

Beware of “missing words” when perusing political party’s policies and deciding where you will be casting your PRECIOUS 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th votes….

If, like me, you wish to see an end to the nuclear industry (firstly) on moral grounds, followed closely by environmental grounds, and clearly not needed on financial grounds, then expanding the mining of Uranium in Australia is NOT wanted, needed or necessary.

Of course if you are a Rio Tinto shareholder, you may think otherwise.

Recently, whilst participating in the Cycle against the nuclear cycle, I visited the Gladstone Office of our local standing MP, Paul Neville (National/Liberal Coalition) and spoke with his Secretary. She couldn’t tell me if their party would be considering a nuclear power plant in this electorate or not. Her advice to me and my friend was that this issue needed further investigation. “Informed” decisions would not be forthcoming until after the election.

To me, that says… “when our party is voted back into power we will do whatever we want, it’s not your business now. You are not a scientist!”
or… “don’t you worry about that”.

I am a registered voter. Where I put my mark IS my business. Where my taxes are spent IS my business. I need answers before these two parties are given further opportunities at destroying MY future.

The Labor Party won’t commit to nuclear power stations (yet), they will however commit to an expansion of Uranium mining to supply the growing nuclear industry – and they already have.

The Greens are clear where they stand. They stand in favour of sustainable development, social justice and equality, clearly, nuclear does not fit the bill. They have made it clear in their policies that they will not support an expansion of the nuclear industry.

As have the Socialist Alliance, likewise for the Democrats.

The new party “Climate Change Coalition” (CCC) stands in favour of sustainable housing developments, improved transportation systems and better education (as do the two parties listed above).

The CCC are in favour of many good things which will mitigate the worst effects of climate change in the long term but so are the Greens, the Socialist Alliance and the Democrats.

However, the CCC intend to leave ALL OTHER polices to the “conscience vote” of any candidate who is elected. This tends to really worry me. How will their ideas and policies be implemented? Where is their financial plan? What say the CCC on health care? Where do they stand on Industrial Relations and Workplace Agreements?

What also worries me is that they leave the door open for the nuclear industry when they state:

...”Does nuclear power have a role to play in a climate change reduction strategy? James Lovelock, the founder of Gaia Hypothesis, thinks that it can be a useful element in a greenhouse reduction strategy for some countries. Others, such as Australian scientist and climate change campaigner, Emeritus Professor Ian Lowe sees nuclear power as a cure as bad as the disease.
This debate is unavoidable and essential. The CCC encourages our best and brightest minds to state their cases – realising that any debate on Nuclear Power immediately involves alternative power.”
In other words… when it comes to the nuclear industry and nuclear power… they sit on the fence. Let others worry about that in an informed and “open” debate? History clearly shows the “openness” of the nuclear industry.

There is no need for further debate.
The nuclear industry is not safe, and it never was, and it never will be. Simple. Listen to Ian Lowe!

In any doubt? visit:

Startling fact and figures:

Or “Maralinga – Learn from our experience” by my (then) 15yo daughter, Natalie:
and explore the highly educational links in the Appendix

or Nuclear Industry – human effects – facts you should know

It appears that the CCC’s nuclear policies are hand in hand with those of our currently elected leaders… they “may” support nuclear industry power generation and the associated waste.
Their “vote catching election policies” are attached in a PDF document.

I think I will be putting my vote for them below the ALP, just to be sure that their preferences do not re-elect a National/Liberal Coalition. Unless they can inform me clearly they will not support nuclear power or an expansion in the nuclear industry in Australia.

I hope other voters are aware of the insidious nature of the nuclear industry and all of their “dirty tricks” to retain their control over our precious taxes. 7 years ago

Anne GoddardI'm going

I made my decision, and spoke to the boss today. I will be cycling for two weeks (starting June 25) from Rockhampton to Bundy in the cycle against the nuclear cycle.

My boss said he was happy with my work to date and i wouldnt be getting the sack, and it is inconvenient for them which i understand.
Perhaps he will understand when he visits my website

I hope everyone reading these words will seriously consider joining the ride to Canberra, there is a northern and southern ride… End the nuclear madness, renewable enregy is the positive way forwards
visit and for further info.
On the Peace Convergence in 8 days visit or

Anne 7 years ago

Anne GoddardCycle for clean energy or Cycle Against the Nuclear Cycle (CANC)

Today we (Nat and I) asked our boss if we could take some time off work to join the peace convergence 22, 23, 24th June, Qld, Australia

We had committed to going before getting the jobs.
Further, I asked if I could take extra time off to do the Rockhampton to Bundaberg leg of the CANC ride (some further 2 weeks).
See Northern Ride:

Unfortunately, I cannot go all the way to Canberra again, as i am casual, no work, no pay. I am eager to return to the job as I like it and all of the team in the packing shed are wonderful people.
On the other hand, we do not want to lose our jobs … and as the recent rains have really slowed the season, i hope they will give us a favourable decision on Wednesday, when we return to work.

My family, friends, neighbours and I are attending the peace convergence to draw attention to the facts that;
1. we need safe sustainable, renewable and reliable energy supplies … with the aim of “benign” output.
2. we do not need nuclear ships in our harbours.
3. we must not allow our troops to be exposed and unmonitored in the vicinty of Depleted Uranium weapons either on the battle field, or anywhere else.
4. we do not need nuclear energy
5. we do not need nuclear waste.

I hope you will consider joining us.

Warm regards
Anne 7 years ago

Anne GoddardStartling Facts and Figues

and under the Howard “regime” how things have progressed in three years?

Subject: Senate: Chief Scientist in pocket of Rio Tinto

Thursday, 5 August 2004



Employment, Workplace Relations and Education
References Committee


Senator CROSSIN (Northern Territory) (3.42
p.m.)-On behalf of the Chair of the Employment,
Workplace Relations and Education References Committee,
Senator Carr, I present the report of the committee
on the Office of the Chief Scientist, together
with the Hansard record of proceedings and documents
presented to the committee.

Ordered that the report be printed.
Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (3.57 p.m.) – The committee has found that there is a clear conflict of public and private duties arising from the dual parttime roles performed by Dr Batterham. His circumstances
fall squarely within any mainstream definition
of conflict of interest. The follow-on from that is that
clearly the Chief Scientist should relinquish one of his
jobs. It is not tenable for the Chief Scientist to maintain
both the jobs of Chief Scientist of this nation and chief
technologist for the major coal company, Rio Tinto.

(My note: and uranium miner/exporter)

There is a clear conflict of duty and interest as seen
from the public’s point of view. The committee’s findings
speak volumes of that, but they speak also of the
need for there to be an improvement in the way in
which the government applies Public Service rules to
all posts to ensure that this sort of conflict does not
apply in the future.

I want to point to the some of the background as to
why the Chief Scientist has been found to be in an invidious
position from the point of view of public perception.
Rio Tinto is a big corporation. We are in an
age where there is enormous concern about global
warming. We are in an age where government has a big
role in stimulating technology and research about ways
forward that get us off the global warming treadmill
and the position of the world’s worst per capita polluter
amongst industrialised nations.

The government has been very tardy about that.
There has been not only limited but also dwindling
government input into renewable energy and energy
efficiency businesses, which are hugely job prospective
and hugely export oriented for the future of this country.

I want to point out here that 12 or 13 years ago we
outcompeted Japan in the production of solar panels.
Now Japan produces 50 per cent of the world’s output
and Australia produces less than one per cent. This is
the sunshine country. Japan is technology oriented and

looks much more at the future. It has streeted the field
while this government has pulled the purse strings.
But the government has not pulled the purse strings

When we look at Rio Tinto, the company for which the

Chief Scientist has been chief technologist
since his appointment in 1999, we find that some
$340 million in direct, indirect or enhancing grants has
gone to that corporation.

- In October 2001, $35 million went, in the form of a

24-year interest free loan, to the Rio Tinto Foundation

for a Sustainable Minerals Industry.

The foundation is not a legal entity; it is an advisory
group to Rio Tinto.

Also in October 2001, $102 million went to a

strategic investment incentive for energy generation

to support the Comalco alumina refinery
at Gladstone.

In May 2002, another $125 million went to a

strategic investment incentive for the HIsmelt
iron smelter.

More funding has gone to cooperative research centres

in which Rio Tinto has core participation.

In December 2000, $14.5 million went to the
CRC for Coal in Sustainable Development.

In December 2002, $21.8 million went to the

CRC for Greenhouse Gas Technologies.

In December 2002, $18.8 million went to a

sustainable resource processing investigation.

In August 2003, $23.4 million in additional
funding was allocated to the CRC for Greenhouse Gas
Technologies with in-kind contributions from Geoscience
Australia, the CSIRO and the Australian Greenhouse Office.

When you look at the other side of the ledger,

Mr Acting Deputy President, you find that the well of
funding for the sunrise industries for environmental
technology-which are based on renewable energy
serving the whole of Australia and on energy efficiency-
is basically dry.

We have seen this extraordinary conjunction of the

billowing of government largesse directly and

indirectly to a huge company like Rio Tinto, whose

chief technologist is Dr Batterham, at the same time

as Dr Batterham has been the Chief Scientist
for the government – whose role is to advise the
government on the way forward. This gives the appearance
of a conflict of interest.

We heard a lot in the committee process about how
the Chief Scientist absents himself from decisions
which involve Rio Tinto, about how he is not there
when the vote is taken and about how-when it comes
to CRCs and applications for other funding from Rio
Tinto – a firewall is set up in Rio Tinto so that the
Chief Scientist is not involved. But the committee
could not get, and did not get, any indication from Rio
Tinto of what that firewall was – nor did anybody in
the government have any idea of what the firewall was.
Nobody could tell us. Any fair observer from the outside
would be led to believe that this firewall is a fiction-
insofar as anybody could believe that there are
tight, laid-down and publicly examinable rules which
are, in effect, a firewall.

We all know that it is not about the words you say

and it is not about the contacts you make;

it is about the influence you have that can
work enormously to favour your point of view in working
with posts, such as the post of Chief Scientist.

The committee also found that, on one occasion, Dr
Batterham did use unpublished and unverified data,
which was supplied by Rio Tinto, in a meeting of
Commonwealth and state energy ministers and failed
to declare the source of that information. That created
the appearance of a real conflict of interest. The report
went on to say:

The same data subsequently appeared in a high profile report
prepared by a PMSEIC working group. It appears that the
working group was not aware Rio Tinto had commissioned
information attributed to a private company, Roam Consulting.
37 However, the committee finds that the Chief Scientist
is not responsible for this oversight because he was not directly
involved in preparing the presentation to PMSEIC and
did not present it to the working group. The committee concludes
that this case has contributed to a perception of conflict
of interest which risks eroding public confidence in the
independence of advice provided to Government by the
Chief Scientist.

This is no small matter here, because the figures that
went through to the Prime Minister’s scientific advisory
group were extraordinarily influential in terms of
the outcomes for this nation.

They presented a very low-cost option for geosequestration.

They actually came from Rio Tinto and its consulting company.

That ought to have been acknowledged, but it was not.

If you are going to have the presentation of verifiable
information to such extraordinarily influential advisory
organisations as the Prime Minister’s scientific advisory
group then they need to know the source of that

The committee was unable to find anybody
else on the planet who had such low costings for
the potential of geosequestration.

Nobody else was able to present such low costings,

and therefore present such a favourable view of the

potential for unproven technology to take carbon

dioxide out of the exudates from coal-fired power

stations and put them underground.

This is unproven technology. It was presented
as the lowest cost option without the information being
identified as coming at the behest of the coal company
for whom the Chief Scientist is the chief technologist-
that is, Rio Tinto.

Of course, this has the mark of a conflict of public
interest written all over it. Such a circumstance should
not be allowed to recur. Those who are competing for
government moneys, those who are promoting solar
power, wind power, biofuels, energy efficiency, wave
power and geothermal power all have a right to feel
aggrieved that such an important committee as that
advising the Prime Minister could use figures which
were not corroborated by other scientific sources but
which came from the company itself. I seek leave to
continue my remarks later. 7 years ago

Anne GoddardMaralinga - learn from our experience

Maralinga – by Natalie Goddard
Aged 15
Subject: Australian History
19th November 2004

“We got up in the morning from the tent… everyone had red eyes… Right here the smoke caught us it came over us… We tried to open our eyes in the morning but we couldn’t open them. [We had] red eyes and tongues and our coughing was getting worse …We got people still suffering. You haven’t got one healthy child nowadays.” Eileen Kampakuta Brown.
Site 01:

The negative effects the nuclear testing at Maralinga had on the inhabitants of Australia is abundant, and it’s not going away soon. During the 1950’s and 60’s the British Government tested atomic bombs in South Australia at Emu Junction and Maralinga (refer to appendix 01). The Australian Government barely questioned the nature and effect of the nuclear tests as they forged close links with the British Military.

The nuclear weapons used contain deadly substances which remain radioactive for up to 250,000 years, contaminating land and water systems.

The radiation exposure to local communities and surrounding country was extensive as dense radioactive clouds travelled far across the land. For the Indigenous people and other inhabitants of the Western Desert, radiation exposure caused severe sickness and death. The nuclear testing in South Australia revealed nuclear fallout and overall government cover-ups.

Maralinga, an area of 3,200 square kilometres in South Australia’s desert Nullabor region, was occupied by the Maralinga Tjarutja Aboriginal tribe when it was leased to Britain in 1952.

Between 1952 and 1963 the British government, with the agreement and support of Australia carried out nuclear tests at three sites in Australia – the Monte Bello Islands off the coast of Western Australia and at Emu Field and Maralinga in South Australia.

Maralinga was developed as the permanent proving ground site, following a request of the British in 1954 and, after its completion in 1956, was the location of all trials conducted in Australia.

It was developed as a joint facility with a shared funding arrangement.
Site 02:

By 1963 nine major nuclear atmospheric explosions had taken place within the site, including the two US tests that were conducted under a sub-leasing arrangement.

Three other British tests were held in Western Australia. The reason for the British government using Australia as testing grounds was simply the first step in their ‘coming-of-age’ as a nuclear power.

In 1957, Prime Minister Harold Macmillan explained news of the successful tests, would put his country “in the same position as the United states or Soviet Russia. It will be possible then to discuss on equal terms,” he said
Site 03:

There were numerous tests carried out in South Australia, which ranged from large scale nuclear bombs to ‘minor’ ones which contaminated miles of land.

The actual amount of tests carried out in Australia and at Maralinga varies. The numbers depend on where the tests took place, or whether they were atomic bombs, nuclear tests, nuclear atmospheric explosions, development trials, or the hundreds of ‘minor’ tests.

The British exploded nine atomic bombs, the final being twice as powerful as the bomb that flattened Hiroshima
Site 04:

There were 15 nuclear tests which contaminated Aboriginal lands with plutonium and uranium
Site 05:

Nine major nuclear atmospheric explosions took place within the site, including two US tests that were conducted under a sub-leasing arrangement.

Three other British tests were held in Western Australia.
Site 03:

There were many development trials conducted within Maralinga. A further 15 of these were far more damaging.
Site 05:

The ‘minor’ tests consisted of about 500 experiments, such as crashing aeroplanes with nuclear bombs on board, and setting fire to atom bombs and placing them in conventional explosions.

These tests actually left far more radiation than the others, and resulted in large amounts of plutonium spreading over a wide area
Site 06:

It is therefore no surprise to find the death rates and cancer rates higher than ever in these areas.

So far, from the Australian Electoral Commission there’s been over 9,000 people deceased from the 10,700 names listed on the Maralinga nominal roll.

The national average for cancer is 25 per cent, but at Maralinga, the death certificates are recording 75-85 per cent cancer.

Terry Toon, Atomic Ex-servicemen’s Association said “At one test, the kite explosion, the scientist said the mushroom cloud would go away from us, but instead of going north away from us, it came directly south over us. We went into some steelbound huts … and when the mushroom cloud went over us, it was like a hailstorm”
Site 04:

According to Asia Times, Britain has admitted for the first time that troops were used as human guinea pigs for a testing program in Australia in the 1950’s that helped it join the United States and the Soviet Union in the nuclear club. The admission came grudgingly, and only after it had been independently confirmed in released Australian military records that servicemen were deliberately exposed to nuclear fallout to test their levels of tolerance to illness.

Lawyers representing veterans in the UK and Australia contend that safety was so lax that scores were exposed to radiation illnesses. Often the only protection they were offered was “a quick wash under a hose.” One mixed unit of soldiers were told to walk through the test zone three days after a detonation, for what was termed “clothing tests.” Dressed in heavy woolen garments the soldiers – none of them volunteers – were given a battery of medical tests to check which type of clothing offered “the best protection against radioactive contamination in conditions of warfare.”

Both Britain and Australia deny that the men were in danger
Site 03:

Not only was the Australian and British government negligent, but they actually used the troops for their own power and gain, plus they have failed to effectively do anything for the Aborigines and their land.

Britain failed to provide for the welfare of the Aborigines who were deprived of their heritage by the tests. It has declined to foot the bill for cleaning up the site, which remains highly contaminated despite the removal of some radioactive material in 1997 and will be partly uninhabitable for at least another 30 years
Site 03:

At the time, the Australian government displayed very little interest in the possible long-term effects of the tests. However, by the 1980’s these effects started to become clear.

Australian servicemen and the traditional Aboriginal owners of the land were suffering blindness, sores, and illnesses like cancer
Site 06:

The Aboriginals wish to return to the land providing it is safe to do so. They have been advised that some of the land is not suitable for permanent occupation and 450 km² is encircled by boundary markers to remind them that this is so. The boundary markers might have a life of 50 years, but half of the plutonium will still be there in 24,000 years
Site 05:

The troops used by the British government as a testing program have been stricken with a range of cancers and deformities, some of the soldiers have been fighting for decades to have their plight accorded official recognition, which might open the door to compensation. More than 200 Australian veterans or their families have lodged claims for compensation for illness or death due to radiation exposure
Site 06:

Now that the law suits are flooding in, usually in response to second-generation birth defects, Australia has been quick to shift the compensation burden to Britain. London argues that there is no medical evidence linking the defects with Maralinga.

In September 1997, it had informed the European Court of Human Rights that servicemen were never allowed into the testing areas, a statement that now has a decidedly hollow ring
Site 03:

There were 220 recommendations of the Royal Commission which investigated the damage that had been caused to the land. One of these recommendations was for group compensation for all of those people affected by the testing. The commission had found that while Aboriginal people were supposed to have been removed from the area during testing, many were actually in the area during and after the tests and had been exposed to high levels of radiation. For the last 10 years, the Maralinga Tjarutja people have been fighting a long battle to win group compensation.

Angelina Wonga, an Indigenous person who lived through the experience of the nuclear testing at Maralinga, explains at (Site 07):

“I was in Wantjapila, with all the family. Sitting down. And when we seen a bomb went out from the South. And said, ‘Eh, what’s that?’ And when we see the wind blowing it to where we were sitting down. Nobody got a warning, nobody.

That was the finish of mother and father. They all passed away through that. I was only there. Buried the grandmother. I was the only one left. I went back to where I was born. People there were passing away, some type of flu. And I was the only one left. I lost everything. And the Government never pay me anything, loss of mother.

The smoke went right through the land. Everybody was sick. I’ve got damages too, with my eyes. Can’t see far. Memory no good. Can’t think properly. Asthma trouble, can’t talk and sing properly. Because of that. It’s time they gave me compensation, pay me back.”

Finally in November 2003 the indigenous people won settlement of $13.5 million from the federal government. They are now communicating to the people what has been done and discussing ways of using the funds for resettlement of the community and development of useful resources. Sixteen people from the Aboriginal community are also seeking individual compensation Site 06:

The Indigenous people of South Australia have finally been given compensation for the damage done to their lives and the decades of fighting have finally paid off, although it won’t ever alleviate the contamination.

Plutonium and uranium fallout from the nuclear tests contaminated Aboriginal lands. Even while cleaning up these sites, further contamination occurred (refer to appendix 02 & 03).

Although the government declared the Maralinga site safe following a 1967 cleanup, surveys from the 1980s proved otherwise, prompting a new clean-up project. Conflicts of interest, cost-cutting measures, shallow burials of radioactive waste, and other management ‘compromises’ have left hundreds of square kilometres of Aboriginal lands contaminated and unfit for rehabilitation (refer to appendix 04).

Clearly, Dr. John Loy, CEO of the Australian nuclear regulatory organization was incorrect in saying that the Maralinga cleanup project represented the “world’s best practice.”

The project was a compromise from the beginning and was never intended to be a total clean up. There are still hundreds of square kilometres of land contaminated with plutonium. The government says that all but 120 km² are now safe, but this is misleading. What they mean is that 120 km² of land is still contaminated which would leave an Aboriginal person living a semi-traditional lifestyle receiving an effective dose of 5 mSv/a (five times that allowed for other Australians). Within the 120 km², the effective dose would be up to 13 times greater Site 05:

For decades after the British weapons tests in Australia, body parts were taken from corpses for tests to ascertain how widely nuclear contamination had spread, without the next of kin being asked for permission or even informed. In Britain, there is newly released evidence that baby bodies were delivered to American laboratories, and in Australia authorities now freely admit to the undertaking of an extensive program from 1957-78 which saw bones removed from up to 5000 bodies for use in their research
Site 09:

Overall, the nuclear testing in South Australia revealed nuclear fallout and government cover-ups. There was total negligence towards the future effects the nuclear testing would have on the Indigenous people of Australia, the workers and the land which has been contaminated beyond repair. Neither Britain nor Australia will accept full responsibility for the damage done.

Whoever accepts responsibility for the site should recognize that they will have to rely for several thousand years on assurances from a government that has not kept to agreements made only 10 years ago
Site 05:


Appendix 01:
The Taranaki nuclear test site. The largest testing site located within Maralinga.
(Site 05:

Appendix 02 & 03:

Only “some grams” of plutonium-contaminated dust were blown away during the Maralinga ‘clean-up’ because of inadequate dust suppression, according to a government official (Senate, 3/5/00). Thousands of tonnes in fact.
(Site 08:

Appendix 04:
Fallout contamination from the nuclear tests at Maralinga.

(Site 01:

Document on World Wide Web:
N/a. N/a, Brief History of the Bombs [Online]. URL:
Site 01:

Document on World Wide Web:
N/a. 2001, British nuclear tests at Maralinga [Online]. URL:
Site 02:

Document on World Wide Web:
Boyd, A. 2001, Fallout from nuclear amnesia [Online]. URL:
Site 03:

Document on World Wide Web:
Sexton, M. 2000, 7.30 Report – Maralinga finally cleaned up [Online]. URL:
Site 04:

Document on World Wide Web:
Parkinson, A. N/a, Maralinga: The Clean-Up of a Nuclear Test Site [Online]. URL:
Site 05:

Document on World Wide Web:
Fernades, S. N/a, Maralinga: nuclear testing in Australia [Online]. URL:
Site 06:

Document on World Wide Web:
N/a. N/a, Irati Wanti – Kungkas [Online]. URL:
Site 07:

Document on World Wide Web:
Green, J. N/a, Nuclear and Environmental Research [Online]. URL:
Site 08:

Document on World Wide Web:
Colin, J. May 5, 2003, Answers for 300 mothers URL:
Site 09:

Document on World Wide Web:
Green, J. N/a, Maralinga: govt covers-up nuclear contamination [Online]. URL:
Site 10:

Document on World Wide Web:
Borschmann, G. 2000, Maralinga: The Fall Out Continues [Online]. URL:
Site 11: 7 years ago

Anne Goddardquick action link - Save our Coastline from Military Invasion

Save our Coastlines!

Write to these Australian Politicians…
(and to your local Media)

Operation Talisman Saber 2007 =
US/Aus Military invasion of Australia’s tropical shores
= War Games

Suggested Letters and Email Addresses:

Reference Materials:

Please help us! 7 years ago

Anne GoddardNuclear Industry - human effects - facts you should know


By Dayamani Barla
(Translated by Vidya Jonnalagadda)
More information:



The soil of Jadugoda in the Jharkhand

In the region of the uranium mines, in villages such as
Chatikocha, Dumardeeh, Telaitaand, Echada, Bhatin, and
Lipighututu, 45 of every hundred women are suffering from
spontaneous abortions.

The children are dying. Most of the children are becoming physically and mentally handicapped.

People are not living beyond 65 years of age. No one wants to
marry the girls from this area. The girls who did get married
are being abandoned for their inability to bear children. Under
the influence of radioactivity, physical malformations, cancer
and pulmonary diseases are assuming demonic dimensions.
region has provided uranium to run the Atomic Energy program in
the country and develop Nuclear capabilities, but the Santhal
aadivasis of this region are dying a slow death by uranium

Women visited Telaitaand on July eight to see and hear for
themselves the misery of the women affected by uranium
radiation. The ailing from the affected villages of Chatikocha,
Maatigoda, and Tireel related their woes to the members of the
Commission for two and a half hours.

For the first time, a team from National Commission for Ghanshyam Biruli told the Commission members that the simple
folk of the village are not even aware of the fact that
radiation emanates from the Tailing Pond. He added that most of
the babies born are deformed. People from other villages do not
want to marry the girls from the affected villages. Those who
were married but did not beget children have been abandoned.

These women do not want to marry again for the fear that the
next husband too might dump them if they cannot have children.
such diseases here”. Of Mado’s five children, three have died.

Marang Bhai of Tilaitaand was married 10 years ago. Marang Bhai
told that she had conceived once, but the fetus aborted at five
months. After that, she has never conceived. Her husband left
her as she did not have a child. She has returned to her
parents’ home. Three children of Sumitra Soren have died: one
within 24 hours of birth, the other two immediately after birth.
The fourth child was born ill. The entire skull of the baby is
soft and it has other health problems.

Both members of the Commission listened intently to the anguish of the women.

There was a long line of women wanting to share their pain

Mrs. Saaro had completed 20 years of marriage to Mangal Maanzi
but did not have children. Since Saaro did not bear children,
Mangal married again, this time to Dumani. But his luck did not
change. He did not beget a child from his second wife either.
Mangal Maanzi is employed in the UCIL (Uranium Council of India
Ltd.) mines.

Budhani Bera of Dumurdeeh had an abortion in the ninth month of
her first pregnancy. Her second pregnancy ended with an abortion
in the eighth month of pregnancy. She has a child of four years,
who is always unwell.

Simotee Maandi was married in Beerigoda. She told that her first
child was stillborn. After that she has not conceived.

Mrs. Dhanumati has two children. She told that both the children
and she herself are perpetually unwell.

Mrs. Taramani told that UCIL had annexed six acres of their land
and they had not received any compensation to date.

General of UCIL, the Chief Medical Officer, Dr. Rahul Kumar, and
Dr. Khan, refuted the claims that there was any kind of adverse
health effect on the people due to radiation from uranium. They
dismissed the notion that there is any connection between health
and radiation.

The officials of UCIL said, “Safety measures are followed one hundred percent of the time”.
Indicating the Tailing Pond under construction in Telaitaand,
Ghanshyam Biruli asked the officials, “Is this region safe?” In
response the officials quipped, “There is no relationship
between this (health problems) and that (the Pond)”.

Asking the officials, “What is your policy regarding the
abortions, child deaths and malformations?” The officials
replied, “We will visit the villages and assess the health of
the inhabitants”. Highlighting their paperwork, the officials
announced, “We have visited villages and collected blood samples
from around three thousand people. The reports for these not yet

Boiling with anger at this, 33-year old Dumaka Murmoo demanded,
“When did the Health Officials come to the villages to survey
the health of the residents, when did they gather material for
the survey? Not a single person for the villages knows about

The team members queried, “According to you, what are the guidelines for the distance from the Tailing Pond at which the displaced can be resettled?” In response, they said, “One and a half kilometers”, whereas in reality, displaced families are living in homes constructed just below the Tailing Pond. In addition, despite opposition from the people, another Tailing Pond is under construction right adjacent to the village in Telaitaand.
. . . . . .
Sister Anna and Ajita were also a part of the Commission team. The team had reached Jadugoda under the leadership of reporter (Ms.) Vaasavi.

Last Updated ( Tuesday, 03 April 2007 )
About Dayamani Barla

“Tribals are becoming a minority in their own state!”
Jharkhand, a natural resource, mineral -rich region is sadly,
also ‘rich’ in the ways and kinds of exploitation against tribal
societies that live in these regions. Dayamani Barla’s is an inspiring story of a tribal woman who decided to stand up and campaign for issues that continue to erase, erode and impoverish tribal societies in Jharkhand in the name of development.

Dayamani, educated at the Ranchi University, has been writing articles in Hindi in regular newspapers and magazines like Prabhat Khabhar for the last ten years. Her writings powerfully articulate the exploitation faced by tribal communities, especially women. She strongly believes that by taking the voices of the tribal communities to the common public on issues of tribal women’s empowerment, health, local self-governance and on Government’s Tribal policies, common people can be made aware of the real situations on the ground and thus participate and influence development policies in the right direction.

She has been a powerful campaigner working shoulder-to-shoulder with the community on different issues ranging from eviction of tribals due to the Koel Karo Project, hazards of Uranium mining to forced prostitution of tribal women.

A recipient of the Counter Media Award for better rural journalism(2000) and the National Foundation for India Fellowship (2004), Dayamani runs a local tea-shop for a regular living which she claims is also one of the best places to listen to the ‘voices of the people’!

Facts you should know about uranium mining and milling 7 years ago

Anne GoddardSovereignty Day, January 26, 2007

My family and I head out on Sunday, from central Queensland to Canberra.

Next week we will be taking a message for Land Rights,
and messages from Climate Change Action (sustainable energy supplies) to the streets of Sydney.

Sign the Land Rights Petition: and

Sign the Climate Change Action Petition:

We will be collecting comments from the public on Ziggy’s Nuke “promotional propaganda”. Add your comments online

From the streets of Sydney we will be heading to Canberra on Friday 26th. We will be accepting the Tent Embassy’s kind invitation and will be joining many others in celebrating the first anniversary of “Sovereignty Day”.

My daughter Natalie (18), my son Scott (13) and I, hope to present your voices to our Prime Minister, Mr John Howard.

IN SOLIDARITY! 7 years ago

Anne GoddardKenya summary...

Climate talkers from across the globe, currently meeting in Kenya, need to look under their noses and PROVIDE clean, sustainable, renewable, energy supplies, while ensuring that locals survive!

Kenya Floods take lives as Climate Conference Continues

“More than 20 people in northern and coastal Kenya have been killed by massive flooding triggered by heavy rains. The disaster is occurring as delegates from around the world attend the U.N. Climate Change conference in Kenya’s capital.”

(image) Katsena Charo, of Bate village, stands next to what used to be the family house

African nomads face extinction due to climate change
“Kenya’s herdsmen are facing extinction as global warming destroys their lands. They are dubbed the “climate canaries” the people destined to become the first victims of world climate change.”

U.N. eyes climate change plan for Africa

“U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan will announce a two-year plan to help Africa respond to global warming when he speaks to an international climate change conference in Nairobi on Wednesday, a U.N. source told Reuters.”

Canada criticized as ‘fossil’ at climate talks

Maasai women are among protestors, one of whom holds up a poster which reads ‘Stop Climate Chaos’ , during a protest in Nairobi, Kenya, Saturday, Nov. 11 2006. (AP / Khalil Senosi)

Global Fund (not for talking) but for INSTALLATION of clean, sustainable, renewable, energy supplies:

“Britain will invest £24 million (Sh3.2 billion) in climate change adaptation programmes in Africa.
British High Commissioner to Kenya Mr Adam Wood said the money was part of the British government’s commitment to increase support for research and identify adaptation opportunities in Africa.”

--8 years ago

Anne GoddardOn Australian Aboriginal Issues

To Media, Lists and my new live journal:


The governments intentions are crystal clear to me…

Get 99 leases over Aboriginal Land without too much public noise…
If anyone says anything blame traditional owners for alcohol consumption, or petrol sniffing, or abused children. Encourage the media to promote racism and smear propaganda about “troubles” in remote communities (even if they
are based on lies!).

Ensure that the media promotes the benefits of such a
deal for abused women and children!

Promise “decent housing”, “decent schools”, “decent health care”, etc, for remote communities -IN EXCHANGE for these leases.

Promise these things… that EVERY AUSTRALIAN is entitled to – we all pay TAXES!

Steal land rights quickly and cleanly… then lease these lands to the nuclear industry.

- Finally! Somewhere to build new nuclear power stations, and dump the waste generated from all over the world, that is generated from the sales of uranium (already stolen).

- Or lease these lands to a developer who will ensure that there is a great deal of money made with little-to-no input allowed from the traditional owners.

- Also, a great way to keep water privatisation interested corporations happy, not to mention mining corporations.

Then our elected representatives can give the land back when it is completely poison!

And the schooling/health care/housing issue…
well… don’t you worry ‘bout that!

Our elected representatives will dutifully undertake an independent review (and not take action on any of the recommendations).

And if the natives get restless… a caring “public servant” will beat them to death in custody, and ignore their cries for help as they die in pain…
and “public servants” who do so will get cushy jobs on full pay on the gold coast for their efforts, even if they have to be stood down due to the public outcry!

I apologise to the indigenous people of Australia…
I did not vote our elected representatives into power…

Anne Goddard
PO Box 316, Gin Gin, 4671 8 years ago

Anne Goddardconfiguration set up problems...

Stop the nuclear industry

Message from phronsbuddie:

Hiya Members

I sent out this invitation a few days ago, but due to configuration set up errors, many invitations bounced.

Sending invitation again…

If the direct invitation link does not work (or expires before you join), try visiting the site direct :
and “Adopting the goal”

thanks :-)


To accept or reject this invitation, click here:

(If clicking the above link doesn’t work, try cutting and pasting it into your browser’s location bar.) 8 years ago

Anne GoddardPlease join a team ... 4 a nuclear free future

Stop the nuclear industry

The main purpose of my life would be a lot easier with the support of a global team of activists, working towards the same goal.

Please consider helping by joining a team dedicated to a nuclear free future.

Please forward this invitation on to individuals or e-group members who may be interested in joining a nuclear free future team.


To accept or reject this invitation, click here:

(If clicking the above link doesn’t work, try cutting and pasting it into your browser’s location bar.) 8 years ago

Anne Goddardurgent votes required! Nuclear Power for Australia?

Should Australia build a nuclear power station?
Yes or No?
(scroll down the left hand side)

and spread the word IMMEDIATELY! 8 years ago

Anne GoddardNuclear Power No Solution

“The reason the nuclear industry has collapsed worldwide is because of the unresolved dangers of weapons and waste”… 8 years ago

Anne GoddardDoctors warn against expansion of the nuclear industry 8 years ago

Anne GoddardALP youth back uranium switch

In the next Federal Election…the Australain Labor Party (ALP) will NOT be getting my flow on vote.
I just hope the Greens/Democrats/Socialist Alliance have runners in my seat.

Otherwise my ballot paper will have to go into the box unmarked :-(

It appears that the young ALP’s have been infiltrated by the nuclear industry… Just as the ALP were infiltrated by the timber/pulp/paper industry.

Sad… very sad.

“ALP youth back uranium switch”,20867,20547327-2702,00.html 8 years ago

Anne GoddardMaralinga - NEVER AGAIN


50th ANNIVERSARY .. 2006

September 27 marks the 50th anniversary of the first of seven nuclear bomb tests carried out at Maralinga, following nuclear bomb tests at Emu Field and the Monte Bello Islands. The September 27, 1956 bomb at Maralinga was a 12.9 kiloton plutonium bomb; similar to the Fat Man plutonium bomb which killed tens of thousands of people in Nagasaki in 1945.

Over the next month, a series of events around Australia will both commemorate the Maralinga anniversary and build the movement for a nuclear-free world.

Please find below a list of some of these events, and contact details for other nuke groups around the country so you can find out what’s happening in your part of the world. (I haven’t been able to get details for all the events happening around the country.)

Below …

1. ‘Maralinga – Never Again’ events
  • Melbourne
  • Adelaide
  • Perth
  • Darwin
  • Alice Spings
  • Sydney
  • Brisbane

2. Current list of nuclear campaign groups (please advise of ommissions, corrections)

3. Information about Maralinga

4. Fighting the NT nuclear dump plan … and Martin Ferguson


Wednesday, September 27
  • 7am wreath-laying at War Memorial on St Kilda Rd
  • 8am protest at BHP – ‘radiaoctive racism then and now’ – highlighting BHP’s refusal to relinquish exemptions from SA Aboriginal Heritage Protection Act.

Maralinga Concert
Sunday October 22, 3pm to 5pm
Storey Hall, RMIT, cnr Swanston & La Trobe Sts
A concert to mark the 50th anniversary of the British Nuclear Tests in South Australia. Featuring musicians (including Kutcha Edwards), speakers, recent photographs and interviews with Maralinga veterans. Come and join us to commemorate the ongoing legacy of the tests, and to celebrate a vision for a nuclear free future. Tickets $10/$5 available at the door.


The fun kicks off Friday night, September 22, from 7.00pm at the Karen Eliot Social Centre, cnr. Coglin & Hawker Streets, Brompton. There’ll be an amazing crop of riotous short films, pictures from the most recent Radioactive Exposure Tour, music, organic popcorn and maybe even vegan choc-tops! A gold coin donation would be super-appreciated.

Then, next Wednesday 27 September, Friends of the Earth Adelaide is holding a black-tie award ceremony for the first ever Blinky Award. The Blinky was created to recognise the outstanding commitment of massive corporations to short term profits at the expense of a healthy society and environment. There’s so many massive corporations to choose from… Meet at 9.30am at Beehive Corner to walk to the surprise award venue nearby. Dress in your best tuxedo or ball-gown, and bring anything you think is essential for such a high-calibre award ceremony; Radical Cheerleader chants are especially welcome!

Then on Sunday 1 October, we’re holding a community picnic at the North Terrace War Memorial, joining groups around Australia in a national day of commemoration of the Maralinga tests. It all kicks off from around noon, with guests including ecofaith maestro Jason John, Maralinga veteran and long-time rabble-rouser Avon Hudson and Kokatha representative Rebecca Bear Wingfield.

Hope you can join us for some of these events, please spread the details far and wide – if you want any more details, email Joel at, or phone 0403 886 951.


Wednesday 27 September 2006.
Meet 11am at Perth Cultural Centre outside Perth Institute for Contemporary Arts (PICA), James Street Northbridge for lunchtime street theatre and actions. Contact Nic on 0422 990040.


27th Sept; presence in the mall.
Details: Contact Justin 8945 6810 or Emma 8981 1984.

Maralinga; Field of Thunder
Sunday 1st October, 5pm to 10pm
Aviation Institute, Charles Eaton Dve, Marrara

The musical lineup includes an array of indigenous performers, including Shellie Morris, Russel Corowa, Aly Mills as well as other local acts, including Flesh Petal and Aly Mental.

Guest speakers include Uncle Speedy McGinness, a senior custodian of the Finnis River Land Trust, which encompasses Rum Jungle. Speedy will describe his deep sorrow at the fact that uranium from his country was responsible for the blinding of his friend Yami Lester during the British atomic tests.

We’ll have face painting fun for kids, a bar for adults, a bit of food and an energetic MC


September 27th
One Tree
In commemoration of the first atomic test at Maralinga, codenamed “one tree”, Alice Action, Arid Lands Environment Centre and Lhere Artepe Aboriginal Corporation will be planting one tree, along with a small plaque, on the Uniting church lawns in the Todd Mall at lunchtime on September 27th.

October 1st
“we are not no-one, this is not nowhere”
Alice Springs Council Lawns

In June 2005, then science minister Brenden Nelson asked “why can’t people in the middle of nowhere have low level and intermediate level (radioactive) waste?”

On October 1st the Alice Community will be coming together to remind the Government that this is not the middle of nowhere. We live here. This is our place.

Bands: Warren H Williams, Shane Howard (Goanna)
Performance: Drum Atweme, Tangentyere Circus
Films: Living Country (CAAMA), We of Little Voice
Speakers: NT Senator Trish Crossin, Fran Kilgariff (Alice Mayor), Elliot McAdam (Minister for Central Australia, member for Barkly region),
Margie Lynch (Arrernte Nations Campaign) and Traditional Owners from the proposed waste dump sites

This event will be drug and alcohol free, BYO picnic.

Presented by the Alice Alliance Against the Waste Dump: Alice Springs Town Council, Central Land Council, Tangentyere Council, Lhere Artepe Aboriginal Corporation, Arid Lands Environment Centre, Warren Snowdon’s office and AliceAction.


27th September; vigil at Sydney Town Hall steps at 5pm.
Contact: Renata 0422 854 184


Free Skillshare: nukes 101
Australia’s nuclear industry – the past, present and future….
explore the issues and how to talk about them
date: Sept 23 (Sat)
time: 10am-12am – stay on for a light lunch
place: Friends of the Earth Brisbane 294 Montague Road West End
RSVP: if possible (07) 3846 5793

Pine Gap 6 Benefit Gig; Coalition of the Unwilling
support the arrestees of the Pine Gap Citizen’s Inspection Team, due to face trial in Alice Springs on Oct 3.
Music by the Burrs, Alec Burns
Folk Band, Warwick Adenay and family, plus more
date: Sept 22 (Fri)
time: 7:30pm
place: St. Mary’s Church cnr Merivale and Peel Streets South Brisbane
price: $8, $5 concession

Maralinga 50 years on: commemoration vigil
Remembering global victims of nuclear weapons, testing and
contamination on the 50th anniversary of major nuclear tests at Maralinga, SA.
date: Sept 27 (Weds)
time: 4pm- 6pm
place: ANZAC Square Adelaide Street, Brisbane
this is planned as a silent vigil. please wear white or black and bring a candle and a visual message (information stall will also be held nearby)

Beyond nuclear testing; Australia’s nuclear past… towards a nuclear free future
speakers: Lew Rice, National President Atomic Ex-Servicemen’s
Keith Jaffray, Shoalwater Wilderness Awareness Group;
Medical Association for the Prevention of War;
Peace Convergence/Friends of the Earth
date: Oct 1 (Sun)
time: 2pm to 4pm
place: Ahimsa House 24 Horan Street West End

Pine Gap 6; solidarity vigil
expose Pine Gap as Pine Gap Trial commences; stand in support of the Citizens Inspection Team who entered US spy base Pine Gap last year and now face court under the “Special Defence Undertakings Act”
date: Oct 3 (Tues)
time: 1 to 2pm
place: in front of “Lady Justice” (outside Supreme Court of Qld) cnr. George and Edward Sts. Brisbane

Queensland Nuclear Free Alliance (QNFA) meets fortnightly. Join us!
ph Robin 0411 118 737


Adelaide: FoE Clean Futures Collective
Joel Catchlove 0403 886 951
Friends of the Earth’s Clean Futures Collective meets each Tuesday, 5.30pm, Conservation Centre, 120 Wakefield St, Adelaide.
Web: &

Alice Springs: Alice Action & Arid Lands Environment Centre
Nat Wasley (08) 8952 2011, 0429 900 774.
Alice Action meets every Wednesday 6pm at ALEC, 39 Hartley St.

Darwin: Environment Centre of the Northern Territory
Emma King (08) 8981 1984, 0428 818 109

Darwin: No Waste Alliance, ph Justin Tutty (08) 8945 6810

Brisbane: Anti-Nuclear Collective & Food Irradiation Watch
Robin Taubenfield 04 1111 8737
Kim Stewart (07) 3846 5793

Canberra – Canberra Region Anti-Nuclear Campaign (CRANC)
Meets every second Thursday (June 1, 15, 29), 6pm, at ROCKS meeting room, cnr Kingsley St, off Barry Dr, Acton.
Tim 0405 370782

Melbourne: FoE Anti-Uranium Collective
Michaela Stubbs 0429 136935
Friends of the Earth’s Anti-Uranium Collective meets each Wednesday, 6.30pm, 312 Smith St, Collingwood.

Perth: Anti-Nuclear Alliance of WA
Annemarie Hindinger (08) 9271 4488
Nicola Paris 0422 990 040

Fremantle Anti Nuclear Group. Meets fortnightly. Contact Nicola Paris, 0422 990040 or

Byron Bay:
Catherine Atoms 0404 899 619

Beyond Nukes Lismore
Ruth Rosenhek (02) 6689 7519,
Meets at Winsome Hotel.


Kupa Piti Kungka Tjuta, Irati Wanti (‘The poison, stop it’):
and see the links section:
and the testimonies:

Australian Nuclear Veterans Association:

Large collection of articles by journalist Colin James available as Word file from

Articles by nuclear engineer and Maralinga whistle-blower Alan Parkinson, re botched clean-up in the ‘90s:


and articles about the use of human gunea-pigs, the body-snatchers scandal and other stuff at the same site.

BBC material:


Operation Hurricane (Monte Bello Islands, Western Australia)
  • 3 October, 1952… 25 kilotons… plutonium
    Operation Totem (Emu Field, South Australia)
  • ‘Totem 1’... 15 October, 1953 … 9.1 kilotons… plutonium
  • ‘Totem 2’... 27 October, 1953 … 7.1 kilotons… plutonium
    Operation Mosaic (Monte Bello Islands, Western Australia)
    ‘G1’ .. 16 May, 1956 … Trimouille Island …15 kilotons
    ‘G2’ .. 19 June, 1956 … Alpha Island …60 kilotons
    Operation Buffalo (Maralinga, South Australia)
    ‘One Tree’ .. 27 September, 1956 … 12.9 kilotons… plutonium
    ‘Marcoo’ .. 4 October 1956 … 1.4 kilotons… plutonium
    ‘Kite’ .. 11 October, 1956 … 2.9 kilotons… plutonium
    ‘Breakaway’ .. 22 October, 1956 … 10.8 kilotons… plutonium
    Operation Antler (Maralinga, South Australia)
    ‘Tadje’ .. 14 September, 1957 … 0.9 kilotons… plutonium
    ‘Biak’ .. 25 September, 1957 … 5.7 kilotons… plutonium
    ‘Taranaki’ .. 9 October, 1957 … 26.6 kilotons… plutonium

Following info from Australian Students Environment Network

The Maralinga Atomic Bomb Tests; 50 years on…

“They put the bomb there. In our country. Maralinga and Emu Junction. In the middle, right through. All the smoke went there. Right through and finished all our people, in the Victorian desert. You look at it on the map, nobody living in the Victorian desert. All our people gone.”
... Myra Tjunmutja Watson

On September 27, 1956, the first British atomic test at Maralinga, in the South Australian desert, codenamed ‘One Tree’, was conducted, on Tjarutja lands.

It followed similar atomic bomb detonations further north at Emu Field, and on the Monte Bello islands, off the northwest coast of Western Australia. One Tree was detonated despite poor weather conditions, resulting in significant radioactive fallout around Coober Pedy, and measured as far away as Townsville in North Queensland and Lismore in New South Wales. The cumulative fallout from the tests ultimately passed over most of Australia. Seven further nuclear devices were tested at Maralinga in the following months.

Many Indigenous communities living in the surrounding areas were not warned of the immediate nuclear threat. Despite the experience of previous atomic tests at Emu Field, where Indigenous groups around Wallatinna and elsewhere recalled experiencing a “black mist” rolling through their camps after the tests, followed by widespread sickness, the 1986 Royal Commission concluded that at Maralinga “attempts to ensure Aboriginal safety [during the tests] demonstrate ignorance, incompetence and cynicism on the part of those responsible for that safety.”

The test range was located in an area that was selected “on the false assumption that the area was not used by its traditional Aboriginal owners,” when in actuality Indigenous people continued to move in and around the Prohibited Area – including the Milpuddie family camping in a highly contaminated bomb crater. The boundaries of the test site were not secure, and warning signs were all in English.

Communities across the Western Desert suffered significant radiation exposure. The fallout from the tests was extensive: radioactivity affected most of the Australian continent, leading to death and sickness, and continuing to affect individuals and communties today. Indigenous oral histories tell of a black mist that caused cancer and asthma, red and yellow-coloured smoke rising, bright flashes of light leading to blindness. There are tragic stories of families sleeping in bomb craters, nose and stomach trouble, family dying, and children orphaned.

It is the story of poison spreading far, hurting people and land.

To carry out the tests, thousands of Maralinga, Pitjantjatjara and Kokatha people were forcibly removed and dispossessed from their land by ‘Aboriginal Protectors’ and forced to relocate to government and mission-controlled enclaves.

British nuclear testing in Australia between 1952 and 1963 at Maralinga, Emu Fields, Christmas Island and Monto Bello was officially unquestioned because of the close military ties between Australia and ‘Mother’ England. Permission was not sought for the tests from affected Aboriginal groups such as the Pitjantjatjara, Tjarutja and Kokatha. The racist logic of imperialism underscored the tests; officials of the day condemned “placing the affairs of a handful of natives above those of the British Commonwealth of Nations” as “lamentable” and ludicrous. This racism continues today when the voices of Indigenous people and communities directly affected by uranium mines, waste dumps or lingering contamination are ignored and silenced in favour of the voices profiting from the nuclear industry. Maralinga is testimony to the radioactive racism inherent in the nuclear industry.

50 years later, the legacy of Maralinga remains. In 2001 the British Ministry of Defence acknowledged that military personnel from Britain, Australia and New Zealand were used as “guinea pigs”. They were inadequately trained, not made fully aware of the dangers of the tests and sometimes intentionally exposed to radiation in order to observe its effects on humans. Many of the veterans carry a high incidence of cancer and genetic damage, passed on to their children and grandchildren. The veterans of these tests, along with the Indigenous groups of the area, still have not been adequately compensated or acknowledged.

Effects on country and failed clean up of Maralinga

The nuclear weapons detonated contain radioactive substances poisonous for up to 250,000 years, already contaminating land and water systems; and affecting fragile desert eco-systems and the underground water basins which sustain them.

The contamination from the tests still lingers in the ground; approximately 8,000 kg of uranium, 24 kg of plutonium, and 100 kg of beryllium from the ‘minor trials’ at Maralinga. In the late 1990s the Federal Government committed to a clean-up which they declared ‘successful’ in 2002. The clean-up is widely considered to have been grossly inadequate. The government breached its own standards for the disposal of long-lived radioactive waste by burying plutonium-contaminated debris in shallow, unlined trenches “with no regard for its longevity or toxicity, and no regard to the suitability of the site,” as nuclear engineer Alan Parkinson commented.

Dr. Geoff Williams, a senior officer from the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) described the ‘clean-up’ as marred by a “host of indiscretions, short-cuts and cover-ups.” Alan Parkinson, who was initially appointed as the Government’s Representative to oversee the clean-up but later removed, argues: “What was done at Maralinga was a cheap and nasty solution that wouldn’t be adopted on white-fellas land.”

The poison still lingers.

In Australia today….

Climate change is happening … and governments and corporations are being forced to respond to a consensus of scientists worldwide, and a strong global movement taking action to avert dangerous climate change. In Australia, the nuclear industry and other pro-nuclear advocates have been quick to reinvent nuclear power as “clean, green and safe” and a “solution” to climate change. But nuclear power is no solution to climate change: it is too dangerous, too costly, too slow and makes little impact on greenhouse pollution. That is why most of the industrialised world is rejecting the nuclear option in favour of renewable energy and improved efficiency.

With 40% of the world’s known uranium reserves in Australia, however, the Federal Government and other nuclear industry players are keen to cash in on the recent enthusiasm for nuclear power.

The patterns of short-sightedness and discrimination that characterised the Maralinga tests continue. In the 1950s, it is very likely that uranium mined in South Australia was sold to another country, and returned as bombs to be exploded on land not far from where it was extracted. Today, South Australian uranium is again being sent overseas, with a growing push for the subsequent wastes to be returned and dumped on Indigenous land in the Northern Territory. As the Federal Government looks to sell uranium to countries like China and India, there appears a very real risk that Australian uranium may again end up in warheads, as countries continue to allow the diminishing effectiveness of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Likewise, government and the nuclear industry’s pattern of discrimination against Indigenous cultures can be seen today in legislation like the Roxby Downs Indenture Act. This Act allows BHP Billiton’s operations at its Olympic Dam (Roxby Downs) uranium mine to supercede a variety of other crucial pieces of legislation, including the Aboriginal Heritage Act. The interests of the nuclear industry continue to be granted precedence over the legislated rights of Indigenous Australians.

Australia has three existing uranium mines; the Ranger Mine in the Kakadu National Park in the Northern Territory, and the Beverley and Olympic Dam (Roxby Downs) mines in South Australia. BHP Billiton is planning a $5 billion expansion of the Olympic Dam mine to make it the largest mine on the planet, and Australia the largest producer and exporter of uranium in the world.

A second nuclear reactor in Lucas Heights, Sydney, was recently granted approval to begin operation, on the grounds there is an adequate storage facility for the waste it generates. The repackaging of nuclear energy as “clean energy” cannot hide the ongoing thorn in the nuclear industry’s backside: the problem of nuclear waste. There is still no safe way of disposing of nuclear waste, and there are still no storage plans for the more than 250,000 tonnes of high-level radioactive waste already in existence.

Regardless, the Federal Government is working hard to force a low and intermediate-level nuclear waste dump on the Northern Territory. On December 8 last year, the Federal Government passed legislation clearing the construction of a national nuclear waste dump in the Northern Territory. This proposal has been met with opposition from almost all sides of Northern Territory politics, alongside Indigenous landowners, and environment and community groups. The dump proposal is crucial to the recent commissioning of the replacement nuclear reactor at Lucas Heights, as the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) was required to demonstrate they had a comprehensive plan for waste disposal before the reactor was granted a license to operate.

The reframing of the nuclear industry and ‘debate’ is a distraction from the real debate about climate change; energy reduction and moving to renewable energy. State and Federal Governments seem determined to gratify nuclear and fossil fuel industries, at the expense of indigenous communities; and creating environmental destruction, long-lived radioactive waste, and dangerous climate change.

“The patterns of short-sightedness and discrimination that characterised the Maralinga tests continue.”

Better active today than radioactive tomorrow! Get active and involved:

The nuclear industry is seeing its biggest revival in decades, with extensive exploration, pushing for new uranium mines and enrichment in Australia, a new reactor to operate in Sydney, the possibility of nuclear power, and plans for a radioactive waste dump in the Northern Territory. But it’s going to be a short-lived revival; the nuclear industry is no answer to climate change, renewable energy works and is non-polluting, and we’ve got the people power to create a sustainable and safe future!

Fighting the NT nuclear dump plan … and Martin Ferguson

Labor MP Martin Ferguson recently claimed that environmentalists and other special interest groups “have used indigenous communities to peddle their own ideology” and that “indigenous communities are starting to make their own decisions about these issues.”

Below is a response by Mitch, an Eastern Arrernte/Luritja woman from Alice Springs. She is fighting the federal government’s nuclear dump plans.

We stand strong as Indigenous people

By Mitch (an Eastern Arrernte/Luritja woman from Alice Springs)September 13, 2006

When the Howard government’s proposal to build a nuclear waste dump in the Northern Territory was announced in July 2005, my Elders from the Harts Range site north-east of Alice Springs gave me permission to set up a protest camp and to speak out against it.

The Alice Springs community and environment groups supported us, but they have never pressured us into anything or put words in our mouths. I reject the statement from Labor politician Martin Ferguson, published in the Financial Review on Wednesday, that environmentalists “have used indigenous communities to peddle their own ideology”. The environment groups have only ever helped us, not told us what to say.

Mr. Ferguson is being paternalistic when he says, “indigenous communities are starting to make their own decisions about these issues.” As he should know, we have always made our own decisions, but the politicians don’t often listen.

My family and I have done a lot of our own research on nuclear issues in the Alice Springs Library, by watching documentaries, and listening to the environmentalists and politicians. And of course we already know about our traditional culture and country – protecting country and access for hunting and gathering bush tucker.

We have asked repeatedly for more information from the Government but they have only told us that it is safe and there is no reason why people in the ‘middle of nowhere’ can’t have a dump. We have asked to meet with federal science minister Julie Bishop, but she refuses to speak to us.

If this nuclear waste is so safe, why can’t they keep it at the Lucas Heights nuclear plant in Sydney, where it is produced and where the nuclear experts work? We stand strong in our own culture as Indigenous people, and want the land and water to be protected for all children, black and white. We have enough issues of our own to deal with without having to deal with the nuclear waste.

We can solve the problems of racism, economic impoverishment, and inequality in housing, but as a nation we need to think hard about nuclear issues because radioactive waste is a problem we can’t solve easily.

Last December, the federal government passed legislation – the Commonwealth Radioactive Waste Management Act –which prevents the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984 from having any effect during investigation of the short-listed nuclear dump sites, and it excludes the Native Title Act 1993 from operating at all. Julie Bishop should come here to tell us why the normal laws, as inadequate as they are, are being ignored.

Aboriginal Heritage is not protected under white law, what are the morals here if the culture of the Indigenous people is not protected?

Indigenous communities have found solidarity with other groups that have an interest in caring for the earth. For the dump campaign this has meant feeling supported instead of feeling like a single Indigenous woman and talking up for people living out bush at the Alcoota/Harts Range site, 120 kms north-east of Alice Springs.

Aboriginal communities and greenies are interested in the same thing, with different reasons and understandings, but both wanting to save the water and look after the country. Martin Ferguson should do the same. 8 years ago

Anne GoddardSign the Petition: One Million Against Nuclear Energy in Europe


Sign the petition against nuclear power in Europe!

Europe’s energy policy is at the crossroads: Triggered by fears over supply security or climate change, the nuclear energy industry hopes for a comeback. But nuclear energy remains the most dangerous form of energy, the problem of waste treatment and storage remains unsolved, leaving a dirty and dangerous legacy behind for thousands of years. And nuclear power is financially insane and no solution for the global warming crisis. Instead, we need massive investments into energy efficiency and renewable energies.

Sign the European Petition against Nuclear Energy: 8 years ago

Anne GoddardJohn's Open Letter to the Greens

Further to this letter from JT, and as I am no longer with the Greens, I am seriously considering running Federally as an Independent, (with my first preferences going to the Greens/Socialist Alliance/Democrats over the ALP (depending on who has “runners”).

I would be raising indigenous issues such as noted in John’s message below, also, issues raised from;
sustainable and viable energy supplies for the people,
sustainable development(s),
addressing climate change locally and globally,
my strong opposition to the expansion of the nuclear industry in Australia environmental refugees
and the provision of adequate public transport systems
(for starters)....

Socialist Alliance has been very outspoken on Indigenous Issues, and i highly commend them on their efforts.

Warm regards

Original Message …
From: “kurityityin kurityityin”

hi Anne.
check this out and please pass it on to any Greens in
your network

All the best

An open letter to the Queensland and Australian

full text of this important document, well worthy of a read and further distrubution through networks…

The September 2006 Queensland state election was remarkable for the Greens in two ways. The first of course was the increased Green vote, in particular several seats getting around 20%, firmly locating the Greens as a significant political phenomenon in Queensland, despite the lack of an upper house as in other states. The second remarkable thing about the election was the Greens’ silence on indigenous issues at a time when the unresolved death in the Palm Island watch house, the resurgence of the stolen wages campaign including a senate enquiry and the recent media hysteria about violence in Aboriginal communities were firmly planted in the public consciousness.

The Greens have only one elected representative in Queensland, Erykah Kyle – the mayor of Palm Island. Palm Island is the biggest Aboriginal community in Queensland and arguably the most disadvantaged. The state has muddled from crisis to crisis including offering $800.000 to the Palm Island council to appear in a photo opportunity with Premier Beattie.

I believe the development of the Palm Island Greens and the active involvement of Mayor Kyle in the Green Party is of great historical and political significance, not just for the Greens but also for the evolution of the Aboriginal struggle into the twenty first century. However these profound developments have been totally betrayed and disempowered by the current leadership of the Qld. Greens and their refusal to engage with indigenous issues.

The very first thing the New Labor government did after the state election was to abolish indigenous affairs from cabinet with a commitment to mainstreaming indigenous public service delivery.

Beattie has managed to slip this major change in Aboriginal affairs through without even a whimper of opposition, unlike John Howard who has had to fight, and continues to fight for exactly the same policies.

I believe this would not have been possible if the Greens had campaigned on indigenous issues. With the exception of the Socialist Alliance (who only got an insignificant 2%) there was no party that campaigned on indigenous issues. Beattie has correctly assumed that there is no political support from anywhere so he can sweep all the indigenous problems under the carpet. The silence of the Greens has facilitated this move.

The abolition of the indigenous affairs portfolio and the transition to mainstreaming is a watershed moment in Aboriginal affairs in Qld. It marks the final elimination of all of the Aboriginal political gains of the twentieth century, in particular the principle of self determination. The Greens were the only political party capable of pressuring the Beattie government on indigenous issues and they didn’t. Blood is indeed on the hands of the Greens.

As the author of the draft Greens state indigenous policy I believe the policy is a good one. I have read the national Party’s indigenous policy and I believe it is also very good. But both policies just sat as meaningless text in cyberspace and had no manifestation in the election campaign or any other attempt to pressure the government to abandon its present indigenous policy (non)paradigms.

The Greens, like the National Party have upheld mainstream white racism and allowed Beattie to continue to enact genocidal programs that not even John Howard has been able to achieve (yet). As long as white power does not consider black disadvantage, then the disadvantage just compounds upon itself resulting in more deaths, violence and illness. It is no hyperbole to call this genocide.

Queensland and national issues come together with the upcoming federal election. Will the Greens remain silent on Howard’s indigenous agenda as well as Beatties? Or will they leave it to federal Labor to challenge them on issues such as housing or health in Qld?

For Aboriginal people and their supporters there is an alternative to the Greens in Queensland. Andrew Bartlett has consistently and over many years supported the struggles of Aboriginal Australia in the senate and in the community. He has recently initiated the senate inquiry into stolen Aboriginal wages and has as one of his core public campaigns “Put Our First Peoples First – Overcoming Indigenous Disadvantage” which he will presumably push into the senate election with the momentum of the stolen wages inquiry.

Why would a supporter of justice for Aboriginal people vote Green when Bartlett is an option?

I am not a member of the Democrats or the Greens (though I am a former member of both). At present I am promoting Bartlett simply because he is campaigning on Aboriginal issues. On Aboriginal issues, as with all other issues, the Democrats are more interested with tinkering around the edges trying to make an unworkable system work, they have no capacity for social leadership or the propagation of new paradigms. However the Democrats are the only political party in Queensland who has publicly identified itself as a supporter of Aboriginal Australia, they speak up for Aboriginal issues. Despite the Democrats political limitations this public association with Aboriginal Australia is crucial to stop Aboriginal crisis from being swept under the carpet as a non-priority in white political discourse.

Andrew Bartlett is the Democrats national indigenous affairs spokesperson and he has the benefit of the senate and his office to campaign from. The Greens will have to come up with a major campaign to convince Aboriginal supporters to vote for them rather than Bartlett. I hope they do.

Unlike the Democrats, the Greens have an ongoing relationship with Palm Island, a number of Aboriginal members grouped on the Sunshine Coast with a specific indigenous agenda within the party. The Greens have the structural links with Aboriginal Australia and are not in the “centrist” straight jacket that Bartlett is, they are capable of articulating a vision that will catch fire in the community.

It would seem however that the present leadership of the Qld. Greens is choosing to ignore this great social capital, a base capable of increasing the Green vote but more importantly, capable of pressuring all levels of government to lift their games on Aboriginal issues by simply campaigning on the issues. The Qld. Greens are capable and professional campaigners, it is not as if they are not able to campaign on Aboriginal issues. They just choose not to. I hope this changes.

John Tracey

posted by John Tracey @ 8:55 PM 8 years ago

Anne GoddardFair and Just Process?

From: “Anne Goddard”
To: “Rees, James (REPS)”
Sent: Friday, September 15, 2006 5:01 PM
Subject: Re: Submission against the supply of Uranium to China from the Goddard Family

Dear James

I hear that you are telling me that submissions with similar wording which are received via the internet, on YOUR recommendation, will not be classified as submissions, but rather be seen as “correspondence”. Does this mean that the work of many concerned citizens can simply be ignored during the inquiry?

Given the limited amount of time to get any form of adequate “submission” together over such an important issue, do you think that this inquiry will be, as you say, open and public, and hence, will such an inquiry be completely honest and adequately address the wishes of the people of Australia, in a just and fair way?

How does such a decision equate with the work of many people across Australia and the globe over many months of discussing these issues?

Taking such a decision clearly does not fairly represent their best intentions, their efforts OR their wishes. In fact, such a decision is not fair, or just, or honest.

I look forward to your reply.

Yours sincerely
Anne Goddard 8 years ago

Anne GoddardSubmission to be classified as "correspondence"?

Original Message
From: “Rees, James (REPS)
To: “Anne Goddard”
Sent: Friday, September 15, 2006 4:37 PM
Subject: RE: Submission against the supply of Uranium to China from the
Goddard Family

Dear Ms Goddard,

I first need to clarify a couple of matters.

When a submission is made to a Parliamentary Committee and the committee decides to formally receive it becomes the property of the committee and it is a matter for the committee to determine whether it is published.

Someone making a submission to a parliamentary committee should not otherwise publish it until after the committee has done so. It is an issue of parliamentary privilege which is explained in the pamphlet Preparing a submission to a Parliamentary Committee Inquiry and more
fully in Chapter 18 (pp 664-7) of House of Representatives Practice
( In the normal course of events submissions to committee inquiries are received and published at the earliest available opportunity after they are received unless there are compelling reasons not to do so. This is consistent with your expectation that a parliamentary committee inquiry of this type should be an open and public process.

The media report you have attached refers to the purchase by China of a 60% stake in an uranium deposit which is only a potential mine. Without the ratification of the agreements, even if the deposit were commercially exploited, the uranium could not legally be exported to China. The Treaties Committee has not concluded its deliberations on the uranium agreements with China and intends to conduct more public hearings and hear from a range of witnesses before it does so. When its deliberations are concluded it will report publicly to the Parliament on its findings.

The committee is receiving a large number of representations which, like yours, have their genesis on the internet. To avoid the complication of the publication and confidentiality issues I have refered to above I am intending to recommend to the committee that it receive and publish on its website material compiled and circulated on the internet and the subject of multiple and substantially identical “submissions” as correspondence. If you have any queries about anything in this email I would be happy to explain it further. I may be contacted on 02 6277 4642.

James Rees
Committee Secretary 8 years ago

Anne Goddard"shoosh and super hush hush" OPEN PUBLIC DEBATE?

From: “Committee, Treaties (REPS)” To: “Anne Goddard”
Sent: Friday, September 15, 2006 2:13 PM
Subject: RE: Submission against the supply of Uranium to China from the Goddard Family

Dear Ms Goddard

Thank you for your submission to the Joint Standing Committee on
Treaties expressing your views on the Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the People’s Republic of China on the Transfer of Nuclear Material and the Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the People’s Republic of China for Cooperation in the Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy.

The matters raised in your submission will be given careful
consideration by the committee. I will contact you again if the
committee requires further information from you.

Please note that the making of a submission can constitute the giving of evidence and attract parliamentary privilege. In accordance with the rules of Parliament, you should not withdraw, alter, publish or otherwise disclose your submission without first receiving the committee’s approval. However, provided that it is presented in a different form, you may use or publish the information your submission contains.

The committee commonly authorises publication of submissions made to it during the course of an inquiry. If you do not wish that your submission be made public please advise me as soon as possible. Once a submission has been formally received and authorised it will be published on the Committee’s website and it will also appear in the Committee’s official published volumes of the inquiry.

Should you wish to clarify the position regarding your submission or if you have any other queries please contact the secretariat on 02 6277 4002.

Yours sincerely

James Rees
Committee Secretary

From: Anne Goddard
Sent: Thursday, 14 September 2006 11:01 PM
To: Committee, Treaties (REPS)
Subject: Submission against the supply of Uranium to China from the Goddard Family

Joint Standing Committee on Treaties
PO Box 6021, Parliament House, Canberra, ACT, 2600.

Submission to Joint Standing Committee on Treaties:

Inquiry into Proposed Uranium Export or Sales to China

From the Goddard Family
C/- PO Box 316, Gin Gin, Queensland, Australia, 4671
Thursday, September 14, 2006

...SNIP 8 years ago

Anne GoddardCorrespondence on the Submission from the Secretary of the Committee...

Original Message
From: “Anne Goddard”
To: “Committee, Treaties (REPS)”
Cc: “Group 1”;
Sent: Friday, September 15, 2006 3:18 PM
Subject: Re: Submission against the supply of Uranium to China from the Goddard Family

Dear James

I am rather confused with this email.
Does this mean that I am not allowed to send my submission to the Media?
If so, why not?
I wish to do so (and have already done so with another submission, with very similar wording).

The other submission was widely published across the internet and sent to media outlets. It came to be via the Climate Change Action Group (CCA). This submission was discussed via that Group (on the internet) for a couple of weeks. All published messages on this Submission (and the final version) are
available for anyone to see.

How does this “fit” with the words in your email “you should not withdraw, alter, publish or otherwise disclose your submission without first receiving the committee’s approval”
Particularly considering that the “final version” of the CCA’s submission was sent to the Committee at the same time as it was distributed across the internet (the CCA Group now has 61 global members). I would presume these members do not understand that these submissions are “private” documents,
therefore these members could also have distributed this submission to others – including media.

I do not understand the secrecy here…?

Surely public’s scrutiny of these documents is what an open and honest system of Government representation is about?

I am also GREATLY concerned to hear that China has ALREADY invested heavily into Nuclear mines in Australia. To me, it appears that the deal has already been done!

The information below came to me last night, just after i had submitted the CCA Groups Submission. This media article made me very unhappy and distressed.

I quote from:
Chinese buy stake in SA uranium deposit
Thursday Sep 14 06:25 AEST

China has bought a controlling stake in a $160 million South Australian uranium deposit in a move which allows it to bypass Australian suppliers and export it directly to its own nuclear power plants.

One of China’s giant metals corporations, Sinosteel, has taken the first step to owning 60 per cent of the Crocker Well uranium field in South Australia, which is now held by Sydney-based explorer PepinNini, The Australian newspaper reports.

In April the federal government agreed that China could buy uranium from Australia under strict controls designed to ensure it is used only for non-military purposes.

Paul Heithersay, from South Australia’s Department of Minerals and Resources, said future Chinese interest in the state’s uranium was likely once the export deal was ratified.

“I expect to see a lot more investment interest after this particular agreement,” Mr Heithersay told the newspaper.

South Australian Premier Mike Rann was unavailable to comment on the deal, and federal Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane would not comment on the proposed venture because it would have to be reviewed by the Foreign Investment Review Board.”


Please, therefore, explain how the Committee will be coming to a decision on exports of Uranium to China? Will the decision REALLY be about addressing all the issues raised in the submissions from concerned members of the public?

Or is it true that there is a corrupt system in place to ensure that submissions from concerned members of the general public are:
(1) Completely ignored by our “elected representatives”, and
(2) Kept as private or “cabinet documents” to ensure that the voting public are kept in the dark about such deadly serious issues?

Also, please advise how Uranium exports to China can be stopped considering China now “has taken the first step to owning 60 per cent of the Crocker Well uranium field in South Australia”? (quoted as published)

Deeply concerned
Anne Goddard 8 years ago

Anne GoddardSubmission to Joint Standing Committee on Treaties:

Submission to Joint Standing Committee on Treaties:

Inquiry into Proposed Uranium Sales to China

From The Climate Action Group
C/- PO Box 316, Gin Gin, Qld, 4671

Thursday, September 14, 2006

Introduction (P1, Item 1)
Inadequate IAEA Safeguards (P2, Item 2)
Australia’s meaningless Bilateral Agreements (P3, Item 3).
China’s Nuclear Weapons Program (P4, Item 4)
China’s WMD and Military Exports (P4, Item 5)
Uranium Displacement (P5, Item 6)
Human Rights Violations (P5, Item 7)
Media Censorship (P6, Item 8)
Adverse Precedent (P6, Item 9)
Public Safety and Environmental Concerns (P6, Item 10)
The Drug Dealers Defence (P7, Item 11)
Commercial Interests (P8, Item 12)
Providing the Incentive and the WMD Feedstock (P8, Item 13)
Indigenous Rights (P8, Item 14)
Summary (P9, Item 15)

We oppose uranium sales to China for the reasons outlined below.

1. Introduction

Nuclear power is the only energy source with a direct and repeatedly demonstrated connection to the production of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). Four or five countries have used supposedly peaceful nuclear programs to develop arsenals of nuclear weapons – Israel, India, Pakistan, South Africa, and possibly North Korea.
The by-products of nuclear power, such as “depleted uranium,” can be used to manufacture horrific weapons with long-lasting and poorly understood effects.

The five ‘declared’ nuclear weapons states – the US, the UK, Russia, France, and China; routinely transfer personnel from their ‘peaceful’ nuclear programs to their WMD programs, and the USA uses a power reactor to produce tritium for use in nuclear weapons.

The contribution of ostensibly peaceful nuclear programs to WMD proliferation has underpinned strong and sustained public opposition to uranium mining and export:

  • A May 30, 2006 Newspoll of 1,200 Australians found that 66% are opposed to any new uranium mines in Australia (including a clear majority for all major-party voters – 53% of Coalition voters and 78% of ALP voters).

Therefore, based on this survey, to go ahead with expansion of the nuclear industry in Australia would be to go against the wishes of the overwhelming majority of voters.

  • A 2005 survey of 1,020 Australians carried out by the International Atomic Energy Agency found that 56% considered the Agency’s ‘safeguards’ inspection system to be ineffective.

Therefore, based on this survey, to go ahead with the expansion of the nuclear industry in Australia would be to ignore the views of the majority of people who regard our safeguard inspection system is ineffective.

  • A September 2005 SBS-commissioned Newspoll of 1,200 Australians found that 53% were opposed to uranium exports to China, with 31% in favour.

These figures speak for themselves. The majority surveyed are AGAINST uranium exports to China.

2. Inadequate IAEA Safeguards.

IAEA Director-General Mohamed El Baradei has described the IAEA’s basic inspection rights as “fairly limited”, complained about “half-hearted” efforts to improve the system, and expressed concern that the safeguards system operates on a “shoestring budget” ... comparable to a local police department.

Yet the Australian government and the so-called safeguards office ASNO continue to peddle the fiction that there is no risk of diversion of Australian uranium to nuclear weapons production.

Australia is entirely reliant on the IAEA’s flawed and under-resourced safeguards system to prevent Australian uranium and its by-products (collectively known as Australian obligated nuclear materials – AONM) being used in Chinese nuclear weapons.

The treaty text makes no provision for Australian inspections of AONM in China or of Chinese nuclear facilities using AONM.
As a ‘declared’ nuclear weapons state, China is not subject to full-scope IAEA safeguards. Nuclear facilities using AONM would only be subject to voluntary inspections, but even this is no simple matter since Australian uranium is indistinguishable from, and can be mixed with, uranium from elsewhere.

Given that Australian uranium is indistinguishable from, and can be mixed with, uranium from elsewhere, no attempt is made to track Australian uranium per se. Indeed, all of Australia’s uranium exports to China could be used in nuclear weapons without even breaching the terms of the agreement – so long as an equivalent amount of nuclear material is transferred into “safeguarded material.”

This reality is directly at odds with statements made by Foreign Minister Alexander Downer.

Prime Minister John Howard has conceded that ultimately Australians must put our faith in the Chinese regime not to use Australian uranium in nuclear weapons. We need more than “faith and trust” when exporting uranium to any other nation.

There are numerous plausible scenarios which would make it difficult or impossible to safeguard AONM:

  • The Chinese regime might be expected to permit safeguards so long as it wants further uranium from Australia. But Australian uranium exports to China will not last forever and could be terminated at any point in time for a variety of reasons.
  • The Chinese regime promises military action in the event that Taiwan declares Independence, and Washington promises a military reaction in which Australia could become embroiled.
    In those circumstances, it would be all but impossible to prevent AONM being used in Chinese nuclear weapons.
    The US has ALREADY USED nuclear weapons on our Asian neighbours (and “depleted” uranium weapons both in Europe and Asia.)
  • There is serious concern that the NPT/IAEA system could collapse. For example, the 2004 report of the UN Secretary-General’s High Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change noted: “We are approaching a point at which the erosion of the non-proliferation regime could become irreversible and result in a cascade of proliferation.” In such circumstances, it is unlikely that IAEA safeguards would continue to apply [anywhere]. Moreover, in such circumstances, there is no certainty whatsoever that fallback provisions, such as Australian inspections, would be feasible.

3. Australia’s Meaningless Bilateral Agreements.

Provisions in bilateral uranium export agreements between Australia and customer countries have been gradually and repeatedly weakened since the basic framework was established in 1977 by the Fraser government. The provisions certainly do not guarantee that there will be no diversion of nuclear materials to WMD production.

The bilateral provisions are in some cases meaningless. For example, Australian consent is required before reprocessing spent nuclear fuel produced using Australian uranium. But consent to reprocess has never once been withheld by any Australian government – even [where] it leads to the stockpiling of plutonium [with] consequent regional tensions, as with Japan’s enormous plutonium stockpile.

It is particularly disappointing that the treaty text envisages reprocessing, i.e. separation of weapons-useable Australian-obligated plutonium from spent nuclear fuel irradiated in China.

The Australian government has been obliging to facilitate plutonium separation – it plans to grant ‘programmatic’ consent to the Chinese regime to separate Australian-obligated plutonium from spent fuel rather than requiring Australian consent on a case-by-case basis (or refusing consent altogether).

Moreover, there does not seem to have been any consideration made to assess how safe the facilities which will use Australian uranium might be. Will they have any protection against terrorist attack or theft? Will they be sited in geologically stable regions? What safegurads are there against spills, contamination of the environment, etc?

4. China’s Nuclear Weapons Program.

China’s Communist regime maintains an active nuclear weapons program and refuses to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. The 2002 US Nuclear Posture Review refers to China’s “ongoing modernization of its nuclear and non nuclear forces”.

Last year, Zhu Chenghu, a general in the Chinese People’s Liberation Army, said: “If the Americans draw their missiles and position-guided ammunition onto the target zone on China’s territory, I think we will have to respond with nuclear weapons.”

“We Chinese will prepare ourselves for the destruction of all the cities east of Xian. Of course, the Americans will have to be prepared that hundreds of cities will be destroyed by the Chinese.”

5. China’s WMD and Military Exports.

The Chinese regime has an appalling record of military exports. In 2001, the CIA reported that China had provided missile technology to North Korea and Libya as well as “extensive support” to Pakistan’s nuclear program.

In 2003, the US government imposed trade bans on five Chinese firms for selling weapons technology to Iran.

The Chinese regime has recently expressed some willingness to follow WMD export norms. But that cannot be expected to last, especially given that the USA is undermining those norms with proposed nuclear transfers to non-NPT state India.

Indeed there is little reason to believe that the Chinese regime’s professed support for export norms can be trusted or held as true or lasting. The same holds true for any other state Australia may consider exporting uranium to.

Amnesty International released a report in June 2006 criticising the Chinese regime for fueling conflicts with “irresponsible”, secret and growing conventional arms exports to a range of human-rights abusers.

According to Amnesty: “Its record in supplying arms to countries such as Iran, Myanmar (Burma), Pakistan and Sudan suggests … a dangerously permissive approach to licensing arms exports.” The report notes that China is the only major arms exporter not to sign up to any multinational agreements on arms export control.

Amnesty estimates that China exports at least $A1.33 billion worth of arms annnually although the regime’s extreme secrecy makes it difficult to estimate the scale of its arms exports.

In June 2006, the US government accused four Chinese firms of illicit military exports, thus beginning a process “potentially leading” to a freeze of any assets the firms have under US jurisdiction.

US Treasury undersecretary for terrorism and financial intelligence Stuart Levey said the four Chinese firms supplied Iran with missile-related and dual-use components.

A US Treasury statement said: “The Chinese firms have provided, or attempted to provide, financial, material, technological or other support for, or goods or services in support of “Iranian missile programs that are capable of delivering weapons of mass destruction”.

The statement said the exports included the Fateh-110 missile, with a range of 200kms, and the Fajr rocket systems, with ranges of 40-100kms. The four Chinese firms are: Beijing Alite Technologies Company, Ltd. (ALCO), LIMMT Economic and Trade Company, Ltd., China Great Wall Industry Corporation (CGWIC), and China National Precision Machinery Import/Export Corporation (CPMIEC).

6. Uranium Displacement.

China has insufficient uranium for both its civil and military nuclear programs, as the Chinese ambassador to Australia acknowledged in a December 2005 speech.

Therefore, Australian uranium sales would free up China’s limited domestic reserves for the production of nuclear WMD.

To argue otherwise – as the government and the so-called safeguards office ASNO do, is simply dishonest.

As the Taipei Times editorialised on January 21, 2006: “Whether or not Aussie uranium goes directly into Chinese warheads – or whether it is used in power stations in lieu of uranium that goes into Chinese warheads – makes little difference. Canberra is about to do a deal with a regime with a record of flouting international conventions.”

7. Human rights violations.

China is not a signatory to many international human rights and labour protection conventions and treaties.

According to Amnesty International, the Chinese regime is responsible for five out of every six executions carried out around the world. At least 2,468 executions were carried out in 2001 alone. Civil society safeguards such as whistleblower protections are absent.

There are examples of persecution of nuclear industry whistleblowers, such as Sun Xiaodi, who was concerned about environmental contamination at a uranium mine in north-west China and was abducted in April 2005 immediately after speaking to a foreign journalist.

8. Media Censorship.

The Chinese regime continues to tightly control the media. Of the 167 countries surveyed by Reporters Without Borders in 2005, China ranked 159th for press freedom, and China has more jailed journalists than any other country in the world.

If diversion of Australian uranium to China’s WMD program took place, it is highly unlikely that the media would be able to uncover and report on the diversion.

9. Adverse Precedent.

Uranium sales to China would set a poor precedent. Would Australia then sell uranium to all repressive, secretive, military states … or just some … or just China?

Negotiations over uranium sales to China have already been used to justify proposed sales to India, and proposals to sell to India have led to suggestions that uranium might also be sold to other countries which have not signed the NPT, namely Pakistan and Israel.

Already, Australia exports uranium to:

  • nuclear weapons states (USA, UK, France)
  • states which refuse to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (e.g. USA)
  • states blocking progress on a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty (e.g. USA)
  • states which use supposedly peaceful nuclear facilities to produce
    material for nuclear weapons (USA – tritium production), and
  • states with a history of secret nuclear weapons research (e.g. South

The government has also approved uranium sales to one non-NPT state – Taiwan.

10. Public Safety & Environmental Concerns.

There are other serious concerns in addition to the potential use of Australian uranium in Chinese nuclear weapons. Wang Yi, a nuclear energy expert at the Chinese Academy of Sciences in Beijing, told the New York Times in January last year: “We don’t have a very good plan for dealing with spent fuel, and we don’t have very good emergency plans for dealing with catastrophe.”

Additionally, adequate safeguards at Australian mine sites and for the transportation of uranium must be adequately addressed in an open and public manner. Already there have been a number of very worrying “incidents” reported at our three existing mines including leaks, water-table contamination, and radioactive contamination of workers. Whether all incidents have been reported is questionable – given government secrecy about such issues. Further mining and transportation can only increase the risk of some very serious incident or incidents.

11. The Drug Dealer’s Defense.

It is claimed that Australia applies stricter safeguards than some other uranium supplier nations. However, all countries are reliant on the flawed and under-resourced safeguards system of the IAEA. Credit cannot be claimed for bilateral provisions since the key provisions – on enrichment and reprocessing – have never once been invoked.

Which leaves apologists of uranium exports to the Chinese regime with one last argument – that ‘we’ might as well sell uranium to the Chinese regime since the only alternative is that other suppliers will fill the gap.

Australia must encourage the Chinese regime to pursue renewable energy options and energy efficiency measures rather than nuclear expansion as should the Australian Government be actively persuing and investing in the development of renewable, clean and sustainable energy supply options at home (such as: solar, tidal, wave, wind, geothermal).

The Chinese regime plans to increase the contribution of renewable energy to 15% by 2020 and nuclear’s contribution is expected to grow from 2% to 4% over the same period.

Australia ought to encourage the Chinese regime to abandon the nuclear expansion and to increase the renewable target to 100%.

There are various mechanisms to facilitate this course of action – the Clean Development Mechanism of the Kyoto Protocol, the AP6 Climate Change Framework, bilateral relations, export industry support, etc.

12. Commercial Interests.

Mike Rann noted in his 1982 book: “Again and again, it has been demonstrated here and overseas that when problems over safeguards prove difficult, commercial considerations will come first.”

That pursuit of profit regardless of WMD proliferation risks clearly underpins the proposal to export uranium to China.

It is frequently claimed that the sale of uranium to China will be a major source of export revenue. The claim is false – even the industry-funded Uranium Information Centre (UIC) envisages that Australia might obtain an export market to China of only about 3,000 tonnes annually compared to total current uranium exports to all countries of 10-12,000 tonnes. The UIC predicts that Australia might supply about one third of a predicted Chinese uranium demand of about 10,000 tonnes – and that assumes that the nuclear expansion proceeds as planned. Current demand in China is just 1,500 tonnes.

Uranium accounts for less than one third of one percent of Australia’s total export revenue – $573m/$176,700m in 2005. Even with exports to China, and an expansion of Roxby Downs, and new mines, the likelihood of uranium accounting for more than 1% of export revenue is vanishingly small.

13. Providing the Incentive and the WMD Feedstock.

The major driver of China’s nuclear weapons program is the US-led so-called missile defence program.

By actively supporting the US missile defence program, the Australian government is partly responsible for encouraging nuclear proliferation in China.
By supplying uranium, we will potentially provide the WMD feedstock – or free up Chinese uranium for WMD.

So the government is encouraging nuclear proliferation in China and now plans to supply the regime with nuclear WMD feedstock. This is not a logical or defensible course of action. In fact, the Climate Change Action Group is clear, we beleive that such an action as to supply China with Uranium is both wrong and very, very dangerous.

14. Indigenous Rights

Australian Aboriginal Elders have been clear on their wishes with regards to an expansion of the nuclear industry in Australia. Please visit or
and see the words of Australian Aboriginal Elders who have been carefully dealing with uranium deposits for many tens of thousands of years. Hear and heed their words of wisdom: “The Poison, Leave It”.

15. Summary

The Climate Change Action Group has a global membership of 60 individuals, with the majority being Australians, and we do not support the supply of Uranium to China. 8 years ago

Anne Goddarddeflated and miffed!!!!!!!!!!

TO: Nuclear Free Australia Internal Email Discussion Group

Hi Hillel

I am rather “deflated and miffed” upon reading this message (below).

I sent Dr Green’s submission with a few minor alterations, on exports to China, to the Climate Change Action Group (CCA) for
comments/feedback/additions and/or alterations, and today, on my day off work, I worked on the submissions presentation and final wording, subs are due tomorrow.

It is now out for final comment, basically, ready to send on behalf of CCA.

To read, in this article, that the Chinese are already buying up deposits and that the “federal govt agreed that China could buy uranium from Australia” leaves me very cold.

I wonder what point…??
When the decision has obviously already been made?

i feel like a shadow in the darkness….


Chinese buy stake in SA uranium deposit
Posted by: “Hillel Freedman”
Wed Sep 13, 2006 2:21 pm (PST)
Chinese buy stake in SA uranium deposit
Thursday Sep 14 06:25 AEST

China has bought a controlling stake in a $160 million South Australian uranium deposit in a move which allows it to bypass Australian suppliers and export it directly to its own nuclear power plants.

One of China’s giant metals corporations, Sinosteel, has taken the first step to owning 60 per cent of the Crocker Well uranium field in South Australia, which is now held by Sydney-based explorer PepinNini, The Australian newspaper reports.

In April the federal government agreed that China could buy uranium from Australia under strict controls designed to ensure it is used only for non-military purposes.

Paul Heithersay, from South Australia’s Department of Minerals and Resources, said future Chinese interest in the state’s uranium was likely once the export deal was ratified.

“I expect to see a lot more investment interest after this particular agreement,” Mr Heithersay told the newspaper.

South Australian Premier Mike Rann was unavailable to comment on the deal, and federal Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane would not comment on the proposed venture because it would have to be reviewed by the Foreign Investment Review Board.

But Labor resources spokesman Martin Ferguson said the Sinosteel purchase should lead to a reexamination of the definition of national interest in the context of foreign investment laws.

“There’s a national interest test to be applied here and one of the problems is that there is no clear definition of the national interest,” he told the newspaper.

“Perhaps it’s time some serious attention was turned to that, given there is a global race to lock up energy supplies.” 8 years ago

Anne GoddardNuclear Action tomorrow!!! FRIDAY


By Robin T

Urgent election uranium action: Call the pollies today Friday Sept 8!

Call on Labor to commit to its “no mines” policy!

As a result of ongoing community action and discussions with Queensland Conservation Council, the Australian Conservation Foundation and the Wilderness Society, the Premier’s office re-affirmed that “the Beattie government does not support the development of a uranium industry in Queensland” earlier this week.

This is a step in the right direction…

An election report card will be printed in the Courrier Mail on Friday – one is also available on line at:

Labor has been given a tick for its current policy – however, there is no guarantee that the policy won’t be changed.

Qld Labor has repeatedly indicated that the “no new mines policy” will be up for review at Labor’s national conference next year and that it may reconsider its position on the issue. This is not good enough. Labor must commit to maintaining the “no mines” policy that it is taking to the election.

Call Premier Peter Beattie and Deputy Premier Anna Bligh on Friday – let them know that you’ve seen the report card and that you oppose uranium mining. Ask them to publicly commit to their “no mines” policy before the election.

Let them know your concerns and tell them that the community needs to know that Labor will not allow uranium mining in Queensland – not now – not ever!

Premier Peter Beattie
Ph: (07) 3832 1322
Fax: (07) 3832 1323
Email: brisbanecentral@...

Deputy Premier Anna Bligh
Ph: (07) 3255 3615
Fax: (07) 3255 3627


for more info on nuclear matters:
www. 8 years ago

Anne GoddardOpen Letter to the Prime Minister and the People of Australia

Dot Henry
Indigenous Program Officer
WA Cervical Cancer Prevention Program
Level 2 East Point Plaza
233 Adelaide Terrace
Telephone: (08) 9323 6789
Fax: (08) 9323 6711

Sit with us, Mr Howard. We will help you understand

An open letter to the Prime Minister and the people of Australia.

The Federal Government has said it wants to change the way we live here on our land. No one has asked. We, the traditional owners of the Kunwinjku country of Arnhem Land, ask them to leave us alone. We have heard that Health Minister Tony Abbott wants us to cut ceremony time. They want to audit our Homelands (Outstations) and talk about closing them. We have heard that they want to remove the permit system to Aboriginal land. They want to change the Community Development Employment Program (CDEP), where we work (especially our young people) – we are paid to work – for the community. We ask the Government not to do these things. We ask them not to do these things so as to save our culture, our religion, our livelihood, our people.

These are our reasons:

1. Ceremony

This is the most important. Abbott has told central Australian Aborigines in Pitjantjatjara lands that spending months on ceremony doesn’t work in today’s Western culture. He told an Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara meeting that “if you’re going to develop a working culture, you can’t have a three-month ceremony season and you can’t take six weeks off because your cousin has died. I wouldn’t imagine that long before white man came (a death) would have stopped hunting.”

He is wrong.

Our ceremony is part of our work. That’s why we call it “business”. In our country, in Arnhem Land, ceremony has continued uninterrupted for a very long time. It is important to our culture, our art and our moral beliefs. Does the minister say that Jewish, Christian or Muslim rituals should be changed?

Ceremony is carefully structured, with everyone holding significant roles for the various important things to be done. It takes a lot of organisation. People come from all around the country for these ceremonies. We have to organise transport, food, healthy places to live. Work doesn’t stop. Everyone has to work for ceremony business. Young kids are initiated to learn the hard rules; we don’t want that to stop. Trouble comes when they lose the culture. If someone has to go into ceremony for 12 months, they ask their boss.

Aboriginal art represents Australia in places such as Venice and New York. But this art comes from ceremony. If ceremony is changed, if it is stopped, the art will stop too.

2. The Outstations

The homeland outstations are very important to the Aboriginal people of Arnhem Land. These are places where we live and our ancestors, our parents and grandparents are buried there; we can pay respect to them. The outstations are also where we prepare and undertake many ceremonies that keep our religion and our beliefs together. Parts of our country, the
ceremony grounds are not unlike your churches, your mosques, your synagogue – they are sacred sites.

3. The Permit System

The permit system is important because we want to protect the
environment, the rock art and our ceremony ground. Someone who walks into our country has to have approval. We ask them to respect our wishes. Balanda (white people) don’t know which is ceremonial ground or burial ground, they just walk anywhere; that’s why we have to have this system.

4. The CDEP

Right now the CDEP allows our people, especially our younger people, to work for the money they get, to learn skills and talents that work for both the white community and the Aboriginal community. The Government wants it to work like the dole, but this is a problem. For the dole you must apply
for jobs every two weeks or your payments stop. Here there are not very many jobs, so we share the CDEP work so everyone can get paid and all the work can get done.

We are concerned that without the CDEP our young people will be forced into places such as Darwin to look for work. This will break up families and expose the young people to things such as drink and drugs, which are not here at Gunbalanya.

We have our law. We know how to look after our country. We need to keep control over our communities. It is the Kunwinjku people, not the Federal Government, who hold the solutions for our future.

The politicians, the Prime Minister, are welcome to sit on our land and talk to us. We can help them to understand.

Donald Gumurdul, Philip Mikginjmikginj and Jacob Nayinggul are traditional owners of Kunwinjku country, in Arnhem Land. 8 years ago

See more:   Entries


I want to:
43 Things Login