******************************************************************************* For those people new to Gundjehmi Aboriginal Corporation updates: These updates are primarily designed for groups and individuals involved in directly supporting Mirarr in opposing the proposed Jabiluka uranium mine at the grassroots level. Please free to distribute it to other groups, to friends and colleagues. If you are seeking more technical or more precise information, please contact Gundjehmi Aboriginal Corporation directly - but be aware that we may simply not have time to answer, depending on the nature of your question. All students in particular should go first to our web-site: http://www.mirrar.net. Karl-Erik Paasonen for Gundjehmi Aboriginal Corporation ******************************************************************************* This update is fairly lengthy. It involves the following: 1) Senate Inquiry news 2) World heritage news 3) North news 4) Internal ERA news Much of the length is taken up by documents. NOTE: It has been drawn to our attention that the commonly accepted spelling, "Mirrar", is actually incorrect in terms of the Gundjehmi language itself. From this point on the correct spelling, "Mirarr", will be used. Don't imagine it'll change the spelling habits to which people have become accustomed; but it seems appropriate to get it right at least somewhere. ******************************************************************************* 1) SENATE INQUIRY NEWS The focus of this update is on the Senate Inquiry decisions. Included are the recommendations made by the Senate Inquiry and the Gundjehmi Aboriginal Corporation press release. In addition, the Executive Summary of the report is sent as an attachment for those interested. For those who are REALLY inspired, the total report comes to about 180 pages in 6 chapters with four appendices. There is also a dissenting report produced by the government senators on the Inquiry. The title of the report is "Jabiluka - the undermining of process". The result reflects this: it is extremely positive from the point of view of the Mirarr struggle for control over Country and opposition to the proposed Jabiluka uranium mine. Specifically, Recommendation 24 reads: "The Committee recommends that the Jabiluka uranium mine should not proceed because it is irreconcilable with the outstanding natural and cultural values of Kakadu National Park. Every effort must be made to ensure that these values are protected." Note also the recommendation that Senator Hill institute an Inquiry under Section 11 of the Environmental Protection (Impact of Proposals Act) 1974 (or under the equivalent provision of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Bill, when proclaimed). Highly unlikely that he will, of course. Senator Robert Hill has said that the report of the Senate Inquiry will make no difference whatsoever. The government senators' dissenting report says the majority report should be ignored since "...(a)t each stage of the Jabiluka process the government has taken the necessary steps to insure that even more stringent conditions are met by the proponent, with the result that the mine is subject to an unparalleled level of environmental safeguards and oversights" (p151-2). But, senators, this was precisely the point of the Inquiry - to determine the nature and application of these "environmental safeguards and oversights". And they have now been found wanting by an Inquiry representing the majority of the Senate, by the advisory bodies to the World Heritage Committee (IUCN, ICOMOS, ICCROM, including the Australian branches), by the World Heritage Bureau and Committee itself last year, along with a number of other informed and responsible bodies. In fact, the only people who are claiming that the proposal for the mine HAS in fact satisfied reasonable environmental safeguards are the federal government, the NT government, ERA/North, and the various people hired by ERA to say such things - people such as Professor Ben Selinger of ANU, recently hired by ERA to be their mouthpiece on issues of chemistry and radioactivity. A further sample serves as a fine example of the mode of action of the government and ERA throughout the dispute over Jabiluka. The government senators say that "...(s)ignificantly, when the Senior Traditional Owner sought a review under the "Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1997" of the Environment Minister's decisions in relation to the PER and the Unisearch advice, the Federal Court found on 1 June 1999 against the plaintiffs and ordered costs in favour of the Minister". This a reference to the case recently before the High Court where Mirarr attempted to get the decision-making process reviewed through the courts. The senators claim Justice Sundberg's decision exhonerates Senator Hill's decision-making process. This remarkable assertion is one example of an all-too-frequent strategy: if you say something often enough, it becomes truth. Unfortunately for their case, the government senators' assertion does not match the relevant clauses of the decision. Justice Sundberg's decision actually says that the target of such a case is the decisions made by Senator Parer, the then Minister for Mines and Energy, since he was the Action Minister. Hill made no decisions, only recommendations. This is far from exhonerating Hill. On the contrary: it merely points out that Hill isn't sufficiently well regarded by the Liberal hierarchy to be trusted with a job where he had to make decisions. And now the majority report of the Senate Inquiry shows why. The rhetorical trick, however, is to set up strawpersons and knock them down. Seems a bit silly that they keep doing it. But then if the facts are against you and all you have is a nasty pro-development ideology, perhaps you have little choice. Now come the documents. ********************** RECOMMENDATIONS Recommendation 1 The Committee recommends that the environmental impact assessment process be reformed to ensure that consideration is given, both in impact statements and subsequently, to whether a project should proceed. Recommendation 2 The Committee recommends that all relevant MOUs between State and Commonwealth Government agencies regarding environmental impact assessment be made public. Recommendation 3 The Committee recommends that all further construction of the Jabiluka mine be suspended until cultural mapping of the site area can be conducted in cooperation with the Traditional Owners and recognised custodians of the Jabiluka area. Recommendation 4 The Committee recommends that the issues of Aboriginal people's access to, and perception of, country as a result of development projects, be addressed in a holistic process which links environmental impact assessment with questions of Aboriginal land rights, sovereignty and cultural survival. Recommendation 5 The Committee recommends that a new inquiry be conducted to assess the specific social and cultural impacts of the Jabiluka project on the Aboriginal communities of the Alligator Rivers Region. The Committee also recommends that the social and cultural impacts of mining be given greater attention in ministerial decision-making. Recommendation 6 The Committee recommends that powers of day-to-day regulation of uranium mining in the Alligator Rivers Region be removed from the Northern Territory Department of Mining and Energy and restored to the Office of the Supervising Scientist. Recommendation 7 The Committee recommends that the Office of the Supervising Scientist be removed from the corporate structure of the Department of Environment and Heritage and reconstituted as an independent regulatory authority of uranium mining in the Alligator Rivers Region. It should retain a carefully defined capacity to receive references from, and provide advice to, the Environment Minister and make recommendations. The funding of the Office of the Supervising Scientist should be increased so that it is able to conduct its own monitoring and research. Recommendation 8 The Committee recommends that should the project proceed, further assessment of Jabiluka tailings management, waste rock disposal, run-off containment and radiological protection measures be subject to a public process at the level at least of a Public Environment Report, and that such revised proposals be subject to peer review by scientists. Recommendation 9 The Committee recommends that in the event that the Jabiluka project proceeds, the enforcement regime should be strengthened by the implementation of a deed between ERA and the Commonwealth incorporating all the conditions put forward by the Commonwealth to this date, along with those recommended by the Supervising Scientist following further assessments. These conditions should also be made the explicit conditions of the issue of export licences by the Commonwealth. Recommendation 10 The Committee recommends that in view of the inadequate level of assessment applied to the Jabiluka proposals and the premature decision-making of the Action Minister, the Minister for Environment and Heritage establish a Commission of Inquiry into the Jabiluka project under Section 11 of the Environmental Protection (Impact of Proposals Act) 1974 (or under the equivalent provision of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Bill, when proclaimed). Recommendation 11 The Committee believes that the circumstances surrounding the negotiation of the 1982 Jabiluka Agreement, the changes made to the proposal following its original negotiation, and the clear opposition of the Traditional Owners to the project were extraordinary and unfair. The Committee therefore recommends that ERA seek a new mining agreement from the Northern Land Council and the Mirrar-Gundjehmi under Section 46 of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 before further construction or operation of the Jabiluka mine occurs. Recommendation 12 The Committee recommends that consideration be given to repealing Section 48D(3) of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976. Recommendation 13 The Committee recommends that Section 40(b) of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 be repealed. Recommendation 14 The Committee recommends that consideration should be given to further reform of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 in order to ensure that the rights of Traditional Owners are protected during negotiations, and to ensure that their agreement to substantial changes in scope be required. Recommendation 15 The Committee recommends that in view of the inadequate recognition of Aboriginal rights in Australian law, the Australian Government recognise the fundamental human and cultural rights of Aboriginal people in all laws applying to their lands and cultures. Recommendation 16 The Committee recommends that the Government seek a new inscription for Kakadu National Park to enable the listing to reflect the living traditions and cultural landscape of the Park more accurately. Recommendation 17 The Committee recommends that the Government ensure that the future expansion of Jabiru takes place in accordance with the Kakadu Plan of Management and the full endorsement of the Kakadu Board of Management. Recommendation 18 The Committee recommends that the Government develop a broader, more appropriate and more effective participatory approach to the development of a cultural heritage management plan with Aboriginal stakeholders. Recommendation 19 The Committee recommends that the Government take appropriate steps immediately to implement the recommendations of the UNESCO World Heritage Committee's report on Kakadu National Park. The Committee does not believe that the Commonwealth Government has adequately addressed the major findings and recommendations in that report. Recommendation 20 The Committee recommends that the UNESCO World Heritage Committee place Kakadu National Park on its List of World Heritage in Danger. Recommendation 21 The Committee recommends that the UNESCO World Heritage Committee proceed to place Kakadu National Park on its List of World Heritage in Danger without State Party consent. Recommendation 22 The Committee recommends that the Government note the damage to Australia's reputation in relation to the human rights of indigenous peoples as a result of its lack of respect for the legitimate participation of indigenous people in issues affecting their daily lives and living culture. Recommendation 23 The Committee recommends that the Government examine the possible impact on the Australian tourism industry of an In Danger listing of Kakadu National Park. Recommendation 24 The Committee recommends that the Jabiluka uranium mine should not proceed because it is irreconcilable with the outstanding natural and cultural values of Kakadu National Park. Every effort must be made to ensure that these values are protected. ********************** Gundjehmi Aboriginal Corporation press release 30 May 1999. SENATE REPORT UNDERMINES JABILUKA The Report of the Senate Inquiry into the Jabiluka Project signals the "beginning of the end" for the doomed uranium mine. The detailed, exhaustive and independent examination of Jabiluka by the Senate Environment and Heritage Committee has confirmed that further development of the proposed uranium mine faces insurmountable obstacles. The Report, backed by a clear majority of the Australian Senate, has found that: i) ERA has no approval for an economically or environmentally viable method of milling ore from Jabiluka and is unlikely to proceed with the project while the Mirrar withhold consent for ERA's preferred milling option. The Mirrar have affirmed that such consent shall never be given. ii) The proposed Jabiluka uranium mine poses a grave threat to the natural and cultural heritage values of Kakadu National Park. Accordingly Kakadu should be included on the List of World Heritage In Danger. iii) The 1982 Jabiluka Agreement was negotiated under questionable circumstances. iv) Compelling evidence exists to support the position of Traditional Owners and Custodians that the Boyweg-Almudj Sacred Site Complex is of great significance to local Aboriginal people and will be severely impacted upon by the Jabiluka Project. Executive Officer for the Gundjehmi Aboriginal Corporation said today: "This is one more nail in ERA's coffin. Their mine proposal is in tatters. Their complete disregard for Aboriginal cultural concerns has been exposed. Yet another independent assessment has found massive environmental and cultural flaws in the approval process." "There can be no credible claim from the Australian Government that this Report is anything other than an exceptionally well-researched document based on sound and verifiable evidence. In contrast, the minority report prepared by Government Senators is shallow in the extreme and once more demonstrates the inability of this Government to address the substantive environmental and cultural dangers of Jabiluka." Jacqui Katona, Yvonne Margarula and other Traditional Owners will travel to Paris next week to present their case to the World Heritage Committee for inclusion of Kakadu on the List of World Heritage In Danger. ******************************************************************************* 2) WORLD HERITAGE NEWS The forthcoming meeting of the World Heritage Bureau (5-10 July) and the World Heritage Committee (12 July) remains uncertain as to its outcome. We encourage people to respond to John Hallam's requests to fax the representatives at UNESCO. The text of the latest request follows. We ask that at the time of the decision itself (the evening of 12 July, Australian time), and for the next two days, groups NOT engage in public actions. The reason for this is that, particularly if the decision goes against Mirarr, it is important that the message that the media receive is that of people who know what has been actually going on - that is people who have been at the meetings in Paris. After that - go for it! And before that, too! All Gundjehmi Aboriginal Corporation is asking is that for the time of the decision itslf and the couple of days immediately afterwards, the ground be left clear for Mirarr to clarify what has actually happened. Below is the latest faxing request from John Hallam, anti-nuclear campaigner at FoE in Sydney. John has done an immense amount of work coordinating this faxing campaign. The idea is that faxes be polite and to the point. The text below is a suggestion - but by all means personalize the messages. They are, after all, YOUR messages - your expressions of concern Please send a fax to the Chairman on the World heritage Committee, His Excellency Ambassador Koichiro Matsura, telling him that unless Kakadu National Park is listed as 'in Danger' the World Heritage Convention itself will be in danger. >From Australia, his fax number is 0015-33-1-42-27-50-81. ******************** I am writing to express our concern over the fate of the World Heritage Kakadu National Park in the Northern Territory of Australia, and to convey to you the extreme urgency of this matter. Last year in December, the IUCN and ICOMOS strongly recommended that Kakadu National Park be immediately listed as 'in danger' on account of the threat to World Heritage values posed by the construction of a large uranium mine at Jabiluka, in the heart of the National Park. In a joint statement, both bodies said that failure to list Kakadu as 'In Danger' immediately would compromise the integrity and standing of the World Heritage Convention. However, in deference to the extreme opposition to an 'In Danger' listing expressed by the Australian delegation (but emphatically not by Australian NGOs), Australia was allowed a further six months to prepare a case against an 'in Danger' listing. Australia was asked to cease construction operations at Jabiluka. It did not do so. This means that for the past six months, construction, and therefore damage to the World Heritage values of Kakadu has been proceeding on a 24 hour a day basis. IUCN and ICOMOS (as well as the NGO community) have now dismissed the Australian government case as not credible, and IUCN and ICOMOS have re-emphasised the necessity of listing Kakadu as 'In Danger'. The extreme urgency of taking action on this matter is underlined by the fact that as I write, Energy Resources of Australia is resuming construction activities on a tunnel which will desecrate the Boyweg-Almudj sacred site, thereby severely compromising World Heritage values. It is also emphasised by the refusal of the Australian government to listen to any of the warnings on this matter that have been sounded by the European Parliament, by our own Senate, and now by the World Heritage Committee.. Any further delay in placing Kakadu on the list of sites that are in danger, and any ambiguity in its being placed in that list, will lead to further damage to the site and the further destruction of World Heritage values. We call on you to act immediately to ensure positively that Kakadu will be listed as 'in Danger' when the World Heritage Committee meets in Paris on July 12, and to convey to the Australian government the extreme gravity of its actions in failing to cease construction as demanded by the World Heritage Committee last December in Kyoto. Yours respectfully, (SIGNED). ******************************************************************************* 3) NORTH NEWS North Ltd is still trying to avoid holding the Extraordinary General Meeting demanded by North Ethical Shareholders. Now it is taking the shareholders to court. Below is the text of a press release put out by North Ethical Shareholders on 24 July: ****************** 24 JUNE 1999 NORTH TAKES SHAREHOLDERS TO COURT IN BID TO STOP EXTRAORDINARY MEETING North Ltd has initiated court action against its own shareholders in an attempt by the company to stop an Extraordinary General Meeting questioning its investment in the Jabiluka uranium mine project. On 10 June, North gave less than 24 hours notice to one of its shareholders to appear in the Victoria Supreme Court. None of the other 121 shareholders involved were notified. The shareholder in question refused to participate. It was made clear to North it would have to deal with and inform all 122 EGM requisitionists. "I was very upset that I was singled out," said shareholder Janette Brown. "I thought it was very inappropriate behaviour. The court papers were literally dropped at my door by a courier, without even requiring a signature. I consider this a very unfair approach to me or any shareholder, to be given less than 24 hours notice requiring me to appear in the Supreme Court. It was absolutely by chance I was at home to even see the papers, and they easily could have gone unnoticed until well after the long weekend." North's court action is in regards to technicalities of the Corporations Law. North swore in open court at that time it would not pursue costs against any shareholders requisitioning the meeting provided shareholders assist in providing a nominal defendant, which would allow North to proceed with its court challenge. Ms Erika Ford, who holds over 3,000 shares in the company, has agreed to serve as the nominal defendant, providing the company guarantees in writing that neither herself nor any other shareholder will have to pay for any costs awarded against them. Ms Ford is presently awaiting a reply from North. "The question is not how much is it going to cost shareholders to hold an EGM. The question is how much is it going to cost North shareholders if the company persists with the Jabiluka project," said Ms Ford. "And that is exactly why shareholders have requisitioned an Extraordinary General Meeting in order to get that answer. The company appears willing to go to any lengths to avoid scrutiny of the Jabiluka project by its own shareholders." * Since the EGM was requisitioned, another 21 shareholders with over 135,000 shares worth at least $417,000 (share price 22 June) have signed the requisition materials, bringing the total to 143 and climbing. * In its media release dated 10 June, North Chairman Michael Deeley suggested it would be unfair to other North shareholders to pay the estimated $180,000 to hold an EGM. He did not mention that the company has already spent an extraordinary amount in legal fees to QC's to try to stop the meeting from happening. * North's media release stated "North seeks court advice on EGM". It neglected to mention it was taking one of its own shareholders to court. Again, the company is providing misleading and incomplete information to the public and its own shareholders. * Dr Deeley also stated that "as chairman of the Annual General Meeting scheduled for October I can guarantee a free and open discussion on all these issues as we have in the past." The purpose of an EGM is to address specific issues related to the accountability of directors and the company's constitution. The proposed resolutions and related materials would be distributed to all shareholders and voted on at a forum specifically for that purpose. This is a significantly different process than allowing a limited number of questions being asked from the floor at an AGM. * The legal proceedings are in regards to technicalities of the Corporations Law and concern the three resolutions shareholders have put forward to be voted on at the EGM. One calls for an independent financial report into how Jabiluka will effect North and shareholders' investment. The other two relate to having Principles for Responsible Development incorporated into the company's constitution to preclude costly mistakes like Jabiluka from occurring again. * The court hearing is scheduled for the same day (12 July) that the World Heritage Committee meets to decide whether Kakadu will be placed on the World Heritage In Danger List as a result of Jabiluka. "What does the company have to hide?" asked shareholder Robert Smith. Why not agree to an independent financial assessment? Why engage in costly litigation? Could it be that Jabiluka is a total loser and never has and never will be a viable concern?" "North will stop at nothing to avoid scrutiny of the Jabiluka project," said Wilderness Society Campaigner Chris Doran. "It will pay any amount in QC fees to avoid a process which will force them to answer direct questions about the project, because they know the answer is that Jabiluka is going to cost shareholders money." ******************************************************************************* 4) INTERNAL ERA NEWS The new broom(head) continues to sweep. Recently, ERA's Chief Executive Phil Shervington was moved to North Ltd in what few could interpret as a promotion. He moves there on 15 July. A couple of days ago, the manager of Ranger, Ken Lonie, was sacked. This is the man who at the beginning of the blockade last year said on radio (paraphrased) "Kakadu is a pristine wilderness. We're afraid of protesters grafitti-ing our road-signs, writing "Stop the Jabiluka Mine" and polluting our pristine wilderness". This fine piece of logic is probably what you have to be good at to accept the logic of uranium mining. But no more. Internal evidence indicates that Ken Lonie's demise is marked by few tears on the part of ERA employees. So what are ERA's intentions? Phil Shervington did an interview on ABC radio today. Here, as a number of times before, he stated that ERA would pursue the Ranger Mill Alternative. However ERA's plan to use the Ranger processing mill to mill Jabiluka uranium has been ruled out. The Mirarr have, under the terms of the agreement between ERA and the Northern Land Council in 1992, right of veto over such use of the Ranger mill. The Mirarr exercized their veto in December 1997. The Ranger mill will not be used for Jabiluka uranium. Phil also said that ERA are negotiating with other Traditional Owners in the area. The fact is, however, that there are no other Traditional Owners. The Mirarr are legally recognized as the owners of the land that the lease constitutes part of. So what Phil means is that ERA are trying to get other Aboriginal groups to bully and cajole the Mirarr into changing their position. These are the classic divide-and-conquer tactics that have characterized the behaviour of the mining companies involved in Jabiluka. And it is of course a familiar story around the world. But it won't work. Aboriginal groups around Kakadu and in Arnhemland have repeatedly expressed support for the right of Mirarr to make their own decisions. Support is firming even further. ERA has nowhere to go. execsum.rtf Name: execsum.rtf Type: Macintosh BinHex Archive (application/mac-binhex40) Karl-Erik Paasonen for Gundjehmi Aboriginal Corporation Contact details: Phone: Within Australia: (08) 8979 2200; international: +61 - 8 - 8979 2200; Fax: Within Australia: (08) 8979 2299; international: +61 - 8 - 8979 2299 Postal address: PO Box 245 Jabiru, Northern Territory AUSTRALIA 0886. We have this amazing web-site, which you'd be CRAZY not to have a look at: http://www.mirrar.net ........................................................................... "We will fight to protect our country and that is a fact of life" Yvonne Margarula. Ba-ngurdmeninj Djabulukku! Yun Ngurri-Djalgarung Boiwek Gun-Ngukbim! "Stop Jabiluka! Don't the dig the life out of the Knob-Tailed Gecko Dreaming!" ........................................................................... ------------------------------------------------------- RecOzNet2 has a page @ http://www.green.net.au/recoznet2 and is archived at http://www.mail-archive.com/ To unsubscribe from this list, mail [EMAIL PROTECTED], and in the body of the message, include the words: unsubscribe announce or click here mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Body=unsubscribe%20announce This posting is provided to the individual members of this group without permission from the copyright owner for purposes of criticism, comment, scholarship and research under the "fair use" provisions of the Federal copyright laws and it may not be distributed further without permission of the copyright owner, except for "fair use." RecOzNet2 is archived for members @ http://www.mail-archive.com/
