HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1)
2010-10-27 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

BRITISH ATOMIC TESTING

Adjourned debate on motion of Hon. T. Franks:

That this council—

1. Notes—

(a) that the British atomic tests in South Australia in the 1950s and 1960s caused significant health problems for those people affected and environmental problems in the areas of Emu Fields and Maralinga;

(b) that English courts have ruled that military personnel from all over the world were able to bring a personal injuries action against the United Kingdom Government in the UK courts;

(c) that a legal opinion commissioned by the Australian Aboriginal Legal Rights Movement from Cherie Booth QC confirmed that civilians are entitled to bring suit against the UK government;

(d) that this case will need extensive funding to commission expert witnesses, conduct investigations and collate information;

(e) that the success of these strong legal claims will help alleviate years of suffering for both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal South Australians in addition to easing the burden of considerable medical costs associated with illness related to the nuclear testing; and

(f) that Premier Rann acknowledged in 2009 in an ABC report that 'the British Government has an absolute responsibility to do the right thing by its and our service personnel and of course our Aboriginal people'.

2. Calls on the Premier, who has acknowledged that compensation should be paid, to contribute to the legal costs of the case being supported and launched by the Aboriginal Legal Rights Movement here in South Australia so that Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal South Australians can have the opportunity to seek redress for injuries suffered by them during the British atomic testing in South Australia

(Continued from 29 September 2010.)

The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN (20:23): I wish to speak fairly briefly to this motion. While the government is sympathetic to the sentiments being expressed, particularly in relation to the need for justice for Aboriginal people and those South Australians who may have been affected by nuclear testing in our state, we, unfortunately, do not agree with the call made in the second part of the motion for the government to fund the ALRM in relation to the legal costs of the case.

I think we all accept that it is very regrettable that parts of the state were used for nuclear testing and that that has had an impact on Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal communities over a long period of time; however, in relation to funding the Aboriginal Legal Rights Movement cases against the British government, we do not believe that that is the appropriate course of action. The ALRM has never been funded through the state in respect of legal aid. The state government is, of course, a significant funder of the Legal Services Commission, which also receives money from the commonwealth, and the commission provides legal aid to all eligible clients, including Aboriginal clients.

The commonwealth government provides funding to various non-government organisations, including ALRM, to improve Aboriginal Australians' access to high quality and culturally appropriate legal aid services through the Legal Aid for Indigenous Australians program. As part of this program the commonwealth government has funded the ALRM until 30 June 2011 to deliver legal aid services to Aboriginal Australians in South Australia. The amount of funding the ALRM receives from the commonwealth is determined by a funding allocation model.

To reiterate, while we all agree that it is very regrettable and unfortunate that nuclear testing was carried out and that it has had impacts on Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal South Australians, and while not disagreeing with the sentiments that the Aboriginal communities may wish to seek legal redress from the United Kingdom government, the government does not believe it is appropriate for the state to provide funding to the ALRM for the purpose of pursuing a case. The ALRM has not been funded by the state in respect of legal aid: it is the commonwealth government that funds various non-government organisations, including the ALRM, to improve Aboriginal Australians' access to legal aid.

With those few words, I put on the record that the government does not support part 2 of the motion, but I do not propose that we will divide on it or seek to amend it. However, I put on the record that the government does not support funding the ALRM for the purposes of running a case in the UK with respect to nuclear testing by the British government in South Australia.

The Hon. S.G. WADE (20:27): I rise on behalf of the Liberal opposition to support the motion put forward by the Hon. Tammy Franks. I would like to put the motion in context. With the agreement of the Commonwealth of Australia, the government of the United Kingdom undertook atomic testing in South Australia from 1953 in the Emu Field area and from 1956 in Maralinga. Testing concluded in the area in 1963. About 25,000 British personnel, 8,000 Australian personnel and many civilians, including Aboriginal Australians, were exposed to radiation through the testing. In 1993 the commonwealth received $35 million from the British government to clean up the Maralinga site. None of this has been provided to victims.

In 2006 the Howard Liberal government committed to paying for the cancer treatment of all surviving Australians who took part in the tests. A 2009 decision in a British court is read to have opened the door for British service personnel and international citizens to pursue claims against the United Kingdom government for compensation in relation to atomic tests in Australia. I understand that this case is on appeal and that an outcome is expected shortly. In the context of this case, and in anticipation of a favourable outcome on the appeal, an action is being mounted by UK-based law firm Hickman and Rose working on behalf of the Aboriginal Legal Rights Movement.

I wanted to give that context because it was the context in which the Premier made the following statement on 8 June 2009 on ABC radio:

After a big campaign we managed to get the clean-up, but we didn't get the compensation. I think the British government has an absolute responsibility to do the right thing by its and our service personnel and, of course, our Aboriginal people.

I ask the council to reflect on those words: 'After a big campaign we managed to get the clean-up, but we didn't get the compensation.' The implication clearly is that the Premier is standing shoulder to shoulder with the Aboriginal people and other claimants pursuing compensation. It was in the context of a highly contentious and much-awaited legal decision in Britain. The Aboriginal people and other claimants had every right to interpret that as a statement from this Premier that he was standing with them.

The British government, then a Labor government, was not negotiating an out-of-court settlement. This was not a behind-closed-doors process. The government was in the court, the Premier knew that, and he gave that statement in the context of those legal proceedings. The Aboriginal Legal Rights Movement sought funding from both the state and federal governments, particularly, in its words, to help fund the initial investigations. The state government has recently written to the Aboriginal Legal Rights Movement, not merely to decline to fund the proceedings but actually to refuse to even meet.

The Premier is so committed that his Attorney-General cannot even spare a slot in his diary, as a courtesy to the head of the Aboriginal Legal Rights Movement, to meet on the issue. In a letter to the Chief Executive Officer of the Aboriginal Legal Rights Movement, dated 4 June 2010, the new Attorney-General, John Rau, said the following:

You have asked to meet with me to discuss the potential for the state to provide financial support to undertake initial investigations into potential claims for compensation for injuries incurred as a result of the British nuclear tests in South Australia in the 1950s and 1960s. Given that the issue at hand was caused by an arrangement between the Commonwealth and UK governments, this is a matter which should be managed by those governments.

I find that an appallingly disrespectful response. First, the Premier is the one who raised expectations that the government was standing with the Aboriginal claimants in this case—and, for that matter, non-Aboriginal claimants who may have come forward. Not only was that all but one line of the letter, the Attorney-General also refused to even meet with the people involved.

The Liberal Party supports the motion to hold the Premier accountable for his public statements in support of victims of the testing to pursue their legal rights, Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal. Over the years, Aboriginal Australians have, all too often, been the victims of hollow words, but hollow words are the stock-in-trade of this government. We support this motion to highlight the hypocrisy of this Premier.

Unfortunately the Hon. Bernard Finnigan chose to stand up tonight and join with those hollow words by trying to suggest that this was somehow an ordinary legal aid claim. We know how appalling this government is when it comes to trying to deal with the Aboriginal situation and the justice system. They are grossly overrepresented, but this government refuses to engage with the Aboriginal Legal Rights Movement on improving that situation. So, we had the hypocrisy of the Premier being multiplied by the hypocrisy of the Hon. Bernard Finnigan.

The Liberal Party believes that it is the responsibility of this house to hold the government accountable. Like the Hon. Tammy Franks and other members of this house, we have seen the government make a statement on the public record that could reasonably lead the Aboriginal claimants to believe that they would get support from this government. They were hollow words, and we want to expose them as such.

Motion carried.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT