AustLII Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback

Aboriginal Law Bulletin

Aboriginal Law Bulletin (ALB)
You are here:  AustLII >> Databases >> Aboriginal Law Bulletin >> 1985 >> [1985] AboriginalLawB 69

Database Search | Name Search | Recent Articles | Noteup | LawCite | Help

Walton, Alastair --- "Maralinga Wrap-Up" [1985] AboriginalLawB 69; (1985) 1(16) Aboriginal Law Bulletin 13


Maralinga Wrap-Up

by Alastair Walton

Near the end of September the Royal Commission inquiry into the effects of the British atomic 'one more shot for colonialism' tests in Australia between 1952 and 1963 was wrapped-up In Sydney.

After the various parties to the Commission had presented their written submissions the counsels partook in oral summaries and replies to those submissions.

In a 3.5 hour address to the Commission, Mr Geoff Eames, counsel for the Aboriginal groups and individuals, neatly summed up the British Governments submission as 'suspect', ‘a very cunning document’ which often 'flies in the face of evidence' and 'is a document written for an uncritical audience in Downing and Fleet Streets'. (SMH, 25.9.85)

Mr Eames tookfull advantage of his opportunity and continued to allege the British Government had ignored and omitted documents and was concerned more about its image at 'home' than the references of the Commission.

Mr Eames said, 'After 30 years the UK has been found out ... they knew at the time, they knew the risks, they pressed on with the gamble.'

Furthermore Mr Eames believed the submission read as though he should 'be thanking the British on behalf of Aborigines for the opportunity of witnessing Western technology in action.'

Not to be outdone the counsel for the British Government, Mr Robin Auld, QC, began his reply to the submissions by saying the counsel assisting the Commission, Mr Peter McClellan, had produced a misleading and unbalanced submission.

On the nextday of MrAuld's oration, 25 September, he continually clashed with the president of the Royal Commission, MrJames McClelland.

The objects of their disagreements were the roles and the acceptability as reliable witnesses of Sir Ernest Titterton, chair of the Australian Atomic Weapons Test Safety Committee and Vice-Admiral Hugh Martell.

Mr Auld was also able to turn phrases for the media with ones such as, ‘where is this Royal Commission going, is it going to slice words ... to impale witnesses with them?’ (SMH, 26.9.85, p. 5).

Mr Auld then summed up by saying Mr McClelland's submission was 'selective to the point of bias and grossly unfair because Mr McClelland had submitted that the United Kingdom did not inform the Australians fully of the Hurricane Test.

The Secretary to the Commission, Mr John Atkinson, said ‘the oral replies had been helpful to the Commission because they crystallised the issues and provided an articulation of the views held by all parties.’

The Commission now has to write a reportfor the Government and return the letters patent to the Governor-General by 20 November. The Commission will then ceaseto exist. The Department of Resources and Energy will be responsible for the distribution of the report.


AustLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/AboriginalLawB/1985/69.html