Executive Summary
Kakadu National Park is a place of national and
international cultural and environmental significance. Kakadu is on the
Register of the National Estate and is on the World Heritage List for both its
cultural and natural values. Those values are now under threat from the
proposed Jabiluka uranium mine, already under construction.
The Alligator Rivers Region has sustained human occupation
continuously for at least 50,000 years, and Aboriginal people continue to live
there and use the land for practical, cultural and spiritual purposes. The
Mirrar-Gundjehmi people are the Traditional Owners of the Jabiluka mine site,
the Ranger uranium mine site and the land covered by the town of Jabiru. It is
their living culture and deep spiritual interconnection with the land which is
endangered by the mine’s development.
The Aboriginal Land Rights
(Northern Territory) Act 1976 provides for grants of unalienated land to
Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory and for Aboriginal Land Councils to
represent the interests of Traditional Owners. It gives Traditional Owners a
veto over development on their land, although this can be overridden by
‘national interest’ provisions. The Jabiluka mine was first approved under
a 1982 agreement between Pancontinental Mining and the Northern Land Council
(NLC). Serious doubts have been raised about the means by which this agreement
was reached.
The beauty and ecological diversity of Kakadu National Park
are threatened by contaminated water from the mine site and by the leaching of
radioactive mine tailings into the surrounding environment. The visual
integrity of the Park is threatened by the mine itself. The assessment of these
threats was hasty and inadequate.
A UNESCO World Heritage Committee (WHC) mission visited Australia
in October 1998 and presented its report at the 22nd Session of the World
Heritage Committee in Kyoto on 29 November 1998. The report stated that
the World Heritage values of Kakadu National Park were threatened and made
sixteen recommendations to overcome these threats. The World Heritage Committee
will decide whether to place Kakadu National Park on the List of World Heritage
in Danger at the 3rd Extraordinary Session of the World Heritage Committee in
Paris on 12 July 1999.
Environmental Impact Assessment
A primary aim of this inquiry has been to assess the process
of environmental impact assessment (EIA) and government decision-making applied
to the Jabiluka project. The EIA process should result in the highest level of
scrutiny of development proposals and the establishment of failsafe
environmental protection measures, and should also yield important data about
the affected ecosystem and social structure in order to allow for continuing
assessment and monitoring.
Major concerns raised in
relation to the project, and which the assessment process was to address
include:
- Potential damage to the ecology of the Park from contaminated
water from the mine site;
- The disposal of tailings and the leaching of uranium from the
tailings into the water system of the Park;
- Threats to the health of workers and the local population from
radiation;
- Threats to the cultural heritage of the Aboriginal population,
including possible damage to significant art, archaeological and sacred sites;
and
- The potential for damaging social impacts on Aboriginal people
and culture.
The Committee found serious flaws in the EIA process applied
to the Jabiluka project. These related to the quality of the environmental
impact statements prepared by Energy Resources of Australia (ERA), their
assessment by government agencies, and the level of assessment applied to the
consideration of continuing scientific and project uncertainties. The Committee
also found serious flaws in the consideration of the social and cultural
impacts of the project on Aboriginal communities, and in the protection of the
World Heritage values of Kakadu National Park. Most disturbing to the Committee
was a consistent pattern of rushed and premature ministerial approvals given to
the construction of the mine while outstanding concerns about tailings
disposal, radiological protection, project design and cultural heritage
protection remained unresolved.
ERA’s original proposal was to mine ore at Jabiluka and
truck it to Ranger for milling at its existing plant (the Ranger Mill
Alternative, or RMA). This proposal was subject to an Environmental Impact
Statement. When the Traditional Owners refused to give consent for the
construction of a haulage road the company proposed the Jabiluka Mill
Alternative (JMA), involving the construction of a mill and associated
facilities, and the disposal of mine tailings, at Jabiluka. This was subject to
a Public Environment Report.
The Committee believes that the Jabiluka Mill Alternative
should have been subject to a full Environmental Impact Statement as a result
of its far greater impact on the mine site than the Ranger Mill Alternative,
and that the grounds on which a lower level of assessment, a Public Environment
Report, was justified were spurious. When inadequacies in that assessment were
revealed, the further examination of the relevant issues was subject to an even
less rigorous and less public scrutiny, until the report of the World Heritage
Committee mission compelled the Government to undertake further studies.
The Committee acknowledges that some aspects of the process
have been covered in detail, but significant concerns remain in relation to the
totality of the assessment that occurred. The Committee believes that the
process has not met the highest standards at every level and at every stage.
While there are advantages in having the proponent prepare
the original environmental impact statement, such as demonstrating the
environmental competence and intentions of the company, the fact that
government has imposed 94 conditions on the project suggests that the
environmental impact statements prepared by ERA were inadequate in many crucial
areas.
The Committee is particularly concerned that Aboriginal
people were given little opportunity to make effective comment on the environmental
impact statements prepared by ERA. A plain English version of the EIS was only
made available to Aboriginal people a month prior to the close of comments, and
no oral or Gundjehmi version was made available. Recent ministerial decisions
ensure that there will be no public or Aboriginal input to the assessment of
outstanding tailings disposal and radiological protection measures at Jabiluka.
Scientific Concerns About the Jabiluka Project
Scientific concerns about the
project have principally arisen in three areas:
- The management and containment of contaminated run-off;
- The management and disposal of radioactive and acidic tailings;
and
- The provisions for radiological protection of mine workers and
Aboriginal communities.
A group of scientists from the Australian National
University (ANU) made a submission to the World Heritage Committee in 1998
questioning the scientific assumptions and containment measures proposed for
managing run-off. They argued that inappropriate modelling, which took
insufficient account of possible variations in weather patterns, evaporation
rates or climate change, meant that the design of water retention ponds was
inadequate.
The World Heritage Committee considered these issues of such
importance that it asked the Supervising Scientist to prepare a report
responding to these concerns. The Supervising Scientist’s report supported the
analysis of the ANU scientists in the area of evaporation and rainfall, and
recommended a number of changes to the site’s design in order to improve its
safety over the very long term. It is disturbing that these matters were only
addressed in response to the international pressures of the UNESCO mission.
The Committee believes that it was inappropriate for the
Northern Territory Government to approve construction of the mine before the
Commonwealth Minister for the Environment had advised the Minister for
Resources and Energy on the outcome of the Public Environment Report, and when
a tailings disposal option for Jabiluka had yet to be finalised. The proposed
design and technology of tailings disposal at Jabiluka continues to be the
subject of considerable scientific uncertainty. Assessment reports and
scientific consultants have expressed serious concern about ERA’s preferred
option of putting half the tailings in the mined-out voids underground, and the
remaining half in two purpose-built pits on the surface. While ERA can resubmit
this proposal to the Government for approval, it will not be subject to any
higher level assessment or public examination.
It is of particular concern to the Committee that the
Commonwealth Government approved the mine on the basis that 100 per cent of the
tailings would be placed underground, despite the company having released no
details or scientific examination of this option, and despite its clear
preference for the less costly and technologically simpler option. It remains
uncertain whether ERA will proceed with the Minister’s recommended option or
continue to press for the 50-50 option.
Serious uncertainties remain about the level of radiological
protection at the mine. Possible levels of radiation both within the mine
workings and outside the mine area remain unclear, and could be close to
international limits. This could pose serious dangers to mine workers and prevent
Aboriginal people from using parts of their land in the mine vicinity. This
will exacerbate the already negative cultural impacts of the mine proposal.
Social and Cultural Impacts
The Committee believes that the EIA process has been
inadequate in addressing the potentially grave social and cultural impacts of
the Jabiluka project on the Aboriginal community in the region. In fact,
company and government actions have exacerbated these problems.
The company has continued mine construction and blasting in the
face of the very serious concerns of the Mirrar people about the impact of
these works on the Boiwek-Almudj sacred site complex, and thus on the survival
of their living culture. In its attempts to discredit the Mirrar’s concerns
about the site the Australian Government has shown a disrespect for Aboriginal
culture and a reluctance to take seriously the deeply held beliefs of the
Traditional Owners of the area. Evidence provided to the Committee of serious
anthropological work, undertaken over a period of twenty years by pre-eminent
experts in the field, conclusively refutes government claims, and yet despite a
condition of the mine’s operation being the completion of a cultural heritage
management plan before project construction began, the Government has
taken no action against the company.
The Committee found that the mine could have serious social
impacts on Aboriginal people and culture, arising from their marginalisation
amidst a larger non-Aboriginal population, the pressure of meetings and administration,
and adverse effects on food gathering and the transmission of culture. Most
profound was the demoralisation caused by the refusal to acknowledge the rights
of traditional Aboriginal people over land, which has been unfairly alienated
in the cases of the Ranger and Jabiluka mines and the town of Jabiru.
There has been no dedicated social impact study of the
Jabiluka project. The Kakadu Region Social Impact Study was specifically
prevented from examining the impacts of mining, and its recommendations are
still to be implemented, nearly two years after its findings were made public.
Government Decision-Making, Regulation and Enforcement
Of most concern to the Committee has been the pattern of
rushed and premature ministerial approvals given to the construction of the
mine before outstanding scientific, social and cultural concerns about the mine
were resolved. The Committee is also concerned about the inappropriate levels
of assessment given to those outstanding issues.
In particular, the Committee believes that the approval for
mine construction issued in June 1998 was premature, given that the assessment
of the Jabiluka Mill Alternative had not been completed. The level of
assessment applied to the JMA was also inappropriate, given that it would have
a far greater impact on the site and on the surrounding World Heritage area and
Aboriginal population than the Ranger Mill alternative. The approval of the
Jabiluka Mill Alternative in August 1998, immediately prior to the calling of
the Federal Election, was also premature given that no assessment had been made
of the approved tailings option.
This incremental pattern of approvals has placed further
pressure on Traditional Owners to support the project, and created an
appearance that the EIA process has become politicised. The Committee also
believes that departmental assessments of both the EIS and the PER indicated
strong grounds for caution in issuing approvals before outstanding concerns had
been dealt with.
The Committee is also concerned that the enforcement and
regulatory regime which will apply to the mine is inadequate. Day-to-day
regulation of the mine rests with the Northern Territory Department of Mines
and Energy, which has a demonstrably poor record of environmental regulation.
Commonwealth powers are limited to ministerial discretion in the issuance of
export licences well after mine construction and operation has begun. The
Commonwealth has avoided creating stronger regulatory mechanisms, such as the
incorporation of environmental requirements into a Deed with ERA.
The Committee is concerned that in lobbying for Government
policy positions before the World Heritage Committee and in other forums, the
independence of the Office of the Supervising Scientist may have been
compromised. It is also concerned that the complete withdrawal of its presence
from Jabiru will further limit its effectiveness in monitoring uranium mining
in the Alligator Rivers Region. The Committee believes that its statutory
independence from Government, and its role in environmental enforcement, should
be clarified and strengthened.
The Need for a Public Inquiry
The Committee believes that the manifest flaws in the
process of environmental impact assessment of the Jabiluka project, and the
sensitivity of its location in the midst of Aboriginal land and a World
Heritage area, require further examination by a public inquiry established
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).
The Rights of Traditional Owners
Considerable dispute and bitterness has arisen over the
rights of the Traditional Owners in relation to the Jabiluka project. The
Traditional Owners of the Jabiluka area, the Mirrar-Gundjehmi clan, are
vehemently opposed to mining on their land and have undertaken extensive
lobbying, legal and protest action in an effort to stop the Jabiluka project.
Energy Resources of Australia and the Australian Government
contend that the Traditional Owners have legally consented to the project,
under the terms of an agreement negotiated between the Northern Land Council
and Pancontinental Mining in 1982. One of the signatories to that agreement was
a Mirrar elder and former Senior Traditional Owner.
The Committee believes that the 1982 Jabiluka Agreement was
negotiated under questionable circumstances. The Traditional Owners presented
the Committee with extensive and persuasive evidence, taken from relevant
documents and the records and minutes of meetings, which suggests that the
circumstances surrounding the Agreement were deeply unfair and that the
Northern Land Council failed in its duty under Section 23 of the Aboriginal
Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 to fully inform, consult and act
on the instructions of Traditional Owners.
In defence of the Agreement, the Australian Government
asserts that it has never been legally challenged, and the Northern Land
Council also maintains that the 1982 negotiations were fair. The Committee was
told, however, that even if it were proven that the NLC had failed in
its duty to Traditional Owners, discriminatory provisions in the Land Rights
Act would mean that the Agreement would still stand. Similarly, the laws of
equity would protect ERA from legal action. For these reasons the Mirrar have
never undertaken legal action against the Agreement.
The Committee believes that there is a prima facie case for
a review of the 1982 Jabiluka Agreement. It also supports the views of many witnesses,
including the Northern Land Council, that a new agreement should have been
sought with Traditional Owners in 1996 because of the lapse in time and the
dramatic changes to the nature and scope of the project proposal. The Committee
points to an inconsistency between the requirement that a new environmental
impact assessment be undertaken without a corresponding consultation of
Traditional Owners.
These issues were brought into stark relief by the
recommendation of the 1998 World Heritage Committee mission to Australia that
the 1982 Agreement be reviewed. In response, ERA and the Australian Government
have argued that to review the agreement would bring uncertainty into contracts
negotiated with Aboriginal people, jeopardise the credibility of land rights
law, unjustly privilege one set of acquired property rights over another, and
bring the very foundations of contract law into question.
While acknowledging the principles of contract law and the
need for certainty in dealings with Aboriginal people, the Committee rejects
these arguments. It points out that the ‘acquired rights’ of Aboriginal people
derive from an ancient and irrefutable interconnection with the land, a fact
which is only imperfectly recognised in Australian law. The provisions of the Land
Rights Act, in which Traditional Owners are not parties to contracts negotiated
on their behalf, already create scope for those rights to be unfairly alienated
within contracts which may otherwise be technically legal.
Further, the Committee is of the view that it is other
discriminatory provisions of the Land Rights Act, such as the ‘national
interest’ clause, not demands to review the 1982 Agreement, which undermine
both the credibility of the Act and of agreements reached with Aboriginal
people under that Act. The Committee believes that it is the very framework
under which those agreements are reached which undermines the principles the
Australian Government claims would be damaged by a review of the 1982
Agreement. Certainty cannot be guaranteed without fairness.
The Committee believes that the Land Rights Act should be
reformed to ensure that traditional Owners are fully consulted and informed
about developments on their land, that their views are allowed to prevail, and
that their agreement to significant changes in scope is also required. The
‘national interest’ provisions of the Act should be removed, and consideration
should also be given to deeper reform which makes contracts accord more closely
with traditional law and authority.
The Committee believes that it is crucial that the linkages
between the continuing dispossession of Aboriginal people, as represented by
the 1982 Agreement and its aftermath, and their deep social distress and
demoralisation, be understood. Aboriginal people see their basic rights in
relation to land, the protection of sacred cultural heritage, and the survival
of their living culture, as parts of a seamless continuum. By disregarding
these rights, and this interconnection, the Jabiluka process has placed the
survival of the Mirrar’s culture and tradition, and perhaps of the Mirrar
themselves, in grave danger. The Committee believes that until the fundamental
human and cultural rights of Aboriginal people are recognised, in law, in
administrative structures and in the Jabiluka process, there will not be any
fundamental change.
The Committee believes that the Government has demonstrated
a fundamental reluctance to address complex and difficult issues in relation to
the rights of Traditional Owners. It is precisely because they are complex and
difficult that these issues must be addressed if there is to be any hope of a
long-term solution to the problems of the region, which are closely related to,
but extend well beyond, the issue of a particular mine.
World Heritage Issues
The issues associated with the Jabiluka uranium mine project
were brought into sharp focus by the World Heritage Committee mission in
October 1998. The mission’s report included sixteen recommendations to the
Commonwealth Government, the most important of which stated that the proposal
to mine and mill uranium at Jabiluka should not proceed. Although the World
Heritage Committee cannot enforce its recommendations, it may choose to draw
international attention to the issue by placing Kakadu National Park on the
List of World Heritage in Danger. An extraordinary meeting of the WHC, to be
held in Paris on 12 July 1999, will determine whether that is necessary.
The Committee agrees with the WHC that the Jabiluka uranium
mine poses a serious threat to the natural and cultural World Heritage values
of Kakadu National Park and urges the WHC to place the Park on the List of
World Heritage in Danger at its extraordinary meeting. Such a listing, the
Committee believes, would send a powerful message to the Commonwealth Government
that its current support for the Jabiluka uranium mine is harming the natural
and cultural values of Kakadu National Park, and that only a decision to halt
the mine would ensure that the World Heritage values of the Park can be
safeguarded.
The measure of Kakadu National Park’s World Heritage
standing is immediately apparent from the five criteria that it currently
satisfies for World Heritage listing. In addition, the Committee believes that
there is a very strong case for renominating Kakadu National Park to reflect
more properly recent modifications to World Heritage criteria. The World
Heritage Committee’s cultural criteria have changed to reflect the importance
of ‘living tradition’, and the concept of ‘cultural landscape’ has also been
included. The Committee believes that Kakadu National Park satisfies these
revised criteria. It believes that renomination of the Park is appropriate and
that the Jabiluka mine represents a proven danger to the World Heritage values
that the Park embodies.
In its response to the WHC mission’s report, the
Commonwealth Government argued that it had stringently met its World Heritage
obligations in relation to Kakadu National Park and that the processes it had
established in relation to the Jabiluka mineral lease ensure that the values
and attributes of the Park have been protected. The Committee does not share
that view. On the contrary, it found that the majority of submissions and
evidence presented to it supported the opposite view: that because of its
continuing support for uranium mining at Jabiluka the Government had failed to
meet Australia’s World Heritage obligations in relation to the protection of
Kakadu National Park.
The Government has failed to meet these obligations in
relation to the natural values of Kakadu National Park by continuing to assert
that mining in the midst of a World Heritage area was acceptable. The Committee
rejects that view and believes that questionable standards of assessment and
protection were applied to a mine in a very sensitive World Heritage area,
failing to take into account the high value placed by the international
community on a World Heritage property of such significance. The effects of the
mine on areas downstream of the Jabiluka project have yet to be properly assessed
in a Kakadu-wide context.
The Government has also failed to meet its obligations in
relation to the cultural values of the Park by unduly neglecting these values
in the Jabiluka mineral lease area. The Committee accepts the evidence of
relevant experts that Jabiluka is set in a major and intermeshed cultural
landscape which is continuous with the areas outside its arbitrary base
boundaries and is adjacent to several dreaming places. The Committee notes that
there is a strong possibility that there are indigenous sites of significance
in the Jabiluka mineral lease areas which have not yet been recorded or
detected.
The Committee believes that the Commonwealth Government has
repeatedly dismissed the views of the Traditional Owners in relation to the
significance of the cultural values of the Jabiluka mineral lease, and
diminished the rights and interests which are an integral part of Mirrar law
and custom. The Committee also believes that the Commonwealth Government has
failed to meet its World Heritage obligations by failing to understand and
dismissing the nature of living tradition associated with World Heritage
cultural values. Both the EIS and PER approvals processes for the Jabiluka
uranium mine failed to address adequately the issues related to living tradition.
Of particular concern to the Committee was the Commonwealth Government’s
failure to consult the Traditional Owners or to make a genuine attempt to
understand their concerns in relation to cultural values.
It is clear from evidence provided to the Committee that the
three mining leases inside the boundaries of Kakadu National Park ‑
Ranger, Jabiluka and Koongarra – despite being legally excised enclaves, are an
integral part of the natural and cultural heritage of the Park. Such
boundaries, the Committee believes, are artificially imposed on a landscape, or
‘country’, with links that cannot be separated and which are socially,
culturally and ecologically integrated.
The Committee examined the responses of the Commonwealth
Government to the WHC mission’s recommendations and found many of these to be
at best inadequate and at worst misleading and deceptive. The Committee
believes that these responses will fail to satisfy the mission’s concerns.
The Committee disputes the Commonwealth Government’s response
to the WHC’s recommendations dealing with the visual encroachment of the
integrity of Kakadu National Park through both uranium mining and the expansion
of the town of Jabiru. In relation to the former, the excision of the Jabiluka
and Ranger areas from the Park to facilitate mining at those areas is a highly
artificial action and has a deep visual impact on the Park. In relation to the
latter, the Committee took note of documentary evidence presented by the Mirrar
people that the Northern Territory Government and ERA plan to expand
considerably the size and type of development in Jabiru.
In relation to the Commonwealth Government’s response to
several WHC recommendations dealing with threats to cultural values, the
Committee once again believes that the Government has failed to satisfy the
mission’s concerns. The Committee is highly critical of the continuing absence
of a cultural heritage management plan, and places the blame for this squarely
at the feet of the Government. The Government and ERA have also failed to
conduct the necessary exhaustive cultural mapping of the Jabiluka mineral lease
and the Boiwek site and its boundaries. The current audit of cultural mapping
on the Jabiluka lease area is shallow and has led to simplistic and misleading
conclusions.
Despite the WHC mission’s call for the immediate and
effective implementation of the Kakadu Regional Social Impact Study (KRSIS)
recommendations, the Committee noted from witnesses that as yet no proposal
detailing how and when the KRSIS recommendations might be implemented has yet
been submitted by the Government to the Northern Land Council. Finally, despite
its clear statement that there has not been a general breakdown in
communication and trust between Aboriginal people and the Government in relation
to the Jabiluka project, the Committee heard that a very severe breakdown has
indeed occurred. This breakdown is so severe that the Traditional Owners of the
Jabiluka area, the Mirrar people, have claimed that the Australian Government
is presiding over the potential destruction of an entire clan.
Contrary to the Commonwealth Government’s view that Kakadu
National Park should not be placed on the WHC’s List of World Heritage in
Danger, the Committee believes that such a listing may be the only way of changing
the Government’s present support for mining at Jabiluka. It therefore strongly
supports such a listing.
CONCLUSION
The Committee believes that the Jabiluka uranium mine poses
a grave threat to the natural and cultural heritage values of Kakadu National
Park. The Traditional Aboriginal Owners see the land, their sacred heritage and
their living culture as one. The continued development of the mine is
dangerous, threatening the very survival of a culture that has existed in
Kakadu for 50,000 years. The mine should not be allowed to proceed.
The Jabiluka Uranium Mine Project - Chronology
1970 Uranium
discovered at Ranger
1971 Pancontinental
discovered Jabiluka uranium deposit and made an application to mine
1975 Ranger
Uranium Environmental Inquiry (Fox Inquiry) established
1976 Aboriginal
Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 (Cth)
1978 Ranger
Agreement between mining consortium and the Northern Land Council (on behalf of
traditional owners)
1979 Stage
I of Kakadu National Park proclaimed
1979 Construction
at Ranger begun
1979 EIS
submitted for development of Jabiluka mine by Pancontinental
1981 World
Heritage listing of Stage I of Kakadu National Park
1981 Operations
began at Ranger
July 1982 Agreement
on mining at Jabiluka between Pancontinental and the Northern Land Council (on
behalf of traditional owners )
August 1982 Jabiluka
mineral lease granted by the NT Government
1983 Election
of ALP Government – ‘three mines policy’ halted further development
1984 Stage
II of Kakadu National Park proclaimed
1987 World
Heritage listing of Stage II; Stage III (Phase 1) proclaimed
1989 Stage
III (Phase 2) proclaimed
1991 Stage
III (Phase 3) proclaimed
1991 Jabiluka
Lease transferred to ERA with the agreement of the Northern Land Council, on
condition that the milling of Jabiluka ore at Ranger would require further
consent from the traditional owners
1992 World
Heritage listing of renominated Kakadu National Park
March 1996 Election
of Coalition Government
1996 ERA
proposal for underground mine at Jabiluka and milling at Ranger
October 1996 IUCN
resolution opposing the development of Jabiluka if World Heritage values were
shown to be threatened
June 1997 EIS
for the Ranger Mill Alternative (RMA) forwarded to NT and Commonwealth
Environment Ministers
August 1997 Cth
Environment Minister forwarded the RMA EIS to the Minister for Resources and
Energy, recommending 77 environmental conditions
October 1997 Minister
for Resources and Energy approved the RMA subject to requirements based on the
Environment Minister’s recommendations
June 1998 Public
Environment Report on Jabiluka Mill Alternative (JMA) with 50‑50 option
for disposal of tailings underground and in surface pits
June 1998 NT
Government authorised construction of common elements of the RMA and JMA
proposals; construction work began
August 1998 Minister
for the Environment reported to the Minister for Resources and Energy on the
JMA Public Environment Report
August 1998 Minister
for Resources and Energy gave ERA conditional approval for the JMA, with 100
per cent underground disposal of tailings
September 1998 Blasting
and excavation of the decline (tunnel) began
October 1998 Federal
Election; World Heritage Committee mission to Australia
December 1998 Report
of the World Heritage Committee mission
April 1999 Australian
Government’s response to the World Heritage Committee
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page