Few would dispute that Australia is in urgent need of a radioactive waste management facility. Over 50 years, some 4000 cubic metres of accumulated radioactive waste from hospitals and medical research facilities has stored up in hundreds lock-up sheds around the country. It is clearly an inadequate situation.

One man's waste is another man's opportunity

To make matters more pressing, Australia has an obligation to take back nuclear fuel from Sydney’s Lucas Heights research reactor, which was sent to Scotland and France for reprocessing and is due to return to Australia in 2015-16.

It makes sense to secure radioactive waste in one central, safe location. But because no one wants the thing in their backyard, the Northern Territory – which lacks the powers states have to fight off the federal government – is going to get it.

The deal, first struck by the Howard Government, and now being honoured by Labor, is to turn land on the Aboriginal-owned Muckaty station, 120km north of Tennant Creek, into a nuclear waste dump.

When in Opposition, Labor promised to repeal the legislation which would allow for the creation of a radioactive waste facility at Muckaty. In one of the most plainly insincere examples of legislative sleight of hand ever seen in this country, Labor did this week repeal the legislation - and reinstated legislation which gives an almost identical outcome.

All this for the sake of appearing to keep a promise.

This is not a story about the rights and wrongs of locating the waste facility in the Northern Territory. It is a catalogue of the deceit by politicians, on both sides, on this one issue. And it is a particularly hard story to sell. After all, unless you live in the Territory, the deceit has served you well: there will be no nuclear waste dump in your state.

Or perhaps that should be corrected to say that your state is unlikely to get the dump. The bill requires the government to make all efforts to ensure Muckaty proceeds. If for any reason it fails (and there are no signs of any wavering on behalf of Aborigines), Northern Territory Aborigines would be asked to volunteer another site.

If none was forthcoming, thereafter would kick in one of the most fiendish clauses devised by federal a legislature since John Howard declared Australia’s islands were not part of Australia for the sake of repelling unauthorised boat arrivals.

Federal Resources Minister, Martin Ferguson, has said – should they fail to get a site on Territory Aboriginal land – they will call upon private property owners across Australia to volunteer their land for the dump. This would mean a grazier from NSW could offer his land. And there would be nothing any state government could do to prevent them building a site on private property right next to Grafton, Bundaberg, Swan Hill, Clare Valley, Launceston, or Toodyay.

The explanatory memorandum of Ferguson’s National Radioactive Waste Management Bill 2010 states: “Clause 10 allows the Commonwealth, a Commonwealth entity, a Commonwealth contractor and an employee or agent of any of these persons to do anything in a State or Territory necessary for or incidental to the purposes of selecting a site on which to construct and operate a facility.”

It seems far-fetched that Ferguson would propose building a waste dump based on the nomination of one land owner, rather than a community or indeed a state government. But he’s done it. You can imagine what might happen: Ferguson would look through the list of people who had volunteered their land and settle on a site in, say, Western Australia, where there’s a Liberal Government. Or maybe in NSW if it goes Liberal.

In other words, if you live anywhere other than the Northern Territory, you’d better pray Territory Aborigines come through.

The story of the nuclear waste dump heading north began in 2003, when – based on best scientific advice – it was decided to locate the repository at Woomera, in South Australia. The South Australians objected and in June 2004 the Federal Court ruled that the Commonwealth’s plans to acquire land for the repository were unlawful.

The Howard Government, facing the 2004 election and sensing widespread discontent on the dump issue, promised not to locate it on mainland Australia. Environment Minister Ian Campbell, buying time for his government, made an absurd promise to locate the dump offshore, on one of our islands. Islands are susceptible to weather and inundation and they tend to be home to discrete colonies of unique animals. It was never going to happen.

Once re-elected, the government immediately reneged on the offshore plan and began sniffing around the mainland for a site.

By 2005, Brendan Nelson, then Minister for Education, Science and Training, said he would investigate potential sites on Defence land in remote parts of the Territory.

Bob Hawke put the accelerator on the issue, and upset a lot of true believers, by arguing that Australia should become home to a commercial repository for the world’s nuclear waste. He said Australia was geologically safe and, besides, we could use the money. The Americans would be particularly interested – they have faced their own problems building a national repository, coming up against community discontent, land tenure obstacles and cross-border transport issues.

The only problem with Hawke’s vision, made from the comfort of his semi-retirement, was that no federal government would ever dare trying to sell such a proposal to a country which still can’t quite get its head around uranium mining, let alone building nuclear power stations.

The Commonwealth Radioactive Waste Management Bill 2005 was introduced in October that year, identifying the three Northern Territory Defence sites as possible locations. The legislation dealt only with Australian low-level and long-life intermediate radioactive waste (Australia, having no nuclear reactors, has no high-level waste). It was clear we were not to become the world’s nuclear waste dump.

But we still needed a dump; and it would be located in the Northern Territory, that unfledged half-state which has long been a laboratory for Commonwealth policy experiments. The Northern Territory Labor Government was strongly opposed to having a dump forced upon it, and was joined in this by central Australian Aboriginal groups. But then NT Labor found it had an unexpected enemy within.

The Darwin-headquartered Northern Land Council, representing all traditional Aboriginal land owners across the Top End and right down to Tennant Creek, came up with an ingenious notion: what if the dump was on Aboriginal land?

Scientists from the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation were invited to address the full council of the NLC. The audience was surprisingly attentive. These people knew the insides of hospital better than most and understood the scientists when they talked about being injected with radioactive isotopes or being x-rayed. They were assured the waste would mostly be medical.

Traditional-owner groups began to entertain the dump notion. A group of traditional owners from Muckaty station put up their hands. (Some say the NLC put them up for them, but there is no evidence of this.)

For Aborigines, the leap in volunteering 225ha of their land for a dump was not as vast as some might imagine. The Ranger uranium mine in Kakadu is, after all, on Aboriginal land. But the fact is these people from Muckaty, known as the Ngapa group, would never have offered their land in exchange for money if the Territory and federal Governments had bothered to supply their basic needs. But they hadn’t.

The Ngapa group, and the NLC, had in one surprising move asked Australia to reassess their perception of who Aborigines really were: not nihilists clinging to fragments of the past, but engineers of a brash new future. They could not wait for governments to fix their problems and had to take creative and difficult decisions to survive.

Environmentalists, central Australian Aborigines, Labor and small-town residents were deeply disturbed; but the Howard Government was elated that Aborigines, with whom they’d had so much trouble engaging, would come to them with such an unexpected offer.

In 2007, Howard altered the waste management bill to say that a land council could nominate land for a radioactive facility. Meanwhile, there were deep ructions around Tennant Creek about whether the Ngapa group were the true speakers for the land in question. Those ructions continue to this day, but a deal was signed which would give the Ngapa $12m in staggered payments for roads, housing and scholarships.

It doesn’t seem like much money, but the price was based on (generous) estimates of what land in that area might be worth if it was freehold. Which is not much. The Ngapa land is hard, dry country, rocky and barren, too tough in places for cattle but where important songlines traverse.

Labor, in Opposition, was disgusted. There was a joint media release from Senator Kim Carr, Peter Garrett, Warren Snowdon and Senator Trish Crossin. It began: “The next chapter has opened in the Howard Government’s nuclear waste dump fiasco, with the Government today accepting a highly controversial site nomination at the Northern Territory’s Muckaty station, before scientific testing of the area.”

The Opposition politicians said they were “profoundly disappointed” by the amended legislation. They said traditional owners had been stripped of their rights. They said science and community consultation should determine the location of the dump, not bullying by the Howard government.

It had long been Labor policy to build a dump somewhere but, as these politicians well knew, the argument was no longer about science. Scientists had already said the dump should be in Woomera. And the idea of community consultation on a dump was laughable. No community would ever agree to it – except a desperate one, like the Ngapa.

Labor promised to repeal the legislation, ostensibly to save the hides of Northern Territory federal politicians as they headed into a federal election but also, one suspects because Garrett, then Opposition environment spokesman, genuinely believed the Ngapa group had been bribed into offering their land for the dump.

After taking power in 2007, Labor’s Resources Minister, Martin Ferguson, continued to say it would repeal the legislation, and that dump was needed. But that’s all he would say. His office became hostile to inquiries from the Northern Territory media. He deeply frustrated Territory citizens on his refusal to give any insight whatsoever into his thoughts on whether the dump would still be located at Muckaty.

There was no public consultation at all; no discussion - just an announcement this week that it would happen. No Labor minister would have ever dared treat the citizens of any other state in this way.

Ferguson’s bill, introduced to parliament on Wednesday does as Labor promised: it repeals Howard’s bill. And then it spins on its heel and locates the dump squarely back in the lap of the Northern Territory.

Questioned on ABC radio in Darwin this week, Ferguson said he had kept his promise of repealing the Act. Asked where the dump would be located, he continued to spin:

“It will be based on a proper process. It includes putting back in place normal procedural requirements going to scientific assessment. The operation of the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Act. And also, proper regard for the Northern Territory Aboriginal Land Rights Act.”

Interviewer: Okay. So my question…

Ferguson: That means…

Interviewer: The question we’re trying to understand is where - what site will you be choosing or are you still working on that at this stage?

Ferguson: Well, firstly, the three (Defence) sites selected by the Howard Government will not be pursued, despite the fact that, scientifically, they actually stack up. We will proceed, firstly with the only voluntary site that we have, and that goes to the Ngapa land with respect to the Muckaty Station. That is a volunteer nomination. And we’re required, as an act of good faith and good spirit in accordance with the nomination deed to actually pursue that process. But I also have a capacity - if I assess that is not a proper site, then open up to a national voluntary site nomination process.”

Ferguson says that because the Howard Government signed a $12m contract with the Ngapa group, his government cannot now back out of it. And with spent fuel rods soon to return from Europe, the time is not available for Ferguson to rip up the Ngapa agreement. The dump has to be built and unless the unlikely happens and the deal collapses, it will be built at Muckaty.

It has been an exasperating ride with Ferguson. He has shown contempt for the Northern Territory people and now, as the barking-mad private land owner clause attests, contempt for all Australians. But least we now know it is over (even though he continues his bewildering double-speak, this week maintaining there was “no pre-determined site outcome”).

The dump site is perfectly located, transport-wise, lying an easy drive between the Stuart Highway and the Adelaide-Darwin railway line. One day soon, men in white suits will be routinely reenacting scenes from Repo Man as part of their daily grind. Reaction in Tennant Creek is mixed. Some see the dump killing their town. Others see the New Vegas.

The dump will be feature above-ground concrete bunkers to store the medical waste and a likely underground trench-bunker – with five-metre-thick concrete walls – for the reprocessed fuel rods.

All this leaves Northern Territory’s Labor Chief Minister, Paul Henderson, in a nasty bind. His only hope is that states might unite to forbid the transportation of radioactive waste across their land on the way to the Territory. But they’re going to be shovelling the stuff onto trucks and trains as fast as they can.

Most commented

30 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • John A Neve says:

      06:23am | 25/02/10

      I see three issues here;
      Do we need a “safe” nuclear waste dump?  The answer is obviously YES.
      Isn’t time the territories became states?  Again in my view the the answer is
      YES.
      Shouldn’t government dcisions be in the best interest of the majority of the population?  Once again, in my view YES.

      So what s the real problem here? The answer is our poitical system, those “leaders” of our country, are more interested in holding their seats than making correct decisions.

    • Steve says:

      08:31am | 25/02/10

      No mention of the Howard - Bush discussions for Halliburton to own and operate high level waste facility at the site (I understand Halliburton has spent money on a transport link). The rationale being to keep the stuff away from terrorists and countries with aspirational nuclear weapon agendas.

    • DG says:

      09:17am | 25/02/10

      John,

      The solution that is in the best interests of the majority is to dump the waste in the back yard of the minority. Dumping at sea isn’t and option, no other country wants our waste (although we could probably sell it to terrorist organisations), so that leaves our own back yard.

      No one wants it in their back yard -  but it’s going to have to be somewhere.

      The political system isn’t the issue. The issue is the fact that we as a nation have a lot of rubbish coming and we have to stick it somewhere. Since no one is willing to put up their hand, it has to be dumped in the place of least resistance.

      As for the political system - What interest does any politician in a democracy have in making the “right decision”? A warm fuzzy feeling? They have a job to do what the majority want. If the majority wanted long term solutions that what the politicians would provide. But the electorate has a very short memory…

    • acker says:

      09:29am | 25/02/10

      Australia is a huge politically stable continent with many isolated areas, I think this needs to be considered and debated. There are many expired open cut mines in isolated areas, perhaps nuclear waste could be buried in them.

      Somewhere in the world there is a need for a nuclear waste dump, I would feel safer knowing it was in Australia rather than somewhere it could fall into the hands of terrorists easily or end up floating around the oceans.

    • eye4aneye says:

      12:59pm | 25/02/10

      Agree 100% and if we can charge a premium for that security and create a new industry with the associated employment and other economic benefits why not?

      They/we detonated nuclear weapons in the desest already with no safety measures - whats wrong with taking waste in safely, providing jobs and economic advantage, and doing something for the environment/world (the wastes already around and as acker said I’d rather have it safely stored in Australia than staring at me from the 3 eyed fish on my plate) in the process.

      At a minimum open debate with-out the hysteric fear mongering.

    • acker says:

      02:33pm | 27/02/10

      @eye4aneye..re dumping waste and fish from the following article
      http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-you-are-being-lied-to-about-pirates-1225817.html

      Ahmedou Ould-Abdallah, the UN envoy to Somalia, tells me: “Somebody is dumping nuclear material here. There is also lead, and heavy metals such as cadmium and mercury – you name it.” Much of it can be traced back to European hospitals and factories, who seem to be passing it on to the Italian mafia to “dispose” of cheaply. When I asked Mr Ould-Abdallah what European governments were doing about it, he said with a sigh: “Nothing. There has been no clean-up, no compensation, and no prevention.”

      At the same time, other European ships have been looting Somalia’s seas of their greatest resource: seafood. We have destroyed our own fish stocks by overexploitation – and now we have moved on to theirs. More than $300m-worth of tuna, shrimp, and lobster are being stolen every year by illegal trawlers. The local fishermen are now starving. Mohammed Hussein, a fisherman in the town of Marka 100km south of Mogadishu, told Reuters: “If nothing is done, there soon won’t be much fish left in our coastal waters.”

    • Sam Chowder says:

      09:39am | 25/02/10

      Nuclear waste - how naff

    • TIMFROMTHETOPEND says:

      10:09am | 25/02/10

      and the beaut thing is that when KRUDD visits that he could tie it in with a visit to Borroloola, which is only 400-500klm away.

    • Carl Palmer says:

      10:23am | 25/02/10

      Thanks Paul for a very informative article.

      You are absolutely right when you say that “…a country which still can’t quite get its head around uranium mining, let alone building nuclear power stations.”

      I can’t understand why this is the case.

      You only have to read the line “….some 4000 cubic metres of accumulated radioactive waste from hospitals and medical research facilities has stored up in hundreds lock-up sheds around the country.” 

      So as it stands right now, these sheds could be right next to where people live, play, work and no doubt located in every state. So what’s the problem???  The old politics and scare mongering when it suits campaign. Why states don’t see this as an economic opportunity is beyond me. The stupidity is that it is already in their backyard and they get nothing, formalise it and make money.


      I think people need to take responsibility. The collective “we” need to inform ourselves, do our homework and this is the really hard bit, think for ourselves. Too many people just go with the flow and believe in the one who tells and sells the best story. If our local member starts to receive letters, e-mails, phone calls etc from their constituents, about a particular issue then watch them change their stripes. It can and does work. You need people to get off the backside.

      Why this is a major issue is beyond me, I’d be more than happy to give them my land for the $12Mil plus a few other payments conditions etc etc….

    • Carl Palmer says:

      10:33am | 25/02/10

      I believe the PM had a bunker built recently, maybe we could use that as an interim fix.

    • haggis says:

      11:10am | 25/02/10

      Seriously good piece, Paul - especially the little Ferguson cameo on straight-talking and political integrity . . . . er mmmm

    • Kim says:

      11:15am | 25/02/10

      I volunteer Canberra to be the next nuclear waste dump.

    • Colin says:

      11:21am | 25/02/10

      This is really a big beat up about nothing. Nuclear waste is a fact of life, this particular waste is an Australian problem that we need to deal with. Properly dealt with, using the correct procedures, central Australia is an ideal area, located as it is in a stable area, both geologically and politically.

      Unfortunately nuclear has a branding problem. People hear nuclear waste and their sense of reason goes out the window. As an aside, one has to wonder about reason on a day where people openly start facebook groups calling for the death of another, thus far not found guilty of any crime.

      Australians need to start having a debate about nuclear issues in general and start seperating the scare stories of Chernobyl and Three Mile island, from the promise of clean green power. Unfortunately the green side of politics has painted itself into a corner on this one and needs to take a long hard look at itself.

      I wouldn’t give a fig if the nuclear processing plant was next to me by the way. I’m no Nimby. It would provide some good local employment for many years to come.

    • Samuel says:

      11:39am | 25/02/10

      I’m happy to have the waste dumped in my property for the right price.

    • DWest says:

      11:57am | 25/02/10

      Wrong Paul - you need to check your facts. Or read the newspapers son! Premier Rann has been in States recently, having talks with one of the worlds largest dumping companies.

    • Ben says:

      01:41pm | 25/02/10

      Adelaide readers may have noticed the latest election ad on TV from the Rann Labor state government, with scary music, in black and white, playing a quote from Isobel Redmond (SA Liberal Leader) suggesting that allowing a dump in SA may have been the most rational solution.

      Rann is one of the worst hypocritcal nimby anti-nuclear fearmongers in office right now.  (oh, apart from when he conveniently restrains his fearmongering when it comes to Uranium mining)

      Never mind the fact that you have a whole lot more to worry about from a conventional rubbish dump than you ever possibly will from any nuclear dump, and it seems perfectly ok to have rubbish dumps in our suburbs.

      I’ll never forget that twit standing on the steps of parliament house with a big grin on his face and a glass of wine in his hand after he had blocked a common sense solution to store medical and industrial waste, just because it has been tagged as “nuclear”.  Supporters of his fear campaign celebrated, thinking all that nasty waste suddenly stopped existing because of some empty political stunt. 

      Meanwhile, here we are back at square one until someone has the guts to speak rationally about nuclear issues, and not give any attention to those who are still trying to paint it all as some kind of boogeyman..

    • Realist says:

      12:10pm | 25/02/10

      Isn’t it about time that Australians grew their knowledge about all things nuclear?
      I mean it’s not exactly a new science - it’s been developing constantly since the dark days of WW2 and yet the average person’s ideas about nuclear energy are still back there in 1945.
      France has dozens of reactors within their borders and enjoy an abundance of electricity because of it.
      How many of us have written that country off as a holiday destination because of the danger of reactors exploding or glow-in-the-dark camembert?
      Please let’s move the nuclear discussion on from the scare-mongering politicians who should (and probably do) know a lot better than they’re spruiking.
      Do some reading Australia, listen to some physicists ... maybe even ask a Frenchman - they’re easy to find, just turn the lights off and look for the glow!
      C’mon!

    • Nigel says:

      01:29pm | 25/02/10

      Very droll.  But also a very clever comment.

    • AustraliaVotes says:

      02:09am | 26/02/10

      Too bad nuclear power uses massive amounts of water which is sparce in Australia. During heat-waves in Europe in 2003 France’s nuclear reactors had to get exemptions to discharge overheated into the environment and some had to shut down.

    • eye4aneye says:

      11:43am | 26/02/10

      @ AustraliaVotes - Does it need to be “pure” water? if not would it be possible to use “grey” water or even sea water?

    • Carl Palmer says:

      01:00pm | 26/02/10

      @AustraliaVotes says:03:09am | 26/02/10

      The new generation of reactors don’t use water to cool the core. The new generation use gas i.e. Helium to cool the core or molten salt or liquid metal-cooled reactors.They are far more efficient and can generate more power from the same amount of uranium than water cooled reactors. The water “problem” for us therefore disappears.

      Obama has just appoved to build one of these new Gen reactors. Not sure which type he apporved.

      This may be of intertest
      https://inlportal.inl.gov/portal/server.pt?open=514&objID=1361&parentname=CommunityPage&parentid=9&mode=2

    • Steve says:

      01:13pm | 25/02/10

      I have no problem with a facility to look after our home grow waste - after all there are already huge nuclear waste dumps near where they mine Uranium (all the associated nuclear material which we can not flog). My concern is that an Australian dump will morph into an International dump because we have to maintain our military alliance with the US.

    • achimova1 says:

      01:52pm | 25/02/10

      Yes Australia needs a waste repository for its own waste. It should be near Lucas Heights - then we have a chance that the containment would be world class - rather than the disgraceful mess - still ongoing - on Maralinga, where ARPANSA botched the job and the Howard Government let them walk away from it. The placing of the repository at Muckaty Station does make one think that there is another agenda - the storing of nuclear waste from other countries. Yes, Halliburton’s got the contract to build the Alice Springs to Darwin railway a short time after Howard’s election. Many wondered what the railway was for. Olympic Dam? Probably - but a large scale spent fuel dump was also touted.
      It’s not just the people who do not want a dump near them - it’s the politicians. Best practice containment (see Sweden and Finland) is deep in the ground in concrete tunnels. In Australia, radioactive tailings are left on the ground in the mining process and radioactive water is pumped back underground in the acid leaching process. Yes, Mr Ferguson may be promising concrete bunkers for the Lucas Heights and spent rods from Scotland, but you can bet your bottom dollar that if the Yanks lean on them to take their spent fuel rods, it won’t be best practice - it will be the cheapest they can get away with. Otherwise they would dump them on US soil, just like they have at Hanford in the Pacific North west, which is leaking badly both into the air and into the soil. Martin Ferguson’s engagement in this problem, from press releases, is uninformed and authoritarian. He and the Rudd government have to make decisions which will affect the lives of Australians for centuries to come. There is nothing that they are saying at the moment which is any more responsible than Howard in the mid 90s.

    • There is an answer to the problem. says:

      02:39pm | 25/02/10

      Perhaps the Government would sent it to a country that would recycle the waste.  For instance, a good example is (I won’t give any names) a country or better still let’s called it a place off-shore somewhere, that has recycled used condoms.  Yes that’s right.  You have read it right.  You eyes are not playing up.  Those people have cleverly recycled used condoms by a process of washing them, dying them and changing them into pretty hair ties for little girls.  Are you shocked by that now?  And coughing a spluttering all over the place?  And what is more shocking than that is (now is the time to brace yourselves) they are readily available at any low priced discount shop.  Now how is that for an answer to a problem of unsafe waste?

    • glowboy says:

      11:09am | 26/02/10

      please explain the parallels in the technology required to achieve this recycling, the similarities in infrastructure to provide the best risk and incident management for the two recycling ventures, and the comparative nature of the aims of the operation. the only shared concept here is recycling. Fatuous drivel, or just taking the piss? I support both projects- condom and nuclear waste recycling. Maybe you can apply your expansive mind to creating a solution for a failure in the condom recycling process- like ‘insert baby for refund’. Pffft

    • eye4aneye says:

      05:29pm | 25/02/10

      I find that kind of creepy to be honest - much like I don’t like the idea of drinking treated wastewater the thought of a used rubber in my loved ones hair is a bit disturbing. I get your point on recycling however I don’t think theirs alot of recycling options out their for nuclear waste…..well it has terrorist applications but thats not a user friendly market.

      If there was a recycling option available I’m sure it would have been taken by now in the democratic nations - even if it was more expensive the political brownie points that would be gained from it would have governments jumping at the option.

    • Turn the whole thing around says:

      05:46pm | 25/02/10

      eye4eye.
      If the a third world country have found a way to recycle used rubbers I am positive a country of similar category would find a way to turn the waste into a something safe, useful and sellable.  Oh yes last but not least, put food on their table.

    • eye4aneye says:

      11:41am | 26/02/10

      Theirs a very big difference between used condoms (essentially rubber as the nickname implies) and radioactive material with a 10’s of thousands of year half-life.

      Don’t get me wrong I’d love for there to be a recycle option on this it would solve alot of problems and make the energy source far more attractive, but the technology is simply not there and probably won’t be for a long time if ever and it certainly won’t come from a 3rd world government stuggling to fund essential services let alone nuclear research (well with the possible exception of North Korea).

    • JH says:

      10:23am | 26/02/10

      go private and be done with in. Given that this waste lasts thousands of years, I wish I had some land so I could secure and lease for thousands of years!

    • ALL FOR IT says:

      12:11pm | 26/02/10

      glowboy -
      I’m working on it.  Pfft!

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

The Punch is moving house

The Punch is moving house

Good morning Punchers. After four years of excellent fun and great conversation, this is the final post…

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

I have had some close calls, one that involved what looked to me like an AK47 pointed my way, followed…

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

In a world in which there are still people who subscribe to the vile notion that certain victims of sexual…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: Hasbro, go straight to gaol, do not pass go

Tim says:

They should update other things in the game too. Instead of a get out of jail free card, they should have a Dodgy Lawyer card that not only gets you out of jail straight away but also gives you a fat payout in compensation for daring to arrest you in the first place. Instead of getting a hotel when you… [read more]

From: A guide to summer festivals especially if you wouldn’t go

Kel says:

If you want a festival for older people or for families alike, get amongst the respectable punters at Bluesfest. A truly amazing festival experience to be had of ALL AGES. And all the young "festivalgoers" usually write themselves off on the first night, only to never hear from them again the rest of… [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

Superman needs saving

Superman needs saving

Can somebody please save Superman? He seems to be going through a bit of a crisis. Eighteen months ago,… Read more

28 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free News.com.au newsletter