By Sarah Peart
On August 21, Energy Resources of Australia's chief executive, Philip Shirvington, announced plans to finalise, before the federal election, contracts for selling uranium mined at Jabiluka in Kakadu National Park.
The Jabiluka mine, located in a World Heritage area, is strongly opposed by the Aboriginal traditional owners of the area. Over the last 20 years, the Mirrar people have experienced the destructive effects of uranium mining.
Radioactive tailings from the nearby Ranger mine are regularly leaked into the Magela River. These tailings retain their radioactivity for 300 years and can cause lung cancer, leukaemia and birth defects.
The campaign against the Jabiluka mine took off because people from all walks of life saw the need to save a people and a World Heritage area from radiation. Anti-mine groups sprang up around the country.
In the face of racist attacks on indigenous people by the Howard government, many people were also drawn to the campaign by concern for the rights of Aboriginal traditional owners.
Pickets and protests were organised across the country. In April, a blockade was established at the mine site. This has maintained pressure on ERA, slowed down the mine's construction and provided a symbol of resistance.
Strong opposition to the mine has been demonstrated by the numbers of people who have travelled to the blockade — up to 450 at one time — and by the numbers who continue to campaign against it around the country.
According to Friends of the Earth in Sydney, recent surveys show 67% of voters opposed to the Jabiluka project.
The campaign has also received widespread international support. Jabiluka has been opposed by a resolution of the European parliament and by numerous overseas environment groups. The World Heritage Bureau of UNESCO decided to send an inspection team to evaluate the project.
Yvonne Margarula, the senior traditional owner, has been awarded the inaugural international Nuclear Free Future Award for her efforts against the mine.
A discussion is now taking place on how to use the election period to maximum effect.
Labor has repeatedly stated that if, at the time of election, Jabiluka is an "existing mine" — that is, all contracts have been signed — it will not close the mine. It has also said that it will not cancel export licences if they have been granted.
The Gundjehmi Aboriginal Corporation believes that the Jabiluka campaign should therefore concentrate most of its efforts on lobbying the Labor Party to "clearly and unequivocally commit to halting the Jabiluka mine upon gaining office".
To this end, it has proposed a marginal seats campaign, arguing in a recent fax to activists: "While all of us may be sceptical about the mainstream political process and its ability to deliver justice on indigenous and environmental issues, the fact remains that the campaign to stop Jabiluka does have mainstream support and could be stopped via the ballot box".
An alternative proposal has been floated by activists at the Jabiluka blockade. They have suggested running "Stop Jabiluka mine" candidates for House of Representative seats and encouraging people to vote for parties that have given a firm commitment to stopping the mine.
"The focus ... would not be to get votes but to publicly put pressure on other parties, promote progressive parties, raise public awareness and get publicity for the issue", states the proposal.
"It is designed to provide an avenue for a proactive, long term, public awareness and education campaign in a way which does not focus on a two-party system approach."
"This is a useful discussion to be having" Hobart anti-uranium activist Tony Iltis told Green Left Weekly. "Using the elections to profile the anti-Jabiluka campaign and to get others actively involved is essential.
"I think the proposal from the Jabiluka blockade is aimed at trying to do this in an election period. As distinct from the marginal seats campaign, which is too closely tied to the Labor Party, its main focus is on continuing to develop the campaign in opposition to Jabiluka. The campaign against the mine does need to be independent of the major parties.
"Sure the campaign should call on Labor to reverse its position, but it should not be held hostage to what Labor can or cannot promise."
Sydney activist Jim Green told Green Left, "In the late '70s, it was a movement of tens of thousands of people in the streets that forced the Labor Party to adopt an anti-uranium position while in opposition. In the '80s, a mass campaign in the streets stopped the damming of the Franklin River in Tasmania.
"Key to building these campaigns was involving broad layers and large numbers. This is what we need to be thinking about after the elections — getting active trade union support, holding more film showings of David Bradbury's film and attempting to mobilise the broad yet passive opposition to the mine."