Many opponents of uranium mining have been dismayed by the lobbying being undertaken by the Northern Land Council to open up new uranium mines within Kakadu National Park — designated an area of World Heritage. Yet it is becoming clearer that there is not unanimous support for new uranium mines among the Aboriginal communities of the Top End. JOHN CHRISTOPHERSON is a Land Council representative for the Coburg Peninsula and an Executive member for the West Arnhem region. He spoke to Green Left Weekly's BERNIE BRIAN.
What are your objections to uranium mining?
Personally I'm opposed to uranium mining for a whole range of reasons. Our country is not that far removed from where the mines are, and if there are any problems it will flow down the rivers and out to the coast, and that affects us.
There is also the problem of where uranium ends up after it's been mined. Given that Indonesia anticipates building nuclear reactors in unstable earthquake areas, there is the bigger picture of who will be affected.
So my point is that they shouldn't change their three mines policy (as silly as it is) and make it open slather. They're stockpiling it now, so what's the use of digging holes now and storing it around the country, which creates problems as well. And who's to say that in 20, 30 or 40 years, when the fuel rods are burnt out, that they're not going to send them back again. The NT government has already been talking about establishing a waste disposal area around Tennant Creek to store all the spent nuclear material. I'm sure the people of Tennant Creek would want to have something to say about that.
Some people have been surprised by the apparent support for uranium mining among Aboriginal people here.
The view from the NLC is that we support the rights and wishes of the traditional owners to do what they want on their land, but the bigger picture is the whole question of uranium mining. Aboriginal people in the Territory haven't been given enough resources to have informed debate on the whole thing and to some degree are only getting one side of the story in relation to income from mining.
It's a sad situation that we have to rely on income from uranium mining to address some of the social justice issues such as health, housing and education.
In relation to the Land Council, they have to support the wishes of the traditional owners, but at the same time there is not really a policy on uranium mining. Whenever Aboriginal people get to talk about any Exploration Licence Agreement [ELA], the only information they get is from the mining companies, so decisions are basically made on dollars.
The problem is that when people talk to mining companies about ELAs on their land, they are given information that the mining company is looking for gold, lead, zinc, silver, tin or whatever, but if they come across uranium you end up with a uranium mine in your back paddock. So if any mining company has an ELA with Aboriginal people and they come across uranium, and people don't want uranium, well it's too bad.
Now if we were to have informed debate, it would place the Land Council in a difficult situation, but it can be overcome if people are made aware of the consequences of uranium mining. I mean there's more to uranium mining than dollars in the pocket, and unfortunately a lot of our people are not getting that information. So that's the dilemma we're in.
Aboriginal people are asked to make decisions and the decision is based on only hearing from the mining company what it has to offer and that is dollars basically. There are a whole lot of people who don't want any form of exploration or mining on their country and, of course, they have had their opportunity to say that at ELA meetings, but there are obviously some that want mining.
You have to understand also, that the NLC is funded from royalty equivalents from mining on Aboriginal land, and that places the Land Council in a difficult situation because we're getting funding from mining. Now it wasn't our desire, and if we had any say in the matter, we certainly wouldn't have been asking that our funding be received in this manner, but that's what we're stuck with. So to go out and say the Land Council is opposed to mining when in actual fact we get our funding from mining is a conflict. It places the Council in a difficult situation, and people have to understand that.
I've got grave concerns about the whole thing. I understand the desires of the traditional owners to develop some economic base, but I'm not sure that other alternatives have been properly pursued. Given that it's in a national park and the amount of visitors and the amount of other developments that could take place, other alternatives have not been exhausted. Mining is a quick way to make a buck.
I've been talking among our own people, just trying to get people to see other points of view. There are a lot of people here who are opposed to it, but in relation to uranium, a lot of people haven't been able to participate in the discussions because we haven't been given the information to have informed debate.
I believe you're planning to visit Canberra to lobby against uranium mining in Kakadu?
When I go to Canberra, I hope to give a bit more of a balanced view in relation to uranium mining. I don't see any future in open slather uranium mining across the Northern Territory, because most of the uranium mines will be on Aboriginal land.
The longer term picture is the main concern. It's all right to say we're not going to allow contaminated water to be released into the natural environment, but it has been happening. Who's to say that we won't have a big flood this year and all of a sudden the whole of the Magela and right up the East Alligator River and consequently the coastline where our country is becomes contaminated. There is lots of evidence around the world that doesn't paint a pretty picture of the effects of such contamination.
The NLC is confident in one respect that safeguards will be developed that are adequate, but whether they in actual fact work or not, is another story. We've had numerous arguments with the Northern Territory government in relation to the release of waters from Ranger. In actual fact we had hold of the minister responsible and said if you're so confident about it why don't you drink the water, and the fool did.
You can say it will be all right but we just don't know at the end of the day. All it takes is one accident and you've got a whole lot of problems. Look at the consequences of Chernobyl and what's happened today with the children, births and the animals — it's just not good — it doesn't paint a pretty picture.