The blockade of the Jabiluka mine in Kakadu National Park in the NT, and the April 5 national day of action, demonstrate the widespread opposition to this new uranium mine. The campaign's success will depend very much on the commitment of the anti-nuclear, Aboriginal rights campaigners to keep up the public pressure.
Below, Sydney Resistance organiser, Democratic Socialist Party member and chair of the Sydney April 5 "Stop the Jabiluka Mine" rally, WENDY ROBERTSON, argues that the campaign must resist the temptation to tailor its activities to securing the re-election of Labor, and focus instead on broadening its demands and involving more people.
Sydney's experience is an excellent example of how organising the rally has strengthened the campaign by involving people and, as a consequence, changing public opinion. The campaign has come a long way in a short time, and the organising effort behind the April 5 action has had much to do with this.
But there are two big issues facing the movement. First, how will the campaign win or, more specifically: can we rely on the re-election of Labor to stop the Jabiluka mine? Secondly, what is the best political basis upon which to strengthen and extend the anti-Jabiluka campaign?
Some have begun to argue for a "Vote for Kakadu" strategy. They say that saving Jabiluka simply means replacing the Coalition with Labor. This is a mistake.
Labor's policy is that in government it would honour any existing contracts with regard to Jabiluka. Labor has no intention of stopping the mine, let alone closing down the uranium industry. This is clear from its history of support for uranium mining, and its past deception of environmental campaigners.
The campaign should not hitch itself to Labor's wagon — implicitly or explicitly. In fact, a significant amount of energy should be committed to exposing the inadequacy of Labor's position, if campaigners are not to be deceived again.
We cannot rely on the Labor Party to stop the mine; the only force we can rely on is ourselves. We have to build a powerful movement based on networking, public debates and rallies. Our strength lies primarily in our ability to turn anti-Jabiluka sentiment into an active and public movement for change.
This is the only way the mine will stay on the political agenda, and the only way we will be able to get our arguments across.
The second issue facing the campaign is what kind of demands we should put forward. The primary demand is to stop the Jabiluka mine. But this demand is linked to many other issues which the campaign also needs to address.
The threat of a mine in Jabiluka would never have arisen if Aboriginal people really had control of their land, or if Australia was no longer a player in the nuclear fuel cycle, or if environmentally important areas (in particular World Heritage-listed areas like Kakadu) were protected.
Campaigning around these issues, therefore, is a key part of convincing people to oppose the Jabiluka mine.
Those who are already involved have to understand the overall context, the causes and issues behind the government's plan. A deeper understanding strengthens the resolve to fight and win.
There is significant, but still largely passive, sentiment in favour of Aboriginal rights, protecting the environment and ending uranium mining. This sentiment still needs to be translated into concrete support for the Jabiluka campaign. Jabiluka needs to become a symbol of people's wishes for Aboriginal people's rights and the environment to be protected.
Apart from campaigning to stop the mine, the movement needs to add its voice to the following demands:
- Aboriginal control of Aboriginal land;
- Protect World Heritage-listed areas; and
- Stop the nuclear fuel cycle — stop the mining, milling and transportation of uranium in Australia.
Many people already see Jabiluka as an Aboriginal rights issue. The Mirrar people were given legal title to their land in 1977 under the Northern Territory Land Rights Act. But land rights for the Mirrar remain only token because they do not have the right to control what happens on their land.
Real land rights should be granted to Aboriginal communities. They have to be able to make decisions, and have those decisions respected, about any developments on their land.
The Jabiluka mineral lease is in an area excised from the Kakadu National Park, a World Heritage-listed area. Based on this technicality, both major parties argue that the lease is not in a World Heritage-listed area, so that they have no obligation to stop the mine.
But radioactive waste from the mining and tailings dams cannot be contained within the mineral lease area, especially given that, for a good part of the year, the area is flooded.
A uranium mine within the Kakadu catchment area makes a complete farce of Kakadu's World Heritage listing. It also exposes the lie of government claims to environmental responsibility. If the government is allowed to get its way with Jabiluka, other World Heritage and environmentally sensitive areas face an even greater threat.
The Coalition has made Jabiluka a test case; it is only the first of some 26 new uranium mines it would like to open. Our argument is that all uranium mining and its associated activities must stop.
Uranium mining companies have made billions of dollars through trampling on the rights of indigenous people, destroying the environment and subjecting workers to lethal doses of radiation. Their operations should be closed, without compensation, and the workers offered new jobs in environmentally safe industries.
Ultimately, closing down the entire nuclear industry is the only guarantee for uranium staying in the ground. In the meantime, to prevent more Jabilukas, we have to win this campaign. And the only fail-safe method is to galvanise the widespread opposition to Jabiluka we know exists around the country.
There are no shortcuts. We can take heart from the success of campaigns such as that which saved the Franklin Dam in Tasmania more than a decade ago. A blockade, supported by rallies in every major city, ultimately forced the federal government's hand. The strength of the "no dams" campaign was its independence from both major parties. The Jabiluka campaign has to be the same.