At this year's national ALP conference, to be held in Sydney from April 27, delegates will determine whether or not to ditch Labor's current policy of not supporting any new uranium mines (adopted in 1998). The current policy will almost certainly be overturned.
Although the Howard government's push to create an Australian nuclear power industry is proving unpopular, ALP leader Kevin Rudd has won some ground for the position that his party's policy on uranium mining is too restrictive.
Rudd's position, which many in the ALP do not agree with, flies in the face of widespread public opposition to uranium mining. According to a May 2006 Newspoll, 66% of Australians believe there should be no new uranium mines opened; 78% of ALP voters either don't want new uranium mines or want uranium mining stopped altogether. There is also deep public concern over nuclear weapons, nuclear waste and nuclear reactors.
On April 2, the Australian Student Environment Network held a meeting in Sydney about how to relate to the ALP conference. About 30 environmental and social justice activists turned up to discuss how best to voice the broader public opposition to uranium mining and support those inside the ALP who wanted to make a stand against the pro-mining push.
Solidarity, a student-based Sydney left group, pushed strongly for there not to be a protest outside the conference but instead for there to be a lobby of delegates. Resistance members and some other activists argued instead that we should build a public demonstration against uranium mining. A compromise position of a "public lobby" calling for no ALP U-turn on uranium mining and stating that uranium mining is not part of a solution to climate change was eventually agreed to.
The debates at the meeting raise the question of what kind of movement is necessary not just to stop the expansion of a dangerous, environmentally unsound industry that fundamentally serves only the interests of big business, but is also able shut it down altogether.
For example, is the key question facing the environment movement lobbying the ALP to maintain a less reactionary uranium mining policy and tailoring our protests (or "lobbies") to that end? Or is the key question building a broad, independent mass movement that has as its aim ending all uranium mining in Australia, as well as stopping the new push for a nuclear power industry — even if it is an election year?
Retaining the movement's independence from both the Coalition and Labor is necessary if we are really interested in building a fighting movement that can win. This doesn't mean that we shouldn't support all attempts to prevent an expansion of uranium mining, nor that we shouldn't welcome participation from all opponents of uranium mining no matter their political affiliations.
What it means is building a movement that doesn't limit itself to backing the minimalist demands of the ALP "left" or pretends that Labor's current "no new mines" policy is acceptable. No matter which party wins the federal elections, the only thing that will put a stop to uranium mining in Australia will be a democratic, grassroots movement that has a clear focus on mobilising masses of people and forces the government to act. This is the context in which we should view the upcoming ALP conference: as an opportunity to make clear our opposition to uranium mining and to begin to mobilise people to take action against it.
[Fred Fuentes is a national organiser of Resistance.]