Perceptions of different groups

Introduction

As with every environmental management issue, there was considerable variation between the perceptions of different groups involved in the Jabiluka uranium mining debate. In this chapter we will look at these conflicting viewpoints, including those of: the traditional land owners, the mining industry, environmental and anti-nuclear groups, and individual campaigners.

The Mirarr Gundjeihmi clan

As the original Aboriginal inhabitants of the land encompassed by the Ranger and Jabiluka mineral leases and the mining town of Jabiru, the Mirarr Gundjeihmi clan (hereon in referred to as the Mirarr people) perceived the Jabiluka mine proposal as a massive threat to Kakadu National Park, both environmentally and culturally. Although other Indigenous groups also occupy parts of the land within this area, the Mirarr people were granted responsibility (including rights and obligations) over the entire area under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 (Cth). They therefore represented all affected Indigenous groups throughout the formal proceedings that determined the fate of Jabiluka.

Throughout the course of debate over Jabiluka, the concern of utmost importance to them was fear that the new mine would bring about the decline and eventual destruction of their 'Aboriginal living tradition'. This refers to their ability to continue living in accordance with their Aboriginal (bininj) traditions, such as: hunting and gathering food; performing ceremonies; practising bininj laws; upholding bininj political systems; and maintaining their spiritual connection to the land. Interaction with non-Aboriginal (balanda) laws and systems had already increased since the Ranger mine was opened, contrasting immensely with their bininj customs. The Mirarr people feared that Jabiluka would lead to more balanda laws and customs being introduced into the region. The physical landscape of the area would have also been disturbed by the construction of the mines, the tailings retention systems and the roads required for transporting the uranium. See image 1

The Mirarr people's opposition to Jabiluka was criticised by some who believed it did not make sense that they would allow the Ranger mine to operate but stand against the use of another mine operated by the same company. As far as the Mirarr people were concerned, they have never really held much power and have, therefore, lacked choice throughout all of the decision making-processes over Ranger (refer to Chapter 3).

The mining industry

The Australian Mining Industry Council proposed the concept of 'multiple land-use' in their case for the management of land in Kakadu. This model is based on the idea that a balance can be reached between all possible considerations, these being: profit-driven use of the land and natural resources; conservation of the natural and cultural environment; preservation of biodiversity and tourism. The mining industry, therefore, argued that, if managed responsibly, mining at Jabiluka would be of economic benefit to Australians on both a local and national scale, without environmental and cultural values being compromised. The construction of an underground mine, as opposed to open-cut, was one argument they used to support this claim. Underground mines are much less disruptive to the physical landscape of a mine site as they occupy much less space on the ground.

On a local scale, ERA thought that mining had been the backbone for much of the area's infrastructure (such as roads, powerlines, housing and social services) and that it had generated income through creating many business, employment and tourism opportunities. They boasted that the Jabiluka mine would directly create 110 jobs - 20 per cent of which would be reserved for local Aboriginal people - and that a percentage of profits would be directed towards community programs for the Indigenous population.

As mentioned in chapter one, it has been estimated that Australia possesses around 40 per cent of the world's uranium ore reserves. On a nation wide scale, ERA argued that Australia's share of the world uranium market could have increased from around ten per cent to over one quarter if mining was allowed at Jabiluka. ERA described the uranium deposit at Jabiluka as 'world-class' and felt there were substantial grounds for arguing that Australia would benefit economically from a second mine. They perceived that opposition to mining was unreasonable and based on emotion, rather than practicality.

To quell allegations of those who opposed Jabiluka on moral grounds - ie that uranium exported from the mine could potentially be used for the production of nuclear weapons - ERA reiterated that their strict policy has always been to base export distribution on the condition that their product would only be used for the generation of electricity in nuclear power plants. ERA could also argue that increasing the use of nuclear power, which provides about 17 per cent of the world's electricity, as an alternative to burning fossil fuels such as coal would help save our atmosphere from absorbing millions of tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions each year. See image 2

Environmental and anti-nuclear groups and individual campaigners

Whatever their primary area of concern was, these interest groups criticised the mining industry for being one-sided and overly concerned with economic interests in their perception of the issue. For this same reason they also opposed and criticised the federal government's support for the mining industry and eventual decision to re-open Jabiluka for mining. A lot of people in these two groups were initially moved by their specific concerns for the environment or the use of nuclear energy. As they became more involved, however, many began to better appreciate the Indigenous rights issues and integrated the concerns of the Mirarr people into their own campaigns. The 'Alliance against Uranium' is an example of a group of a non-government organisations (NGOs) and individuals with differing specific areas of concern, who ended up forming an alliance in their campaign to stop mining at Jabiluka.

The environmental movement

In contrast to the mining industry's multiple land-use model of management, the environmental groups and active citizens in this category adopted more of an 'ecosystem' approach to land management. This approach emphasises the notion that all parts of an ecosystem are completely interrelated, thereby placing protection of ecosystems (both within and external to park boundaries) at the forefront of all management decisions. Their argument was reiterated by previous findings which had revealed that areas downstream from the Ranger and Nabarlek mines had been adversely affected by mining and milling activities.

Some environmental NGOs reported that the Ranger mine had breached environmental standards on over 110 occasions. They also argued that the effects of leaked radioactive and other heavy metal contaminants were difficult to predict and could be felt for thousands of years after the leak. They estimated that Jabiluka could produce about 20 million tonnes of radioactive waste products over its lifetime, if it went ahead as planned. Examples of environmental NGOs heavily involved in the campaign against Jabiluka included the Australian Conservation Foundation, the Wilderness Society and Greenpeace.

The anti-nuclear / anti-uranium movement

Australia's anti-nuclear or anti-uranium movement dates back to the 1970s. Opposition to the exporting of uranium began during WWII, after it was revealed that Australian uranium had been used to source Britain's nuclear weapons program. The movement really only began to gain strength, however, after the French began conducting nuclear tests in the Pacific during the early 1970s. See image 3

There are many key concerns which have fuelled the growth of an anti-nuclear movement in Australia. While not all groups involved in the movement share exactly the same policies on why they opposed uranium mining and nuclear energy, there are considerable areas of overlap.

Similar to the environmental movement there was apprehension surrounding the potential for accidents in uranium mines, releases of radioactive energy and waste disposal. In a political sense, opposition centred on how the threat of nuclear weapons proliferation and the risk of nuclear war would lead to increased political tensions between countries. Groups in this movement were not convinced that ERA's policy of only exporting uranium for electricity-producing purposes was being upheld.

In an economic sense the anti-nuclear proponents argued that nuclear energy was not cost-effective and that, relative to other industries, investing in a uranium industry in Australia would not really generate all that many employment opportunities. This contrasted greatly to the perception of the mining industry, discussed above. In a social sense, the anti-nuclear movement argued that the nuclear power industry was creating a dangerous centralisation of power around the globe. This meant they thought that massive mining and energy companies, particularly when aligned with one another and supported by governments, would inevitably become too influential in global affairs.