Individual, group and international responses

Introduction

The decision to renew mining operations at Jabiluka in the late 1990s (refer to Chapter 3) reignited public outrage over the issue, which had subsided since mining was suspended under the Labor Government in 1983. When the announcement was made in 1997 that mining had again been approved, this time by the newly-elected Howard Government, it elicited a surge of outrage on a number of fronts. The political and legal processes which enabled the mine's eventual resurrection in 1998 highlighted the complicated nature of Aboriginal land rights legislation, and reflected a lack of power on the part of Australia's Indigenous peoples.

This chapter will look at the responses that the re-opening of Jabiluka received from individuals and groups, both within Australia and the international community. It will also explore the Australian Government's response to these reactions, which eventually determined the fate of Jabiluka.

Individual responses

Aboriginal leaders

Two prominent Indigenous rights campaigners involved in the fight to stop mining at Jabiluka were Jacqui Katona (Aboriginal spokesperson for the Mirarr people) and Yvonne Margarula (senior traditional owner of the Mirarr country). During the height of the Jabiluka controversy, these women travelled to various parts of the globe in attempts to gather support for their cause. In 1999 both women were awarded with prestigious Goldman Environmental Awards to acknowledge their hard work and persistence in preventing mining at Jabiluka. These internationally acclaimed prizes honour individuals who display exceptional grassroots activism in areas of environmental concern. Each year six people from countries around the world receive the prize, which is recognised by the United Nations and which includes a grant of $125 000. See images 1 and 2

Protests at Kakadu

In 1998, for a period of eight months, around 5000 people took part in demonstrations blocking the entrance to the Jabiluka mine. Over the eight months, 500 people were arrested for trespassing onto the mineral lease, including Yvonne Margarula - the senior Aboriginal land owner mentioned above. The efforts of these protestors attracted considerable media attention and helped spread news of what was happening at Jabiluka to the international stage. This sparked outrage in numerous countries around the globe, so much so that protests were held in places as far away from Kakadu as Spain, Germany and Japan. In fact, in December 1998, 750 Japanese peace activists arrived in Darwin to join the protestors at Jabiluka and show their support for the anti-uranium and anti-Jabiluka campaigns. See image 3

'Cycle Against the Nuclear Cycle'

This movement is an example of a creative way in which a small group of individuals united to show their disapproval for mining at Jabiluka. Joining to form a group of 15 people, these anti-uranium mining activists cycled from Melbourne to Jabiluka, stopping at uranium mining sites in South Australia along their epic route. They left Melbourne in June 1998 and arrived at their destination in August 1998, having cycled for a total of 53 days. As well as raising a great deal of support, the cyclists raised $14 000 to support the Mirarr people's campaign.

Group responses

NGOs

Non-government organisations (NGOs) such as the Australian Conservation Foundation, the Wilderness Society and Greenpeace played a huge role in the campaign to stop mining at Jabiluka. They were responsible for orchestrating much of the public awareness campaign, organising the countless petitions which circulated at the time and lobbying politicians.

Advisory groups

The Australian Academy of Sciences and the Australian Academy of Humanities both expressed concern over the potential dangers of the mine. These are non-profit organisations that were established to advance Australia's knowledge of science and the humanities respectively. The former, the body that represents Australia on the International Council for Science, argued that if mining went ahead it could indeed contaminate nearby wetlands, which would create water management problems in the area. The latter stressed that cultural values of Kakadu would be endangered if mining at Jabiluka went ahead.

Political parties

The Australian Greens and the Australian Democrats both opposed mining at Jabiluka. Democrats Senator Natasha Stott-Despoja took part in the Jabiluka blockade for two days. The Australian Labor Party passed a motion opposing the mine in 2000, despite the fact that their Northern Territory branch supported it.

International responses

Activists around the world began to replicate the work of those here in Australia. The European Parliament even opposed the mine, eventually passing a resolution which urged the Australian Government not to proceed. It was also not long before the United Nations Environmental, Science and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) became directly involved.

As a signatory to the World Heritage Convention, it is the duty of the Australian Government to protect and conserve its World Heritage areas so that they remain in an equal or enhanced condition to that which they were in when originally added to the list. Although UNESCO can advise national governments on management issues, power over decisions as to how heritage areas are used ultimately rests with each individual country that is a signatory to the convention.

Following the controversy that arose over Jabiluka both domestically and internationally, UNESCO decided that Kakadu may need to be placed on their World Heritage Sites 'In Danger' list. If Kakadu was found by UNESCO to be in danger, it would therefore be advisable that the Australian Government not allow mining to continue at Jabiluka.

UNESCO's mission

In October 1998, UNESCO sent members of their World Heritage Committee (WHC) to visit Kakadu National Park so a formal inquiry could be conducted into the Jabiluka debate. Their principal aim was to liaise with the various interest groups and investigate the question of whether or not opening the mine would threaten the area's cultural and environmental values. If deemed that the mine did pose a threat to these values, Kakadu National Park would join only two other places in the world, the Galapagos Islands off the coast of Ecuador and Yellowstone Park in the USA, in being placed on the 'In Danger' list.

After consultation with Aboriginal leaders, scientists, heritage and conservation experts, NGOs, mining industry representatives and various government bodies, it was determined that mining at Jabiluka was indeed highly likely to threaten the very values for which the area had been World Heritage listed. The Australian Government was given until April 1999 to compile a report proving that they would take measures to prevent any further damage.

The Australian Government's response

In the lead up to the WHC Mission to Kakadu, Federal Minister for the Environment, Senator Robert Hill, argued that international intervention was not necessary because ERA had shown an exemplary environmental track record with the Ranger site. He was critical of the Mirarr people for behaving in an apparently contradictory manner by allowing the Ranger site to be opened - from which, he argued, they had benefited economically - but being staunchly against the opening of Jabiluka.

The report that was presented to UNESCO by the Australian Government in April 1999 more or less stated that there was no reason why Kakadu should be placed 'in danger' and that there was no reason why mining and milling at Jabiluka should cease. Much of the report's input came from the Kakadu National Park's supervising scientist. This position was created by the government in the late 1970s and designed specifically to monitor the mining industry's environmental management programs in the Kakadu area. Research conducted by the CSIRO and various Australian universities was also incorporated into the findings.

In the report, it was made clear that the government believed findings from the UNESCO mission to be erroneous on a number of levels. They believed, for example, that it had ignored the views of other Aboriginal groups within the Kakadu region, some of whom, unlike the Mirarr people, allegedly opposed an 'in danger' listing. They also believed that UNESCO's standards on activities permitted within World Heritage Areas were not consistent between sites. When UNESCO expressed concern over predicted population growth in the mining town of Jabiru (to over 15 000 people if the mine proceeded), the Australian Government used the example of the Canadian Rockies (a World Heritage Area with a population of over 10 000) to highlight this inconsistency.

People in opposition to the mine believed the Australian Government's report to be misinformed and argued that it omitted crucial information. At what has since been coined an 'extraordinary meeting' held in July 1999, spokespeople representing all the different interest groups were invited to have their final say before a UNESCO jury in Paris.

UNESCO's final verdict and the future of Jabiluka

This decision obviously pleased some interest groups and seriously disgruntled others. Although Kakadu was not labelled 'in danger', ERA was still given strict instructions to prove how continuation of mining at Jabiluka would not threaten the cultural values of the area. UNESCO also stipulated that the debate over mining in Kakadu should continue because they were still concerned about the impact of mining on the cultural values of Kakadu.

ERA entered into a formal agreement with the Mirarr people after the UNESCO investigation, stating that any future mining at the site would require their approval. To date, mining has not recommenced at the site. In 2003, the Northern Territory Government announced that it would clean up the Jabiluka mine site. ERA stated that uranium would be re-inserted into the ground, the mine shaft would be sealed and that the entire area would be rehabilitated.