Implications for sustainability, social justice and equity

Introduction

The controversial and highly political issue of uranium mining for the production nuclear energy raises many questions relating to sustainable resource use and development. These are particularly relevant to Australia given our substantial quantities of uranium ore deposits and the fact that we are heavily dependent on coal-powered energy, which is contributing to global warming. The fact that the debate over Jabiluka took place within a World Heritage listed National Park and involved the management of traditional Aboriginal land, also made it a significant issue in terms of the crucial questions it raised regarding social justice and equity in Australia.

Sustainability

The mining industry presented the argument that uranium could be utilised as a clean alternative to the fossil fuel-driven energy industry and a possible solution to problems associated with global warming (refer to Chapter Two). They argued that decreasing the use of fossil fuel-driven energy would lead to a substantial reduction in harmful greenhouse gas emissions, of which Australia has a poor record. Proponents of nuclear power also emphasise that it does not produce harmful air pollutants such as sulphur, particulates and ground-level ozone.

Considering greenhouse gas emissions are substantially lower from nuclear power plants than from coal or natural gas power generators, many people have labelled nuclear energy as the solution to global warming. Others, however, have pointed to the fact that the processes of extracting, transporting and refining uranium ore all require the use of heavy fossil fuel-driven machinery, which produces greenhouse gases. On a global scale, it is generally agreed that an increase in the use of nuclear energy would go some way in at least reducing the harmful effects of global warming. It has been estimated that each tonne of uranium that is used instead of coal, could save 40 000 tonnes of greenhouse gases from being emitted into the atmosphere.

In terms of sustainability, while Australia has abundant reserves of uranium ore, it is still a finite natural resource. Global reserves, although at current usage rates predicted to last for thousands years, will not last forever as they are unable to self-replenish. Indeed, if all energy production was replaced by nuclear power there would be less than ten years of uranium reserves to sustain the industry. Currently only about 17 per cent of the world's energy is produced in nuclear power plants and Australia itself does not yet have a nuclear energy industry. See image 1

Another concern relating to the expansion of the nuclear energy industry is the risk of accidents occurring at nuclear reactors, as was the case in 1986 at Chernobyl in the former Soviet Union. As a result of this massive nuclear accident, close to 350 000 people had to be resettled and 150 000 square kilometres of land in Russia, the Ukraine and Belarus became badly contaminated. Millions more people were exposed to the potentially harmful radioactive fallout from the disaster.

In addition to increasing the chances of incidents such as these, the nuclear energy industry also increases the likelihood of nuclear weapons proliferation and subsequent risk of nuclear war. Uranium exported from Australia, however, is only used for generating electricity in nuclear power plants.

In terms of arguments for the environmental threats of uranium mining, there are numerous concerns that need to be considered (refer to Chapters One and Two) They mainly relate to the harmful impacts of radioactive contamination on plant and animal biodiversity and the questionable impact of radiation on human health. While uncertainty may surround the definite environmental implications of uranium and nuclear-related waste disposal and contamination, it is clear that these are issues of concern which are yet to be resolved with concrete solutions. See animation 1

Social justice and equity

The success of the Mirarr people in putting an end to mining at Jabiluka was a positive instance of social justice achieved for Australia's Indigenous peoples. In the end their victory took years of campaigning against a powerful mining company and reflected the complicated, and at times inequitable, nature of Aboriginal Land Rights legislation.

The veto rights which the Mirarr people were granted under the Aboriginal Land Rights Act, 1976 (Cth) (the Act) were far from straightforward (refer to Chapter Three). Ultimate power over decision-making in terms of land management still rested with the government. Even to this day if traditional land owners wish to veto the approval of a mining proposal, this can be annulled (made invalid) if the Governor-General deems mining to be 'in the national interest'. Therefore, in an example of inequity, this clause in the legislation suggests that 'the national interest' does not legally have to include respecting the wishes of our Indigenous peoples.

During the height of controversy in the late 1990s, the Mirarr people established a new representative body - the Gundjeihmi Aboriginal Corporation - to replace the legal body that had been established under the Act - the Northern Land Council (NLC). This is because the interests and objectives of the NLC had diverged so far from those of the Mirarr people that they were no longer representative of the traditional land owners. According to some people, this can be put down to pressure being placed on the NLC by the government and mining industry.

The mining industry argued that the Aboriginal communities in Kakadu were benefiting enormously from the royalties they received from the Ranger and Jabiluka Mineral Leases (refer to Chapter Two). The Mirarr people, however, claim to have spent this money on much-needed health services, community welfare programs, housing and other basic infrastructure which, they argue, are fundamental citizenship rights to which they should have been entitled anyway. See image 2

That many of the Mirarr people did not have a strong command of the English language and were living in conditions of poverty at the time of the Jabiluka campaign, also reflects the inequity of the situation. They were coming, as Indigenous Australians often do, from a position of clear social disadvantage. High levels of disease, low levels of education and reduced life expectancy within these communities are testimony to this. Additionally, the Mirarr campaigners were faced with the challenge of battling feelings of hopelessness within their own communities, ingrained by a legacy of disempowerment which has characterised Australia's relationship with its Indigenous population over the past two centuries. See image 3