By Sally Mitchell
The Ranger uranium mine operates 220 kilometres east of Darwin, where people have lived off, and looked after, their country for tens of thousands of years. It is also within the World Heritage Area of Kakadu National Park.
In 1977, the second Ranger environment inquiry or Fox Report was commissioned to determine the impact of the proposed mining on the wetlands and on the Aboriginal people living in the vicinity. The report states that it was "established to the satisfaction of the commission that the Aboriginal people concerned are opposed to mining on their land". Peko EZ began mining at Ranger anyway in 1979.
CHRISTINE CHRISTOPHERSON is a Murran woman whose clan is situated downstream of the Majela Creek system within Kakadu. She is also the coordinator of ANKAAA (Association of Northern, Kimberley and Arnhem Aboriginal Artists). In March 1995 she and five other plaintiffs fought Energy Resources of Australia (ERA) in the NT Supreme Court to stop it releasing contaminated water into Majela Creek. She was interviewed for 91×ÔÅÄÂÛ̳ Weekly in Darwin.
Question: Which communities have been affected by the Ranger uranium mine?
The Gagadju people have the mine on their land. They are made up of a number of clans. Some of those clans are upstream people. There's a clan which sits directly where the mine site is, and there are clans downstream. I am a Murran clan member, but I come from a long way downstream near the coast. All the clans are linked; it is our language group, Iwatja, which is the main connection for our family.
My brother and I have worked with my mother and my uncle Big Bill Neidjie, senior lawman and traditional owner of Bunitj clan land. His people's country [will be] affected first and foremost if Jabiluka opens up.
Question: What impact has Ranger and its royalty payments had on Aboriginal people living in the region?
The mining was set up in the national interest, so basically we had no choice. Galarrwuy Yunupingu, the Northern Land Council [NLC] chairperson, was told at the time that if he didn't get the people's permission to start the Ranger project, the Liberal government would dismantle the NT 1976 Land Rights Act.
Traditional owners get a royalty equivalent payment directed from ERA to the NLC. This is then distributed to the people via the Gagadju Association.
Years ago it was written in newspapers that there were all these black princes, queens and kings living in the Kakadu region who were recipients of large amounts of money. When the royalties first came, the Gagadju Association spent some 91×ÔÅÄÂÛ̳ of its money on investments and others on providing health services, education, housing and power and water — services taken for granted by people living in the city. Gagadju had to provide these services from the royalties because the federal government had walked away from its responsibility. The government said: "You mob are getting a lot of money. You mob provide the services."
It is only in recent times that Aboriginal people in Kakadu have been able to access funding from a federal department. That has been from ATSIC (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission). But we're not talking about a large amount of funding there either.
We've had the mining company in here since the late '70s. If someone did a study, I'd be very interested in the figures which showed the benefits of mining to the region. I would like to see how the health levels of people have lifted, how cultural maintenance has continued and how many students have gone through to year 12 and are now at university.
I think you would find that the benefits of mining for the people have been minimal, if anything at all. Now they're talking about mining at Jabiluka. Well, show us these benefits.
Question: So with a lack of government funding, are the people then forced to be dependent on uranium mining on their land for the royalty payments?
Gagadju today is having financial problems because of uranium prices falling and Ranger have only been mining at half capacity. There are some people who are living on out-stations in the park who have had their power cut off because Gagadju Association does not have the money. The people in this region are dependent on the royalty equivalent payments.
The new Howard government are looking at big cuts to ATSIC. Communities are going to take their hits in a big way. The effects are going to be horrendous for remote communities. I don't see how they are going to sustain the attack. No-one has got it in their heads that Aboriginal Affairs is about providing citizenship entitlements to us. It's seen as all of these special benefits.
Question: What do you mean by citizenship entitlements?
Every Australian citizen is supposed to be entitled to education, good health care, access to water and social security benefits. These basic rights are what the ATSIC budget provides, and we are attacked for it with government cuts and in the media.
Question: How great is the opposition to the expansion of mining among the traditional owners?
I can only state my own position. I am making an informed decision and I also have a house, a car, my kids are going to school and they can go to hospital. I can make that decision to oppose the mine because I am not dependent on money to come from the mining company. When Aboriginal people in the region have all those services and when they've got someone independent of ERA to talk of the consequences of uranium mining and nuclear accidents that have happened overseas, then you will be making an informed decision.
Last year there was a split in the Aboriginal communities. Upstream people believed they weren't going to be affected by contaminated water being released from Retention Pond 2 into Majela Creek. People downstream believed that the environmental risks were totally unacceptable. Sitting over the top of everyone was the threat by ERA: if you don't agree to this, we're going to shut the mine. This threat was immediately felt by the Aboriginal organisations who would not be able to provide services. These threats have not lifted, so there will be an incentive to obtain more money for these organisations from ERA. It's a vicious circle.
Question: How does the mining company ERA relate with traditional owners?
I haven't lived in the park since May 1995, but at the meetings that I went to before, people were certainly not informed.
A meeting was held on February 17 last year which was organised by the NLC about the contaminated water release. ERA, ERISS [Environmental Research Institute of Supervising Scientists] and the NT Department of Mines and Energy explained the need for the water release to the traditional owners. They said: "It is not advisable to drink a glass of this water, but it is okay to release it into the river".
Another NT Department of Mines and Energy spokesperson stated in Papua New Guinean pidgin English: "If you spit on a spoon it's not okay to eat off that spoon, but if you mix that spoon in a stew pot it's all right to eat that stew".
The leasing arrangement for the mining operations was signed in 1979. It was agreed that Jabiluka would be mined pending federal government approval. The people now believe they are powerless to change their position. They think they are obligated to see this business through. In public ERA say that they won't go ahead with Jabiluka unless consent is given from traditional owners. But that information is not coming through to the people. ERA are really saying: "You agreed to this 17 years ago, so let's go".
I would also like to know what the Northern Lands Council are advising the people in terms of this agreement. The NLC have never hidden the fact that they are in receipt of mining royalties from ERA, yet they don't perceive themselves to have a conflict of interest.
Question: Do you think that the environment movement could work with traditional owners in the fight to stop uranium mining in Australia?
I do see the common ground with caring and responsibility for country. But while people aren't standing on equal ground, while grog problems, domestic violence and a lack of education continue, it will be very hard for them to stand up and stop the mine. Our people only live until their 40s and 50s.
The mining companies aren't interested in fixing these problems, and their money won't either. The only way to address these problems is to have control over your life.
With the leasing arrangement with Kakadu National Park, the people have control. There is employment, and people want to work there. Traditional owners have control over visitation and we have a board of management. We have no control over the mining.
If traditional owners were informed about disasters like Chernobyl and about scientists disputing safe levels of radiation, then a real decision could be made. And this just doesn't affect Aboriginal people, it affects everyone.