SPEECH BY TOM UREN - UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY UNION  HOLME BUILDING, SYDNEY - 1PM, 28 FEBRUARY 1978

It is my pleasing task to oppose the proposition that:-

"Uranium Mining is in the best interest

of Australia"

I am assuming that by "Australia" we mean the vast majority of

the Australian people. (Unfortunately, the Uranium 'Producers'

Forum have got into the habit of using the word "Australia" to

mean themselves.)

I am also being realistic, and assuming that we are not here

today talking about the many strong moral and ethical reasons

for opposing uranium mining and the nuclear power industry.

When it comes to discussing so called "best interests", moral

and ethical -  arguments tend to .get branded as "emotional", and

are put aside.

Similarly, I won't be dealing with the many unresolved problems

of the nuclear power industry - the costly technical and safety

problems, the problems of waste storage and of the proliferation

of nuclear weapons and (as the third finding of the First Fox

Reports says) the contribution of the nuclear power industry

to the increased risk of nuclear war. The nuclear lobby, when

cornered, point out that Australia is not contemplating installing

nuclear power plants, and so these problems (especially the

waste problem) belong to others, not "us".

I assume also that those who claim that uranium mining is "in

the best interests of Australia" won't want to talk about the

best interests and the' expressed wishes of the Aboriginal people.

(2)

The companies (and indeed the Fox Commission) have weighed

up the concerns of the Aboriginal people against the "best

interests" of the uranium companies and nuclear industry and

they have ruled against the Aborigines. And, of course, the

interests of the Northern Territory environment (unique to

Australia and the world) that contains the uranium deposits is

hardly worthy of consideration, in the minds of the hard-headed,

down to earth, feet-on-'the-ground, pro-uranium lobby.

So, 1 accept the terms of the debate. I will concentrate on

the consideration of "the best interests of Australia".

To my mind, this brings the argument down to basic economic

and political considerations.

Let us be honest - "

"Best interest" usually means "self interest". When the proÂ­

uranium people say uranium mining is in "the best interests of

Australia", they mean it is in their own self interest -

and I would not dispute that claim.

But it certainly is NOT in the self interest of Australia, and

the vast majority of the Australian people, for Australian

uranium deposits to be committeed to the world nuclear fuel cycle.

I take self-interest of the people, in the political sense, to

mean that the people have more (rather than less) control over

their own affairs. .

Clearly, uranium mining will mean less control for the Australian

people over their own affairs.

Let us look at the forces that will bring about that lessening

of control for the Australian people.

(3)

The key operators in the uranium/nuclear industries are NOT

the end-users of uranium in the form of the electricity

generating authorities who are the owners of the nuclear

reactors.  The key operators are 'the large corporations that

control two key links in the nuclear fuel cycle - uranium

mining and the manufacture of nuclear reactors. The great

promotors and real protectors of the nuclear power industry

are the large corporations that control the production of  nuclear reactors - specifically the two great great multinationals

Westinghouse and General Electric,  which control 85% of the

nuclear component industry. ^

For them,  secure long-term supplies of uranium are essential.

Otherwise, they can't sell their reactors - the reactors have

a life of around 30 years,  and they have to be able to convince

potential customers that enough uranium fuel will be available

for those 30 years.

If Australia's uranium is made available to the world nuclear fuel

cycle, it is these companies (and their parent governments, and .

their associated State Departments and intelligence services)

that will police their interests in Australia.

The uranium mining companies are NOT without their political

interests, either - and their means of defending those interests.

In the past,  there have been some divisions between the uranium

mining and the reactor companies. The NON-American mining companies

formed a cartel and forced up the price of uranium. This added

to the problems of the industry centred around the American

nuclear reactor manufacturers.

It now seems that many of the divisions in the camp have been

healed. Mergers have taken place,  the American mining companies

have taken greater interest in the overseas deposit;  the giant

oil companies have brought in more heavily, they now call themselves

(4)

"energy companies" and have further consolidated their

global reach.

The industry has become a much more unified group - and certain

industrial governments (and their bureaucrats) are dedicating

their efforts to advancing the industry as a whole.

Now this is an extremely powerful combination - powerful

governments, monopoly manufacturers and monopoly raw material

suppliers (like R.T.Z., the parent company of Australia's C.R.A.

and M.K.U., which control 15% of the West's uranium deposits

and has monopoly control over the uranium in the illegally

occupied territory of NAMIBIA, South-West Africa) .

Once this group comes to believe that they can draw on Australia's

vast, cheap deposits of uranium, they will actively defend

their "claims" against Australian public opposition. As happened

in Chile, any attempt by an,elected government to exercise some

control over the resources or to increase public revenue from

them, will be met with overwhelming force, including deliberate

strategies to destabilise the economies and the political systems

of the wayward nations.

I believe that nuclear industry has already interferred in the

Australian political situation. '

Transcripts of a court case in America involving the Westinghouse

Corporation show that representatives of that company were able

to say in October 1975, that the Labor Government may be

thrown out "in five weeks time".

The Financial Review also reported that in 1974 key officials

of the Liberal Party were telling the uranium mining companies

that they were waiting to "pick their time" to destabilise the

Labor Government.

Energy resources are at the centre of massive geo-political

powergame - people and representative governments are

completely dispensable to the forces that dominate the

geo-political arena.

Another example of the political impact of uranium mining on

Australian working people is the situation where uranium

mining will be carried out at the proposed Ranger mine under

the Atomic Energy Act.

The Fox Commission strongly recommended against the use of

the Atomic Energy Act to cover commercial uranium mining.

It considered that the provisions of the Act were too harsh -

they have been drawn up for defence purposes,  during the Cold

War, to cover uranium mining that was associated with the Allies'

nuclear weapons production.

The provisions of the Act are extremely repressive - normal

industrial relations provisions go by the board;  people can be

banned from the site. Under the associated approved Defence

Projects Protection Act, the general public can face fines and

imprisonment if they oppose the mining, if they even speak or

write against it. They say that the nuclear power industry

overseas will lead to police-state conditions. The conscious

decision of the Fraser Government to reject the Fox Inquiry's

strong recommendation and use.the Atomic Energy Act, means that

the authorities here are likewise, prepared to defend this

immoral industry with police-state tactice.

Now let us turn to the self-interest of the vast majority of

the Australian people, in its economic sense.

This I take to mean that the people have more (rather than less)

of the resources of the country directed towards satisfying

their own and their society's material needs; that the changes

in the structure of Australia’s economic systems are NOT at the

(6)

cost of an erosion of the standard of living already attained

by the people. .

I am firmly convinced that, on these grounds, as well as on

the political grounds, uranium mining is against the interests

of the Australian people - that is, all, the people who work

(sell their labour) to support themselves and their dependents,

as well as the large section of the capitalist group that do

not directly participate in the mining industry'.

Here, we are considering uranium not as the "very special metal"

(as it was called by the Fox Commission) that is the basic  building block of a powerful, centralized, high-capital energy

industry. Â·

Rather, what is important here is to look at uranium as a raw

commodity, mined for export to be consumed by the industrial

complexes overseas. .

From the point of view of labour, there are serious costs

associated with the rapid development of the mining sector for

export (to which uranium mining will be a major boost now that

other major mineral exports are in strife).

Uranium mining certainly will not help solve Australia's serious

economic and employment problems. Indeed that will add to them.

Few jobs are available at the mines.

The mining is highly capital intensive - and it is becoming

more so. For example, the existing mine at Mary Kathleen employs

300 men to mine 400 tonnes per annum. The proposed Ranger mine

will employ 250 men to produce 3,000 tonnes of ore.

The indirect employment effects of uranium mining have been

grossly exaggerated by the pro-uranium lobby. Their figures of

half a million jobs have never logically been supported.

(7)

Virtually all of the equipment used in the construction and

operation of the mine will not be made in Australian factories -  it will be imported.  .

Australia just does not make the heavy machinery used - the

capacity that we did have for this type of industrial

production has been phased out.

Also, the mines are in remote locations; little will go into

local economies because shops,  entertainment and the like are

just not around for the (small) mining workforce.

We should beware of the promoters claims about jobs and nuclear

power, too. When the authorities were selling the idea of

nuclear power plant to the community in Anglesey in Wales,

they said 2,000-3,000 workers would get jobs in the construction.

Employment statistics for the area showed a rise of 282 during

the period of construction.  '

Australia's unemployment problems are structural.

They relate not only to the recession but also to the fundamental

structural change that is going on - away from industrial

production and towards the mining sector.

Uranium mining will integrate Australia more closely into a

volatile and increasingly unstable world economy.  It undermines

Australia's ability to meet its basic needs from its own

productive resources.

The whole pattern of development that is now in prospect for

Australia - with heavy reliance on mining, is contrary to the

economic interests of the workforce,  and significant sections

of capital.

1J V

* *

Just let me say that - in making this point - I am not

opposing the mining sector outright,  or arguing in favour of

the pattern of industrial production that the major companies

and the past conservative governments have set for us.

Far from it.

Most definitely,  I am in favour of orderly development of

Australia's vast mineral wealth. But,  the pace and the pattern

of that development should be (must bej governed by the

interests of all the Australian people. Ã¢ÂÂ   .

As we sell non-renewable resources,  the revenue from them should

be used to make provision for the time when the resources are

depleted. Clearly decisions over what is to be invested and

where,  should not be left to George McKay,  Tony Grey and the

Chairman of Getty Oil Company. .

The pace of exports should be determined by the speed at which

we can provide alternative employment to the whole of the

Australian workforce at a wage that at least maintains present

living standards.  ,  Â·

That pace will be somewhat slower than the present rate.  From

the economic point of view,  we can safely afford to put uranium

on the bottom of the list for a long,  long time to come.

By doing so, we not only serve the best interests of the Australian

people.  We also serve the interests of humanity, now and for

many generations to come.

(8) Â·  .

