Table of Contents
In a time of global economic and climate uncertainty the expansion of resource exploitation projects in Australia is unprecedented. The consequent value of the minerals sector to Australian prosperity is in stark contrast to the economic poverty experienced by many Indigenous Australians, particularly those residing in mine hinterlands. This contrast is evident despite the existence of beneficial agreements between Indigenous groups and the mining industry, and in some cases the state, concerning the very mining that is generating such extraordinary profit. Indigenous poverty is only minimally ameliorated by such agreements (O’Faircheallaigh 2000, 2003a, 2004a, 2006; Taylor 2004a; Taylor and Bell 2001; Taylor and Scambary 2005). This chapter draws on doctoral research of three agreements to highlight that poor agreement outcomes arise from the limitations that agreements impose on Indigenous livelihoods and aspirations (Scambary 2007). The agreements considered by this research are the Ranger Uranium Mine Agreement in the Kakadu Region of the Northern Territory, the Yandicoogina Land Use Agreement (YLUA) in the Central Pilbara of Western Australia, and the Gulf Communities Agreement (GCA) in the southern Gulf of Carpentaria in Queensland. All three agreements are considered best practice by the mining industry, the state and select Indigenous leaders, for their perceived capacity to deliver substantial and sustainable benefits to Indigenous people. However a combination of the scale of Indigenous disadvantage and the mainstream development parameters of the agreements themselves limit the attainment of sustainable outcomes for Indigenous people associated with all three agreements. This chapter argues that a fundamental limitation of these mining agreements is their incapacity to engage with and augment the diverse livelihood objectives of Indigenous people. This motivates ambivalent responses to mining on the part of Indigenous people. The invisibility of Indigenous cultural dispositions is further compounded by a growing policy emphasis on mainstream economic engagement, which entails many negative assumptions about Indigenous people and their capacity for economic engagement. Such assumptions are in tacit opposition to Indigenous cultural dispositions that ultimately underlie notions of identity and a claim to rights on the basis of cultural difference.
Indigenous people’s experiences of initiatives promoting ‘sustainability’ in the context of mining agreements are primarily associated with royalty and compensatory payments directed at attaining community benefit. In modern mining agreements ‘community benefit’ packages broadly entail employment and training programs, business enterprise development programs, payment of limited cash compensation, and heritage protection. Successes and failures within these realms are ad hoc within each of the agreements, with all three falling well short of their objectives to overcome Indigenous disadvantage via the creation of economic opportunity (see below). The reasons for this are numerous and complex, but include:
the challenge of reconciling mainstream economic development initiatives (that seek outcomes almost exclusively in terms of economic engagement associated with the local mine economy) and Indigenous cultural prerogatives (that arise from, and construct, personal and group identity and are often expressed as livelihood aspirations)
the level of accord between defined agreement beneficiaries and local Indigenous conceptions of relatedness
the ability of Indigenous organisations arising from the agreements to represent the diversity of their memberships
the effects of statutory and agreement defined conditions on the flow of benefits to intended beneficiaries
the tendency of the state to retreat as a service provider with the arrival of private capital, and
the extent of Indigenous autonomy over agreement benefits.
The structures of the Ranger Mining Agreement, the YLUA, and the GCA are complex and define the space for Indigenous ‘productive activity’ within their contexts. Generally all three agreements provide for compensatory and ‘community benefit’ packages—trust funds and royalty equivalent payments, programs of employment and training, business development, education, and cultural heritage protection. Whilst all three agreements fall within the mining industry’s sustainable development approach, critical differences emerge between the agreements that include the role of land councils and native title representative bodies (NTRBs), the intended purpose of funds arising from agreements, and issues of governance associated with agreement structures.
The Ranger Uranium Mine is located on Mirrar Gunjeihmi country within Kakau National Park in the Northern Territory. Approximately 50 per cent of Mirrar Gunjeihmi country is encompassed by the Ranger and nearby Jabiluka uranium mining lease. The Ranger Mining Agreement, pursuant to s.44 of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 (Cwlth) (ALRA), is between the Northern Land Council on behalf of traditional owners and the Commonwealth. Analysis of the Ranger mine’s nearly 30 years of history is instructive for understanding relationships between Indigenous people and the modern mining industry in Australia more broadly. Many conclusions can be draw from the impacts on the local Indigenous polity from the construction of a dedicated mining town (Jabiru), Indigenous employment and training schemes, and the emergent administrative framework designed to balance competing interests. The establishment of the Ranger mine was enabled by the recommendations of the Ranger Uranium Environmental Impact Inquiry (the ‘Fox Inquiry’) which also considered—and recommended favourably—the establishment of Kakadu National Park, and the recognition of land rights for Indigenous people (Fox, Kelleher and Kerr 1977). Whilst noting the opposition of the Mirrar Gunjeihmi people to the establishment of the Ranger mine, the Fox Inquiry sought a compromise between competing land interests in the region.
The recommendations of the Inquiry established arrangements to ameliorate the impacts of mining on local Indigenous people including the provision of economic benefits through the payment of royalties under the ALRA, and the implementation of complex land tenure arrangements. Notably the mining town of Jabiru that was established to service the mine became a restricted access area in order to minimise interaction between local Indigenous people and the mining community. The arrangements established by the Fox Inquiry are sometimes referred to as a ‘social contract’.
The administrative arrangements established by this ‘social contract’ remain vexed 30 years after the establishment of the Ranger mine. Historically Ranger has had low rates of local Indigenous employment. Despite the payment of royalties under the terms of the Ranger Agreement the Indigenous share of the mine economy is minimal. This is a common pattern at all three mines considered. The impacts on Indigenous people of large-scale development follow the pattern set by Ranger (Taylor and Scambary 2005).
The YLUA is an Indigenous Land Use Agreement between Hamersley Iron (now known as Pilbara Iron) and the Yinhawangka, Banyjima, and Nyiyaparli[1] people of the Central Pilbara. The agreement is not registered with the National Native Title Tribunal. The agreement has a regional focus and concerns an area of approximately 26,000 square kilometres (Senior 2000), encompassing much of the traditional land interests of the three language groups, and a substantial area of Pilbara Iron’s mining and exploration tenements in the region. Notably the Yandicoogina deposit is also the subject of mining tenements held by rival iron ore miner BHP Billiton. The Yinhawangka, Banyjima and Nyiyaparli people are parties to a separate agreement with BHP Billiton concerning the BHP Billiton-owned Yandicoogina Iron Ore Mine.[2]
The GCA is a Future Act Agreement pursuant to s.29 of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cwlth) (NTA), and is between the State of Queensland, Century Zinc Limited (CZL) and the Waanyi, Mingginda, Gkuthaarn and Kukatj people of the southern Gulf of Carpentaria. The GCA predates the ‘Wik’ amendments to the NTA of 1997, also known as the ‘ten-point plan amendments’.[3]
The central features of the YLUA and the GCA, like the Ranger Agreement, are preferential concessions relating to provision of employment and training; Indigenous business development; heritage protection and financial recompense for mining; and heavy emphasis on integrating Indigenous people into the mine economy.
However, the dollar amount of the YLUA and GCA, approximately $60 million over the anticipated 20-year life of both mines, is significantly less than royalty payments made by Ranger mine operator Energy Resources of Australia (ERA) through a complex set of arrangements to the Aboriginal Benefits Account (see below) (O’Faircheallaigh 2003a).[4]
Total royalties paid by ERA and distributed to the Aboriginal Benefits Account since the commencement of mining in 1980 are $207.7 million (see also ACIL Economics and Policy Ltd 1993: 17; ACIL Economics and Policy Pty Ltd 1997: 3; ERA 2006). ERA erroneously states that the company has paid this amount to Indigenous interests (ERA 2006); in fact they are paid to the state, which then distributes mining royalty equivalent amounts to Indigenous interests and the Northern Territory Government. Traditional owner groups only receive 30 per cent of these payments via royalty associations that have been incorporated to receive such funds. The Gagadju Association was the nominated organisation to receive such payments from 1979 to 1995. From 1996 to the present the Gunjeihmi Aboriginal Corporation has received all royalty payments from Ranger.
There has been much conjecture over the distribution and expenditure of royalty payments throughout the history of the Ranger project. It is commonly assumed that traditional owners personally receive large sums of money. Over time this assumption has resulted in the non-provision of government services on an equitable needs basis to Indigenous people in the Kakadu region (Kakadu Region Social Impact Study 1997a; O’Faircheallaigh 2004a), and allegations of profligate expenditure by individuals and organisations alike. Such views are a historical legacy of the Queensland Mines Ltd (QML) Agreement, which related to the nearby Nabarlek uranium deposit. Negotiated after the Ranger Agreement, the QML Agreement saw the distribution of cash payments to members of three associations prior to any distribution of Ranger money in 1979.
The community benefit package of the YLUA was envisaged to include approximately $60 million in cash payment to the Gumala Aboriginal Corporation, representing the 430 members of the Banyjima, Nyiyaparli and Yinhawangka peoples, over the anticipated 20 year life of the Yandicoogina mine. However, increased production in response to world demand for iron ore make it likely that the mine will have a 10–15 year lifespan, and Gumala will be paid significantly more than the anticipated $60 million.
In addition a range of training, employment, heritage protection and business enterprise development initiatives are contained in the agreement, and there are provisions for the staged return of Rocklea station which is owned by the mining company. ‘Community’ benefits from the agreement are primarily administered via the Gumala Aboriginal Corporation in the form of trust funds known as the General Trust and the Elderly Infirm Trust, the latter ceasing after the first five year period of the agreement. Gumala has developed a business enterprise unit known as Gumala Enterprises Pty Ltd (GEPL), and has entered into joint business ventures in transport, equipment hire and camp management services in the Pilbara region. The trusts are designed to provide assistance to the membership through the delivery of programs such as investments, culture, law, community development, business development and education. The capacity of the trusts to make financial payments to individual members is restricted by the charitable nature of the trusts. In the first five years of operation the trusts received approximately $15.3 million from Hamersley Iron. The lack of direct access to these funds for Indigenous parties to the agreement due to trust arrangements has led many Gumala members to perceive that they have no control over the compensatory benefits derived from the YLUA. Such dissatisfaction is encapsulated in the comment from Banyjima man BF, at the time of fieldwork, when he stated that ‘We have the richest trusts, but the poorest people’. As such the existence of substantial trust funds and the poor and declining socioeconomic status of Indigenous people who might lay claim to them is considered an indictment by many of the capacity for agreements such as the YLUA to achieve any substantial economic development or sustainable outcomes for Indigenous people.
The GCA is a complex document that commits the five native title groups, CZL, and the Queensland Government to a relationship that is designed primarily to facilitate the mining and transportation of ore from the Century mine. In addition the objectives of the GCA for Indigenous people include the reduction of welfare dependence, and the promotion of economic self-sufficiency, better health and education standards, access to country, and community and cultural development. Undoubtedly, such aims flow from Indigenous people’s symbolic approach to negotiations, and their desire to achieve appropriate recompense for past injustices, including dispossession of traditional lands and subsequent enduring poverty (Blowes and Trigger 1998: 109). Existing Indigenous disadvantage in the region poses serious challenges for realising these goals (Martin 1998a: 4). Failure of the GCA to attain any substantial improvement in the relative disadvantage of Indigenous people, particularly the Waanyi language group, is the subject of intense efforts of the Carpentaria Land Council Aboriginal Corporation to seek amendments to the agreement (Flucker 2003a, 2003b). Such attempts include the conduct of a review of the GCA by the Waanyi Nation Aboriginal Corporation, which followed a nine-day occupation of the mine canteen in 2002 by approximately 200 Waanyi people (see also Martin, Chapter 5; Trebeck, Chapter 6).[5] Like the YLUA the GCA contains provisions for the incremental return of pastoral land holdings owned by CZL.[6]
Arguably the most successful element of the GCA is the average 15–20 per cent employment of local Indigenous people at the Century mine, an employment ratio that eclipses the national average of 4.6 per cent Indigenous employment in the mining industry (Barker and Brereton 2004). In the life of the mine approximately 550 people from the Gulf of Carpentaria have been employed, and between 100 and 120 Indigenous people at any one time between 2001 to the present (Barker and Brereton 2004). Predominantly, Indigenous people are employed in the mine pit as truck drivers and operators, but significant numbers are also working in mine administration and service areas associated with the mining camp. Reasons for such high Indigenous employment overall include the operation of Community Liaison Offices in the communities of Doomadgee, Normanton, and Mornington Island, funding by the State of Queensland for mine related TAFE training, and the proactive employment strategies of the major contractor, the Roche Eltin Joint Venture, which operates the mine pit.
The three agreements considered here arise from different legislative and administrative regimes. Differences between the agreements also relate to the local circumstances in which each of the agreements were negotiated. The YLUA and the GCA emphasise the economic engagement of Indigenous people, rather than the payment of royalties as with the Ranger Agreement. However cash payments are made in both the YLUA and the GCA, although they utilise the ‘real economy’ discourse and emphasise participation in mainstream economic activity.
Across all three agreements significant numbers of intended agreement beneficiaries are unable to participate in programs of employment, training or business development due to their status in relation to development-defined socioeconomic indices. Many Indigenous people who have land interests affected by major mining developments are precluded from participating in the mine economy by chronic health issues, limited education, a criminal record, substance abuse issues or old age (Taylor and Scambary 2005). The status of Indigenous Australians against standard social indicator areas including health, housing, education, and labour force participation are indicative of levels of poverty that deserve the moral outrage reserved for the Federal Government response to the incidence of child abuse in Indigenous communities resulting in the Northern Territory emergency intervention.
However, such moral outrage denies the agency and productive capacity of many Indigenous people that arises from an extensive range of skills and knowledge that lie outside the mainstream economy, and that inform Indigenous responses to poverty. Whilst the under-resourcing of services to Indigenous people is one reason for poverty that prevents participation in the mainstream economy, its day-to-day alleviation is often sought through the use of natural resources and the accompanying corpus of knowledge. Scarce government assistance has been inadequate for decades, entrenching Indigenous disadvantage. In many locations this places extreme pressure on the livelihoods of Indigenous people through institutional exclusion and excessive coercion to participate in the ‘mainstream’. The denial of access to land and infrastructure essential to the conduct of customary activities and beliefs has added further constraints on Indigenous livelihoods.
Almost universally Indigenous people seek to shape their economic engagement by utilising their skills as Indigenous people, rather than highlighting the capacity and skills deficit identified by standard social index assessments. This raises the possibilities for alternative forms of engagement by reference to diverse Indigenous aspirations for the future. In the context of mining agreements such aspirations are characterised by a desire for agreements that engender more innovative economic relationships, in both mainstream economic opportunities and in enhancing customary sector economic activity (Altman 2005a).
Modern mining agreements arise from legislative frameworks such as the ALRA and NTA that privilege the continuation of Indigenous traditions in the recognition of rights to land, and provide mechanisms to negotiate agreements with resource developers. However, resulting mining agreements de-emphasise the cultural prerogatives of Indigenous people in favour of mainstream economic development initiatives, predominantly within the mine economy. The capacity and desire of Indigenous people to engage in mine employment and training is influenced by diverse life histories resulting in considerable diversity of residence, access to their traditional lands, education standards, health standards, and customary knowledge and experience.
[1] The orthography used here accords with that reommended by the Wangka Maya Pilbara Aboriginal Language Centre. However, numerous spellings of these language group names are in use in the region.
[2] The Mining Area C Agreement between Yinhawangka, Banyjima, Nyiyaparli people and BHP Billiton establishes the IBN Corporation with the same membership as Gumala.
[3] The ‘ten point plan’ amendments, were in direct response to the High Court’s decision in The Wik Peoples v The State of Queensland & Ors; The Thayorre People v The State of Queensland & Ors [1996] HCA 40 (‘Wik decision’), which found that native title could coexist with pastoral leases. In the event of any conflict the High Court found that the rights of pastoralists would prevail. The intention of the amendments was to seek a compromise for conflicting interests, with Prime Minister Howard claiming that ‘The fact is that the Wik decision pushed the pendulum too far in the Aboriginal direction. The 10 point plan will return the pendulum to the centre’ (Amended Wik 10 Point Plan, Media Release, 8 May 1997). The amendments had significant beneficial impacts for land access for the mining industry, and were undoubtedly influenced by the Australian Mining Industry Council’s sustained campaign for blanket extinguishment of native title rights and interests.
[4] For a description of the complex of royalty distributions arrangements of the Ranger Agreement see Altman 1983: 56–61.
[5] In 2002, after a meeting held at Bidanggu outstation to discuss a review of the GCA, approximately 150 Waanyi men, women and children drove to the Century mine site, announced their presence at the site office, and then occupied the mine canteen. The Queensland Government ordered the mobilisation of the police special squad to the mine site, but was thwarted in its initial efforts to dislodge the protestors by declarations in the media by Waanyi spokespeople that the protestors were unarmed and mainly elderly people and children. Intense negotiations began between the general manager of the mine and the protestors. The sit-in lasted for nine days and severely disrupted the meal routines for the approximately 400 strong fly-in-fly-out workforce. In addition, the unprecedented move to occupy part of the mine site sent shock waves through the business community and threatened to halt production at the world’s largest zinc mine (‘Aborigine protest threatens zinc mine’, K. Meade, The Australian, 19 November 2002). The sit-in exposed the mine to serious financial risk which could have been critical for the continuation of the operation given that Pasminco (the operating company at the time) was experiencing financial difficulties at the time. The sit-in arose through dissatisfaction with the perceived limited scope and lack of independence of ‘The Five Year Review of the GCA’ undertaken by the Gulf Aboriginal Development Company Ltd, Pasminco and the State of Queensland.
[6] Turn Off Lagoon has been returned to Waanyi People, and in 2007 CZL retains a 49 per cent stake in Riversleigh and Lawn Hill Stations. Lawn Hill Station is a commercially lucrative pastoral enterprise carrying 50 000 head of cattle. Both Lawn Hill and Riversleigh stations are managed by the Lawn Hill and Riversleigh Pastoral Holding Company, which currently sublets the properties to non-Indigenous commercial pastoral enterprises and also conducts a pastoral training program in association with these two stations. In addition the Gangalidda people, who are not parties to the GCA, have received title to Pendine and Konka Stations.