Many people who participated in this research maintain that they have seen little benefit from mining agreements. This is largely due to their relative socioeconomic status (see for example Taylor and Scambary 2005). This is not to deny the in-kind assistance and programs that mining companies have engaged in at all three regions. Rather it suggests that the anticipated outcomes associated with the agreements, and arising from varied and complex negotiating processes, have not eventuated. In the Pilbara for example, the existence of a substantial trust fund associated with the YLUA is viewed positively, but the current inability of the Gumala membership to readily access funds creates the widespread perception that they have little autonomy within the agreement to determine the shape of their future. Conversely, in the Gulf of Carpentaria, poor corporate governance associated with the GCA and unstable recipient organisations do not assist in the creation of a capital base, and similarly undermine intended agreement outcomes. The history of the Ranger mine and associated Indigenous organisations highlights the loss of autonomy of the Mirrar Gunjeihmi through the dispersal of their authority in the administrative frameworks designed to minimise the impacts of mining. However, through the interplay of local identity politics associated with Ranger mine and later the Jabiluka protest, the Mirrar Gunjeihmi have re-emerged as powerful actors in the region. This has had consequences for other regional interests, especially the neighbouring Bunidj and Murrumburr people, through the dilution of their authority in the organisations and institutions associated with mining in the Kakadu region.

Despite the provision of mainstream economic opportunities, access to land remains a critical issue at all three sites considered. In the Kakadu region the Ranger and Jabiluka leases occupy approximately 50 per cent of the Mirrar Gunjeihmi estate. Whilst the YLUA and the GCA make provision for the return of pastoral land holdings of the respective mining companies, the outcomes and equity of such provisions are unclear to many. Title to a number of leases in the Gulf of Carpentaria has been granted, though the continuation of commercial pastoral operations on Lawn Hill Station is seen by some to preclude Indigenous use of the area. In the Pilbara, the timeframes for the return of leasehold land is unclear. The desire to access land for livelihood and religious pursuits is a central finding of this research and one that suggests the need to broaden the terms of engagement entailed in mining agreements.

Tangible livelihood outcomes are economic, and are considered by many Indigenous people to be reliable in comparison to the risks of dependency associated with obtaining resources through engagement with the market and the state. Symbolic resources are also derived through the conduct of livelihood activities and are central to the maintenance and construction of distinct Indigenous identities. The symbolism of everyday life is drawn upon in the inward assertions of identification with a group of people, and outwardly in the assertion of difference to other cultural identities. Examples are provided from all three field sites of the continued practice of livelihoods associated with the customary sector. Whilst the yield of livelihood practices has not been quantified here, the nature of cultural value that is derived from such activities is manifest in the choices individuals make about their lives and their limited level of engagement with the mine economy. Assessments of costs and benefits are considered in terms of economic gain, but also in terms of personal and group identity. As such, cultural value derived is only truly perceptible to those who produce it. However, this is not to suggest that poor outcomes against agreement objectives are reducible to the choices Indigenous people make about the nature of their engagement with the mine economy. Rather, the choices people make are to a large extent dictated by the opportunities that are available. This chapter has highlighted the structural obstacles to mainstream economic engagement presented by poverty, social and economic exclusion, and structures arising from the agreements themselves that define narrow terms of engagement. Like the pastoral industry before it, the obstacles to cultural autonomy that are presented by the presence of the mining industry also impact on the customary sector. Access to land—for the purpose of establishing residence, or accessing resources, or maintaining links to important sites in the sentient landscape—is a key aspiration across the three field sites, and is integrally linked to the range of tangible and symbolic resources that land access provides.

The possibility for a convergence of economic value and Indigenous cultural value is clearly reflected in the dual aspirations of Indigenous people across the breadth of this study to enhance both their market engagement, and engagement with the customary sector. Across Northern Australia the recognition of cultural value in financial terms is emerging in innovative partnerships that emphasise Indigenous land management practices. Extensive networks of Indigenous ranger groups are already involved in projects associated with the maintenance of biodiversity, disease control, border control, feral animal and weed management, fire management, and green house gas abatement. Such projects recognise and enhance the value of Indigenous knowledge and capacity deriving from relationships to land, and have the potential for developmental outcomes in terms of the generation of economic resources. The benefits to Indigenous people, aside from those arising from fee-for-service arrangements, include the opportunity for the continuation of cultural traditions, the maintenance of heritage, and the maintenance of distinctive identities.

The possibility for the application of ‘community benefit’ packages associated with mining agreements in areas of land management is noted in this chapter, particularly given the extensive pastoral land holdings of mining companies. This is not to suggest that programs of mainstream engagement aimed at the mine economy should be abandoned, but rather to suggest a possible area in which the application of community benefits can be fruitfully augmented. Further innovation is required in the forms of engagement between the mining industry and Indigenous people to promote Indigenous empowerment and autonomy. Central to this is the recognition of who Indigenous people are, and respect and accommodation for the diverse range of knowledge and skills they possess.

The aspirations of Indigenous people associated with the Ranger mine in the Kakadu region, the Yandicoogina mine in the central Pilbara, and the Century mine in the southern Gulf of Carpentaria are multiple and diverse. Emerging from the broad scope of this research are numerous Indigenous narratives concerning distinctiveness, authenticity, equality, autonomy and responsibility. These narratives reach beyond the local relationships with the mining industry and state entailed in mining agreements, and draw upon the historic experiences of Indigenous people to demand both citizenship rights and symbolic rights. Indigenous struggles to seek redress of social and economic exclusion draw upon normative modes of social transaction and cultural process that rally against reified representations of indigeneity, and suggest ongoing cultural transformations. Such transformations are reflected in strategies and aspirations for the future that seek to innovatively resolve conflicting notions of productivity and value through positive assertions of Indigenous distinctiveness within the broader realm of an Australian national identity.

Through examination of three mining agreements it is clear that Indigenous people residing in mine hinterlands engage and respond to global influences while at the same time engaging with the customary. A clear example is the Century mine workers who drive haulpac trucks in the mine, but still draw upon the tangible and symbolic resources of their country in the construction of identity and the maintenance of tradition. This chapter has drawn on research associated with three mining agreements across Australia to demonstrate how agreement outcomes are constrained by the very limitations that they place on the agency of the Indigenous people they seek to engage. This chapter suggests that successful engagement between the mining industry and local Indigenous people who reside in mine hinterlands is dependent on accommodation of existing Indigenous skills and knowledge. Examples abound from across all three locales of Indigenous people successfully striving to engage in multifaceted ways with the mainstream economy, and the mine economy, whilst not compromising their innate cultural identity. Poor understanding of Indigenous capacity by the state and the mining industry perpetuates dichotomous relationships with Indigenous people. Such relationships, combined with the historic under-funding of services by the state, and the lack of recognition of the citizenship rights of Indigenous people, limits the capacity for economic and social engagement, and compounds Indigenous poverty.