KRED runs media workshops for kids in the Great Sandy Desert

In early May, KRED Enterprises and the Kimberley Land Council media crews teamed up to run joint media workshops at the Ngurrara Cultural Camp at Kurlku. We travelled three hours into the Great Sandy Desert to work with students from Yakanarra Community School, Fitzroy Crossing District High, Wulungarra Community School and Djugerari Remote Community School. When the kids weren’t making spears and boomerangs, painting, dying their hair, or sampling traditional foods, they were with us participating in media workshops. We looked first at the principles of photography—the rule of thirds, composition, the aesthetic appeal of patterns—and then it was hands on. Students packaged, shot, did voiceovers and produced short video postcards, which were projected onto a big screen under the stars. We’ve posted some of the videos here, and some photos of the camp for you to have a look at. This is part of the wrap-around media service KRED offers to PBCs. For full details about the camp, you can check out the Yanunijarra website. 

Ice water has never tasted so good ...

Year 10 student Jack Burgess - Pincini head out with our Environmental Heritage and Social Impact (EHSIS) team on work experience. And it was hot !!
I’ve just spent 6 days in the Kimberley studying Aboriginal culture. Well, completing work experience on a heritage survey. What?? I worked for EHSIS, an environmental & heritage survey company, investigating the cultural significance of country in the care of Traditional Owners. We were assessing the land to protect culturally significant sites within a mining proposal. This involved heading out into thick bushland with Traditional Owners and an anthropologist to map the heritage sites within the land mass, and accurately create a topographical map of the area. It was very hot. 41 degrees every day! But it’s the humidity that can get ya! Ice water has never tasted so good. Each night we would return to base camp with our recordings of the day’s work. My worst moment was the loss of the G.P.S . . . momentarily. It was enough for sheer panic to set in. By retracing my steps up a rock wall I found it blazing hot in the sun. Phew, that almost stuffed it! It was quite an experience--camping and then working each day, so removed from “civilisation.” The map and identified sites we produced over the 6 days now plays a significant role in protecting this area for the future for the Traditional Owners and the broader community.  It was learning about the balances between mining and indigenous interests that I found so fascinating.

UWA Public Lecture on Coal Seam Gas

About the Lecture

Hashtag activists: Local communities, social media and the fall of Australia’s coal seam gas industry

Australia’s coal seam gas reserves hold considerable promise of both energy security and wealth with a current, estimated Asian export potential of $166 billion. Yet, the nascent industry is also highly contentious with fears of far-reaching and lasting, harmful social and environmental impacts. Local protest, most visibly through the ‘Lock the Gate’ coalition, but also through heated community meetings at locations across the country, are common. In early 2016, gas major AGL exited coal seam gas in Australia, citing economic reasons, including record low commodity prices.

But is the economic story the only one behind the downfall of Australia’s coal seam gas industry?

This lecture presents the intense and widespread debate about CSG as it spread through social media, especially Twitter. Here, journalists, concerned citizens, NGOs, companies and governments actively engaged, both on- and off-line. Were these citizens effective in revoking the CSG industry’s social licence to operate? Is hashtag activism the new future of community protest? What can we learn about the social impacts of controversial industries by understanding communities’ concerns as they play out online? And what do new realms of community engagement mean for traditional community relations and impact assessment practices?

To register click here. 

KRED Legal Update

Native Titile Compensation

Does your community have a right to be compensated for loss of Native Title?

The way that native title works is that holders of native title get the same or similar rights in relation to the acquisition or use of their land by government and 3rd parties as ordinary title holders (e.g people who own homes or have leases). This means that Traditional Owners can claim compensation for the impairment or extinguishment of their native title rights and interests “on just terms”. For example, Traditional Owners may be able to claim compensation for:

- loss of native title before 1993 due to an inconsistent grant (e.g. freehold or a national park);

- damage to native title land and/or waters from mining, such as contamination;

- social disruption from mining on native title land;

- invalid extensions or renewals of mining leases without an Indigenous Land Use Agreement in place.

This is an under-explored area in law. Despite the fact that over 20 years ago the High Court recognised the existence of native title in Australia in Mabo v Queensland [No 2] [1992] HCA 23, there hasn’t yet been a decision by any Australian court considering how much compensation might be payable for the impairment or extinguishment of native title. Compensation was awarded in the case De Rose v South Australia [2013] FCA 988, but because the amount was decided by agreement between the parties, the details remain confidential.

A compensation claim is currently being litigated in the Northern Territory over the Timber Creek town site. It is expected this will be the first time an Australian court considers how much native title may be worth in monetary terms.

We are following developments in this area of law and also looking at how compensation for loss of Indigenous land has been valued internationally, with a view to ensuring Traditional Owners are in the strongest position possible to control development on their land and waters.

©KRED Legal Pty Ltd. This information is general in nature only and should not be relied upon as legal advice.

Aborigines have a right to economic development

This Opinion piece was published in The Australian newspaper on the 30/09/15. For the full original article please click here. 

Wayne Bergmann

In his victory speech, new Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull announced: “There has never been a more exciting time to be alive than today and there has never been a more exciting time to be an Australian. We will ensure that all Australians understand that their government recognises the opportunities of the future.”

If federal, state and territory governments are to ensure that Aboriginal Australians are included in these “opportunities of the future”, it is obvious their first priority should be to support the economic initiatives of Aboriginal people.

Remarkably, some governments do not understand this. Take the most recent Queensland state governments.

On Cape York Peninsula near Aurukan, there’s $20 billion worth of bauxite waiting to be mined. The traditional owners of the area, the Wik and Wik Way people, eager to be part of the economic development of their region, formed a joint venture with an Australian mining company to create Aurukan Bauxite Developments and planned to mine the resource.

As part of the joint venture, ABD was to give a 15 per cent share of the project to traditional owners, two Aboriginal directors would be appointed to a board of seven, and there were unambiguous commitments to indigenous employment and training. ABD chairman Nicholas Stump has 40 years’ experience in the mining industry and was formerly chief executive of Comalco and MIM Holdings. According to Cape York indigenous leader Noel Pearson: “He is leading a serious team that has the money, the capability and the capacity to do this.”

Here was an opportunity for Aboriginal people to exercise their property rights under native title and control and benefit from development on their country, from operating mining equipment right up to a board level. Here was an opportunity for Aboriginal people to make a significant step towards economic independence.

But ABD didn’t win the tender. In a highly questionable process the former Liberal National Party government of Campbell Newman gave preferred proponent status to Swiss mining giant Glencore. In recent weeks, Annastacia Palaszczuk’s Labor government has refused to overturn the Newman government’s decision.

History has shown that a failure to support the economic initiatives of traditional owners burdens our welfare system and creates cycles of poverty and unemployment. It’s only when traditional owners fully participate in development and make decisions about what happens on their native title areas that these cycles are broken. Excluding them means taxpayers will continue to foot the welfare bill.

Across Australia, we’re seeing intense pressure on traditional owners from proponents and companies wishing to access, explore or develop on traditional country. I think there is a common misconception that Aboriginal people are a hindrance to development. This is not the case. Traditional owners want jobs. Equally, we want to protect the things that are important to us, the environment and our cultural heritage. These are not mutually exclusive. Further, when development happens in partnership with traditional owners, when we have free, prior and informed consent over development on country, this allows us to promote our ‘‘triple bottom line’’ of people and culture, country and economy. It also makes for speedier, more streamlined and more cost-effective project approval process.

Most international investors recognise this reality and are prepared to back a project only if it has traditional owner consent.

In contrast, Australia’s Native Title Act allows projects to go ahead without Aboriginal consent, which seriously undermines the negotiating position of traditional owners. Federal, state and territory governments need to support traditional owners so they can negotiate from a position of strength, and to ensure they participate in economic development on their native title lands. I applaud the traditional owners of Aurukan for standing up for their right to be involved in development on their own terms.

It is disappointing the state government chose to support a foreign company over a local joint venture with traditional owners. Governments have a responsibility to look after their citizens first and not back multinational companies, especially when those citizens are among Australia’s most disadvantaged.