Extract from The Guardian
Wangan and Jagalingou native title claim group reject for the third time an Indigenous land use agreement with mining giant
Traditional owners of Adani’s Queensland
mine site have voted to sack representatives who received “sitting fees
or other benefits” from the mining giant while advocating for a crucial
land use deal.
A meeting of the Wangan and Jagalingou native title claim group has also rejected for the third time an Indigenous land use agreement with Adani, throwing into doubt the miner’s bid to obtain speedy approval of its mining leases.
It sets the stage for a lengthy federal court battle involving pro-mining and pro-conservation factions of the W&J leadership, made up of a dozen native title applicants.
The meeting in Brisbane on Saturday was convened by the five applicants who oppose the mine. They won support for a resolution removing four of the other seven pro-mining representatives from the applicant group altogether.
If registered in the federal court, this would swing the balance back in their favour nine to three.
An anti-mining campaigner, Adrian Burragubba, said the resolutions were “a milestone in the sorry tale of the proponents’ efforts to force this monstrosity of a mine on us”.
“Our people unambiguously refused any agreement with Adani to dig the Carmichael mine on our country,” he said. “If they try to take our lands, or strong arm us with their phoney compensation deals, we’ll see them in court.”
Days before the meeting, lawyers retained by the pro-mining W&J representatives to help cut the deal with Adani mailed a pamphlet that advertised the financial benefits of an Indigenous land use agreement.
It would deliver jobs, contracts and payments with a “total estimated value [of] up to $753m” to the W&J, the pamphlet stated. This included 125 mine site jobs at “peak production” and a bus service contract worth $100m.
“This is a significant increase in the value of the ancillary agreement benefit package presented to the W&J people in 2014,” it said. “It could deliver significant benefits to W&J people for several generations.”
Correspondence from Queensland South Native Title Services, which is assisting the W&J with their separate claim on the Galilee basin land, confirmed that the seven pro-mining applicants had received “monetary benefits” from Adani.
They had “provided statements of monetary benefits and have also taken substantial steps to implement a process for authorising a trust and appointing a trustee”, QSNTS said in an email days before the meeting.
QSNTS flagged the possibility of taking legal action to halt the removal of applicants when it wrote to clan members on 9 March flagging “concerns about the process undertaken by the meeting organisers”.
Its solicitor for the W&J claim, Andrea Olsen, thought it was “not in the best interests for the claim group” for the meeting to proceed and for those applicants to be removed.
“In discharging [our] duties to the claim group, QSNTS reserves the right to take such appropriate action in response to any attempt to replace the applicant,” it said.
The pro-conservation bloc insisted the meeting was legitimate and public notice given.
They wrote to QSNTS, saying: “We are at a loss to understand why QSNTS would put itself in the position of being regarded as supporting the pro-mining side of the debate over those who support protection of their traditional country and heritage.”
Their move to dump pro-mining representatives likely heads off another meeting scheduled for next month, at which the W&J were to consider authorising a proposed Indigenous land use agreement with Adani.
Such an agreement is crucial for Adani, which is unlikely to obtain finance for the $16bn project without it.
No agreement would mean the Queensland government would be forced to extinguish or impair W&J native title rights to grant mining leases – which would still leave lenders wary of potential exposure to “contingent liability” through legal action.
A meeting of the Wangan and Jagalingou native title claim group has also rejected for the third time an Indigenous land use agreement with Adani, throwing into doubt the miner’s bid to obtain speedy approval of its mining leases.
It sets the stage for a lengthy federal court battle involving pro-mining and pro-conservation factions of the W&J leadership, made up of a dozen native title applicants.
The meeting in Brisbane on Saturday was convened by the five applicants who oppose the mine. They won support for a resolution removing four of the other seven pro-mining representatives from the applicant group altogether.
If registered in the federal court, this would swing the balance back in their favour nine to three.
An anti-mining campaigner, Adrian Burragubba, said the resolutions were “a milestone in the sorry tale of the proponents’ efforts to force this monstrosity of a mine on us”.
“Our people unambiguously refused any agreement with Adani to dig the Carmichael mine on our country,” he said. “If they try to take our lands, or strong arm us with their phoney compensation deals, we’ll see them in court.”
Days before the meeting, lawyers retained by the pro-mining W&J representatives to help cut the deal with Adani mailed a pamphlet that advertised the financial benefits of an Indigenous land use agreement.
It would deliver jobs, contracts and payments with a “total estimated value [of] up to $753m” to the W&J, the pamphlet stated. This included 125 mine site jobs at “peak production” and a bus service contract worth $100m.
“This is a significant increase in the value of the ancillary agreement benefit package presented to the W&J people in 2014,” it said. “It could deliver significant benefits to W&J people for several generations.”
Correspondence from Queensland South Native Title Services, which is assisting the W&J with their separate claim on the Galilee basin land, confirmed that the seven pro-mining applicants had received “monetary benefits” from Adani.
They had “provided statements of monetary benefits and have also taken substantial steps to implement a process for authorising a trust and appointing a trustee”, QSNTS said in an email days before the meeting.
QSNTS flagged the possibility of taking legal action to halt the removal of applicants when it wrote to clan members on 9 March flagging “concerns about the process undertaken by the meeting organisers”.
Its solicitor for the W&J claim, Andrea Olsen, thought it was “not in the best interests for the claim group” for the meeting to proceed and for those applicants to be removed.
“In discharging [our] duties to the claim group, QSNTS reserves the right to take such appropriate action in response to any attempt to replace the applicant,” it said.
The pro-conservation bloc insisted the meeting was legitimate and public notice given.
They wrote to QSNTS, saying: “We are at a loss to understand why QSNTS would put itself in the position of being regarded as supporting the pro-mining side of the debate over those who support protection of their traditional country and heritage.”
Their move to dump pro-mining representatives likely heads off another meeting scheduled for next month, at which the W&J were to consider authorising a proposed Indigenous land use agreement with Adani.
Such an agreement is crucial for Adani, which is unlikely to obtain finance for the $16bn project without it.
No agreement would mean the Queensland government would be forced to extinguish or impair W&J native title rights to grant mining leases – which would still leave lenders wary of potential exposure to “contingent liability” through legal action.
No comments:
Post a Comment