Conflict between Indigenous (“Black”) and environmental (“Green”) groups is a growing feature of Australia’s political landscape. This has been highlighted by very public disputes over Wild Rivers legislation in Queensland and the proposed Liquefied Natural Gas processing precinct (LNG Precinct) at James Price Point north of Broome.
Aboriginal leaders such as the Kimberley’s Wayne Bergmann and Cape York’s Noel Pearson say Green groups' determination to maintain “wilderness” areas – distant from the comfortable suburbs in which most of their supporters live – are depriving Indigenous people of the economic opportunities they need to end poverty and social marginalisation.
Some environmentalists have accused Aboriginal people supportive of major resource projects of selling out their culture and the environment for short-term financial gains
Conflict reached a new and unprecedented level in late September. Opponents of the LNG Precinct circulated a newsletter containing blatantly racist attacks on Kimberley Aboriginal leaders who supported the Precinct. This led to the resignation of one of those attacked: Australia’s only female Indigenous member of parliament, Carol Martin.
Many environmental groups and their members would deplore these attacks. Yet they are a manifestation, albeit extreme, of a deepening rift between Green and Black interests in relation to development in Australia’s resource-rich regions.
Shared interests?
For decades there has been a widespread assumption in Australia that Black and Green groups are natural allies. It was assumed they share a commitment to looking after the environment, and in particular to stopping development in areas of high environmental and cultural significance such as Kakadu National Park and the Pilbara’s Burrup Peninsula.
These groups have joined together in a number of campaigns to stop high-profile projects. Black-Green cooperation was critical, for example, in forcing the abandonment of the Jabiluka uranium project in Kakadu in 2005.
So what explains the growing tensions and conflict between Indigenous and environmental groups? Is the assumption that the two share underlying interests unwarranted?
What is the prognosis for the future? Will conflict continue to escalate or can a new accommodation of interests be found?
The history of the Kimberley LNG Precinct casts some light on these questions.
The Kimberley LNG Precinct
The Browse Basin lies some 250 km off the Kimberley coast and contains about 25% of Australia’s known reserves of natural gas.
During 2005-2007 developers were looking for sites to process gas. The Labor State Government wanted to avoid development along the whole Kimberley Coast. It established a Northern Development Taskforce (NDT) to identify a single site where Browse gas would be processed, to minimise impact.
The WA Government also declared that development would only occur with the “informed consent and full economic participation” of Aboriginal Traditional Owners. The WA Government funded the Kimberley Land Council (KLC) and Kimberley coastal native title groups to participate in the site selection process run by the NDT.
As the site selection process proceeded, native title groups removed eight locations from a short list of possible sites established by the NDT because of their environmental and cultural values.
However, in September 2008 the newly-elected Barnett Liberal-National Party Government indicated that it would not continue the previous policy of only allowing development with Traditional Owner consent. It terminated funding for Traditional Owner participation in the site selection process.
In December, the Premier announced that James Price Point, 60 km north of Broome, was the WA Government’s preferred site. Unless its Traditional Owners reached agreement for the LNG Precinct to be built there, the Government would compulsorily acquire it.
Faced with this threat, in April 2009 the Goolarabooloo Jabirr-Jabirr native title claim group, who had not removed James Price Point from the short list of possible sites, instructed the KLC to enter a “Heads of Agreement” (HoA) .
They provided consented to the grant of tenures required for the Precinct in return for economic and other benefits for the claim group and affected Kimberley Aboriginal people. These benefits include substantial new investments in education, training, housing, health and land management, and are valued at a minimum of $1.5 billion. They also obtained a commitment by WA not to allow LNG processing at any other site on the Kimberley Coast without Traditional Owner consent.
On June 30 2011, a binding agreement was made between the KLC, the native title claimants, WA and Woodside Energy Ltd, the lead commercial proponent for the LNG Precinct. The KLC and Traditional Owners will not give final approval until they are convinced the area will be managed to minimise environmental and social impacts.
The Goolarabooloo Jabirr Jabirr native title claim groups is not unanimous in its support for the LNG Precinct. One part of it took court action (unsuccessfully) in a bid to challenge the validity of the meeting that approved the HofA.
Growing tensions
During the site selection process, engagement between environmental groups and the KLC and Traditional Owners was largely positive. A Joint Position Statement was signed in December 2007, calling for high environmental standards and for Kimberley Traditional Owners to have a central role in decision making.
Since James Price Point was selected as the LNG Precinct site, Green groups' opposition has increased. So has tension between them and Aboriginal people prepared to support the development.
The Wilderness Society has launched a public campaign to oppose gas development on the Kimberley coast. The Greens leader, Bob Brown has visited James Price Point and vowed to fight the development. The Australian Conservation Foundation last month issued an “investor alert” urging potential investors in the Kimberley LNG Precinct not to proceed with the project.
Aboriginal people who support the project say failure to develop it would deny Kimberley Aboriginal people a unique opportunity to improve their lives.
The need for such improvement is starkly illustrated by an Aboriginal Social Impact Assessment conducted as part of the Strategic Assessment. It shows that only one in four indigenous people in Broome and one in five in Dampier Peninsula communities had completed high school.
Indigenous people account for about 30% of the population in Broome and the Dampier Peninsula, but for 85% of criminal offences in 2008-2009. Of 64 houses in one affected community, only 7 are in good repair.
Aboriginal people may agree with Green groups who say no Australian citizen should have to live in such circumstances. Government should address these conditions whether LNG is developed or not.
But the reality is that these circumstances have persisted for decades. There is no reason to believe they will change significantly unless Aboriginal people themselves can deploy substantial resources to deal with them.
Some Green groups have given their support to members of the claim group who oppose the Precinct, increasing Green-Black conflict. This is in a context where both the LNG Precinct HoA and final agreements were supported by substantial majorities in the claim group meetings held to consider them.
Underlying issues
Many Aboriginal people believe the only way they can end their marginalisation in Australian society is by using their rights under the Native Title Act to secure active economic participation. Yet the groups with the greatest capacity to use native title this way live in the few places the Greens regard as relatively environmentally intact. These include the Kimberley and Cape York.
At the same time, Aboriginal determination to control what happens on their traditional country is being bolstered by growing international recognition of Indigenous rights.
For example the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples asserts that Indigenous people should control whether development occurs on their traditional estates and what form any development should take.
The growing power of Indigenous people is apparent from the history of the LNG Precinct. Though the Barnett Government might threaten compulsory acquisition, it is difficult to conceive of a US$30 billion project that includes companies such as Shell and BP going ahead in the face of concerted opposition from Aboriginal traditional owners.
This reality helps to explain the unprecedented commitment by the WA Government that it will not allow further LNG development on the Kimberley coast without the consent of Traditional Owners.
It is easy for environmental groups to support the principle that Indigenous people should control what happens on their traditional lands when control is used to prevent or limit development. If it is used to approve major industrial projects, accepting Indigenous control may be a different matter.
There is nothing in the history of the LNG Precinct to suggest Indigenous commitment to protect the environment is wavering. Kimberley Traditional Owners refused to contemplate LNG development at multiple sites because of their environmental and cultural sensitivity.
Despite the unprecedented benefits they have been able to negotiate, the KLC and the Traditional Owners of James Price Point are refusing to agree to its development except under stringent environmental conditions.
This discussion suggests two quite different scenarios in terms of future relations between Green and Black groups. If Green groups accept ultimate Indigenous control, it is easy to envisage them working with Indigenous groups to ensure that development will only occur if it is subject to stringent management of environmental and cultural values.
If Green groups join with much of the mining industry and many state governments in refusing to accept the right of Indigenous people to make the final decision about development on their lands, the conflict over Wild Rivers and the LNG Precinct is likely to be just a taste of what is to come.
Join the conversation
Comments (8)
Timothy Neale
(PhD Candidate at University of Melbourne)
Hi Ciaran, just a quibble but you've repeated the Australian's implicit argument that, because Martin quit after the infamous unnamed newsletter circulated, the two incidents are meaningfully connected, something that Martin has never explicitly stated. There is even evidence to suggest there is no connection (see: http://tracker.org.au/2011/09/first-female-aboriginal-mp-resigns/). Also, it's still unclear who the newsletter-writing 'Opponents' of the LNG project are, so I think it cannot necessarily be said that the newsletter is a symptom of a Black-Green rift (what if they are Black-Greenies?)...
Enjoyed the piece, thanks.
Jon Altman
(Research Professor in Anthropology at Australian National University)
I think this piece raises many important issues, but like Tim I am not comfortable with the implied binary, blacks on one side, conservationists on the other, after all the vote by the native title interests in accord with western democratic principles was far from unanimous. As noted by Ciaran, the native title parties facing the prospect of compulsory acquisition by the WA State government were hardly negotiating on a level playing field, indeed power relations were highly assymetric and they faced…
show full comment
Malcolm Lindsay
PhD Candidate (logged in via email @unimelb.edu.au)
I also agree that the stated argument of a rift between black and green interests is too simplified. There are only two examples mentioned, Wild Rivers and the Browse LNG Precinct at James Price Point. While Noel Pearson opposes the Wild Rivers legislation, there are many traditional elders who support the legislation and work closely with the Wilderness Society. Similarly, although Wayne Burgman and some of the traditional owners supports the gas hub, environmental groups are working closely with…
show full comment
wilma western
(logged in via email @bigpond.com)
Wouldn't it be good to see an alliance of less purist green types and the aboriginal majority working to maximise environmental protection of important sites while still allowing economic development by aboriginal groups in partnership with companies that respect their aboriginal partners ?
Bernie Masters
environmental consultant (logged in via email @iinet.net.au)
I agree with Timothy that Carol Martin's resignation announcement is unlikely to be strongly linked to the current James Price Point dispute. I don't know Carol well but my judgement is that she was looking for an opportunity (an excuse?) to step down from what should be a 60 to 70 hour a week job (I'm an ex-state MP).
However, I have no doubt that there is a huge black-green gulf now in existence in Broome and around the Kimberly. As a person who's been active in the conservation movement for decades, I can confirm that a small proportion of greens are anti-development and would be happy to keep all indigenous and developing country people around the world at their current low level of economic capacity. I also know people who are happy to see indigenous people remain dependent upon charity hand-outs forever rather than allow mining to create wealth from which they can benefit.
peter robertson
conservationist (logged in via email @yahoo.com.au)
As might be expected, Prof OFaircheallaigh has told only a little part of the James Price Point gas hub story. In particular he has downplayed the strong opposition to the WA government/Woodside Ltd LNG hub from local communities - Indigenous and non-Indigenous, and from the area's Traditional Owners.
It is important to note that this project does not have any of the approvals it requires. It doesn't have environmental approvals from either the WA or Federal governments; it doesn't have final…
show full comment
Michael James
Student at Murdoch University (logged in via email @gmail.com)
Sheeting the racist newsletter to those groups against the gas hub and attributing it as a cause of Carol Martin’s resignation is just a political position. There is no evidence for either.
The failure of the Goolarabooloo Jabirr Jabirr claimants to have the JPP site removed from the process before it came down to a “final four” probably speaks volumes as to who was always destined to win the politics. Rightly or wrongly there is a process in place regarding this and other future acts negotiations…
show full comment
Di Horsburgh
Environmentalist (logged in via email @gmail.com)
The issue is one of (destructive) development versus conservation. And yet media and others, including this article, continually want to portray it as a black-green divide/rift/argument whatever. It isn't. And nor could it ever be because there are diverse views amongst Aboriginal people just as there are amongst any community/ group/ sector of people. To argue otherwise is to play into the hands of individuals who attempt to speak for all Aboriginal people, which they do not and cannot.