home | news l

Australian land agreements questioned

30 January 2007 - Nearly half of the land use agreements signed by indigenous Australians with mining companies and government partners have failed to deliver significant benefits for them, an Australian university study concluded.

A five-year study of 45 of Australia’s agreements found a “substantial majority” failed to create opportunities for traditional land owners to participate in environmental management.

Around 260 agreements are registered and along with others remain confidential, with Brisbane-based academics Ciaran O’Faircheallaigh and Tony Corbett from Griffith University accessing them under arrangements with leading Aboriginal land councils.

Their study found many indigenous groups’ bargaining positions were impacted by a lack of financial, technical and organisational resources. Many groups traded off environmental participation in return for money or jobs, Professor O’Faircheallaigh said.

But the study questioned the effectiveness of deals struck between mining companies, especially in goldfields in Western Australia. It was impossible to determine in many cases whether targets were met, the study found.

The authors also alleged some mining companies had offered less than A$100,000 to indigenous groups in New South Wales over the life of highly profitable mines, while politically influential Aboriginal organisations in north and central Australia enjoyed “superior bargaining positions”.

Association of Mining and Exploration Companies backed findings agreements were not working, reportedly telling of indigenous requests for “gate money” to mining companies for land access even though deals had been signed.

Most mining agreements negotiated in Australia in the last decade have been negotiated under the 1993 Native Title Act, following the Mabo court decision granting native title rights.

Source: Mining Journal

Further information: land rights issues page - includes news index and external links