All the rivers run red: McArthur River is sacred land.

All the rivers run red: the blood-soaked Gulf Country and its McArthur River is sacred land.

by Peter Jull

A river is a powerful presence to anyone who has grown up with it, its local culture and economy. It follows one around, lifelong. It runs through one’s being. The Aboriginal river land- and waterscapes of the southern and south-western Gulf of Carpentaria are powerfully evoked in the opening section of Alexis Wright’s new novel, Carpentaria. The book begins:

The ancestral serpent, a creature larger than storm clouds, came down from the stars, laden with its own creative enormity. It moved graciously … It came down those billions of years ago, to crawl on its heavy belly, all around the wet clay soils in the Gulf of Carpentaria.

There is no such lyricism or feeling in the minds of McArthur River Mining/Xstrata minions. Their December 2005 public relations ‘fact sheet’ on riverine environments begins:

As part of McArthur River Mining ’s Environmental Management Plan, regular tests are done of the riverine and marine environments. We respect that the river, ocean, and the plants and animals they harbour, are important for many reasons, including their significance to local Aboriginal people.

Including their significance for Aboriginal people? These fellows are also operating in a primeval world, at least politically, before a time of respect for indigenous culture and rights. They are certainly not fit people to be digging up the region, let alone the main river of the district, the McArthur a ‘realignment’, they call it. One must doubt the extent of their relations with the locals, a matter brushed off as more than sufficient by the CEO when the new mining plan was approved (ABC, 21 October 2006).

As McArthur region traditional owner Barbara McCarthy put it in a passionate speech as a member in the NT legislature:

The Yanyuwa, Garrwa, Mara and Kudanji peoples sit in the gallery here tonight. They sit here to support me in the struggles that I face, not only as the member for Arnhem, but also in my responsibilities as a traditional owner, recognised and accepted by my own people. The indigenous people of the Gulf have travelled here from Borroloola to protest the expansion of this mine on the steps of Parliament House this week…. I could not in all good conscience not do so for our people have lived in the region for thousands and thousands of years and struggled for the strong recognition of land rights in the Gulf, rights that were hard won after 30 years and only handed back four months ago; rights that were fought for by people who have long since passed and who no longer walk this earth, but live through the hearts of their descendants. … Their concerns expand far wider than the Gulf country–concerns about water and how water is life. The indigenous people who are here in this parliament are troubled by the water crises they see right across Australia. Australia is looking to the north to resolve a growing water crisis in our eastern and southern states, and yet my people are very worried at the potential risk to one of our greatest waterways here in the Northern Territory.

As she says, governments who have presided over the disaster of Australia’s water supplies are hardly to be trusted. But the Prime Minister bullied the NT premier, Clare Martin, into a deal full of holes and corporate issues, while the national environment minister fell into line:

Senator Campbell says Indigenous people’s concerns about the diversion of the river are a matter for the Northern Territory Government…. Senator Campbell says he looked strictly at issues of national environmental concern.’ (ABC, 20 October 2006).

That’s one for the books!

Jacqui Katona, who led the successful battle against the Jabiluka Mine west and north of the Gulf Country, and Murrandoo Yanner, brought to public note by his spokesmanship and leadership in relation to the Lawn Hill and Century issues in the Gulf Country in the 1990s–a subject for which Carpentaria is in part a roman a clef, launched the book in Brisbane. They were angry. Murrandoo laid into modern-day Jackie-Jackies, naming names, and into the Prime Minister’s hand-picked black advisory group. Murrandoo said that the Gulf Country was still the land of his and related peoples, and that they would not be managed by white governments and developers. One hopes he is right.

The federal government’s delusions about a brave new indigenous policy don’t even begin to recognise indigenous political rights or imperatives. What are we to make of federal pretensions, as in Australian Financial Review (’Brough leads indigenous rethink’, 6 October 2006), when we read:

Indigenous affairs is rapidly becoming the crucible for a new approach to social policy and service delivery by the federal government. It is all about … the way Australian society sees its responsibilities towards its citizens.

Yes, much better some clear and appropriate anger than this foolishness.

My own river, the Ottawa, was the centre of the Algonkin people’s world; indeed, its watershed was their political and cultural region. It became a crucial economic thoroughfare of empire, first French, then British, from the early 1600s, with the fur trade and later the timber trade. Not for nothing, the song beginning ‘Was you ever in Quebec?/Bonny laddie, Highland laddie,/ Loading timber on the deck …’ was a favourite on the bagpipes as the Black Watch and others marched against the Americans and other Bad People around the world in the glory days of Empire, and since.

If ever there was a blood-soaked landscape it is the Gulf Country and its McArthur River. Days before she approved the McArthur mine, Northern Territory premier Clare Martin awarded the NT history prize to Tony Roberts’ Frontier Justice. She presumably had not yet read it. Its ‘fresh perspective’–her words–are an unrelenting documentation of genocide–blood and mud–of the peoples, and their survivors, in the Gulf Country. If Gallipoli is a sacred landscape for Australians, this is even more so.

This article has been borrowed from Arena publications - a worthy addition to anyones reading list http://www.arena.org.au/index.html

Peter Jull is Adjunct Associate Professor, Australian Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies (ACPACS), University of Queensland. 
  
 
 

Boys from Borroloola performing the aeroplane dance

A new video showing the culture of Traditional Owners from McArthur River.  The impact of the mining and diversion of the McArthur River on the Traditional Owners has never been properly acknowledged or considered.

Barbara McCarthy: speech on the McArthur River amendment

This is Barbara McCarthy’s  speech from the third reading of the McArthur River Amendment (sec 4AB Ratification of certain instruments)  when three MLA’s crossed the floor to vote against the bill in the Northern Territory Parliament on 3rd May 2007.

Interruptions from other members have been edited out.

Ms McCARTHY (Arnhem): Madam Speaker, I speak against this bill and put my voice on the record as to the reasons why I must speak against the bill. I have listened intently to the debate that has continued throughout the day and I commend the Attorney-General on his comments in this House about the Northern Territory Labor government and the fact that we are a broad church, the fact that we …

As I was getting to the legislation I put on the record that this is legislation to which I am opposed for personal reasons and what I see as legislation being pushed through on urgency, when for the Aboriginal people in the Borroloola region, the Yanyuwa, the Garrwa, the Mara and the Gudanji, there is Sorry Business going on right now. It is unfortunate that any kind of legislation has to be forced through at a time when families are grieving over a very important person who has fought for the rights of the Gulf region in this case against the diversion of the river.

I have stood in this House on two occasions, Madam Speaker, to express the deep sincerity of the people of the Gulf region regarding the importance of the river. This legislation is being rushed through on urgency without having first buried a very important man, my brother, who has stood in the Supreme Court to argue for the rights of indigenous people in this country. I have explained and expressed this quite well with my colleagues, who I know have fought difficult situations regarding this particular project in the Gulf region …

Thank you, Madam Speaker. In regards to this legislation, I must speak against it. I certainly feel that, on behalf of the people of the Gulf region, and in particular indigenous people right across the Northern Territory and, indeed, Australia, that to pass this legislation on urgency, in the middle of Sorry Business is the lowest sign of respect for those people and families. I still encourage my colleagues in government to negotiate with the traditional owners on a level of equality and equity. I sincerely put to the House that I vote against this bill. I thank members for allowing me this opportunity.

Validity of McArthur River Mine expansion a month away

The legality of the 110 million dollar McArthur River Mine expansion near Borroloola won’t be known for at least another month.

Chief Justice Brian Martin today ruled that the court of appeal can re-examine whether the Territory Mines Minister’s authorisation of the expansion was valid.

The Northern Land Council had also wanted the court to examine whether the Commonwealth’s approval of the mine was flawed.

But Chief Justice Martin says the full bench of the Court of Appeal must decide that once the matter goes back to court on the 18th of July.

from the ABC… 

Breaking the law is not a technicality

Had a request (in comments) for response to the ‘technicality’ which is the term that the NT Government and Xstrata’s spin doctors have been using. Thanks to anon.

On 29 April 2007, Justice Angel delivered his judgment in the Supreme Court proceedings Lansen & Ors v NT Mines Minister and McArthur River Mining Pty Limited. His Honour essentially held that the NT Mines Minister used the wrong legislative power in the Mining Management Act 2001 (NT) to approve the mine. 

The Mines Minister used a “back door” process, section 41 of the Act, to “accept” the mine’s Mining Management Plan, which detailed the open cut proposal.

Instead, he should have used sections 35 or 38 of the Act to either vary McArthur River Mine’s existing authorisation to mine to include open cut mining, or grant a new authorisation to carry out open cut mining.  It is noted that McArthur River Mine has an existing Authorisation to mine granted under the Mining Management Act 2001, which authorises underground mining only. 

It is not a technicial error. The authorisation fails in the following ways

• Additional environmental safeguards

Sections 35 and 38 of the Act impose additional and very stringent environmental requirements, which must be satisfied before an authorisation is either varied or granted. Section 35 provides that before granting an Authorisation, the Mines Minister must be satisfied that the management system on the mining site will promote the protection of the environment on the mining site.

Similarly, section 38 provides that the Minister must not vary an Authorisation unless the variation will have the effect of improving the protection of the environment on the mining site.

There are no such environmental requirements for using section 41 of the Act, which the Mines Minister tried to use to approve the mine.

As stated by Tim Robertson, senior counsel for the traditional owners during oral submissions, had the Mines Minister used the proper powers under the Act (sections 35 and 38): “this very strong provision here prevents him from doing so unless it’s actually to make an improvement in the current situation.”

• Ability to seek merits review

By using section 41 of the Act instead of sections 35 or 38, the traditional owners and other affected persons were stripped of their right of independent review by the Mining Board. 

The Mining Board is an independent body established under the Mining Management Act, with functions of advising and reporting on environmental issues and best practice mining activities.  Under the Act, affected people can seek review of the Mines Minister’s decisions made under sections 35 and 38, but not of decisions made under section 41 of the Act.

Accordingly, by using section 41 of the Act, the NT Mines Minister effectively stripped the traditional owners of any right of appeal on the merits.  These are important procedural rights, which could have affected the outcome of the matter, for example, by improved environmental protection to prevent pollution from the tailings dam into the McArthur River and Gulf of Carpentaria.  This matter was of genuine concern to the NT Mines Minister, who obtained legal advice to use section 41 of the Mining Management Act for this very reason. 

• Deliberate tactical decision

The Mines Minister made a deliberate decision, on legal advice from the NT Solicitor, to use section 41 instead of sections 35 of 38.  There were clear forensic and strategic reasons, including the removal of rights of review and the imposition of additional environmental safeguards, for the Mines Minister to use section 41 instead of the proper powers. 

As stated by Tim Robertson SC during the hearing, “the decision was carefully structured … so that it was clear that the endorsement of the open cut project was by way of amending the mining management plan…”

The breach was not merely technical, it was a deliberate tactic used by the Mines Minister, on legal advice from the NT Solicitor, to avoid the onerous requirements of sections 35 and 38.  If the Mines Minister was of the view that using sections 35 and 38 instead of section 41 made no real difference or was merely technical, then surely he would have used those proper powers.