EDO expert rubbished rival’s work before she had read it

The professor lamented a statement by the Tiwi Land Council for suggesting that some Tiwi Islanders supported Santos’s plans for the Barossa gas project.

Amanda Kearney is a professor of anthropology at San Diego State University in the US.

An anthropologist drafted in by the Environmental Defenders Office in its court challenge against oil and gas producer Santos dismissed a rival’s work as likely to be “total crap” before she had even read it.

Amanda Kearney, a professor of anthropology at San Diego State University, also lamented a statement issued by the Tiwi Land Council for suggesting that some Tiwi Islanders supported Santos’s plans, and agreed to be a signatory to an open letter against the project without examining it.

Text messages and emails between Dr Kearney and University of Western Australia marine geoscientist Michael O’Leary, whose map of supposed locations of Tiwi Islander cultural heritage locations was lashed by the Federal Court when it dismissed the case, filed as evidence in the court shed new light on the actions taken by the expert witnesses called in by the taxpayer-funded EDO.

In September 2023, when Dr O’Leary was engaged in his ultimately controversial work with the EDO, he sent a text message to Dr Kearney asking her to “take a look” at the expert report prepared for Santos by anthropologist Brendan Corrigan, a 30-year veteran who had also worked for the Kimberley Land Council and the Northern Land Council – two of Australia’s biggest traditional owner groups – over the course of his career.

It took just 77 seconds for Dr Kearney to send a response, telling Dr O’Leary she had a “feeling” Dr Corrigan’s report would be “total crap”.

“(I) would be interested to see what moonlights as anthropology in some spaces,” she wrote.

“He hasn’t tried to undermine your work, has he? … doesn’t have enough brain cells to do that!”

Two days later, Dr O’Leary asked Dr Kearney if she had any thoughts to share about the Corrigan report.

“Just reading through things now. I suspect I could bore holes in this crap research. Even typos in the exec summary,” she replied.

“How can a person like this sleep at night. Basically saying it’s OK to fuck up country and the environment. What a shitty human,” the text messages read.

The next month, Dr O’Leary flagged to Dr Kearney that the Tiwi Land Council had issued a statement addressing some of the islanders’ concerns about Dr Corrigan’s findings.

Dr Kearney responded by describing the TLC statement as a “terribly written letter unfortu­nately” that was “overly generous” to Dr Corrigan.

“It’s also quite passive in a strange way. It suggests that there are some Tiwi opposing but others supporting,” she said.

She said the TLC letter did not push back enough on Dr Corrigan’s findings about how far from land Tiwi marine craft travelled from shore and said the Tiwi case would not be helped by the fact the letter flagged Tiwi concern for species, not cultural heritage.

“I wonder if some on TLC are supportive. I’ve seen it before,” she wrote. “These companies promise a lot to CEOs and board members and then they inadvertently go easy on the company. Sad reality but true in many contexts.”

Weeks later, Dr O’Leary again contacted Dr Kearney to ask her availability to provide an expert opinion on Dr Corrigan’s report for the EDO.

She agreed, and went on to join a conclave with Dr Corrigan and a mediator in December 2023.

As the court case between the Tiwi Islanders and Santos continued, Dr Kearney lamented the “dog fight” strategy employed by Santos and its lawyers.

“Amazing how the resource sector carves up communities and pits family against family – ultimately coloniality! Have people destroy theme selves (sic) while the companies stand back and make all the money,” she told Dr O’Leary in a text message.

On the day Dr Kearney was scheduled to be cross-examined, Dr O’Leary messaged her to wish her good luck.

“Yeah it’s not like any of this would end up up (sic) stopping the project, but at least we are trying to keep the bastards honest,” he wrote.

She replied: “Yeah, surely all this has cost them a lot of money and that’s like the only thing they care about.”

Last week, the Federal Court issued orders requiring the EDO to cover the entirety of the legal costs incurred by Santos in fighting the matter.

The rare decision to award 100 per cent of the costs – which totalled more than $9m – followed the earlier finding from Federal Court judge Natalie Charlesworth that the Dr O’Leary cultural mapping exercise and the related opinions were “so lacking in integrity that no weight can be placed on them”.

Justice Charlesworth also found that Dr O’Leary’s “lack of regard for the truth, lack of independence and lack of scientific rigour are sufficient to discount or dismiss all of his reports for all purposes”.

Dr Kearney’s cross-examination came almost a year after she was approached by Dr O’Leary, asking her if she would be a co-signatory of an open letter to Santos highlighting the potential risks to cultural heritage from its proposed underwater gas pipeline.

The EDO had asked Dr O’Leary to prepare the letter.

Dr Kearney replied that she was happy to be a signatory and “will have a read over the letter this morning”.

“Shall have a read now and get back to you asap,” she wrote.

Dr Kearney was approached for comment.

A spokesman for the EDO said Dr Kearney was a recognised expert in anthropology and sea country and had been engaged by a number of organisations.

The opposition has pledged to pull commonwealth funding for the EDO if elected, and opposition resources spokeswoman Susan McDonald has flagged her intent to raise the conduct of the EDO and Dr O’Leary with the National Anti-Corruption Commission.

NACC has the capacity to investigate the recipients of commonwealth grants, and both the EDO and Dr O’Leary have received federal funding.

Earlier this week, energy analyst Saul Kavonic said “lawfare” by activists and the EDO were hurting both Indigenous Australians and the nation’s investment attractiveness.

Mr Kavonic, an analyst with MST Marquee, said organisations including the EDO were bringing legal challenges against major projects to not just delay or block those developments but to try to end a large part of Australia’s resources industry.