Indigenous treaty negotiations to include mine veto in Queensland

Indigenous corporations will push for the power to veto mines in culturally sensitive areas as part of landmark treaty negotiations.

Joshua Gorringe, the general manager of the Mithaka Aboriginal Corporation cret stone structures. Picture: Lyndon Mechielsen

Indigenous corporations will push for the power to veto mines in environmentally and culturally sensitive areas as part of landmark treaty negotiations with the Queensland government.

Joshua Gorringe, the general manager of the Mithaka Aboriginal Corporation in western Queensland, says a priority for a future Mithaka treaty with the state would be the right to block resources projects on their ­traditional land.

Queensland Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Partnerships Minister Craig Crawford told The Australian that First Nations groups could put “anything on the table” during treaty negotiations.

Mr Crawford also flagged that individual treaties could be worth hundreds of millions of dollars apiece, reflecting the devastating impact of British colonisation on the state’s Indigenous peoples.

The Labor government passed the historic Path to Treaty legislation last week, with the backing of the Liberal National Party opposition, describing it as “setting the standard” in Indigenous-government relations.

The Mithaka have been calling on the government to rule out development of future resources projects in waterways on the Lake Eyre Basin flood plain, but Mr Gorringe said the government had been full of “empty promises”.

The Australian has previously revealed that the government has delayed the release of its plan for environmental protections across the Lake Eyre Basin because it is trying to facilitate future mines in the northern part of the basin.

Mr Gorringe said his people were supportive of resources projects if they were appropriately located and suggested a right to have a say on suitable mining sites was something that they could put forward in the treaty process.

“We’d love to see some more restrictions put on mining over the flood plains and all that kind of stuff as well,” he said.

“To have an actual say, not just a tokenistic say, where our opinion actually counts for something.

“We know that we need resources (projects).

“We’re not that naive or stupid to think that we are going to survive on air only but there are spots where it’s going to be less detrimental to the environment and our songlines and cultural sites associated with the river systems and flood plains.”

Truth for Treaty Interim board member Mick Gooda.

The Mithaka people are the traditional owners of a vast 55,425sq km portion of southwestern Queensland that rivals Tasmania in size.

Asked how much compensation his people would seek as part of a treaty, Mr Gorringe was unsure.

“Compensation is an extremely hard one,” he said.

“How do you put a value on cultural loss? We’ve lost a lot of our language, song, dance, ceremony stuff, purely because of colonisation. What dollar value do you put on that?

“If a government told everyone, ‘Righto, we don’t believe in God anymore’, how does that affect society? Is it worth $100m?”

Mr Gorringe compared trying to find a dollar value on sacred sites like the Jukkan Gorge caves, destroyed by miner Rio Tinto, with ascertaining a value for Notre Dame Cathedral.

“It’s a really complicated thing,” he said.

“I think a lot of people would be looking at some kind of compensation, but it’s a million-dollar question as to how that would work.

“One size won’t fit all.”

Mr Gorringe said Mithaka negotiations would be based on ensuring the corporation was self-sustaining and able to employ its people. That could include ownership of cattle stations or businesses in mining, environmental protection and tourism industries that the corporation currently contracts workers to.

Mick Gooda, a member of Queensland’s Interim Truth and Treaty Body who has been consulting with First Nations people about treaties since 2019, said many treaty parties would want an acknowledgment of sovereignty and past atrocities.

“A lot of people will talk about sovereignty; we are a sovereign people, and some people will as a result talk about colonisation and removals,” said Mr Gooda, Australia’s former Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander social justice commissioner.

“As for compensation, it’s up to each group to make their decision about what they want.”

Mr Gooda said “just about every treaty party” would push for joint decision-making on elements of government services such as education, health, youth justice and housing, and joint management of national parks.

For example in child protection policy, Mr Gooda said a ­treaty party could ask that decisions usually made by the state government department about foster care or kinship care could be delegated to a local Aboriginal organisation.

He pointed to a situation in the Northern Territory in which police had agreed with local elders to not enter men’s lore camps in order to arrest suspects.

“There’s a protocol now – if someone is wanted by the police, the police would have to go to the senior elder group, and the elder would undertake to bring the person out of the camp,” Mr Gooda said. “That could be done in Queensland, if the treaty party wanted.”

He said even if a traditional owner group had not been recognised as native title holders, such as the Bidjara people over the Carnarvon Gorge national park, there could still be a treaty negotiated, and joint management of the national park awarded.