No one has done more for indigenous Australians than the mining industry

Australians concerned about indigenous constitutional reform should look to the mining industry as an example.

Marcia Langton says the mining industry has shown the way for indigenous negotiations. Picture: James Croucher

Australians concerned about the “Uluru Statement from the Heart” and the subsequent Referendum Council call for constitutional reform and a Makarrata Commission should look to the mining industry as an example of what such change might bring.

The definition of the Makarrata Commission in the Uluru Statement is “the culmination of our agenda: the coming together after a struggle. It captures our aspirations for a fair and truthful relationship with the people of Australia and a better future for our children based on justice and self-determination”.

Across the public, private and community sectors, no one has done more to advance a better future and self-determination for indigenous Australians than the mining industry, and to lead the transition from highly adversarial relationships to one of mutual respect, common goals, and partnerships through agreement.

The mining industry is the biggest private sector employer of indigenous Australians and by far the largest procurer of services from indigenous businesses. Over the past decade the mining industry has procured more than $5 billion dollars worth of services from indigenous businesses. By comparison all levels of government in all jurisdictions have procured less than 10 per cent of that value.

Prior to these developments, the relationship between miners and First Australians was ugly and conflictual. Over 150 years from the early 19th century gold rushes in Victoria, the mining industry, and governments of the day, worked in partnership to forcibly remove indigenous people from their land to ensure the mining companies could gain easy access to the resources below. In many instances the process of dispossession was brutal and permanent.

One of the better known battles was the decade-long fight by the Yolngu of northeast Arnhem Land to prevent mining on their traditional lands. While the Yolngu eventually lost their struggle in the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory in 1971, the process did deliver many important outcomes.

The Yirrkala Bark Petition of 1963, written in English and Yolngu Matha, was the first document to bridge the commonwealth law and the Yolngu laws. It was a response to the decision by the commonwealth government six months earlier to excise more than 300 square kilometres of Aboriginal land from the Arnhem Land reserve for the purposes of developing a bauxite mine. It led to the introduction of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 and the decision of Australia’s High Court in the Mabo case of 1992 to overturn the notion of terra nullius.

With their rights established under these laws, following negotiation of a new agreement four years ago, the Gumatj clan established the Dhupuma Mining Company to own and operate a bauxite mine on their traditional lands just outside of Nhulunbuy. They have built a mining training school to ensure a local workforce is ready to undertake the mining operations.

Galarrwuy Yunupingu was the translator for his father, other Yolngu leaders, and their legal team against the proposed mine more than 50 years ago. As chairman of the Dhupuma Mining Company today, he says the mine and training centre “are vital to the future of Yolngu people, as it will mean we can use our own assets to drive independence from government and ensure we equally share in the economic prosperity of the nation”.

The nadir in relationships came in the aftermath of the introduction of the Native Title Act 1993. The introduction of the act by Paul Keating was to remedy the uncertainty the Mabo decision had created for land users, such as miners and pastoralists.

The captains of the mining industry didn’t see it this way. They told Australians it would be the death knell of the industry, the country would be bankrupt, that it would result in people losing their backyards to Aboriginal claims and that Australians would not be able to access their local beach because Aboriginal people would have exclusive rights. The Australian Mining Industry Council was funded to wage a relentless campaign against native title, fighting the implementation of the act and its “future act” and “right to negotiate” provisions at every turn. It set up a well-resourced special taskforce called the Native Title Working Group to focus the efforts.

The mining industry held this position until 1996, when under the leadership of Leon Davis, Rio Tinto adopted a policy of respect for Aboriginal traditional owners. Seasoned practitioners at Rio like Paul Wand, Bruce Harvey and Janina Gawler developed this new approach in the face of immense pressure from other mining companies.

In 2002, a decade after the Mabo decision, the mining industry’s peak body, now the Minerals Council of Australia, determined that the high transactional costs of the native title process provided a business case for an alternative approach. The MCA scrapped the NTWG and set up the Indigenous Relations Working Group and tasked it with creating a way forward that worked for the mining industry and indigenous Australians. The Mining and Indigenous Leaders Dialogue was established to bring MCA board members and indigenous people to the table. Professor Mick Dodson was a member of the MCA’s External Sustainable Development Advisory Group and he invited leaders from the Native Title Representative Bodies across Australia.

This leaders’ dialogue was a Makarrata Commission in practice.

Over the past decade the Minerals Council of Australia and the National Native Title Council have worked closely together to influence government policy on matters as broad as taxation, environmental management, cultural heritage and economic development. The leaders’ dialogue has been an enormous success in driving positive changes for mining companies and indigenous Australians.

The IRWG started talks within industry, and to establish best practice, carried out a comprehensive review of existing agreements between mining companies and indigenous communities. This review resulted in a long-term study of agreements between mining companies and indigenous communities through annual company surveys to determine progress against best practice benchmarks.

It hosted an inaugural agreement-making workshop in Adelaide and more than 60 mining industry representatives attended and addressed the myths and negative stereotypes of agreement-making. The outcome was a set of eight indigenous relations principles that would guide the mining industry’s operations. The principles included matters such as “not contesting or seeking the extinguishment of native title”, “maximising economic development opportunities through jobs and business development” and “seeking free, prior and informed consent as part of the negotiation process”.

The guiding principles released with the Uluru Statement are very similar to the mining industry’s indigenous relations principles.

The Uluru Statement and Referendum Council report that followed it are asking Australians to understand and acknowledge our shared history and put in place the mechanisms for a brighter and shared future. They are asking us to support the establishment of a Makarrata Commission. Given the simplicity of the proposal, the reaction of many parliamentarians and media commentators has been perplexing. The commission is for the simple purpose of ensuring indigenous Australians have input into the development of laws, policies and programs that affect indigenous Australians, and also to supervise a process of agreement-making between governments and First Nations.

There are over 2000 indigenous land use agreements registered under the Native Title Act in Australia, with most relating to resource projects. These agreements cover land access and use, payments, procurement requirements, cultural heritage protections and education scholarships. They deliver secure land access to mining projects and economic and social benefits to tens of thousands of traditional owners across Australia.

The changes in the relationship between the mining industry and indigenous Australia are instructive for all of us. The mining industry has come to terms with its history and has turned a dark past into a bright future.

With similar commitment, understanding and support for the Uluru Statement, Australians can also ensure that First Australians take their place at the heart of the cultural, social and economic life of our great nation.

Marcia Langton is foundation chair of Australian indigenous studies at the University of Melbourne.