'twere a concealment
Worse than a theft, no less than a traducement,
To hide your doings; and to silence that,
Which, to the spire and top of praises vouch'd,
Would seem but modest.
Coriolanus Act one, Scene nine.
I have not
published any posts on Groote or the Anindilyakwa Land Council (ALC) since
February, when I published two posts on the inadequacies of the NIAA’s
responses to previous Senate Estimates Questions on Notice (link
here and link
here) and a more general post explaining why pursuing an understanding of
what has transpired on Groote, and how it has been allowed to occur, is
important (link
here).
Since then, several
noteworthy developments have occurred or come to my attention.
Manganese
sales. Perhaps of most
significance in economic terms has been the resumption of sales of manganese
ore by South32 subsidiary GEMCO (link
here and link
here) following the considerable cyclone damage to the Alyangula wharf last
year. That damage disrupted sales and export of manganese ore from the GEMCO mine
and led to a temporary halt to the flow of royalty payments to the Groote
Eylandt Aboriginals Trust (GEAT), to the Anindilyakwa Mining Trust (AMT) and a
halt in section 64(3) royalty equivalent payments from the Aboriginals Benefit
Account (ABA) to the ALC for onward distribution to local corporations.
GEMCO legal
action. In October
2024, the Supreme Court of the NT published a decision on a largely
procedural matter relating to a longstanding dispute between GEAT and the ALC regarding
rights to be paid royalties over yet to be developed mineral leases held by
GEMCO on Groote Eylandt (link
here). As an aside, that decision lays out a very useful account of the
history of mining on Groote, including the prescient taking up of exploration
permits by the Church Missionary Society which were then used to leverage a
royalty payment from BHP and led to the establishment of GEAT and the payments
of royalties based on that commercial agreement (and not Indigenous rights per
se).
According to
GEAT’s website (link here),
GEMCO took legal action to clarify the required allocation of royalty payments
to GEAT and the ALC derived from the new South and East mineral leases on
Groote. The dispute has been ongoing since 2016. The GEAT website reports that
following a mediation in February 2025, the parties to the litigation signed a
Heads of Agreement, and that subject to the finalisation of some technical
legal conditions, the dispute between GEAT and the ALC will be resolved. The
terms of the mediation were to remain confidential. I am yet to see any
confirmation that the resolution has occurred and on what terms. The GEAT
Management Committee notes that the resolution of the dispute will be ‘a big
step forward’ for GEAT and its beneficiaries and ‘a great outcome for the
community’.
ALC staff
changes. Following the
termination for unspecified reasons of the former CEO, Mark Hewitt by the ALC
in October 2024 (link
here), the ALC appointed its Chief Financial Officer, Colin Wakefield, as Acting
CEO. In April the ALC announced (link
here) the appointment of Matthew Bonson, a former ALP member of the NT Parliament
from 2001 to 2008. He served in several ministerial roles during that period (link here).
Winchelsea
and Little Paradise EPA updates. The
EPA website includes a detailed web page with a chronological listing of the
initial application and all subsequent EPA decisions and proponent variations.
Winchelsea Mining lodged its initial
application with the NT Environmental Protection Authority in 2020, signed by
Winchelsea CEO Mark Hewitt (link here). The initial proposal was accepted for
consideration by the EPA in 2021 (link
here and link
here) where the EPA advised that an Environmental Impact Statement would be
required. The proposal described the mine on Winchelsea Island and the
supporting infrastructure:
To
develop and operate an open cut manganese mine at Winchelsea Island
(Akwamburkba) and Groote Eylandt, East Arnhem, about 600 km southeast of
Darwin. Strip mining using free digging and rock breaking would be undertaken
to extract ore and overburden. Mine infrastructure would include run-of-mine
and ore stockpiling areas, a processing plant, workshops, haul and access
roads, a product conveyor from the processing area to the wharf, a jetty and a
boat ramp. Product would be direct loaded from the conveyor onto ships for
export. Supporting infrastructure would be located at Little Paradise Bay
on Groote Eylandt, approximately 6 km southwest of the mine site, and include
a barge landing ramp and jetty, access roads, a logistics hub and a 100-person
accommodation camp. The disturbance footprint is 659 hectares, and the mine
life would be approximately 14 years (emphasis
added).
Subsequently
there were two significant variations made by the proponents (in 2021 and 2023)
and subsequent consultation processes undertaken by the EPA. In October 22023,
the EPA issued terms of reference outlining the required content of the
necessary EIS. The proponent’s EIS was finalised in December 2023 (link
here). It is an extensive document (the Executive Summary runs to 89 pages).
Section Two of the Executive Summary titled Project Purpose places the
proposed mine within its institutional context. This section makes clear that the
proposed mine is seen as part of the ALC’s high level strategic objectives:
In
response to the need for a self-sufficient and sustainable local economy
following cessation of mining by GEMCO, and the desire for greater
self-governance, the Anindilyakwa Land Council (ALC) developed the 15-Year
Strategic Plan 2012- 2027 (ALC, 2012). In line with its Strategic Plan, the ALC
entered into a series of agreed reforms with the NT Government to take over
control of core services and functions for the communities and region. As part
of the reforms, the NT Government and ALC established Local Decision-Making
Agreements (LDMAs), with the aim of transitioning control for services and
decision-making to the Anindilyakwa people, as the Traditional Owners of the
Groote Archipelago. A key commitment by the NT Government in the LDMAs was the
support and advice to Traditional Owners to conduct exploration and mining in
the Groote Archipelago, in accordance with recognised rights of Traditional
Owners to utilise their natural resources [page 14].
The Winchelsea
Funding structure laid out in Figure E-3 [page16] makes no mention of Little
Paradise. In section 8 headed Holistic Impacts, the Little Paradise
development being progressed by Groote Holding Aboriginal Corporation (GHAC) is
cast as ancillary to the mine and not part of it.
Public
consultation on the Draft EIS took place in the first half of 2024. In July
2024, the EPA issued a Direction to include Additional Information in
relation to an extensive list of matters (link
here) and required that a revised EIS be prepared and submitted within two
years. Two issues caught my attention: first, the EPA concluded that the
draft EIS did not demonstrate how the claimed transformational residual
economic benefits the Groote Archipelago and Indigenous residents and
directed the proponents to more specific details [item 25]. Second, the EPA
also noted that the EIS did not provide adequate information in relation
to the proposed 50-person accommodation camp and other supporting
infrastructure to be developed by a separate entity [ie GHAC’s Little Paradise
development] and directed that it be included in the EIS.
The EPA website
also includes details of an application lodged by GHAC in relation to the Little
Paradise marine and logistics hub in August 2024 (link
here). According to the proposal (page i), the project is designed to
support the long-term economic and social future of all Anindilyakwa clans of
the Groote Archipelago, and includes a marina facility, associated biosecurity
compounds, logistics camp and aquaculture facility. The development is a key
component of GHAC’s plan to secure a sustainable long-term economy for the
Anindilyakwa. According to GHAC’s Little Paradise Development Report:
GHAC
was formed as a commercial entity to support Traditional Owner commercial
activity on their land that accords with the governance requirements in section
23 of the Land Rights Act. GHAC was initiated in the 2012 ALC 15-year Strategic
Plan — a plan driven by Community Elders to reverse the decisions made over the
last 100 years and reassert control over Anindilyakwa destiny. In line with its
Strategic Plan, the ALC in 2018 entered a series of agreed reforms with the NT
Government to take over control of core services and functions….
…The
mandate of GHAC is to support and progress major projects and hold in-trust
major infrastructure and assets as well as provide services for social and
economic development of all Traditional Owners. ALC and GHAC are actively
working to establish projects that deliver a living cultural economy providing
inter-generational opportunities to participate in the learning and delivery of
both contemporary pursuits and culturally significant traditional practices
The EPA website
indicates that on 25 March 2025, the GHAC proposal for a marine
infrastructure development at Little Paradise was withdrawn (link
here). No reasons were given.
Senate
Estimates Committee Hearings.
The most recent Hearings were held on 28 February 2025. The transcript (link
here) is rather desultory reading; not helped by the fact that the
Committee has no effective process in place to efficiently manage what is an
extensive agenda spanning the Indigenous policy domain.
The Chair,
Senator Pratt, invited the land councils to make extended opening statements
which conveniently serve to limit the time available for serious questions. The
ALC Chair, Cherelle Wurrawilya limited her pre-prepared comments (at page
39) to good news: ‘We have made
strong changes and will make more changes to continue what is best for the
Anindilyakwa people’. She mentioned that recruitment of the new CEO was
underway without commenting in any way on why the Council had terminated the
former CEO. She mentioned progress in establishing the Groote Archipelago
Regional Council: ‘A local council is what we always wanted for our people
to ensure we take back control for our local services’. She reported that construction
for the boarding school at Milyakburra will commence this year, with the
bilingual school system to begin operating in 2026. Finally, she noted ‘It
is a new year and the ALC board is committed to look forward, not backwards,
to determine our future. We will be getting on with the important functions of
the Anindilyakwa Land Council and delivering for the Anindilyakwa people…’ No
mention of an ongoing National Anti-Corruption Committee Investigation into the
ALC and/or its former CEO. No mention of the GEMCO litigation and the ALC’s dispute
with GEAT. No mention of the progress (or lack of progress) of the Winchelsea
Mine which the ALC has allocated tens of millions of dollars in section 64(3)
payments (see below). No mention of the progress (or lack of progress) of the
Little Paradise infrastructure hub which previously had been touted as central
to the ALC’s economic strategy for Groote, and which within a month would
seemingly be placed on the backburner (see above). Nothing to see here.
The rather lame
Committee members were seemingly oblivious to the extent to which they were
being taken for a ride, nor of their Panglossian complicity in gaslighting the public
at large that all is now well in this best of all possible worlds on Groote
Eylandt.
Senator
Nampijinpa Price (at page 41) asked about the ANAO’s audit recommendations, and
in particular which recommendations remain outstanding, the action taken to
implement the recommendations and a timeline for implementation. The acting
CEO’s response was a virtuoso display of technical and process-laden verbosity.
Senator Price moved on to ask whether Mr Hewitt had been involved in the
selection of the ALC Board [a strange question given that no-one to my
knowledge has ever suggested that he had been]. The Acting CEO responded: ‘Not
to my knowledge, no. It goes through a process as set out in the ILUA [sic:
should read ALRA]. The clans nominate their representatives to represent
them, the 14 clans on the board, and that process takes place. If there are
more than the number of nominees, it goes through the normal NT election
process.
In response to
a question from ALP Senator Ghosh, seeking information from each land council
on their most promising programs, the Acting CALC CEO stated (page 50):
At
ALC, we distribute 64-3 royalty money to many corporations. We receive funding
applications to be considered by a finance committee based on how the project
will benefit our Anindilyakwa people and how it falls in line with local
decision-making and aligns with our ALC strategic plan. So we go through that
process. Ultimately, funding decisions are made by the ALC board.
Narrowly factual
and succinct. No mention however of how the ALC handles the vexed issues of
conflicts of interest. No mention of the millions invested in the ALC backed
agenda for a mine on Winchelsea. No mention of the governance changes made
since the termination of the former CEO.
All in all, the
Estimates Hearing was hardly a forensic tour de force by the Senators
present. Labor Senators only wanted to hear the good news; the Opposition
spokesperson Senator Price, consistent with her previous approaches to the
accountability concerns with the ALC (link
here and link
here), did enough to allow her to claim in the future that she had not
ignored the issues being investigated by the NACC while not pursuing anything
of substance. The officials present delivered a sophisticated exercise in ensuring
the Parliament, the media and the public at large remain in the dark by
proactively avoiding any issues of contention or involving defective
accountability.
NACC status. In early 2024, the National
Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) received several complaints, including from
the NIAA in May 2024. At some point thereafter they initiated an investigation
into unspecified matters involving the ALC and potentially other corporations
based on Groote Eylandt. Multiple media outlets reported that they had visited
the ALC’s Offices on 16 October (the same day that the ALC terminated the
appointment of the former CEO Mark Hewitt). There have been no subsequent
statements from the NACC relating to these investigations. While rational
assessment would suggest it is a fool’s errand to predict when the
investigation might be finalised, the odds of this occurring over the next six
months must be increasing.
Concluding
comment
This overview
of recent developments, most of which have received little or no coverage in
the media nor in the public statements emanating from the ALC and the Minister,
provide a partial insight into the complexity of the wheels within wheels that
are currently revolving on Groote, in the ALC offices in Groote, Cairns and
Darwin, in the Board rooms of South32 and GEMCO, in various agencies of the NT
Government in Darwin, and in various agencies of the Federal Government in
Canberra. What is easily forgotten is that the lives of some 1500 people on
Groote, and the opportunities of their descendants, are impacted for better or
worse by the decisions reached as those wheels continue to revolve.
Over the past
decade, a series of developments have occurred which raise serious questions
regarding the quality of regulatory oversight over the actions of the ALC and
its staff. The decision of the ALC to in effect engage directly in commercial
activities, and particularly mining has been highly problematic. Its involvement
was funded largely by the allocation of royalty equivalents to corporations
which it appears to effectively control and was based on a ministerially
approved agreement which was fundamentally compromised by the fact that the key
individuals involved simultaneously sat on both sides of the negotiation. Where
was the regulatory oversight as all this was set in train and continued?
It is my
considered assessment that the quality of regulatory oversight by successive
ministers for Indigenous Australians and the agency that serves them, NIAA, has
been an egregious disaster. The case for greater transparency as a
counterbalance to the vested interests in play, and as a guarantee that the
Minister will ensure public accountability and the ALC will protect the
interests of its constituents (which is its fundamental statutory raison d’etre)
is inarguable.
In a
forthcoming post, I consider the outcomes of some recent FOI decisions in
relation to the operations of the ALC and its rather nebulous relationship with
the NIAA.
No comments:
Post a Comment