Central Land Council

Mining

Introduction

Aboriginal people have been involved with the mining industry since it first started in Australia. Early mining activities were often the catalyst for confrontations over access to land and water resources. While government policies from the early 1900s restricted mining on Aboriginal reserves, mining interests were eventually able to gain access to mineral deposits through the revocation of these reserves. During the assimilationist policies of the 1950s mining on Aboriginal land was supported with provisions to exact a small percentage of income from these activities for the benefit of Aboriginal people in the form of royalties payed into an Aboriginal Benefits Trust Fund.

These funds were first used to Aboriginal benefit in the late 1960s. The Aboriginal Land Rights (NT) Act 1976 gives Aboriginal people the right to make their own decisions about exploration and mining proposals on Aboriginal freehold land granted under the Act. Mining exploration and development agreements, which have been negotiated on Aboriginal land since the passage of this Act, have had to address the concerns of the Aboriginal land owners.

Overview of Aboriginal perceptions of mining

The Aboriginal people consulted about mining provided responses which ranged from strong support for mining development to strong opposition. The reasons given for these positions varied but they can be connected to past experience with mining activities, the conflicts between traditional Law and the real and perceived physical and social impacts of mining. A large number of respondents supported mining on their country provided they were able to maintain control over where these activities took place. Some respondents were against mining per se. Those who were, usually recalled situations where they felt their rights had been compromised by the activities of a mining company or its agents. The main concern held about mining activities was for the protection of sacred sites. Most people raised this issue first and many indicated that given adequate protection of these sites, mining could be seen as a possible activity on their land.

Another concern which many people raised was for the safety of those working in the mines and for those who might travel on that country at a later date. A widely held view was that mining, if not controlled properly, could damage the Dreaming underneath the ground. These concerns were amplified because underground mining activities were obscured from people's view and the extent of activities was not clear. The effects of mining on the physical environment are viewed differently by Aboriginal people. When these effects were raised most respondents dismissed them but suggested that any changes to the country should be "put back" by the mining company after they had finished.

A few respondents said that mining had poisoned their country and that animals had died as a result of drinking contaminated water.

Acceptance of mining

Many of the respondents were not opposed outright to mining on their lands. Many Warlpiri people, for example, expressed the view that it is better that someone is able to use the land than to let it lie idle which would amount to a neglect of the land. However, a number of conditions were stipulated which people wanted met before any mining activities would be supported. These are detailed in the following sections.

Aboriginal control

The most important aspect for Aboriginal people to do with mining was Aboriginal control.

All respondents, those who supported mining activities and those who were fundamentally opposed said that Aboriginal people had to have control; that being the right to say yes or no to mining interests; the ability to direct where mining activities take place to protect sacred sites; and the right to be effectively consulted and kept informed before and during mining operations. The research conducted for this study suggests that the level of control Aboriginal people have had over mining activities in the past directly affects how they view current mining interests.

Early mining activities, a significant proportion of which took place around the Tennant Creek area and to the east of the Stuart Highway, largely ignored Aboriginal interests. More recent mining agreements in the Tanami region negotiated under the Aboriginal Land Rights (NT) Act 1976 have given Aboriginal people significant power to make decisions, to negotiate over details of mining operations and to bargain for financial arrangements which are acceptable to them. To date exploration has been consented to over some 40,000 sq. kms of Aboriginal land in the Tanami region alone. This region is now a significant gold producing province of national status.

Many people from around the Tennant Creek region expressed anti-mining sentiments, recalling that they had not received any benefits from mining in the past and that in the past significant sites had been damaged by mining. Younger people, however, showed some support for mining with the observation that they might now, under the provisions of the Aboriginal Land Rights Act, be able to negotiate to get benefits similar to those achieved by the Warlpiri on their land in the Tanami region. The main response from Anmatyerre people was that mining was seen as a good thing provided traditional owners were able to maintain control over it.

"Traditional owners know the country, they can tell the miners where to go. If sacred sites not damaged then its okay." Mining was seen as an appropriate form of land use "as long as they stay where they should be inside the boundary it's okay."

While some Pintupi people said that mining damages the country there was not a strong feeling either for or against mining activities. "It's up to the people who belong to the country to talk for or against and to talk for their sacred sites. People got to tell them where they can go."

For example at one outstation near Papunya respondents said that "Some people say it's okay for mining around here. There is an agreement for some mining and that is okay but this is not a blanket okay, its up to the traditional owners of the country, they have to know about it each time and they can decide." Respondents from Gurinji country expressed similar concerns. The need for traditional owners to identify where mining can take place was also stressed. "For mining, I am thinking the other way. You know they have to go to the right place where we got the block, he can't dig around other place. That's an important thing, they got to talk to us about where they can come, they got to stay away from those important places that's very important for all people.'

Sacred site protection

Aboriginal concerns over mining are largely based on a perceived threat of damage to sacred sites. Many people recalled damage to sacred sites having been caused by mining activities or by the associated development of roads and tracks. The type of protection which is deemed adequate by Aboriginal traditional owners varies widely depending on the nature of the site and the type of activity proposed. For some sites adequate protection was simply the avoidance of physical damage. In other instances adequate protection for a site included restrictions as to who may safely view the site and the sorts of activities that may be undertaken on the surrounding country. Some areas of land were believed to be too dangerous for any type of mining activity to take place.

Rehabilitation

Respondents always drew a distinction between the possible effects of mining on sacred sites and the physical damage to country caused by mining. Many respondents said that mining was acceptable provided the country was fixed up when they finished. This implies that mining is seen as an agent of damage to the country. At the same time it was recognised that the country would be changed by mining activities even where rehabilitation was carried out. For example, some said "mining alright outside sacred sites, but they got to fix up what they damage, but they can't stand em up big trees." For most respondents, however, these changes are not the primary concern, especially where sacred sites are not affected. For most respondents physical changes away from sacred sites was not the major concern. Few respondents raised concern over aesthetic issues such as the visual impact of large tailings heaps in areas of natural low relief.

Some people were concerned that the holes in the ground could be physically dangerous and that they should be made safe in the event of the closure of a mine. Others were concerned about the impacts of mining on wildlife citing instances where animals had been poisoned by contamination around mining sites. Several women said that contamination could come from the mine and suggested that bush food around the mine was poisonous. In the Tanami region many respondents suggested that the country had to be returned to the way it was before mining. From the consultations undertaken it is difficult to suggest what level of rehabilitation Aboriginal people would see as adequate.

"When they finish mining they got to cover him over, cover him up so he back good again." It is likely that rehabilitation acceptable to traditional owners would be different to that which is normally carried out, stressing decontamination and safety aspects over aesthetic concerns. Traditional owners aspirations for rehabilitation will become clearer when they are able to view a minesite which has ceased operation and is rehabilitated to industry standard.

Changes to the land

As previously discussed, changes to the landscape such as the tailings mounds associated with the mining operations at the Tanami and Granites mines were not seen a big issue. When asked if they were concerned about these features respondents from Yuendumu said, "we don't think about those hills." This response could also be clouded by the fact that people would be reluctant to say anything critical if it was someone else's country.

On site visits to the mines respondents were more impressed by the magnitude and industry of the operation than by any concern over the visible impact of mining operations. People saw clearly that the land has been changed by mining activities but the changes were viewed as a demonstration of the wealth of the land. Some people showed pride that their country was seen as valuable enough for the mining company to expend their efforts working there. That is, the wealth of the land, which traditional owners have always recognised, is now also recognised by the miners. Visible damage to the country did not seem to be the most important factor in any decision about mining.

Concern over danger to the miners and other visitors to the country (see 9.4.5) and the issue of sacred sites was seen as far more important. Consultation "People have to talk for their proper lands." In discussions about mining most respondents raised the issue of consultation and who talks for where. Consultation is an extremely important issue for Aboriginal people and the effects of improper or ineffective consultations were identified by respondents as the cause of many of the problems with mining. During research for this report it was extremely important to be aware of the effects of ownership of land on the answers being provided to questions. Respondents were reluctant to offer an opinion about mining if they were not traditional owners for the land where the interview was taking place. For example, many responses to questions about mining were at first perceived as negative only to find later through interpretation that the response was indicating inability or reluctance to talk about the issue on someone else's land. The same person may proffer a positive opinion about mining when it is clarified that the mining in question is in relation to their proper country, the place they have the right to speak for.

Many respondents claimed that there were "too many meetings" about mining. In these meetings traditional owners had to state and re-state their positions in relation to mining when any new mining Exploration Licence Application was lodged over their land. While the benefits of this process in terms of "look around money", and being kept informed of mining activities and interests are recognised, some expressed concern that the constant round of meetings and consultations were an ever present intrusion into their life. "We can sit down on our country but we have to wait for Land Council to bring out those miners all the time I've been travelling. Look around over there, all around, keep looking, keep coming back, asking all the time for meeting. I'm too busy now for meeting, I just want that outstation, my family there."

Women's view

Some issues raised by respondents were that women were not very well consulted and that there were too many meetings where people were asked the same questions. Many women complained that in the past they had been sidelined from meaningful discussions about mining. They said that they had not received their fair share of income from mining and had been not been given the information they needed to understand the mining process properly. In particular the roles of the CLC, the mining company and their rights as traditional owners could be clearer.

In many areas women expressed concern over the effects of the mining on the land. They often related that the land is the body of Aboriginal people and damage to the land was damaging people. "When we see that mine we feel a bit sorry because we don't want to see the ground drilled like that. They make me sad to see that mining. It's close to the road so we need a new road. The ground is the body for Yaapa people. When they dig it up might be an earthquake." Some people complain there is a wealth imbalance being created by the payment of royalties to some and not others.

In the majority of cases it is likely that women will miss out on the distribution of monies. This is compounded by the fact that relationships which define resource distribution within the community are not necessarily the same as the relationships of descent and inheritance of land. Women complained that money given to the men often did not reach them because it was spent on grog and cars. They wanted the money to be spent on community welfare rather than left for individuals to squander. Research undertaken into women's attitudes to mining identifies problems they experience in the consultation process. The fact that many of the consultations are dominated by men reduces the ability of women to communicate freely.

This lack of communication has a number of ramifications for women.

It limits their power in the community social structure because it downgrades their role as traditional owners in making decisions over country. The involvement of men in the "look around" phase tends to mean that many women, particularly the younger generation, regard some of this country as men's country. The older women used to walk around on this country and pointed out how they know the Dreamings and the country but their roles as custodians are diminished throughout the community by the exclusive involvement of men in the exploration and mining consultation process.

The impact of the consultation process

The social impact of the consultation process on Aboriginal communities is significant. Research carried out on behalf of the Land Council in the Tanami region (Bornman, 1988, Wafer, 1988.) identified a number of effects of consultations as they were perceived by Aboriginal people. As many of the licence areas overlap with Dreaming tracks, individuals find themselves involved with a great number of meetings. It is also important to remember the considerable amount of time spent before and after meetings in discussion about the issues arising at the meetings and settling the grievances resulting from the meetings.

Many meetings introduce new problems to the community which have to be settled but there is rarely the time for this to take place. The normal and often time consuming procedure for dispute settlement cannot run its full course leaving people pressured into making hasty decisions which compound the problems faced by the already unsettled parties. Dissatisfaction with meetings results from a number of factors. Those who do not receive payments but who wish to do so will see meetings as worthwhile attending.

The important part of the meeting is seen as the consent or refusal, with little interest in the legal details of agreements. It is acknowledgment of the ownership and rights which is valued. Despite the complaints about meetings there is the perception that if people do not attend a meeting they will miss out. The attendance and discussion with Land Council staff and recording of relationships to the country and genealogies is seen as legitimating the claim of ownership. The process of collecting information has a major social impact, whereby researchers must spend time with particular people in the community who gain significant social status from these contacts.

This often means that those who speak better English are initially targeted for information while older people who should be consulted about cultural information are overlooked or bypassed. Problems arising from this aspect of the consultation process include: the information obtained may not be detailed enough or accurate; the consulted persons may become spokespersons in their own right because they "know the Land Council business"; Some of these people try to "bend" the rules in order to maximise benefits to them and to their families.

The effects of recording cultural information at any time needs to be considered as it may be detrimental to the dynamic nature of Aboriginal culture and spiritual beliefs. "Mining agreements have an impact of freezing the social truth at a moment in time and (undoubtedly) skew the construction of social reality as people jockey for advantage.." (Altman, 1983).

The perceived benefits of mining

1. Financial benefits

Aboriginal people perceive a number of benefits from mining on their land. The most obvious being financial.Income from mining activities is generated in a number of ways.

1. Through negotiated payments derived from individual mining agreements. These are distributed by the Land Council through incorporated Aboriginal bodies.

1. Through statutory royalty equivalents whereby payments are made by the Commonwealth to the ABTA which is divided between the Land Councils for operational costs, Aboriginal commuities affected by mining operations and other NT Aborigines.

1. Via lease money derived from leasing the land to the mining company for the development of infrastructure.

1. As compensation for social and physical disturbance during exploration. All negotiated payments are distributed to Aboriginal people by the relevant land council.

Discussions about mining activities also generally included discussions about income from mining. For many people the income is the most important issue. At Lajamanu respondents said "mining is good. We want those people to work – we want the money. When those sacred sites are protected then mining can come." An equally important issue is frustration with the income distribution process. While many traditional owners receive income from mining on their land there are many whose land is not considered prospective and whose level of financial benefit is negligible.

For groups who do receive mining royalties the number of people involved can be so large that each member receives very little. For example a traditional owner for the Mereenie area where there is petroleum extraction taking place recounted that "I don't get much money from that. I am a traditional owner but I don't get any money. Next time any one from mining comes out to see me I should say no. You can't even buy your own clothes, nothing for the kids and the family. Some people only getting $12 each." Access to services Mine development in remote areas has some impact on Aboriginal people through the possibility of access to services and provisions from the mining company.

In the Tanami, for example, Warlpiri people are able to purchase fuel and stores from the mining company and have received other assistance such as mechanical repairs to vehicles. These benefits are immediate and tangible to the community and are seen as important by some people. While financial income is seen as more important the value of services from the mining community has a greater significance in this context. While such services are not part of the mining agreements in the Tanami, people suggested that the mines should provide more of a service to them in terms of fuel, repairs and even medical treatment. Through these services there is, in some cases, a certain degree of dependency being fostered. When these mining operations close there will need to be alternative arrangements made to provide these services.

1. Access roads and tracks

Another benefit from mining activity which many people mentioned is improved access to country. Exploration results in the production of a series of roads and tracks. Rather than being seen as damage to country these tracks are often regarded as being of benefit to Aboriginal people because they increase the possibility of access to remote areas by vehicle. When respondents were asked about the effect of these tracks on the country they indicated that they were not an issue.

There is also no concern over the risk of exposing the soil to erosion which has occurred in some areas. "We don't worry about that roads, we only worry about those really important things you know." What about if that road starts to wash away, is that a problem, do you worry about that? "He can wash away that's alright. People can use that road now to go out on that country to get goannas and look after that country." Reaffirmation of the worth of the land As previously mentioned many Warlpiri people suggested it was better to see mining on the land than to see the land unused as this would amount to neglect. This view was also raised in other areas where the prospect that mining may come to their land was viewed by some with enthusiasm. The reason given for this reaction was that the country was wealthy and to work with the land was good because it needed people to look after it.

It is seen as good to have people working the land extracting wealth from the country. It is a demonstration of the wealth of the land that Europeans are interested in using its resources. When traditional owners speak about their country they reaffirm the ability of that land to provide all that they need to live. When others express interest in that country traditional owners' views are vindicated. The wealth that they see in the land is being recognised by others. When positive responses such as this were given respondents were also asked what mining activities they knew about to ascertain their level of awareness of what mining might involve.

Responses to these questions often indicated that their comprehension of the issues was unclear. People were only aware that mining might mean money for them and their communities and could increase their power both in Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal circles.

1. Employment for young people

The level of employment of Aboriginal people in mining operations on Aboriginal land is negligible. The issue of employment is often raised on behalf of Aboriginal people as it would seem to be a benefit which Aboriginal people should receive. The consultations indicate that Aboriginal interest in employment with the mining industry is very low. Very few respondents raised the issue of employment at all during discussions about mining. Some older people said that there should be more employment for young people with mining. However, no younger people suggested that they would like to work at a mine. On a site visit to The Granites mine with young people from Yuendumu there was little interest in finding employment at the mine. The mining environment was seen as alien, a strange and dangerous enclave within their traditional lands. The atmosphere of the mine site, and the attitude of mining companies to Aboriginal presence, make this a place Aboriginal people would prefer to stay away from.Employment at the mine is further restricted by the social and living conditions which would be disagreeable to Aboriginal workers.

The problem with mining

While much of the information above indicates that many Aboriginal people are not against mining there are many Aboriginal people who are. Some gave reasons why they are against mining activities while others were simply reluctant to talk about it. We don't want to talk about mining Aboriginal people often find it difficult to oppose a position, preferring instead to remain silent. When asked about support for mining it may be seen as polite to offer no opinion rather than a negative response. For example at Angarapa respondents said "If a miner comes we don't say anything – we don't want him." Similarly at Irrerlirre community, which is an excision on McDonald Downs Station, there was little interest in discussing the issue of mining. This reluctance to talk about mining may have been because the people spoken to did not have the right under Aboriginal Law to talk about the country in this social context or it may be that such questions are not relevant when people have no control over mining on their country in the first place.

Dreamings go underneath

Sacred site protection was the most common concern of those opposed to mining. The integrity of Dreaming sites and trails is of the utmost importance. Many respondents raised the issue that they were concerned for Dreaming trails under the ground, not just those sites above ground, and complained about the emphasis placed on the latter in discussions over mining. People said that they could not understand why whitefellas did not see the danger to the "Dreaming underneath."

"Those whitefellas all the time worried for rock and tree but they got more in the ground. The Dreaming goes underneath, that's where the life is. Where it all came, it came out from that site, but it went down there now still. We people got to look after that one or we're all dead."

The danger mining poses to the Dreaming under the ground was mentioned by many respondents. At Yuendumu people said the "Dreaming is not on top like whitefellas think" and mining can damage it. There is no distinction between what is on top and what is beneath the surface, it is all "the land."

"Cutting mine through Dreaming – that Dreaming goes underneath." At Lajamanu many people were pro-mining, perhaps reflecting the financial benefits they received from the Tanami desert mines. However, there were some in the community who were against it for these same reasons; the money was disruptive and the danger to all from damage to the Dreaming was a real concern.

"Mining people think for that money all the time. One day all these holes will make the earth crack, they'll find him hell inside, Devil you know. They might find that Dreaming place underneath, where it goes underneath the ground and things will start to shake."

The recent earthquakes at Tennant Creek were said to be caused by mining activities which had damaged the Dreaming.

Damages the country

For Aboriginal people "land" and "country" are not words which describe purely physical entities. Both terms include a considerable and inseparable spiritual element so it is meaningless to talk about "country" without also talking about sacred sites. In this context damage to the country was one of most important concerns of those who were anti-mining.

At Antarrengenye outstation there was a firm response to open questions about mining. "Mining damages the country. People out here are worried to stop that mining. We only look after sacred sites and if miners come out here we tell them to go look around somewhere else because we don't want him. Every mining, they got to go into the Land Council first before they come around here." Similarly at Atnwengerrpe community; "they don't come around on this country, nothing around on this country. They mess up the country." At Mulga Bore on Atartinga Station, "we don't like that mining, makes too much mess on the countryside, they just dig a hole and leave him."

At Papunya there was a range of opinions about mining; however people largely said that the decisions were up to traditional owners but mining was not seen as being a bad thing for their country. "Sometimes they have an argument over money, there's already some mining on the country, more should be left till next time. That mining is okay when they cover him up afterwards but it's up to traditional owners to talk for that one." At Ulambeara outstation near Papunya concern over damage to the country was the reason they did not want to have any more mining there. At Alkipi outstation mining was said to "frighten the animals away, damage the country. After mining the animals can't find their way, or food, because they make a mess." At Karlampurlpa contamination from mining was the main concern.

"We don't like the mining. It kills all the trees and bush food. Our wild animals come up to drink the water and they die. They destroying everything, we knock them back." Similarly at Kunayungku community; "Mining is the big thing. We got to stop them from damaging the country, killing all the wildlife. Mining business disturbs the country and scares the animals away. We've seen some dead ones around, might be that they drink some poison water. Sometimes all the trees are dying. The bush tucker is going too and that's important for us to live in the bush."

At Nyirrpi community people were concerned over damage to the country but also said that traditional owners have to make the decisions. "Mining muck up the countryside but it's up to the traditional owners, they getting paid for it." Social disruption (Too much fighting) Problems associated with mining included the disturbances caused through fighting over the distribution of mining monies, and disruption to the community through increased access to vehicles and alcohol. Many respondents said these were the worst things about mining although paradoxically others see these things as the main benefits of mining on their land. The distribution and eligibility for monies leads to many social problems.

Traditional systems of resource distribution do not handle the distribution of mining monies very well. Jealousy and greed can turn a resource distribution process based on responsibility and apparently altruistic behaviour on its head. Some people at Yuendumu for example said of mining that: "We like him but jealous of one another with who going to be boss. The money that comes to the traditional owners can cause fights. Overall it's a bad thing – don't want more mines."

Rivalries over the right to receive monies have been complicated by the social disturbances caused through the removal and resettlement of large numbers of people under the influences of pastoralism, missionary activity and assimilationist government policy. Traditional ownership to some areas is difficult to ascertain because the people living there now may have no ownership rights, or they may have earned such rights through their occupation. At Areyonga for example there is considerable rivalry between the Arrernte and Pitjantjatjara groups over the distribution of disbursed royalties and pipeline rentals. The Pitjantjatjara people now resident at Areyonga were annoyed that they had not received any money while the Arrernte mob had. The dispute arose because the mining activity is taking place on what is traditionally Arrernte country, even though Pitjantjatjara people have now been residing in the area for a considerable period of time.

There are similar situations in other areas, for example in the northern Tanami area where the Warlpiri people are now resident on what was traditionally Gurindji land. Disputes within Aboriginal society over the rights to particular pieces of land are not new. However, royalties and the imposition of artificial dispute resolution processes, such as resorting to white law are, and they have confused the situation.

Safety concerns

One of the great concerns of traditional owners is for the safety of people on their lands. People feel responsible for those who come on to their lands, whether they are tourists, visitors or mine workers. In the case of mines there is considerable concern for the safety of those working underground. Many people said that they were worried that the mines might collapse. Others worried about the mine precipitating problems through contravening Aboriginal Law. At Atheley mining was seen as being dangerous, not just to the miners or to the people in the community but to all people including whitefellas in other areas. This is a result of some power or poison in the ground that mining might bring out.

"We don't want miners coming around here. They might do the wrong thing, go to the wrong place and get blind [there is a local sacred site which if disturbed causes blindness], problem for everyone, poison in the ground. They'll do the wrong thing." At Utopia (Angarrapa) homestead mining is viewed with concern because there are a number of places of restricted access in the vicinity. "I'm worried about people coming out to look around on my country. They don't know where to go and they might look in the wrong places and get bad blood or bung-eye too. There's different dangerous places, bung-eye place." The respondent went on to say that "if a miner comes we don't say anything – we don't want him."

At Nyirrpi community people said that they were worried about the possibility of accidents at the mine site. The main concern was that the ground might cave in from the mining underground. At Yuendumu similar safety concerns were recorded. "We are frightened of the roads underground because when it rains they might fall down, no good. When they finish the mining they got to bury them back, because holes dangerous and someone might be fall in him." Another concern which was raised by people in the Tanami area was the effect of mining traffic on the roads.

There was concern over the noise of trucks on the highway and damage to the road making it difficult for driving. There was also concern about the danger posed by mining machines and road trains on the roads. Where these roads are in poor repair or where they are narrow it is felt to be a safety hazard.

Misconceptions

There are a number of misconceptions about mining which were recorded during consultations. Those discussed below were considered to be widespread and largely attributable to a lack of information about mining activities. Aboriginal people generally over-estimate the extent of the mining company's knowledge in relation to a deposit. People think the company already knows that the minerals are there because they have expended effort in exploration.

Mineral deposits are often associated with sacred sites. This coincidence is understandable because significant natural features such as outcropping rocks are often sacred sites, and they are also the most accessible features for mining exploration and extraction. For many Aboriginal people this coincidence has led to the view that Dreaming sites and mineral wealth are related. People often use terminology reserved for money to express the importance of their sites in terms they feel will be understood by Europeans. There are many people who do not understand the relationship between the Land Council and mining companies.

Similarly the royalty distribution process is poorly understood, with many people charging that the Land Councils should give all the money to Aboriginal people to distribute. It is evident that some people do not fully realise they can say no to mining activities on Aboriginal freehold land. The repeated attempts of mining companies and prospectors to get them to agree to mining have resulted in some people saying that it is not possible to say no, because whitefellas will come back and come back until agreement is reached.

It is doubtful whether the full impact of proposed mining activities is understood. Going by the results of mining from efforts early in this century many people think mining is a minor disturbance to the land. Even those who have had the chance to view the larger modern mines in the Tanami have a limited understanding of the extent of underground activities.

Summary

Aboriginal people have a range of attitudes to mining. Some people support mining on their country because of the financial rewards they can accrue. Others are against mining because of the disruption it can cause to the physical and social environment. One of the main concerns that people raised when they said that they did not want mining on their land was that mining operations were dangerous because of their possible impact on sacred sites and through the physical danger of the mines themselves. It is believed there is danger to those carrying out the mining, to Aboriginal people who should be looking after the land and in some cases to the rest of society through the possible cataclysmic consequences of transgressions of Aboriginal Law.

Other concerns

Aboriginal people have about mining relate to social impacts. Mining interest on Aboriginal land and the distribution of mining royalties place pressure on Aboriginal social and cultural structures. Some of this pressure relates to a perceived gender bias which has occurred during consultations and in royalty distribution. There is also a general lack of understanding of the roles and interactions of the various agencies involved with mining on Aboriginal land. There is a need for educational programs covering such issues as the rights of traditional owners and mining companies, royalty payments from mining, consultation with women, the role of the Land Council, the reasons for the consultation process, the functions of the Aboriginal Benefits Trust Account.

Recommendations

It is recommended that: The Central Land Council further investigate the concerns of traditional owners in relation to minesite rehabilitation and ensure that traditioanl owners understand the extent to which existing minesites will be rehabilitated. The Central Land Council continue to ensure that traditional owners are given access to appropriate information on the environmental impacts and the likely costs and benefits of mining activities on their lands. The Central Land Council ensure that information is available in an appropriate form explaining the roles an responsibilities of the Land Council, mining company and traditional owners in all phases of mining activity. The Central Land Council continue to monitor the social and cultural impacts of mining and royalty distribution to and provide information to traditional owners on these impacts.