Murujuga traditional owners 'sidelined' in government's North West Shelf approval
A group of Murujuga traditional custodians is calling on the federal government to immediately release the conditions attached to its 40-year extension of Woodside's North West Shelf gas project.
Federal Environment Minister Murray Watt waved through the approval three weeks ago, allowing Australia's largest oil and gas facility to continue operating in Western Australia's Pilbara region until 2070.
Ngarluma woman Samantha Walker penned a letter to the government on Tuesday last week, gathering signatures from multiple traditional owners and elders with connections to the landscape.
"Our people have not consented to the proposal," she wrote.
Mr Watt gave Woodside 10 days to respond to the approval's "strict" conditions, which he indicated focused on the protection of ancient Aboriginal rock art.
Last Friday, the gas giant breezed past that deadline and neither Woodside nor Mr Watt could confirm the date negotiations would be finalised when asked by the ABC.
Ms Walker said she was "alarmed" that the right of reply was afforded solely to Woodside.
"We understand there are statutory requirements, however, the approvals process has sidelined Murujuga Ngurrara-ngarli [Murujuga traditional owners]," she wrote.
"They have a process with Woodside and the government, but they don't take into account our cultural processes, which we have as well, which is very saddening."
Ms Walker repeated calls for Mr Watt to visit Murujuga — the Aboriginal name for the Burrup Peninsula — where Woodside's main processing plant is located, about 1,500 kilometres north of Perth.
The area is home to some of the world's oldest known rock art, the preservation of which became a flashpoint amid the extension decision.
The Murujuga Aboriginal Corporation (MAC) administers cultural matters involving the peninsula on behalf of five language groups: the Ngarluma, Mardudhunera, Yaburara, Yindjibarndi, and Wong-Goo-Tt-Oo peoples.
The corporation was formed in 2006 and granted joint management of Murujuga National Park in exchange for extinguishing native title rights to land earmarked for industrial development.
The chair of MAC, Peter Hicks, flew to Canberra this week to meet with Mr Watt.
Mr Hicks said he was confident findings of a two-year rock art monitoring program, carried out by MAC and the WA government, showed the North West Shelf project was not currently harming the ancient petroglyphs.
The rock art is central to the organisation's bid to have Murujuga listed by the United Nations as a World Heritage site.
This goal was thrown into doubt by a UNESCO draft decision calling for the area's industrialisation to be halted, triggering protests from the federal government.
While Ms Walker backed the embattled World Heritage push, she said more consultation on the North West Shelf project and its impact was needed.
"Broader consultation means speaking with the whole community, all of the families, the connections who have a connection to the place," Ms Walker explained.
"The minister needs to speak to us, according to our cultural protocols," she said.
She argued that the violation of traditional owners' informed consent was grounds for a human rights complaint, and current economic arrangements between Woodside and traditional owners had become obsolete.
"It is severely remiss of the Commonwealth to consider approving a major project while relying on an outdated agreement that is in urgent need of modernisation," Ms Walker said.
Mr Watt did not respond to specific questions put to him by the ABC.
Samantha Hepburn, a professor at Deakin Law School, said it was not typical for proponents to miss response deadlines, although this case was "unique" given its magnitude and the extent of public interest.
Dr Hepburn believed Mr Watt possessed the legal discretion to make the conditions public and would be "justified" in doing so because the approval was so controversial.
"We see a broad range of the community very, very concerned about the impact that this extension is likely to have and wanting to make sure that the conditions are capable of addressing those concerns," she said.
The decision to extend the major gas project is currently facing court challenges on several fronts.
Dr Hepburn said publicising the conditions would be a show of good faith ahead of federal environmental law reform, the subject of high-level talks hosted by Mr Watt on Thursday.
"Showing a preparedness to be responsive to the concerns, I think, is a very, very important thing that the government has the opportunity to [do]," she said.
Ms Walker said she had only received a response from WA Senator Dorinda Cox, who could not be reached for comment.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News.com.au
2 hours ago
- News.com.au
Victorian build-to-rent landlords dodge new minimum lease terms
The Victorian government has quietly backed away from a plan to set minimum 12-month lease terms for thousands of Melbourne rentals. A proposed change to the Land Tax Act 2005 would have removed a deduction offered to build-to-rent operators from January 1 next year, unless they set the minimum lease term. Industry groups challenged the plan, citing research showing that between 10 and 30 per cent of tenants signing on for leases in the city's tenants-only complexes had specifically sought shorter terms. They also warned removing the tax benefit could have impacted attracting much needed development to build more rental homes across Melbourne. The city is currently Australia's capital for build-to-rent apartments, which effectively replace mum and dad investor landlords with corporate groups and super funds. Earlier this week the Victorian government acknowledged 1000 build-to-rent apartments had been built in the 2023-2024 financial year, with a further 18,200 under construction. The changes requiring the minimum term were removed from the State Taxation Acts Amendment Bill 2025 just prior to its passage into parliament late this week. In 2020 the Victorian government created a tax benefits program for build-to-rent projects that has helped it to become the nation's top destination for developers planning such builds. It is understood the decision to remove the minimum terms requirement is subject to further discussion with the property industry. Property Council of Australia Victorian executive director Cath Evans said the change was vital to accommodate a wide range of renters including couples separating, people working interstate for short periods, families completing home renovations who needed the flexibility of shorter leases. 'So we were very pleased to see the government took our advice and has amended the policy as it went through,' Ms Evans said. She added that with the change maintaining stability for the build-to-rent sector, it was hoped more operators would be willing to undertake developments in the space and help boost the supply of new homes for tenants in Melbourne. 'There is a significant need to grow the BTR sector further as part of our broader need to deliver more homes for Victorians,' Ms Evans said. 'A more competitive property taxation regime is critical across all parts of the housing market to keep investment flowing and delivering the homes our communities urgently need.' Build-to-rent projects typically cater for Melbourne's higher-priced rental market, with many operators charging more than $800 a week for two-bedroom residences, but offering significant levels of luxury ranging from pools and gyms to podcasting and work-from home spaces around the complexes. With operators typically seeking to engage tenants long term, leases of up to three years are not uncommon where would-be residents are seeking security. Traditional residential tenancies do not currently have minimum lease terms, with most set at one year before rolling over to a month-by-month arrangement — or being renewed for another 12 months. Tenants Victoria chief executive Jennifer Beveridge said they would be speaking with the government further about creating more stability and security for tenants. 'The government have said they want to consult more with renters, and we'll be calling for more availability of longer term options,' Ms Beveridge said. 'Build-to-rent properties are built for the express purpose of remaining rental homes. We should take this opportunity to give people real security to stay there and make homes in them.'
News.com.au
4 hours ago
- News.com.au
‘Should not be punished': Queensland decries GST carve up
Cash-strapped state governments are looking west with envy as Western Australia pulls in its large slice of the GST carve up despite the healthiest books in the country. Resource-rich WA posted a $2.5bn operating surplus on Thursday – it's seventh budget surplus in a row. From Friday it is set to receive its share of the GST pool of 75 cents in the dollar, despite its strong revenue stream from its resources sector. State premiers and treasurers have been agitating for changes to the GST distribution, since the final figures were announced in March, and ahead of the funds formally being dished out on Friday. WA is still enjoying the windfalls of a 2018 GST deal struck under previous Coalition government by then-treasurer Scott Morrison and backed in by the Albanese government, where WA is guaranteed 75 cents of every dollar paid in GST. Without this benchmark, WA would have received as little as 18 cents back. The WA Premier and Treasurer credited their economic management for this week's operating surplus and healthy debt forecasts. Iron ore prices are hovering at $US95 while the state government has done its forecasting with an expectation of $US72 a tonne. But every state and territory except WA has been posting deficits since the 75 cent distribution reforms in 2018. The Queensland Treasurer feels short-changed, as strong coal royalties pad the state coffers. Victoria and NSW's slices of the GST pie are set to expand while Queensland's portion gets a trim. 'This money belongs to Queenslanders and we should not be punished because of our support for industries that underpin our national wealth,' state Treasurer David Janetzki said. The impending Queensland state budget, to be delivered on Tuesday, will show the effects of a dip in coal prices after an $8.8bn royalties windfall during the past four years. Despite the Sunshine State's royalty take coming down, Queensland's GST payout this year falls by $1.1bn to $16.5bn. In a speech to the National Press Club on Wednesday, federal Treasurer Jim Chalmers, who has historically opposed raising the GST rate, left the door slightly open to raising it from 10 per cent – the amount the excise has remained for the past 25 years. 'I've, for a decade or more, had a view about the GST,' he told The Conversation. 'I repeated that view at the Press Club because I thought that was the honest thing to do, but what I'm going to genuinely try and do, whether it's in this policy area or in other policy areas, is to not limit what people might bring to the table.' This year, Queensland is the only state or territory getting less than previous years, while every other jurisdiction is getting more. Victoria is set to become a net-recipient of the GST pool for the first time as well. 'It used to be the case that our friends in Victoria would help us shoulder the burden in supporting all the other states,' NSW Treasurer Daniel Mookhey said last month. 'Victoria is now a recipient state, to quite a large degree, $1.07 (per dollar taxed) is what they're getting. 'I'm going to continue to speak out, particularly about the fact that NSW is now carrying the federation when it comes to GST distribution.' The Northern Territory receives $5.15 for every dollar it contributes, far and away the largest return. Despite having the second largest population, Victoria receives the largest portion of the total pool, getting 27.5 per cent; with a $3.6bn year-on-year increase this time around.
SBS Australia
4 hours ago
- SBS Australia
Australia's social media ban is approaching, but questions remain over whether it will work
April Willis says young people need a seat at the table for figuring out how to implement the teen social media ban. Source: SBS News / Ash Minchin Like many, April Willis has been using social media since her early teens. As she grew up on the platforms, she says she didn't immediately understand the impact it was having on her. She says that in hindsight, though, she can see that a lot of her "behaviours" and "the content and interactions" she had on social media platforms were "definitely not great" for her mental health. But the now 22-year-old ReachOut youth advocate says she doesn't think a ban would have stopped her. "I think the hard truth is that a lot of us are thinking, 'I would've found a way around it', as I'm sure many young people will." Whether she actually would have is one of the many questions experts are wondering six months out from the implementation of Australia's social media ban for those under the age of 16. And as of 11 December this year, social media companies will be required to take "reasonable steps" to prevent Australian children and teenagers under 16 from using their platforms. A government-commissioned trial into the potential technologies used to assess the ages of users presented their preliminary findings on Friday. Their key finding was that "age assurance can be done in Australia and can be private, robust and effective". "The preliminary findings indicate that there are no significant technological barriers preventing the deployment of effective age assurance systems in Australia," project director Tony Allen said in a statement. "These solutions are technically feasible, can be integrated flexibly into existing services, and can support the safety and rights of children online." With details about the accuracy of the technologies tested left for later release, experts are wary of the trial's initial claim. Daniel Angus is a professor of digital communication at the Queensland University of Technology and the director of its Digital Media Research Centre. "One of the key concerns that we have is how the industry often will inflate their accuracy and the utility of these approaches when we know that there are still significant issues when it comes to both gender and also racial biases, but also the general lack of efficacy of these approaches," he said. According to the Department of Communications, a government-commissioned report from the Social Research Centre found nearly nine in 10 adults were supportive of age assurance measures. Only two of those 10 had heard of at least one potential method to check a person's age online. 'This research shows Australians widely support our world-leading age restrictions on social media for under 16s and have strong expectations of platforms when it comes to data protection and security," Communications Minister Anika Wells said in a statement. Angus says the general public has not been adequately informed about the likely impacts of these technologies. "I think Australians are in for a very rude shock when this actually perhaps, gets implemented, and they all of a sudden are being forced to hand over [their] data to access services that they've freely been able to access up to this point," he said. "It's absolutely everything you would expect to find in the midst of a moral panic where people have been sucked along with this idea that, 'Yeah, this thing is really, really bad and we need to prevent it,' but have not stopped to think critically about this, and then not been properly informed about the fullness of that risk." John Pane, chair of digital rights organisation Electronic Frontiers Australia (EFA), is a member of the stakeholder advisory board for the trial. He says the EFA has "concerns about the rollout of this technology because it's not simply about restricting access to social media platforms for children 15 and under". "It requires all adults who participate in the online environment, who wish to access social media platforms to either have their age authenticated or establish their identity as a means of, or part of that age authentication. "So from our perspective, it's the Trojan horse for getting people to get used to providing more and more credentials online." Amid these concerns, some remain supportive of the ban, including Kirra Pendergast, another member of the stakeholder advisory board. "Initially, I was only against the ban purely because of the technical workarounds that are possible for some kids who are more technical than others," she said. "But after having lots of conversations with parents in particular, it became abundantly clear that the ban was making parents have a conversation that we've needed to have for a very, very long time." Pendergast is the founder of Safe on Social, an online safety advisory group for schools and businesses, and chief digital safety strategist at the global Ctrl+Shft Coalition. "I get contacted almost every single day by parents that are struggling with this," the cybersecurity expert said. "They don't know how to say no." Pendergast said parents and educators would have "a lot more time to get it right". "It's like all aspects of technical security, cybersecurity, and cyber safety. It's never ever going to be 100 per cent. This is never going to be the silver bullet. "It's a really, really good start because, again, it sparked all of the conversations that we needed to have at every level of society." Professor Tama Leaver, an internet studies academic at Curtin University and the chief investigator in the ARC Centre of Excellence for the Digital Child, says the ban responds to a "very real fear that parents have that social media is an unknown space". "If this is world-leading, we need to be quite clear on what the legislation is actually doing." He warned that the implementation of the policy may not address all the issues that have been discussed. "Some harms, for example, such as cyberbullying, were very much touted as one of the big problems to be solved," he said. "There is nothing in this legislation that addresses cyberbullying meaningfully at all. "This at best addresses algorithmic amplification … of young people's experiences of social media, but … we expect from what's been said already that most messaging apps are exempt from this legislation. "So, the spaces where we imagine cyberbullying is most likely to happen are not being touched by this legislation at all." Leaver was a signatory on an open letter from more than 140 academics and civil society organisations against the ban. "If the rest of the world is watching Australia and hoping that this might be a blueprint, we're going to have an awful lot of work to do in the next few months to actually have a blueprint to practically do this rather than simply aspire to giving parents some reassurance," he said.
