Editors --- "Update: Yvonne Margarula Convicted of Trespassing on Her Own Land; Kumarangk Legal Defence Fund; Larrakia High Court Judgement; Correction" [1998] IndigLawB 69; (1998) 4(15) Indigenous Law Bulletin 2
Update
Yvonne Margarula Convicted of Trespassing on Her Own Land
Senior traditional owner of the Jabiluka area, 'Yvonne, Margarula, was convicted in the Darwin Magistrates' Court on 1 September. 1998 of trespassing on Energy Resources Australia's Jabiluka uranium mining lease. The lease lies within her traditional country inside Kakadu National Park. The case is on appeal to the Northern Territory County Court.
On 21 August, Margarula lost her appeal against a Federal Court ruling confirming the Northern Territory government's power to issue the Jabiluka mineral lease. The matter is now on Appeal to the High Court. (See: [1998] ILB 62; 4(14)pg14).
On 25 August, Federal Environment Minister, Senator Robert Hill, advised Senator Parer, Federal Minister for Resources and Energy, that the method for disposing of tailings suggested in ERA's Jabiluka Mill Alternative, while safer than that contained in the original milling proposal, still required further environmental assessment. Subject to the conduct of this further assessment, Senator Hill found that the disposal method in the alternative proposal satisfied the requirements of the Public Environment Report. Senator Parer approved the Jabiluka Mill Alternative on 27 August.
On 8 September, Yvonne Margarula applied to the Federal Court seeking judicial review of the decisions of Senators Parer and Hill, arguing breach off the rules of natural justice, and seeking injunctions against ERA. To date, the `approved' proposal has not been released to the public.
A special UNESCO World Heritage delegation is due to visit the Jabiluka region from 4-10 October, to investigate threats to World Heritage values posed by the proposed uranium mine.
Kumarangk Legal Defence Fund
The Kumarangk Legal Defence Fund was recently established to organise financial, moral and legal support for the many people and organisations currently facing defamation suits initiated by developers Tim, Wendy and/or Andrew Chapman in connection with the campaign to save Kumarangk (Hindmarsh Island). Following the forced closure of a previous website, a new web site has been established at <www.denarius.demon.co.uk>.
In August, Professor Diane Bell released a book based on her experience as a consultant anthropologist employed by the Ngarrindjerri, entitled Ngarrindjerri Wurruwarrin: a world that is, was and will be. A review of the book will be published in the December edition of ILB.
Larrakia High Court Judgement
Claimants in the Larrakia native title claim encountered a setback on 10 September when the High Court handed down its decision in Fejo v Northern Territory [1998] HCA 58. That case involved a claim for native title in respect of land near Darwin which, in 1882, had been subject of a grant of freehold title in 1882. The land was subsequently acquired by the Commonwealth Government. Shortly before the lodgment of the Larrakia native title claim, the Northern Territory Government subdivided the area in question. The High Court was unanimous in its finding that the 1882 grant of freehold title over the claimed land extinguished native title for all time. The decision is expected to have a substantial effect on the Larrakia and Yorta Yorta native title claims.
Correction
The editors wish to apologise to Prof Garth Nettheim for the inadvertent omission of two sentences from his article `Native Title and the States' ( [1998] ILB 65; 4(14)pg20). The first omission: ‘The NTA authorised States to establish their own "arbitral" bodies to decide whether mining should proceed on native title land, when the "right to negotiate" (RTN) procedures fail to achieve a negotiated agreement.’ should have appeared after the fifth paragraph of the printed article. The second omission: `Some 42% of Australia is currently covered by Crown leaseholds, mainly pastoral leases. Another 10.5% of Australia is represented by public lands reserved for such purposes as national parks' should have appeared after the seventh paragraph of the printed article.