Kimberley Land Council rejects Woodside offer
Posted
Updated
Aboriginal people in the Kimberley have rejected a multi-million dollar compensation offer from Woodside for a proposed gas-processing hub.
Woodside is hoping to process gas from the Browse Basin at one of four sites on the Kimberley coast shortlisted by traditional owners and the Western Australian Government.
The firm has offered the traditional owners, represented by the Kimberley Land Council, a benefits package worth up to $500 million.
The council has refused the offer, describing it as the worst offered to traditional owners in recent history and saying it takes Aboriginal land rights back three decades.
The council says the proposal did not include royalties and required it to sign documents saying there were no heritage issues restricting development.
A spokesman for Woodside says the company remains committed to working towards a negotiated solution.
Search for news
ABC News Online takes a look at the big stories from 2008.
Comments (25)
Comments for this story are closed. No new comments can be added. If you would like to have your say on this issue, you can do so via the Emails section of our Opinion pages.
-
Felix:
05 Dec 2008 1:42:48pm
Does anyone know how many people this half a billion package would be distributed to?
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
russ2468:
05 Dec 2008 1:55:32pm
After the KLC takes its cut?
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Ishmael:
05 Dec 2008 2:01:02pm
Well, they'll be looking at perhaps half that in legal fees, then there's the various State Government imposts along with the usual "user pays" hits from several Commonwealth agencies such as the EPA, there's consultancies for feasability studies and facilitators - and then the Tax Office of course, I suppose there could be many more. Lets see now...what happened on the far North Coast of NSW...yes, perhaps $20 per head for elders and $10 for rank and file?
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
John:
05 Dec 2008 2:05:15pm
A LOT of people. Also I think 500 million is a bit of a stretch. Any less than that, when you divide it and divide it again, ends up being a much smaller figure
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Brad:
05 Dec 2008 2:20:28pm
By most reports they weren't concerned about the money. The main concern was having to sign a document saying there were no heritage issues restricting development, when this is patently not true. This development will destroy many Aboriginal heritage sites not to mention the pristine Kimberley wilderness.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
thefifthhorseman:
05 Dec 2008 3:19:40pm
And what busines is this of yuors, Felix -
Who gets the moiney is not the issue, disbursements of this nature are not really yur concern..
Would you ask the same question of some other enterprise, where a large amount of money is due to a group of people as fair and comensurate compensation for something of this nature?
I'p prepared for the tirade of accusations of "political correctness", but have to express the opinion that you ask this question simply because there are Aboriginal people involved - this is in keeping with just about all the posts from yu that I have read = predictable and racist.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
John:
05 Dec 2008 1:51:06pm
Rejecting an offer like that outright probably guarantees a gas pipeline will probably be built from Kimberley to Karratha and hundreds of employment oportunities for indigenous people in the Kimberley will be lost . Do the KLC really represent the majority of the idigenous people in the Kimberley or their own self importance ?
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Realist:
05 Dec 2008 1:54:26pm
Why should aborigines get anything out of this in the first place?
It's not like they ever knew anything about the vast petroleum and mineral resources underneath Australia, and freehold owners aren't entitled to any resources underneath their land either.Agree (1) Alert moderator
-
Ishmael:
05 Dec 2008 2:09:09pm
Ah, but this aspect is NOT about resources under their land, it is about PROCESSING those resources - on top of that land, in other words building a huge gas processing plant above ground and in full view of the owners (and any other visitor) so they can enjoy the sights of the stacks and breath in the rich aromatic scents of the emissions. Why indeed should they be paid for a privelege so freely offered to countless urban dwellers the World over?
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Richard Titelius:
05 Dec 2008 2:13:10pm
The Aboriginal people should get something out of this and for them it is more than money, something a lot of white man/gardia do not understand.
Their land is their temple and if it is destroyed it is like destroying a church or one of our white religious temples.
If deals like this go through it will also take land rights and native title back to pre-Mabo.
The entire kimberleys including the coast has been acknowledged internationally as one of best five wilderness areas left in the world and everyone in the world will lose-not to mention other forms of life such as the Humpback whales who breed and bring up their young in the area.
Thanks
Richard Titelius Perth WAAgree (0) Alert moderator
-
surrealist:
05 Dec 2008 2:14:15pm
Mate, you are very wrong. Indigenous populations know more about fossil fuels and their danger to the environment than you or any white invader. They at least know it should be left in Mother Earth where it is safely locked away.
While white law says freeholders only own the land surface and have no claim to underground resources, but indigenous law is inclusive of and integral to all of the earth.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Ishmael:
05 Dec 2008 2:25:18pm
How far down would you say that those rights extended?
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
JC:
05 Dec 2008 2:43:09pm
What a silly argument.
I suppose you would suggest that the Australian Aborigine never adopted the wheel because it inevitably led to petrol-consuming cars.Agree (1) Alert moderator
-
-
Greeniebob:
05 Dec 2008 2:16:11pm
You sad individual! Move ahead not backwards.
FACT. Before us whiteys came along it was their land.
If they said, take our land we don't want it, THEN what you write is correct.
Otherwise, mature!Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
Billy Bob Hall:
05 Dec 2008 2:06:12pm
Offer it to me. I won't be anywhere near so fussy.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
wdn:
05 Dec 2008 2:06:47pm
Bargain hard- business is business, right?
Don't agree to a deal until you're (and those you're representing) satisfied with the terms.
The terms must be favorable to BOTH parties.
It's as simple as that!Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Stephan:
05 Dec 2008 2:28:15pm
$AU500Million for what, say, 4 square km of the most infertile dirt in one of the hottest parts the world??? That's $125/sqm... I would be happy if I could sell the dirt for that rate....
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Cameron:
05 Dec 2008 2:52:33pm
I have had the opportunity to get up onto the Dampier Peninsula and see what that area is like.
For me progress will not be symbolised by another massive industrial complex being developed. Instead progress, or at least social progress for us as non-Aboriginal Australians, would be getting to the point where we can see that it may be worth doing something other than inserting a massive industrial complex into those people's communities.
Putting a gas plant in that area of the Kimberley will be like cutting a roadway through the timber and canopy of a North Queensland rain forest, the effects go a lot further than the development.
If I get off my bum and do something you will see me in my lunch breaks up at Parliament House waving my banner against this.
It's a free country for us to have an opinion, how about we take a few steps back and listen to those people and their initial comments that they did not want the plant to start with?Agree (1) Alert moderator
-
gaz:
05 Dec 2008 3:29:32pm
"The council has refused the offer, describing it as the worst offered to traditional owners in recent history and saying it takes Aboriginal land rights back three decades."
If the refusal is based on $ value offered only, then all this talk about 'belonging' to the land and any other intrinsic quality needing protection is a load of cobblers mate!Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
redexile:
05 Dec 2008 3:01:19pm
It's the Kimberley coast we're talking about here, stunningly beautiful, unspoilt country not the western deserts. Get better informed before you opine next time Stephan.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
Brian:
05 Dec 2008 2:55:23pm
I wonder what the main stream population would do if they decided to build the gas complex on top of Kings Park? Or in the suburb of Apple Cross?
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Another Brian:
05 Dec 2008 3:07:08pm
We are not talking about Kings Park, Applecross or Ayers Rock.
We are talking about 5-10km2 of land on the edge of a very vast, largely inhospitable area.
The gas comes from wells a long way off the coast, deep underground and in very deep water. Thus royalties on the gas don't come into it.
The land itself is worth very little - half a million maybe and probably much less.
Any offer better than that is a great offer.
This soungs like yet another rort.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Ishmael:
05 Dec 2008 3:19:39pm
Forget the "Kings Park" analogy. I think you should read what has been said more carefully, you yourself claim that this is "land on the edge of a very vast, largely inhospitable area". However although possibly "on the edge" the area disputed is very far from being "largely inhospitable", we are talking of one of the few areas of pristine natural beauty left on earth. Again, where the gas comes from is secondary to what will happen to it on shore - this is the issue.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Gadget:
05 Dec 2008 3:24:40pm
It may seem "inhospitable" to you. But to those whom live there, it is home.
And if it is "inhospitable" as you assert, how come people live there?
And they as entitled, to ask for royalties for processing the gas on their land, as are the people of Ukraine for the gas pipeline that runs through their country. Same rules apply.
It is an input cost which Woodside are going to have to come to terms with, for doing business in that part of the country.
The land is priceless.
Would it be a rort if you were in a position to ask for fair compensation? Or is this a case of the politics of envy from the Right?Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
-
gaz:
05 Dec 2008 3:31:07pm
Re- "The council has refused the offer, describing it as the worst offered to traditional owners in recent history and saying it takes Aboriginal land rights back three decades."
If the refusal is based on $ value offered only, then all this talk about 'belonging' to the land and any other intrinsic quality needing protection is a load of cobblers mate!Agree (0) Alert moderator
