Nabarlek Traditional Owners' perspective on the current state of revegetation

Aboriginal people derive their identity from an ancestral relationship to land mediated through a traditional form of land title. This relationship to country determines a group or individual's place in the complex of law, ceremony, culture, responsibility, status, marriage, income etc (often collectively termed 'culture'), that is the essential corollary of traditional land tenure. In effect, country bestows upon Traditional Owners a place in the scheme of things as do social and occupational status, racial origin, financial position etc upon the Westerner. It is a critical link in the preservation of Aboriginal society, and pressure on or erosion of this relationship imposes further strain on the significant burden to Traditional Owners of cultural maintenance. In order that disenfranchisement does not occur because of the mining process, Traditional Owners must have a guarantee that the country will be returned to a pre-mining state as far as possible. This is certainly a significant part of the initial discussion of any consent (under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act, 1976). Among the worst outcomes for Aboriginal people involved in the mining process is the return to them of degraded lands, an indication to them that the Westerners who initially placed such great value on it no longer do so. These people are left with the mess or the scraps and perhaps for them the least traumatic course is to walk away, to pretend that the mined-out country is of no importance to them and that there is no pain. The rehabilitation of Nabarlek is in some ways a special case. There was a fairly long period from 1988 to 1994 in which nothing happened. At the final decision to close the operation much of the infrastructure was no longer useable. Initially there was ascribed certain value to plant and equipment items that did not really eventuate for Traditional Owners. Significant portions of the remnant infrastructure was handed back to Traditional Owners, which was then disposed through a tender process which in retrospect must be considered lacking in compulsion. But this is a more or less tractable matter compared to the revegetation strategy. Traditional Owners are of the view that the solution is much simpler than the re-establishment of vegetation on highly disturbed ground - essentially as simple as digging a pit and bulldozing the rubbish in. The NLC has stated that the success or failure of the present revegetation effort has not been satisfactorily determined. It is most unfortunate that the original operators of the minesite were not directly involved in the rehabilitation effort as this would have ensured a more continuous presence on the ground, and some of the apparent problems might not have arisen To Traditional Owners this transferral of responsibility is most unsatisfactory, the process off encumbrance has no ready counterpart, lines of responsibility relating to country are onerous and compelling and it confirms their perception of the inherent weakness of Western law. In their view, the responsible party is the company which conducted the mining. But in the end, it is a valid component of the Deed to which the NLC is party on their behalf, and a usual feature of commercial agreements. However, it is something that they will no doubt adjust to