CASE STUDY OF ABORIGINAL INVOLVEMENT AND ISSUES—SOUTH WEST QUEENSLAND PIPELINE

Abstract

The South West Queensland Pipeline project has set a new benchmark for Aboriginal involvement in corridor project planning and construction in Australia.

Before the final pipeline alignment was decided, Tenneco Energy Australia (now Epic Energy), the Queensland Government and the Goolburri Aboriginal Corporation Land Council arranged for Aboriginal Researchers to conduct a foot survey along a 200 in wide corridor for the full 756 km of the pipeline route. The final alignment was selected to avoid all cultural heritage sites identified by the Aboriginal Researchers.

At the commencement of the construction phase, a Cultural Heritage Management Plan (CHMP) covering construction activities was developed. Key components were as follows:

Goolburri Aboriginal Corporation Land Council engaged as a service provider to provide Aboriginal Researchers, a Cultural Heritage Management Officer (CHMO), and an auditor for the project;

Four Aboriginal monitors to be present on the project during clear, grade and trenching activities;

An archaeologist to be present on the project to coordinate Aboriginal monitoring and cultural heritage management activities;

A cultural heritage management audit to be conducted at the end of each four-week work cycle to identify non-conformances with the CHMP and recommend improvements;

Cultural awareness training to be undertaken by the workforce and presented by Aboriginal representatives; and

Instant dismissal provisions for serious infringements of the CHMP.

The cultural heritage clearance process and the CHMP were probably the most extensive ever implemented for a pipeline project in Australia in terms of the extent and nature of Aboriginal involvement. Despite this, there was ongoing concern about whether the appropriate Aboriginal groups were being involved in the project. Cultural heritage management of the project became linked to the question of traditional association with the land and native title rights. Disparate views about the rights of different Aboriginal groups continually emerged.

Of particular note was a tribal boundary dispute which resulted in prematurely closing down the first cycle of construction and leapfrogging the 108 km stretch under dispute to provide Aboriginal groups with time to resolve the issue. This action directly resulted in additional project costs (construction rescheduling and backtracking crews) in the order of $5 million.

This case study will look particularly at:

the process of cultural clearance and cultural heritage management which evolved for the project;

issues associated with establishing appropriate Aboriginal representation for involvement in the project;

native title claims; and

suggestions for improving management of native title, cultural heritage and Aboriginal involvement issues for future projects.