TOWARDS AN INTERNATIONALISATION OF NATIVE TITLE AND COMMUNITY RELATIONS

Abstract

The 20th Century has witnessed the consolidation of global industry and finance. It has also seen the growth of criticism of some developments associated with globalisation. This has been particularly the case with the resource extraction industries and their downstream counterparts. These industries now have to consider a range of factors as central to the management of risk and of reputation that would not have been necessary 30 years ago. One of these factors is the need for community consultation regarding the nature of specific resource development and often some form of compensation for the impacts of development.

Central to the Australian formulation of community consultation and development in the context of land use and natural resource development have been the Northern Territory Aboriginal Land Rights Act (ALRA) and the Native Title Act (NTA) as well as the setting up of Land Councils and representative bodies. These laws have been crucial, not just to the administration of land, but to the concept of aboriginality and citizenship as a whole. Like the ALRA, the Native Title Act has had a fundamental impact on the relationship between Aboriginal land interests and resource development. It has often, however, been mired in uncertainty, conflict, and amendments. This has contributed to a climate of legalism that has not necessary always been to the benefit of on-the-ground agreement processes.

In Indonesia there is no basis in law for native title issues and a high level of risk exists as a result of social and political transition. As a result some companies operating in Indonesia have begun to develop new approaches to issues of community relations and development. A new understanding of the necessity of carefully planned partnerships in the context of resource development has begun to emerge in Indonesia. The BP Tangguh project in the Bintuni Bay area of West Papua has set high standards for consultative practices relating to community consultation and community development practices. Whatever the commercial success of the Tangguh project, the processes and systems developed for that project indicate the likely future direction of other best-practice resource development projects in Indonesia and elsewhere.

In the past, development in Indonesia has been heavily influenced by rent capitalism, which has tended to emphasise the giving of permission over effective business and development practice. While the proponents of Native Title in Australia have often seen Australia as setting an international standard for development practice, this is belied by the actual results of Native Title and what is being undertaken in other international contexts. Native Title also often seems to act as a form of rent capitalism. As such it may be that Native Title does not necessarily define best practice, and, in the international context, may be under-performing in terms of risk and reputation management.

Rather than assuming that emerging practices in either Indonesia or Australia are somehow occupying the higher ground in terms of best-practice development, it is suggested that Native Title and international practice can usefully be cross-fertilised in a critical manner. This process can be beneficial to companies and to stakeholders alike, particularly in the context of transparent consultation and negotiation practices that focus on the possibilities for cooperation in development, rather than conflict.