WEST KIMBERLEY PLACE REPORT - Department of Sustainability ...

struggle noted, the local maparn, a clever, ritually powerful individual had the power
to relocate the fat, that is, the oil of the Dreamtime Goanna (Allbrook 2009, 11 citing
Dixon 1990).
Although the State government had succeeded in the short-term in exerting its
authority, the actions taken at Noonkanbah were a catalyst for change in law, policy
and practice in how governments, resource companies and Aboriginal people would
do business in the future. The inability of statutory law to provide even a rudimentary
level of protection to Aboriginal sites of significance was starkly demonstrated by the
events of Noonkanbah. The failure of the Gove land rights case of 1970 (Milirrpum
and others vs. Nabalco Pty. Ltd and the Commonwealth of Australia) meant that
Australian common law did not recognize Aboriginal customary land ownership.
Partly as a consequence of Noonkanbah, some Australian governments progressively
implemented statutory land rights and heritage protection measures aimed at
providing limited avenues for Aboriginal assertions of traditional land ownership and
responsibilities to care for important sites. Noonkanbah exposed the fragility of
statutory law in providing even basic protection to Aboriginal sites of importance, and
illustrated the disjuncture between Aboriginal assertions of land ownership under
traditional law and custom and a government which was intent on showing that such a
view was not supported by the law. In response to Noonkanbah, the Western
Australian Government further narrowed the definition of Aboriginal heritage and
changed the previously independent Heritage Council to an advisory body, making
the Heritage Minister responsible for decisions. These amendments effectively cut
Aboriginal people out of any legal recourse to protect their heritage from resource
extraction activities.
* * * *
'If events like Noonkanbah are seen as giving rise to the Mabo legislation, the irony is
that, with the common law recognition of native title in Australia, there occurred the
greatest realignment in power over resources between Aboriginal people and industry
since the commencement of colonisation' (Ritter 2002, 8).
* * * *
Similarly, Allbrook (2009) states that the Noonkanbah episode brought an increased
radicalisation in Aboriginal politics, and an increased clarity in Aboriginal people
enunciating their concerns. Similarly, Vachon and Toyne (1983) noted that:
* * * *
'[T]he Government has inadvertently propelled them [the Noonkanbah protesters],
along with other Aborigines, into a political arena where land rights, and not only the
protection of sites, may just be possible … contrary to everything the Government
may have intended, a pan-Aboriginal unity has begun to emerge…'(Vachon and
Toyne 1983, 131).
* * * *
Noonkanbah represented 'worst practice' in relations between resource companies and
Aboriginal traditional owners, and played an important role in the subsequent
adoption of inclusive and co-operative exploration and resource extraction practices
which acknowledged Aboriginal rights and interests in land outside of the common
131