WEST KIMBERLEY PLACE REPORT - Department of Sustainability ...

law. An imperative to 'avoid another Noonkanbah' stimulated Commonwealth
discussions with peak mining and resource bodies such as the Australian Mining
Industry Council (AMIC) and the Australian Petroleum Producers and Explorers
Association (APPEA). All agreed that 'the interests of all parties will best be served,
not by confrontation, but by pursuing a policy of negotiation and consultation' (Berndt
1982, 146–147).
Kimberley Aboriginal people also took a proactive stance in developing their own
strategies and protocols to counter the absence of supportive heritage and land rights
legislation. Aboriginal community-based organisations such as the Kimberley Land
Council were at the forefront in negotiating innovative heritage protection and
clearance methodologies oriented towards recognising and balancing the rights and
interests of both Aboriginal Traditional Owners and exploration and resource
extraction parties (Doohan 2008).
Noonkanbah continues to have powerful meaning for Aboriginal people across the
Kimberley, many of whom view the dispute at Noonkanbah as the genesis of the pan-
Kimberley political movement which ultimately spawned Aboriginal organisations
that have become central to the articulation of the cultural, political and social
aspirations of Kimberley people. The establishment of the Kimberley Land Council in
May 1978 led directly to the formation of the Kimberley Language Resource Centre
(1984), the Kimberley Aboriginal Law and Culture Centre (1984), and Magabala
Books (1987).
Allbrook (2009) invites comparisons of Noonkanbah with the Eureka Stockade of
1854, that other infamous episode in Australian history in which a section of society
stood up to what was widely perceived to be the unjust use of power by an Australian
Government. Like Eureka, the protesters at Noonkanbah gained widespread public
support for their stand. Like Eureka, the protest at Noonkanbah was put down by
force and, like Eureka, although the State won the battle at Noonkanbah, the episode
was significant in ushering in changes to the law and the way resource extraction
business was henceforth to be carried out.
Allbrook (2009) notes that Ritter (2002) and others claim that Noonkanbah was a 'key
event' in a 'crisis of legitimacy that engulfed the Australian political system in relation
to Aboriginal affairs between Milirrpum and Mabo', and 'one of the key stimuli for
[Aboriginal people] turning to the common law' (Palmer 1983; Keon-Cohen 2000).
The inception of the Mabo native title case in 1982 eventually brought a fundamental
shift in the rights of Aboriginal people to be involved in decisions over the use of
traditional lands. This was recognised by the High Court in its decision on the case in
1992, and in the Commonwealth Government’s statutory response to that decision. The
Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) provided an avenue for Aboriginal Traditional Owners to
claim the legal right to object, and limited rights to negotiate. The Native Title Act 1993
(Cth) also provided an avenue for Aboriginal Traditional Owners to claim the legal
right to object and negotiate over applications to use traditional lands.
Noonkanbah is one in a series of important steps in the national struggle of
Aboriginal people to have their rights to practice traditional law and culture,
and have their rights to traditional land ownership recognised. In addition,
Noonkanbah brought about significant change to resource company policies and
132