Adani to accept ruling
THE Federal Court has ruled in favour of a Bowen Aboriginal corporation that claimed it missed out on more than $ 1 million for Adani’s Abbot Point coal terminal development when it was replaced under a land use agreement.
Jury Enterprise Limited ( JEL) took Adani and the Townsville- based Kyburra Munda Yalga Aboriginal Corporation to the Federal Court claiming Kyburra did not have approval to replace it under an Indigenous Land Use Agreement ( ILUA) amendment.
Both indigenous corporations represent various interests of the Juru people, who are the recognised native title holders of about 8500ha of land in the Cape Upstart National Park.
In 2014, Kyburra negotiated an ILUA that authorised Adani to carry out works on Juru land in order to increase the capacity at the Abbot Point Port.
JEL’s lawyers argued Kyburra never had the authority to negotiate an ancillary agreement with Adani on behalf of the Native Title Claim Group.
Justice Steven Rares last month ruled in favour of JEL and ordered Kyburra to pay Juru’s costs. But JEL may not receive any money from Kyburra, as the corporation is under special administration due to past mismanagement.
Justice Rares also granted leave for JEL to apply to have a third party pay its costs of the proceedings.
The Bulletin understands JEL may seek costs from the North Queensland Land Council, which represented Kyburra in the negotiations with Adani. But the council’s chief executive Stephen Ducksbury said he was unaware of who the third party would ultimately be.
“The NQLC ceased to act for ( Kyburra) on 22 September, 2017, following an unsuccessful mediation … where it became apparent that the parties could not reach agreement,” he said.
JEL barrister Mark Ascione said the Federal Court ruling meant any cultural heritage work conducted by Kyburra for Adani was unauthorised.
“All of the activities, cultural heritage work of close to $ 1 million in value was a result of unauthorised activity by Ky- burra condoned by Adani,” he said.
A spokesman for Adani said the company would adhere to the ruling but denied suggestions the judgment had any bearing on matters pertaining to cultural heritage.
“We will continue to work collaboratively with traditional owners under guidance of the Indigenous Land Use Agreement and the Cultural Heritage Management Plan which are currently in place,” he said.