Content uploaded by Catherine Howlett
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Catherine Howlett on Mar 04, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
1
Neoliberalism, Mineral Development and Indigenous
People:
A Framework for Analysis of Convergences and
Divergences in Canada and Australia.
Dr Cathy Howlett,
Dr Diana MacCallum
Natalie Osborne
Griffith School of Environment
Brisbane, Australia
Word count approx 6000
Paper presented to the Annual Canadian Political Science Conference
Montreal, Quebec.
June 1-3, 2010
Please direct correspondence to:
Dr Cathy Howlett
Griffith University
Nathan QLD 4111
Tel: 61 7 37353844
Email: c.howlett@griffith.edu.au
2
Abstract
There have been suggestions in recent literature that neoliberalism and globalisation
present positive opportunities for Indigenous communities engaging in resource
development projects on their traditional lands. This paper will present evidence from
preliminary research on the neoliberal restructuring that has endured for those
Indigenous communities of North Western Queensland affected by the development of
the Century Zinc Mine in the late 1990s. Initial findings indicate that the state has
devolved some of its responsibilities to the mining company in relation to Indigenous
development and service provision. This paper develops a theoretical and analytical
framework to enable an examination of the implications of this voluntary devolution
of responsibility for Indigenous development and service provision and questions
whether this represents a positive opportunity for Indigenous people in the region.
Introduction
At the current historical moment, perhaps the choice offered to remote living
Indigenous people is too influenced by the dominant logic of neoliberalism:
engage with the mainstream as individual subjects or miss out (Altman
2009:15).
Currently there are those who would who insist the recent and ongoing
financial crisis has pre-empted the demise of neoliberalism as the dominant
global ideology. We are currently bombarded with ‘ostentatious repudiations
of the free-market credo from across the political spectrum’ (Peck 2008:94).
Indeed, Australia’s Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd recently made such
repudiation, arguing ‘the great neoliberal experiment of the past 30 years
represented by Thatcher, Reagan, Greenspan and John Howard has failed’.
(cited in Kelly 2009). However the influence of neoliberalism, both as a
discourse and a process, has become so hegemonic and pervasive that it has
been incorporated in to the common sense way many of us interpret, live in
and understand the world (Harvey 2005). Neoliberalism may be repudiated
as the dominant ideology, but the hegemonic consensus it obtained is not
easily dissipated, and it is therefore not unreasonable to still believe that the
processes and techniques of neoliberalism are still entrenched ‘everywhere’
(Peck and Ticknell 2002:380). Unpacking the legacy of a neoliberal hegemonic
consensus is, we argue, a task worthy of serious intellectual effort.
Stewart-Harawira (2005) believes that the restructuring that occurred under
neoliberalism was an unmitigated social disaster for all but the most
privileged, and that often the most vulnerable in society were impacted most
3
by neoliberal reforms, including Indigenous peoples. Indeed, there is
increasing evidence from many sources on the negative impacts of
neoliberalism for Indigenous communities, with Gordon (2006:18) arguing
neoliberalism represents ‘the intensification of … accumulation by
dispossession’ for Indigenous peoples. In remote Australia, where many
Indigenous communities reside, the mining industry seems to provide a stark
example of this phenomenon, as continuing profits rely heavily on the
exploitation of Indigenous lands and communities. While mineral
development is often acknowledged as the harbinger of the intensification of
neoliberal pressures, conversely, it is also often touted as the panacea for all
the social and economic problems occurring in Indigenous communities,
particularly those remote Indigenous communities with few other
opportunities for economic development 1(see Howlett 2007).
The mining industry is seen to provide a unique employment opportunity for
Indigenous people in remote areas, which can reduce Indigenous dependence
on the state, and empower individuals and communities to take responsibility
for their future (Lawrence 2005:42). Recently, several authors have
highlighted the opportunities and benefits that mining as a neoliberal exercise
may present for Indigenous communities. Slowey (2008), O’Faircheallaigh
(2004) and McDonald et al. (2006) have all argued in their various ways that
neoliberalism has presented opportunities for Indigenous people to gain
greater control over the material conditions of their existence, and created a
space for them to exercise their agency. There is thus intellectual debate on
the complex and sometimes deeply ambiguous nature of neoliberalism, and
its impacts upon Indigenous peoples (McDonald et al. 2006: 209).
Despite this disparity in interpretations of the implications of neoliberalism
for Indigenous communities, there has been very little empirical research
done on the changes that neoliberal restructuring has wrought on Indigenous
peoples impacted by mineral developments in Australia.2 Following Peck
(2004:396) we contend there is a significant role for theoretically informed
empirical research that can track the actual patterns and practices of
neoliberal restructuring that may occur in Indigenous domains as a result of
mineral developments. This current research project will specifically focus on
one aspect of neoliberal restructuring - the extent and implications of state
devolution of responsibility for service provision and infrastructure
development - for a remote Indigenous community in North Western
1 This is despite research that suggests that the benefits from mineral development are often
not realised by Indigenous people, and that the negative impacts can be unmitigated and
substantial (Howlett 2007, 2010).
2 Lawrence’s research (2005) is an exception. She developed an insightful analysis of the
processes and techniques of neoliberalism for the Walpiri people.
4
Queensland, a community that resides next to one of the major mineral
development projects in Queensland, the Century Zinc Mine.
The aim of this paper is to develop a theoretically informed analytical
framework for ongoing and future empirical research on the outcomes of
neoliberal restructuring in Indigenous communities. That research will focus
on the provision of services and infrastructure to Indigenous communities
impacted by the development of the Century Mine in North Western
Queensland. The ultimate goal of that research is to develop a comprehensive
picture of the impacts of neoliberal restructuring that occurs in Indigenous
domains affected by mineral development, which can serve as a comparison
with material from Canada, to identify convergences and divergences
between the Canadian and Australian experiences. This paper therefore
focuses on reviewing the literature on neoliberalism, Indigenous peoples and
mineral development in order to develop the theoretical framework that will
be employed in that research project. Preliminary desktop research indicates
that a number of mining companies are currently involved in some form of
service and program delivery within Indigenous communities, particularly in
relation to employment programs and training issues. This paper does not
offer an analysis of these early findings. That will occur in future papers.
Rather, it offers these findings in support of our claim that there is a need for
detailed empirical research on the processes and impacts that stem from
neoliberal restructuring in Indigenous communities impacted by mineral
developments. This paper predominantly seeks to develop a robust
theoretical framework for that research.
The paper is structured in the following manner. First, it provides a
discussion on what neoliberalism actually is. Highlighted in this discussion is
the debate in social science literature between those who employ a political
economy approach to understanding neoliberalism, and those who argue for
a poststructuralist or governmentality approach. Somewhat of a theoretical
impasse between these two approaches currently exists and as a means of
moving forward from this theoretical impasse, this paper suggests a critical
realist approach may provide the necessary robust theoretical lens for an
analysis of neoliberalism. Following this exhaustive overview of
neoliberalism and critical realism, this paper reviews the literature on how
neoliberalism in general, has impacted Indigenous people in particular.
Finally, the paper reviews the literature on mineral development as a form of
neoliberalism in Indigenous communities, focussing on the consequences of
the neoliberal restructuring of service provision and infrastructure
development to Indigenous communities. The paper concludes with a re-
emphasis of the need for this research.
5
Neoliberalism – what are we talking about?
There has everywhere been an emphatic turn towards neoliberalism in
political- economic practices and thinking since the 1970s (Harvey 2005:2).
There is perhaps no more pervasive, nor contested term in the social sciences
than neoliberalism. As Castree (2006:1-3) claims ‘there is little consensus in
theoretical terms for what counts as neoliberalism in either geography or the
other social sciences.’ For some it remains seriously underspecified and little
more than ‘a radical-theoretical slogan’. For others, it endures as the dominant
logic of policymaking in most countries (Cahill 2007:221). Ward and England
(2008:2) claim that it appears to have become the ubiquitous political common
sense, yet ascertaining a precise definition of neoliberalism is no simple feat.
Neoliberalism means many things to many people, and not surprisingly, has
been labelled a `perplexingly amorphous political economic phenomena’
(Peck 2004:394). Nonetheless, an analysis that pertains to focus on the effects
of the neoliberal restructuring of services and infrastructure for Indigenous
communities requires a conceptual and discursive picture of neoliberalism.
For Peck (2004) neoliberalism can be regarded as a contemporary form of
economic imperialism which has been accompanied by rising inequalities in
different types of cultural, economic, environmental, social and political
capital. For Heynen et al. (2007:16 -17) the term refers to an economic and
political philosophy that questions, and in some versions, entirely rejects
government interventions in the market and people’s relationships to the
economy, and eschews social and collective controls over the behaviour and
practices of firms, the movement of capital, and the regulation of socio-
economic relationships. Neoliberalism is represented by a fairly common set
of discourses, ideologies and practices that remain the most dominant
development in social regulation in the post-Keynesian era. The expansion of
opportunities for capital investment and accumulation by reworking state–
market– civil society that occurs under neoliberalism, combined with a stress
on individual rights and freedoms, especially private property rights, results
in a re-working of the way human society and non-human systems and
beings relate (Heynen et al. 2007:23).
For Bargh (2007) neoliberalism is those practices and policies which seek to
extend the market mechanism into areas of the community previously
organised and governed in other ways. This process involves the entrenching
of the central tenets of neoliberalism: free trade and the free mobility of
capital, accompanied by a broad reduction in the ambit and role of the state
6
(Bargh 2007:1). England and Ward (2008:3) summarise it as an economic and
political orthodoxy marked by commitments to policies of free trade,
privatization, deregulation and welfare state retrenchment. They contend it
encompasses such issues as the cutting of public expenditure on social
services, the elimination of the concept of “public goods” and the
restructuring of the welfare state (2008:7). For Cahill (2007:226) a defining
feature of neoliberalism is the transfer of resources from public services to
private providers in the name of creating a market for such services, and of
fostering choice. Thus there has been a restructuring of the state, the market
and the public services under neoliberalism.
A fundamental critical trope developed around the belief that neoliberalism
instigated the shrinking of the nation state, and that the market would replace
the state as the major social, economic and political regulator (Peck 2004:392),
based on the belief that the state and its interventions are obstacles to
economic and social development (Clarke 2002:771). The reality is, that under
neoliberalism, the state has continued to play a strong, active, interventionist,
and coercive role and has restructured itself to be a conduit and transmission
belt for the new rules and requirements of the global economy (O`Tuithail, et
al. 1998:15). Neoliberalism entails the imposition of a new set of regulations,
often designed to open up freedoms for capital and to discipline, or restrict,
the freedoms of labour, and Cahill (2007:222) insists this has led to a
restructuring, and sometime, strengthening, of the state. States can block,
adapt to, and mediate neoliberal tendencies. In short states have agency in the
face of neoliberalism. Harvey concurs, insisting that very often the state is the
architect of its own restructuring and can selectively manage its own
restructuring process (Harvey 2005). What definitively has occurred under
neoliberal restructuring, and which is the focus of this paper, is the deliberate
and intentional privatisation of many services that were previously handled
by the state and have been devolved to the private sector, such as education,
health employment and training and infrastructure development. However
analysis of the actual patterns and processes of neoliberal restructuring, such
as devolution of state services, is complicated by the cleavage in analytical
approaches that have developed within most social science disciplines.
Divergent Perspectives
As with all political phenomena, epistemological and ontological positions
influence what neoliberalism will be determined to be, and even if it can be
determined to be anything at all. Indeed some advocates insist ’there is no
such thing as neoliberalism!'’ (Barnett 2005:9). The two dominant theoretical
approaches to the understanding of neoliberalism have emerged from the
7
Marxist political economy approach and the poststructuralist or
governmentality approach. The former prefer analytical focus to privilege the
identification of the similarities between different forms of neoliberalism, and
hence give weight to the claim for neoliberalism as a hegemonic unified entity
(Larner 2003:510). The latter approach prefers to view neoliberalism as a
process, - neoliberalisation - which is contextual and contingent rather than a
monolithic and hegemonic force (Ward and England 2008:250) and gives
analytical weight to identification of the differences in the outcomes and
processes of neoliberalisation. What follows is a discussion of the dangers in
taking an either/or approach to analysis of neoliberalism and a justification for
a more nuanced approach that incorporates both theoretical imperatives.
The Marxist political approaches to neoliberalism emphasise the shared
features and generic characteristics of neoliberalism (Ward and England
2008:257). Harvey (2005) argues for a conception of neoliberalism as a global
project to restore, renew, and expand the conditions for capital accumulation
and, in related fashion, to restore power to economic elites (or to establish it
where it did not already exist). He defines the central elements of the
neoliberal era as featuring the rollback of regulations on capital accumulation,
coupled with reductions in social safety net provisions and state-coordinated
redistribution of wealth and income, with evident consequences in spiralling
social inequality. Thus, as mentioned earlier, the political economy approach
argues for a conception of neoliberalism as a hegemonic, unified entity, and
for an analytical focus that privileges the identification of the similarities
between different forms of neoliberalism.
Larner (2003:510) however argues that there is a real danger in reifying
neoliberalism as a hegemonic, unified entity as political economists are wont
to do, as doing so actually exaggerates its power and renders it monolithic
and inevitable. She is echoing the work of many poststructuralists who
contend that we discursively create the very hegemonic projects we are
seeking to critically analyse.3 Larner argues that this tendency to view
neoliberalism as either a unified set of policies, or a political ideology, has
resulted in a lack of analysis of the techniques of neoliberalism (2003:511).
Post structuralists and proponents of the governmentality approach to the
understanding and critique of neoliberalisation insist that highlighting the
complexity and contradictions of neoliberalism, and the techniques and
process of neoliberalisation, provide us with a more nuanced view of
neoliberalisation as a process. According to Larner (2003:509). if we pay
attention to `the different variants of neoliberalism, to the hybrid nature of
3 This has been the recurring critique of the political economy approach in political analysis
that I have referred to in previous work (see Howlett, 2007).
8
contemporary policies and programmes ... [and] to the multiple and
contradictory aspects of neoliberal spaces, techniques, and subjects’ we can
elucidate the complexity of neoliberal state agendas, including its relationship
with civil society and the many tactics, strategies and techniques used to
normalise neoliberal programs and agendas.
This tendency in the literature to view neoliberalism as either an end state, or
as a process has resulted in a cleavage in the analysis of the actual effects of
neoliberalism, and consequently on the implications of those effects (England
and Ward 2008:3). As Larner (2003) insists, both theoretical traditions have
important things to say about neoliberalism and the challenge is to bring
these two analyses of neoliberalism closer together. Focusing on both the
similarities and the differences in the impacts of neoliberal restructuring upon
Indigenous communities has dual benefits. First it allows us to discern more
about neoliberalism itself, both as a hegemonic structure and as a contingent
process. Secondly, and perhaps in this context, more importantly, it may
allow us to identify which types of neoliberalism and which techniques of
neoliberalisation have the most impact upon Indigenous communities. Given
the dominance of the ideology and practice of neoliberalism, Peck (2004:396)
urges that ‘one of the analytical and political challenges is to develop
adequate accounts of this paradigm shift … and its putative alternatives’. The
very real effects of neoliberalism, divergent and varied though they may be,
demand we develop a coherent and comprehensive analytical framework that
can transcend the impasse between Marxists and poststructuralists. Castree
(2006) suggests a critical realist approach may offer a way forward from this
theoretical impasse.
A critical realist approach
Critical realists believe that there are deep structural forces that exist which
may constrain, or conversely, facilitate the capacity of various actors within
political contexts, and that these structural forces are often hard to discern,
observe and analyse. The realist is concerned with illuminating how these
structural forces may constrain or facilitate behaviour (Higgs 2001:49-53). A
critical realist approach insists that it is possible to gain knowledge of these
actually existing structures and generative mechanisms, without reifying
them (Danermark et al. 2002 ). For critical realists, how the structural power
of neoliberalism is activated depends on the context in which it is exercised.
Thus for critical realists the outcomes of neoliberalism will vary depending on
how its power is activated and mediated (Ward and England 2007:259).
Adopting a critical realist paradigm might therefore allow us to:
• treat neoliberalism as a set of (structurally constrained/enabled)
practices
9
• talk about how those practices are indeed shaped by (contextually
specific) institutions and, conversely, how they act to shape them.
• give analytical space to local practices as well as the undeniable global
forces that impact upon them.
A critical realist approach to neoliberalism or any other topic resists the
`violence of abstraction' referred to by Castree (2006:5), whereby discussion
about the structural power of neoliberalism and the material effects that ensue
from that, emphasised in the political economy approach, are divorced from
discussions about the context of its operations, which are the focus of the
poststructuralists. Thus, embracing a critical realist approach may be a fruitful
way to navigate the impasse between the political economy approach and the
post structuralist approach (Ward and England 2003). It allows for analytical
interrogation of the messiness and variation in the processes and techniques
of neoliberalism without losing sight of its hegemonic tendencies and
characteristics. Critical realism can therefore provide a systematic framework
within which it is possible to explicate, analyse and assess radically different
hypothesises and explanatory models (Patomakki 2003:209). In short, it
provides for a comprehensive and multi levelled analysis that can discern
between various theoretical explanations, while privileging none.
Despite its ubiquity as a structural phenomenon and ideology, or
alternatively as a discursive and constitutive process, there has been a noted
absence of analysis of the effects of neoliberal restructuring on Indigenous
peoples.4 The forthcoming discussion reviews the literature on Indigenous
people and neoliberalism, and is followed by a discussion of the mineral
industry as a site of neoliberalism in Indigenous communities in Australia.
Indigenous peoples and Neoliberalism
Economic development approaches produce Aboriginal capitalists whose thirst
for profit comes to outweigh their ancestral obligations to the land and to
others (Coulthard 2006:12)
Neoliberalism presents significant challenges for Indigenous communities.
Neoliberalism is distinguished from other forms of governance through its
claim to respect the liberty of individuals in the name of, and through,
freedom (see Harvey 2005). As subjects of neoliberal rule, people are
encouraged to regard themselves as rational, economically independent and
active subjects. Associated with this philosophy is a take on economic
4 For some exceptions see Slowey 2008, Bargh 2009, Lawrence 2008.
10
development as arising from the pursuit of individual profit, which has
become somewhat hegemonic, and has become problematic for many
Indigenous groups. It is based on universalism, a focus on the individual, a
growing intolerance of cultural difference, and a limited view of development
that is committed to market-based solutions (Altman 2009:40). Bargh (2007:13)
argues therefore that neoliberalism is often incompatible with an Indigenous
worldview. Without wanting to essentialise or romanticise Indigenous
culture, many Indigenous peoples view the land, and the landscape as a
cultural asset, not just a commercial asset (Altman 2009:43). Indigenous
worldviews foreground multi layered and multidimensional relationships
with the land that are based on a custodial ethic rather than an exploitative
ethic (Kuokkanen 2007:33, Howitt 2001) and are therefore not easily
reconcilable with a market based, capitalist, neoliberal ethic.
Macdonald et al. (2006:218) contend that Indigenous people can be
particularly vulnerable to the impacts of neoliberalism if they do not have a
national treaty or a political commitment to self-determination.5 As
mentioned previously, these impacts are varied and nuanced and can include
the following; a reduction in public services and infrastructure, the cutting of
public expenditure on social services, welfare retrenchment and state
facilitated expansion of economic development. While the focus of this paper
is the reduction in public services and infrastructure, and their subsequent
devolution to the private sector, it is worth briefly ruminating on how
neoliberal restructuring has manifested in the Australian context and the
general implications for Indigenous Australians, before moving to an
examination of the particular restructuring that has occurred when mineral
developments are imposed upon Indigenous communities.
In Australia, where there is neither treaty nor constitutional recognition of
Indigenous rights, related policy has been subject to frequent changes, often –
as far as appearances go – ideologically driven. Some recent changes help
illustrate the peculiar relationship of neoliberalism to this area of policy, as
they seem to represent radical adjustment not only to the administration of
Indigenous affairs, but to its philosophical basis. Since 1973, Federal policy
had been oriented to ‘self-determination’, with certain kinds of funding
5 Conversely in New Zealand, where there is a treaty between the Crown and Maori peoples,
Bargh (2007:42) argues that the New Zealand Crown has used the treaty settlements process
as a conduit for neoliberal policies and practices. This perspective is substantiated by
Stewart-Harawira’s (2005) contention that neoliberal reforms in New Zealand were an
unmitigated disaster for all except the most privileged.
11
allocation and service provision (the latter particularly for remote
communities) being gradually devolved to Indigenous-controlled and elected
bodies. In 2004, the then Liberal Government, led by John Howard, moved to
abolish the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC), the
chief representative body for Indigenous people, declaring the end of
‘separatism’ and implementing instead a ‘mainstreaming’ of service delivery.6
The abolition of ATSIC was seen as part of a deliberate program to dismantle
the self-determination paradigm in favour of ‘mutual obligation’, a program
which also saw the abolition of the Community Development Employment
Program (CDEP) scheme, a public works program that provided welfare
payment to Indigenous Australians in return for nominal labour (Maddison
2009). The idea was to reduce welfare dependency and encourage greater
self-reliance, on the assumption that the availability of ‘sit-down money’ (i.e.
welfare payments) acts as a barrier to achieving economic independence.
Thus the Howard government has deliberately aimed to refashion Aboriginal
subjects as economically self-reliant individuals who, importantly, are placed
on a superficially ‘level playing field’ with individuals in mainstream
Australia. This is entirely consistent with a decline in the willingness and
capacity of the neoliberal state to maintain public services and infrastructure
(McDonald et al 2006: 219-220). And this roll back in government service
provision and welfare is likewise consistent with the neoliberal logic which
sees those sectors of society, such as Indigenous populations, who continue to
burden government by failing to act in a 'responsible manner', targeted for
reform (Lawrence 2005,:41).
On 21 June 2007, Howard announced an ‘emergency intervention’ into
Aboriginal communities in the Northern Territory. The intervention was
justified as a crisis response to allegations of widespread child sexual abuse in
Aboriginal communities. The terms of the intervention were far-ranging,
including the quarantining of welfare payments, new alcohol restrictions,
compulsory health checks for children, and the acquisition of townships by
the government through five-year leases (Maddison 2008:4). The incumbent
Rudd Labor Government continued with the Intervention strategy, despite
its signing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous
Peoples, and has made ‘Closing the Gap’7 its key Indigenous affairs policy
6 Howard had vehemently opposed the original establishment of ATSIC while in opposition
in 1990.
7 Closing the Gap strategy is the current Australian government policy framework that rests
on a shared arrangement between the Australian Federal government and the States to
reduce Indigenous disadvantage with respect to life expectancy, child mortality, access to
early childhood education, educational achievement and employment outcomes (Australian
Government, 2010).
12
focus, with a halving of the employment gap in the next 10 years one of its
key aims (Altman 2009:18). Thus there is a distinct policy focus on preparing
Aboriginal people for participation in the ‘real economy’, an approach which
has had the support of several prominent Indigenous leaders.8 Mining is
often viewed as the panacea for regional and Indigenous development with
greater engagement of remote-living Indigenous people in mine economies
seen as the perfect neoliberal solution to the problems of poverty and welfare
dependence that inhibit Aboriginal participation in the real economy (Altman
2009:14).
Mineral development on Indigenous Australian land: A
neoliberal exercise.
Australia is currently in the currently in the grips of the largest expansion of
mining and energy activity in its history. It is worth quoting Langton (2010) at
length concerning the current expansive mineral development occurring in
Australia:
‘Exploration expenditure topped $6 billion in 2008–09. In the six months to
October 2009 fifteen projects with a capital expenditure of $3.9 billion were
completed. A further seventy-four projects were at an advanced stage with an
estimated expenditure of $112.5 billion. The value of energy exports increased
to $77.9 billion.’ (Langton 2010).
The overall significance of the mining sector to the world’s fifteenth largest
economy is likely to continue in the immediate future (Altman 2009:1). The
Australian economic scenario is considerably better that most OECD
economies and this is largely because of mineral development and activity.
Unfortunately Indigenous people, who constitute 2.5 per cent of the
population, do not share equitably in the wealth of the mining sector, much of
which is generated from their land in remote regions (Altman 2009:1). There
is considerable empirical evidence that Indigenous people rarely benefit
equitably when major extractive activities occur on their customary land—
indeed it is far more common for such activities to impact negatively on the
livelihoods and cultures of Indigenous communities (see, for example,
Altman 2009, Howlett 2010, Langton 2010).
8 Noel Pearson, a prominent Aboriginal lawyer, is one leader who supported the Intervention
Strategy. It was perceived the Howard government’s Intervention Strategy was actually
heavily influenced by the ideas of Pearson, and his support for reduced welfare dependency,
relocation of Aboriginal people according to employment opportunities, and the
enhancement of opportunities to participate in the real economy, all regarded as solutions to
the problems endemic within Aboriginal communities (see Maddison 2009:90, 129-30).
13
One way in which this historical inequity has been addressed in recent years –
at least in theory – has been through direct negotiations between miners and
Indigenous communities for access to traditional lands, usually (but not
always) as a right under the Native Title Act 1993. Negotiations are said to
provide for better control and agency on the part of the Indigenous traditional
owners, as well as often resulting in agreements whose monetary value might
far exceed benefits they would otherwise receive from the mine. We suggest
that the trend to negotiation could be read as a neoliberal one, which pulls
‘access to country’ into a market that previously did not exist. Indigenous
people exercise their agency in an explicitly capitalist framework, and create
‘choices’ about their negotiated gains which are seemingly not linked to
universal rights.
Responsibility for service provision and infrastructure in Indigenous
communities rests principally with the State governments,9 who under the
principle of crown ownership, can claim an interest in almost all sub-surface
minerals, which entails the right to allocate exploration and mining titles, and
to require various fees and royalty payments (Howitt et al. 1996:14). There has
been some retreat of the state in terms of public investments in remote regions
and a growing state view that profitable mining corporations have a
responsibility to provide social services to remote communities, including
Indigenous communities. Similarly, there has been a view expressed that
benefits accrued from mineral development agreements should use those
payments provided as compensation or benefit sharing for community
purposes (Altman 2009: 3, O’Faircheallaigh, 2004). Langton (2010) argues,
State governments have effectively delegated their powers and
responsibilities − formally through legislation and informally through budget
cuts − to the mining companies. State governments are increasingly relying on
mining companies to provide services to remote Indigenous citizens. The
issue of the proper division of responsibility for funding the services needs of
Aboriginal communities adjacent to major mines has received some attention
in recent literature (see Altman 2009).
O”Faircheallaigh (2004:42) suggests there is considerable controversy
surrounding the issue of whom should pay for Indigenous development and
services, with the real danger that when mining companies take over service
provisions and infrastructure development, government may reduce its
existing spending on services, leaving Indigenous people no better off as a
result of allowing mining to occur. As Altman (2009:38) declares there is
recent evidence that Indigenous peoples have articulated a desire to sign
9 Funding and service provision arrangements are complex and differ from State to State. In
remote communities they can often be federally funded.
14
mining agreements with companies to gain access to essential services that
should be provided by the State and federal governments. Although
O’Faircheallaigh (2004:47) ultimately believes Indigenous people can
positively utilise the opportunities presented to them via the payment of
monetary compensation from mineral companies, he also believes that it is
repugnant that Indigenous people might have to use money they gain from
allowing development on their land to pay for basic services, especially given
the negative social, cultural and environmental impacts of mining.
There is also a real danger for Indigenous people when service provision and
infrastructure development are the responsibility of mineral development
companies, especially given the finite nature of mines. Devolution of
responsibility to the mining companies for the provision of basic services and
infrastructure development may leave Indigenous communities in a
precarious position when an operation closes. The Minerals Council of
Australia (MCA), the major representative body for the minerals industry, has
expressed the concern of its members that their reputations will suffer when
closures affect Aboriginal communities. They have recently criticised State
governments for poor delivery of essential community social and physical
infrastructure, like education and health services and housing and water, to
Indigenous communities (MCA 2004 cited in Altman 2009:27). They are also
reluctant to take on state-like functions for fear it could jeopardize their
profits, a situation which will only be further exacerbated with the very recent
announcement by the Australian federal government to impose a 40% super
profits resource tax on mineral development in Australia.
In order to gauge the extent and types of service delivery being undertaken
by mining corporations in Indigenous communities in Queensland, a desktop
review of self-published material from mining companies with operations in
that State was conducted. Websites, annual, quarterly and other reports,
policy statements, newsletters, and media releases were reviewed. It was
found that a primary area where mining companies have engaged in
Indigenous communities has been in the provision of education, training, and
employment initiatives. It was found that a number of mining companies are
involved in some form of service and program delivery aimed specifically at
Indigenous people and communities. Some are engaged in partnerships or
agreements with other parties, including State/Federal Government and local
Indigenous organisations; others act unilaterally. Based on research so far,
apprenticeships, traineeships, and employment programs are the most
common form of service delivery delivered by mining companies to
Indigenous Australians.
15
This evidence of mining company involvement in the transformation of
Indigenous Queenslanders into work-ready, responsible citizens, able to
participate in economic development opportunities, supports Lawrence’s
conclusion from research she has undertaken with the Warlpiri peoples of the
Northern Territory, where she has found there has been a distinct emphasis
on preparing Indigenous people to participate in the economic opportunities
now afforded them (Lawrence 2008:42).10 There is ultimate irony in this
current situation. The reality for Aboriginal people is that even if they were
willing to engage in employment opportunities offered by the mining
companies, historical underinvestment in social and physical infrastructure
by State governments in remote regions means that many Indigenous people
do not have the capabilities to work at mines, even if they wished to. And the
solution to this historical lack of investment by the State in infrastructure
development is sought via devolution of these responsibilities to the private
sector.
Thus the current devolution of training, education and employment
opportunities from the Queensland state government to the minerals
development companies in Queensland that we have identified in our
preliminary research fits with Bargh’s contention that under neoliberalism,
Indigenous peoples are constructed as impediments and obstacles to
development, and reconstituted, via employment and training opportunities,
as work-ready capable citizens (2007:13-15). This preliminary research and
its attendant implications thus provide evidence of the need for further in-
depth research about the concomitant effects of neoliberal restructuring on
Indigenous communities. We intend to conduct in-depth qualitative and
quantitative research on the effects of neoliberal restructuring for the
Indigenous people of North West Queensland impacted by the development
of the Century Mine in order to provide that evidence. In conducting this
research we will be providing evidence of the peculiarities, and divergences
that can emanate from neoliberal restructuring in Australia which will then be
used to compare with material from Canada. Thus we will be the focussing on
the messiness and variation in the processes and techniques of neoliberalism
here in Australia, so that we can identify the commonalities with the
experience of Canadian Indigenous peoples.
10 Lawrence also argues that there are dangerous links between the discourses underpinning
practices concerned with reducing ‘dependency’ and encouraging Warlpiri people into
employment and training programs and the current governmental policies that rationalise
‘mutual obligation’ and require more ‘active’ participation from citizens.(2005:47)
16
Conclusion
In the words of Ward and England (2008) it remains politically important to
constantly draw attention to the implications of neoliberal restructuring for
Indigenous peoples. And while there are those who argue for a consideration
of the positive implications of neoliberalism for Indigenous communities, and
how Indigenous people obtain important opportunities to exercise their
agency via resource developments on their traditional lands, there is a real
danger in overemphasising the transformative capacity of Indigenous agency,
particularly in the face of neoliberal processes and practices, without a
concomitant analysis of the processes and techniques of neoliberalisation, and
the negative impacts for Indigenous people (see Howlett 2010).
Analyses that extol the potential of neoliberalism, via state supported mineral
and resource development on Indigenous lands, can potentially normalise
both the discourse and practices of neoliberalism in general, and mineral
development in particular. We therefore argue for an attendant focus on
analysis of the not so positive implications of neoliberalism for Indigenous
peoples if we are to develop a comprehensive picture of neoliberalism, both
as a hegemonic process and discursive power. While conscious of Head’s
imperative that in not extolling and articulating Indigenous agency, we risk
presenting Indigenous peoples as victims of neoliberalism and ‘silencing
them just as they begin to speak’ (Head 2001:102), it is nonetheless imperative
we remain cognisant of, and interrogate, the capacity for neoliberalism to
exacerbate the inequalities that already exist for Indigenous peoples.
In this paper we have sought to articulate a tentative theoretical framework
for research on neoliberal restructuring that endures when mineral
development occurs on Indigenous lands. As such we welcome comments
and suggestions on this framework. We have argued for a critical realist
theoretical framework that can facilitate identification of the similarities and
divergences between several Australian and Canadian case studies of mineral
development on Indigenous lands, not to reify the structure of neoliberalism
and ignore the differences but rather, as indicated earlier, because even with
these differences, there still exist substantive commonalities of process and
outcome that require analysis and interrogation.
17
References
Altman, J. 2009. Contestations over Development, in Power, Culture, Economy
Indigenous Australians and Mining. (Eds). J. Altman, J. and D. Martin.
Research Monograph No 30. Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy
Research, (CAEPR) Australian National University, ANU E Press
:Canberra.
Altman, J. 2009. Indigenous Communities, Miners and the States, in Power,
Culture, Economy Indigenous Australians and Mining. (Eds). J. Altman, J.
and D. Martin. Research Monograph No 30, Centre for Aboriginal
Economic Policy Research, (CAEPR) Australian National University,
ANU E Press :Canberra.
Australian Government. 2010. Closing the Gap for Indigenous Australians. Date
accessed 13/5/10
http://www.socialinclusion.gov.au/Initiatives/Pages/closingthegap.aspx
Bargh, M. (ed). 2007. Resistance: An Indigenous response to Neoliberalism.
Wellington: Huia Publishers.
Barnett, C. 2005. The consolation of `neoliberalism' ' Geoforum. 36 (1) :7 – 12.
Cahill, D. 2007. The Contours of Neoliberal Hegemony in Australia.
Rethinking Marxism. 19 (2):221-233.
Castree, N. 2006. From neoliberalism to neoliberalisation: consolations,
confusions and necessary illusions. Environment and Planning A. 38
(1):1-6.
Clark, D. 2002. Neoliberalism and Public Service Reform: Canada in
Comparative Perspective. Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue
canadienne de science politique, 35 (4) :pp 771-793 .
Coulthard, G. 2006. Indigenous peoples and the politics of recognition. New
Socialist. 58:9-12.
Danermark, B., Ekstrom , M., Jacobsen. L and Karlsson, J. 2002. Explaining
society: critical realism in the social sciences. New York: Routledge
England, K. and Ward, K. (Eds). 2007. Neoliberalization: States, Networks,
Peoples. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
18
England, K. and Ward, K. 2007. Conclusion: Reflections on Neoliberalization.
Neoliberalization: States, Networks, Peoples. England, K. and Ward, K.
(Eds). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
Gordon, T.2006. Canadian Capitalism and the dispossession of Indigenous
peoples. New Socialist. 58: 18-19.
Harvey, D. 2005. A Brief History of Neoliberalism. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Head, L. 2001. ‘The Pursuit of Modernity in Maori Society.’ In Histories,
Power and Loss: Uses of the Past: A New Zealand Commentary, eds A.
Sharp and P.G. McHugh. Wellington: Bridget Williams Books.
Heynen, N; McCarthy, J; Prudham, W. S. (Eds). 2007. Neoliberal Environments :
False Promises and Unnatural Consequences. Florence, USA: Routledge.
Higgs, J. 2001. Charting standpoints in qualitative research, Critical Moments
in Qualitative Research. (Eds). H. Byrne-Armstrong, J. Higgs and J.
Horsfall. Oxford : Butterworth-Heinemann.
Howitt, R., Connell, J. and Hirsh, P. 1996. Resources Nations and Indigenous
Peoples. Case studies from Australasia, Melanesia and Southeast Asia.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Howitt, R. 2001. Rethinking Resource Management. Justice, Sustainability and
Indigenous Peoples. London: Routledge.
Howlett, C. 2007. Indigenous People and Mining: The Role of the State. A Case
Study of Century Zinc Mine. Unpublished PhD Thesis, Griffith
University, Brisbane, Australia.
Howlett, C. 2010. Indigenous Agency and Mineral Development: A
Cautionary Note. Studies in Political Economy. 85 (Spring): 97-121.
Kelly, P. 2009. Rudd sees death of neo-liberalism. The Australian January 31,
2009.
Kuokkanen, R. 2007. Reshaping the University. Responsibility, Indigenous
Epistemes, and the Logic of the Gift. Vancouver: UBC Press.
19
Langton, M. 2010. The Resource Curse. Still the Luck Country. Griffith
REVIEW Edition 28, Griffith University, Brisbane Australia.
Larner, W. 2003. Neoliberalism. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space.
Vol 21 (5): 509 – 512.
Lawrence, R. 2005. Governing Warlpiri Subjects: Indigenous Employment and
Training Programs in the Central Australian Mining Industry.
Geographical Research. 45(1):40-48.
MacDonald, Lindsey Te Ata O Tu, and Muldoon, Paul (2006) 'Globalisation,
neo-liberalism and the struggle for indigenous citizenship', Australian
Journal of Political Science, 41( 2): 209 — 223.
Maddison, S. 2008. "Indigenous Autonomy Matters: What's Wrong With the
Australian Government's 'intervention' in Aboriginal Communities" .
Australian Journal of Human Rights 14(1): 41-61.
Maddison, S.2009. Black Politics. Crows Nest: Allen and Unwin.
McNeill, D. 2005. Narrating Neoliberalism Geographical Research. Vol 45 (1):
113-115
Nieuwenhuysen, J. 2009. ‘Foreword’, in Power, Culture, Economy Indigenous
Australians and Mining. J. Altman, and D. Martin (Eds.), Research
Monograph No 30, Centre for Aboriginal Economic and Policy
Research, The Australian National University, Canberra.
O’Faircheallaigh, C. 2004. Denying Citizens their rights? Indigenous people,
mining payments and service provision. Australian Journal of Public
Administration • 63(2):42-50.
O`Tuathail, G., Herod, A, and Roberts, S. 1998. Negotiating Unruly
Problematics. An Unruly World? Globalisation, Governance and
Geography. (Eds). A. Herod, G. O`Tuathail and S. Roberts. London:
Routledge.
Patomakki, H. 2003. A Critical realist approach to global political economy.
Critical realism : the difference it makes. Justin Cruickshank. (Ed). London:
New York : Routledge.
Peck, J. 2004. Geography and Public Policy: Constructions of Neoliberalism.
Progress in Human Geography. 28 :392-405.
20
Peck, J. and Ticknell, A. 2002. Neoliberalizing Space. Antipode. 34 (3): 380-404.
Peck, J. Nik Theodore, N. and Neil Brenner. 2009. Postneoliberalism and its
Malcontents. Antipodes. Vol 41 ( s1):94 – 116.
Peck, J., Theodore, N. and Brenner, N. 2010. Postneoliberalism and its
Malcontents. Antipode. 41 ( 0): 94-116.
Slowey, G. 2008. Navigating Neoliberalism:Self-Determination and the Mikisew
Cree First Nation. Vancouver: UBC Press.
Stewart-Harawira, M. 2005. The New Imperial order. Indigenous Responses to
Globalization. Wellington: Huia Books.
Ward, K. and England, K. 2007. Introduction: Reading Neoliberalization.
Neoliberalization: States, Networks, Peoples. England, K. and Ward, K.
(Eds). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
