Neoliberalism, Mineral Development and Indigenous People: a framework for analysis

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 Queensland who have engaged with mineral development opportunities. 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.

Keywords:

• Indigenous Peoples
• neoliberalism
• mineral development
• critical realism

Acknowledgements

Funding Received from Centre for Governance and Public Policy, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia.

Notes

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, Howlett 2010).

2. Lawrence's (2005) Australian research is an exception. She developed an insightful analysis of the processes and techniques of neoliberalism for the Warlpiri people.

3. This has been the recurring critique of the political economy approach in political analysis.

4. For some exceptions see Slowey (2008), Bargh (2007), Lawrence (2005), Humpage (2008).

5. Conversely, in New Zealand, where there is a treaty between the Crown and Maori peoples, Bargh (2007, p. 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.

6. Howard had vehemently opposed the original establishment of ATSIC while in opposition in 1990.

7. The ‘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). Its focus, in both rhetoric and policy, is on reducing the ‘gap’ in statistical inequalities between Indigenous Australians and others in terms of health status, life expectancy and general disadvantage (Pholi et al. 2009).

8. It was perceived that the Howard government's intervention strategy was heavily influenced by the ideas of Noel 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, pp. 90, 129–30).

9. Funding and service provision arrangements are complex and differ from State to State. In remote communities they can often be federally funded.

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, p. 47).