Greenpeace didn’t share a link to the text of the BELEM DECLARATION ON THE TRANSITION AWAY FROM FOSSIL FUELS in their announcement that Australia signed it at COP 30. I couldn’t find a link to the declaration text in the many reports I scanned. In the end a friend found a link on the Organisation des États de la Caraïbe Orientale (Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States) website.
Greenpeace Asia Pacific’s COP 31 Lead Simon Bradshaw shared the news on LinkedIn saying “This is the strongest ever statement from the Australian Government on phasing out coal, oil and gas, and we intend to hold them to it!” Australia’s chief ‘just transition’ proponent and founder of The Next Economy, Amanda Cahill celebrated the news, sharing Bradshaw’s summary, but admitted in comments to me that Australia had some “crazy plans afoot” to import CO2.
Indeed there are plans to import CO2 and those plans have been enthusiastically supported by Labor since 2022. That enthusiasm didn’t spill over into Labor being upfront about its zeal for carbon capture and storage. Labor chose instead to emphasise its support for the renewables boom which is remarkably similar to the strategy used by the UK government who have provided significant support for the Oil and Gas Climate Initiative’s Northern Endurance Partnership to provide CO2 storage for decarbonisation hubs in Teesside and Humber. Labor chose not to make a big deal about its new Prime Minister meeting with the Inpex CEO, Mr Takayuki Ueda roughly 3 weeks after Labor took office in 2022. Labor chose not to make a big deal about the new Resources Minister, Madeleine King approving offshore petroleum exploration acreages in the Bonaparte and Browse basins.
We should not pretend that Labor have any intention to wind back their support for the plans of Inpex, Woodside, Santos, Total, Chevron, BHP and others. When the exploration acreages were announced Madeleine King made it clear where Labor stands on plans to produce blue hydrogen from LNG and develop expansive geological storage for CO2. Those plans are crucial to net zero targets.
Carbon Capture and Storage has a vital role to play to help Australia meet its net zero targets. Australia is ideally placed to become a world leader in this emerging industry, with large, stable offshore geological formations for greenhouse gas storage,
Those “crazy plans” have received the minimum of attention from the media, the opposition, the minor parties, ‘independents’ and most crucially climate campaigning NGOs. The effect of this absence of attention is that the renewables boom has been wrongly framed as the centrepiece of Labor’s net zero efforts.
The reality is that multiple MOUs have been signed and consortia initiated to make Australia a central cog in net zero plans for Asia. The Japan Bank of International Cooperation have an MOU with the Northern Territory government “enhance cooperation with Japanese companies in broad sectors, such as CCUS”. Chevron New Energies has signed an MOU with JX Nippon Oil & Gas Exploration Corporation to assess the potential for “transporting CO2 emitted from industries in Japan by ship to Chevron’s greenhouse gas portfolio in Australia”. BHP is part of a consortium including leading steel makers to engage in research that “will focus on the potential for large-scale projects that could store or repurpose captured CO2.” and “seek applications for the use of captured CO2 in industrial processes or its transportation to Asia or Northern Australia through pipeline or shipping.”
The mechanics of net zero
Integral to understanding Labor’s net zero plans and how they conflict with its signing of the Belem Declaration is the reality of the mechanics of net zero. Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) are made up of 3 scopes of emissions. These scopes form the categories of emissions and where they are entered into an exporting corporation, mining corporation, energy corporation or nation’s carbon ledger. Since net zero is in essence an accounting outcome, it is important to understand how the scopes of emissions are treated.
Put simply: scope 1 emissions are direct emissions created in the process of producing energy or a product; scope 2 emissions are indirect emissions attached to a product or service; and scope 3 emissions are the emissions created when an exported product such as coal or gas is burned. Scope 3 emissions never make it onto the climate expenditure ledgers of exporting corporations. Those emissions are the responsibility of the importing nation under net zero. As a significant exporter of coal and gas Australia is an exporter of scope 3 emissions. The net zero programs of other nations in our region show us that there is an ambition to manage those emissions through carbon capture and storage and to utilise the development of geological CO2 storage as part of Australia’s efforts to do the same. Australia is a large scale exporter of coal and gas, and is likely to become a supplier of storage for the emissions created by the coal and gas it exports. The mechanics of net zero support this.
Clean energy is not renewable energy
NGOs like the Clean Energy Council use the term ‘clean energy’ interchangeably with ‘renewable energy’, but the terms are not interchangeable. Renewable energy may be ‘clean energy’, but ‘clean energy’ also includes carbon capture and storage. Evidence for this assertion can be derived by considering that Australia’s Clean Energy Regulator recently awarded Santos 614,133 Australian Carbon Credit Units for its Moomba CCS project.
This is the largest single ACCU issuance since the scheme began in 2012, and the first ACCUs issued under the carbon capture and storage method.
The Clean Energy Regulator Act which was passed under Rudd/Gillard in 2011 does not contain a definition of ‘clean energy’ in its definitions section. This is very unusual for a legislative instrument. I’ve only ever seen one other piece of legislation that does not contain a definition of a key word in the title, and in that instance the act was amended, without discussion, to render any means of arriving at an understanding of the meaning of that key word in law impossible. That particular piece of legislation is currently the subject of High Court proceedings.
As I wrote in 2016, ‘clean energy’ is not a properly codified term. There is no agreed understanding of its meaning. There was no separate Wikipedia entry for the term in 2016 and there is currently no separate entry. Analysis of any number of public statements from leaders using the term ‘clean energy’ will show that the leader in question includes carbon capture and storage for oil, coal, gas and biomass in their understanding.
Australia built legislation to empower a regulator on the basis of an ill defined term. NGOs were formed around this term. Leaders made rhetorical statements intimating a commitment to renewable energy using this term. The renewables boom which is destructive to precious habitat and is not and will never be adequate to supply Australia’s energy needs was implemented under the cover of this ill defined term.
Narrative change is necessary
The so called ‘independents’ under the Climate 200 banner, the minor parties like One Nation, the opposition, the Greens, the philanthropically funded climate campaigning NGOs, and of course, Labor need to change their narratives. They need to acknowledge that climate negotiations have permitted business as usual. The debates about commitment to net zero need to involve recognition of what it is – an accounting outcome – and how it is regarded by the corporations that benefit from access to Australian resources. The renewables boom should be seen as the green veneer on the long term plans of oil, coal, gas and biomass corporations, and the philanthropic interests who have shaped the messaging of climate campaigners globally.
If the Belem Declaration is the beginning of anything, it should be the point where we start to recognise that the promise of a ‘just transition’ was nothing but lies.
New FOI documents show that Labor ministers did not faithfully report the deliberations of the Referendum Working Group.
A new freedom of information disclosure provided by the National Indigenous Australians Agency shows that while no Referendum Working Group communiques or media releases made mention of consideration given to the Indigenous Voice Co-design Process: Final Report in preparation of the Voice referendum question and its supporting detail, the Referendum Working Group did consider the report during its deliberations.
The Voice Co-Design report represents the closest thing to an implementation plan for a constitutionally enshrined Voice – a policy proposal – despite its intent being the creation of a legislated rather than constitutionally enshrined Voice. The membership of the Referendum Working Group contained no less that 8 members involved in the Co-Design process. The Co-Design report involved extensive consultation. Numerous commentators including Noel Pearson’s friend Shireen Morris, a constitutional expert, have argued that the detail of the Voice could have been well informed by drawing from the policy implementation strategies outlined in the report.
Referendum Working Group deliberations, all of which were deleted or redacted from FOI-2425-060 lead to the production of a set of ‘design principles’ which acted as the detail of the Voice and were announced jointly with the final referendum question on 23 March 2023. These design principles were first articulated in the Uluru Statement, codified in the Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Recognition relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples, and expanded into an implementation framework in the Co-Design process.
The FOI request that lead to the disclosure in question sought to clarify why the Referendum Working Group was satisfied that a set of design principles was enough detail to accompany the Voice policy proposal: that there should be a constitutionally enshrined advice giving body called the Voice. An understanding of the Co-Design process gives a full sense of the scope and extent of the bureaucratic framework that would need to be instituted to deliver an effective Voice for Indigenous Australians. To put it simply, the Voice bureaucracy would be extensive and specifically tailored to represent diverse, disparate and geographically separated communities. The Voice, as a policy proposal, would require an extensive and detailed implementation.
While the Co-Design report was not mentioned in any of the communiques or media releases produced by Labor ministers which represented reportage of the Referendum Working Group deliberations, there were statements of support for consideration of the Co-Design report given by Referendum Working Group members and federal politicians in the media. Marcia Langton repeatedly stated that all the detail was there in the Co-Design report, Ken Wyatt insisted that those asking questions about the ‘detail’ should “Just learn to read”, Julian Leeser highlighted the relevance of the Co-design report in his National Press Club address, and Anthony Albanese insisted that the Co-Design report contained the detail in a radio interview with Ben Fordham.
The only media report that mentions the Co-Design report directly in relation to Referendum Working Group deliberations, ‘The devil in the details: Inside the Yes campaign’s defeat’, asserts that the 2 February 2023 ‘closed session’ of the Referendum Working Group involved an offer to Peter Dutton that if he changed position from ‘No’ to ‘Yes’ that the group was prepared to “adopt all the specifications of a proposed advisory body outlined in the 2021 Langton-Calma report”. That media report raises questions about the true nature of Referendum Working Group deliberations.
FOI-2425-060 shows that on 2 February 2023, the date of the closed session with Peter Dutton and Julian Leeser, the Referendum Working Group had already agreed to the design principles announced on 23 March 2023. Mention is made of “how to take forward the previously agreed design principles for a Voice” on 12 December 2022 and the 16 February 2023 communique mentions discussions of “Voice principles”. The design principles were said to have been derived from the Uluru Statement, the 2018 Joint Select Committee report and the Co-design report. I would argue that the design principles were derived from the first two given that they predate the Co-Design report which sought to operationalise existing principles.
It’s important to understand that not all Referendum Working Group members fully supported the Co-Design process. Megan Davis most notably condemned Ken Wyatt’s actions in initiating the Co-design process citing concerns about legislating an ‘Indigenous voice to government’ rather than to parliament. Davis acknowledged that the Co-Design process was intended to flesh out the detail of a Voice bureaucracy. Shireen Morris, in her book ‘Broken Heart: A True History of the Voice Referendum, outlined how Labor must have felt “stuck” – Labor could pursue bipartisanship and endorse the Co-Design report, but this risked a “negative reaction from some Indigenous leaders”.
The issue that concerned legal scholars like Megan Davis’ peers at the Indigenous Law Centre was that too much detail would make the referendum result attach to a particular model and potentially limit opportunities to adapt the Voice to changing circumstances in the future. The argument that less detail is better, and that fleshing out the detail is better done by parliament after a referendum is where the political will pushes against good policy advice. Shortly after the 2 February 2023 meeting with Peter Dutton, Senator Pat Dodson argued that we shouldn’t get distracted and that “our political process is in the parliament, and that’s where the detail is always settled”.
In essence, Anthony Albanese and Labor tried to have it both ways. Labor did not endorse the Co-Design report, but Albanese insisted in the media that it contained the detail. Labor ministers did not faithfully communicate Referendum Working Group deliberations regarding the detail of a policy proposal presented in the form of a referendum question. The importance of implementation planning and good policy advice is well understood. We know that Labor understand the importance of practical implementation plans because Linda Burney, in her role as chair of the 2024 Inquiry into Policy and Program Design and Implementation, articulated the the key elements of the Delivering Great Policy model. For their part, the LNP disavowed the work of its 2 greatest Voice proponents, Ken Wyatt and Julian Leeser, who bowed out from the party in the process of bringing the Voice referendum into being.
Media release and communiques regarding the Referendum Working Group 29 September 2023 to 23 March 2023
29 September 2022
First meetings of Referendum Working Group & Referendum Engagement Group
The Working Group considered the Pathway to a Voice, both in terms of the process that would be undertaken after the referendum to finalise and legislate a Voice model, and how to take forward the previously agreed design principles for a Voice.
(The review sought Indigenous perspectives, but I thought that the Jumbunna Institute ought to know what I have uncovered about the operation of the NIAA with regard to the Close the Gap National Agreement – Priority Reforms under Labor in the context of its delivery of the Voice referendum)
Introduction
I do not identify as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander and make no claim to represent Indigenous perspectives on the Close the Gap – Priority Reforms or the National Agreement. I have though engaged in administrative disclosure and freedom of information requests to the National Indigenous Australians Agency and the Office of the Registrar of Indigenous Corporations regarding what were termed “existing arrangements” in the Voice Co-Design Final Report.
While some academics engaged with the Jumbunna Institute for Indigenous Education and Research emphasise the importance of ‘self-governance’ over ‘corporate’ or ‘political’ governance, I advocate for an interrogatory approach to the existing colonised arrangements. I contend that the political and material context of the struggle for self determination is that First Nations communities exist in a colonised economy which imposes dependence on funding, support and the positive political will of colonising powers. I contend that with respect to the Native Title regime which does not operationalise the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and in the face of relentless development on country where First Nations fight for the exercise of rights and interests, an interrogatory approach is necessary for the pursuit of self determination.
I believe that at least some Indigenous people will take an interest in the disclosures made to me over the last 22 months. I make this submission in good faith to provide an opportunity for consideration of the importance of strengthening organisational governance in Indigenous organisations for the purposes of self determination.
Interrogation
When Labor came into office in 2022 it chose not to continue the CATSI Act reforms/comprehensive review process initiated in 2016.
James Haughton, the author of a research paper prepared for the Parliamentary Library titled ‘Unfinished Parliamentary Business: an overview of potential Indigenous Australians portfolio measures’ outlines the status of the Corporations (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) Amendment Bill 2021at the dissolution of the 46th Parliament and states that “both ALP and Greens senators expressed support for many of the overall objectives of the bill, subject to amendments,”and that “Both parties subsequently moved amendments in the Senate”.(1)
On 29 June 2023 I received confirmation from the Office of the Registrar of Indigenous Corporations (ORIC) that “there are currently no processes or consultations regarding CATSI Act amendments.”.(2)
On 6 November 2023 following my administrative disclosure request to the National Indigenous Australians Agency (NIAA), the Strengthening Organisational Governance (SOG) Evaluation Report prepared by Price Waterhouse Coopers Indigenous Consulting was published.(3) I followed up my request with a complaint arguing that the NIAA did not follow its own publication scheme. In the outcome letter following my complaint the NIAA acknowledged that it “did not meet is own stated time frame to publish the Report on the IPS [Information Publication Scheme].”(4)
I followed up my successful complaint resolution with a Freedom of Information (FOI) request to ascertain why the report was neither published nor the subject of a response from the NIAA. I was forced to reduce the scope of my request as a significant number of documents appeared to relate to the NIAA’s reaction to my administrative disclosure request and subsequent complaint.
On 1 May 2024 I received my FOI disclosure which indicated that NIAA staff were concerned with the “incredibly slow progress” (8 November 2022) made in response to the SOG evaluation report. The disclosure also revealed that “In July 2022, NIAA briefed the Minister for Indigenous Affairs, the Hon Linda Burney MP, on the evaluation outcomes and options for the SOG Policy.” and that “The matter is currently under consideration.”(5)
The SOG policy has been partnered with the Indigenous Advancement Strategy (IAS) since its inception. The IAS was identified by Megan Davis (Uluru Dialogues & the Referendum Working Group) as a “primary driver of a Voice”.(6)
A key passage in the consultation record prepared by the NIAA – Program Performance Delivery Group ties the National Agreement on Closing the Gap – Priority Reforms with the SOG policy.(5)
There were varied levels of understanding of the policy among those consulted, and significant time has elapsed since the design of the policy, which limited stakeholder input and commentary. Undertaking further analysis and adopting a co-design process with key stakeholders to develop proposed options for amendments to the SOG policy would clarify policy intent and scope for change. The evaluation findings are timely and will inform the future direction of the SOG policy and assist in determining whether the Indigenous grants sector is sufficiently supported to respond to the increasing demand for the services of Indigenous organisations, especially in responding to the National Agreement on Closing the Gap – Priority Reforms.
The SOG evaluation report states that according to “some organisations” access to support fromORIC has been limited “due to ORIC being under-resourced to respond to the level of demand.”(7)
In its findings the SOG evaluation report asserts that ORIC may require further funding to help reduce organisational failure.(7)
By requiring Indigenous organisations to transition to ORIC, the SOG Policyis positioning Indigenous organisations to access regulator supportand guidance. This may contribute to higher levels of compliance andreporting standards and result in better governance and reducedorganisational and service delivery failures over time. Although at this stagethere is no quantitative evidence to support this, it is likely that for manysmaller Indigenous organisations, access to the support and trainingprovided by ORIC to organisations incorporated under the CATSI Act wouldbe valuable. This may require further funding for ORIC.
References
(1) Unfinished Parliamentary Business: an overview of potential Indigenous Australians portfolio measures
(2) Email: 29 June 2023: Julie Emmett | Senior Regional Officer, Southern Region Office of the Registrar of Indigenous Corporations :julie.emmett@oric.gov.au
I write on behalf of the Registrar of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Corporations in response to your correspondence of 28 June 2023.
I wish to confirm that there are currently no processes or consultations regarding CATSI Act amendments. Any future processes or consultations will be posted on ORIC’s website, located here.
(3) Email: 6 November 2023: FOI Team | Legal Services Branch| Integrity Group | National Indigenous Australians Agency| FOI@niaa.gov.au
The NIAA is committed to ensuring all evaluation reports or summaries under the IAS evaluation framework are publicly available. The Evaluation of the Strengthening Organisational Governance Policy: Final Report has been published on the NIAA website in accordance with the NIAA’s Indigenous Advancement Strategy Evaluation Framework (link here).
(4) COMP2324001 – Outcome letter 09.02.2024
Finally, I thank you for your questions on the Strengthening Organisational Governance Policy Evaluation report and ensuring the NIAA published material proactively in accordance with the Information Publication Scheme.
(5) NIAA: FOI-2324-039 (1 May 2024) (selected quotes)
There were varied levels of understanding of the policy among those consulted, and significant time has elapsed since the design of the policy, which limited stakeholder input and commentary. Undertaking further analysis and adopting a co-design process with key stakeholders to develop proposed options for amendments to the SOG policy would clarify policy intent and scope for change.
The evaluation findings are timely and will inform the future direction of the SOG policy and assist in determining whether the Indigenous grants sector is sufficiently supported to respond to the increasing demand for the services of Indigenous organisations, especially in responding to the National Agreement on Closing the Gap – Priority Reforms.
*
All four evaluations in the publication pipeline have made incredibly slow progress
*
The Strengthening Organisational Governance (SOG) policy aims to promote high standards of governance and accountability for Indigenous Advancement Strategy (IAS) grantees.
*
In July 2022, NIAA briefed the Minister for Indigenous Affairs, the Hon Linda Burney MP, on the evaluation outcomes and options for the SOG Policy.
The matter is currently under consideration
(6) Megan Davis: ‘The Torment of Our Powerlessness’
The most criticised policy raised universally by the constitutional dialogues was the Indigenous Advancement Strategy (IAS), introduced by Tony Abbott’s government. Yet few Australians know anything about this primary driver of a Voice.
Book Review: ‘Broken Heart: A True History of the Voice Referendum’ by Shireen Morris
Claims of a ‘true history’ should be assessed against some critical context. Assertions about the failure of bipartisanship should consider the unfinished business left by the previous administration.
Ken Wyatt’s legacy as the first ever Indigenous minister for Indigenous Affairs lies in tatters. Not only did Labor fail to turn the Voice Co-Design process output into anything other than a set of design principles, they failed to respond to the CATSI Act reform process. – they mothballed it. The stakeholders expressed a desire to keep the process going after the 2022 election. Shireen Morris does not ask or answer any questions about why Ken Wyatt didn’t defend his legacy more vigorously. She does not ask why the coalition did not defend Ken Wyatt’s legacy in terms of good economic management.
I would pose this general question: Where is the political disadvantage in asking Labor why they mothballed a reform process that started in 2016?
The CATSI Act creates a special corporate regulator, the Office of the Registrar of Indigenous Corporations. The CATSI Act/ORIC are prime examples of what are termed ‘existing arrangements’ in the Indigenous Voice Co-Design Process Final Report/Calma-Langton Report. That report asserts that an Indigenous Voice would “provide the right mechanism, working with and strengthening existing arrangements,”.
Constitutional lawyers regard legislation like the CATSI Act as ‘special measures’. The CATSI Act creates ORIC under Article 1 (4) of the Racial Discrimination Act. Special measures are key components of existing arrangements. The Indigenous Advancement Strategy (IAS) which was described by Megan Davis as a “primary driver of a Voice” during Referendum Council consultations is a key component of the National Indigenous Australians Agency (NIAA) delivery model. Former Indigenous Affairs minister Nigel Scullion pushed for ORIC regulation of Indigenous corporations receiving funding under the IAS.
At the same time that Ken Wyatt was saying “Just learn to read” referring to the Calma-Langton report in response to questions about detail, Tom Calma was promising that more detail “should” come in early 2023. The NIAA published ‘Design Principles of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice’ in March of 2023. The detail that Pat Dodson promised in July 2022 either never arrived or was reduced into a set of value statements (design principles).
In her chapter titled ‘Where Is the Detail?’ Morris indicates that Labor’s 2022 election platform was without mention of the Co-design report. Morris agrees with Marcia Langton’s assertions in January 2023 that the questions posed by the LNP about ‘detail’ were a ‘political tactic’. Morris goes on to argue that to accede to LNP demands for more detail would “let the opponents run the debate”. Langton, like Ken Wyatt defended against accusations of missing detail; both were very attached to what they had achieved in the Co-Design process. The problem that they never articulated was that no party of any kind demanded that the Co-design output be used to provide detail about how Labor envisaged it would implement the Voice. Promises were made by many that more detail would come. Conservative politicians and academics argued, like Calma and Langton, that detail should be derived from Co-Design output.
Everybody ought to know that Labor should have presented the public with more detail. The detail is where the reassurance resides. Releasing more detail would have shown that Voice proponents have considered how the extraordinary bureaucracy required to effectively support a Voice would be likely be implemented. It demonstrates a commitment to the work already done (true bipartisanship).
The world of bureaucracy and public services operates on policy proposals backed by implementation plans. The policy proposal that the constitution be amended to create the Voice was never ‘modest’ as asserted by Morris, but it was, in essence, a policy proposal without an implementation plan.
Morris joined David Marr on ABC Late Night Live last month to promote her book. In her chapter on the detail Morris finishes by arguing that Labor were in a “no-win” situation, but in her interview with David Marr her position was distinctly different:
“I do think the Labor government could have done more, to explain and highlight and remind people that this was not only a fantastic example of Indigenous self determination and consensus, it was also a fantastic example of Indigenous collaboration across the political and ideological divides.”
Morris knows the Co-Design process was sidelined. She tells us that the Uluru Dialogues – Megan Davis and Pat Anderson – were critical of the Co-Design process and indicated that she disagreed with Davis’ critique of the ‘voice to government’ nomenclature. In essence Morris argued that particular partisan nomenclature did not diminish the significance or utility of the Co-Design process for informing the implementation of a Voice. This is a very very important point of contention between 2 constitutional specialists and it sits at the epicentre of the silences around which the solidarity of Voice proponents aligned.
In March 2021 Megan Davis puts the blame for the apparent inadequacy of the Voice Co-Design process squarely on the shoulders of Ken Wyatt:
“His actions disavowed entirely the decade of work that has come before.”
Wyatt played his part by not defending his legacy: CATSI Act review/reform, the Voice Co-Design process and the efforts of NIAA staff to proceed with due hast to support initiatives like the Strengthening Organisational Governance policy.
When Peter Dutton’s LNP disavowed the LNP ‘owned’ Co-Design process, Ken Wyatt didn’t defend it, Labor largely ignored it, Megan Davis rejected it, Marcia Langton, Tom Calma and Noel Pearson insisted that the detail was ‘all there’ while ignoring the fact that Labor and Megan Davis had rejected the Voice Co-Design output.
Solidarity between well connected blackfellas aligned around the constitutional amendments and a collective silence about the marginalisation of the Co-Design output. Social media commentator Madison King calls this grouping the “purple circle”. It is important to acknowledge here that without a successful referendum, the Co-Design output would become virtually worthless. Developing something approaching model legislation using the Co-Design output to provide the public with more detail would have ensured that it had been deployed as intended/put to some actual use.
I would argue that failure of bipartisanship started when Labor sidelined the Calma-Langton report and Ken Wyatt changed sides. For me the referendum loss felt like the result of hubris. The supporter list of corporate and civil society entities backing the ‘Yes’ campaigns was remarkably similar to the lists of supporters of the failed Recognise campaign. A stalwart figure, and arguably the highest ranked non-Indigenous person in the history of reconciliation is Australia’s preeminent Zionist, Mark Leibler the inaugural co-chair of Reconciliation Australia, former co-chair of Referendum Council and former co-chair of The Expert Panel on the Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples in the Constitution. Morris makes a solitary mention of Leibler (spelled ‘Liebler’ in the index), quoting him in response to Malcolm Turnbull’s reaction to the Voice proposal presented by the Referendum Council: “Take it or leave it,”. Morris’ friend and colleague Noel Pearson must have a special relationship with Leibler. Pearson joined Julia Gillard to present a key note speech for the launch of the authorised biography of Mark Leibler ‘Power Broker’ in July 2020. Was Mark Leibler’s outsized influence a source for the evident hubris? Was his part in garnering the support of corporations and civil society a contributing factor in what Frank Brennan termed a “crash or crash through” strategy?
Shireen Morris spends a lot of time making excuses for Labor and the Voice proponents not providing more detail. Morris says almost nothing about Labor’s performance in regard to existing arrangements. Isn’t that the real test of good faith? Morris appears to have an agenda of exonerating the Voice proponents of any part in the failure of bipartisanship and attempting to heap blame primarily on conservative politicians while neglecting to point out that conservatives, including Ken Wyatt did not defend their own efforts to deliver on existing arrangements. The detail was ‘there’, but not where it was supposed to be presented – as somewhat of an implementation plan to support a significant constitutional change. All parties fell into silence about the marginalisation of the Calma-Langton report.
Under Labor the National Indigenous Australians Agency (NIAA) went on a go-slow, neglecting to provide a timely response and timely publication of a report commissioned in 2020.
A Freedom of Information (FOI) disclosure made to me on 1 May 2024 shows what appears to be a sense of urgency and appropriate propriety in the internal communications made by NIAA in regard to the response to the evaluation report prepared by Price Waterhouse Coopers Indigenous Consulting (PWCIC) on the Strengthening Organisational Governance (SOG) policy shortly before the 2022 election which resulted in Labor taking office.
The sense of urgency applied to both the publication of the report and the NIAA’s response. The NIAA Program Performance Delivery Group produced an internal report on the ‘management response’ issuing a statement under the heading “Sensitivities”.
A failure to publicly release and respond to the evaluation within a reasonable time frame may raise concerns from stakeholders about the findings of the evaluation, especially those who participated in the process.
28 March 2022 (FOI 2324-039)
But, within 6 months of Labor taking office NIAA staff were complaining about the delay in completing multiple responses to evaluations including the PWCIC SOG evaluation. An email sent by a member of the Program Performance Delivery Group reveals serious concern about the progress of not only the SOG evaluation response, but 3 other evaluations requiring a response.
All four evaluations in the publication pipeline have made incredibly slow progress
On 6 October 2023 I made an administrative disclosure request to the NIAA. I asked if I could have a copy of the PWCIC SOG report, or if it was able to be published, could they explain why it has not yet been published under the Information Publication Scheme.
On 6 November 2023 I received a response from the NIAA indicating that the report had now been published. The response neglected to attend to my questions about why it was not published.
On 9 February 2024 the NIAA upheld my complaint regarding their failure to respond to my questions about their failure to adhere to their own publication scheme and agency plan. They provided me with an acknowledgement that they did not adhere to the proactive release of documents in the publication pipeline enshrined in their commitments under their publication scheme.
Finally, I thank you for your questions on the Strengthening Organisational Governance Policy Evaluation report and ensuring the NIAA published material proactively in accordance with the Information Publication Scheme.
On the same day I received my outcome letter regarding my complaint the NIAA also sent me a Request Consultation Notice indicating that among the 460 emails manually reviewed during the preliminary search, 188 emails related to my administrative disclosure request made on 6 October 2023. Given that my FOI request date range covers from 1 January 2018 to 6 November 2023, and my request was made on 6 October 2023, the 188 internal NIAA emails were made in the space of 31 days. Everyone I have spoken with, including federal public servants, acknowledges that it looks like the NIAA were scrambling.
There were so many emails relating to my administrative disclosure request that it threw my request out of scope. I could not determine the best way to search within those emails to reduce their number, so I decided to exclude them from my FOI request.
CATSI Act on the back burner
Labor seems to have buried everything that might pressure them to reinstate the CATSI Act reform process. Continuing with the legislative amendment process begun after the CATSI Act Review was an item on the ‘unfinished business’ slate when Labor came into government.
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Corporations reforms
At the dissolution of the 46th Parliament, the Corporations (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) Amendment Bill 2021 was before the Senate, having passed the House of Representatives. This bill was the Government’s response to the Comprehensive Review of the Corporations (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) Act 2006,[41] as well as a number of previous reviews; for full discussion, see the Bills Digest.[42]
In the report of the Senate Finance and Public Administration committee Inquiry into the bill, both ALP and Greens senators expressed support for many of the overall objectives of the bill, subject to amendments, but expressed concern about the short time available for consultation, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic.[43] Both parties subsequently moved amendments in the Senate (see the Bill homepage).[44] This support for the Bill’s overall objectives suggests similar measures may be presented to Parliament by the new government.
No reason has ever been offered for why the reform process was put on hold. As far as I can tell the stakeholders in the process aren’t complaining. But I wonder if the promises of the Voice campaign with all of its establishment support had the effect of drawing in austere bodies like AIATSIS causing them to put their reform agendas on hold in the expectation that future activity would align around a Voice architecture?
For me the silence is disturbing. Where are the vigorous efforts to interrogate the systems already in place? These systems were called “existing arrangements” in the Calma-Langton report (Voice Co-design report). The special regulator ORIC which is created by the CATSI Act is a very important existing arrangement. The Indigenous Advancement Strategy and the Strengthening Organisational Governance policy were designed and implemented to ensure that Indigenous organisations have the best chance of success. Organisational success supports the exercise of rights and interests over country, and delivers a measure of autonomy to Indigenous communities.
Where is the interest in tackling the issues that we know would have been put on the Voice slate? So much money and effort went into the Voice referendum, but at the end of the process there is nowhere for the stakeholders to go but back to the drawing board. The ‘Yes’ camp don’t want to acknowledge that it was the establishment funded hubris that made them think they could present a policy proposal with no implementation plan and that the Australian people would go for it.
The ‘No’ camp don’t want to deal with the issues or the bureaucracies that Ken Wyatt was immersed in. Somehow the legacy of Australia’s first Indigenous minister for Indigenous affairs was cast adrift when bipartisanship failed and Ken Wyatt jumped ship. Wyatt’s legacy was sunk with the Voice. It’s impossible to know how much faith he had in the co-design output, while not regarded by Labor as any kind of guide to what a Voice architecture might look like, it was still regarded by Langton and Calma as “an effective design for Indigenous advice to the parliament and executive government” in May 2023.
This is a failure to deliver on the ‘existing arrangements’ mentioned in the Voice Co-design process. If Labor were super-keen to do all they can for Indigenous people, then why were they so slow to act on the PWCIC SOG report at the same moment they were pushing hard to get the Voice referendum into swing? Surely it is a waste of government resources and a waste of the time and resources of stakeholders to allow an evaluation report to go out-of-date while languishing on the shelf? For me Labor’s inaction signifies that they are not deeply committed to the kind of improvements the Voice proponents were seeking. If they were deeply committed they would never have mothballed the CATSI Act reform process and they would have diligently produced a response to the PWCIC SOG evaluation report. Hopefully the stakeholders will soon see what I see and assert their right to critically analyse Labor’s inaction on crucial components of a functioning Indigenous Advancement Strategy.
*For background read my blog post: ‘Why were the CATSI Act reforms put on hold?: The Voice referendum and the bureaucratic reckoning’
This is a non-comprehensive timeline designed to highlight the growth of natural capital thinking in Australia and the potential impacts on Indigenous peoples. The Indigenous Estate concept was deployed to describe a distinct set of assets that require management.
This timeline begins with discussion of the necessary financial instruments lead by the Godfather of natural capital accounting, Robert Costanza who had taken up an academic role at the Australian National University. The entries that follow show the engagement of government, academia, NGOs and corporations in advancing natural capital accounting and payments for ecosystem services in relation to the ‘Indigenous Estate’.
10 July 2015
Robert Costanza et al lay out ES[ecosystem services]-well-being as a proposed “composite measure” to integrate all aspects of Indigenous relationships with nature within natural capital accounting frameworks.
‘Ecosystems and indigenous well-being: An integrated
framework’
The proposed framework could help to advance ecological information on the status of ES in terms of well-being of people. Using the proposed framework, the indigenous groups will be able to demonstrate the importance of country in their well-being, suggesting a policy relevant approach. Particularly, several Natural Resource Management (NRM) organisations in Queensland incorporate Indigenous perspectives such as the Bunya Mountains Elders Council and Burnett Mary Regional Group (2010) in the south, the Queensland Murray Darling Committee (QMDC) (2008 2011) in south-west, and the Wet Tropics Aboriginal Plan Project Team (2005) in the north. However, none of their plans assess people’s values in terms of their role in well-being of people, thus these fail to convey their message to the policy decision makers. However, if indigenous groups will demonstrate their values of a country in terms of their capabilities and well-being, e.g. how bush food is important for their health or how access to a site is important for their language/culture, it also becomes relevant to the Department of Social Services as well, not just the Natural Resource organisations. The proposed framework can explicitly describe each of the links i.e. natural resources-ES-people’s values and capabilities-well-being, by transcending the disciplinary boundaries. We acknowledge that it requires developing appropriate assessment tools.
Furthermore, applying indigenous perspectives can provide significant solutions for:
• Understanding ES-well-being links to develop a composite measure.
• Bridging the gap in social, economic and ecological disciplines.
• Evaluating each such links to include cultural as well as natural diversity.
The then Indigenous Land Corporation chair Eddie Fry introduces the concept of the ‘Indigenous Estate’ as all the lands and waters within Australia where Indigenous people exercise rights and interests over country through ownership or custodianship.
‘Unlocking the potential of the Indigenous estate’
The ILC wants to assist in consolidating and building on the potential of the Indigenous Estate, so it is recognised as a complex that is well run, open for business and a natural partner for investors, and as a source of value for our people and the nation.
Kamaljit K. Sangha et al further develop their ES frameworks for evaluation connections and establish payments for ecosystem services like soil carbon sequestration and avoided emissions from fire management practices.
‘An ecosystem services framework to evaluate indigenous and local
peoples’ connections with nature’
Similarly, some philanthropic, environmental and commercial organisations, willing to enhance Indigenous peoples’ well-being, environmental out- comes or to offset their environmental impacts, favor such arrangements (e.g. Pew Chartable Trust, Qantas airlines, environ- mental organisations mining companies, etc.). The collaborative and culturally appropriate PES initiatives to support Indigenous and local peoples’ efforts are, thus, essential for maintaining peoples’ capabilities that will benefit present and future global citizens. This also provides an opportunity to learn and improve our current knowledge systems for including nature-related Indigenous ethics and management practices.
The Nature Conservancy worked with members of the Walalakoo Aboriginal Corporation to integrate ‘cultural ecosystem services’ (CES) into management policy
‘Moving from reactive to proactive development planning to conserve Indigenous community and biodiversity values’
Additionally, as recognized by the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005), while society’s demand for cultural services has continued to grow, the capability of ecosystems to provide cultural benefits has been significantly diminished in the past century. Ecosystem services are generally classified by type as provisioning, regulating, habitat/supporting, and cultural (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005; TEEB, 2011). Cultural ecosystem services (CES), defined as the non-material benefits of ecosystems and human-environment interactions, are often missing from management policy (Chan et al., 2012, Chan et al., 2016; Pascua et al., 2017).
Kamaljit K Sangha is an ecological economist at the Darwin Centre for Bushfire Research which is partners with universities, national parks organisations, the CSIRO, federal government departments, the Indigenous Carbon Industry Network and local fire and emergency organisations.
It is clear from her work that Sangha’s key objective is integration of payments for ecosystem services for fire management in Northern Australia. Sangha sits on the executive committee of Ecosystem Services Partnership along with Robert Costanza.
‘Assessing the value of ecosystem services delivered by prescribed fire management in Australian tropical savannas’
Establishing equitable financial arrangements such as Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) in consultation with Indigenous peoples and other relevant stakeholders is important not only for achieving conservation but also for business development and climate change mitigation outcomes. In northern Australia, PES arrangements can assist to address the Australian Government’s ‘Developing the North’ and ‘Closing the Gap’ Indigenous development agendas. The latter is an ongoing national program worth >USD 15 billion/yr established since 2008, with little success to date [CoA 2020]). As well, PES can self-empower remote Indigenous peoples, and ensure the delivery of ES to enhance the well- being of local and wider communities. The economic rationale for such initiatives is discussed in detail by Sangha et al. (2019b), identifying multiple benefits and cost-savings for the Australian Government (USD 2.56-11.5 billion per yr).
Price Waterhouse Coopers Indigenous Consulting are the recipients of significant funding as a preferred consultancy on Indigenous affairs issues in Australia. They have consulted to a range of departments including the National Indigenous Affairs Agency.
It’s clear how ESG measures are complimented by natural capital accounting and ecosystem services integration. The securitisation of nature is contingent on making Indigenous people a party to natural capital accounting via payments for ecosystem services.
‘Joining the dots: ESG and the Indigenous Estate’
For instance, native title holders should be able to decide the terms and conditions of development on their land and sea country, so they can be economic participants in any use of these assets to generate renewable energy or carbon credits.
The AbCF are very aware of the extent of the Indigenous Estate. In their submission in response to the exposure draft of the Nature Repair Market Bill (2022) they provided a map showing lands (not waters) under Indigenous custodianship in four categories. Carbon farming in the form of Indigenous fire management practices is the AbCF’s core business.
‘Aboriginal Carbon Foundation and Melbourne Climate Futures, University of Melbourne: Joint Submission to the Nature Repair Market Bill’
Australia’s response to the climate and biodiversity crises cannot happen without First Nations land, people and knowledge. Australia’s First Nations peoples hold rights and interests in land covering over 56% of the continent, including exclusive possession (akin to freehold title) over 26%.2 First Nations people manage almost half of the Commonwealth’s parks and reserves through the ‘Indigenous Protected Areas’ scheme.
The Business Council of Australia are cognisant of the “emerging carbon abatement sector” and play a key role selecting and procuring services from Indigenous businesses. They represent some of the most powerful corporations in Australia including mining companies and mining industry suppliers.
‘A guide for Business Council of Australia members to support the growth of Indigenous businesses’
Members are continually developing and refining Indigenous business development strategies and programs tailored to their local context and their business needs. Initiatives such as the creation of business incubators, business accelerator programs, seed funding, venture capital, and other investment vehicles that build commercial capability and capacity, will help unlock the potential of the Indigenous estate and create wealth.
Conscious Investment Management are a model of how natural asset companies will operate. They see themselves as “sustainable investors”. Their carbon farming strategy is tied to working with “traditional custodians”.
‘Pioneering carbon farming finance model sees Kullilli people return to Country ‘
“This finance model is unique. It has given the Kullilli people a pathway to acquire their land and directly manage the property from day one. This structure differs from other carbon farming projects with Traditional Owner involvement, which often require the property be sold at the end of a project’s life”, says CIM director Iain Wood.
Wealth creation from facilitating renewable projects and supporting environmental conservation are the positive outcomes offered by Heidi Norman et al. They don’t speak explicitly to the subject of payments for ecosystem services or the wholesale creation of carbon offsets that could be the outcome of engagement in conservation, restoration and fire management projects.
‘Driving Indigenous-led climate solutions on Aboriginal land’
The research team is led by Professor Norman and includes Therese Apolonio, A/Prof Chris Briggs, A/Prof Sven Teske, Dr Sarah Niklas, Dr Ed Langham and Dr Saori Miyake.
“Given the right policy settings and resources, LALCs are interested in participating in renewable energy and environmental conservation,” Professor Norman said.
“Leveraging Aboriginal land could lead to a range of benefits including collective wealth generation and capacity-building.”
“Our research reveals that Aboriginal landholders are optimistic about the possibilities of renewable energy and can see the benefits of being involved in this sector but have limited resources to engage strategically in bold energy transition plans”, said Professor Norman.
My personal politics lead me to have particular opinions. One of those is that the native title system, as an exemplar of establishment solutions to challenges set forth by First Nations peoples, is a set of concessions to the post colonial globalised political economy in Australia. This aligns my views with various Sovereign thinkers. In my writing and research I look at the political economy as it is. As a researcher I find that the most important ethical principle is to fully acknowledge the diversity of world views. Many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people engage with the native title system and other post colonial systems that give agency to governments, NGOs and corporations, but do not necessarily benefit their communities, they would like to see those systems vastly improved. The diversity of world views ranges from rejection of the system to varying levels of engagement, but across the spectrum the demand for self determination can be heard.
Introduction
Put simply, the Voice was a policy proposal without an implementation plan. Constitutional enshrinement was deployed as a vehicle to establish a new bureaucracy because it offered a ‘fix’ for the most ‘wicked problem’ in policy implementation, the evaporation of political will.
Prominent Aboriginal Australians were tasked with conducting an admittedly underfunded consultation process to produce a consensus outcome that could be taken to a referendum. This consultation took place while the commonwealth funding program, the Indigenous Advancement Strategy (IAS) was being badly run. The members of the Referendum Council were charged with threading the needle to find a constitutional solution that addressed the questions of how to move forward with self determination, reconciliation, constitutional recognition, sovereignty and the reform of coordinated support via government funding.
When Labor came into office it rejected the draft Voice legislation, mothballed the CATSI Act review and chose not to release reports or commission audits that would have revealed if efforts to better deliver the IAS were effective. It seems that previous efforts to ‘strengthen organisational governance’ were not on Labor’s radar. The Voice seemed to occupy the entire polity.
Where I’m coming from
I write about Green-Black relations. I look at the relationships between environment and climate NGOs, and Indigenous communities on issues that are close to the hearts of First Nations peoples. I investigate issues and new developments from a diversity of perspectives.
In early 2016 I had a yarn with an Indigenous activist and mentor to young Indigenous campaigners in Sydney. We met to talk about ‘forefronting’ Indigenous people as a problematic strategy for climate campaigners. I listened to the unfortunate story of a young activist who was very nearly burned out after a forefronting effort which was part of a climate rally and march went sour. I also heard about Indigenous organisations being encouraged to sign on for the Recognise campaign in order to receive funding.
In June 2017 I had an informative discussion with governance specialist Dr James Swansson who prepared a report looking at the early years of the Office of the Registrar of Indigenous Corporations and its effectiveness in preventing corporate failure in Indigenous corporations. Dr Swansson’s case study based methodology provides documentation of the unfortunate circumstances befalling significant cultural bodies.
I wrote a series of blog posts in 2017 and 2018 looking at the critical context behind the near failure of the Indigenous corporation which holds the Native Title rights and interests over Abbot Point. I looked closely at the central roles played by ORIC, the North Queensland Land Council and the Queensland government, and saw what I suspect is modern day paternalism dressed up in bureaucratic garb.
The Invisiblised Struggle of an Ally: Who will take notice of ORIC’s ‘show cause’ letter to KMYAC?
It is the prerogative of the new party taking power to choose not to continue legislative reform processes begun by the previous government. The Albanese government chose to leave the Corporations (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) Act 2006 (CATSI Act) proposed amendments and the results of the comprehensive review lead by Ken Wyatt to gather dust. Labor’s priority was the Voice referendum which Ken Wyatt supported.
There is an enormous silence around the mothballing of the CATSI Act reform process. Perhaps those whose opinions are highly relevant to the question of why the process was abandoned feel that Labor had legitimate reasons, or perhaps Labor had reason to not unpack the legislative dovetailing necessary to impose a new bureaucracy, like the Voice, on Indigenous Australians.
If Ken Wyatt had spoken up about the loss of a significant chunk of his legacy, or Peter Dutton had spoken up about the importance of good governance for Indigenous corporations, or if Linda Burney had spoken up about importance of good corporate regulation for enshrining an effective Voice bureaucracy, then the discourse on the Voice might have been less divisive.
CATSI Act reforms are important
The CATSI Act creates the Office of the Registrar of Indigenous Corporations (ORIC) as a regulator of Indigenous corporations, many of which are established to represent and manage rights and interests conferred under the Native Title Act.
The CATSI Act creates ORIC under Article 1 (4) of the Racial Discrimination Act:
Special measures taken for the sole purpose of securing adequate
advancement of certain racial or ethnic groups or individuals requiring such
protection as may be necessary in order to ensure such groups or individuals
equal enjoyment or exercise of human rights and fundamental freedoms shall
not be deemed racial discrimination, provided, however, that such measures do
not, as a consequence, lead to the maintenance of separate rights for different
racial groups and that they shall not be continued after the objectives for which
The law is intended, for the purposes of paragraph 4 of Article 1 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination and the Racial Discrimination Act 1975, to be a special measure for the advancement and protection of Aboriginal peoples and Torres Strait Islanders.
ORIC is empowered to regulate Indigenous corporations to ensure good governance. It is patently obvious that good governance supports strong organisations which in turn strengthens the ability of First Nations communities to negotiate from a position of strength.
In their submission to the Review of the CATSI Act Phase 2 the Australian Institute for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies (AIATSIS) affirmed the role played by the CATSI Act in helping to deliver self determination.
Each reform, and the package as a whole, must facilitate and provide a
vehicle for contemporary Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander aspirations
for self-determination and self-management; they must recognise and
value Indigenous peoples’ knowledge and ways of governing, free from
The final report of the CATSI Act Review showed that participating organisations made a strong case for continuing the process.
National Native Title Council’s (NNTC) submission commented, ’The time frame also does not provide allowances for those affected by COVID 19, which has reduced the capacity of NNTC to consult regularly with their members in person.’ VACCHO also had concerns the, ‘…current inquiry will not get the level of stakeholder engagement required to understand the diverse and divergent ways this Act will affect the regulation and operations of more than 3,000 Aboriginal organisations nationally’. Another five submissions called for further consultation.
The CATSI Act has a particular role with regard to Registered Native Title Bodies Corporate (RNTBCs). Corporations formed to manage Native Title rights and interest have particular challenges which require regulatory bodies to provide targetted support.
Consulting firm Hopgood and Ganim noted the NIAA recommendation that consultation continue.
The NIAA has recommended further consultation around issues relevant to RNTBCs, including the viability of an economic vehicle status model and the creation of registered trusts.
The Senate Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee inquiry into the proposed CATSI Act amendments outlined the importance of the CATSI Act and the challenges faced by RNTBCs.
As noted above, corporations registered under the CATSI Act play a central
role in delivering services and supporting economic development in
Indigenous communities, particularly in remote Australia. In introducing the
bill, the Minister for Indigenous Australians, the Hon. Ken Wyatt, MP noted
that since its commencement, the CATSI Act has had a central role within the
Indigenous economic and corporate sector, and argued that the sector
currently provides ‘vitally important services such as health, education,
housing and employment to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.
The saying goes: Justice delayed is justice denied. Is this the case with the CATSI Act reform process. Did Labor calculate that the push for the Voice referendum justified stalling the reform process because they could return to the process with an enshrined voice?
The AIATSIS submission to the Voice Co-Design process cited the CATSI Act among other measures when discussing what are termed ‘existing arrangements’ in the Indigenous Voice Co-Design Process Final Report.
Ongoing discussions about comprehensive settlements with traditional owner groups should continue to complement this process, noting the primacy of the role of traditional owners in Indigenous governance and the need to accommodate traditional owner diaspora in decision-making and governance structures.
The last paragraph of the foreword for the Co-Design final report places “strengthening existing arrangements” squarely in the Voice remit.
An Indigenous Voice will provide the right mechanism, working with and strengthening existing arrangements, for the voices of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples to be heard on issues that affect us.
Some may suggest that Labor most probably had good reason to not continue with the CATSI Act reform process, and that Ken Wyatt had good reason to stay quiet about the rejection of his two marquee projects in favour of pursuing the Voice referendum. In August 2022 the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet produced a document titled Unfinished Parliamentary Business: an overview of potential Indigenous Australians portfolio measures, that document asserts that based on support for the proposed amendments, Labor is likely to continue the reform process.
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Corporations reforms
At the dissolution of the 46th Parliament, the Corporations (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) Amendment Bill 2021 was before the Senate, having passed the House of Representatives. This bill was the Government’s response to the Comprehensive Review of the Corporations (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) Act 2006,[41] as well as a number of previous reviews; for full discussion, see the Bills Digest.[42]
In the report of the Senate Finance and Public Administration committee Inquiry into the bill, both ALP and Greens senators expressed support for many of the overall objectives of the bill, subject to amendments, but expressed concern about the short time available for consultation, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic.[43] Both parties subsequently moved amendments in the Senate (see the Bill homepage).[44] This support for the Bill’s overall objectives suggests similar measures may be presented to Parliament by the new government.
I could find no statement of any kind on the public record offering an announcement or rationale relating to the decision not to continue with the CATSI Act reform process. In June 2023 I contacted the NIAA who referred me to the Office of the Registrar of Indigenous Corporations who advised me that there was no activity relating to the CATSI Act. Here is their response via email:
I write on behalf of the Registrar of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Corporations in response to your correspondence of 28 June 2023.
I wish to confirm that there are currently no processes or consultations regarding CATSI Act amendments. Any future processes or consultations will be posted on ORIC’s website, located here.
UNDRIP and self determination
A key term in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) is ‘self determination’. It is easy to see how a well managed regulatory bureaucracy subject to routine review with clear pathways to legislative reform can support the objectives of self determination.
The submission by the Australian Human Rights Commission to the Voice Co-Design Process contains a clear statement about self-determination in reference to the ‘independence and sustainability’ of the Voice bureaucracy:
Self-determination is an outcome as much as it is a process of negotiation. It
is about determining, through legitimate dialogues with the nation state, how
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are able to pursue their own
political, cultural, social and economic interests, while retaining the right to
Many have argued that the Native Title system confers weak negotiating rights to Indigenous corporations when negotiating land use agreements and cultural heritage management plans. Many argue that the UNDRIP principles should be properly operationalised under the Native Title Act. I would argue that every effort should be made to monitor and report on ORIC’s effectiveness at preventing corporate failure. I would argue that continuous efforts to reform and improve the CATSI Act are required to support self determination.
The Law Council of Australia in their submission to the Inquiry into the Application of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous peoples (2022) argue that a constitutional Voice would be a “manifestation” of the right to self determination:
A referendum for a First Nations Voice to Parliament enshrined in the Australian
Constitution should be pursued as a matter of priority. Such a Voice would be a
manifestation of the right to self-determination, which is the fundamental
The Castan Centre for Human Rights Law at Monash University submission to the same inquiry gives a good summary of the state of affairs in regard to UNDRIP.
There is presently little evidence in Australia of enactment of UNDRIP principles
at the Commonwealth level.
[]
There are three feasible means for enactment by the Commonwealth of UNDRIP
principles: interpretive provisions; a Human Rights Act specifically enumerating
the principles; embedding principles of self-determination and free, prior and
informed consent into specific legislation (eg Native Title Act 1993 (Cth)).
It is one thing for a new government to reject proposed amendments, it is another thing to dispense with a review process, but this is what Labor did when it exercised its prerogative to abandon the efforts of Ken Wyatt and Nigel Scullion before him. Could Labor have chosen to reject the proposed CATSI Act amendments produced by the review process, but continued with a new phase of review? Could an ongoing review process have considered 2 Voice pathways: a return to the legislated Voice in the case of a ‘No’ result, and the constitutionally enshrined Voice supported by draft legislation in the case of a ‘yes’ result?
Truth-telling and Self Determination
It seems to me Celeste Liddle was right on the money when she argued that truth-telling is the first and most important step. If the people of Australia are to comprehend why and how the struggle for self determination consistently fails, then truth telling about the past and what is taking place right now needs to take place.
there’s not a lot of truth to what is on the table
Gary Foley is adamant that the Voice was not self determination. Surely self determination needs to be founded on truth-telling?
So, at the end of the day, it’s nothing new, and nothing to get excited about. I can’t really see any good reason to either vote yes, or to vote no. The whole exercise is just yet another effort to put a bit of lipstick on the pig. It’s yet another device to divert the people from the real issues of self-determination, economic and political independence, which have been the consistent Aboriginal political demands since the first modern day Aboriginal political organisation, the AAPA, in the 1920s.
Ben Abbatangelo pointed to the question: What is happening now? He rightly tied the present to the past and asked what it is that government is not doing.
There is a grotesque disconnect between what’s being said and what’s being done. The focus on the future is obscuring what’s happening in the present – all of which is a violent continuation of the past. There is so much the Albanese government could be doing right now to improve the lives of First Nations communities, but it isn’t.
Kaiyu Moura Bayles is a veteran anti-Recognise campaigner who has a clear view of the key stakeholders in the reconciliation ‘movement’: government, NGOs, and corporations. She made her positions known to the Referendum Council in 2017.
Self determination will be forfeited and replaced with a Government Authority on all matters
affecting Aboriginal and Torres strait Islander People.
Black People’s Union calls recognition a “con” and derides an advisory body that would not deliver the power for Indigenous communities to determine their own fete, but rather to merely advise government.
There are Yes campaigners telling us that this is self-determination. Self-determination means control over our own social, political, and economic affairs. This proposal is not the self-determination asked for in the ATSIC report, nor our Land Rights movements, nor at the regional dialogues, nor in the dictionary definition – it does not allow us to determine our own affairs, only advise on them.
This video of Nigel Scullion’s speech is a significant document. It shows that there was active effort to move Indigenous organisations over to CATSI Act regulation in order to receive IAS funding.
So that’s why under the Indigenous Advancement Strategy we’ve ramped up the number of Indigenous organisations that are winning contracts.
I’ve indicated to them that if you’re not an Indigenous organisation by the 30th of June 2018 you won’t have a contract with me because they all come to bear there.
So, we are motivated to create regulatory regime, sophisticated, would be enabler for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander corporations to grow and thrive in a modern economy.
March 2021 – Hopgood and Ganim – Final Report of the CATSI Act Review
A key focus of the review was the CATSI Act’s role as a special measure for the purposes of the Racial Discrimination Act, supporting and building the capacity of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander corporations. The NIAA heard criticism that the CATSI Act was paternalistic and that it provides insufficient flexibility for indigenous corporations.
October 2021 – The Senate: Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee release their report following their inquiry into the Corporations (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) Amendment Bill 2021 [Provisions]
In providing their views in relation to the provisions of the bill, a number of
stakeholders acknowledged the importance of the CATSI Act, particularly as a
means of supporting self-determination for Aboriginal and Torres Strait
1991 – Reconciliation Council created by the Hawke government
2001 – The Reconciliation Council hands over duties to Reconciliation Australia
2015 – Reconciliation Australia lead the Recognise Campaign which garnered significant support from NGOs and business. An archived Recognise webpage shows the partner list from May 2015, shortly before Rio Tinto signed on as a partner. It reveals an extensive list of corporatios and civil society organisations.
2015 – Referendum Council announced by Tony Abbott and Bill Shorten, and appointed by the Turnbull government, members of Reconciliation Australia join the Referendum Council
The Referendum Council, which includes former members of the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation and the Reconciliation Australia Board, will also play a key role in maintaining the momentum required for the referendum.
2017 – The Uluru Statement from the Heart is presented as a consensus/evidence based statement founded on broad consultation
Note:
Megan Davis in the Quarterly Essay, June 2023 on the limited budget for consultation
it became apparent that the money required to run thirty-two to thirty-five regional dialogues was not going to be available. Therefore, we were forced to cut the dialogues to twelve dialogues in twelve regions. Statistically the dialogues were a robust sample.
The RECOGNISE campaign has come to an end, and its parent organisation, Reconciliation Australia, will be taking responsibility for this important work in the future.
Sector alignment and the Indigenous Advancement Strategy
Decisions about funding and governance are at the core of operation of the NIAA. Megan Davis in the Quarterly Essay, June 2023 argued that the mismanagement of the IAS was a “primary driver of a Voice”.
The most criticised policy raised universally by the constitutional dialogues was the Indigenous Advancement Strategy (IAS), introduced by Tony Abbott’s government. Yet few Australians know anything about this primary driver of a Voice.
Davis cited the Performance audit report Auditor-General Report No. 35 of 2016–17: Indigenous Advancement Strategy as evidence that Indigenous community organisations were suffering under Nigel Scullion’s leadership as Minister for Indigneous Affairs
The department’s grants administration processes fell short of the standard required to effectively manage a billion dollars of Commonwealth resources. The basis by which projects were recommended to the Minister was not clear and, as a result, limited assurance is available that the projects funded support the department’s desired outcomes.
The Aboriginal Benefit Account and the Indigenous Advancement Strategy grant guidelines (2021) reference the Strengthening Organisational Governance Policy but little can be known about the state of that policy or the effectiveness of the Commonwealth funding and strengthening governance efforts.
The Price Waterhouse Coopers – Strengthening Organisational Governance – evaluation report – 2021 was “accepted” by the NIAA in December 2021 and marked “Publication pending”, but as of the time of writing, and despite all my efforts since 25 September 2023, the document has not yet been published.
I’m going to postulate here that the reason the details on the roll out of the Voice bureaucracy were so limited is because the plans for large scale restoration projects and natural capital projects designed to ‘protect’ the environment while creating value in the form of ecosystem services like carbon sinks, water sheds and biodiversity would require the engagement of Native Title bodies corporate.
I would contend that allowing the CATSI Act reform process to stall along with the rejection of a draft (enshrined) Voice legislation, and making no effort to assess the state of the Indigenous Advancement Strategy had the effect of limiting the unpacking of the bureaucratic environment onto which the Voice bureaucracy would be grafted.
Marcia Langton is the patron of the Aboriginal Carbon Foundation. The core business of the AbCF is to support carbon farming initiatives to generate carbon credits and revenue for “Traditional Owners’.
Price Waterhouse Coopers Indigenous Consulting employed the concerning term, the “Indigenous Estate” with reference to tangible and intangible “assets”.
Australia’s Indigenous Estate is made up of assets held by or for the benefit of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and includes tangible assets (such as lands and waters) as well as intangible assets (such as cultural and intellectual property rights, and environmental and biosciences practices). If the government established licensing or tax incentives to encourage corporations to genuinely partner with Traditional Owners to deliver renewable energy, they could support Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples’ desire for greater self-determination, while also moving the nation closer to our climate goals.
Australia’s Indigenous Estate comprises more than 40% of Australia’s land mass (and up to 60% when you factor in currently unresolved land claims), therefore the scale of what we’re talking about is enormous. There’s a huge opportunity for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander landowners and rights holders to realise their ambitions for self-determination and to generate income streams that are independent of government which can be spent on what individuals and communities themselves deem to be important.
The Indigenous Carbon Industry Network is a peak body with a membership that includes “Australia’s largest land councils”. Governments and particularly the Indigenous Land and Sea Corporation are supportive of the ICIN.
The Indigenous carbon industry is a major emerging industry which has recently rapidly expanded from the successful West Arnhem Land Fire Abatement (WALFA) project launched in 2006 to over 35 Indigenous-owned savanna fire projects across the Top End of the Northern Territory, the Kimberley and Far North Queensland.
Major ‘No’ donor Simon Fenwick sees a market for carbon farming on lands where Traditional Owners exercise rights and interests.
But Mr Fenwick’s interest in Indigenous affairs is not solely political or philanthropic.
He is also a director and shareholder of New Harvest Investment Management, a private company seeking to raise more than $50 million to invest in joint ventures with Indigenous landholders.
“Investments are made to assist traditional owners unlock the value of their land in agricultural and carbon projects,” the New Harvest website says of the fund, which has attracted $10 million from the National Australia Bank.
It is clear that Fenwick’s invesment vehicle NHIIIF is targetting the ‘Indigenous Estate’.
NHIM’S INDIGENOUS IMPACT INVESTMENT FUND (“NHIIIF”) HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED TO INVESTS IN ASSETS THAT ARE COMPLEMENTARY TO THE ASSETS OF FIRST NATIONS AUSTRALIANS. INVESTMENTS ARE MADE TO ASSIST TRADITIONAL OWNERS UNLOCK THE VALUE OF THEIR LAND IN AGRICULTURAL AND CARBON PROJECTS. INVESTMENTS ARE OF AN ECONOMIC AND IMPACT NATURE FOR THE MUTUAL BENEFIT OF TRADITIONAL OWNERS AND INVESTORS ALIKE.
The reconciliation/referendum/Voice process and the CATSI Act reform process followed parallel streams. Both processes produced concrete legislative proposals during Ken Wyatt’s time as Minister for Indigenous Affairs. But the Voice, in the form that was brought to a referendum, was little more than a policy implementation proposal to create a bureaucracy that would largely inform the NIAA on how to manage its portfolio responsibilities.
Labor and the Yes campaign appear to have no Plan B. If they were truly committed to stopping the the rot, why are they not talking about strengthening the ‘existing arrangements’ referred to in submissions to the Voice Co-Design process?
Anthony Albanese was not only vague on details about the Voice implementation, but he is vague on details about his next moves. Other than statements like “We will continue to do what we can” and some mention of Makarrata/truth telling, there is little of substance.
Choosing not to take certain actions also has the effect of not exposing details on the public record that could adversely shift public sentiment. We should consider that there were counter-unpacking motives in both the establishment No and Yes camps. We should also be mindful that the Yes-No discourse took place largely between the establishment campaigners. Good faith dialogues between Yes campaigners and Indigenous advocates for a No vote never really happened. We should ask what issues might have been unpacked if those dialogues had taken place.
Everyone associated with the Yes campaign ought to be calling for extra-rigorous efforts to interrogate the Indigenous Affairs portfolio. Yes campaigners should be calling for a return to CATSI Act reforms, a new audit of the Indigenous Advancement Strategy, and an inquiry into the services provided to the Commonwealth by Price Waterhouse Coopers Indigenous Consulting.
At the end of the Voice referendum journey we can see that once again Indigenous people and their ongoing demands for self determination have been used as a political football. This is the only way that neoliberalism operates. It manifests and deploys strategies of tension so that both ‘sides’ gain from going to war, and while the battle rages, the primary object of the battle becomes lost.
I recently bought Aurizon shares so that I could attend their 2023 AGM to raise the issue of ‘prudential concern’ for the development of new coal haulage infrastructure to support new coal mines in the Galilee Basin. At the AGM, 12 October 2023 I outlined my submission to the Review of the appointment of the independent expert and asked the Aurizon board to indicate the Adani entities with which it has made access agreements. They were not prepared to provide me with an answer citing commercial in confidence arrangements.
The Queensland Competition Authority announced their decision on 21 September 2023 finding that the Coal Network Capacity Company (CNCC) was ‘independent’.
My submission was redacted to remove the names of the former Aurizon staff on the CNCC leadership team. I’ve copied my original submission into this blog post without the redactions. The former Aurizon staff continue to be employed by the CNCC according to their LinkedIn accounts at the time of writing.
Re: Review of the appointment of the independent expert – Coal Network Capacity Company
I offer this submission as a citizen and as a resident of Queensland exercising my fiduciary responsibility. As a researcher, writer and activist I have developed extensive knowledge of the Galilee Basin coal complex and the Carmichael Rail Network in order to understand and communicate the means of export for Galilee Basin coal. My interest is in growing a better understanding of the political economy of export coal development in Queensland to expand the public discourse.
My interest with regard to the Coal Network Capacity Company (CNCC) is the exercise of prudential concern and responsibility for the expansion of coal production and transport from the Galilee Basin via the Carmichael Rail Network and the Aurizon-Newlands system.
The Queensland Competition Authority Act constrains the Queensland Competition Authority (QCA) from exercising prudential concern or engaging in oversight for new, significant coal transport infrastructure. The QCA Act does not ensure the QCA recieves copies of new access agreements made by/with regulated or unregulated entities. The QCA’s limited oversight can result in paucity of information available on the public record. Parties to access agrements can work in secret until a regulatory dispute needs to be resolved. Evidence of forseeable demand can be constrained making it more difficult for the QCA to make a compelling case to the Queensland Treasurer to provide specific directions.
The CNCC are not constrained in their freedom to consider future demand via the CRN and Aurizon-Newlands system, indeed it is clearly within their perview.
The QCA should consider the employment history of the CNCC leadership team when considering its ‘independence’ as experts for the purposes of the Review of the appointment of the independent expert.
Miranda Matthews – General Manager – Commercial Services and Vasu Chhabra – Senior Simulation Specialist are both former Aurizon employees. While past employment with Aurizon may not constitute an ‘interest or duty’ that may conflict with a CNCC expert’s functions as an independent expert, it is important to be mindful that former Aurizon employees may possess knowledge that is subject to contractual limits on disclosure, but valuable when an individual is appointed to a particular role.
Carmichael Rail Network Pty Ltd were mentioned in the Hindenberg Report. They are said to hold the royalty deed for the Carmichael mine. They are the entity responsible for the construction and the operation of the Carmichael Rail Network under Queensland law.
Is it even a shell company?
I refer to Carmichael Rail Network Pty Ltd (CRNPL) as a shell company because, while they are in theory connected to significant operational activity, their real operations are rarely reported in association with the actual name of the company. All the CRNPL contact points and communications are conducted through unspecified entities under the ‘Bravus’ (Bravus Mining and Resources) business name. They are an entity with no acknowledged employees, no dedicated website and no LinkedIn page.
It is likely, but not confirmed, that CRNPL made the BMD, Siemens and Martinus contracts for the Carmichael Rail Network (we know they made the AECOM contract). In 2021 the Queensland Office of the Coordinator-General (OCG) gave media statements and commissioned a report into alleged environmental damage in relation to the North Galilee Basin Rail Project corridor which made no mention of the actual rail proponent. The OCG acknowledged that they had communications with CRNPL, but would not explain how, under the relevant acts, they were not required to communicate to the media, the public or contracting agencies, the name of the entities with which they perform their statutory functions. At the end of my dealings with the OCG, the justification for why they referred to ‘Bravus’ rather than the entity they coordinate under the State Development and Public Works Organisations Act (SDPWO Act) was provided to me with this statement, “CRN is a Bravus entity”. It wasn’t until I discovered the Bravus privacy policy web page that I understood that the CRNPL, along with 23 other Adani entities can be referred to as ‘Bravus’. The list that previously appeared on the Bravus privacy policy web page was removed sometime in late 2022 and a reference to the “Bravus Group” was added. It is reasonable to assume that CRNPL, Adani Mining Pty Ltd and Adani Infrastructure Pty Ltd are included in the Bravus Group of Adani entities. Adani Mining Pty Ltd owns the ‘Bravus Mining and Resources’ business name.
In need of close examination
There is every reason to closely monitor the approvals provided to Carmichael Rail Network Pty Ltd (CRNPL) and the work of the regulatory agencies that are responsible for rail safety, competition, environmental approvals and cultural heritage. But close examination of Adani’s most active and crucial entity in Australia, whose operations are routinely reported by media, government and regulatory agencies under the Bravus business name is not happening.
The success of the entire Carmichael coal complex from port to pit is contingent on Adani keeping the ‘multi-user promise’ which is connected to any future royalty deal. Adani must make their rail facility available to multiple users, this is where the regulatory responsibilities of the Queensland Competition Authority (QCA) will apply once they have been given permission from the Queensland treasurer Cameron Dick.
It is important to look at Adani’s messaging in regard to operational responsibility and third party access. The Bravus web page for the Carmichael Rail Network (CRN) does not mention the name of Adani’s rail proponent. Indeed it identifies Bowen Rail Company as the operator despite clear evidence that CRNPL are an accredited operator of the CRN:
The Carmichael Rail Network is operated by Bowen based business, Bowen Rail Company
A staff member at the QCA recently acknowledged to me that their organisation does not receive copies of new access agreements made between access seekers and access providers. The QCA Act does not require that operators regulated by the QCA provide the competition regulator with acknowledgement that an access agreement has been made let alone provide documents. When I asked the QCA staff member about the Carmichael Rail Network Access Policy approved by “the state” in December 2021 they had nothing to say.
The CRN Access Policy is utterly relevant to the work of the QCA. It sets up a framework for third parties, like other Galilee Basin coal mining companies, to access the CRN facility. Foreseeable demand is the trigger for the Queensland government to permit the QCA to begin investigating and reporting on the CRN. The issue here is the requisite evidence of foreseeable demand required by the Queensland treasurer. As long as third parties negotiate privately, and even if they make access agreements, the available evidence will not likely be seen as substantive. Cameron Dick and the Queensland government are in a position to delay engaging the competition regulator at their leisure.
We can reasonably assume that CRNPL and Aurizon have an access agreement because correspondence to the QCA in November 2022 from a Bravus consultant and former Queensland Rail and Aurizon employee asserted in November 2022 that Bravus (CRNPL) is “an existing Access Holder”. The same consultant asserted in October 2022 that “we rely on using ad hoc train services to meet our demand”.
A letter provided to Charles Milsteed (QCA) by Stephen Straughan, a consultant to Bravus Mining and Resources on 7 October 2022 asserts that coal is being transported on an “ad hoc” basis along the Aurizon Network. The letter also asserts that there is an “access application”.
As a result, forecast demand is likely to be materially less than actual demand for rail capacity as it does not reflect how capacity is actually utilised in practice. While we wait for additional capacity to be provided by Aurizon Network under our Newlands access application, we rely on using ad hoc train services to meet our demand. These ad hoc services make up a sizable portion of our weekly train orders and utilize unused capacity (contracted to others or otherwise) up to the maximum capacity available.
A letter provided to Charles Milsteed (QCA) by Stephen Straughan, a consultant to Bravus Mining and Resources on 4 November 2022 and published on the QCA website asserts that Bravus (CRNPL) are an “Access Holder”.
Bravus would also like to note our view on these matters have been formed from our experience as both an existing Access Holder with a significant stake in Newlands, and as an Access Seeker of additional capacity from Newlands including short term transfers from GAPE. This has provided Bravus with a broad and unique perspective with regards to the RWG proposal and other matters we have raised in our submissions.
On 27 February 2023 the Queensland Treasury responded to my request for administrative release of information regarding approval of the access policy with a letter containing this statement:
In response to your enquiry as to the approval process, I can inform you that Queensland’s Coordinator General approved the CRN Access Policy on 22 December 2021 following an extensive review process.
Patrick Wildie, Assistant Under Treasurer, Economic and Fiscal Group, Queensland Treasury, 27/2/23
I have forwarded this letter to the Office of the Coordinator-General and have asked if they can direct me to any documents on the public record confirming that the Coordinator-General approved the access policy.
The answer to my question should help me get a better sense of the legislative silences that allowed the bare minimum of information about the approval of the access policy to enter the public record. By legislative silences I refer to actions, processes and obligations specified under the relevant acts that do not require government departments and ministers to place particular documents or records of actions on the public record. It stands to reason that a company like Adani would be motivated to use every legal means to give themselves an advantage.
Unknown Adani entities under investigation
On 10 February 2023 Newscorp papers (The Daily Mercury) published a story on a signalling failure on the Carmichael Rail Network that could have lead to a collision. The article states that the Office of the National Rail Safety Regulator (ONRSR) are investigating the incident. On 14 February 2023 I spoke with a member of the coms team at ONRSR who told me they provided the media with a statement confirming that they are conducting an investigation, but did not say which of the 2 Adani entities that possess ONRSR accreditations are under investigation. The ONRSR does not publish media releases regarding its investigations. I could not discern if confirmation of the specific entities under investigation will ever take place. The 2 Adani entities regulated by the ONRSR are Bowen Rail Company and Carmichael Rail Network Pty Ltd.
I have submitted an administrative release request with the ONRSR under the South Australia, Freedom of Information Act 1991. My question to the ONRSR is straight forward and reasonable:
Which ONRSR regulated/accredited entities operating on the Carmichael Rail Network are under investigation for the ‘stop signal error’ reported by Duncan Evans on 10 February 2023?
Splitting the approvals
Carmichael Rail Network Pty Ltd (CRNPL) were Adani’s secret rail proponent for the North Galilee Basin Rail Project and the Carmichael Coal Mine and Rail Project for at least 18 months before the Office of the Coordinator-General (OCG) made changes to the relevant project pages in June 2018.
CRNPL possess the rail operator accreditations and a riverine protection permit, but it is Adani Mining Pty Ltd that possess the environmental approvals and the Traditional Owner agreements. While CRNPL are the proponent for the purposes of rail, Adani Mining Pty Ltd identify themselves as the proponent for the purposes of environmental approvals.
A statement from the most recent EPBC compliance report illustrates that Adani Mining Pty Ltd see themselves as the North Galilee Basin Rail Project (NGBR) proponent for the purposes of Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) compliance despite the fact that the proponent listed for that project by the OCG is CRNPL.
It is noted that Adani Mining Pty Ltd has updated its trading name relevant to CCMR, to Bravus Mining and Resources. For the purposes of this report the proponent is hereon in referred to as ‘Bravus’ however it is acknowledged that the approval holder remains as ‘Adani Mining Pty Ltd’.
Responsibility for the whole CRN project is split between 2 proponents because 2 different Adani entities are responsible for answering to regulators. The proponent that was installed secretly, CRNPL, is now the official rail proponent while the original rail proponent Adani Mining Pty Ltd continues to control how environmental regulation is reported regarding the NGBR project for which it is not the listed proponent under state law.
Many questions remain
On 13 September 2018 Adani announced that they were changing the ‘design’ of their “Carmichael Project” rail accompanied by a map showing the corridor that is a combination of the first section of mine rail known as Separable Portion 1 and the shortened section of the North Galilee Basin Rail Project (NGBR) designed to connect to the Aurizon network.
The Office of the Coordinator-General has not updated their project pages for Carmichael Coal Mine and Rail Project (CCMR) or NGBR to reflect the new rail corridor design. Why is this the case? Surely such a significant change to a project of this scale should result in updated information from the coordinating agency? Surely the absence of key information should have triggered some questions being asked by the media and the climate NGOs?
Journalists and commentators routinely misrepresent the nature of the Bravus brand. Bravus Mining and Resources is a business name owned by Adani Mining Pty Ltd, but used to refer to multiple Adani entities. Bravus is not a “subsidiary” or the “new name” of Adani Mining Pty Ltd, it is an umbrella brand applied to an unspecified group of entities termed the “Bravus Group”. ‘Bravus Mining and Resources’ is not the name that appears on any of the Carmichael approvals, accreditations, permits or licences. Why are government departments, investigators, NGO spokespeople and journalists routinely misrepresenting Adani’s corporate structure and never questioning what the ‘Bravus’ brand was set up to do? Why do government departments and regulators refuse to act proactively by placing the names of the entities they are coordinating/regulating/investigating on the public record in spite of the various silences in the relevant legislation?
Conclusions
The media and the NGOs clearly don’t comprehend the importance of interrogating the activities of Adani’s most active shell company. We have to assume that third party coal mining companies will continue to develop plans in private. Adani have stated that they have been approached by third parties, but the regulatory arrangements put the decision making power in the hands of the Queensland government which is choosing not to act in a fully transparent manner. The Queensland Competition Authority needs to be empowered now to give it oversight over the Adani shell company that is ensuring that the worst case scenario can take place.
A diabolical concession to carbon capture and storage
Part 2. Strategic Failure
Public failures
Strategic climate justice failure – a timeline
Part 3. Industry Readiness
Value adding CO2 as a waste product
Pipelines and storage deliver transition
Evidence of a CCUS boom
Part 4. Thinking Properly
Boondoggles do damage
Fast moving and dangerous
Conclusions
Part 1. Questions and Answers
Introduction
This briefing represents 10 years of research and activism starting with the fracking boom impacting my home state. A few years into the fracking boom I experienced the take-over of environmental/anti-fossil fuel activism by climate NGOs funded primarily through US based philanthropies working with Australian philanthropists.
I vowed to learn every possible lesson from the fracking boom and employ those lessons against the next phase of fossil fuel extractivism. I have always seen fossil fuel extraction as a dirty and destructive industry and a pillar of globalist hegemony. Like fracking, CO2 enhanced oil recovery (CO2-EOR) had been practiced/developed for decades before appearing as a ‘solution’ in the energy market place. Like fracking, efforts to advance carbon capture and storage for CO2-EOR have received weak resistance in legislatures as new subsidies and other industry development supports have been established.
It is lamentable that the many technical experts, pundits and spokespeople who offer positions on climate and energy refuse to speak about the political will. As a generalist and an independent activist and researcher, I don’t have the credentials or the backing of any institutions to give me a veneer of credibility. What I do have is a working understanding of critical theory, psywar and the networked nature of modern power.
As a generalist I can comprehend enough organic chemistry to feel confident that my statements about industry readiness for a carbon capture and storage (CCS) boom are substantive. I offer this briefing with the expectation that anyone who disagrees with my assertions will take the time to critique my work in good faith. It is most likely that this briefing will be met with silence by the climate campaigners who ought to care that the establishment is once again ensuring that business as usual continues. It is the silence of climate campaigners that I contend is the most dire outcome stemming from their reliance on billionaire philanthropists and their agents. It is in the space created by the shared silences of industry, government, media and non government organistions (NGO) that the forces engineering business as usual operate.
The Goal
Sustainable Development Goal 13: Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts
Climate change presents the single biggest threat to development, and its widespread, unprecedented effects disproportionately burden the poorest and the most vulnerable. Goal 13 calls for urgent action not only to combat climate change and its impacts, but also to build resilience in responding to climate-related hazards and natural disasters.
A. It is primarily/ostensibly about reducing emissions but it also includes adaptation plans.
Some defined actions:
avoided emissions from aforestation
carbon offsets purchased in the marketplace
reduced emissions from renewables
phasing out ‘unabated’ (without CCS) fossil fuels
carbon removal and carbon capture utilisation and storage
biomass with carbon capture and storage (BECCS)
Q. Are fossil fuels being phased out?
A. No. The only commitments being made are for phasing out ‘unabated’ fossil fuels. Much of the phase out action involves the replacement of retired energy generation. Conventional coal fired power has been a particular focus of phase-out commitments.
A. Treaties, agreements and shared commitments, none of which specify phasing out of fossil fuels. All the measures were developed for mitigation and management of emissions. Carbon accounting is a primary emissions management tool.
Consensus Mechanisms
The 1992 Earth Summit intoduced climate change as an active theme in environmental consensus building.
The Kyoto Protocol provided 3 mechanisms which are all carbon accounting formulations: Clean development mechanism (CDM), Joint implementation, (JI) Emissions trading (ET). CCS was included as an eligible technology under the CDM in 2011 (Article 6).
The Paris Agreement is a binding international treaty providing frameworks and mechanisms for finance and carbon accounting. Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) are the central carbon accounting framework in the Paris Agreement. NDCs do not compel or necessarily encourage any country or state to phase out fossil fuels. NDCs are about emissions reductions on a ledger.
COP 26 produced commitments to phase out ‘unabated’ fossil fuels.
A diabolical concession to carbon capture and storage
Q. How did ‘they’ turn climate activism into an ineffective force for the environment?
A. At Wrong Kind of Green we contend that an expansive network of philanthropies/NGOs and their connections in government, corporations and the media work under prescribed narratives and talking points defined by funders and in so doing become useful idiots for the global governance agenda. We call this networked formation the ‘non profit industrial complex’. We call the process by which networks are exploited and messaging shaped to control global consensus mechanisms and manufacture the consent of the general public, ‘networked hegemony’.
A. The Design to Win plan was produced in 2007 for a collection of philanthropic foundations to further their ‘climate’ ambitions. It contains positions in support of “unavoidable” fossil fuels and the deployment of carbon capture and storage. The Design to Win plan launched John Podesta’s ClimateWorks Foundation which became his vehicle for establishing a vast network of NGOs of varying types including re-granting NGOs which disseminated the prescribed narratives and talking points to smaller NGOs. The media helped to reinforce prescribed narratives through amplifying selected NGOs and spokespeople, and participated in considerable silences regarding the growing political will for carbon capture and storage.
The 2007 report Design To Win: Philanthropy’s Role in the Fight Against Global Warming would serve to shape the future of the climate movement. The result of a commissioned study funded by the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation, the Energy Foundation, the Joyce Foundation, the Oak Foundation, and the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, Design To Win “served as a catalyst for an unprecedented outpouring of funding on energy and climate issues. Implicit to the report was the idea that the ‘market knows best’ and that the role of regulators is to create the right conditions and send the right signals for a transition to a low-carbon economy.
A. Net Zero is an accounting outcome derived through the mitigation and management of emissions. Because it is based on results that appear on a ledger where actual emissions and various instruments representing offsets or avoided emissions are turned into numbers. Net Zero and other emissions mitigation and management schemes can and are being gamed.
A. The use of biomass as an industrial feed stock with carbon capture and storage applied. When biomass pellets produced from agroforestry trimmings, whole trees or timber industry waste is deemed carbon neutral, it provides a negative value on Net Zero ledger when CCS is applied. Biomass is widely reported as “renewable” when used in place of coal in conventional power plants.
The idea behind BECCS, Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage, is in part quite similar to CCS, Carbon Capture and Storage. However where BECCS goes a step beyond CCS is that Drax and other biomass burning companies proposing to use the technology argue that if they can capture the emitted CO2, burning biomass can become carbon negative and a climate solution! (This is based on the false premise that burning wood is carbon neutral) In 2019, Drax announced its ambition to become a “carbon-negative” company by 2030. Drax proposes that it will continue burning biomass and that with BECCS technology it will be able to capture up to 16 million tonnes of the CO2 it emits through its wood burning per year.
Q. Why is Farhana Yamin a pivotal figure in climate action?
A. Because she spent decades working as a policy wonk for the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) and for the Children’s Investment Fund Foundation, one of the key funders of Extinction Rebellion (XR). Shortly before joining XR with the sustainable development goals (SDG) tucked under her arm, Yamin’s think tank Track 0 produced the perfect articulation of the concession position engendered in global climate activism by John Podesta, and a range of billionaire donor advised funders and impact philanthropists.
The concession position, formulated in the mid 2000s and carried forward in the IPCC modelling, is to allow a little BECCS in exchange for a renewables revolution. The Track 0 rationale explains that to implement BECCS will require the implementation of CCS. The concession to BECCS is thus tethered to accepting some CCS. Because the BECCS concession is never included in any climate campaigner talking points and does not suit the prescribed narrative that asserts that there is political will to phase out fossil fuels, it is almost entirely excluded from discussion. It is as if the work of the Oil and Gas Climate Initiative which is supported by the National Grid, the North Sea Transition Authority, and the Department for Business, Energy, and Industrial Strategy doesn’t exist. The collective narrative driven silence creates a false reality as the context for XR and Just Stop Oil (founded by XR founder Roger Hallam) activism.
Bioenergy production can be integrated with existing CCS technologies relatively simply and there are no technical implications of capturing a CO2 stream from biomass (Gough and Upham, 2010; Muratori et al., 2016). BECCS could complement the current expansion of the use of biomass as fuel (Rhodes and Keith, 2008). However, the success of BECCS is dependent on upcoming developments in CCS, where there are significant uncertainties surrounding CO2 transport networks, storage capacities, legality, social acceptability and technology incentives (McGlashen, Shah and Workman, 2010).
Q. How does the work of Biden administration senior advisor for ‘clean energy’ John Podesta intersect with the work of billionaire hedge fund manager Chris Hohn?
A. Both provide funding to Bellona Europa which has been creating opportunities for BECCS for at least 2 decades. Both have extensive interests in climate activism and steering industry toward greater emissions reductions using CCS and BECCS.
Bellona Europa works primarily on industrial decarbonisation, energy systems, circularity, sustainable finance, and negative emissions (carbon dioxide removal).
To back and support our work, our funders are mainly European and International philantropies: CIFF (Children’s investment fund), ECF (European Climate Foundation) and Climateworks. We also receive grants at the EU level (EU Horizon 2020 project, “European Negative Emissions Projects” ) and at the national level (Norwegian, Nordic & EEA grants for research).
Industrial sectors such as cement and steel production are responsible for nearly a quarter of global greenhouse gas emissions. We need the right regulatory, policy and financial frameworks to bring industry emissions down. We focus on things like carbon performance regulation, heating and cooling legislation, innovation, carbon capture and storage technologies and enforcement through carbon disclosure and shifting investor behaviour. We want to ensure that Europe leads the way in industrial decarbonisation and accelerate industrial decarbonisation at a global scale.
‘An Industry’s Guide to Climate Action, CHAPTER 3 summary: The Dawn of a New Industry’ (Funded by the Childrens Investment Fund Foundation)
As the transformation of the energy system continues and new technology options are developed and brought to maturity, measures that can provide effective and deep emission reductions to industry processes are needed today. • The capturing of CO2 emissions from industrial clusters and their transport and permanent offshore storage in deep geological formations (CCS) constitutes an essential part of the solution
CCS buys humanity time and industry a functional climate transition.
Q. Why is biomass with CCS (BECCS) so crucial to net zero accounting?
A. Because BECCS is the combination of the biomass double counting scam and the near zero emissions projections for CCS. BECCS has erroneously been labeled a ‘negative emissions technology’.
BECCS employs biomass as a feed stock, and the ‘technology’ is collectively known as carbon capture and storage. The biomass accounting scam labels trimmings from agroforestry including whole trees that, in theory, are permanently sequestering CO2 as ‘carbon neutral’. This means that when biomass is used as a feed stock, the emissions created by this ‘carbon neutral’ product acquire a negative value on the Net Zero ledger. The logic goes that with BECCS as the crucial supplier of negative net zero accounting value, variously derived carbon offsets, mitigation of fugitive emissions, and the assumption that CO2 storage works effectively, the net zero ledger can be brought to zero.
Tzeporah Berman heads up the campaign for a Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty, she has a long history as a well connected environmental campaigner. In 2016 Berman joined UK High Level Climate Action Champion for COP 26, Nigel Topping (We Mean Business, Grantham Institute, UK Infrastructure Bank) and Suncor CEO Steve Williams to develop a ‘groundbreaking’ deal on emissions caps on Canadian tar sands. In 2021 Suncor acquired a stake in carbon capture technology company Svante. Suncor is part of the Pathways Alliance which has plans to emulate the Alberta Carbon Trunk Line as the basis for new gas and tar sands decarbonisation hubs. Chevron recently bought a stake in Svante who have made long term investments in carbon capture technology. Svante have stated their technology is for “rapid deployment”.
Tzeporah Berman has never mentioned the Alberta Carbon Trunk Line (ACTL) let alone contributed to any effort to unpack the project and contribute to public understanding. The North West Refining, Sturgeon plant was already under construction when Berman met with Topping and Williams. The brains behind the project, Ian MacGregor had already explained the scale of the vertically integrated refinery-pipeline-storage project in a speech to the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers 33rd Consolidated Convention in Las Vegas, Nevada. The ACTL has been called the “world’s largest CO2 pipeline”. With the Canadian government poised to introduce an American style tax credit for CCS, it seems like tar sands extraction and refining, gas extraction and CO2 enhanced oil recovery have a firm future in Alberta.
Recent statements from Alberta premier Danielle Smith make it very clear that the province is about to be subject to a CCUS boom.
We are working with the federal government closely on technologies like carbon caputre utilization and storage, hydrogen, critical minierals,
JB Noisecat left 350 dot org in early 2019 and joined Data for Progress, the progressive polling agency/think tank, taking on the role of Vice President of Policy & Strategy. As a member of Data for Progress, along with Sean McElwee, Noisecat advised the Biden-Sanders Unity Task Force in advance of the Biden campaign’s final policy statements. He would go on to proclaim that Biden’s “build back better” plans “are a Green New Deal in all but name”. Data for Progress never had a problem with CCS, indeed they redefined “non-renewable clean energy” to include CCS, hydrogen and nuclear in their ‘scorecard’ on Jay Inslee’s policy agenda in June 2019. Noisecat went on to join the NDN Collective who are recipients of significant funding from the Bezos Earth Fund.
It could be argued that Data for Progress, with the help of the World Resources Institute, authored the original Green New Deal document in September 2018. The Green New Deal became an election vehicle for Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) and a campaign focus for the Sunrise Movement. AOC and Sunrise cofounder Varshini Prakash also helped CCS and nuclear pass the Biden-Sanders Unity Task Force. If you follow the money and consider how First Nations and frontline communities were marginalised from the Green New Deal process, it’s hard not to see it as a cynical ploy to get another neoliberal Democrat president into place.
JB Noisecat seems to have helped keep “the door open” for CCS in his time since leaving the world’s most influential climate campaigning organisation (350 dot org). Any number of climate NGOs have signed open letters stating their opposition to CCS citing multiple concerns. Noisecat transformed from a climate campaigner, utterly opposed to new fossil fuel extraction, to the spokesperson for a kind of mute reformism. The passing of the Inflation Reduction Act with its “monumental enhancements” to the 45Q tax credit is testament to Noisecat’s failure.
Greta Thunberg is young and cannot be considered a failure, but a critical investigation of her messaging and content is always required. An important part of that critical view is consideration of Greta’s advisers and enablers. Cory Morningstar’s ‘The Manufacturing of Greta Thunberg’ series, provides a compelling picture of a child with elite connections propelled into celebrity by philanthropically funded entities to direct the discourse away from the mitigation plans of the global climate consensus machine. While Greta has many minders, the only acknowledged adviser is Johan Rockstrom who wears a Sustainable Development Goals badge at public events and takes a position against degrowth.
It’s naive to say ‘Let’s go for de-growth, let’s completely divest, or let’s think of post-capitalist model and throw GDP in the waste bin’. We have to work with the economic machinery that we have in our engine room.
Greta has demonstrated a pattern of not speaking to the substance of mitigation plans relying on generalised statements that raise no questions about specific actors. Kevin Anderson who told me he is not an ‘adviser’ to Greta also acknowledged that she did not pay attention to the output of the IPCC Working Group 3 on mitigation when it was relevant to the discourse. I would argue that this inattention worked to protect the interests of those who would see enough fossil fuel CCS established to allow the implementation of CO2 storage for biomass with CCS. But, Greta is too young to know that she is enjoined to a long held compromise position held by organisations like the Bellona Foundation, WWF and the European Climate Foundation.
What about the IPCC ‘pathways’ that never get discussed? They embed #BECCS and mask the political will for fossil fuel based #CCS ie hydrogen energy and industrial clusters linked to North Sea export hubs. #netzeroemissions
Agree. Greta is principally focussing on the IPCC’s Working Group 1 (the physical science), much less on the ‘cost-optimised” procrastination that dominates Working Group 3 (on mitigation).
In her climate book in Chapter 4 Greta provides an essay called ‘We are not moving in the right direction’. In it Greta develops the linguistic conflation that she carried to her public interviews while promoting the book. The linguistic conflation goes like this: direct air capture (DAC) as practiced at the Orca facility in Iceland is carbon capture and storage, and therefore any mention of carbon capture and storage is a reference to direct air capture. This conflation has resulted in statements by Greta that either sound like an endorsement of large scale fossil fuel CCS (but are not), or statements about DAC as a form of CCS that can easily be refuted by the existence of facilities like the Alberta Carbon Trunk Line.
No respectable adult public figure could get away with such a gross conflation, and since Greta is young, it is not fair to contend that she is acting on behalf of some kind of self serving agenda. Looking at the extensive list of accomplished and well positioned expert contributors, and being mindful of the extensive editorial effort it takes to produce a non-fiction book, it’s reasonable to assume that there were many adults of professional standing who let Greta’s conflation make it into the book and into her collection of talking points for its promotion.
Interview with Samira Ahmed:
Greta Thunberg: The Climate Event | Southbank Centre – 31 October 2022
Samira Ahmed
I wonder if there are any technologies which have impressed you which you think are a legitmate part of the solution?
Greta Thunberg
I mean, many. I mean, for example carbon capture and storage is something we must invest every possible resource in.
“I haven’t met a politician ready to do what it takes”: Greta Thunberg and Björk in conversation
BG: In your book, you point out that if there were as many carbon capture storage (CCS) facilities in the world as there are oil refineries, you’d start to see some results. Every country needs to be doing them, and it’s one solution of thousands. The fact that there is one place in Iceland doing it now, unfortunately, is not going to change a lot.
GT: Yes, the largest carbon capture storage facility in the world is in Iceland. And I remember in Stockholm, there were big campaigns where energy companies posted pictures of that facility saying, “Yeah, this is the future.” It was greenwashing! That facility, if all goes according to plan, will be able to capture about three seconds’ worth of our annual carbon dioxide emissions, according to one climate scientist’s calculations. They are not only being used as a way of greenwashing and legitimising the bad things we are doing now, but we also fail to invest in them – which is very contradictory, to say the least!
Catherine McKenna is the former environment minister of Canada, a Powering Past Coal Alliance leader, and the current chair of the United Nations – High-level Expert Group on the Net-zero Emissions Commitments of Non-State Entities. McKenna was one of the earliest and most prolific users of the terms “unabated” and “traditional” regarding coal and other fossil fuels. Under her leadership Canada, and Alberta in particular, made huge strides towards large scale CCUS for tar sands and gas.
When visiting the SaskPower – Boundary Dam facility in 2016 McKenna articulated a position in favor of CCS/CCUS as a climate ‘solution’ that would benefit Canada.
So when you have carbon capture and storage, that’s certainly an innovative solution — a made-in-Canada solution
In June of 2021 the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) which has long held a position in favor of CCS/CCUS as part of their ‘2 degree solution’, joined the Powering Past Coal Alliance.
The PPCA is a coalition of national and sub-national governments, businesses and organizations working to advance the transition from unabated coal power generation to clean energy.
Naomi Klein writes non-linear prose, or what I like to call “project managed prose”. A journalist who is one of the sources for her book ‘This Changes Everything’ told me that she largely assembles the prose from research provided by assistants. Klein’s chapters are built around themes rather than developing a compelling thesis. Instead of framing the use of anthropogenic CO2 as a new “fossil fuel frontier”, Klein used her acknowledgement of the capacity of CO2-EOR (enhanced oil recovery) to vastly expand proven oil reserves as an opportunity to speak against “overall emissions” rather than the growing political will and the track record of the fossil fuel industry as exemplified by the fracking boom.
In the years following the release of Klein’s book, she has never returned to the subject of CO2-EOR in the US or Canada. In that time extensive efforts have been made in the US to furnish big oil, gas, coal and biomass with a tax credit that will operate as an effective subsidy. In Canada the largest CO2 pipeline on earth, the Alberta Carbon Trunk Line, was built to supply CO2 captured from tar sands to a CO2-EOR project
This Changes Everything, Naomi Klein, 2014
Chapter. ‘NO MESSIAHS: The Green Billionaires Won’t Save Us’.
We need to consider what is meant by “overall carbon footprint”. How can we include the emissions from oil that is sold on and its emissions created in another country. Klein’s book was written before the ‘scopes of emissions’ were well understood.
While more research is needed on the overall carbon footprint of EOR, one striking modeling study examined a similar proposal that would use CO2 captured not from the air but directly from coal plants. It found that the emissions benefit of sequestering CO2 would be more than canceled out by all that extra oil: on a system-wide basis, the process could still end up releasing about four times as much CO2 as it would save.52 Moreover, much of this is oil that is currently considered unrecoverable—i.e., not even counted in current proven reserves, which as we know already represents five times more than we can safely burn. Any technology that can quadruple proven reserves in the U.S. alone is a climate menace, not a climate solution.
Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum launched with the help of the International Energy Agency
2005
European Union Carbon Capture and Storage Stakeholder Dialogue:
“We’ll never reach negative emissions without CCS.” Anonymous former Climate Action Network Europe representative.
2007
Design to Win plan completed.
2008
ClimateWorks Foundation and European Climate Foundation are created.
2010
Clean Energy Ministerial launched by the International Energy Agency (IEA).
2010
350.org sabotage of the People’s Agreement of Cochabamba.
2011
1 Sky and 350 merged with the help of the Clinton Global Initiative and the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Sustainable Development Program.
2014
People’s Climate March demonstrates coordinated messaging strategy and the dominance of movement generation by philanthropy. The Rockefeller Brothers Fund – Sustainable Development program played a central role in establishing the ‘This Changes Everything’ project which went beyond the book and documentary establishing the concept of ‘Metrics as a proxy for social change’.
2015
Naomi Klein’s ‘This Changes Everything’ treated like a holy text within the climate justice movement.
2015
Paris Agreement produces Nationally Determined Contributions placing focus on emissions reduction and management.
2018
Greta and Extinction Rebellion arrive around the same time the IPCC released it’s AR5 report. While much focus was put on the dire warnings from IPCC Working Group 1 (‘the science’ and budgets), the output of Working Group 3 (mitigation) were almost entirely ignored.
2019
Greta Thunberg visits New York at the invitation of Antonio Guterres who sent his assistant to speak the Oil and Gas Climate Initiative the night before Greta’s big speech.
2021
Glasgow COP 26. All fossil fuel phase-out commitments contain the qualifier ‘unabated’. IEA modelling contains multiple uses of the qualifier ‘unabated’, but this fact is almost entirely ignored by the climate justice movement and their networks.
2022
CCUS boom begins. New projects announced on every continent. The Alberta Carbon Trunk Line and the Northern Endurance Partnership/East Coast Cluster are almost entirely ignored.
Part 3. Industry Readiness
Value adding CO2 as a waste product
Anthropogenic CO2 is seen as valuable for enhanced oil recovery (EOR), a practice used to access the remnant oil in depleted oil fields. Liquefied CO2 is pumped into depleted wells along with water in a process called water alternating gas (WAG) miscible flooding. The CO2 is said to integrate with the rock matrix during the WAG process, thereby sequestering it.
The oil industry, especially in the US, has known for decades what could be achieved if they had access to anthropogenic CO2. Companies like Exxon have been tapping geological formations called CO2 domes for decades. The naturally occurring CO2 that accumulates in these domes is liquefied and used for EOR.
Public figures like Naomi Klein are more than aware of the potential increase in proven oil reserves if anthropogenic CO2 can be deployed for EOR. In her book ‘This Changes Everything’ Klein cites research asserting that CO2-EOR using anthropogenic CO2 could quadruple proven US oil reserves. It is clear that almost nobody, not even Klein herself, have acted to resist the efforts to develop financial instruments and effective subsidies for CO2-EOR, and the other forms of energy production that will produce captured CO2.
Refining technology needing only CO2 transport and storage infrastructure
Two crucial technological developments that are applied widely in fossil fuel refining and processing need to be understood in the context of the oil and gas industry’s plans for blue hydrogen production and the expanding deployment of biomass as a feed stock for decarbonisation.
It is important to understand that the energy and refining industries produce and use hydrogen routinely. Industry has the capability to direct CO2 streams that would otherwise be vented to the atmosphere into transport and storage infrastructure such as pipelines and export hubs.
Steam methane reforming
Steam methane reforming is the most common method for producing hydrogen from gas, biomass and derivatives from oil. Refiners use high pressure steam (H2O) with gas (CH4) to produce hydrogen (H2) and CO2. The CO2 is conventionally vented off (grey hydrogen), but can be captured for storage and other uses (blue hydrogen).
Cracking
Cracking is a key technology in the evolution of processing oil, gas, coal and biomass. Unlike fractional distillation which is the foundational technology used by the fossil fuel industry to separate various compounds found in extracted feed stocks (oil, gas, and coal), cracking separates feed stocks into their constituent molecules. These molecules can be reconstituted into synthetic fuels. Cracking is generally seen as a set of more efficient process for producing alkines (derivatives from refining).
Hydrocracking is used extensively in combination with catalytic cracking by refiners for conversion/purification of feed stocks. Industry leaders regard hydrogen as ‘indispensable’ to the refining industry, and for future transport and energy needs. The oil, gas, biomass and coal industries are well positioned to deploy blue hydrogen when access to CO2 transport and storage is made available because existing technology allows for minimal retooling to capture waste CO2.
The CCUS boom has begun. This can be discerned by a dramatic increase in political support for approval and financing of CCS projects, and the number of new projects being announced. The most advanced projects rarely receive attention from climate campaigners, and their connections in the mainstream and liberal media.
USA
Navigator and Summit CO2 pipelines, Oxy Low Carbon DAC for CO2-EOR, Houston Ship Channel, monumental expansions to the 45Q tax credit and other support under the IRA
Japan and South Korea making deals for import of blue hydrogen and blue ammonia, Malaysia, Indonesia and China all pursuing CCS, CCUS and decarbonisation hubs.
The fracking boom was a boondoggle. It did damage to nature and delivered throughput of resources for business as usual. Many critics point to fundamental signifiers of the boondoggle that is the fracking industry. David Wallace-Wells summed up the loss making mega-venture that has only recently begun turning a profit.
Perhaps the most striking fact about the American hydraulic-fracturing boom, though, is unknown to all but the most discriminating consumers of energy news: Fracking has been, for nearly all of its history, a money-losing boondoggle, profitable only recently, after being propped up by so much investment from venture capital and Wall Street that it resembled less an efficient-markets no-brainer and more a speculative empire of bubbles like Uber and WeWork.
Countless commentators and members of the public have asserted to me that carbon capture and storage is a ‘boondoggle’ or words to that effect. Each of them has neglected to explain how CCS being a boondoggle obviates the need to be vigilant in monitoring the political will. In these discussions I raise the specter of a new fossil fuel extraction boom and point to the Halliburton Loophole that laid the crucial groundwork for fracking in the US, but commentators and members of the public generally refuse to join the dots.
In a recent explainer, Food and Water Watch asserted that CCS was a ‘boondoggle’, but laid most of the responsibility at the feet of “industry execs”. We know from the fracking boom that to build a boondoggle takes extensive and coordinated efforts over time. We know that efforts to establish the fracking boom required subversion of regulatory processes and protections. Why is it that Food and Water Watch can properly identify the threat, but seem unmotivated to unpack the political will?
Carbon Capture is a Multi-Purpose Boondoggle
There’s hardly a dirty energy that carbon capture doesn’t prop up. The fossil fuel industry plans to use it to revive dying coal and fracked gas plants. If allowed, they’ll attach it to hydrogen power generation derived from fracked gas.
New developments are coming thick and fast as part of the CCUS boom. The recent announcement that the ADNOC CEO will be appointed to COP28 as president is of special significance. ADNOC are leading proponents of blue ammonia which is a stable carrier for hydrogen and a useful product for chemicals manufacturers who want to go net zero. They are also, along with Saudi Arabia, Canada and the US, leading proponents of CO2-EOR. The COP 28 team are reportedly sharing an office building with ADNOC.
The main COP28 team is using two stories of an 11-floor office building in Abu Dhabi also used by the Ministry of Industry and Advanced Technology located next to ADNOC’s headquarters.
When a group of young climate campaigners, including Greta Thunberg, met with the IEA boss Fatih Birol in Davos recently, neither the young panelists, nor any of the assembled media took the opportunity to ask the long term supporter of fossil fuel CCS about his frequent statements in support of CCS or his organisation’s consistent work to forward CCS under the banner of ‘clean energy’.
The CO2 pipeline frenzy in the US mid west states of North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa, Minnesota and Nebraska appears to have accelerated after the Inflation Reduction Act delivered the long anticipated 45Q tax credit expansions. Land owners, including First Nations report aggressive tactics from pipeline and CO2 storage companies. Land owners in North Dakota recently provided testimony in support of a bill sponsored by a republican state senator. The bill would give greater negotiating rights to land owners against the might of pipeline and storage companies.
Behind all the discussion around ‘Exxon knew’ is the reality that oil companies in the US have been tapping naturally occurring CO2 domes to supply enhanced oil recovery projects for decades. It’s reasonable to assert that the oil industry has retained latent demand for anthropogenic CO2. It’s reasonable to assert that if Exxon knew, then they also knew that they can exploit the political and lobbying environment to engineer demand for CCS to supply anthropogenic CO2 for EOR. One of the benefits to Exxon from hiding their knowledge of the science of climate change is avoiding scrutiny of the methods used in CO2-EOR, the risks posed by the pipelines used to transport CO2, and the potential to massively expand proven reserves.
It’s clear that Exxon have a significant interest in CO2-EOR and CCS. Exxon are a partner in multiple CCS projects including Chevron’s Gorgon Gas Project and with Pertamina in a cooperation agreement on developing CCS and CCUS in South Sumatra, East Kalimantan, and West Java.
Climate campaigners find it extremely difficult to comprehend the contentions made by Wrong Kind of Green members that philanthropy, through setting the terms of funding, and through expansive networks, has effectively shaped climate campaigning through constraining the acceptable limits of discussion. Rather than attempting to falsify our contentions by looking at the networks, talking points and funding highlighted in our analyses, climate campaigners merely dismiss our arguments without investigation or ignore us completely. Climate campaigners need to realise that the ultimate objective of the powerful is always more business as usual which is what CCS, CCUS and BECCS provide.
The media, through silence and echoing supplied talking points, smooths the path for philanthropy to continue fostering the conflated logics and errant silences of climate campaigners. There are any number of media organs in thrall to the false narratives provided by captive thinkers working at the behest of climate NGOs. The Guardian, The Washington Post, The Intercept, and The Atlantic are prominent among the many captive agencies. The collective effect of narrative adherence is repetition which produces a sense that certain assertions of fact are true. This can be observed in the misreporting of the modelling produced by the International Energy Agency.
It is highly likely that governments have engaged nudge units to develop guides to framing issues to elicit public compliance with the net zero agenda. We know that the UK has engaged the Nudge Unit who developed ‘principles for successful behaviour change’ on behalf of the Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. While corporate behaviour is heading very quickly toward installing significant decarbonisation infrastructure with the full support of governments, ordinary people are being encouraged to accept the impacts of net zero strategies. We should not assume that community consultations and public feedback will do anything to slow the long term plans for CCS, CCUS and BECCS, indeed it is likely the nudge units will adapt their messages to ensure compliance with the existing agenda to deliver business as usual, but with some CO2 abatement.
In order to shape the direct actions of activists, the statements of experts, and the language of the global consensus machine, networked power – constituted by the collective agenda of governments, corporations and philanthropy – appeals to self interest. Self censorship is an immediate response to the perceived risk of speaking outside the acceptable limits of discussion. The collective effect of self interest is the reinforcement of the power of the assigned/acceptable/prescribed talking points and the logical conflations embedded within them.
Decisive direct action that contributes to the public consciousness of what is really happening in the extractivist industries is what is necessary. If Extinction Rebellion, Just Stop Oil and other groups really wanted to confront the projects of the most wealthy oil, gas, coal and biomass proponents then they would be occupying and protesting the many new decarbonisation hubs in planning or under construction. If Just Stop Oil were intent on truly disrupting powerful oil and gas interests then they would be, for example, occupying sites in Hull and Middlesborough where BP and Equinor are developing new blue hydrogen projects. The UK Climate and Energy Minister, Graham Stuart has made it very clear that the political will is behind the decarbonisation plans of big oil, gas, coal and biomass. There is no excuse for not identifying the political will. It is right to ask why groups like Extinction Rebellion and Just Stop Oil will not acknowledge the projects being built at their back door.
Plans for large scale CCS are part of the big oil and gas long game. The burning of biomass as a feed stock with CCS is the crucial linchpin in the net zero plans. We know that billionaire philanthropists like Chris Hohn, their impact philanthropy agents like John Podesta, and their well funded re-granting NGOs like the European Climate Foundation headed up by Laurence Tubiana hold strongly to this position. These individuals know on a deep level that BECCS is part of the long game to value-add CO2 as a waste turning it into feed stock to perpetuate the stranglehold of big oil and gas.
If you want to understand why the COP 26 phase-out commitments specified “unabated” fossil fuels, why COP 27 was overloaded with oil and gas executives, and why COP 28 will be headed up by a proponent of blue ammonia and CO2 enhanced oil recovery, then I suggest watching the Atlantic Council video I linked at the start of this briefing.
We Suspect Silence 