Fortescue says WA law on mining compo unconstitutional, court hears
Andrew Forrest’s Fortescue Metals Group wants a key section of the West Australian mining code – which holds the company solely responsible for paying compensation to the Yindjibarndi people – struck off the state’s statute books because it is unconstitutional, a court has heard.
Fortescue executive chairman Andrew Forrest. Bloomberg
The native title owners are seekingupwards of $500 million in royalties and compensation for damage to cultural sites at Fortescue’s Solomon iron ore hub in the Pilbara, which is on Yindjibarndi land and was mined without agreement with the First Nations owners.
This long-running dispute has come to a head in the Federal Court as the state’s Labor government rescinded its five-week-old Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act amid intense pressure from the farming and resources sector.
In written submissions to the Federal Court on Wednesday, Fortescue claimed section 125A of the state’s Mining Act, which requires the miner to pay compensation in a dispute, is invalid under section 109 of the Constitution.
“Section 125A [of the Mining Act] seeks to impose liability on the mining tenement holder, as a whole, in a manner that is inconsistent with the Native Title Act,” Fortescue’s counsel, Brahma Dharmananda, SC, said.
Section 109 of the Constitution says that when a section of state law is inconsistent with Commonwealth law, the latter should prevail.
As a result, Fortescue argues, the state government should be on the hook to pay the compensation because the Native Title Act, which says the state is liable, prevails over the state mining law.
This is one of the prongs of attack in Fortescue’s plan to push back on the West Australian government’s claims that compensation should be entirely paid by
Read more on afr.com
