Native title fight not over
VANDA CARSON, ALEXANDRIA UTTING, COURT REPORTERS
13 July 2019
Courier Mail
© 2019 News Limited. All rights reserved.
A GROUP of traditional owners opposed to the
Adani
mine have left the door open to take their fight over
native title
to the nation’s highest court.
Yesterday, the full bench of the Federal Court rejected the Wangan and Jagalingou people’s bid to overturn the
Adani
Indigenous Land Use Agreement (ILUA) between the miner and the State Government, which permanently extinguished the rights of the traditional owners.
Colin Hardie, lawyer for the five members of the group, including activist Adrian Burragubba, told The Courier-Mail they were yet to decide whether there were grounds to appeal. The ruling confirmed the single-judge decision handed down in the Federal Court last year, where Justice John Reeves found the challengers’ arguments had no merit.
The group, including Delia Kemppi, Burragubba and three others, claimed in their appeal the ILUA was not valid because
Adani
had paid money to those recruiting Aboriginal people to attend meetings where traditional owners would decide on the crucial mining deal.
The traditional owners argued there were 200 people who attended the meeting to vote on the mine who had not pre-registered or were not known by elders at the meeting. They also said some who voted on the mine were not verified as
native title
holders.
In their appeal, they challenged two steps leading to the registration of the
Adani
ILUA.The group claimed Justice Reeves did not correctly interpret the
Native Title
Act and
Adani’s ILUA did not provide a “complete description” of the area of land in which
native title
would be surrendered.
The question to answer is the following:
Are Adani and the State Government ethically right or wrong in the Wangan and Jagalingou native title case?
a) Use stakeholder theory (chapter 3, Lecture 4) and address issues of Diversity and inclusion specifically in relation to Native Title owners.
b) Provide arguments based on a “sufficient number” of theories of Corporate Governance, Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), Creating Shared Value (CSV) and any other sustainability theory to justify or criticise the actions taken by Adani and the state government in relation to this case.
c) Analyse these decisions and actions using normative theories of ethics as well as justice and economic distribution theories.
You have to demonstrate a well-developed ability to use critical thinking when analysing the topic and an advanced understanding of business concepts. You will also need to thoroughly research the topic
independently
and finally present your findings in a professional manner using a report format.
Please follow the rubric and instructions provided in this folder
1750 words
10 peer reviewed articles/ books, articles should be academic. Referencing style should be Harvard.
There is need of introduction. The assignment should be according to points which are given below.
Corporate Governance, CSR, CSV and Corporate Social Performance
|
Sound use of Corporate Governance Theoretical views such as Agency/ TCE/ Enlightened shareholder value etc.
The corporate social performance cube has been used to demonstrate that we all do good and bad things. The issue in the social environment axis has been modified.
Porter and Kramer’s Creating Shared Value concept has been discussed.
Use of CSR to link to the next section.
Power/ responsibility relation of the corporation towards native title holders
|
Stakeholder Analysis
Diversity and Inclusion
|
You have used the 5 stakeholder analysis questions as depicted in the text. Analysis using the 5 questions is comprehensive.
You have discussed issues relative to the importance of diversity and inclusion, specially towards indigenous groups in the region.
|
Corporate Governance Discussion based on ASX 2010 Principles and recommendations
|
You have identified the level of Board Independence, board formation and diversity.
Your analysis of the corporation’s actions using ASX Principles and recommendations is comprehensive.
|
Ethical analysis
|
You have analysed the ethical question from a normative (consequentialist / non- consequentialist) perspective
You have analysed the ethical question from the perspective of justice and economic distribution using libertarian as well as Rawls approach.
Which factors constitute justice? You have discussed this issue.
|
Conclusion, Recommendations.
|
Conclude and state 3 or 4 action driven and well-reasoned recommendations
|
Literature support and argument, logical and engaging. Critical evaluation and logical development of arguments supported by relevant credible sources and appropriate ref. style.
|
Your use of the literature is pertinent and provides support for your ideas (at least 10 refereed, peer reviewed articles and sufficient news articles, videos etc.)
Your writing style is well developed.
Your argument is good and logical
The referencing style in text and in the LoR is appropriate and follows Harvard referencing style.
|