Vista Gold fined $160,000 for damaging sacred site in illegal drilling near Katherine
A Canadian gold-mining company has been fined $160,000 for carrying out illegal exploration drilling at an Aboriginal sacred site near the Northern Territory town of Katherine.
Vista Gold Australia Pty Ltd pleaded guilty to breaching the NT's sacred sites laws in the Darwin Local Court last month, after the company's own press release tipped authorities off to the illegal works.
Vista Gold operates the Mount Todd Gold Project on Jawoyn country outside of Katherine, 300 kilometres south-east of Darwin, which is estimated to hold about 10 million ounces of gold.
The court heard that in 2022, Vista Gold announced to its shareholders that it had successfully explored deposits at its Mount Todd operations, providing maps and coordinates for 26 drilling holes.
The following year the NT's Aboriginal Areas Protection Authority (AAPA) discovered 12 of those holes, from which core samples were taken, were within the boundaries of a sacred site near Yinbarrie Hills.
AAPA inspections of the site in 2024 found grass and vegetation had been cleared, drill pads levelled and excavated material deposited.
In fining Vista Gold on Wednesday, Acting Judge Steven Ledek said the company's breach had "everything to do with the price of gold".
"This is nothing more than a mercenary exercise, where they had been looking and looking for what they believed was there, but unfortunately found it to be under a restricted works area," he said.
Despite describing the works as "invasive and ground-disturbing", Acting Judge Ledek said the $160,000 fine was "insignificant" compared to the company's projected profit from the site.
He said the Mount Todd site was a "flagship asset" for Vista Gold, from which he calculated the company could earn more than $500 million.
"All present market indicators suggest the only way is up," Acting Judge Ledek said.
He said while the Jawoyn Association had "some" understanding of the unlawful works, the organisation did not raise any objections or submit any evidence to the case against Vista Gold.
"The Jawoyn were not called in these proceedings, they have not prepared a victim impact statement, and I have no information … as to loss or harm that has been suffered by the Jawoyn Association," he said.
"In fact what I have is an uncontroverted dissertation of all of the things Vista Gold has done for the people of the Jawoyn and Banjarn Associations."
In a statement, AAPA chair Bobby Nunggumajbarr said he welcomed the court's decision.
"Vista Gold's Mount Todd mine site is located on Aboriginal freehold land which is managed by the Barnjarn Aboriginal Corporation and the Jawoyn Association," he said.
'While Vista Gold may have met with members of these groups, [AAPA] ensures custodians are consulted properly and widely about the impacts of proposed work."
Mr Nunggumajbarr said Vista Gold had "accepted they did the wrong thing."
"We look forward to working with Vista Gold to keep the sacred sites near the Mount Todd gold mine safe," he said.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

News.com.au
15 minutes ago
- News.com.au
WA Senator Dorinda Cox wiped from Greens website minutes after shock defection to Labor
WA Senator Dorinda Cox has been wiped from the website and MP listings of her former party following her shock defection to Labor. Donning a maroon shirt and a massive smile, Senator Cox addressed the media on Monday afternoon alongside the Prime Minister at Perth's Kings Park. The Greens, her former party, were alerted to the defection a mere hour and half earlier. Senator Cox had been removed from the Greens' official website by the end of the press conference, with the URL link to her profile scrubbed and replaced with an 'ACCESS DENIED' banner. She also no longer appears in the listings of the party's representatives. Leader Larissa Waters questioned how the senator's values could align with a party that last week approved the North West Shelf gas project. 'The Greens are disappointed in Senator Cox's decision to leave the Greens and join the Labor Party as a backbencher,' Senator Waters said. 'Senator Cox has said that her values align with the Labor Party. 'This is the same Labor Party who this week approved the climate wrecking North West Shelf gas project, which UNESCO advises will destroy significant First Nations heritage and ancient rock art.' Senator Waters said Senator Cox would have had 'more chance of effecting change by continuing to work with the Greens in the sole balance of power'. 'The Greens are committed to continuing to work for Truth, Treaty and Justice with First Nations people and will continue to work to protect country and the climate that is under such threat from Labor Party decisions in Western Australia,' she said. 'We wish her well.' A statement by the Greens confirmed they had received notice of the move 'an hour prior'. It comes following months of internal conflict with the Greens, her former party, with several former staffers coming forward with bullying allegations against the senator. Up to 20 staff left the office of Senator Cox in three years, Nine News reported in October. Anthony Albanese said he was comfortable those complaints had been adequately addressed. 'We examined everything that had been considered in the past. Those issues were dealt with appropriately,' he said. 'My government has established very clear guidelines, meaning that any issues relating to workplaces and making sure that workplaces are safe are properly examined. They were all dealt with in Senator Cox's case and dealt with appropriately.' A former staffer told The Australian while it was not surprising to see Senator Cox part ways with the Greens, it was 'shocking' to see her accepted into the Labor fold by Mr Albanese. 'It is disturbing that Labor and the Prime Minister would welcome into their party someone with such a history of alleged bullying.'

ABC News
18 minutes ago
- ABC News
ASIC sues Choosi over its insurance comparison services
ASIC is suing insurance comparison provider Choosi for allegedly misleading customers through its funeral and life insurance comparison services.

ABC News
20 minutes ago
- ABC News
ASIC sues Choosi for allegedly misleading customers about insurance comparison services
The corporate regulator is suing insurance comparison provider Choosi for allegedly misleading customers through its insurance comparison services. In proceedings filed to the Federal Court, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) alleges Choosi has misled Australians by claiming to compare a range of funeral and life insurers. On its website, Choosi states: "Compare the benefits and prices of a range of products from leading insurers so you can confidently choose cover that suits your needs, budget and lifestyle." However, ASIC claims that from the middle of July 2019, Choosi has only compared policies issued by a single insurer, except for on one occasion. "Choosi is only comparing one insurer — Hannover Insurance — and so we're concerned that the representations to those consumers who looked at the website and heard that advertising have been misled," ASIC's deputy chair Sarah Court told The Business. ASIC alleges that while the three funeral insurance products on Choosi's website have different branding, they are all issued by Hannover. Similarly, despite Choosi comparing five life insurance policies with different branding, they are once again all issued by Hannover — expect for the period prior to July 2023, when Choosi included a single policy from an additional insurer. ASIC says all policies were distributed by Greenstone Financial Services — a company associated with Choosi. "From a consumers perspective, they've come onto a website, they're told we will compare a range of products from a number of leading insurers," says Ms Court. Hannover is a global insurance provider with two entities in Australia — property and casualty insurance, and life and health insurance. ASIC is alleging Hannover paid Choosi about $61 million in commissions since 2019 to solely advertise products from its company on the comparison website. "What we're seeing here is the Choosi platform really being used by Hannover as just a platform to distribute its products, with no comparison going on with other insurers at all," says Ms Court. She says "millions of people" would have been exposed to Choosi's messaging over the six years since this arrangement began. "We know that this was a very widespread advertising campaign by Choosi over many years... and we know there have been thousands of policies that have been sold," says Ms Court. ASIC alleges Choosi made the misleading representations on its website, across social media, and via television commercials and advertorials. From July 1, 2019 until November 30, 2024, 4,225 funeral insurance policies and 9,478 life insurance policies have been sold. Ms Court has told the ABC if the Federal Court finds Choosi has misled customers, then "it will be important for [ASIC] to seek substantial penalties". "[It's] to send a message to Choosi, but also as importantly, to send a message to the broader industry and others that run comparison websites… "If you want to run these kind of sites then you certainly have to be very open and transparent with consumers about what it is that you're comparing." Ms Court says insurance comparison websites hold an important role, when they are operated and used correctly. "We know that people are finding it difficult to afford insurance, difficult to access insurance, and so comparison websites could play a really important role in helping consumers with what is out there and helping them choose the products that are best for them." But she warns consumers to be "wary". "[These comparison sites] are effectively commercial businesses, they make money in certain ways. "So with Choosi, it was from getting commissions paid to it from the one insurer whose products it was selling," she says. While she urges consumers to do some "due diligence" by checking the policies product disclosure statements, she says the onus is on the provider to do the right thing. "Anyone that is a commercial provider offering a comparison website, you have to be up-front with what it is you are comparing, you need to be transparent with anyone, any consumer that's coming on to use your site."