A 46,000-year-old Aboriginal heritage site destroyed by Rio Tinto last month is one of more than 463 sites that mining companies operating in Western Australia (WA) have applied for permission to destroy or disturb since 2010.
None of those applications have been refused. Under the state’s 48-year-old Aboriginal heritage laws, only the land or lease holder has the right to appeal — traditional owners do not.
The figures show that the shocking destruction of the sites in the Juukan Gorge in the western Pilbara was not unique.
Illustration: Mountain People
The conflict between mining companies and Aboriginal heritage, particularly in mineral-rich areas, such as the iron ore-rich Hamersley range of the Pilbara, has spawned a system of suffocating bureaucracy and lopsided agreement-making that privileges development over protecting sacred spaces and leaves traditional owners with no legislative power, and very little institutional power, to fight back.
The Juukan one and two sites are listed on WA’s Aboriginal heritage register as Brock-20 and Brock-21. They sit a short distance apart in Juukan Gorge, about 60km from the mining town of Tom Price, on the edge of the multibillion-dollar Brockman 4 iron-ore mine.
Juukan two is one of the only sites on the Pilbara to show continual human occupation through the last ice age, and archeological records, including bone pits that catalogued changing fauna, dated back 46,000 years.
The sites were drilled and set with explosives last month. Traditional owners the Puutu Kunti Kurrama and Pinikura (PKKP) peoples do not yet know the full extent of the damage.
The operation had been discussed at meetings with Rio Tinto over a number of years, but Burchell Hayes, one of the directors of PKKP Aboriginal Corp, said the meetings often conveyed technical information, which PKKP elders found hard to interpret.
The “blunt details” that would have helped them understand exactly what was being proposed, and when, was lacking, he said.
“The sadness and the loss of our country has been very distressing,” Hayes said.
Rio Tinto said the “mining activity” conducted was “undertaken in accordance with all necessary approvals,” which had been obtained following a decade of “detailed consultation” with the PKKP.
“We are sorry that the recently expressed concerns of the PKKP did not arise through the engagements that have taken place over many years under the agreement that governs our operations on their country,” a company statement said.
PKKP Aboriginal Corp rejected that statement on May 23, saying it had told Rio Tinto of the importance of the site on a number of occasions since 2013, the last as recently as March.
Hayes said the mining company did not advise the PKKP of its intention to blast, and they only found out “by default” on March 15 “when we sought access to the area for Naidoc Week in July.”
On a site visit in October 2018, their cultural and heritage manager, Heather Builth, told a senior manager from the mine that the rock shelters were significant, Hayes said.
“[He] advised Dr Builth that there were no plans to extend the mine and Rio Tinto had been monitoring Juukan Gorge for vibration effects of local blasting,” Hayes said.
“At all times the PKKPAC has been direct and explicit in the archeological and ethnographic significance of these rock shelters, and the importance that they be preserved. For Rio Tinto to suggest otherwise is incorrect,” he said.
“We believe Rio Tinto’s outrageous statement is a bid to minimize the adverse public reaction and community outrage about [Sunday last week’s] blast at Juukan Gorge; and the distress and upset caused to the Puutu Kunti Kurrama people,” Hayes said.
WA Minister for Finance, Aboriginal Affairs and Lands Ben Wyatt said he is normally “contacted pretty rapidly by the relevant Aboriginal organization” when a heritage site is under imminent threat, but was not called in this case.
“The first I heard about this was after the explosion,” Wyatt told reporters in Perth.
Australian Minister for Indigenous Australians Ken Wyatt said he received an 11th-hour call from lawyers for the PKKP advising him of the risk and asking for advice, and that he advised them to seek an injunction under federal heritage legislation.
He did not take it further or intervene, but said in a statement after the blast that the “destruction should not have occurred.”
Even if Ben Wyatt had known, there are no legal levers under the current legislation that allow for ministerial intervention.
Ben Wyatt has promised to reform the laws, but consultation on that reform has been slow and was put off again last month due to the novel coronavirus.
It is now highly unlikely the WA government will have those new laws drafted and through parliament before the state election in March next year.
Greens lawmaker Robin Chapple, who campaigned alongside Ben Wyatt to reform the legislation when Labor was in opposition, said Ben Wyatt has “found himself to be incredibly compromised” by the conflicting responsibilities of protecting Aboriginal heritage, as Aboriginal affairs minister and supporting its most significant industry as the state’s treasurer.
“You cannot have one person who is pushing the state in the pursuit of mining ... being the same person that has to represent the interests of Aboriginal people to protect the excesses of the mining industry from destroying their sites,” Chapple said.
In response, Ben Wyatt said he acts “in the interests of all Western Australians when carrying out my ministerial responsibilities” and that his dual portfolios “only elevates the significance of Aboriginal affairs within this government.”
HOW DID THIS HAPPEN?
Negotiations over the protection of Juukan Gorge began in 2003. In 2005, Hamersley Iron, a wholly owned subsidiary of Rio Tinto, applied for environmental approval to build a new iron-ore mine dubbed Brockman 4.
Documents submitted as part of that assessment process said it had found 27 archeological sites within the project area: mostly rock shelters with some artifact scatters, water sources and scarred trees.
It said that the identified Aboriginal heritage sites “may need to be either disturbed or actively managed” for the mine to proceed, but that “it is not anticipated that the project will adversely impact on any areas of ethnographic significance.”
In 2008, archeologist Michael Slack was engaged to conduct a test dig in the large rock shelter known as Juukan two, and concluded that it was a “quite significant” site that was about 20,000 years old.
In 2013, Rio Tinto applied for and was granted ministerial consent under section 18 of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 to destroy Juukan one and two, as part of the expansion of its proposed Brockman 4 mine, which had become operational three years earlier.
The minister who provided that consent was Peter Collier, a member of Liberal WA premier Colin Barnett’s government that was in power at the time.
However, it is unlikely he knew the details of what he signed off on, Chapple said.
All applications are assessed by the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Committee, which then provides a recommendation with scant detail to the minister.
There is no legislated requirement for the committee to consult traditional owners. In 2015, the committee was chastised by the Australian Supreme Court for using an invalid definition of sacred sites that explicitly excluded sites that were part of songlines.
In 2014, after permission to destroy the site had been granted, a salvage mission dated the Juukan two site at 46,000 years old and of very high archeological and cultural significance. One year later, the PKKP were granted native title over the area and a 10,888km2 patch of the Hamersley range.
That gave them the right to negotiate over any new developments and to make financial agreements with mining companies profiting from their land.
However, it did not confer any legal ability to protect heritage sites, unless negotiated as part of a land-use agreement.
Those land-use agreements are designed to foster closer relationships between industry and Aboriginal peoples, like the relationship that Rio said it has with the PKKP. The relationship is both financial and institutional, and can make it difficult to take a disagreement over a matter like the protection of a heritage site into a public arena.
However, because of the lack of power granted to traditional owners under the WA Aboriginal Heritage Act, a public fight is the only mechanism left to traditional owners to defend heritage if negotiation fails.
Chapple said the financial ties between traditional owner corporations and the mining companies that threaten their heritage are well-known, but rarely discussed.
“I don’t think it’s particularly corrupt, I just think we need to know that there are relationships that can be used to the benefit of the mining companies,” Chapple said. “You get this in small communities, and Western Australia is a small community.”
AN ANTIQUATED LAW
The Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 has been relatively unchanged for almost 50 years and does not give traditional owners any formal right of consultation or appeal.
In his second reading speech in April 1972, then-WA minister for community welfare Bill Willessee said the legislation had been drafted, because “the preservation of sites and objects of Aboriginal origin is now recognized throughout Australia as an important aspect of providing Aboriginal citizens with the social environment that they need when they still retain partly or wholly their traditional beliefs.”
The speech proved more enlightened than the resulting legislation, said Greg McIntyre, a leading expert on Aboriginal heritage cases.
He said that had the legislation included a strong emphasis on spiritual value as a basis for heritage protection, he would be “reasonably happy.”
“The problem is that the legislation doesn’t even do that,” he said.
Under the current legislation, the only legal option for traditional owners who oppose a decision allowing the destruction of their heritage lies in administrative law, an argument that due process has not been followed, McIntyre said.
That does not in itself halt a development, but it does cause delays.
“Administrative relief is like guerrilla warfare in that you hope it will slow people down and they will be forced to rethink it, but it doesn’t really get to the key issues of whether it’s affecting Aboriginal heritage or the environment,” he said.
Even if the act is reformed, the economic importance of the mining industry made it likely that the focus would remain on finding a compromise between heritage and industry, McIntyre said.
“The best legislation I think we’re likely to get is legislation that has a heavy emphasis on involving Aboriginal people in the decisionmaking, but with the understanding that ultimately they will be expected at best to go into partnership with those that wish to extract minerals rather than prevent that from happening,” he said.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with