Rio Tinto has been criticised for allowing Aboriginal heritage artefacts collected at its giant Marandoo mine to be dumped at a Darwin rubbish tip in the 1990s.
Rio Tinto has been criticised for allowing Aboriginal heritage artefacts collected at its giant Marandoo mine to be dumped at a Darwin rubbish tip in the 1990s.
In a submission to the federal parliamentary inquiry into Rio Tinto’s destruction of Juukan Gorge, Wintawari Guruma Aboriginal Corporation has detailed the history of Marandoo.
WGAC, which represents the Eastern Guruma people, was particularly critical of special legislation passed by WA’s Labor government in 1992 to facilitate development of the mine.
“The introduction of the Aboriginal Heritage (Marandoo) Act in 1992 removed heritage protection from an important culturally significant area of land in Karijini National Park and permitted the unregulated destruction of Eastern Guruma cultural heritage,” it said today.
“The removal of Indigenous peoples’ statutory rights to protect cultural heritage is disgraceful and, in our view, discriminatory against Aboriginal Australians.
“Sadly, the legislation is still in force nearly 30 years later.”
The WGAC submission also disclosed that staff at Charles Darwin University were responsible for accidentally dumping heritage artefacts from Marandoo in the local rubbish tip.
Despite this, WGAC was mostly critical of Rio.
“Rio Tinto showed no respect to the large number of salvaged cultural artefacts from our sacred sites and completely failed in their responsibility to show any standard of care for our cultural heritage,” WGAC said.
Rio Tinto Iron Ore chief executive Simon Trott said the miner was not proud of many parts of its history at Marandoo.
“We know we have a lot of work ahead to right some of these historical wrongs which fell well short of the standards we expect today,” Mr Trott said.
“This will take time, consistent effort and open dialogue with the WGAC to rebuild trust and reset our relationship for the future.
“Our leadership team are engaging regularly on this important work and are committed to meeting with the WGAC again when they are ready.”
The corporation has called on WA’s new Minister for Aboriginal Affairs Stephen Dawson to repeal the Marandoo Act.
“Why successive governments have continued to give Rio a leave pass on Aboriginal heritage protection at Marandoo is unclear,” it stated.
Mr Trott said Rio supported repealing the Marandoo Act and has been engaging with traditional owners and the WA government on this.
The state government’s approval of Marandoo, in 1992, came with four conditions, including the avoidance or special management of three specified areas.
Rio was also required to salvage, analyse and manage sites and cultural material from the heritage sites that would be destroyed.
That work was undertaken at 28 sites, with most of the material sent to Charles Darwin University for analysis.
The university subsequently told Rio’s contractor, Kinhill Engineers, that it had accidentally dumped some of this material, including from an 18,000 year old rockshelter.
However, there was no record of what was discarded, as notes and paperwork were also thrown away.
Kinhill later collected some of the material and transferred it to the Brockman 2 mine site (on Eastern Guruma country) and the town of Dampier.
Remaining material was dumped at Darwin’s rubbish tip.
WGAC’s submission noted that Rio operates six iron ore mines and three railways on Eastern Guruma country.
Under a 2007 agreement, which it believes was unfair, it is only paid royalties from three mines - Nammuldi (2006), Western Turner Syncline (2010) and Silvergrass (2017).
Mr Trott said Rio has committed to all traditional owners on whose land it operates that it will modernise its agreements with them.
“This includes changing the way we work together, putting in place measures to ensure greater awareness, respect and preservation of cultural heritage and improving the economic and social outcomes that come from mining,” he said.
WGAC believes the Marandoo experience reflects a wider problem.
“It is indicative of a mining industry that has not valued Aboriginal heritage and good relations with Aboriginal Australians,” it said.
“It is an industry that hasn’t behaved responsibly and an industry that needs far greater oversight in heritage protection and agreement making.”
