DOCSLIB.ORG

Inquiry Hearing

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Inquiry Hearing COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA Proof Committee Hansard JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE ON NORTHERN AUSTRALIA Destruction of 46,000-year-old caves at the Juukan Gorge (Public) FRIDAY, 28 AUGUST 2020 CANBERRA CONDITIONS OF DISTRIBUTION This is an uncorrected proof of evidence taken before the committee. It is made available under the condition that it is recognised as such. BY AUTHORITY OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES [PROOF COPY] INTERNET Hansard transcripts of public hearings are made available on the internet when authorised by the committee. To search the parliamentary database, go to: http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE ON NORTHERN AUSTRALIA Friday, 28 August 2020 Members in attendance: Senators Canavan, Chisholm, Dodson, Siewert, Dean Smith and Mr Christensen, Mr Entsch, Mr Snowdon, Ms Wells. Terms of Reference for the Inquiry: To inquire into and report on: The Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia will inquire into and report on, by 30 September 2020: The destruction of 46,000 year old caves at the Juukan Gorge in the Pilbara region of Western Australia with particular reference to: (a) the operation of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 (WA) and approvals provided under the Act; (b) the consultation that Rio Tinto engaged in prior to the destruction of the caves with Indigenous peoples; (c) the sequence of events and decision-making process undertaken by Rio Tinto that led to the destruction; (d) the loss or damage to the Traditional Owners, Puutu, Kunti Kurrama and Pinikura people, from the destruction of the site; (e) the heritage and preservation work that has been conducted at the site; (f) the interaction, of state indigenous heritage regulations with Commonwealth laws; (g) the effectiveness and adequacy of state and federal laws in relation to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultural heritage in each of the Australian jurisdictions; (h) how Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultural heritage laws might be improved to guarantee the protection of culturally and historically significant sites; (i) opportunities to improve indigenous heritage protection through the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999; and (j) any other related matters. WITNESSES COCHRANE, Professor Glynn, Private capacity ................................................................................................. 1 DAVIDSON, Ms Louise, Chief Executive Officer, Australian Council of Superannuation Investors ........... 33 EDMUNDS, Dr Mary, Private Capacity ................................................................................................................ 7 FARMER, Mr Melvin, Chairperson, Western Desert Lands Aboriginal Corporation................................... 40 HARVEY, Mr Bruce, Private capacity ................................................................................................................ 18 JOHN, Mr Edward, Executive Manager, Governance Engagement and Policy, Australian Council of Superannuation Investors ........................................................................................... 33 LANGTON, Dr Marcia, Private capacity ............................................................................................................ 26 LOWE, Mr Jamie, Chief Executive Officer, National Native Title Council ..................................................... 40 MUIR, Mr Kado, Deputy Chair, National Native Title Council ....................................................................... 40 STRELEIN, Dr Lisa, Executive Director, Research and Education, Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies ......................................................... 12 SWEENEY, Mr Austin, Director of Legal Policy, National Native Title Council ........................................... 40 Friday, 28 August 2020 JOINT Page 1 COCHRANE, Professor Glynn, Private capacity Committee met at 8:03 CHAIR (Mr Entsch): I declare this public hearing of the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia's inquiry into economic engagement with traditional owners. We'd like to thank witnesses for appearing here today. I'd also like to acknowledge the traditional custodians of the land and show our respect to elders past, present and emerging of all our First Nations people. In accordance with the committee's resolution on Thursday 1 August 2019, this hearing will be broadcast on the parliament's website and the proof and official transcripts of proceedings will be published on the parliament's website. Those present here today are advised that filming and recording are permitted during the hearings. I remind members of the media, who may be represent or listening on the web, of the need to fairly and accurately report the proceedings of the committee. Welcome Professor Glynn Cochrane. Although the committee doesn't require you to give evidence under oath, I would advise you that this hearing is a legal proceeding of the parliament and therefore has the same standing as proceedings of the respective houses. The evidence given today will be recorded by Hansard and attracts parliamentary privilege. I now invite you to make a brief opening statement before we proceed to questions. Prof. Cochrane: My 20-year involvement with Rio Tinto community relations began in 1995, when I was in Darussalam as the chief UNDP and World Bank technical adviser for civil service reform in Tanzania. Bob Wilson, the then CEO of RTZ, asked me to help him and the company to introduce systematic responses to social issues. Bougainville was still raw and fresh. Society's expectations for mining company behaviour were changing, and NGOs were campaigning vigorously to stop mining. No sooner was I in London than the merger with CRA took place. Bob Wilson became chairman and Leon Davis was CEO of the new Rio Tinto. Working with Richard Harnum, main board directors, product group chiefs and community practitioners, we developed a new design for community relations, which had support at all levels of the company as well as in operations in Australia and around the world. Since Juukan, I have been thinking about a number of issues, and these are the following: What worked well and what went wrong with Rio Tinto's community relations in the Pilbara? Where should the social function be placed in the corporate headquarters of the organisation? Why did social performance reporting fail to pick up the dissatisfaction expressed by the company's Aboriginal neighbours? What changes are urgently required to the way Rio Tinto accounts for salvaged artefacts? Is the chairman of Rio Tinto right when he says the present CEO is the best person to rebuild relationships with Aboriginal communities and others around the world? That is my opening statement. CHAIR: Thank you very much indeed. We'll now start with some questions. Senator DODSON: Good morning, Professor Cochrane. In your submission you say Rio Tinto had been following its own stripped-down version of cultural resource management in the Pilbara and the focus had been on the development of skills and procedures needed to secure quick clearance and the removal of impediments to mining, something that too frequently results in the destruction of sacred sites. The clearance seeking would have encouraged Rio Tinto to think that caves could be destroyed without too much fuss. What do you mean by the development of the skills and procedures needed to secure quick clearances? Prof. Cochrane: In a sense, I think it's the opposite of developing real cultural heritage management skills; it's simply a lot of box ticking and complying with regulations and legislation in order to get quick clearance. I would point out to you that, if you look at what happened after Juukan—there was a film, there were lectures and there were discussions at archaeological associations—that stands in marked contrast to what normally seems to happen. Seven thousand items were removed from those caves. That is not mentioned in the board-led Rio Tinto inquiry, and I think it extremely bad that arrangements have not be made to properly provenance and make arrangements for those artefacts. Artefacts have been collected by mining companies all over the Pilbara, not just for Juukan but for a long time. They are stored in containers. They are not properly being explained. People are not being educated about them, and that's what I mean by that is not really proper cultural heritage. All they're really doing is ticking the boxes, talking about cultural heritage, but I don't think that it's really being done because they exercise the duties of a collecting institution but they do not follow best Australian museum practice. Senator DODSON: You said nothing about the hair belt sample. Prof. Cochrane: I think all of those. It seems to me incredible that there would be 7,000 items and I'm sure that they have not been properly provenanced, tagged and explained. I'm not at all sure that they're being stored in NORTHERN AUSTRALIA COMMITTEE Page 2 JOINT Friday, 28 August 2020 a way that would preserve whatever it is that needs to be preserved, and that I think is a severe problem. Dr Slack said in 2014 that he had started to do this work, and what I think is regrettable is that it looks as if he was on a very tight budget and schedule. This work has not yet been completed. That was 2014. We have no idea still in 2020 where the final keeping place will be for these very, very important artefacts. What in actual fact has happened, if you will forgive me, is it is almost like blowing up the
Load more

Recommended publications
  • House of Assembly Wednesday 11 November 2020
    PARLIAMENT OF TASMANIA HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY REPORT OF DEBATES Wednesday 11 November 2020 REVISED EDITION Wednesday 11 November 2020 The Speaker, Ms Hickey, took the Chair at 10 a.m., acknowledged the Traditional People and read Prayers. QUESTIONS Launceston General Hospital - Commission of Inquiry into Child Abuse Claims Ms WHITE question to MINISTER for HEALTH, Ms COURTNEY [12.02 p.m.] Former LGH nurse, Jim Griffin, was charged with heinous child sex offences in October last year. You have been aware of this deeply disturbing case for nearly a year. Why was an independent inquiry only established last month? ANSWER Madam Speaker, I thank the member for her question. As I outlined yesterday to the parliament the safety of our children is the highest priority of this Government and, I would hope, the Tasmanian community. The Premier and I have announced an independent investigation into this matter. As I have outlined both to the parliament and also publicly the terms of reference for this investigation have been informed by expert advice. I am advised that the terms of reference are broad enough to give the investigator the scope she needs to be able to investigate these matters. I know that I, the secretary of the Department of Health, and the Premier are fully committed to ensuring this matter is thoroughly investigated and acting upon the findings of this investigation. With regard to the matter of when information was provided, in terms of advice to the LGH around the suspension of this individual's working with vulnerable people provision, on that day I am advised the staff member was directed to not attend work, and access to the hospital and its information systems were blocked.
    [Show full text]
  • Brockman 2 Detrital Iron Ore Mine Extension Phase 2B
    Brockman 2 Detrital Iron Ore Mine Extension Phase 2B Hamersley Iron Pty Ltd Report 1393 April 2011 Assessment on Proponent Information Environmental Impact Assessment Process Timelines Date Progress stages Time (weeks) 07/02/11 Level of assessment set 22/03/11 Proponent’s final API document received by EPA 6 19/04/11 Publication of EPA report (3 days after report to Minister) 4 03/05/11 Close of appeals period 2 Timelines for an assessment may vary according to the complexity of the project and are usually agreed with the proponent soon after the level of assessment is determined. In this case, the Environmental Protection Authority met its timeline objective in the completion of the assessment and provision of a report to the Minister. Dr Paul Vogel Chairman 19/4/11 ISSN 1836-0483 (Print) ISSN 1836-0491 (Online) Assessment No. 1865 Report 1393: Brockman 2 Detrital Iron Ore Mine Extension Phase 2B Contents Page 1. Introduction and background ...................................................................... 1 2. The proposal ................................................................................................. 1 3. Consultation .................................................................................................. 3 4. Key environmental factors ........................................................................... 3 4.1 Groundwater .......................................................................................... 3 4.2 Mine Closure and Rehabilitation .........................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Attachment C
    Submission No 130 INQUIRY INTO RATIONALE FOR, AND IMPACTS OF, NEW DAMS AND OTHER WATER INFRASTRUCTURE IN NSW Organisation: Murray Lower Darling Rivers Indigenous Nations (MLDRIN) Date Received: 6 October 2020 Post Office Box 5005 Brunswick North VIC 3056 www.mldrin.org.au ABN: 45118364079 Submission to the Inquiry into the rationale for, and impacts of, new dams and other water infrastructure in NSW (Portfolio Committee No. 7 - Planning and Environment) Murray Lower Darling Rivers Indigenous Nations (MLDRIN) welcomes the opportunity to provide a submission for the Inquiry into the rationale for, and impacts of, new dams and other water infrastructure in NSW to the NSW Legislative Council Portfolio Committee No. 7 - Planning and Environment. About MLDRIN MLDRIN is a confederation of Sovereign First Nations from the Southern part of the Murray Darling Basin (MDB). The group currently includes Delegates from 24 Nations across NSW, Victoria, the ACT and South Australia. Our core work includes: • Advising the Murray-Darling Basin Authority (MDBA) on all matters relevant to Traditional Owners and Aboriginal people in the Southern MDB, in particular, the implementation of the Basin Plan; • Undertaking projects and having an active role in Natural Resource Management and water planning; • Providing a forum for our member Nations to keep informed, deliberate on issues, and provide feedback and advice to decision-makers across all levels of government; • Advocating for our member Nations’ rights and interests in land and water, specifically to progress the recognition of Aboriginal water rights and Cultural Flows; and, • Providing leadership and capacity building for our member Nations. MLDRIN’s Membership includes the Wiradjuri.
    [Show full text]
  • Handbook of Western Australian Aboriginal Languages South of the Kimberley Region
    PACIFIC LINGUISTICS Series C - 124 HANDBOOK OF WESTERN AUSTRALIAN ABORIGINAL LANGUAGES SOUTH OF THE KIMBERLEY REGION Nicholas Thieberger Department of Linguistics Research School of Pacific Studies THE AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL UNIVERSITY Thieberger, N. Handbook of Western Australian Aboriginal languages south of the Kimberley Region. C-124, viii + 416 pages. Pacific Linguistics, The Australian National University, 1993. DOI:10.15144/PL-C124.cover ©1993 Pacific Linguistics and/or the author(s). Online edition licensed 2015 CC BY-SA 4.0, with permission of PL. A sealang.net/CRCL initiative. Pacific Linguistics is issued through the Linguistic Circle of Canberra and consists of four series: SERIES A: Occasional Papers SERIES c: Books SERIES B: Monographs SERIES D: Special Publications FOUNDING EDITOR: S.A. Wurm EDITORIAL BOARD: T.E. Dutton, A.K. Pawley, M.D. Ross, D.T. Tryon EDITORIAL ADVISERS: B.W.Bender KA. McElhanon University of Hawaii Summer Institute of Linguistics DavidBradley H.P. McKaughan La Trobe University University of Hawaii Michael G. Clyne P. Miihlhausler Monash University University of Adelaide S.H. Elbert G.N. O'Grady University of Hawaii University of Victoria, B.C. KJ. Franklin KL. Pike Summer Institute of Linguistics Summer Institute of Linguistics W.W.Glover E.C. Polome Summer Institute of Linguistics University of Texas G.W.Grace Gillian Sankoff University of Hawaii University of Pennsylvania M.A.K Halliday W.A.L. Stokhof University of Sydney University of Leiden E. Haugen B.K T' sou Harvard University City Polytechnic of Hong Kong A. Healey E.M. Uhlenbeck Summer Institute of Linguistics University of Leiden L.A.
    [Show full text]
  • Inquiry Into the Destruction of 46,000 Year Old Caves at the Juukan Gorge
    2/6/2021 Inquiry into the destruction of 46,000 year old caves at the Juukan Gorge AECOM Submission Inquiry into the Destruction of 46,000 year old caves at the Juukan Gorge in the Pilbara Region of Western Australia Revision 2 2/6/2021 1 PRINTED COPIES ARE UNCONTROLLED FOR 3 MONTHS FROM 2-JUN-21 AND THEN MUST BE REPRINTED 1.0 Introduction The destruction of nationally significant Juukan Gorge heritage site complex has led to an open discussion concerning the range of issues present in the State and Territory management of heritage (Indigenous, non-Indigenous and natural heritage) across Australia. While Rio Tinto has acknowledged in their submission to this Inquiry that there was a failure of internal processes meant to guide company personnel on the management of Indigenous heritage within their estate, the company was as much the victim of the well documented (and lamented) deficiencies in outdated Australian heritage legislation and its lack of incorporation into modern planning approvals process. 2.0 Key Issues There are seven main issues affecting the majority of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander heritage legislation within Australia: 1. Lack of recognition of modern planning requirements Most Australian heritage legislation fails to acknowledge the importance of undertaking early comprehensive heritage significance assessment PRIOR to Project Approval. Queensland, for example, allows for the establishment of Memorandums of Understanding (referred to in legislation as Cultural Heritage Management Plans/Agreements) BEFORE survey has even been undertaken. Under legislation, these documents are in effect the permit to proceed with the project. This has led to instances where heritage surveys can be undertaken AFTER project approval is obtained.
    [Show full text]
  • Mr Gerbrand Haverkamp Executive Director, World Benchmarking Alliance Rhijnspoorplein 10-38 1018 TX Amsterdam the Netherlands
    Mr Gerbrand Haverkamp Executive Director, World Benchmarking Alliance Rhijnspoorplein 10-38 1018 TX Amsterdam The Netherlands By email: [email protected] 8 July 2020 Dear Mr Haverkamp, Re: Rio Tinto’s ranking on the Corporate Human Rights Benchmark We are writing to express our serious concern regarding Rio Tinto’s continued high public ranking on the global Corporate Human Rights Benchmark, following the company’s recent egregious actions at Juukan Gorge in Western Australia. As you know, on 24 May, Rio Tinto detonated the caves at Juukan Gorge in order to expand its Brockman 4 iron-ore mine, destroying a 46,000 year-old Aboriginal sacred site which had contained artefacts indicating tens of thousands of years of continuous human occupation.1 1 Calla Wahlquist, ‘Rio Tinto blasts 46000 year old Aboriginal site to expand iron ore mine’ (26 May 2020, The The traditional owners of the site, the Puutu Kunti Kurrama and Pinikura (PKKP) Peoples, have publicly stated that they were only informed of the company’s intention to destroy the site on 15 May, after making an application for permission to access the site for NAIDOC Week (a week dedicated to the celebration of Aboriginal heritage) and were told it was too late to stop the detonation as explosives had already been laid.2 The PKKP had already engaged in a seven-year battle to try to protect the site. The destruction of Juukan Gorge has devastated the PKKP and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities and their allies across the globe, and robbed the world of a uniquely valuable cultural heritage site.
    [Show full text]
  • Inquiry Into the Destruction of 46,000 Year Old Caves at the Juukan Gorge in the Pilbara Region of Western Australia
    Inquiry into the destruction of 46,000 year old caves at the Juukan Gorge in the Pilbara region of Western Australia Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia 21 August 2020 Telephone +61 2 6246 3788 • Fax +61 2 6248 0639 Email [email protected] GPO Box 1989, Canberra ACT 2601, DX 5719 Canberra 19 Torrens St Braddon ACT 2612 Law Council of Australia Limited ABN 85 005 260 622 www.lawcouncil.asn.au Table of Contents About the Law Council of Australia ................................................................................4 Acknowledgement ...........................................................................................................5 Executive Summary .........................................................................................................6 Recommendations ...........................................................................................................7 Context .............................................................................................................................8 Introductory Remarks .....................................................................................................8 Law Council Approach ..................................................................................................10 Overview of the Australian Legislative Framework ........................................................12 Commonwealth Legislation .......................................................................................12 State and Territory Legislation ...................................................................................12
    [Show full text]
  • Hamersley HMS Pty Limited Baby Hope Mine Closure Plan
    Hamersley HMS Pty Limited Baby Hope Mine Closure Plan Mineral Field 47 – West Pilbara FDMS No. RTIO-HSE-0245210 17 August 2015 Contact details: Kirsty Beckett Hamersley HMS Pty Limited 152 – 158 St Georges Terrace, Perth GPO Box A42, Perth, WA 6837 T: +61 8 6213 0468 [email protected] http://www.riotinto.com Baby Hope Mine Closure Plan August 2015 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Overview Hope Downs 1 South West Marra Mamba deposit (Baby Hope) comprises a series of open cut iron ore pits located immediately to the south of the existing Hope Downs 1 mining operations (HD1). The deposit is located in the eastern Pilbara region of Western Australia, approximately 75 km north-west of Newman and will be developed using conventional drill-and-blast and load-and-haul mining methods. Ore will be processed at HD1. HD1 and Baby Hope are managed by Hamersley HMS Pty Limited (Hamersley HMS), which is a member of the Rio Tinto group (Rio Tinto). Scope This closure plan has been prepared to support the Baby Hope Area referral under Part IV of the Environmental Protection Act 1986 (EP Act). This closure plan is designed to address the closure requirements for the Baby Hope deposit and associated infrastructure. Closure is assumed to include progressive rehabilitation that will occur throughout the life of the mine. The goal of mine closure is to relinquish the site to the Government. This closure plan has been developed to meet the requirements of the joint Office of the Environmental Protection Authority / Department of Mines and Petroleum Guidelines for Preparing Mine Closure Plans (2015) 1 (Closure Guidelines).
    [Show full text]
  • Apache Stronghold Excerpts of Record
    Case: 21-15295, 02/23/2021, ID: 12014184, DktEntry: 6-2, Page 1 of 232 No. 21-15295 ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ In the United States Court of Appeals for The Ninth Circuit APACHE STRONGHOLD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ET AL., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Honorable Steven P. Logan (2:21-cv-00050-PHX-SPL) __________________________________________________________________ EXCERPTS OF RECORD __________________________________________________________________ MICHAEL V. NIXON LUKE W. GOODRICH 101 SW Madison Street #9325 Counsel of Record Portland, OR 97207 MARK L. RIENZI (503) 522-4257 DIANA M. VERM [email protected] JOSEPH C. DAVIS CHRISTOPHER PAGLIARELLA CLIFFORD LEVENSON DANIEL D. BENSON th 5119 North 19 Street, Suite K THE BECKET FUND FOR Phoenix, AZ 85015 RELIGIOUS LIBERTY (602) 544-1900 1919 Pennsylvania Ave. NW [email protected] Suite 400 Washington, DC 20006 (202) 955-0095 [email protected] Counsel for Plaintiff-Appellant Case: 21-15295, 02/23/2021, ID: 12014184, DktEntry: 6-2, Page 2 of 232 TABLE OF CONTENTS Doc. Date Document Description Page 57 2/12/2021 Order regarding Temporary Restraining Order ER001 and Preliminary Injunction 2/03/2021 Transcript of Hearing on Motion for ER024 Preliminary Injunction 7-1 1/14/2021 Declaration of Cranston Hoffman Jr. ER120 7-2 1/14/2021 Declaration of Clifford Levenson ER123 7-3 1/14/2021 Declaration of Naelyn Pike ER125 7-4 1/14/2021 Declaration of Wendsler Nosie, Sr., Ph.D. ER136 15-1 1/20/2021 Declaration of John R. Welch, Ph.D. ER149 18-1 1/21/2021 Ex.
    [Show full text]
  • Groundwater Assessment of the North-West Hamersley Range
    Securing Western Australia’s water future Groundwater assessment of the north-west Hamersley Range Hydrogeological record series Report no. HG62 August 2016 Groundwater assessment of the north-west Hamersley Range Securing Western Australia’s water future Department of Water Hydrogeological record series Report no. HG62 August 2016 Department of Water 168 St Georges Terrace Perth Western Australia 6000 Telephone +61 8 6364 7600 Facsimile +61 8 6364 7601 National Relay Service 13 36 77 www.water.wa.gov.au © Government of Western Australia August 2016 This work is copyright. You may download, display, print and reproduce this material in unaltered form only (retaining this notice) for your personal, non-commercial use or use within your organisation. Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, all other rights are reserved. Requests and inquiries concerning reproduction and rights should be addressed to the Department of Water. ISBN [978-1-925387-82-7] (print) ISBN [978-1-925387-83-4] (online) Acknowledgements The Department of Water thanks the following for their contribution to this publication. This summary document was prepared by Seth Johnson of HydroConcept Pty Ltd, based on a more comprehensive, technical report. Review and editing was undertaken by James Milne, Sandie McHugh, Gary Humphreys, Kevin Hopkinson and Alex Waterhouse. This project is made possible by the State Government’s Royalties for Regions program. For more information, visit http://www.drd.wa.gov.au. For more information about this report, contact Manager Water Resource Assessment Branch. Cover photograph: Riverine pool within Robe River Disclaimer This document has been published by the Department of Water.
    [Show full text]
  • Inquiry Into the Destruction of 46,000 Year Old Caves at the Juukan Gorge in the Pilbara Region of Western Australia
    Inquiry into the destruction of 46,000 year old caves at the Juukan Gorge in the Pilbara region of Western Australia Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments to the inquiry into issues around of the destruction of the Juukan Caves. My comments are pertinent to a number of the terms of reference (a, b, d, e, g and h) although the key issue I raise, respect for the value of the cultural material finds of the Puutu Kunti Kurrama and Pinikura (PKKP) people and their custodian rights to ownership of these objects, is not specifically referred to. I make my remarks with my knowledge of Indigenous rights with regard to their cultural materials through my long-standing professional experience in museums and with their peak bodies, both nationally and internationally. I have engaged at both policy and practical levels in the repatriation of Indigenous materials housed in Australian museum collections. Cultural material finds It seems clear that the Juukan caves have remained significant to the cultural practices of the PKKP people for they recently requested permission from Rio Tinto to conduct cultural practices at the site. Their request was refused as the company had reportedly already laid explosives in the area, which would destroy the caves. Highly significant cultural finds were located in the caves in excavations in 2011 and 2014, the later dig being called ‘archaeological salvage’. We know from professional reports that over 7,000 stone and wooden tools and organic materials were found at the site. Rio Tinto’s admission that the finds are locked in their Roebourne office does not appear to acknowledge the importance of their cultural materials for the Aboriginal people of the Pilbara area, and indeed for the long, proud, ancient history of our continent.
    [Show full text]
  • Rio Tinto Iron Ore
    Rio Tinto Iron Ore Brockman Syncline 4 – Revised Proposal Assessment on Proponent Information Environmental Review Document Hamersley Iron Pty Limited 152 – 158 St Georges Terrace, Perth GPO Box A42, Perth, WA 6837 July 2014 RTIO-HSE-0209902 Disclaimer and Limitation This report has been prepared by Rio Tinto Iron Ore (Rio Tinto), on behalf of Hamersley Iron Pty Limited (Hamersley Iron), specifically for the Brockman Syncline 4 Iron Ore Project. Neither the report nor its contents may be referred to without the express approval of Rio Tinto, unless the report has been released for referral and assessment of proposals. Document Status Approved for Issue Rev Author Reviewer/s Date To Whom Date A ‐ D M. Palandri T. Souster/P. Royce 02/12/13 E ‐ F T. Souster Project Team 08/01/14 1 T. Souster OEPA 04/02/2014 2 T. Souster OEPA 21/02/2014 T. Souster/A. OEPA 11/07/2014 3‐4 T. Souster/P. Royce 11/07/14 Featherstone July 2014 ii Brockman Syncline 4 – Revised Proposal API Environmental Review RTIO‐HSE‐0209902 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 1 1.1 PROPONENT DETAILS ................................................................................................................1 1.2 THE BROCKMAN SYNCLINE 4 PROJECT .....................................................................................1 2 PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION................................................................................................... 6 2.1 PROVISION
    [Show full text]