Adnyamathanha Traditional Lands Association RNTBC ARA ICN 3734 ABN 14 146 238 567 PO Box 4014 Port Augusta 5700 Ph

Response to RPS (2018) Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment of Wallerberdina Station Adnyamathanha Traditional Lands Association RNTBC ARA ICN 3734 ABN 14 146 238 567 PO Box 4014 Port Augusta 5700 Ph

ATLA’s Response to RPS (2018) Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment of Wallerberdina Station

(Supplementary Submission to Senate Inquiry for the Selection Process for a National Radioactive Waste Management Facility in South Australia)

The Adnyamathanha Traditional Lands Association (ATLA) is the peak–body for all matters relating to the Land, Language, Culture, Heritage and Native Title matters of the Adnyamathanha People of the Flinders Ranges. ATLA is a Registered Native Title Body Corporate (RNTBC) registered under the Corporations (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) Act 2006 (CATSI Act), and the recognised Aboriginal Regional Authority (ARA) for the Adnyamathanha People of the Flinders Ranges, recognised under the South Australian Government Aboriginal Regional Authority Policy (refer to Attachment 2). ATLA’s opposition to a National Radioactive Waste Management Facility (NRWMF) on Wallerberdina Station (Barndioota) is well known and well documented. As a matrilineal society, we have always identified and maintained the importance of the Wallerberdina Station region to Adnyamathanha women. We also know that the nominated NRWMF property contains extensive cultural, archaeological, paleontological and social values to Adnyamathanha people and that these values would be significantly impacted if the NRWMF project proceeded within the Wallerberdina area. What may not be as well–known is ATLA’s fundamental support for a comprehensive and independent Aboriginal cultural heritage assessment (ACHA) of the Wallerberdina area even before the proposed Barndioota site was nominated for the NRWMF. Our position to support an independent and comprehensive ACHA was developed primarily to help us articulate the known and extensive values associated with the nominated area in a manner that could be understood and appreciated by non- Aboriginal people. We still maintain the belief that a comprehensive and independent ACHA undertaken in a culturally appropriate way, and in accordance with Commonwealth and Industry best- practice guidelines would clearly articulate, particularly to the Commonwealth Government of Australia, the importance of the area to us, and the reasons why the Adnyamathanha Nation has unanimously voted against the NRWMF for Barndioota. ATLA commenced the DIIS sponsored Barndioota NRWMF Aboriginal cultural heritage consultation process under the clear and unambiguous commitment by Minister Frydenberg to: as part of this phase [phase 2], … identify the full extent of heritage at the site and ensure it is protected (Wilson 2016). Mr Wilson additionally noted that: The Government, including Minister Canavan and the Department of Industry, Innovation and Science, will uphold this commitment. In response to these commitments, the DIIS (Wilson 2016) noted the following requirements for any proposed ACHA:

1 Response to RPS (2018) Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment of Wallerberdina Station

The ACHA should be undertaken across and, if relevant around, sufficient proportion of the nominated land to the point that all significant heritage and cultural values which could influence the establishment of a potential site are identified. (emphasis added) We note that the Ministerial commitment to protect the full extent of our cultural heritage on Wallerberdina Station was an acknowledgment of, and a direct response to, the extensive cultural heritage assessment work undertaken by industry professionals (including archaeologists, anthropologists, hydrogeologists, botanists, PHD candidates, university students and various State Government departments) in and around the Yapalla group of properties under the cultural guidance of Ken and Margaret McKenzie, Regina McKenzie and Heather Stuart since 2006. Numerous DIIS on-line newsletters (from 2016 to 2018) have subsequently reinforced and further articulated the abovementioned commitment by stating that a comprehensive and independent assessment of cultural heritage will be undertaken by qualified experts within the current phase of works (as a sample see DIIS 2016a; DIIS 2016b; DIIS 2016c; DIIS 2018a; DIIS 2018b; DIIS 2018c). ATLA had therefore formed the opinion that the DIIS, on behalf of the Commonwealth Government of Australia, had a duty of care to identify and protect our cultural heritage, and was committed to undertaking a culturally appropriate assessment during the current phase of work with regard to the following key criteria: 1. Ensure that the ACH assessment process is undertaken in a Comprehensive manner: o Identify the full extent of cultural and heritage values in and around the nominated site in accordance with Commonwealth and Industry best practice guidelines. o Identify all significant heritage and cultural values which could influence the establishment of a potential site. o Determine the significance of all identified cultural and heritage values in accordance with Commonwealth and Industry best practice guidelines. 2. Ensure that the ACH assessment process is undertaken in an Independent manner. 3. Ensure that all identified cultural and heritage values are protected. ATLA appreciates that the veracity of any ACHA undertaken for the Barndioota NRWMF area during the current phase of work (Phase 2) should therefore be assessed against the abovementioned criteria. Specifically: 1. Was the ACH assessment process undertaken in a Comprehensive manner? a. Did it identify the full extent of cultural heritage values in and around the nominated site? b. Did it identify all significant heritage and cultural values which could influence the establishment of a potential site? c. Did it determine the significance of all identified cultural and heritage values? 2. Was the ACHA assessment process undertaken in an Independent manner? 3. Was the ACHA assessment process undertaken in accordance with Commonwealth and Industry best practice guidelines? 4. Are all identified cultural and heritage values protected? Unfortunately, the DIIS managed ACH consultation process and DIIS sponsored Heritage Working Group (HWG) for the Barndioota NRWMF suffered significant set-backs due directly to issues of Comprehensiveness, Independence and Protection (refer to Attachment 1). As a consequence, ATLA has not been afforded the opportunity to officially comment on any of the eleven draft versions of the current ACHAR despite repeated requests from the ATLA Vice-Chairperson (and VYAC nominee on the Barndioota HWG) and our own DIIS HWG member Regina McKenzie to cite this document. ATLA must therefore rely on a heavily redacted public version of the document (from the DIIS NRWMF website) to find out how our cultural heritage has been assessed, protected and archivally documented by the DIIS (RPS 2018).

2 Response to RPS (2018) Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment of Wallerberdina Station

Given our painful history with this project it should not be surprising that ATLA’s cursory review of the ACAHR (RPS 2018) has found the document lacking and manifestly inadequate. ATLA herein sets out our understanding of the ACHAR (RPS 2018) as reviewed against the abovementioned commitments and assessment criteria: 1. Comprehensiveness It is surprising and disturbing to note that the ACHAR (RPS 2018) does not detail the abovementioned Ministerial or Departmental commitments as the defining criteria for the assessment. In regard to the specific issue of comprehensiveness, the ACHAR (RPS 2018:62) states the following: At this stage of the assessment the potential impact to these items [heritage values] is largely unknown. Comprehensive anthropological, archaeological survey, recording and analysis would be required to understand the significance of these items and the potential impacts associated with the Facility. By admission, the ACHAR (RPS 2018) does not meet the well-publicised Ministerial and Departmental commitment to undertake a comprehensive assessment of all Aboriginal cultural and heritage values in and around the nominated site. The ACHAR (RPS 2018) did not identify the nature, extent and significance of all cultural heritage values which could influence the establishment of a potential site, and importantly, the DIIS has opted to defer any comprehensive assessment of the site until the Phase 3 – Site Selection Phase (RPS 2018:viii). This admission (RPS 2018:62) is further supported by the following: a) The ACHAR (RPS 2018) contains no newly documented archaeological or cultural information. All cultural heritage values detailed in the report are either redacted or of a cursory nature which have been previously identified and documented. b) The ACHAR (RPS 2018:43-44,62) has failed to comprehensively assess the only two remaining 100-hectare areas nominated by Geoscience Australia (GA1 and GA2) as suitable locations to site the NRWMFP (RPS 2018:62). c) The DIIS commitment to undertake a comprehensive assessment during this phase of the project has now been deferred to after the site has been selected (RPS 2018:viii, 62). d) The ACHAR (RPS 2018) has not identified the nature, or extent, or importantly, the significance of all, or indeed any, heritage values inherent in the nominated project area. This significant omission is contrary to industry best practice guidelines for cultural heritage assessment and management in Australia. e) The ACHAR in its current form can only serve to highlight some of the cursory heritage constraints associated with the NRWMFP at the nominated site. By admission (RPS 2018) the ACHA has not assessed the cultural heritage values of the nominated area, is not an Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment and therefore should not be referred to as one. It remains, at best, a Draft Heritage Constraints Analysis. The ACHAR (RPS 2018) does not meet the Ministerial or Departmental commitment of comprehensiveness.

2. Independence:

For the ACHAR to be considered Independent, it must, by definition, demonstrate values of impartiality, objectivity and autonomy. ATLA cannot find evidence of these values in the ACHAR (RPS 2018) and believe that the assessment was not undertaken in an independent manner. Our position is supported by the following:

a) RPS has produced the ACHAR (2018) specifically for DIIS review and approval. This is evidenced by the RPS document control panel of previous draft reports (as cited by the ATLA Vice- Chairperson & nominated VYAC HWG representative), which highlight the active involvement,

3 Response to RPS (2018) Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment of Wallerberdina Station

and editorial function of the DIIS. b) Based on the same citation, the publicly released ACHAR (RPS 2018) is the 12th iteration of a desktop assessment that has been reviewed at least five times by the DIIS on behalf of the Commonwealth Government of Australia. c) The DIIS set contractual (financial and confidentiality) constraints on the Barndioota HWG and its members. d) The agreed Scope of Work for the assessment and reporting process between RPS and the DIIS is not documented in the ACHAR (RPS 2018). e) The consultation section of the ACHAR (RPS 2018) is significantly lacking and presents a sterilized version of events suggesting that Aboriginal community consultation for this project has had little to no objection. This is a fallacy (refer also to Attachment 1). The Commonwealth Government of Australia (CofA 2016:4) recommendations for EPBC pre-referral consultation with ‘Indigenous peoples’ states the following: The report must demonstrate genuine consultation with Indigenous people and show how any issues raised during consultation have been addressed. f) Commonwealth best-practice criteria for undertaking Aboriginal cultural heritage consultation (AHC 2012; CofA 2016) were not implemented to guide the inception, development or membership selection processes of the DIIS HWG (refer to Attachment 1). i. The DIIS HWG members were not vetted for their cultural knowledge, cultural responsibilities or cultural relevance as required by Commonwealth Government best practice guidelines. ii. Well-established Adnyamathanha community governance structures were actively sidelined by the creation of the DIIS HWG. iii. The DIIS restricted and controlled the membership structure of the HWG. iv. The heritage consultancy experts were engaged by the DIIS despite repeated objections from the ATLA HWG members (refer to Attachment 1). g) Commonwealth best-practice criteria for undertaking Aboriginal cultural heritage consultation (detailed in AHC 2012; CofA 2016) were not implemented to guide the Aboriginal cultural heritage consultation process. i. ATLA’s position as the recognized Aboriginal Regional Authority (ARA) for the Flinders Ranges was actively subverted by the DIIS’ strict adherence to the requirements of the NRWM Act 2012. ATLA’s well recognized and accepted responsibilities for advocating and representing our various communities on all matters that may affect Adnyamathanha People, Land, Culture and Heritage was effectively usurped by the DIIS HWG (refer to Attachments 1 and 2 for further discussion). ii. ATLA was never afforded the opportunity to review the draft ACHAR (RPS 2018) despite repeated and specific requests by the ATLA Vice Chairperson (and nominated HWG representative for the VYAC) to both RPS and the DIIS. iii. ATLA representatives of the HWG were not afforded the opportunity to review the draft ACHAR (RPS 2018), despite repeated requests by ATLA’s HWG member Regina McKenzie to cite the document. iv. ATLA’s first opportunity to view the ACHAR (RPS 2018) was after the final version of the report was released to the general public via the DIIS website. v. The subversion of established community governance structures effectively guaranteed that the broader Adnyamathanha community and the nominated cultural custodians of the proposed NRWMF area have been sidelined through the current consultation and assessment process. ATLA maintains that the cultural heritage assessment undertaken by RPS does not demonstrate values

4 Response to RPS (2018) Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment of Wallerberdina Station of impartiality, objectivity or autonomy and cannot therefore be considered independent of the vested interests of the Commonwealth Government. The subversion of established community governance structures through the establishment of the HWG, the closed consultation process and the editorial control of the DIIS over the assessment and reporting process all point to a blatant disregard of the Ministerial commitment to undertake the ACHA process, during this phase of works, in an independent manner. The ACHAR (RPS 2018) does not meet the repeated DIIS commitment of independence.

3. Commonwealth and Industry Best Practice Guidelines ATLA note that the suppression of legislated mechanisms to protect Aboriginal cultural heritage values under the National Radioactive Waste Management Act 2012 (NRWM Act) does not equate to an authority to harm those values. The absence of any regulatory guidance in this context can only serve to place a greater onus on both the proponent (the DIIS) and their contracted qualified experts (RPS) to adhere to best practice guidelines and consider all necessary steps required to identify and protect Aboriginal Cultural Heritage. This duty of care is not only incumbent on the proponent, it is a fundamental tenant of ethical cultural heritage management practice in Australia. Unfortunately the DIIS has never had the requisite in-house skill/expertise to undertake meaningful consultation with Aboriginal people on matters pertaining to Aboriginal cultural heritage. This lack of expertise may be why the DIIS did not follow established Commonwealth Government best–practice guidelines for conducting Aboriginal cultural heritage consultation when forming the Barndioota NRWMFP HWG. It may also be the likely reason why the DIIS decided to democratically elect Aboriginal stakeholders from the broader Adnyamathanha community without: (1) validating their level of cultural knowledge/responsibility/competence/relevance; or (2), acknowledging established community governance structures. Despite repeated requests from both ATLA and culturally relevant Adnyamathanha people, the DIIS continually chose to completely disregard cultural propriety and established community governance processes. This failure to abide by established Aboriginal consultation best–practice guidelines by the DIIS and their contracted qualified experts has actively denied our relevant custodians the procedural fairness to voice their concerns in a safe, respectful and equitable manner. The DIIS or their qualified experts RPS did not follow best practice guidelines or exercise their specific duty of care to identify and/or protect our cultural heritage values throughout phase 2 project works. This is evidenced by: a. Not undertaking a cultural values assessment prior to commencing archaeological, LIDAR or geotechnical investigations. b. Desecrating a previously registered and culturally significant women’s site during RPS LIDAR acquisition works. c. Impacting the Ancestral storyline of Yurlu’s Coal during AECOM geotechnical investigations. d. Impacting numerous artefacts during AECOM geotechnical investigations. e. Not affording relevant custodians the procedural fairness to safely speak for Country. The DIIS managed HWG and Aboriginal cultural heritage consultation process was not undertaken in accordance with established Commonwealth or Industry best practice guidelines.

4. Protection: In order for any proposed protection mechanisms to be considered valid, the nature, extent and significance of all cultural heritage values need to be understood in the context of how these values may be affected throughout the expected life of the proposed NRWMF project. This requires a comprehensive assessment of values measured against detailed construction, operational and decommissioning activities that may cause harm. This has not occurred.

5 Response to RPS (2018) Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment of Wallerberdina Station

ATLA note the following in regard to any management and/or mitigation recommendations detailed in the ACHAR (RPS 2018). a) The management recommendations presented in the ACHAR are generic at best and cannot possibly be relevant without a comprehensive assessment of the nature, extent and significance of the values associated with the proposed site. The generic nature of these recommendations underscores the generic nature of the assessment. Tailored and specific management recommendations will require a comprehensive assessment of the nominated area as committed to by the DIIS and Ministers Frydenberg and Canavan. b) The suggestion that the current ACHAR (RPS 2018) can support an Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Management Plan (ACHMP) is absurd given that the same report recommends further comprehensive assessments in order to understand the archaeological and cultural values and their significance. Valid management actions require a sound understanding of significance measured against detailed construction, operational and decommissioning activities. c) The DIIS, through the establishment and continuance of the Barndioota HWG, has effectively usurped ATLA’s position as the ARA to protect our Country – our lands, culture, people and heritage. This is immensely disturbing to us and we are committed to righting this gross over- reach of authority. d) The legitimacy of the Barndioota HWG to speak for all culturally relevant Adnyamathanha people has never been, and can never be, established.

The development of management/mitigation recommendations requires a comprehensive understanding of cultural significance by culturally relevant individuals measured against any future potential to harm. As detailed in Section 1 above, the required comprehensive assessment of cultural and heritage values has not been undertaken and the significance of the area has not been determined by the DIIS. This very fact alone renders any proposed management/mitigation discussion premature and not relevant. The DIIS and their qualified experts RPS have categorically failed to understand and articulate the relationship between culturally relevant people and the broader cultural landscape that embodies a vastly complex indigenous system of knowledge. In failing to acknowledge the intimate relationship between people and landscape, both the DIIS and their qualified experts RPS have failed to acknowledge the simply truth that any harm to the land, by extension, will harm the people. Mitigation of harm involves a detailed process of consultation with relevant people to understand these relationships and ensure that they are protected for future generations. ATLA would also note that the specific ministerial commitment here refers to the protection of all values, not the mitigation of harm to some of them. The ACHAR (RPS 2018) does not meet the Ministerial commitment to protect our cultural heritage.

5. Summary By admission, the DIIS (RPS 2018:62) has not undertaken a comprehensive assessment of the cultural and heritage values of the nominated site within the current phase of the NRWMF project. The DIIS has specifically chosen to defer all comprehensive anthropological and archaeological assessments of the nominated Barndioota site to the next phase of works. The ACHAR (RPS 2018) cannot therefore be considered comprehensive and the DIIS has failed to meet this specific and significant commitment during the current phase of work. The ACHAR (RPS 2018) consultation and reporting process has not been undertaken in an unbiased, impartial, objective or autonomous manner and cannot therefore be considered independent. Finally, the absence of a comprehensive assessment of the nature, extent and significance of cultural and heritage values of the nominated Barndioota site obviates the development of any management or mitigation recommendations. The ACHAR (RPS 2018) cannot

6 Response to RPS (2018) Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment of Wallerberdina Station therefore validly work to protect the cultural and heritage values of the proposed Barndioota site. Importantly, without a comprehensive assessment that documents the nature, extent and significance of the differing values at the proposed site, the ACHAR (RPS 2018) cannot be used to support a targeted Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Management Plan for the area. ATLA is extremely disappointed at the DIIS consultation process and the cursory nature of the information presented in the final ACHAR (RPS 2018). This is insulting to us on both a cultural and professional level, and we have grave concerns that our culture and respective custodians have not been treated in a fair, equitable or respectful way. ATLA maintains that the Ministerial and Departmental commitments promised to the broader Hawker community regarding the ACHA during the current phase of work have not only been ignored, they have been actively side-lined in order to progress the NRWMF project to the next phase of work. The ACH consultation and assessment processes undertaken by the DIIS have fractured the social fabric of our community and at the same time, caused significant reputational harm to the Commonwealth Government of Australia. The ACHA report, as presented by RPS Australia on behalf of the DIIS, does not adequately inform the broader non-Aboriginal community of the inherent value of Adnyamathanha cultural heritage for the Barndioota area, and cannot therefore be relied upon to support any broader decision-making processes.

6. Recommendations

a) The current ACHAR (RPS 2018) should be withdrawn as it does not meet the stated objectives of the DIIS or the commitments of Federal Ministers Frydenberg and Canavan. b) The relevant Minister should request an independent peer review of the current ACHAR (RPS 2018) and associated consultation processes by an independent and suitably qualified organization to ensure that the information supplied is providing the best information with which to make an informed decision. c) Due to their complicity in the current ACHAR consultation and assessment reporting processes, the DIIS should not be involved in any part of the peer review process. d) The DIIS should recommence this assessment process in accordance with Commonwealth Government best practice guidelines, under the guidance of ATLA, its nominated representatives and identified custodians of the Barndioota area to ensure that all ACH outcomes meet the requirements of comprehensiveness, independence and protection.

7 Response to RPS (2018) Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment of Wallerberdina Station

References

Aboriginal Regional Authority Policy (2018). Government of South Australia – Department for Industry and Skills (DIS) Available at: http://www.industryandskills.sa.gov.au/aboriginal-affairs/aboriginal- affairs-and-reconciliation/initiatives/aboriginal-regional-authority-policy [Accessed 17 July 2018]

Australian Heritage Commission (2012). Ask First – A guide to respecting Indigenous heritage places and values

Commonwealth of Australia (CofA) 2016 Engage Early: Guidance for Proponents on Best Practice Indigenous Engagement under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act)

National Radioactive Waste Management Facility: Cultural Heritage (2018b). [pdf] Australian Government – Department of Industry, Innovation and Science. Available at: http://www.radioactivewaste.gov.au/facility-safety-and-management/environment-and- heritage/cultural-heritage [Accessed 6 July 2018].

National Radioactive Waste Management Facility: Wallerberdina Station, near Hawker, South Australia. (2018c). [pdf] Australian Government – Department of Industry, Innovation and Science. Available at: http://www.radioactivewaste.gov.au/site-selection-process/assessing- site/wallerberdina-station-near-hawker-south-australia [Accessed 6 July 2018].

Submission to the Senate Inquiry into the Site Selection Process for a National Radioactive Waste Management Facility – Radioactive Waste Management Taskforce, April 2018 (2018d). [pdf] Australian Government – Department of Industry, Innovation and Science.

National Radioactive Waste Management Facility (NRWMF): Phase 1 Summary Report April 2016 (2016a). [pdf] Australian Government – Department of Industry, Innovation and Science.

National Radioactive Waste Management Facility Looking Ahead: What the next stage of the National Radioactive Waste Management Facility Project Means for Barndioota and Surrounding Communities. (2016b). [pdf] Australian Government – Department of Industry, Innovation and Science.

National Radioactive Waste Management Facility: Issue 4 (2016c). [pdf] Australian Government – Department of Industry, Innovation and Science

Resources, National Radioactive Waste Management Facility: Questions and Answers – Phase 2 (2018a). [pdf] Australian Government – Department of Industry, Innovation and Science. Available at: http://www.radioactivewaste.gov.au/sites/prod.radioactivewaste/files/files/FAQphase2.docx [Accessed 6 July 2018].

RPS 2018. Wallerberdina Station National Radioactive Waste Management Facility Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Report: Public Version. Prepared for the Commonwealth Government of Australia – Department of Industry, Innovation and Science.

8 Response to RPS (2018) Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment of Wallerberdina Station

Attachment 1: DIIS NRWMFP Communication & Consultation Issues The Adnyamathanha Traditional Lands Association (ATLA) has developed this document to inform all relevant parties of the contributing factors that have led us to withdraw our delegation from the Department of Industry, Innovation and Science (DIIS) Heritage Working Group (HWG) for the proposed Barndioota National Radioactive Waste Management Facility Project (NRWMFP). ATLA is the Native Title Body Corporate (RNTBC) of our determined Native Title area, and the recognised Aboriginal Regional Authority (ARA) for the Adnyamathanha People of the Flinders Ranges (refer to Attachment 2). In regard to the ARA status of ATLA, the South Australian Government note: ... the Aboriginal Regional Authority Policy seeks to formally recognise Aboriginal organisations responsible for representing and advocating for their communities, driving regional priorities and economic growth, and working in partnership with government on key issues. (emphasis added). Source: www.industryandskills.sa.gov.au (accessed 18 July 2018) ATLA’s role as the peak–body and recognised ARA for the Flinders Ranges and its First Nation people has been consistently undermined by the DIIS. ATLA has raised numerous concerns regarding the Aboriginal cultural heritage consultation strategy employed by the DIIS for the Barndioota NRWMFP from the outset. As with all matters relating to this project’s ‘Aboriginal’ consultation strategy, all of ATLA’s concerns have fallen on deaf ears. This blatant neglect of ATLA’s concerns throughout the consultation process is exemplified by the documented absence of ATLA’s comments in the DIIS sponsored RPS 2018 Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report (ACHAR). ATLA note that the exclusion of our concerns in the ACHAR (RPS 2018) is in direct conflict with the Commonwealth Government’s own recommendations (CofA 2016:4) for EPBC pre-referral consultation with ‘Indigenous peoples’, in that, the ACHAR (RPS 2018), if used as an EPBC pre-referral document, does not: … demonstrate genuine consultation with Indigenous people and show how any issues raised during consultation have been addressed. One of our main issues in the DIIS managed consultation process was the determination of a suitable consultancy to undertake the ACHAR. The DIIS, through its monthly on-line newsletter, has repeatedly advertised that they have engaged experts in the field of Aboriginal cultural heritage (ACH). This is quite ironic for us because the question of expertise is central to our decision to withdraw our delegation from the HWG. The ATLA Office Bearers and all nominated ATLA HWG members considered the actual determination of expertise as a critical part of the HWG consultation process. Despite repeated requests from the ATLA HWG members, the DIIS refused to identify/investigate the specialist knowledge requirements of the potential experts proposed to assess the Barndioota NRWMF project area. It is noted that all ATLA HWG members requested evidence of specialist skills/expertise from every potential consultancy shortlisted by the DIIS prior to the DIIS engagement of RPS Australia. The ATLA HWG members specifically sought clarification on every consultancy’s specialist knowledge and ability to spatially record and interpret large area cultural landscapes and their contributing cultural values. This significant issue and request for information was actively sidelined and never addressed the DIIS. The DIIS failure to address ATLA’s repeated requests for information left the ATLA HWG members believing that: (a) they were not being listened to; (b) they could not make an informed decision as to how Adnyamathanha cultural heritage would be investigated, identified and managed; and

9 Response to RPS (2018) Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment of Wallerberdina Station

(c) they were not allowed to contribute to developing the assessment process and therefore had no value to the DIIS HWG. We chose to withdraw our involvement in the DIIS HWG following the repeated and blatant disregard for ATLA input into the HWG consultation process. Intriguingly, and contrary to Commonwealth Government best practice Aboriginal consultation guidelines (AHC 2012; CofA 2016), our concerns have not made it into the consultation section of the ACHAR (RPS 2018). It is important to note that the DIIS NRWMF project team (the Radioactive Waste Management Taskforce – RWMT) established the Barndioota HWG prior to engaging the successful cultural heritage experts – RPS Australia. Prior to this engagement, the RWMT did not include a dedicated cultural heritage professional and therefore did not have the requisite in-house skill/expertise to actively consult with Aboriginal people on matters pertaining to Aboriginal cultural heritage. This significant oversight is articulated by the DIIS in their recent Senate Inquiry submission (DIIS 2018:11): The same information and opportunities for consultation have been provided to all members of the relevant communities, whether the community is Indigenous or not. This lack of expertise is the likely reason why the DIIS RWMT did not follow established Commonwealth Government best–practice guidelines for conducting Aboriginal cultural heritage consultation when forming the Barndioota NRWMFP HWG. It is also the likely reason why the DIIS decided to democratically elect Aboriginal stakeholders from the broader Adnyamathanha community without: (1) validating their level of cultural knowledge; or (2), appreciating established community governance structures. The complete disregard by the DIIS of established governance processes within the Adnyamathanha community (whether contemporary or traditional) is articulated in the recent DIIS Senate Inquiry submission (DIIS 2018:11): A Heritage Working Group (HWG) has been established which includes representatives of the Adnyamathanha Traditional Lands Association (‘ATLA’) and the Viliwarinha Yura Aboriginal Corporation (‘VYAC’). The department is engaging with representatives from both corporations as both have members who can speak to the cultural heritage value of the land and the potential impact of the Facility on cultural, environmental and social values. It is important to note that the VYAC, and all of its respective members, are all members of ATLA. The only reason why the DIIS engaged with the VYAC on matters of Aboriginal cultural heritage was because key VYAC members had extensive cultural knowledge of the nominated NRWMFP area. These key individuals were eventually ostracised by the ‘elected’ members of the DIIS HWG, and their important cultural voice removed from active participation in the Aboriginal cultural heritage assessment process. Once again, this information did not make it to the DIIS sponsored ACHAR (RPS 2018). To further complicate matters, the DIIS has repeatedly promoted the HWG as the peak–body for consultation with the Adnyamathanha people for the Barndioota NRWMFP. This posturing has effectively sidelined ATLA, and at the same time, given the DIIS HWG primacy on all matters pertaining to Adnyamathanha cultural heritage and the protection of Adnyamathanha Law, Lore and cultural responsibility for the Barndioota NRWMF project area. The DIIS HWG formation and membership selection process has effectively bypassed all established Adnyamathanha protocols of cultural authority and cultural propriety. Without ATLA participation, the DIIS sponsored Barndioota ACH consultation process has resulted in a ‘stacked’ HWG, comprising a committee of individuals who want to promote the commercial viability of the project rather than work to identify the nature, extent and significance of the Aboriginal cultural and scientific values inherent in the lands subject to the proposed NRWMFP. Such a constitution can only serve to hinder independence, misinform comprehensiveness, and render blind the veracity of any cultural heritage assessment undertaken by the DIIS on behalf of the Commonwealth Government of Australia.

10 Response to RPS (2018) Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment of Wallerberdina Station

Attachment 2: ATLA’s Role in Regional Planning and Assessment

Further information on the South Australian Government’s Aboriginal Regional Authority Policy is available online at:

http://www.industryandskills.sa.gov.au/upload/aard/ara/South-Australian-Aboriginal- Regional-Authority-Policy.pdf?t=153186718421