PUUTU KUNTI KURRAMA PEOPLE AND PINIKURA PEOPLE SUBMISSION TO THE JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE ON NORTHERN AUSTRALIA INQUIRY INTO THE DESTRUCTION OF 46,000-YEAR-OLD CAVES AT THE JUUKAN GORGE IN THE PILBARA REGION OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA ‘Myself, my family, our elders and our ancestors are in mourning at the desecration of our sacred site. This is a part of our land that we are deeply connected to and which was an important feature of our future. Healing is slow and painful and will not come easily. Our trust in the system and our partners has been broken completely. I hope that some good can come out of our pain as we all work to build a new future for ourselves and future generations.’ – PKKP Traditional Owner, Burchell Hayes, after the 2020 Juukan Gorge disaster Accordingly, this submission contains no photographs of Juukan Gorge after the blast of 24 May 2020. 1 Warning: This submission may contain images or names of deceased persons 2 Table of Contents ACRONYMS AND DEFINITIONS ..................................................................................................... 4 KEY POINTS FROM THIS SUBMISSION ......................................................................................... 7 THE PUUTU KUNTI KURRAMA AND PINIKURA PEOPLE........................................................... 10 YAMATJI MARLPA ABORIGINAL CORPORATION ..................................................................... 12 THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE JUUKAN COMPLEX ...................................................................... 13 STRUCTURE OF THIS SUBMISSION ............................................................................................ 17 SECTION ONE: WHAT HAPPENED? ............................................................................................ 18 TERM OF REFERENCE (b): THE CONSULTATION THAT RIO TINTO ENGAGED IN PRIOR TO THE DESTRUCTION OF THE CAVES WITH ABORIGINAL PEOPLES ..................................... 18 TERM OF REFERENCE (c): THE SEQUENCE OF EVENTS AND DECISION-MAKING PROCESS UNDERTAKEN BY RIO TINTO THAT LED TO THE DESTRUCTION ........................................ 40 TERM OF REFERENCE (d): THE LOSS OR DAMAGE TO THE TRADITIONAL OWNERS, PUUTU KUNTI KURRAMA AND PINIKURA PEOPLE, FROM THE DESTRUCTION OF THE SITE .................................................................................................................................................... 56 TERM OF REFERENCE (e): THE HERITAGE AND PRESERVATION WORK THAT HAS BEEN CONDUCTED AT THE SITE ....................................................................................................... 61 Conclusions: Rio Tinto, the resource industry and Aboriginal cultural heritage ................. 63 SECTION TWO: THE CURRENT LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK................................................... 65 TERM OF REFERENCE (a): THE OPERATION OF THE ABORIGINAL HERITAGE ACT 1972 (WA) AND APPROVALS PROVIDED UNDER THE ACT ........................................................... 65 TERM OF REFERENCE (f): THE INTERACTION OF STATE ABORIGINAL HERITAGE REGULATIONS WITH COMMONWEALTH LAWS..................................................................... 72 TERM OF REFERENCE (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 JURISDICTION ............................... 75 TERM OF REFERENCE (h): HOW ABORIGINAL AND TORRES STRAIT ISLANDER CULTURAL HERITAGE LAWS MIGHT BE IMPROVED TO GUARANTEE THE PROTECTION OF CULTURALLY AND HISTORICALLY SIGNIFICANT SITES ...................................................... 77 TERM OF REFERENCE (i): OPPORTUNITIES TO IMPROVE ABORIGINAL HERITAGE PROTECTION THROUGH THE ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION AND BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION ACT 1999 (CTH) ............................................................................................ 80 SECTION THREE: MOVING FORWARD ....................................................................................... 82 TERM OF REFERENCE (j): OTHER RELATED MATTERS ....................................................... 82 CONCLUDING COMMENT ......................................................................................................... 96 LIST OF APPENDICES .................................................................................................................. 97 LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................................................... 98 APPENDICES ................................................................................................................................. 99 3 ACRONYMS AND DEFINITIONS 2014 Revised A revised plan of the approved 2006 proposal for the Brockman Proposal 4 Mine ACMC Aboriginal Cultural Material Committee, which determines whether sites are ‘Aboriginal sites’ for the purpose of the AH Act AH Act Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 (WA) ATSIHP Act Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984 (Cth) BIA Binding Initial Agreement between PKKP and Rio Tinto dated 28 June 2006 Brockman 4 The Rio Tinto mine planned for the Juukan Gorge area Builth 2013 Report by Dr Heather Builth, as engaged by YMAC in 2013. Report CHMP Cultural Heritage Management Plan CNC Central Negotiating Committee established in 2003 at the request of 10 Traditional Owner groups in the Pilbara to better represent their interests and concerns when negotiating with Rio Tinto for land use CWPA Claim Wide Participation Agreement between Rio Tinto and PKKP DAA Department of Aboriginal Affairs, Western Australia DPLH Department of Planning, Land and Heritage, Western Australia EP Act Environmental Protection Act 1986 (WA) EPA Environmental Protection Authority EPBC Act Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) Hamersley Iron Subsidiary of Rio Tinto, under which Rio Tinto acquired the Ltd Pty initial mining lease over the Brockman 4 site in 1963 ILUA Indigenous Land Use Agreement 4 Jackson and Archaeological report by Gavin Jackson and Rachel Fry of Fry 2003 Gavin Jackson Pty Ltd Report Juukan 1 A culturally and archeologically significant site on PKKP native title claim land, so named by Roina Williams in her December 2008 ethnographic report. Referred to as ‘Brock 20’ by Rio Tinto Juukan 2 A culturally and archeologically significant site on PKKP native title claim land, so named by Roina Williams in her December 2008 ethnographic report Referred to as ‘Brock 21’ by Rio Tinto LAC Local Aboriginal Corporation L’Estrange Rio Tinto Board Review of Cultural Heritage Management, 23 report August 2020 LIC Local Implementation Committee ML4SA Mining lease granted to Rio Tinto in 1963 concerning PKKP land and the Juukan Gorge. Is not regarded as ‘past act’ under the NT Act for the purposes of the CWPA MS717 Ministerial Statement 717, published 24 March 2006 MS1000 Ministerial Statement 1000, published 11 March 2015 NNTR National Native Title Register NT Act Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) NTRB Native Title Representative Body Participation The agreement signed by PKKP and Rio Tinto on 18 March Agreement 2011. Inclusive of the CWPA, the ILUA, Cultural Heritage Protocol, Opt-In Deed and Deed of Assumption and Release. PBC Prescribed Body Corporate PKKP Puutu Kunti Kurrama and Pinikura people (or PKKPAC, depending on the context) PKKP Named The group of persons authorised by the PKKP Claim Group to Applicants make the Native Title Determination Application on its behalf PKKPAC Puutu Kunti Kurrama and Pinikura Aboriginal Corporation (or PKKP, depending on the context) PNTS Pilbara Native Title Service, a now defunct branch of YMAC 5 Purlykuti A culturally and archeologically significant Aboriginal site connected to Juukan Gorge (at times including the wider site complex, depending on the context) RFD Regional Framework Deed Rio Tinto Submission by Rio Tinto to this Inquiry dated 31 July 2020 submission Rio Tinto Supplementary submission by Rio Tinto to this Inquiry supplementary submission RNTBC Registered Native Title Body Corporate RRAs Rights Reserved Areas RTIO Rio Tinto Iron Ore Scarp 2008 Archaeological report by Richard Fullagar of Scarp Archaeology Report Scarp 2018 Archaeological report by Dr Michael Slack of Scarp Archaeology Report Section 16 Section 16 of the AH Act Section 18 Section 18 of the AH Act Section 18 Approval by the DPLH for an area of cultural significance to be Consent disturbed pursuant to section 18 of the AH Act Section 18 Application by a party to disturb an area of cultural significance Notice pursuant to section 18 of the AH Act Stevens 2003 Ethnographic report by Robin Stevens of the PNTS Report Williams 2008 Ethnographic report by Roina Williams of PNTS Report YMAC Yamatji Marlpa Aboriginal Corporation YMAC Submission by Yamatji Marlpa Aboriginal Corporation to this submission Inquiry dated 28 August 2020 6 PUUTU KUNTI KURRAMA PEOPLE AND PINIKURA PEOPLE SUBMISSION TO THE JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE ON NORTHERN AUSTRALIA INQUIRY INTO THE DESTRUCTION OF 46,000-YEAR-OLD CAVES AT THE JUUKAN GORGE IN THE PILBARA REGION OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA Dear Committee Members The PKKP People welcome this opportunity to make a submission to the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia Inquiry into the Destruction of 46,000-year-old caves at the Juukan Gorge in the Pilbara Region of Western Australia (the Inquiry). Our submission will address each of the Terms of Reference. It will also make comment on the submissions made by Rio Tinto and others. We would welcome an