In May 2020, in Western Australia’s Pilbara region, two rock shelters, Juukan 1 and Juukan 2, were destroyed by mining giant Rio Tinto as part of its Brockman 4 mining operation.  This caused an immediate and massive public reaction as the shelters were claimed to be a sacred Aboriginal site, of ‘national, even global’ significance. As a result, a parliamentary inquiry was quickly established to examine the actions of Rio Tinto and to consider if Aboriginal heritage could be better protected.

The fundamental question is, was the destruction of two rock shelters with some Aboriginal connection justified?  Here I will argue that it was.

It is, of course, right that we should strive to protect significant Aboriginal heritage.  The key word here is significant. And, in the context of mining, it is applied in two different ways.

With regard to protection of Aboriginal heritage, mining operations in Western Australia are constrained by the WA Aboriginal Heritage Protection Act of 1970. In practical terms, the Act distinguishes between archaeological significance and ethnographic significance.

Archaeological significance refers to artefacts that throw light on the way that ancient people lived, i.e. it refers to the mundane aspects of life – what they ate, what they wore, what tools they had, what shelter they had, etc. Ethnographic significance, on the other hand, refers to the spiritual and cultural aspects of their life. An understanding of this difference is essential to judging what happened at Juukan.

Under the Act, a site that demonstrated significant ethnographic aspects would need to be protected. On the other hand, a site that had only archaeological significance could be impacted (even destroyed) subject to a) removal of all artefacts to a safe place and b) receiving government approval in the form of a Section 18 exemption certificate. Such an approval is only given by the government on the recommendation of the Aboriginal Cultural Material Committee (ACMC).

Rio Tinto received a Section 18 approval to proceed with the demolition.

It is important to note that when the Section 18 exemption was granted, there was no evidence of cultural use of the Juukan shelters at any time, either extant or in the past.  Tellingly, there were no rock paintings that we might expect to see at a culturally significant site. During these initial negotiations, none of the traditional owners, the Puutu Kunti Kirrama and Pinikura (PKKP), made any claims of cultural significance. During negotiations of the Partnership Agreement, the PKKP were given the opportunity to nominate 16 sites as ‘Rights Reserved Areas’, that would receive special protection. Juukan did not make that cut.

Negotiations between Rio Tinto and the PKKP elders commenced in 2003 and there followed a series of comprehensive surveys over many years that failed to establish any ethnographic significance for the shelters. It was only at the very last minute, in October 2019 that the PKKP’s resident anthropologist, appointed in January of that year, claimed to have alerted Rio Tinto that, in March, she had come into possession of information, from a couple of unnamed elders, that established that Juukan 1 and 2 were highly significant ethnologically. They never followed this up by formally conveying to Rio Tinto the newly discovered importance of the shelters nor seeking assurance that they would be preserved. Rio Tinto therefore proceeded on the basis of their Section 18 approval, until in May 2024, the PKKP requested to visit the site in conjunction with Naidoc Week. At that point Rio Tinto advised that the charges had been laid and due for detonation in two days’ time.  They agreed to delay the blast for a number of days in order to explore the options. The delay, at least, gave the PKKP lawyers time to seek a Federal Court injunction that would take the timing of the blast out of the hands of Rio Tinto. They failed to take this elementary step, and Rio Tinto, driven by the need to detonate the charges before they became dangerously unstable, initiated the blast on 24 May.

In my view, Rio Tinto acted lawfully and in good faith.

A month later, the Morrison government established the parliamentary inquiry. It was conducted by the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia, chaired by LNP MP, Warren Entsch.

It is clear that, at this point, Rio Tinto, rather than rigorously defend its actions and its executives, made a commercial decision to cop a plea. The inquiry was thus tainted from the start, and its conduct bore that out.

Here is just one example of its shortcomings. Given that Rio Tinto acted lawfully, in that they had a Section 18 exemption, granted by the government on the recommendation of the Aboriginal Cultural Material Committee, you would have thought the Joint Standing Committee might like to hear from the ACMC. In particular, how it was that they approved the destruction of a globally significant heritage site. But no. No one from ACMC was called upon to give evidence, nor was the WA Minister, Ben Wyatt, asked about this.

Which brings me to the heritage of the Juukan shelters. Something that I found very strange, given that this whole saga is premised upon the claim of significant ethnological heritage, is that the archaeological and ethnographic survey reports were neither tendered to, nor sought by, the Joint Standing Committee.

All we know about this heritage is what was presented by the PKKP to the inquiry.  Here it is. The italics are mine:

‘Juukan Gorge is a treed ravine with many smaller plants along its ephemeral creek, with a distinctive and sacred rock pool that holds water long after the rains have fallen.

‘This rock pool has been identified as a significant spiritual place which was known to be still visited by the spirits of the PKKP.

‘Bush medicine was also collected here, such as lemon grass and grinding seeds. There is a cultural “walled-up” section in a rockshelter high up in the Gorge, holding material and stories. There were many artefact scatters (now salvaged) to the west of the Gorge, where it joined the larger Purlykuti waterway.’

I have italicised the ethnographic content in the above extract to highlight its paucity. It seems to me to fall a long way short of highly significant. Let alone ‘sacred’. And its loss, painful as it might be for a handful of PKKP people, is hardly a national disaster with global implications. The rock pool and storage shelter are still there.

As part of its plea bargain, Rio Tinto told the inquiry ‘the destruction should never have happened’. I don’t believe that, and I’m damned sure Rio Tinto doesn’t either.

Their decision cost them the services of their CEO, M. Jean-Sebastien Jacques – reputedly one of the best in the business – and two other senior executives, some reputational damage and an undisclosed sum in compensation to the PKKP.  It was touted in the media that the compensation could go as high as $250 million. But the confidential (at the request of the PKKP) agreement was for multi-million dollar annual payments into a foundation. For the demolition of two empty rock shelters. Nice work if you can get it.