On 24 May 2020, global mining company Rio Tinto destroyed a 46 000 year old site of significant Aboriginal heritage. The area provided a 4 000 year old genetic link to the Puutu Kunti Kurrama and Pinikura people, the traditionalowners of the land, which has been proved through the archaeological discovery of plaited human hair. The plaited hair and other significant objects, including potentially the earliest Western Australian grindstone technology, were discovered in 2014 inside rock shelters in Juukan Gorge within the Hammersley ranges - perhaps the only inland site in Australia which has been continuously inhabited by humans since the last Ice Age.
This destruction was sanctioned in 2013 under the state of Western Australia’s Aboriginal Heritage Act. The legislation does not allow for revocation of consent or renegotiation on the grounds of new information, meaning that the archaeological discoveries could not be used to stop the blast from going ahead. This demonstrates one way in which the legislation is designed to prioritise industry over the interests of Indigenous people.
Mining contributes 6% to Australia’s gross domestic product, making it the country’s fourth largest economic industry. The sacred site blasted by Rio Tinto is located in the Pilbara region of Western Australia, where mining makes up 88% of economic output. The Aboriginal Heritage Act is in the process of being reviewed, however progress on this has been slow, perhaps due to the immense economic importance of the mining industry.
ACCESS RIGHTS IN THE OUTBACK
The mineral-rich land of Australia is a highly contested space. Struggles over access to land between traditional owners and mining multinationals are a regular occurrence, often spurring heated confrontations over Indigenous rights. These issues cannot be simplified to represent one developer opposing one group of Indigenous locals, but rather are representative of the lack of recognition of Indigenous rights at Australian state level. Despite steps taken to remedy this over the years, including the enactment of the Native Title Act which requires mining corporations to negotiate with traditional owners, Indigenous rights remain secondary to industrial prospects, condemning both the interests of Indigenous people, as well as the environment.
Mining’s precedence over Aboriginal people is a nationwide issue. In Queensland last year, the government terminated native title rights over 1 385 hectares of land to allow for the creation of a highly controversial coal mine, owned by the Indian company Adani. The mine has separated Wangan and Jagalingou people from their traditional lands, making them “trespassers in [their] own country”, as Wangan and Jagalingou Council Leader Adrian Burragubba has said. Burragubba lamented that removing the traditional owners from the area would leave the land and waters without care.
AN ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL CROSS SECTION
Recognising Indigenous ownership of Australia’s ecologically diverse outback is a means of ensuring environmental protection. Separating Aboriginals from their homeland represents an intertwining of environmental and social injustices. The contested Adani coal mine has been flagged as a major threat to the health of the Great Barrier Reef, while the Rio Tinto mine is predicted to use 38 000 tonnes of groundwater per day in an incredibly arid region, and to expel up to 32 000 tonnes of water per day into the nearby Turee Creek. There is concern that this will irreparably damage vegetation along the creek, and have a detrimental impact on the groundwater level below Karijini National Park. Australia has pledged to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 26% by 2030 (compared to 2005 levels), as part of the Paris Agreement. Continuing to prioritise the international mining industry over Indigenous interests puts this goal at risk of failure.
INTERNATIONAL RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLE
Australia is a signatory to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People (‘Declaration’), which recognises the urgent need to respect and promote the rights of Indigenous people over their lands, territories and resources. The Declaration does not, however, require any active measures to be adopted by states. It may be argued that the Declaration’s passive instructions do not go far enough to effectively curb the Australian government’s preferential treatment of the mining industry over Indigenous interests. Amnesty International has called for governments to implement laws and policies aimed at forcing active participation in the protection of Indigenous lands and cultures. Their recommendations include legally securing the access of Indigenous people to their lands and ensuring effective consultation prior to any decisions that would affect them. These measures would effectively force states to acknowledge Indigenous rights at state level, and may go some way to protect against encroachment by mining multinationals.
Holly is currently attending SOAS University London, studying MSc Environment, Politics and Development. She focuses on the intersection between environmental and social injustices, ranging from the growing number of climate change refugees, to the impacts of inner-city pollution on human health.