Dozens of sacred sites in the Pilbara and Goldfields regions of Western Australia are under threat from approvals granted by the State Government since the destruction of the 46,000-year-old Juukan Caves last month by Rio Tinto.

The latest sites under threat are in the WA Goldfields, where Traditional Owners claim a “blanket” Section 18 approval across 148 square kilometres of Ngalia land for mining company Australian Potash could destroy seven Indigenous heritage places.

Ngalia traditional owner Kado Muir told RN Breakfast that the heritage protection system is “broken” in the Goldfields region.

Mr Muir, an anthropologist and archaeologist, said Aboriginal people had no power to object to Section 18 approvals under the Aboriginal Heritage Act, which allows developers to disturb or destroy sites.

“There’s an expectation from government and industry in this development mindset that you [should] no longer protest or stand up for the sites on your country,” he said.

“It becomes a rubber-stamp exercise.”

The opposition by Ngalia traditional owners in the Goldfields is similar to the concerns of traditional owners from the Banjima people in the Pilbara over the potential destruction of 40 sites in the Djadjiling Range area by BHP.

Traditional owners wrote in opposition to BHP development in April

Earlier this week, RN Breakfast revealed BHP was planning to destroy 40 Aboriginal cultural sites as part of an expansion of the $4.5 billion South Flank mine.

RN Breakfast has been supplied a letter that confirms senior traditional owners from the Banjima people in the Pilbara had already explicitly stated their opposition to an application for the destruction of the sites in the Djadjiling Range.

Charles Smith, senior Martidja Banyjima elder, said in the letter that he and his family were “angry about [the Section 18 approval] and don’t support the destruction of those sites at South Flank for any reason”.

Dated April 16 this year and sent by the Banjima Native Title Aboriginal Corporation (BNTAC) to the director of Aboriginal Heritage Operations in WA, Aboriginal Affairs Minister Ben Wyatt’s department, the letter documents senior traditional owners explicitly stating their opposition to the Section 18 approval and destruction of the sites.

The letter states that BNTAC’s current chair, Maitland Parker, said he knew that the Banjima people had no legal right to object to the Section 18 approval “in accordance with the comprehensive agreement between BHP and the Banjima People” signed in 2015, but that the Banyyjim people felt a cumulative loss every time a site was destroyed.

Mr Parker said in the letter that he felt it was very important that the feelings of the Banjima people were put on record for future generations “so they know we didn’t just sign off on this stuff and forget about it, we put up a fight about these places, about our lore and culture”.

“We need people to know that,” he said.

The letter states: “The significance of the sites impacted by the Notice to Banjima People is such that Banjima People cannot and do not support the destruction of those sites as proposed by the Notice as to do so would be inconsistent with [our] cultural obligations to protect those sites[s]”.

The cultural sites in the Ddjajaling Range were approved for destruction by Mr Wyatt on May 29 — just five days after the 46,000-year-old Juukan Caves in the west Pilbara were blown up by Rio Tinto.

On Thursday, BHP said it would not damage the Ddjajaling Range sites without “further extensive consultation” with traditional owners.

“That consultation …will include further scientific study and discussion on mitigation and preservation.”

Section 18 application by Australian Potash considered

The WA Government’s Aboriginal Cultural Materials Committee (ACMC) met on Tuesday this week to consider Australian Potash’s Section 18 application to destroy sites on Ngalia land in the Goldfields.

Mr Muir, who has previously served as a specialist anthropologist for the ACMC, claims Australian Potash has refused to negotiate with native title holders and is using Section 18 to avoid its responsibilities to protect heritage sites.

He said there were seven known cultural sites, but Australian Potash lodged their Section 18 application without conducting an Aboriginal heritage survey.

“We need greater capacity for traditional owners and native title holders to have a veto over Section 18 applications, to have a final say over what happens to their heritage,” he said.

Australian Potash was contacted for a response but chief executive Matt Shackleton said the company would prefer not to comment at this time.

Minister says he approved destruction after Banjima letter

In a statement to RN Breakfast, Mr Wyatt said that a number of Section 18 notices had been lodged by BHP for its South Flank mine in the Pilbara, with the most recent on October 16, 2019.

“No objections were filed and I approved the notice on May 19, 2020. This notice covers 40 Aboriginal sites.”

The sites include ochre pits, ceremonial grounds and rock shelters with evidence of human occupation going back at least 10,000 to 15,000 years, but also archaeological evidence of “occupation of the surrounding landscape has been ongoing for approximately 40,000 years.

Acknowledging the Banjima people’s opposition to the destruction of the Djadjiling Range site, Mr Wyatt said he had “asked BHP to work with Banjima to do what it can to avoid or minimise the impact on this site, regardless of the Section 18 approval”.

In a statement to RN Breakfast, BHP said it hoped to continue working with the traditional owners throughout the development of the South Flank mining operations.

“As part of our ongoing engagement, we speak regularly with the Banjima community and have reiterated our commitment to working closely with them through the lifecycle of the South Flank development to minimise impacts on cultural heritage,” the statement said.

A Labor motion supported by the Government in Federal Parliament on Thursday will see the destruction of the Juukan Caves investigated by the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia, including “the interaction of state Indigenous heritage regulations with Commonwealth laws”.

Loading…