Tanya Plibersek has defended her decision to issue an Aboriginal heritage protection order for the site of a proposed goldmine near Blayney, saying the financial impact on the mining company does not outweigh “irreversible damage and permanent loss” to Aboriginal cultural heritage sites.
The environment minister made a partial declaration under section 10 of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act in August, blocking a proposal by mining company Regis Resources to build a tailings dam for its $900m McPhillamys gold project in the headwaters of the Belubula River. The declaration did not cover the rest of the proposed mining area.
Regis said at the time that the decision “made the project in its current form unviable”.
In a 22-page statement on Friday, Plibersek said she noted that Regis had considered 30 alternative sites for a tailings dam, but recognised that the protection order would make the mine “unviable in the state in which it is currently proposed and approved”.
“However, having considered all the submissions and material available to me in relation to the proprietary and pecuniary impacts of the making of a declaration over the specified area, I was satisfied that the proprietary and pecuniary impacts to the proponent and others do not outweigh the irreversible damage and permanent loss to the Aboriginal cultural heritage in the declared area,” she wrote. “The long-term effect on cultural heritage is permanent, and the loss of cultural heritage cannot be mitigated or reversed.”
Regis Resources declined to comment further on Friday.
The cultural heritage protection was welcomed by some traditional owners, locals and farmers.
However, it was criticised by the mining industry, business groups and the mayor of the local council, and the opposition leader, Peter Dutton, said he would overturn it if the Coalition won government next year.
The decision was also criticised by the New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council (NSWALC), which said it was concerned that Aboriginal cultural heritage had been used “as a pawn for political posturing and advantage”.
NSWALC represents the Orange Local Aboriginal Land Council (OLALC). The section 10 application was made by Wiradyuri elder Aunty Nyree Reynolds, who is represented by the Bathurst-based Wiradyuri Traditional Owners Central West Aboriginal Corporation (WTOCWAC). Both groups represent Wiradyuri peoples.
Plibersek found that the Belubula River, headwaters and springs were “of particular significance to Wiradjuri people” and that the proposed construction of the tailings dam, which would involve plugging the springs with concrete, was “inconsistent with the treatment of waterways within Aboriginal tradition and pose a threat of injury or desecration to the area”.
“Irreversible damage to the Belubula River headwaters would remain, despite proposed restoration of the mine site,” she said.
Plibersek said even Regis’s conceptual drawings of the area post-rehabilitation showed the river to be “significantly modified”.
“Development of the [tailings storage facility] would involve plugging the springs with cement and the TSF may cause water pollution, which would not only threaten water quality in the Lachlan-Murray basin, but will sever Wiradjuri connection to the specific area,” she said.
She also found that state heritage laws would not offer sufficient protection, citing a letter from the NSW environment minister, Penny Sharpe, who said intangible cultural heritage values were “not currently protected under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 unless an Aboriginal place is gazetted”, which this proposed site was not. Those laws also do not apply to approved state significant developments.
The basis of the protection declaration was a claim that the Belubula River, headwaters and springs were the site of pre-initiation ceremonies in Wiradyuri culture and that the river itself was the subject of the Blue Banded Bee dreaming. Another area, the Dungeon Burial site, was found to be a significant Aboriginal site but not at risk from the proposed mine.
The OLALC said it had no evidence or knowledge of the use of the area for ceremonial purposes. It also provided a statement from six people, including five Wiradyuri people, disputing the existence of any dreaming or creation story relating to the Blue Banded Bee.
But Plibersek said WTOCWAC was “an established group of accepted community elders” and she was “satisfied that WTOCWAC had demonstrated that the individuals who provided the statements hold knowledge of traditions, customs and beliefs relating to the specified area”.
She cited Dinawan Dyirribang Uncle Bill Allen, a senior Wiradyuri elder and descendent of the Wiradyuri warrior Windradyne, who said the area was “like a big university for our young fellas to come to get their learning”.
She wrote that she understood that both the OLALC and Regis disputed that the area was used for ceremonial purposes but said she was “satisfied that this lack of knowledge is consistent with Aboriginal tradition that not all people are aware of the location of such ceremonies, particularly where those ceremonies pertain to men’s or women’s business”. On the Blue Banded Bee dreaming, she said OLALC’s comments were “consistent with WTOCWAC’s submission that the dreaming is knowledge that is only passed to specific custodians in accordance with Aboriginal oral tradition”. She added that the elder responsible for the story was in hospital at the time the initial section 10 report was compiled.
