You might have heard about a fight going on in Western Australia about the protection of Aboriginal cultural heritage sites.
In a confusing back and forth, new laws that came into effect just weeks ago have been rescinded again.
Why were the laws changed in the first place? And why have they reverted back to legislation first introduced 50 years ago?
Most importantly, what does it all mean for the ongoing preservation of Country?
Where did it start?
Rio Tinto detonated explosives in an area of the Juukan Gorge, destroying a significant Indigenous site dating back 46,000 years. Source: Supplied / Supplied/Puutu Kunti Kurrama And Pinikura Aboriginal Corporation
In May 2020, mining giant Rio Tinto .
The cave at Juukan Gorge had evidence of human occupation going back 46,000 years.
One artefact, a woven lock of human hairs 4000 years old, was revealed through genetic testing to have been made by the direct ancestors of Puutu Kunti Kurrama people still alive today.
Despite being fully aware of the significance of the site, Rio Tinto blasted the cave to make way for an expansion of the Brockman 4 iron ore mine.
The destruction was a devastating blow for Traditional Owners, who only found out about Rio Tinto’s actions after asking the resources company for access to the site during the approaching NAIDOC celebrations.
The event sparked international condemnation, resulted in a parliamentary inquiry and .
Incredibly, the state’s Aboriginal cultural heritage laws allowed for the cave’s demolition; Rio Tinto’s actions were perfectly legal.
Reviewing the laws
Patrick Dodson was part of the parliamentary inquiry into the Juukan Gorge destruction. Source: AAP
The state’s heritage protection laws, by then decades old, were already under consideration.
A review of the laws began in 2018, but the events of May 2020 brought national scrutiny onto the state’s process: the parliamentary inquiry into the destruction of Juukan Gorge called WA’s Heritage Act “outdated, unfit for purpose and in urgent need of replacement” in its final report.
First legislated in 1972, the Aboriginal Heritage Act had only been amended a few times in the subsequent 50 years.
It allowed for land owners, including mining companies, to be excused from protecting heritage sites with the approval of the Aboriginal Affairs minister.
The Aboriginal Cultural Material Committee, which reviewed the owners’ exemption applications and made reports for the minister, had no requirement for an Aboriginal member.
Most distressingly, the committee had zero responsibility to consult with Traditional Owners on the management of their cultural heritage.
A contentious solution
The Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Bill 2021 was introduced into WA’s parliament in November 2021.
Then-Premier Mark McGowan called the legislation the “most progressive” heritage protection laws in the country.
However some land councils, Traditional Owners, activists and politicians derided the laws as weak and ineffective, saying they would not prevent a repeat of the Juukan Gorge disaster.
Labor senator Pat Dodson said the change “seriously fails” and that “cultural genocide” would continue; the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination raised concerns the laws “maintain the structural racism”; and Human Rights lawyer Hannah McGlade said the continued absence of an appeal right for Traditional Owners meant business as usual.
Despite these objections, the laws passed in December that year, to come into effect in July 2023.
Five weeks, then a backflip
As the introduction of the new laws approached, objections from private land owners grew louder.
Articles appeared in several national media outlets, reporting farmers’ fears of being held “to ransom”, and a petition to the state’s parliament calling for a delay accrued 17,000 signatures in a week.
Critics of the Voice to Parliament jumped on the divisions surrounding the new legislation, saying it was a small taste of what was to come with the introduction of the First Nations advisory body.
Reports began to circulate earlier this week that the government was considering scrapping the new laws just weeks into their existence.
The Puutu Kunti Kurrama and Pinikura Aboriginal (PKKP) Corporation responded to the suggestion, calling on the government to salvage the years of consultation and work that had gone into the laws’ creation.
But on Tuesday, Premier Roger Cook confirmed the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act would be repealed, and the state would return to the previous legislation from 1972, albeit with a few amendments.
The PKKP Corporation said the latest decision “demonstrates that First Nations people and their cultural [heritage] are [the government’s] lowest priority.”
