Thread by @callapilla

Dodson:
Pad Dodson: "Mr Jacques, when did you first become aware of the significance of the Juukan sites"

Rio Tinto chairman JS Jacques: "Senator, I was made aware of the significance of the site son the Sunday evening, on the Sunday the 24th of May."

The day it was blown up.

Rio Tinto iron ore CEO Chris Salisbury says that it was not possible to unload the blast holes once they had been loaded. He says they attempted to unload 8 holes, which took 10 hours and only seven were successfully unloaded.

(Mining experts, my DMs are open)

Jacques is asked why Rio chose option 4 to for the mine pit.

"The difference between option 4 and the other three options was 8 million tonnes of high grade iron ore. The economic value at the time of the decision was around $135m of net value at the time of the decision."

For those following at home - Rio Tinto in 2012 considered four options to design the Brockman 4 mine pit. Three of those options would have avoided damage to Juukan Gorge. They chose the fourth.

I am now worried that I have misheard "billion" as "million," will fact check.

Matt Canavan asked about the partnership agreement with PKKP.

The agreement, first signed in 2006, said the PKKP could not object to any s.18 applications provided Rio "used all reasonable endeavours to minimise the impact of those works on the site".

That's industry standard.

JS Jacques just named the Burrup Peninsula to illustrate his point that "We usually get it right."

Rio owns the port on the Burrup. And, this isn't recent, I know there are agreements in place now, but petroglyphs were moved to build that port in the 1970s.

It's just a weird site to name as an example of good heritage management, when it's a. extraordinarily and obviously significant to the naked eye of the lay person and b. were still massively impacted by many resource companies early on, and continue to be damaged by some today.

Salisbury said they removed explosives from 8 holes "because although we couldn't save Juukan at that point we wanted to protect the other sites that the PKKP had alerted us to that were further down Juukan Gorge".

Importantly: they didn't have s.18 to destroy those sites.

Js Jacques just casually throwing Chris Salisbury, who is on the call with him, under the bus.

He said he was first notified on 21 May that there was "an issue" on the Brockman site - by another executive who called him and asked if Salisbury had called him. He hadn't.

Jacques said he first spoke to Salisbury the next day at a pre-scheduled meeting. He said the "there was no discussion of the cultural heritage issue, the issue was a question of timing and a request by the PKKP".

Jacques: "I heard on the Sunday 24th [of May], the evening, of the cultural heritage significance on the back of the draft release of the press release by the PKKP of the press release on this issue".

Q about former CEO Simon Walsh telling the Fin that he issued instructions in 2013 that the gorge not be destroyed.

Jacques said they have gone through the records and "no communication as referred by Mr Walsh in the press has appeared by any fashion".

afr.com/chanticleer/wa…

George Christiansen is asking a very tough line of questions.

Were none of Rio Tinto's senior executives aware of the significance of the caves prior to the blast?

Jacques: "That is correct senator"

(He's not a senator, but meh)

Christiansen: what was the point of no return?

Salisbury: "The point of no return was actually when the blast holes were loaded on the 13th of May."

Salisbury: "Can I just add by the 21st of May when I was informed, I was aware there was significance of the site which was conveyed to us via email… but I was not aware of the archeological report at that point."

The cultural heritage officer seems to be the only one who read the report before the site was destroyed.

He read the summary, and only in that week of May 18-24 - after the PKKP raised issues.

Anika Wells MP:

"When were the PKKP made aware that there were three other options [for the Brockman 4 mine pit]?"

Jacques:"The PKKP was not made aware that four options were available in 2012-2013, and at the relevant meeting in 2013 only one option was presented to the PKKP"

Wells: "They were not made aware that there were three other options that did not involve the destruction of the caves?"

Jacques: "That is absolutely correct."

Wells: what do you say to the view from other independent experts that it was possible to remove the devices?

Chris Salisbury: That's not consistent with our advice nor our experience… In this case I can confirm that it was not safe or practicable to remove the devices."

Matt Canavan: Is Rio reserving their right to take legal action against the PKKP if any information they provide to this committee breaches confidentiality arrangements

Jacques: "We have no intention to take any legal actions against the PKKP at all."

A very important point!

Chair Warren Entsch says they will call Rio Tinto again on another day, and he says they will also call Rio's senior cultural engagement officers - the people who actually spoke to PKKP.

When Rio is back, it will be for the whole day – so they can take as long as they need.

As with every conversation about Juukan Gorge, there's a huge disconnect between people saying "how could this happen?" and people who work in this space (currently bureaucrats from the WA department of Aboriginal affairs) trying not to say, out loud, that it wasn't that unusual.

Apologies this is the National Indigenous Australians Agency speaking now.

WA Aboriginal affairs minister and Yamatji man, Ben Wyatt, is now before the inquiry.

Wyatt says he is now "very close" to releasing a draft new version of the Aboriginal Heritage Act, after two years of consultation.

There have been multiple attempts over the years to update this act.

"I think we are pretty close to an outcome that will have broad support."

Wyatt says he wasn't minister when the s.18 approval was given (Labor wasn't in government).

He said that Rio applied for s.18 approval to destroy 6 sites, but the ACMC rules than only two of those six sites were actually sites that Rio needed permission to destroy.

Pat Dodson asks if the Aboriginal affairs minister would usually be made aware of an archeological report on a site of significance like Juukan Gorge.

Ben Wyatt gives a long answer but it boils down to "not necessarily".

Wyatt said it was "unusual for me" that he wasn't told of the Juukan gorge issue. "When something like this had clearly been elevating in a relationship between the PKKP and Rio, normally when there's some tension in those relationships my office is usually called."

"This one, for whatever reason, didn't become public really until after the explosions and that's somewhat unusual I guess.

"But once that s.18 is granted there's effectively nothing I can do as minister."

Dodson says Wyatt could have referred it to the federal act.

"Historically that legislation has been used where a state doesn't have an appropriate Aboriginal heritage regime… you could argue that case with the current WA 1972 legislation."

Dodson asks if he knew about the partnership agreement between Rio and PKKP.

Wyatt says the state is not a party to those agreements, so no.

"I've always been keen to make sure that government is not making these calls for those groups and that the right groups are consulted."

Wyatt: "That's the point I've been making to the media through this process.

"Some of those media outlets particularly from the east cast, have struggled with those concepts."

(Speaking as someone from an east coast media outlet, the specific issue in this case was that the PKKP said they did not consent to the destruction of their heritage.

We're on the same page re: native title holders should be able to do whatever they want with their land.)

Wyatt says the new Aboriginal heritage act is focused on an agreement being reached between proponent and Indigenous groups, but the government has the final say where agreement can't be reached.

There may be a possibility for TOs to declare some protected areas.

He tells Matt Canavan that the new legislation will link in to native title, particularly the 66 PBCs in WA, and that the commonwealth can help by providing "more support to the PBCs".

Both said there was a power and resources imbalance between mining companies and PBCs.

Wyatt said there was a need to "re-balance it".
"The resources they have are without limit versus an Aboriginal prescribed body corporate."

Wyatt: "I see that as now the real opportunity now, if we want to elevate agreement making, if we want to elevate the voice of Aboriginal people at this table, is provide support to those PBCs."

Wyatt said he wasn't aware of the issue until after the blast.

The PKKP had a meeting on an "unrelated matter" with the WA department on 19 May and, at the end, they asked a "procedural question" about whether a s.18 can be appealed.

ADG Vaughan Davies: "The details around the activity on the particular site were not discussed at that meeting… it was purely procedural under a s.18 consent, I don't think the department was aware of what particular site it was."

Davies says the department staff didn't tell the PKKP about the federal legislation, and suggested that the conversation didn't go into other options.

Wyatt: "The Commonwealth legislation is such a rare beast, Senator, I am not sure when it was last used in WA."

Senator Rachel Siewert agrees with Wyatt that the Cth legislation as it currently stands is still "pretty poor".

It's basically the only legislative option for appealing a s.18, but it's a bad option.

Another question about Sam Walsh's comments in the AFR saying that he issued an instruction Juukan Gorge wouldn't be damaged.

Rio Tinto said earlier that they couldn't find a paper record of that.

Wyatt laughs, says he's not aware of it but agrees to look.

Sam Walsh was CEO from 2013-16.

Rio Tinto applied for and received the s.18 approval to destroy the site in 2013.

George Christiansen asks if the new Aboriginal heritage legislation in WA will give the government the power to stop destruction going ahead, even after consent is granted.

Wyatt says it will.

Christiansen: Has Rio broken any law?

Wyatt "No, I haven't seen that. They had the s.18 approval, no law has been broken, but clearly everyone has acknowledged, including Rio, that they have some work to do to repair their relationship with the PKKP.

Christensen: "For a company that tries to parade themselves as being so 'woke', as Rio does, what's your opinion of what they've done here?"

Wyatt: "What Rio has done is hugely damaging to their own international brand and I think they would accept that, and it was incredibly tragic to the PKKP people in the destruction of a site that is incredibly significant to them & incredibly significant to people Australia-wide.

Wyatt: "Rio have in my time in public life been the leaders in this space, and this is certainly the only time I have had to deal with an issue that's been a breakdown at their end."

He adds: "Rio has not been the company that's caused me issues in the past."

[To put this in context, Rio is causing fewer issues in negotiations with traditional owners than the next company, but the next company is FMG]

Last question from Matt Canavan, suggesting that the current legislation in WA works "pretty well apart from the current issue".

Wyatt says has things have only worked out well in other cases because of the architecture fo the native title system.

"We can ensure that the agreements are set according to principles... it's very much around enabling Aboriginal people to enter into these agreements and going in eyes wide open, knowing what they are agreeing to, & hopefully getting a large benefit package as the result of that"

Pat Dodson asks Wyatt to do a review of s.18 approvals to ensure this can't happen again.

Wyatt: "An audit will simply tell me that I have a range of s.18s out there that are still legal, there's nothing I can do about them, that may or may not be utilised."

Wyatt: "This is the first time in my involvement with Aboriginal heritage that I have had correspondence and concerns raised with me not just by the usual parties but by people who hold equity and lend money to miners."

He said it's "put corporate Australia on notice".

Siewert says the utility auditing the s.18 approvals is it would allow them to ID which are subject to out-of-date info.

Wyatt: "It is something that will provide me with a lot of work without necessarily providing me with the kind of outcomes that you think it will provide."

Wyatt said that should be done by the PBCs themselves.

Siewert says they don't always have access to the most up-to-date information with regard to archaeological surveys about their site - Wyatt says Aboriginal people know what's significant in their heritage on their country.

Chair Warren Entsch concludes the session by saying that the WA premier has given the committee permission to travel to WA, to the Pilbara, to talk on-country with the PKKP about what happened.

That's pretty significant!