A mining company, whose $15 million NSW gold mine project is on hold while elders await the outcome of a protection application, has told the local community there is no significant Aboriginal cultural value associated with the site.
Key points:
- The open cut gold mine has approval to produce up to 2 million ounces of gold over 11 years
- Traditional owners and elders are asking a federal minister to intervene, saying the site’s cultural value is “significant”
- The mine company disputes this, saying there are no “significant cultural values or traditional practices” associated with the site
Regis Resources has state government approval to extract gold and ore from the open cut McPhillamys mine at Blayney, near Bathurst, but cannot proceed until a federal heritage protection application submitted in 2020 is resolved.
A group of Wiradyuri elders and traditional owners have contributed knowledge to the Section 10 application under the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection (ATSIHP) Act.
They are seeking to halt the project for fear it will destroy what they call “one of the most significant Aboriginal cultural landscapes in Australia”, which includes the Belubula River.
“We have to protect our sacred river,” Aunty Nyree Reynolds, who lodged the application on behalf of the group, said.
“It is part of a very significant river system and many Dreaming stories follow its path.”
However, in a community newsletter distributed in May, Regis said it had consulted with 13 registered Aboriginal parties (RAP) since 2019 and it would “salvage and safely store” several artefacts found on the site, but that cultural significance to the “broader” area was “general”.
“[The RAP and independent experts] did not identify any significant cultural values or traditional practices as being associated with the project area [the area which would be disturbed by mining operations] itself,” the newsletter read.
A company spokesperson confirmed the stance in a statement.
“None of the feedback in the EIS or amendment reports – from Aboriginal people or specialist archaeologists – defined specific areas or items of high significance associated with the project area,” they said.
“No culturally sensitive landforms — where subsurface Aboriginal cultural deposits are likely to appear – were found on site.”
Aunty Nyree Reynolds and a group of elders she represented in her Section 10 application are RAP.
Historian Lisa Paton, who assisted with the submission, rejected the suggestion that the mining company was not told about the area’s heightened significance.
“I was employed by Orange Local Aboriginal Land Council during the initial environmental impact assessment in 2019,” Ms Paton said.
“Both the land council’s publicly available submissions made it very clear there was cultural significance attached to the mine site, well before a Section 10 was lodged.”
Corey McLean is a Wiradyuri traditional owner from Orange who contributed knowledge to the Section 10 submission, and is also a member of the Orange LALC.
Mr McLean said some members were left out of deliberations over the mine site’s cultural significance in a consultation process he called “concerning”, citing the council’s recent backflip as evidence of the Aboriginal cultural heritage process’s fallibility.
“I was disgusted by the Orange Local Land Council taking that stance,” he said.
“It’s not about culture, it’s not about heritage, it’s all about the ‘walang’ — the money.”
The Orange LALC did not respond to requests for comment.
Protection application frustration
Under the ATSHIP Act, Section 10 gives the federal environment minister the discretion to make a declaration that ensures the protection of significant Aboriginal areas and objects from destruction.
Once an application is made, the minister is required to appoint an independent person to prepare a report on the application.
This involves inviting representations from all interested parties, including the developer.
“It creates a situation where the opinion of non-Indigenous organisations are effectively given an equal input into the deliberative process,” lawyer and native title expert Ross Mackay said.
Section applicants are typically Aboriginal community members using their traditional knowledge of an area to petition for a site’s protection.
Mr Mackay said the community members were usually self-funded and otherwise employed which could render them materially and time poor.
“Exacerbating the power imbalance are unscrupulous tactics,” Mr Mackay said.
“These tactics can take the form of attacks and intimidation of the applicant, including casting aspersions as to their Aboriginality, and of the experts — anthropologists, archaeologists or historians — supporting them.”
A spokesperson for the environment department said it was unable to comment while the application was being reviewed.
The department has previously told the ABC that “the Australian government recognises reforms of First Nations cultural heritage protections is urgent and necessary”.
Damage to Dreaming, elders say
The Section 10 application and the McPhillamys mine’s Aboriginal cultural heritage assessment cite found artefacts and camp ovens in the mine site’s project area.
But for Corey McLean, the river’s very existence is proof of Aboriginal occupation.
“Rivers were, and still are, the highways,” he said
“Wiradjuri mayiny [people] are known as the people of the three rivers.”
The Section 10 submission also details songlines for the Wellington, Galari and Bathurst Wiradyuri as routes marked on early surveyor maps.
Mr McLean says this is because the area had ceremonial significance to the Wiradjuri nation and clans would have been travelling to the site.
“From a cultural point, McPhillamys mine sits almost exactly in the middle of the now well publicised Wiradjuri Dreaming story of the Three Brothers.
“That area is sacred for boys.”
The ABC understands the protection application is in the final stages of being assessed.