The Traditional Owners of this land are those who identify as
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples.

Sovereignty was never ceded.

ANTAR pays respect to Elders past, present, and emerging through our dedicated advocacy for First Nations Peoples’ justice and rights.

ANTAR acknowledges the responsibility of committing to a truth-telling process that promotes an honest and respectful path forward for future generations to build upon.

Enter website
Cultural Heritage Rio Tinto’s destruction of Juukan Gorge
7 minutes

Rio Tinto’s destruction of Juukan Gorge

Last edited: May 22, 2025

The authorised blasting and destruction of sacred rock shelters on Puutu Kunti Kurrama Pinikura Country in Western Australia resulted in widespread condemnation and urgent calls for stronger First Nations cultural heritage protections.

On 24 May 2020, two ancient rock shelters in WA’s Pilbara region were legally blasted by mining company Rio Tinto. A previous archaeology report had stated that the shelters were of the highest significance in Australia, containing a cultural sequence spanning over 46,000 years, including, a high frequency of flaked stone artefacts, rare abundance of faunal remains, unique stone tools, preserved human hair, and sediment containing a pollen record charting thousands of years of environmental changes. In addition to their historical and archaeological value, the shelters were of great cultural and spiritual significance to the Puutu Kunti Kurrama and Pinikura/Binigura (PKKP) peoples who had taken care of these sacred spaces for 40,000+ years.

Mr Burchell Hayes, a proud descendant of Juukan, explains how Juukan Gorge:

…is known to be a place where the spirits of our relatives who have passed away, even recently, have come to rest. It is a place that the very, very old people still occupy… It is in the ancient blood of our people and contains their DNA. It houses history and the spirits of ancestors and it anchors the people to this country.

The grief, shock and outrage at the destruction reverberated globally. As Wuthathi-Meriam woman and prominent legal authority Terri Janke noted, with the loss of Juukan Gorge, the world lost access to “intangible and tangible aspects of the whole body of cultural practices, resources and knowledge systems’ of human life going back 46,000 years”. Dr Virginia Marshall, Wiradjiri Nyemba woman and legal academic, said simply: “We are burning our libraries”. In many ways, the destruction was the epitome of the colonial mining project, with its almost total disregard for Traditional Owners and First Nations people when it comes to government-backed mining interests.

When I got there this morning, like coming out on the bus as well, I just couldn’t believe what I was seeing. I didn’t realise how much our Country is being destroyed.

Sandra Hayes, PKKP Aboriginal Corporation

In a matter of minutes, eight million tonnes of ore were ripped from the earth, and with them, 46,000 years of cultural heritage destroyed… For this hefty price we all paid, Rio Tinto lawfully gained access to $135 million dollars of high-grade iron ore.

Professor Clare Wright
The 46,000-year-old Juukan Gorge rock shelters in WA’s Pilbara prior to their destruction by mining giant Rio Tinto in May 2020. AAP Image supplied by traditional owners, the Puutu Kunti Kurrama and Pinikura (PKKP) Aboriginal Corporation.

 

Content warning: Please note the following video contains footage of the Juukan Gorge destruction and may cause some viewers distress.

 

PKKP people visit Juukan Gorge after the blasts

Why and how did it happen?

One of the most devastating aspects of the Juukan Gorge destruction was this: Rio Tinto acted within the law. 

In 2013, Rio Tinto received ministerial consent to destroy the Juukan Gorge caves under WA’s Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972. This occured even after an archaeological dig one year later revealed thousands of significant objects along with evidence that the site was much older than originally thought. Consent had already been granted, and the laws offered no provisions to reverse or amend the decision, even after new information had been uncovered. Full results of the excavation can be found here. The Commonwealth’s Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Act 1984 provided no legal protection, and the PKKP’s native title rights under the The Native Title Act 1993, were easily overridden by the WA Government.

A 30,000 year old sharpened kangaroo bone with ochre tip – one of many artefacts found during the Juukan two excavation in 2014. Photo by Michael Slack.

First Nations people, cultural heritage experts and academics have since attributed the destruction of Juukan Gorge to the failure of outdated and severely inadequate government legislation at all levels. While the case involved global headlines and widespread backlash, it was by no means an isolated incident. Sites of considerable significance to First Nations people, which include both tangible and intangible cultural heritage, are regularly and routinely destroyed, due to the failures of cultural heritage legislation. Three years after Juukan Gorge, mining company Sandfire Resources disturbed and/or destroyed 90 culturally significant artefacts at the DeGrussa mine, with prosecution unlikely. 

Over time, application processes to preserve sites of cultural significance have been amended. However, Traditional Owners continue to be marginalised by the significant power of ministerial discretion to override limited protections. When up against the substantial economic gain of development and resource extraction projects, First Nations people continue to be dismissed, ignored and undermined

Where are we up to?

In response to the destruction at Juukan Gorge, three key developments took place that aimed, at least in part, to correct the gaps in legislation and practice that enable the destruction of First Nations cultural heritage.

  • In June 2020, the Federal Government initiated a Senate Inquiry into the Juukan Gorge disaster, which delivered its final report, A Way Forward, in October 2021;
  • Also in June 2020, a unified alliance of First Nations leadership from around the country formed the First Nations Heritage Protection Alliance (FNHPA); and
  • In December 2021, a contentious bill to replace the deeply flawed 1972 Cultural Heritage Bill (WA) was passed by the WA government. The Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act 2021 has since been repealed, and the 1972 legislation reinstated. 

The Senate Inquiry’s final report, A Way Forward, clearly stated that “…it is inconceivable that Australia has not developed proper protections for such sites, and action must be a matter of national priority.” It further found “countless instances where cultural heritage has been the victim of the drive for development and commercial gain”. The report’s recommendations can be found below, along with an update on their implementation. 

Meanwhile, the FNHPA has been working on a four-pronged approach, which includes legislative reform, engaging with the Federal Government to consult with First Nations communities, reform of how mining companies and the private sector operate, and developing partnerships in the investment sector. On 29 November 2021, after many months of negotiations, the FNHPA formed a historic partnership with the Federal Government, aimed at advising the Government on law reform to better protect sacred sites. 

The National Native Title Council (NNTC) Chair and co-Chair of the FNHPA, Kado Muir said at the time:

This is unique because we’ve essentially signed a partnership agreement which means at the highest level, we’re able to engage and be part of law reform… this encourages full protection as a national standard, at a federal level. We hope that through this process the federal government will also align to international standards for cultural heritage.

Alongside legislative reform, the FNHPA has been working on the ground with mining companies to enhance the influence and voice of Traditional Owners, as well as releasing the Dhawura Ngilan Business and Investor Initiative, which contains a set of twenty standards to guide the private sector in engaging with First Nations communities in more respectful ways. This work has led to some improvement in the way private companies acknowledge the rights of First Nations people to be involved in decision making that affects their Country. BHP, for example, have recently acknowledged First Nations peoples’ right to consultation and recognised “free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) as an important process to safeguard the collective rights of Indigenous peoples”. To what extent this translates into meaningful practice remains to be seen.

As of May 2025, a major reform of the federal cultural heritage protection legislation is expected to be announced, developed in close collaboration with the FNHPA. 

A Way Forward Implementation

The Government has agreed (in principle) to seven of the eight recommendations made in the Way Forward final report.

The table below depicts Australia’s progress toward implementing the report’s recommendations as of May 2025.

RECOMMENDATIONCURRENT PROGRESSIMPLEMENTATION STATUS
RECOMMENDATION 1:

The Australian Parliament should amend the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984 and the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.
The Government only noted, not explicitly agreed to, Recommendation 1, including to make the Minister for Indigenous Australians responsible for all Cultural Heritage matters and heritage issues be transferred to the relevant portfolio.

Overall reform of the EPBC Act has been on the agenda since the 2019 Samuel Review. However, as of 2024, there is no publicly discernable action. The 2024-2025 Federal budget includes $17.7 million to reduce the backlog and support the administration of applications under the ATSIHP Act. There is limited discussion of the reforms outlined in the report.
NOT IMPLEMENTED
RECOMMENDATION 2:

The Australian Government should ratify the Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage 2003.
Australia has not ratified the UNESCO convention. NOT IMPLEMENTED
RECOMMENDATION 3:

The Australian Government should legislate a new framework for cultural heritage protection at the national level. Co-designed with First Nations peoples.
In 2024, the Government renewed its partnership with the First Nations Heritage Protection Alliance (FNHPA) to June 2026. The partnership has developed three options for reformed protections which are still undergoing consultation. An announcement regarding federal cultural heritage legislation reform is expected soon, undertaken in partnership with the FNHPA. PARTIALLY IMPLEMENTED
RECOMMENDATION 4:

The Australian Government should review the Native Title Act 1993 with the aim of addressing inequalities in the negotiating position of First Nations peoples in the context of the future act regime.
In June 2024, Commonwealth Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus announced that the Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) will review the future acts regime in the Native Title Act. $500,000 of the Federal Budget has been allocated over the next two years to complete the review. The ALRC released their Issues Paper in November 2024, with a final report due 8 Dec 2025. Progress can be followed here.PARTIALLY IMPLEMENTED
RECOMMENDATION 5:

The Australian Government should endorse and commit to implementing Dhawura Ngilan: A Vision for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage in Australia.
The Australian Government has supported Dhawura Ngilan in principle. The principles have not yet been implemented into legislative frameworks, though this may change in the upcoming expected announcement on new federal legislation. PARTIALLY IMPLEMENTED
RECOMMENDATION 6:

The Australian Government should develop a model for a cultural heritage truth telling process.
PM Anthony Albanese continues to endorse the ‘principle’ of Makarrata, but since the failed Voice to Parliament Referendum 2023, has walked back their commitment to a national truth-telling process, leaving the task up to the states and territories.


NOT IMPLEMENTED
RECOMMENDATION 7:

The Australian Government should establish an independent fund to administer funding for prescribed body corporates (PBCs) under the Native Title Act 1999.
This recommendation was agreed to in principle by the Australian Government in November 2022. Stage 2 of the National Native Title Council’s PBC Futures project involves working closely with PBCs and Commonwealth and State Governments to develop options to the implementation of Recommendation 7. Stage 2 commenced in 2023. PARTIALLY IMPLEMENTED
RECOMMENDATION 8:

The Australian Government should increase the transparency and accountability requirements on Prescribed Body Corporates (PBCs) and Native Title Representative Bodies under the Native Title Act 1999 to require that they demonstrate adequate consultation with, and consideration of, local community views prior to agreeing to the destruction/alteration of any cultural heritage sites.
While the Native Title Legislation Amendment Act 2021 introduced measures to improve and strengthen the operation of the native title system – including improving the accountability, transparency, and governance of Registered Native Title Bodies Corporate (RNTBCs) – there has been limited public discussion of developments since the report was published.NOT IMPLEMENTED
Resources
Background Paper
Cultural Resurgence Read
Scorecard
Read
Background Paper
Language Resurgence Read
Background Paper
First Nations Education Read
More
Cultural Heritage
Cultural Heritage What is First Nations cultural heritage? Read More
Cultural Heritage Cultural Heritage Awareness Read More
Cultural Heritage Cultural Heritage in the States & Territories Read More
Cultural Heritage Climate Justice Read More
Cultural Heritage Cultural Fishing Rights (NSW) Read More