chapter 24 – cultural heritage and native title

CHAPTER 24 – CULTURAL HERITAGE AND NATIVE TITLE

GULF ALUMINA LTD – SKARDON RIVER BAUXITE PROJECT

Skardon River Bauxite Project Chapter 24 – Cultural Heritage and Native Title

4-i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

24.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 24-1 24.2 Legislative Context ........................................................................................... 24-1 24.2.1 The Burra Charter ..................................................................................................... 24-1 24.2.2 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 .......................... 24-1 24.2.3 Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act 2003 ...................................................................... 24-1 24.2.4 Queensland Heritage Act 1992 ................................................................................ 24-2 24.2.5 Nature Conservation Act 1992 ................................................................................. 24-2 24.2.6 Survey and Mapping Infrastructure Act 2003 .......................................................... 24-3 24.2.7 Legislation Regarding Human Remains .................................................................... 24-3 24.2.8 State and Local Government .................................................................................... 24-3 24.2.9 Native Title Act 1993 ................................................................................................ 24-3 24.3 Methodology of Assessment ............................................................................. 24-4 24.3.1 Aboriginal Cultural Heritage ..................................................................................... 24-4 24.3.2 Non-Indigenous Cultural Heritage ........................................................................... 24-4 24.3.3 Desk Based Assessment ........................................................................................... 24-4 24.3.4 Previous Archaeological Survey Work in the Project Area ...................................... 24-5 24.3.5 Assumptions and Limitations ................................................................................... 24-5 24.4 Native Title ...................................................................................................... 24-5 24.5 Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Values .................................................................. 24-8 24.5.1 Relevant Aboriginal Parties ...................................................................................... 24-8 24.5.1.1 Ankamuthi People (QC1999/026; QUD 6158/98) .................................................... 24-8 24.5.1.2 The Northern Cape #1 Aboriginal Corporation ........................................................ 24-8 24.5.2 Known Sites and Artefacts within the Project Area ................................................. 24-8 24.5.3 Potential Impacts and Management Measures ..................................................... 24-10 24.5.3.1 Potential Impacts ................................................................................................... 24-10 24.5.3.2 Cultural Heritage Management Plan ...................................................................... 24-10 24.6 Non-Indigenous Cultural Heritage ................................................................... 24-11 24.6.1 Historical Background ............................................................................................ 24-11 24.6.1.1 First European Contact ........................................................................................... 24-11 24.6.1.2 Establishment of Batavia River Presbyterian Mission ............................................ 24-11 24.6.1.3 Mapoon Presbyterian Mission, 1891-1963 ............................................................ 24-12 24.6.1.4 Discovery of Bauxite and Resumption of Mapoon Reserve Lands ......................... 24-12 24.6.2 Non-Indigenous Cultural Heritage Values .............................................................. 24-16 24.6.3 Potential Impacts ................................................................................................... 24-16 24.6.4 Management of Potential Historical Cultural Heritage Values .............................. 24-16 24.6.4.1 Inspections, Monitoring and Auditing .................................................................... 24-17 24.6.4.2 Survey Marks .......................................................................................................... 24-18 24.6.4.3 Discoveries Process ................................................................................................ 24-18 24.7 Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 24-19

Tables

Table 24-1 Known Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Sites in the Project Area ................................. 24-8

Figures


Page 24-ii

Figure 24-1 Gulf Alumina Mining Leases showing Native Title Interests .................................... 24-7 Figure 24-2 Cultural Heritage Values ........................................................................................... 24-9 Figure 24-3 Map of northern Cape York Peninsula (1959), showing Alcan’s Authority to

Prospect for Minerals (AP 53M) and Comalco’s Special Bauxite Mining Lease No. 1 ....................................................................................................................... 24-15


Page 24-1

24. CULTURAL HERITAGE AND NATIVE TITLE

24.1 Introduction

This chapter describes the Indigenous and non-Indigenous cultural heritage values of the Project area, and the measures that are being implemented to protect, mitigate and manage heritage values which may be affected by the Project. It also provides information about native title in relation to the Project tenements and native title processes for the Project.

24.2 Legislative Context

There are several pieces of Commonwealth and Queensland legislation relevant to Indigenous cultural heritage, non-Indigenous cultural heritage and native title within the Project area. These have been briefly outlined below.

24.2.1 The Burra Charter

The Commonwealth and Queensland cultural heritage legislation is primarily based on the principles outlined in the Burra Charter: The Australia ICOMOS Charter for Places of Cultural Significance (1999; Burra Charter). The Burra Charter establishes the definition of cultural significance as “aesthetic, historic, scientific or social value for past, present of future generations”, and sets the basic principles for cultural heritage conservation legislation for all Australian states and territories. It also establishes criteria for assessing the significance of heritage values, including value of the site to part or all of the community (social), scientific and historical value (Australia ICOMOS Inc., 1999).

24.2.2 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999

The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cwlth) (EPBC Act) is the key piece of Commonwealth legislation for management of the environment and cultural heritage. The EPBC Act protects places with world heritage values – meaning places listed on the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation’s (UNESCO) World Heritage List – or places of national significance – meaning places on the Australian Heritage List or the Commonwealth Heritage List (both of which incorporate places previously registered on the Register of the National Estate). In particular, the EPBC Act provides a legal framework, with ‘triggers’ which require approval for actions likely to have a significant impact on places of significance and cultural heritage aspects of the environment on Commonwealth land in order to protect and manage heritage values.

24.2.3 Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act 2003

The Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act 2003 (Qld) (ACH Act) provides a system to protect, preserve and manage Aboriginal cultural heritage areas and objects. The object of the ACH Act is to provide recognition, protection and conservation of Aboriginal cultural heritage. The ACH Act:

legislates (section 23) a ‘duty of care’ by which anyone conducting activities on land to take all

reasonable and practicable measures to ensure the activity does not harm Aboriginal cultural

heritage:

Duties of Care Guidelines were gazetted in 2004 that outline reasonable and practicable measures

for ensuring activities are managed to avoid or minimize harm to cultural heritage values.

Penalties apply for causing unauthorised harm.


Page 24-2

requires (section 87) that a Cultural Heritage Management Plan (CHMP) be developed and approved

wherever an Environmental Impact Statement is required for the approval of any project

establishes (section 39) a cultural heritage database maintained by the Department of Aboriginal and

Torres Strait Islander Partnerships (DATSIP)1.

Aboriginal cultural heritage is defined as:

a significant Aboriginal area in Queensland; or

a significant Aboriginal object; or

evidence of archaeological or historic significance, of Aboriginal occupation of an area of Queensland.

24.2.4 Queensland Heritage Act 1992

The Queensland Heritage Act 1992 (QH Act) provides:

For the establishment of the Queensland Heritage Register – a register of places significant to the

State of Queensland.

A process for entering new places onto the Queensland Heritage Register.

For the protection for places entered in the register.

For the establishment of local heritage registers to be maintained by local government authorities.

A process for reporting discoveries of artefacts with potential historical cultural heritage significance.

A detailed process for managing historical cultural heritage items, sites or places during project

activities that may have an impact on cultural heritage values.

The QH Act places restrictions on development within Queensland heritage places and archaeological places listed in the Queensland Heritage Register and protected areas listed under the regulation. If any aspect of the Project is likely to occur on a place listed on the Queensland Heritage Register, a development permit must be obtained.

No areas of the Project have currently been identified which are listed on the Queensland Heritage Register and, accordingly, this approval is not required.

Section 89 of the QH Act requires that anyone who discovers an archaeological artefact that may be an important source of information about an aspect of Queensland’s history must report it to EHP. Under section 90 of the QH Act, it is an offence to interfere with any archaeological discovery for at least 20 business days after EHP has been notified, unless consent has been granted under the QH Act to do so. The proponent will notify EHP in accordance with these requirements if any archaeological artefacts are discovered within the Project area.

24.2.5 Nature Conservation Act 1992

The Nature Conservation Act 1992 (Qld) (NC Act) dedicates and declares protected areas under 13 classes2 for the conservation of natural and/or cultural heritage. The NC Act sets out management principles for each class of protected area. The NC Act also requires the declaration of ‘management intent’ with specific reference to the areas significant cultural and/or natural resources and values for any proposed protected

1 The Queensland Department of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and Multicultural Affairs (DATSIMA) was previously

responsible for actions under the ACH Act. 2 These classes include national parks (scientific), national parks, national parks (Aboriginal land), national parks (Torres Strait Islander land), national parks (Cape York Peninsula Aboriginal land), national parks (recovery), conservation parks, resource reserves, nature refuges, coordinated conservation areas, wilderness areas, World Heritage management areas, and international agreement areas.


Page 24-3

area. Under the NC Act, it is an offence to take, use, keep, or interfere with a cultural or natural resource in a protected area except in accordance with the interim or declared management intent, or under permit.

24.2.6 Survey and Mapping Infrastructure Act 2003

Survey marks, reference marks and bench marks may have significant cultural heritage value not only to the organisation and individuals that placed them but also for the study of Australian culture as a whole. They can be used to show the routes taken by explorers, boundary changes over time, government policy changes and how population changes and historical events can affect perceptions and management of land and resources.

Under Part 4 of the Survey and Mapping Infrastructure Act 2003 (Qld) (SMI Act), it is an offence to interfere with any permanent survey mark, whether knowingly or unknowingly, by any person who "ought reasonably to know" of their existence. Interfering with any type of survey mark can carry a penalty up to 100 penalty units (as defined by the State Penalties Enforcement Act 1999 (Qld). There is provision within the SMI Act to allow marks to be removed or disturbed. However, in any case where this may happen prior application must be made to the Department of Natural Resources and Mines (DNRM) under section 43 of the SMI Act. It may be decided by DNRM that the mark must be replaced in a nearby location or that sufficient adjacent marks exist to allow the reinstatement of the original at any time.

24.2.7 Legislation Regarding Human Remains

Under Section 236 of the Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld), it is an offence to improperly or indecently interfere with a human body or human remains, whether buried or not. An offence under this provision can result in imprisonment for up to two years.

The Coroners Act 2003 (Qld) states that when human remains are located it is the duty of the person who found the remains to report the findings to the police or a coroner (s.7-8). Control of human remains by the coroner commences when coronial investigations into the deceased person’s death begin (section 26(1)). If the coroner decides that it is not necessary to keep investigating the human remains, then the coroner will order the release of the body for burial (section 26(c)).

Additionally, exhumations are normally dealt with under local laws in terms of the Local Government Act 1993 (Qld). Where these laws are not applicable, the Land Act 1994 (Qld) permits exhumation. Approval to exhume human remains (section 83, to take out of a place of interment, whether above or below ground) may be granted by the Minister on receipt of a written application if a local government has not made a local law regarding exhumation of human remains from trust land for cemetery purposes.

24.2.8 State and Local Government

The Project area falls within the Cape York Regional Plan (DSDIP, 2014) (the Plan), which notes that:

“Significant Indigenous cultural values are also attached to the natural environments of the region and strong links have been maintained by the Indigenous community with country, with access to land and its resources crucial for cultural maintenance and subsistence values. A number of rivers in the region are of cultural heritage significance for local groups”

However, the Plan does not identify any specific Indigenous cultural heritage sites. The identification of such sites is left to Indigenous groups and project proponents, and the formal recording of sites being left to DATSIP.

24.2.9 Native Title Act 1993

The Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) (NT Act) recognises native title rights and provides the government with ways in which to validate or legitimise past acts such as the granting of leases. This legislation provides


Page 24-4

for the determination of native title claims, the treatment of future acts which may impact on native title rights and the requirement for consultation and/or notification to relevant native title claimants, where future acts are involved.

24.3 Methodology of Assessment

24.3.1 Aboriginal Cultural Heritage

The assessment of Aboriginal cultural heritage values within the Project area was conducted in three stages consisting of:

a desktop review including review of:

registered heritage values in the cultural heritage database

field surveys for the proposed kaolin mine in the early 1990s

the execution of Cultural Heritage Management Plan with relevant the Ankamuthi People

In addition, ongoing cultural heritage field surveys will be undertaken in accordance with the requirements of the CHMP.

It is also noted that Traditional Owners have been engaged in exploration drilling campaigns for cultural heritage clearance works associated with the Project.

24.3.2 Non-Indigenous Cultural Heritage

The assessment of non-Indigenous cultural heritage within the Project area was undertaken as a desktop review, to identify any known heritage values and the likelihood for potential heritage values3.

Following desk based searches, sites located near the Project area were identified and mapped.

24.3.3 Desk Based Assessment

Searches of Federal and State and local registers, databases and archival material were undertaken to develop a regional historical framework and to identify places and values within and around the Project area that may potentially be impacted by the Project. The desktop review included searches of statutory and non-statutory registers and historical records, including:

World Heritage List – no sites identified within 1 km of the Project MLs

Commonwealth and Australian Heritage Lists - no sites identified within 1 km of the Project MLs

Queensland Heritage Register - no sites identified within 1 km of the Project MLs

DATSIP Cultural Heritage Database – 2 sites are identified within 500m of Project Disturbance areas

Register of the National Estate (archived records) - no sites identified within 1 km of the Project MLs

Records of the National Trust - no sites identified within a nominal 1 km of the Project MLs

DNRM Queensland survey control database

DNRM Historical Mines data – no historical mine sites with heritage significance were identified

Existing studies and historical records (see Section 24.3.4).

3 Heritage values that have not been identified or recorded but have the potential to be discovered during proposed development.


Page 24-5

24.3.4 Previous Archaeological Survey Work in the Project Area

Desktop review identified one archaeological survey within the Skardon Bauxite Project Area conducted by A. Yates in 1993 (Yates, 1993).

A survey of lands east of the Project area, within the former Alcan South Pacific Pty Ltd (now Rio Tinto Alcan) mining lease ML7031, was conducted between the Ducie and Dulhunty Rivers by Dr Nicky Horsfall and Traditional Owners in 2006 (Horsfall, 2006).

The archaeological survey conducted by A. Yates for the Skardon Kaolin project was limited to a planned ’10,700 m x 20 m transect, spanning from Namaleta Creek to the Skardon River, and a 1400 m x 1400 m area near the Skardon River’. An aerial reconnaissance was completed by Yates in March and a ‘meandering pedestrian survey’ was carried out in May 1993, during the late wet season and early dry season, when there is heavy vegetation (grasses) cover on the land.

Aboriginal consultation was conducted with representatives from the various groups comprising the Mapoon community, including the New Mapoon Council, Weipa South Aboriginal Community, Marpuna Community Aboriginal Corporation and Trustees of the DOGIT for ML 6025.

In addition, an unofficial meeting was held with a group of traditional owners at Napranum on 20 May where it was agreed that a representative would accompany the archaeologist in the field (for part of the field survey) and that a copy of the report would be forwarded to the trustees. It was also agreed that an archaeologist for the Cape York Land Council would participate in the archaeological survey and have input into the report.

No significant archaeological or ethnographic sites were identified during the consultation or liaison.

No historical (non-Indigenous) archaeological sites were discovered during the survey, but two possible shell midden sites (see Table 24-1) were recorded on the southern shore of the Skardon River (within ML 40069). This finding was in accordance with research and surveys in the wider regional setting, which identifies shell middens and mounds as the major archaeological site types. However subsurface sites may be preserved in the banks of Namaleta Creek and the Skardon River and remain undetected. Such sites, if they exist, may be of archaeological significance because of their stratigraphic potential.

24.3.5 Assumptions and Limitations

It is not achievable to comprehensively identify all unrecorded heritage values within the Project area. However, this chapter identifies known heritage values, provides an indication of the types of heritage values existing within the Project area and establishes a process by which any items, sites, or places of historical cultural heritage significance may be identified and managed appropriately.

Due to the size of the Project area, a complete archaeological survey of the whole area was not feasible.

If any potential heritage values are identified during Project activities, they will be managed in accordance with the provisions discussed in Section 24.5.3 and Section 24.6.4.

24.4 Native Title

The Ankamuthi (QC1999/026; QUD 6158/98) are the registered native title claimants for the Project area on the south side of the Skardon River. Gulf has entered into a native title agreement with the Ankamuthi. A Section 31 Deed was signed in December 2013 with the Ankamuthi People as the registered native title claimants and the State of Queensland in January 2014 for the mining lease areas under the right to negotiate (RTN) process.

The Northern Cape York Group #1 (Registered Native Title Claimants - Federal Court Proceedings QUD157/2011) Determination area extends to the high water mark of the southern side of the Skardon River. North Cape York Group #1 holds the recognised native title determination for areas within and


Page 24-6

north of the Skardon River. The North Cape York Group #1 comprises a number of different Indigenous peoples (the McDonnell Atampaya group, the Gudang/Yadhaigana people and the Ankamuthi group, also called the Ankamuthi Seven River group), with the areas of the Skardon River and north of the Skardon River represented by the Ankamuthi People.

Figure 24-1 shows the Ankamuthi People Native Title Claim and the Northern Cape Group #1 Determination.

Under the Native Title Act 1993, a 'future act' is an act done after the 1 January 1994 which affects native title. The future act can be a proposed activity or development on land and or waters that has the potential to affect native title by extinguishing it or by creating interests that are inconsistent with the existence or exercise of native title. The future act process provides native title parties with specified rights; those rights vary from the right to be consulted, to the right to negotiate over some future acts, or activities on the land.

All three MLs that make up the Project area were granted via Right to Negotiate process under the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth). The terms of ML 40069 and ML 40082 give the appropriate permissions required for the works in the Skardon River to develop the port infrastructure for loading etc.

Bed levelling in the mouth of the Skardon River in not within the Project’s MLs and will likely be authorised by way of a development authority. The Northern Cape York Group #1 determination area does not extend beyond the mouth of the Skardon River (refer Figure 24-1). Section 24HA of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) deals with future acts relating to the ‘Management or Regulation of Surface and Subterranean Water, Living Aquatic Resources and Airspace’. In the Government’s consideration of the approval process for the development authority, the approval will be considered to trigger a native title process. All requirements of Section 24HA will be complied with, including:

giving a notice to any representative Aboriginal/Torres Strait Islander bodies, registered native title

bodies corporate and registered native title claimants in relation to the land or waters that will be

affected by the act; and

giving them an opportunity to comment on the act or class of acts.

!(

ML 6025

ML 40082 ML40069

604800 609800 614800 619800 62480086

7990

0

8679

900

8684

900

8684

900

8689

900

8689

900

8694

900

8694

900

8699

900

8699

900

8704

900

8704

900

8709

900

8709

900

8714

900

8714

900

No warranty is given in relation to the data (including accuracy, reliability, completeness or suitability) and accept no liability (including without limitation, liability in negligence) for any loss, damage or costs (including consequential damage) relating to any use of or reliance upon the data. Data must not be used fordirect marketing or be used in breach of privacy laws. State Boundaries and Towns © Geoscience Australia (2006). Native Title Determination Applications (Register) and National Native Title Register © National Native Title Tribunal (2015). Cadastre © State of Queensland DNRM (2015).Tenures © Geos Mining (2015). Imagery Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community

Figure 24-1 Gulf Alumina Limited

G:\CLIENTS\E-TO-M\Gulf Alumina\GIS\Maps\EIS\Ch24_CulturalHeritage\FIG_24_01_MLs_and_NT_Claims_160316.mxd

Revision: R1

Date: 16/03/2016 Author: malcolm.nunnMap Scale: Coordinate System: GDA 1994 MGA Zone 54

Gulf Alumina Mining LeasesShowing Native Title

!

!

!

!

ROCKHAMPTON

BRISBANE

CAIRNS

TOWNSVILLE

0 2.5 5 7.5 10Kilometers

±

LegendMining Lease Boundaries

!( Port of Skardon RiverBed Levelling Area

Registered Native Title ClaimsAnkamuthi People

Native Title DeterminationsNorthern Cape York Group #1

1:150,000


Page 24-8

24.5 Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Values

24.5.1 Relevant Aboriginal Parties

24.5.1.1 Ankamuthi People (QC1999/026; QUD 6158/98)

The Ankamuthi People are the relevant Aboriginal Party for the Project area on the southern side of the Skardon River (Figure 24-1). The Ankamuthi claim has been brought over named parcels of land, and excludes ‘creeks or rivers dedicated to the State of Queensland’. Therefore, the boundary of their claim follows the boundary of those land parcels and does not extend into the Skardon River.

24.5.1.2 The Northern Cape #1 Aboriginal Corporation

The Northern Cape #1 Aboriginal Corporation is the relevant Aboriginal Party for the Project area within the Skardon River (Figure 24-1), as the registered native title body corporate representing the registered native title holders of the Northern Cape York Group #1 Determination area.

The Determination includes ‘all waterways, natural lakes, creeks and rivers within the External Boundary including the Skardon River’, save for waters forming part of a lot on plan, but states explicitly that it does not include any of the area within the Ankamuthi People registered native title claim.

24.5.2 Known Sites and Artefacts within the Project Area

There are two Aboriginal cultural heritage sites recorded on the DATSIP cultural heritage register within the Project Area (refer to Figure 24-2 and Table 24-1). As noted in Section 24.3.4 these are possible shell midden sites, and as shown on Figure 24-2, they are located in an area that will be avoided by the Project footprint. The mapped location of the cultural heritage sites is not within the project disturbance area. In addition, the nature of the ground disturbance in this area is piles or trestles to support the conveyor and jetty. The location of these piles and trestles can be adjusted should they potentially disturb a cultural heritage site.

Table 24-1 Known Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Sites in the Project Area

Site Id Attribute Contact Coordinates

CU:A02 Shell Midden Northern Cape York Group #1 -11.756317, 142.071215

CU:A03 Shell Midden Northern Cape York Group #1 -11.754735, 142.071209

Information regarding other potential cultural heritage sites identified through cultural heritage surveys is considered sensitive and is not presented in this document.

!(!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

ML 6025

ML 40082 ML40069

604800 609800 614800 619800 62480086

7990

0

8679

900

8684

900

8684

900

8689

900

8689

900

8694

900

8694

900

8699

900

8699

900

8704

900

8704

900

8709

900

8709

900

8714

900

8714

900

No warranty is given in relation to the data (including accuracy, reliability, completeness or suitability) and accept no liability (including without limitation, liability in negligence) for any loss, damage or costs (including consequential damage) relating to any use of or reliance upon the data. Data must not be used fordirect marketing or be used in breach of privacy laws. State Boundaries and Towns © Geoscience Australia (2006). Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Register data © DATSIMA (2015). Survey control register © State of Queensland - Department of Natural Resources and Mines (2015).Tenures © Geos Mining (2015). Imagery Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community.

Figure 24-2 Gulf Alumina Limited

G:\CLIENTS\E-TO-M\Gulf Alumina\GIS\Maps\EIS\Ch24_CulturalHeritage\FIG_24_02_CH_160316.mxd

Revision: R1

Date: 16/03/2016 Author: malcolm.nunnMap Scale: Coordinate System: GDA 1994 MGA Zone 54

Cultural Heritage Values

!

!

!

!

ROCKHAMPTON

BRISBANE

CAIRNS

TOWNSVILLE

0 2.5 5 7.5 10Kilometers

±

LegendMining Lease Boundaries

!( Port of Skardon RiverBed Levelling AreaExisting Disturbance Footprint

Project FootprintPort Layout

Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Values!( Shell Middens

Survey Control Register!( Survey Control Points

1:150,000

!(

!(

!(

CU:A03

CU:A02

*Port/Wharf infrastructure are indicative layouts only and adapted from plans created by Sedgman Ltd.


Page 24-10

24.5.3 Potential Impacts and Management Measures

24.5.3.1 Potential Impacts

Project activities that have the potential at all stages of the Project (including construction, operation, rehabilitation and mine closure) to impact cultural heritage include:

ground disturbance (e.g. mining and mine infrastructure)

dust or sediment mobilisation

Potential impacts on cultural heritage include:

Damage or destruction to sites or features extending or hidden below topsoil

Damage or destruction of potential heritage values

Alteration of cultural landscape of associated heritage values

24.5.3.2 Cultural Heritage Management Plan

All potential impacts to cultural heritage values will be managed in accordance with a Cultural Heritage Management Plan (CHMP) with the relevant Aboriginal Party. The CHMP sets out a process for the management of Aboriginal cultural heritage within the Project area.

A voluntary CHMP has been negotiated between the proponent and the Ankamuthi People. The proponent will initiate a process to obtain an approved CHMP under the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act 2003 (Qld) with all relevant Aboriginal Parties.

The CHMP provides a protocol for conducting surveys and management of cultural heritage by way of recommended management strategies agreed on by all parties allowing for:

ongoing communication and involvement with the Aboriginal party

a process for including Aboriginal people, associated with the development areas, in protecting and

managing Aboriginal cultural heritage

processes for mitigating, managing and protecting identified cultural heritage sites and objects in the

Project area, including associated infrastructure developments, during both the construction and

operational phases of the Project

provisions for managing the accidental discovery of cultural material, including burials

a clear recording process to assist initial management and recording of accidental discoveries

monitoring and auditing requirements in the event cultural heritage discoveries are made

a cultural heritage induction for Project staff

a conflict resolution process.

Any Aboriginal cultural heritage values will be fully assessed and managed in accordance with the CHMP.

It is expected that possible shell midden sites will be avoided by Project activities. If these sites are potentially impacted, a survey will be undertaken to confirm whether they are shell midden sites and, if so, they will be managed in accordance with the CHMP.


Page 24-11

24.6 Non-Indigenous Cultural Heritage

24.6.1 Historical Background

24.6.1.1 First European Contact

The first contact between the Indigenous people of Australia and Europeans occurred in 1606, probably near Mapoon, possibly on the shores of Port Musgrave or in the Wenlock River. The Europeans were the crew of the Dutch East India Company (Verenigde Oost-Indische Compagnie – VOC) sailing vessel, Duyfken, meaning Little Dove.

Between 1606 and 1756 (14 years before Lieutenant James Cook’s British expedition along the east coast of Australia), at least four Dutch expeditions sponsored by the VOC visited western Cape York Peninsula on the shores of the Gulf of Carpentaria, including: Janszoon on the vessel Duyfken (1606), Carstenszoon on the vessel Pera (1623), Tasman on the vessels Limmen, Zeemeeuw and Bracq (1644), Gonzal on the vessel Rijder and Van Asschens on the vessel Buijs (1756) (Heeres, 1899).

The Dutch expedition’s contacts with Aboriginal people were limited to coastal lands and waters and it is unlikely that any Dutch people visited the land included within the Skardon River Bauxite Project Area.4

Jan Carstenszoon, in his 1623 report to the Governor of the VOC, noted that on 12 May 1623, he and members of his crew went ashore north of the Batavia River, which may be interpreted as possibly on the coast somewhere between the northern side of Port Musgrave and the Skardon River, perhaps a few kilometres west of the Project area. On this occasion the Dutchmen were confronted with some 200 warriors and a skirmish ensued, when spears were thrown and firearms discharged (Heeres, 1899).

Following the Dutch expeditions, there was little recorded European activity in the eastern Gulf of Carpentaria region until the voyage of Commander Matthew Flinders on HMS Investigator in 1802. Flinders sailed southwards from Torres Strait along the western Peninsula coast, but did not land near the Skardon River country. He observed the openings of the unnamed Skardon River and the Batavia River (actually Port Musgrave) on 5-6 November 1802, then landed at the Pennefather River on 7 November (Wharton, 2005).

During the 1880s and perhaps earlier, bêche-de-mer fishermen and pearl-shellers from Torres Strait recruited young Aboriginal people from the Seven Rivers country and Batavia River area to work as divers and crew on the boats. The Aboriginal people were generally poorly treated and many were exposed to tuberculosis in the cramped conditions on these vessels. Such poor treatment led to retaliation and murders of fishermen which in turn brought further retaliation by the Queensland colonial government’s Native Police Force (Wharton, 2005).

24.6.1.2 Establishment of Batavia River Presbyterian Mission

As a consequence of continual frontier violence along the western Peninsula coastline, the Government Resident on Thursday Island, Hon John Douglas, encouraged the establishment of a mission to Aboriginal people at Batavia River by Moravian missionaries, who were acting on behalf of the Presbyterian Church. Batavia River Mission was commenced by Reverend James Gibson Ward and Reverend John Nicholas Hey on 28 November 1891.

4 The VOC ship’s crews were not equipped for overland expeditions and were poorly armed, so limited their investigations to coastal areas. For a detailed discussion of these limitations, see Sutton, Peter. ‘Stories about feeling: Dutch-Australian contact in Cape York Peninsula, 1606-1756’, in Peter Veth, Peter Sutton and Margo Neale, eds., Strangers on the shore: early coastal contacts in Australia, Canberra: National Museum of Australia, 2008, pp. 42-47.


Page 24-12

The Queensland Government initially reserved an area of about 100 square miles (about 259 km2) for the Mapoon Aboriginal Reserve in December 1891 which extended between the Batavia (now Wenlock) River and the coast from Cullen Point in the north to about Flinders Camp in the south.5

Rev. Nicholas Hey and the Northern Protector of Aboriginals, W.E. Roth, found that this restricted their power to control recruitment of Aboriginal people by the fishing industry outside the reserve. During a visit to Mapoon in October 1899, Roth observed the damaging effects of the pearl-shell fishers’ recruitment of young Aboriginal men, whose traditional lives were disrupted and who often returned to Mapoon with a terminal illness after working on the boats.6 Roth recommended that the existing Mapoon reserve should be extended to join the Weipa reserve and that a Protector of Aboriginals should be appointed at Thursday Island to patrol the Gulf coast.

Eventually, a new ‘Reserve for Aboriginal Mission Station, Mapoon’ covering an area of about 1,000 square miles (2,590 square kilometres) was gazetted on 13 June 1903.7

The Mapoon reserve was extended again by 345 square miles (about 893 square kilometres) to include country surrounding Namaleta Creek and north towards the watershed of the Dulhunty and Skardon Rivers, north of the Wenlock River and eastwards to Bertiehaugh in 1908, followed by a further extension of 2,000 square miles (about 5,180 square kilometres) northwards to the Jardine River in 1950.8

24.6.1.3 Mapoon Presbyterian Mission, 1891-1963

By late 1892, the mission became known by the Tjungundji language name ‘Mapoon’ which means a place where people fight on the sandhills. Gradually, tribespeople from the Ducie, Mission, Pennefather (Coen), Skardon and upper Batavia Rivers came in to live at the mission.

In 1901, the Queensland Government gazetted an industrial school which meant that police officers in “protector” roles could remove children from their families or clan group living in the Gulf country and send them into the dormitory system at Mapoon. For the next thirty years, many mixed-descent children were removed from their families on stations and towns, such as Burketown, Croydon and Normanton, and sent to Mapoon to be raised by the missionaries.

By the mid-1950s, the Presbyterian Church and Queensland Government wanted to close Mapoon and move the people to other communities under the government’s assimilation policies. They ignored pleas from Traditional Owners who wanted to remain on their country with its spiritual connections and eventually Mapoon mission closed in July 1963. Five months later, the Queensland Director of Native Affairs sent police to remove the community leaders by force to New Mapoon near Bamaga (Wharton, 1996). In May 1964, the last residents left to live at New Mapoon and the Director of Native Affairs ordered a team of carpenters to Mapoon to demolish the community.

24.6.1.4 Discovery of Bauxite and Resumption of Mapoon Reserve Lands

The Geological Survey of Queensland (GSQ) was aware of a report by Queensland Government geologist C.F.V. Jackson which noted deposits of ‘pisolitic iron ore’ when he visited Vrilya Point, Mapoon and Weipa briefly in 1902 (Jackson, 1902).

5 Queensland Government Gazette (QGG), 54, 111 (12 December 1891), p. 1237.

6 W.E. Roth, Mapoon to Under Secretary, Home Department, 4 October 1899, Department of Lands Reserve file 91-14 Part 1, Item ID 143032, QSA. Giving evidence before a Royal Commission into the pearl-shell and bêche-de-mer industries in 1908, Hey claimed that two-thirds of the young men died from consumption, now known as pulmonary tuberculosis. ‘Minutes of evidence taken before the Pearl-shell and Beche-de-mer Royal Commission’, 1 July 1908, Queensland Parliamentary Papers (QPP), 2 (1908), p. 692.

7 QGG, 80, 131 (18 June 1903), p. 1589.

8 QGG, 90, 55 (14 March 1908), p. 646; QGG, 175, 141 (4 November 1950), p. 2112.


Page 24-13

On 16 July 1955 an experienced geologist, Henry James (Harry) Evans, who was on secondment to Frome from Consolidated Zinc Corporation Ltd., found an outcrop of bauxite at a tableland known as the Jump Up, then called at the Weipa Mission next day and collected further samples.9

Evans explored 10 the coastline between Duyfken Point and Pera Head the following October and estimated the bauxite reserves at 250 million tonnes. 11 The discovery prompted Consolidated Zinc Corporation (CZC), through its subsidiary Australian Mining and Smelting Co. Ltd. (AM&S) to apply for an Authority to Prospect for Minerals which was granted as AP No. 28M over 1,415 square miles in February 1956 and increased to 2,585 square miles in July 1956 (Morely, 1957). APM 28 extended from Vrilya Point in the north to Tokalee Creek, near Aurukun in the south, including all of the coastal lands near Mapoon and the Skardon River area.12

In September 1956, the Canadian company Alcan’s exploration subsidiary, Aluminium Laboratories Limited (Alulabs) was issued Authority to Prospect 53M over country to the east of Mapoon by the Queensland Government (E.W Greig, 1957). The original AP 53M covered 1,690 square miles (Figure 24-3) including some of the Mapoon Reserve, but the reserve tenure was not affected by the AP.

CZC appointed another of its subsidiary companies, Enterprise Exploration Pty. Ltd., to manage their exploration programme and a camp was established at Weipa in June 1956.13 At the end of the year CZC created a new subsidiary company to operate its bauxite interests, Commonwealth Aluminium Corporation Pty. Limited – later known by the name derived from its initial letters as Comalco.14

CZP and Comalco negotiated with the Queensland government to enact special legislation which included an agreement that gave the company secure title to some of the former Aboriginal reserves of Mapoon and Weipa and covered the development of a bauxite mine and alumina refinery.15

9 Trengove, Alan, ‘Red treasure on a lonely coast’, Supplement to CRA Gazette, 27, 2 (August 1992), pp. 1-2; Geologists in the party included J.S. Bain, Louis H. Dixon and Harry Evans. Entry for 17 July 1955 in Weipa Mission visitors’ book, J.S. Winn Papers, Cape York Collection, Hibberd Library; J.S. Legge, ed., Who’s who in Australia: XXIst edition, 1974 .Melbourne, Vic.: Herald and Weekly Times, 1974, p. 349. Harry Evans (1912-1990), had worked for seventeen years as a gas and oil geologist in New Zealand and Australia, prior to the Weipa discovery.

10 Evans was accompanied by local Aboriginal elder Matthew (Wak-matha (Stormbird), of the Linngithigh People), George Wilson (Piiramu of the Kaantju people) and Lea Wassell.

11 Trengove, Supplement to CRA Gazette, pp. 2-3; The late Matthew’s language name was provided to Geoff Wharton by members of his family.

12 [Plan showing titles based on Queensland Stock Route Map, Sheet 8, scale 16 miles to an inch.], Commodity File 4-12-1 “B” Bauxite General, GSQ, DME.

13 ‘“Top Camp” closes at Weipa’, Insight [Comalco Industries Pty. Ltd. newsletter], 2, 9 (October 1967), p. 1; Roberts, T.F. ‘Early investigations at Weipa: Bauxite on Cape York Peninsula’, North Australian Monthly, 10, 6 (January 1964), pp. 6-7.

14 ‘£5m in Cape bauxite project’, Courier Mail, 21 December 1956, p. 1; An account of the development of Comalco is contained in Kosmas Tsokhas, Beyond dependence: Companies, labour processes and Australian mining. Melbourne: Oxford University Press, 1986, pp. 49-56.

15 The Queensland Cabinet approved the agreement on 18 November 1957 and the legislation was passed in early December. Cabinet Secretariat, Minutes (Decisions and submissions), Decision No. 91, The Commonwealth Aluminium Corporation Pty. Limited Agreement Bill, 18 November 1957, Microfilm Z 2350, QSA; The Commonwealth Aluminium Corporation Pty. Limited Agreement Act of 1957 (Qld) – (Comalco Act). The Comalco Agreement is contained as a schedule to the Act and was proclaimed on 22 March 1958. QGG, vol. 197, no. 75, 22 March 1958, p. 1328; Comalco has used the legislation to defend its title against other government legislation. For example, its leases were excluded from the affect of the Aboriginal Land Act 1991 by excluding ‘land subject to a special mining Act’ (Section 2.13) from lands claimable under the Act; See also Brennan, Frank. ‘The Queensland Aboriginal Land Act 1991’, Aboriginal Law Bulletin, 2, 50 (June 1991), p. 11.


Page 24-14

The Comalco Agreement, which was signed on 16 December 1957, did not provide for compensation to the church or the Aboriginal people of Mapoon and Weipa or recognition of their prior occupation of the Crown reserve land.16.

The Queensland Government issued Special Bauxite Mining Lease No.1 (SBML1 now known as ML 7024) to Comalco and the grant of this lease in 1958 led to the resumption of some of the former Mapoon Aboriginal Reserve lands – a total of 3,187 km2 was resumed from Mapoon’s reserve area of 8,667 square kilometres.17 SBML1 originally covered an area of 6,145 km2 on Western Cape York Peninsula, including former lands of the Mapoon and Weipa reserves (Figure 24-3).

Special Bauxite Mining Lease No.8 (SBML8, now ML 7031) covering an area of about 536 square miles (about 1,388 km2) was issued to Alcan Queensland Pty Limited (later renamed Alcan South Pacific Pty Ltd) in 1965.18 For the next seven years, this lease overlapped existing reserve land.

In 1972, the Mapoon Aboriginal Reserve was further reduced in area from 2,120 square miles (about 5,490 km2) to about 1,586 square miles (about 4,107 km2) in recognition of the grant of SBML8.19

Under the terms of the Comalco Agreement, areas of SBML1 (ML 7024) no longer required for future mining were relinquished to the government by 1977.20 As a result, some of the former Mapoon reserve lands became Vacant Crown Land and this was later included in the Napranum and Mapoon Deed of Grant in Trust lands in the late 1980s.

16 ‘Signing of Weipa bauxite agreement: Further step in development of the State’, QGMJ, 59, 675, p. 6.

17 Clause 8, Schedule to Commonwealth Aluminium Corporation Pty. Limited Agreement Act of 1957 (Qld); QGG, 198, 88 (5 July 1958), p. 1789; Compiled plan of the western bauxite field and Special Bauxite Mining Lease No. 1 constituted under ‘The Commonwealth Aluminium Corporation Pty. Ltd. Agreement Act of 1957’, 26 July 1965, Cat No. BxM 21, Tenures Branch, Department of Natural Resources and Mines; and First Schedule to Commonwealth Aluminium Corporation Pty. Limited Agreement Act of 1957 (Qld).

18 First schedule to the Alcan Queensland Pty Limited Agreement Act of 1965.

19 QGG, 239, 20 (12 February 1972), p. 674.

20 Clause 13, Schedule to Commonwealth Aluminium Corporation Pty. Limited Agreement Act of 1957 (Qld).


Page 24-15

Figure 24-3 Map of northern Cape York Peninsula (1959), showing Alcan’s Authority to Prospect for Minerals (AP 53M) and Comalco’s Special Bauxite Mining Lease No. 1

Alcan’s Authority to Prospect for Minerals (AP 53M) – shaded green – and Comalco’s Special Bauxite Mining Lease No. 1.21

21 Queensland Government Mining Journal, Vol. 60, no. 697 (20 November 1959), p. 680.


Page 24-16

24.6.2 Non-Indigenous Cultural Heritage Values

There no known sites of non-Indigenous cultural heritage significance identified within the study area. There are identified surveys markers, which are likely to be associated with the kaolin mine mining leases, as shown in Figure 24-2.

24.6.3 Potential Impacts

Project activities that have the potential at all stages of the Project to impact cultural heritage include:

ground disturbance (e.g. bauxite mining and mine infrastructure)

dust or sediment

These activities can result in direct impacts such as damage or destruction of existing sites or structures, sites or features extending or hidden below topsoil, and potential heritage values. The cultural landscape of associated heritage values may be altered. Indirect impacts may be caused by dust deposition or vibration impacts.

No sites of international or national significance were identified within or near the Project area. Additionally, no registered sites of state significance (e.g. registered on the QHR) were identified within or near the Project area.

It is expected that there will be no impact on international, national or registered state significant historical heritage sites unless there are additional discoveries of these during the Project’s cultural heritage surveys.

During all stages of the Project (including construction, operation, and decommissioning) there is the potential for discoveries of potential heritage values. It is noted that under Section 89 of the QH Act, it is a requirement to report the discovery of any archaeological artefact not previously identified in the historical cultural heritage study if the find should be of a scale to fulfil one of the significance criteria described in Section 89 of the QH Act.

24.6.4 Management of Potential Historical Cultural Heritage Values

In the event heritage values are discovered during Project activities, an assessment by a suitably qualified person, including site survey and consultation with key local stakeholders, will be conducted to determine the best management strategy for the site and to prepare a site-specific management plan if required. The best management option can differ greatly depending on the nature of the discovery.

A site-specific management plan may be required if a site of historical cultural significance is discovered during the course of mining operations. If required, this plan will include, at a minimum:

a clear procedure for appropriately managing the specific heritage value

designated contacts and contact details

resource allocation measures

monitoring programs (including essential parameters and indicators specific to the heritage value,

frequency of monitoring and reporting methodology)

management actions (including corrective actions such as repairs and/or reconstruction

requirements, reporting, monitoring and staff training

any emergency or safety procedures relevant to the management options being applied.

The relevant site-specific management plan will be developed in consultation with relevant stakeholders and will consider other management or mitigation measures such as environmental or social impact strategies being applied. A copy of the management plan would be kept by the proponent, with additional


Page 24-17

copies sent to relevant stakeholders (where applicable). The individual management plan would apply, but not be limited, to the management strategies listed below, and would be negotiated with EHP and any relevant stakeholders:

a process for managing discoveries in full accordance with Part 9 of the QH Act

ongoing in-situ management and/or conservation to mitigate the impact of the Project’s activities on

the heritage value

removal of the object or artefact which can involve:

temporary relocation until Project activities are completed; or

permanent storage at a conservation site or facility

rehabilitation after Project activities

interpretive signage.

A plain English training manual on managing cultural heritage will be developed and provided to all site workers for their reference to ensure all Project staff are aware of the legislative requirements relating to historical cultural heritage. Additional measures of training may include briefings for persons undertaking activities in areas where potential values are more likely to occur, for example through site inductions or toolbox talks.

24.6.4.1 Inspections, Monitoring and Auditing

Specific inspection and/or monitoring regimes will be prescribed within any site-specific management plan to ensure the best management strategy tailored to the individual heritage value(s) is applied.

Audits of the management of any discoveries of significant historical cultural heritage (as determined by a suitably qualified person) will be conducted by the proponent after any discovery and at regular intervals during the development and implementation of a management plan to assess whether:

the discovery was reported and managed in accordance with Section 89 of the QH Act

records of all relevant correspondence and forms are maintained

the discovery was protected during the preparation of a management plan

all management options were considered in consultation with relevant stakeholders, including EHP

and an appropriate management plan developed

the management plan implemented sufficiently managed the item, place or area to prevent

negatively impacting historical cultural heritage values

the item, place or area had not been negatively impacted by Project activities.

Indicators to demonstrate the successful management of historical cultural heritage values may include but are not limited to:

the item, place or area receiving no significant damage due to Project activities or management

activities

the item, place or area being successfully relocated (where applicable) to a temporary or permanent

location

the item, place or area being successfully rehabilitated (where applicable) to levels established in the

management plan

the item, place or area being successfully excluded from the development (where applicable) and not

being negatively impacted by Project activities.


Page 24-18

24.6.4.2 Survey Marks

Because of the legislative penalty for tampering with any type of survey mark, contact should be made with the regional DNRM office to determine the type and significance of any survey mark found during mining activities.

If a mark is of historical significance several management options may be considered. These might include:

Leaving the mark in situ.

Moving the mark temporarily, to be repositioned by a survey team when the project is finished.

Relocating the mark permanently by a survey team while preserving its historical significance.

In most cases, the survey mark will likely be moved (provided there is no legal impediment). However,

this should be undertaken once DNRM has confirmed the survey mark can be moved.

24.6.4.3 Discoveries Process

Section 89 of the QH Act requires that anyone who discovers an archaeological artefact that may be an important source of information about an aspect of Queensland’s history must report it to EHP. The following procedure will be followed in the event a discovery is made, and has been adapted from the ‘Find, Stop, Notify, Manage’ process adopted by several government departments, including EHP and the Department of Transport and Main Roads. This procedure can be applied to the discovery of any type of historical cultural heritage.

1. Identify:

a. An historical artefact is found during Project activities.

2. Stop work:

a. Work in the immediate area will be stopped. The artefact will not be disturbed in case it has historical significance.

b. The general area the artefact was found in will be excluded from the work area.

3. Notify relevant persons:

a. The proponent’s nominated representative will be contacted and provided with the location of the artefact (including GPS coordinates if possible), a description of the find and its surrounds, and photographs of the artefact and its surroundings.

b. If the find includes suspected human remains, the nominated representative will contact the local police department immediately. It is an offence under the Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld) to interfere with human remains. The police will investigate the remains to determine if the site represents a crime scene and/or requires further investigation. Project activities at the site will not continue until the site has been cleared by the coroner’s office.

c. The nominated representative will report the find to EHP as soon as possible.

4. Manage cultural heritage values:

a. If the find includes human remains, it is possible that the remains, while not indicative of a crime, may be of Aboriginal origin and must be managed in full compliance with the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act 2003 (Qld). If the remains are not of Aboriginal origin, EHP will determine the appropriate management strategy in consultation with relevant stakeholders.

b. If a find must be reported to EHP, the proponent will not interfere with the artefact until 20 business days have passed, unless written consent under the QH Act has been granted by EHP.

c. EHP officers will be required to approve the management of the artefact. They may wish to visit the place where the artefact was found or they may use photographs and location information to make a decision.


Page 24-19

d. A decision on how to manage the artefact will be made in conjunction with relevant stakeholders, including the proponent’s representatives.

24.7 Conclusion

The Ankamuthi People (for the area south of the Skardon River) and the Northern Cape #1 Aboriginal Corporation (for the area north of, and including, the Skardon River) are the relevant Aboriginal parties within the Project area. A Cultural Heritage Management Plan (CHMP) has been negotiated between Gulf Alumina and the Ankamuthi People. There are two Aboriginal cultural heritage sites recorded on the DATSIP cultural heritage register within the Project Area. The CHMP provides a process by which known heritage values and other potential heritage values within the Project area can be managed. There is the potential that additional Aboriginal cultural heritage values exist within the Project area.

The Ankamuthi (QC1999/026; QUD 6158/98) are the registered native title claimants for the Project area on the south side of the Skardon River. A Section 31 Deed was signed in December 2013 with the Ankamuthi People as the registered native title claimants and the State of Queensland in January 2014 for the mining lease areas under the right to negotiate (RTN) process. The Northern Cape York Group #1 (Registered Native Title Claimants - Federal Court Proceedings QUD157/2011) Determination area extends to the high water mark of the southern side of the Skardon River.

No sites of national, state or regional significance were identified on any registers of non-Indigenous cultural heritage. If sites of historical cultural heritage significance are discovered throughout the life of the Project management measures including avoidance, detailed site assessment and development of site specific management plans are proposed to minimise potential Project impacts on heritage values. The significance of Project impacts on historical cultural heritage is considered to be low.

chapter 24 – cultural heritage and native title

Documents