[ad_1]
Three mining executives who detonated a 46,000-year-old meAustralian indigenous heritage site to expand an iron ore mine, then insisted that did nothing wrong“They are leaving the company.”
Rio Tinto destroyed the rock shelters of Juukan 1 and Juukan 2 in the Pilbara region of Western Australia in May 2020, destroying a site of great cultural importance for the Puutu Kunti Kurrama and Pinikura (PKKP) people. Technically, the firm did this in full compliance with the law, having obtained the consent of a minister years before under Section 18 of the Australian Law. Aboriginal heritage law. In 2014, Rio Tinto funded a final archaeological expedition to extract important elements from the rock shelters, yielding finds that Sydney Morning Herald reported “The importance exceeded all expectations”, such as grinding and striking stones, 28,000year-old bone tool, and parts of a 4000-year-ancient human hair belt.
Archaeologists on the expedition recommended that the Juukan 1 and Juukan 2 sites be subject to further exploration. Instead, Rio Tinto started with the detonation, claiming at the last minute that the charges could not be safely dropped. The company then issued a statement stating that he had worked “constructively together with the people of the PKKP on a variety of heritage issues” and to “protect places of cultural importance to the group.” He apparently apologized in June, but iron ore business chief Chris Salisbury then cleared that the company did not actually regret blowing up the site, only the “distress the event caused.”
Now in Rio Tinto, according to CNN, are CEO Jean-Sébastien Jacques, Salisbury, and corporate relations group executive Simone Nivens. Jacques will remain until his successor is elected or until the end of March. Salisbury will step down immediately and both he and Nivens will leave the company entirely by the end of the year. Although executives will collectively be penalized about $ 5 million in bonuses, they will continue to collect an exit payment that includes long-term bonuses.
Rio Tinto President Simon Thompson told CNN in a statement: “WWhat happened in Juukan was wrong. We are determined to ensure that the destruction of a heritage site of such exceptional archaeological and cultural importance never occurs again in a Rio Tinto operation. “
G / O Media can get a commission
CEO Jamie Lowe of the National Native Title Council, representing IIndigenous groups in Australia tweeted that while the NTTC “welcomes” the removal of executives, “this is not the end.”
“We cannot and will not allow this kind of devastation to happen again,” he said. PKKP Aboriginal Corporation told New York Times in a sentence.
Hesta, a retirement fund that has a stake in Rio Tinto, previously demanded a public investigation and called the removal of the executives inappropriate.be quiet.
“Mining companies that do not deal fairly and in good faith with traditional owners expose the company to legal and reputational risks,” the fund said. according to the Guardian. “These risks increase the longer these agreements are in force. Without an independent review, we cannot adequately assess these risks and understand how they may affect value. We have lost confidence that the company can do this on its own. “
Allan Fels, an economist and lawyer consulted by Hesta, told The Guardian: “TThere are potential misconduct issues here, both legally and ethically. They must be investigated independently. “
According to a review by the newspaper, mining companies have obtained ministerial permission to destroy more than 100 ancient indigenous sites in Western Australia alone. This is far from the first Rio Tinto rodeo in violating human rights. TThe company has also been charged with “grossly unethical conduct” by Norwegian pension fund. Australian indigenous lawyer and land rights activist Noel Pearson told the Times that the resignations were a big step forward and that, “meIn the past, Indigenous Peoples had no one to trust in vandalism like this. “But University of Queensland sociologist Kristen Lyons told the newspaper that nothing had changed about structural laws favoring women. corporations about meindigenous peoples, nor the exits of the executives “addressed the profound inequality in who has rights over decision-making.”
