13/05/2026
What happens to communities whose Country was mined before Native Title existed โ and never compensated?
In the wake of the now landmark Yindjibarndi People v FMG compensation case, Anthony Galanteโs recent article offers an important reminder: the historical impacts of iron ore mining across the Pilbara โ particularly those predating the Native Title system โ remain largely unresolved.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/remedy-should-require-litigation-anthony-galante-gdubc
Early operations by subsidiaries of Rio Tinto and BHP fundamentally altered the Pilbara landscape. The complete removal of mountains such as Mt Whaleback, Mt Tom Price and Mt Goldsworthy โ alongside events like the Marandoo controversy โ has left lasting damage. These are not just environmental impacts; they represent irreversible harm to a cultural landscape more than 50,000 years old. They are scars on Country, on Ngurra, and enduring, intergenerational impacts on First Nations Peoples, their families and their communities. Compounding this, many legacy mining sites have remained in long-term care and maintenance, effectively deferring meaningful rehabilitation obligations.
While these operations were lawfully approved at the time, it is worth asking whether they were ever truly supported by the relevant Traditional Owners. Prior to the Native Title era, consent was not meaningfully sought, nor was compensation negotiated in any equitable way. Token gestures โ housing for an elder in Hedland or Roebunre, a land cruiser here or there, or other limited support for a small number of individuals โ were never a substitute for genuine agreement or fair compensation. This occurred at a time when many First Nations communities in the Pilbara were still denied basic human rights and were subject to systemic disadvantage. Equal pay was not sanctioned in WA under the pastoral industry award in until 1968โ1969.
The absence of compensation for historical mining has contributed to a deeply unequal outcome across the region. Today, there is effectively a two-tier system: those Native Title Prescribed Body Corporates (PBCs) that receive benefits from modern agreements, and those whose Country was impacted prior to Native Title recognition and who have received little to no compensation. The result is visible in disparities across housing, health, education and broader socio-economic outcomes. In my experience, colleagues and community members connected to uncompensated groups continue to face significantly reduced access to essential services compared to those whose Traditional Owner groups benefit from contemporary agreements.
There is no doubt that the Native Title system, despite its imperfections, has delivered transformative change. By requiring mining proponents to negotiate access to land, it has embedded a framework for compensation, recognition and engagement. These agreements have supported stronger, more resilient communities and provided a foundation for future development.
Given this, there is a compelling question for industry: why should historical impacts only be addressed through litigation? Rio Tinto and BHP are well aware of the positive outcomes Native Title agreements have delivered across the Pilbara. Proactively addressing legacy impacts โ rather than resisting or awaiting legal challenge โ would demonstrate genuine commitment to reconciliation and strengthen their social licence to operate.
As an archaeologist, we study change in humans and their cultures over time, and time shows us that no industry is permanent. What endures is people, culture and connection to Country. Building resilience within First Nations communities is a legacy that will outlast any resource project. Addressing historical inequities is not just a legal or financial issue โ it is a moral and social imperative.
Yesterdayโs Federal Court decision awarding $150 million for cultural loss in the Yindjibarndi compensation case is a landmark moment for native title, mining and agreement-making in Australia. The number matters.
