- Pick & Scroll News
- Posts
- Juukan Gorge Payouts Face Transparency Concerns
Juukan Gorge Payouts Face Transparency Concerns
Rio Tinto’s multimillion-dollar payments to a charity formed to repair the damage at Juukan Gorge aim to honour a cultural commitment, but keeping the exact figures secret has reignited debate about transparency and accountability in Indigenous affairs.
Rio Tinto’s multimillion-dollar payments to a charity formed to repair the damage at Juukan Gorge aim to honour a cultural commitment, but keeping the exact figures secret has reignited debate about transparency and accountability in Indigenous affairs.
The Juukan Gorge Legacy Foundation was created in 2023 by Rio Tinto and the Puutu Kunti Kurrama and Pinikura (PKKP) people in response to the 2020 destruction of the sacred 46,000-year-old site in Western Australia. This foundation is part of a broader agreement to manage the fallout of the event and ensure Indigenous involvement in future mining decisions.
Although the foundation is legally classified as a large charity, with an income exceeding $3 million annually - it’s been granted special permission by federal regulators to withhold detailed financial disclosures. The group argued that publicising the payments could imply a monetary value on Indigenous heritage, which it sees as culturally inappropriate. This led the Australian Charities and Not-For-Profits Commission to approve their request to redact most financial information from public records.
Despite the secrecy, the PKKP community maintains that tight governance standards are in place, saying the foundation's directors present full statements at annual meetings. Critics, however, express concern that this reduced transparency represents a double standard that could undermine public trust, particularly when large sums of money are involved and beneficiaries depend on the outcomes.
This situation highlights a bigger tension playing out in the resource sector: how companies can make reparations while also respecting Indigenous sovereignty, and whether regulatory bodies should bend standard rules to protect cultural sensitivity. But in doing so, it also raises challenging questions about consistent expectations for transparency.