Narungga concerns intensify over Hillside mine works

A dispute over cultural heritage, consultation and benefit-sharing has sharpened on South Australia’s Yorke Peninsula, with Narungga representatives accusing Rex Minerals of pushing ahead with major mine development without the agreements they say should already be in place.

At the centre of the dispute is the Hillside copper project, south of Ardrossan, which is expected to produce 75,000 tonnes of copper and 60,000 ounces of gold a year. Narungga Nation Aboriginal Corporation says work has begun without a cultural heritage plan and without an Indigenous benefits agreement that reflects current realities on Country.

NNAC chief negotiator Garry Goldsmith said: “We believe that their machinery is just destroying, daily, every minute of every day … our cultural heritage.” He also rejected suggestions that Narungga people were seeking charity rather than a meaningful role in the project. “We’re not looking for hand-outs” he said. “What we are looking for from Rex is for a hand-up in regards to giving us opportunities.”

The disagreement goes beyond process. Lawyers acting for the corporation have alleged that a culturally significant area known as Wombat Gully was destroyed by mistake and that numerous artefacts were already “lost or destroyed”. Another Narungga man, Jamie Agius said: “There’s a lot of destruction there.” He added: “When you connect back with Country and come back to see it and it’s just bulldozed through.”

Rex Minerals says it has acted lawfully and maintained engagement over many years. Chief executive Jason Schell said: “Rex Minerals has continuously engaged with the Narungga Nation Aboriginal Corporation.” He also said the company’s package was “being negotiated in good faith and provided voluntarily despite native title over the Hillside site being extinguished”.

That legal point is central to the dispute. Native title over the mine site has been extinguished because the land was formerly freehold but Aboriginal heritage protections still apply. That leaves a familiar tension in Australian resource development: even where native title no longer exists in a technical legal sense, cultural obligation and heritage significance remain very much alive for Traditional Owners.

The case is likely to draw wider attention because it captures a broader national question about what meaningful consent, heritage protection and economic participation should look like when large developments move from planning into construction. For Narungga representatives, the issue is not only damage already alleged.. but whether Aboriginal authority is being treated as a genuine partner in decisions affecting Country.