ÌÇÐÄvlogÈë¿Ú

Importantly we had the senior knowledge holders of the Yinhawangka people out on Country providing information, informing us about what was important and what we needed to do to protect their sites. They ensured that younger Yinhawangka people were also involved in the process so that there was that cross-generational transfer of cultural knowledge.

The difference with this process is that Yinhawangka people led the itinerary when we were out on Country on these field trips, the Yinhawangka people led ÌÇÐÄvlogÈë¿Úpeople around and showed us what was important. And it didn't matter if it was off tenement, away from the proposal, because it was important to the Yinhawangka people to explain the connectivity of sites in the region so that we could get a really good understanding of what was important to protect.

Another major difference was that the plan has a range of management actions and commitments, and these commitments range from land access to ensuring the ongoing monitoring of the heritage sites collecting data, providing the data to the Yinhawangka Aboriginal Corporation and ensuring that we manage water appropriately. One of the commitments is to establish a water management committee.

There's a really important spring adjacent to the Western Range Mine proposal. The Yinhawangka people were concerned about potential impacts on that spring. So after working through the consultation process, we committed to removing two mine pits, which equates to a few million tonnes of iron ore from the mine plan.

It was really important that we clearly demonstrated to the Yinhawangka people that we were prepared to listen and to understand their concerns.