The Forward - Issue 06: Mineral Resources Limited

Mining & Resources · Sustainability Report

Last week the Federal Court handed down the largest native title compensation award in Australian history. Justice Burley ordered Fortescue to pay the Yindjibarndi Ngurra Aboriginal Corporation $150 million for cultural loss arising from the Solomon Hub mine, plus a smaller economic loss component. The judgment ends a legal contest that ran for almost two decades. It also re-prices the legal environment every Australian miner now operates within.
Mineral Resources Limited is one of Australia's largest diversified miners, with iron ore, lithium and mining services operations across the Pilbara and Goldfields. Its operations intersect with seventeen named Native Title determinations, including the Ngarluma / Yindjibarndi determination. The MinRes 2025 Sustainability Report was published in October 2025, while the Yindjibarndi case was reserved for judgment. This week we read that report against last week's decision.

Published 17 October 2025 · Covers year ended 30 June 2025 · 206 pages · GRI 2021 Standards, with reference to SASB and TCFD recommendations. Reviewed and approved by Board and Sustainability Committee. AASB S1/S2 preparation underway.

Iron Ore & Lithium GRI 2021 / TCFD Native Title Exposure

Annotated with plain-English context and our take on what it means for you

Passage 01 — The Governance Frame

"At MinRes, our approach to Aboriginal engagement focuses on creating and sustaining strong relationships with Aboriginal stakeholders and our Native Title groups. These relationships are fundamental to MinRes' success and the security of our social and legal licence to operate. We respect internationally recognised human rights principles, including those contained in the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. We acknowledge and respect Aboriginal People's right to transparent and informed consultation."

Our Take

MinRes references the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, then describes the operative right as "transparent and informed consultation". UNDRIP Article 32 uses different language: free, prior and informed consent. Consultation and consent are not the same legal or moral standard. The Yindjibarndi were consulted throughout the development of the Solomon Hub. They did not consent. The Federal Court has now placed a $150 million figure on what that distinction can be worth in compensation. The drafting choice in this paragraph is worth consideration.

⚠️ Plain English: The international standard is "free, prior and informed consent." MinRes commits to "transparent and informed consultation." One word difference, very different legal bar - and the Yindjibarndi decision just demonstrated what that gap can cost.

Passage 02 — Twelve Agreements Being Modernised

"In FY25, we have been actively negotiating and/or modernising Native Title and Heritage Protection Agreements with 12 Native Title Parties, while also overseeing compliance and implementation for 57 existing agreements ."

Our Take

Twelve agreements modernised in a single reporting period is meaningful work and the disclosure deserves credit. What the report does not include is detail on what "modernised" means in practice. That information gap matters more after 12 May 2026 than it did before. Burley’s reasoning has provided a notional ceiling for native title compensation on large mining projects, and every existing agreement is now implicitly priced against that ceiling. MinRes will know how its modernised agreements relate to that ceiling. The reader does not, and in a post-Burley environment, that is the question stakeholders will increasingly want
answered.

💡Plain English: MinRes is doing the work to update its agreements with Traditional Owners - real, substantive activity. The report does not say what is changing in those updates, and after the Yindjibarndi decision, that detail is what readers will want to see.

Passage 03 — The Site Avoidance Commitment

"We continue to work with and support Traditional Owners in managing their cultural heritage. Our strategic focus is moving beyond simply complying with legislative requirements to a 'site avoidance' model. This will see cultural heritage places avoided to the greatest extent possible across our operations."

Our Take

This is the strongest paragraph in the chapter. Compliance with the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 (WA) was the legal framework under which 124 of the 240 heritage places at Solomon Hub were destroyed - lawfully, under Section 18 approvals. A genuine site avoidance model that goes beyond statutory compliance is precisely the operational posture the post-Juukan, post-Burley environment requires. The commitment is in the report. The disclosure does not yet describe how it is operationalised across the 2,000 cultural heritage places MinRes manages, or how it is reconciled with project sequencing. The direction is right.

💡 Plain English: MinRes commits to avoiding cultural heritage sites rather than relying on legal permission to disturb them. That is the right direction. The next reporting period will need to show what it looks like in practice.

Native Title Determination:

A Federal Court order recognising that a particular group of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander people hold native title rights and interests over a defined area of land or waters under the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth). A determination may be exclusive (the rights exclude others) or non-exclusive. MinRes operations intersect with seventeen named determinations across Western Australia.

Native Title Compensation:

Compensation payable under Part 2 Division 5 of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) for impacts on native title rights and interests caused by acts including the grant of mining tenements. The methodology was established by the High Court in Northern Territory v Griffiths (Timber Creek, 2019) and consists of economic loss, interest, and non-economic (cultural) loss. The Yindjibarndi judgment of 12 May 2026 awarded $150 million in cultural loss on the Solomon Hub tenements - the largest native title compensation award to date.

Free Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC):

The standard set out in Article 32 of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). It requires that Indigenous peoples consent to projects affecting their lands - freely, before approval, and with full information. It is distinct from "consultation," which requires engagement but not agreement. The distinction is central to global mining sustainability frameworks including ICMM, IFC Performance Standards, and the GRI 411 standard.

Section 18, Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 (WA):

The provision under which a person may apply to the WA Minister for consent to use land in a way that would otherwise be an offence against a registered Aboriginal site. Section 18 consents have authorised the destruction of hundreds of heritage places across Western Australia, including the Juukan Gorge rock shelters and 124 of the 240 heritage places destroyed at Fortescue's Solomon Hub. A 2021 replacement Act was passed and then repealed in 2023, leaving the 1972 framework in force.

⛏️ This month at CFS - Stakeholder Engagement & Social Risk

The Burley judgment has changed the cost of getting Native Title relationships wrong. Cantilever helps miners and energy developers translate Traditional Owner engagement frameworks into project execution discipline - Stakeholder Engagement Plans, Social Risk Assessment, and integrated heritage advisory mapped to capital raise cycles through Groundwork™. To discuss how the post-Burley environment affects your existing agreements or your pipeline, get in touch by emailing Bronwyn directly:
[email protected].

CFS Cantilever Future Solutions

ESG & sustainability advisory · Mining & Energy

Perth, Western Australia

Visit our website Unsubscribe Manage preferences

Was this forwarded to you? You're welcome here. Join The Forward →