❓ Hon Robin Chapple questions the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs regarding inconsistencies in the assessment dates of Aboriginal heritage sites under Section 5(b) of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972, specifically concerning advice from the State Solicitor's Office. The Minister clarifies the reassessment process and confirms the sites were not reassessed as a result of the State Solicitor's advice.
AnsweredQoN 708Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
ABORIGINAL HERITAGE ACT — HERITAGE SITES
708. Hon ROBIN CHAPPLE to the Minister
for Aboriginal Affairs:
I rise with a smile on my face after the answer to the previous
question.
I refer to the answer to question
without notice 476 asked in the Legislative Council on Wednesday, 6 May 2015,
which states that the Aboriginal Cultural Material Committee chair ''sought
advice on section 5(b) of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 on 31 August 2012'',
and to question without notice 240 asked in the Legislative Council on 17 March
2015, which states that at a meeting on 21 November 2012, the ACMC ''considered
and applied the State Solicitor's Office advice dated 1 November 2012''.
(1) With regards
to the aforementioned, why does the tabled paper provided by the minister as
part of his answer to question without notice 378 in the Legislative Council on
5 May 2015, state —
(a) site 22, ID
24581, Wati Kutjarra Tjukurpa, was assessed as not meeting section 5(b) on 8 � February 2012; and
(b) site 15, ID
22886, Southern River Junction, was assessed as not meeting section 5(b) on 10 � October 2012?
(2) Was advice
from the State Solicitor's Office on section 5(b) of the Aboriginal
Heritage Act 1972 sought by the ACMC to justify the assessment of both these
heritage places as ''not a site''?
(3) If no to (2),
why was the incorrect information provided by the minister and/or his
department?
708. Hon ROBIN CHAPPLE to the Minister
for Aboriginal Affairs:
I rise with a smile on my face after the answer to the previous
question.
I refer to the answer to question
without notice 476 asked in the Legislative Council on Wednesday, 6 May 2015,
which states that the Aboriginal Cultural Material Committee chair ''sought
advice on section 5(b) of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 on 31 August 2012'',
and to question without notice 240 asked in the Legislative Council on 17 March
2015, which states that at a meeting on 21 November 2012, the ACMC ''considered
and applied the State Solicitor's Office advice dated 1 November 2012''.
(1) With regards
to the aforementioned, why does the tabled paper provided by the minister as
part of his answer to question without notice 378 in the Legislative Council on
5 May 2015, state —
(a) site 22, ID
24581, Wati Kutjarra Tjukurpa, was assessed as not meeting section 5(b) on 8 � February 2012; and
(b) site 15, ID
22886, Southern River Junction, was assessed as not meeting section 5(b) on 10 � October 2012?
(2) Was advice
from the State Solicitor's Office on section 5(b) of the Aboriginal
Heritage Act 1972 sought by the ACMC to justify the assessment of both these
heritage places as ''not a site''?
(3) If no to (2),
why was the incorrect information provided by the minister and/or his
department?
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the honourable member for
some notice of the very lengthy question.
(1) The
reassessment process represents a significant amount of work and the Department
of Aboriginal Affairs has been working on this as a matter of priority. The
list provided by the Department of Aboriginal Affairs included sites that changed
status to ''not a site'' as a result of assessment by the
Aboriginal Cultural Material Committee since the start of 2012. The two sites
referred to in the question were reassessed by the Aboriginal Cultural Material
Committee in 2012 as not meeting the requirements of section 5(b) of the
Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972, but not as a result of the State Solicitor's
advice dated 1 November 2012. The Department of Aboriginal Affairs continues to
manually go through its historical records, including previous Aboriginal
Cultural Material Committee decisions dating back to 2012, as well as its
heritage management databases.
(2) No.
(3) See response to (1).
some notice of the very lengthy question.
(1) The
reassessment process represents a significant amount of work and the Department
of Aboriginal Affairs has been working on this as a matter of priority. The
list provided by the Department of Aboriginal Affairs included sites that changed
status to ''not a site'' as a result of assessment by the
Aboriginal Cultural Material Committee since the start of 2012. The two sites
referred to in the question were reassessed by the Aboriginal Cultural Material
Committee in 2012 as not meeting the requirements of section 5(b) of the
Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972, but not as a result of the State Solicitor's
advice dated 1 November 2012. The Department of Aboriginal Affairs continues to
manually go through its historical records, including previous Aboriginal
Cultural Material Committee decisions dating back to 2012, as well as its
heritage management databases.
(2) No.
(3) See response to (1).
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.