❓ Hon Peter Foss asks about the cessation of logging at Nannup due to Aboriginal heritage concerns, and Hon Kim Chance responds by outlining the actions taken and potential impacts. The Minister decided to wait 48 hours for evidence of an Aboriginal site before resuming logging operations.
AnsweredQoN 108Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to the cessation of logging at Nannup because of Aboriginal issues. (1) What action is the minister taking to resolve the matter as soon as possible? (2) If the matter is not resolved as soon as possible, what impact is it likely to have on both the mill and the town? (3) Is the minister concerned at the possibility of the matter having some impact? Hon KIM CHANCE
AnswerView source ↗
(1)-(3) I thank the member for this question, which relates to an extremely serious matter. Yesterday morning a logging contract team in the Nannup area - the name of the block escapes me - found unauthorised persons on the coupe. When those persons were approached, which the logging contractors must do for health and safety reasons, they claimed they had identified a potential Aboriginal site. The issue is not that Aboriginal sites are in the area, but that there might be. A meeting was later held in Nannup between an officer from the Forest Products Commission and a number of persons, including Mr Ken Colbung and Ms Beth Schultz. Another person at the meeting, a lawyer named Rattigan, claimed to represent the Noongar Land Council.. Rattigan apparently claimed that there was potential for an offence to be committed against section 17 of the Aboriginal Heritage Act if logging operations were to continue. During a later conversation, it transpired that an offence could also be committed against section 18 of the Aboriginal Heritage Act. I was informed around midday yesterday. At that stage the Forest Products Commission had decided to seek advice because threats had been made and it had been pointed out that it might be breaching a law. I considered the issues late yesterday afternoon. I did not have time to seek legal advice, but I read the Act. It seems possible that a breach could be occurring. Certainly, the Noongar Land Council’s legal adviser was of the view that it was possible the Act was being breached. I decided to wait 48 hours until the Noongar Land Council produced evidence of the existence of an Aboriginal site. During the conversation at Nannup yesterday, the Forest Products Commission asked the land council to indicate where those sites were - it is sometimes possible for a site to be inadvertently left off the map. Nobody representing the council was able to indicate any sites. They could say only that sites might exist. My decision was to wait 48 hours until evidence was presented that would give serious cause to believe that section 17 or 18 of the Aboriginal Heritage Act had been breached. If the council fails to produce evidence, normal logging operations will resume. The impact is severe. Three contractors are involved in the coupe, all of whom have now effectively lost two full days of work. When I made my decision last night, I assumed it would rain in Nannup today and that it would not matter that the contractors could not work. The latest advice I have received is that it has not been raining. Those contractors could have worked for both those days. It is unfortunate. I hope it does not indicate a trend of future activities in which people’s lawful pursuits are interfered with. If it is a genuine issue in law, the Noongar Land Council needs the full opportunity to demonstrate that there is a matter of concern. My reading of the Act did not indicate that an authorised site had been interfered with in any way or that such a thing was likely to occur, but I am prepared to allow two days to provide time for the Noongar Land Council to demonstrate the existence of a site.
(1) What action is the minister taking to resolve the matter as soon as possible? (2) If the matter is not resolved as soon as possible, what impact is it likely to have on both the mill and the town? (3) Is the minister concerned at the possibility of the matter having some impact? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: (1)-(3) I thank the member for this question, which relates to an extremely serious matter. Yesterday morning a logging contract team in the Nannup area - the name of the block escapes me - found unauthorised persons on the coupe. When those persons were approached, which the logging contractors must do for health and safety reasons, they claimed they had identified a potential Aboriginal site. The issue is not that Aboriginal sites are in the area, but that there might be. A meeting was later held in Nannup between an officer from the Forest Products Commission and a number of persons, including Mr Ken Colbung and Ms Beth Schultz. Another person at the meeting, a lawyer named Rattigan, claimed to represent the Noongar Land Council.. Rattigan apparently claimed that there was potential for an offence to be committed against section 17 of the Aboriginal Heritage Act if logging operations were to continue. During a later conversation, it transpired that an offence could also be committed against section 18 of the Aboriginal Heritage Act. I was informed around midday yesterday. At that stage the Forest Products Commission had decided to seek advice because threats had been made and it had been pointed out that it might be breaching a law. I considered the issues late yesterday afternoon. I did not have time to seek legal advice, but I read the Act. It seems possible that a breach could be occurring. Certainly, the Noongar Land Council’s legal adviser was of the view that it was possible the Act was being breached. I decided to wait 48 hours until the Noongar Land Council produced evidence of the existence of an Aboriginal site. During the conversation at Nannup yesterday, the Forest Products Commission asked the land council to indicate where those sites were - it is sometimes possible for a site to be inadvertently left off the map. Nobody representing the council was able to indicate any sites. They could say only that sites might exist. My decision was to wait 48 hours until evidence was presented that would give serious cause to believe that section 17 or 18 of the Aboriginal Heritage Act had been breached. If the council fails to produce evidence, normal logging operations will resume. The impact is severe. Three contractors are involved in the coupe, all of whom have now effectively lost two full days of work. When I made my decision last night, I assumed it would rain in Nannup today and that it would not matter that the contractors could not work. The latest advice I have received is that it has not been raining. Those contractors could have worked for both those days. It is unfortunate. I hope it does not indicate a trend of future activities in which people’s lawful pursuits are interfered with. If it is a genuine issue in law, the Noongar Land Council needs the full opportunity to demonstrate that there is a matter of concern. My reading of the Act did not indicate that an authorised site had been interfered with in any way or that such a thing was likely to occur, but I am prepared to allow two days to provide time for the Noongar Land Council to demonstrate the existence of a site.
(2) If the matter is not resolved as soon as possible, what impact is it likely to have on both the mill and the town? (3) Is the minister concerned at the possibility of the matter having some impact? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: (1)-(3) I thank the member for this question, which relates to an extremely serious matter. Yesterday morning a logging contract team in the Nannup area - the name of the block escapes me - found unauthorised persons on the coupe. When those persons were approached, which the logging contractors must do for health and safety reasons, they claimed they had identified a potential Aboriginal site. The issue is not that Aboriginal sites are in the area, but that there might be. A meeting was later held in Nannup between an officer from the Forest Products Commission and a number of persons, including Mr Ken Colbung and Ms Beth Schultz. Another person at the meeting, a lawyer named Rattigan, claimed to represent the Noongar Land Council.. Rattigan apparently claimed that there was potential for an offence to be committed against section 17 of the Aboriginal Heritage Act if logging operations were to continue. During a later conversation, it transpired that an offence could also be committed against section 18 of the Aboriginal Heritage Act. I was informed around midday yesterday. At that stage the Forest Products Commission had decided to seek advice because threats had been made and it had been pointed out that it might be breaching a law. I considered the issues late yesterday afternoon. I did not have time to seek legal advice, but I read the Act. It seems possible that a breach could be occurring. Certainly, the Noongar Land Council’s legal adviser was of the view that it was possible the Act was being breached. I decided to wait 48 hours until the Noongar Land Council produced evidence of the existence of an Aboriginal site. During the conversation at Nannup yesterday, the Forest Products Commission asked the land council to indicate where those sites were - it is sometimes possible for a site to be inadvertently left off the map. Nobody representing the council was able to indicate any sites. They could say only that sites might exist. My decision was to wait 48 hours until evidence was presented that would give serious cause to believe that section 17 or 18 of the Aboriginal Heritage Act had been breached. If the council fails to produce evidence, normal logging operations will resume. The impact is severe. Three contractors are involved in the coupe, all of whom have now effectively lost two full days of work. When I made my decision last night, I assumed it would rain in Nannup today and that it would not matter that the contractors could not work. The latest advice I have received is that it has not been raining. Those contractors could have worked for both those days. It is unfortunate. I hope it does not indicate a trend of future activities in which people’s lawful pursuits are interfered with. If it is a genuine issue in law, the Noongar Land Council needs the full opportunity to demonstrate that there is a matter of concern. My reading of the Act did not indicate that an authorised site had been interfered with in any way or that such a thing was likely to occur, but I am prepared to allow two days to provide time for the Noongar Land Council to demonstrate the existence of a site.
(3) Is the minister concerned at the possibility of the matter having some impact? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: (1)-(3) I thank the member for this question, which relates to an extremely serious matter. Yesterday morning a logging contract team in the Nannup area - the name of the block escapes me - found unauthorised persons on the coupe. When those persons were approached, which the logging contractors must do for health and safety reasons, they claimed they had identified a potential Aboriginal site. The issue is not that Aboriginal sites are in the area, but that there might be. A meeting was later held in Nannup between an officer from the Forest Products Commission and a number of persons, including Mr Ken Colbung and Ms Beth Schultz. Another person at the meeting, a lawyer named Rattigan, claimed to represent the Noongar Land Council.. Rattigan apparently claimed that there was potential for an offence to be committed against section 17 of the Aboriginal Heritage Act if logging operations were to continue. During a later conversation, it transpired that an offence could also be committed against section 18 of the Aboriginal Heritage Act. I was informed around midday yesterday. At that stage the Forest Products Commission had decided to seek advice because threats had been made and it had been pointed out that it might be breaching a law. I considered the issues late yesterday afternoon. I did not have time to seek legal advice, but I read the Act. It seems possible that a breach could be occurring. Certainly, the Noongar Land Council’s legal adviser was of the view that it was possible the Act was being breached. I decided to wait 48 hours until the Noongar Land Council produced evidence of the existence of an Aboriginal site. During the conversation at Nannup yesterday, the Forest Products Commission asked the land council to indicate where those sites were - it is sometimes possible for a site to be inadvertently left off the map. Nobody representing the council was able to indicate any sites. They could say only that sites might exist. My decision was to wait 48 hours until evidence was presented that would give serious cause to believe that section 17 or 18 of the Aboriginal Heritage Act had been breached. If the council fails to produce evidence, normal logging operations will resume. The impact is severe. Three contractors are involved in the coupe, all of whom have now effectively lost two full days of work. When I made my decision last night, I assumed it would rain in Nannup today and that it would not matter that the contractors could not work. The latest advice I have received is that it has not been raining. Those contractors could have worked for both those days. It is unfortunate. I hope it does not indicate a trend of future activities in which people’s lawful pursuits are interfered with. If it is a genuine issue in law, the Noongar Land Council needs the full opportunity to demonstrate that there is a matter of concern. My reading of the Act did not indicate that an authorised site had been interfered with in any way or that such a thing was likely to occur, but I am prepared to allow two days to provide time for the Noongar Land Council to demonstrate the existence of a site.
Hon KIM CHANCE replied: (1)-(3) I thank the member for this question, which relates to an extremely serious matter. Yesterday morning a logging contract team in the Nannup area - the name of the block escapes me - found unauthorised persons on the coupe. When those persons were approached, which the logging contractors must do for health and safety reasons, they claimed they had identified a potential Aboriginal site. The issue is not that Aboriginal sites are in the area, but that there might be. A meeting was later held in Nannup between an officer from the Forest Products Commission and a number of persons, including Mr Ken Colbung and Ms Beth Schultz. Another person at the meeting, a lawyer named Rattigan, claimed to represent the Noongar Land Council.. Rattigan apparently claimed that there was potential for an offence to be committed against section 17 of the Aboriginal Heritage Act if logging operations were to continue. During a later conversation, it transpired that an offence could also be committed against section 18 of the Aboriginal Heritage Act. I was informed around midday yesterday. At that stage the Forest Products Commission had decided to seek advice because threats had been made and it had been pointed out that it might be breaching a law. I considered the issues late yesterday afternoon. I did not have time to seek legal advice, but I read the Act. It seems possible that a breach could be occurring. Certainly, the Noongar Land Council’s legal adviser was of the view that it was possible the Act was being breached. I decided to wait 48 hours until the Noongar Land Council produced evidence of the existence of an Aboriginal site. During the conversation at Nannup yesterday, the Forest Products Commission asked the land council to indicate where those sites were - it is sometimes possible for a site to be inadvertently left off the map. Nobody representing the council was able to indicate any sites. They could say only that sites might exist. My decision was to wait 48 hours until evidence was presented that would give serious cause to believe that section 17 or 18 of the Aboriginal Heritage Act had been breached. If the council fails to produce evidence, normal logging operations will resume. The impact is severe. Three contractors are involved in the coupe, all of whom have now effectively lost two full days of work. When I made my decision last night, I assumed it would rain in Nannup today and that it would not matter that the contractors could not work. The latest advice I have received is that it has not been raining. Those contractors could have worked for both those days. It is unfortunate. I hope it does not indicate a trend of future activities in which people’s lawful pursuits are interfered with. If it is a genuine issue in law, the Noongar Land Council needs the full opportunity to demonstrate that there is a matter of concern. My reading of the Act did not indicate that an authorised site had been interfered with in any way or that such a thing was likely to occur, but I am prepared to allow two days to provide time for the Noongar Land Council to demonstrate the existence of a site.
(1)-(3) I thank the member for this question, which relates to an extremely serious matter. Yesterday morning a logging contract team in the Nannup area - the name of the block escapes me - found unauthorised persons on the coupe. When those persons were approached, which the logging contractors must do for health and safety reasons, they claimed they had identified a potential Aboriginal site. The issue is not that Aboriginal sites are in the area, but that there might be. A meeting was later held in Nannup between an officer from the Forest Products Commission and a number of persons, including Mr Ken Colbung and Ms Beth Schultz. Another person at the meeting, a lawyer named Rattigan, claimed to represent the Noongar Land Council.. Rattigan apparently claimed that there was potential for an offence to be committed against section 17 of the Aboriginal Heritage Act if logging operations were to continue. During a later conversation, it transpired that an offence could also be committed against section 18 of the Aboriginal Heritage Act. I was informed around midday yesterday. At that stage the Forest Products Commission had decided to seek advice because threats had been made and it had been pointed out that it might be breaching a law. I considered the issues late yesterday afternoon. I did not have time to seek legal advice, but I read the Act. It seems possible that a breach could be occurring. Certainly, the Noongar Land Council’s legal adviser was of the view that it was possible the Act was being breached. I decided to wait 48 hours until the Noongar Land Council produced evidence of the existence of an Aboriginal site. During the conversation at Nannup yesterday, the Forest Products Commission asked the land council to indicate where those sites were - it is sometimes possible for a site to be inadvertently left off the map. Nobody representing the council was able to indicate any sites. They could say only that sites might exist. My decision was to wait 48 hours until evidence was presented that would give serious cause to believe that section 17 or 18 of the Aboriginal Heritage Act had been breached. If the council fails to produce evidence, normal logging operations will resume. The impact is severe. Three contractors are involved in the coupe, all of whom have now effectively lost two full days of work. When I made my decision last night, I assumed it would rain in Nannup today and that it would not matter that the contractors could not work. The latest advice I have received is that it has not been raining. Those contractors could have worked for both those days. It is unfortunate. I hope it does not indicate a trend of future activities in which people’s lawful pursuits are interfered with. If it is a genuine issue in law, the Noongar Land Council needs the full opportunity to demonstrate that there is a matter of concern. My reading of the Act did not indicate that an authorised site had been interfered with in any way or that such a thing was likely to occur, but I am prepared to allow two days to provide time for the Noongar Land Council to demonstrate the existence of a site.
The impact is severe. Three contractors are involved in the coupe, all of whom have now effectively lost two full days of work. When I made my decision last night, I assumed it would rain in Nannup today and that it would not matter that the contractors could not work. The latest advice I have received is that it has not been raining. Those contractors could have worked for both those days. It is unfortunate. I hope it does not indicate a trend of future activities in which people’s lawful pursuits are interfered with. If it is a genuine issue in law, the Noongar Land Council needs the full opportunity to demonstrate that there is a matter of concern. My reading of the Act did not indicate that an authorised site had been interfered with in any way or that such a thing was likely to occur, but I am prepared to allow two days to provide time for the Noongar Land Council to demonstrate the existence of a site.
(1) What action is the minister taking to resolve the matter as soon as possible? (2) If the matter is not resolved as soon as possible, what impact is it likely to have on both the mill and the town? (3) Is the minister concerned at the possibility of the matter having some impact? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: (1)-(3) I thank the member for this question, which relates to an extremely serious matter. Yesterday morning a logging contract team in the Nannup area - the name of the block escapes me - found unauthorised persons on the coupe. When those persons were approached, which the logging contractors must do for health and safety reasons, they claimed they had identified a potential Aboriginal site. The issue is not that Aboriginal sites are in the area, but that there might be. A meeting was later held in Nannup between an officer from the Forest Products Commission and a number of persons, including Mr Ken Colbung and Ms Beth Schultz. Another person at the meeting, a lawyer named Rattigan, claimed to represent the Noongar Land Council.. Rattigan apparently claimed that there was potential for an offence to be committed against section 17 of the Aboriginal Heritage Act if logging operations were to continue. During a later conversation, it transpired that an offence could also be committed against section 18 of the Aboriginal Heritage Act. I was informed around midday yesterday. At that stage the Forest Products Commission had decided to seek advice because threats had been made and it had been pointed out that it might be breaching a law. I considered the issues late yesterday afternoon. I did not have time to seek legal advice, but I read the Act. It seems possible that a breach could be occurring. Certainly, the Noongar Land Council’s legal adviser was of the view that it was possible the Act was being breached. I decided to wait 48 hours until the Noongar Land Council produced evidence of the existence of an Aboriginal site. During the conversation at Nannup yesterday, the Forest Products Commission asked the land council to indicate where those sites were - it is sometimes possible for a site to be inadvertently left off the map. Nobody representing the council was able to indicate any sites. They could say only that sites might exist. My decision was to wait 48 hours until evidence was presented that would give serious cause to believe that section 17 or 18 of the Aboriginal Heritage Act had been breached. If the council fails to produce evidence, normal logging operations will resume. The impact is severe. Three contractors are involved in the coupe, all of whom have now effectively lost two full days of work. When I made my decision last night, I assumed it would rain in Nannup today and that it would not matter that the contractors could not work. The latest advice I have received is that it has not been raining. Those contractors could have worked for both those days. It is unfortunate. I hope it does not indicate a trend of future activities in which people’s lawful pursuits are interfered with. If it is a genuine issue in law, the Noongar Land Council needs the full opportunity to demonstrate that there is a matter of concern. My reading of the Act did not indicate that an authorised site had been interfered with in any way or that such a thing was likely to occur, but I am prepared to allow two days to provide time for the Noongar Land Council to demonstrate the existence of a site.
(2) If the matter is not resolved as soon as possible, what impact is it likely to have on both the mill and the town? (3) Is the minister concerned at the possibility of the matter having some impact? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: (1)-(3) I thank the member for this question, which relates to an extremely serious matter. Yesterday morning a logging contract team in the Nannup area - the name of the block escapes me - found unauthorised persons on the coupe. When those persons were approached, which the logging contractors must do for health and safety reasons, they claimed they had identified a potential Aboriginal site. The issue is not that Aboriginal sites are in the area, but that there might be. A meeting was later held in Nannup between an officer from the Forest Products Commission and a number of persons, including Mr Ken Colbung and Ms Beth Schultz. Another person at the meeting, a lawyer named Rattigan, claimed to represent the Noongar Land Council.. Rattigan apparently claimed that there was potential for an offence to be committed against section 17 of the Aboriginal Heritage Act if logging operations were to continue. During a later conversation, it transpired that an offence could also be committed against section 18 of the Aboriginal Heritage Act. I was informed around midday yesterday. At that stage the Forest Products Commission had decided to seek advice because threats had been made and it had been pointed out that it might be breaching a law. I considered the issues late yesterday afternoon. I did not have time to seek legal advice, but I read the Act. It seems possible that a breach could be occurring. Certainly, the Noongar Land Council’s legal adviser was of the view that it was possible the Act was being breached. I decided to wait 48 hours until the Noongar Land Council produced evidence of the existence of an Aboriginal site. During the conversation at Nannup yesterday, the Forest Products Commission asked the land council to indicate where those sites were - it is sometimes possible for a site to be inadvertently left off the map. Nobody representing the council was able to indicate any sites. They could say only that sites might exist. My decision was to wait 48 hours until evidence was presented that would give serious cause to believe that section 17 or 18 of the Aboriginal Heritage Act had been breached. If the council fails to produce evidence, normal logging operations will resume. The impact is severe. Three contractors are involved in the coupe, all of whom have now effectively lost two full days of work. When I made my decision last night, I assumed it would rain in Nannup today and that it would not matter that the contractors could not work. The latest advice I have received is that it has not been raining. Those contractors could have worked for both those days. It is unfortunate. I hope it does not indicate a trend of future activities in which people’s lawful pursuits are interfered with. If it is a genuine issue in law, the Noongar Land Council needs the full opportunity to demonstrate that there is a matter of concern. My reading of the Act did not indicate that an authorised site had been interfered with in any way or that such a thing was likely to occur, but I am prepared to allow two days to provide time for the Noongar Land Council to demonstrate the existence of a site.
(3) Is the minister concerned at the possibility of the matter having some impact? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: (1)-(3) I thank the member for this question, which relates to an extremely serious matter. Yesterday morning a logging contract team in the Nannup area - the name of the block escapes me - found unauthorised persons on the coupe. When those persons were approached, which the logging contractors must do for health and safety reasons, they claimed they had identified a potential Aboriginal site. The issue is not that Aboriginal sites are in the area, but that there might be. A meeting was later held in Nannup between an officer from the Forest Products Commission and a number of persons, including Mr Ken Colbung and Ms Beth Schultz. Another person at the meeting, a lawyer named Rattigan, claimed to represent the Noongar Land Council.. Rattigan apparently claimed that there was potential for an offence to be committed against section 17 of the Aboriginal Heritage Act if logging operations were to continue. During a later conversation, it transpired that an offence could also be committed against section 18 of the Aboriginal Heritage Act. I was informed around midday yesterday. At that stage the Forest Products Commission had decided to seek advice because threats had been made and it had been pointed out that it might be breaching a law. I considered the issues late yesterday afternoon. I did not have time to seek legal advice, but I read the Act. It seems possible that a breach could be occurring. Certainly, the Noongar Land Council’s legal adviser was of the view that it was possible the Act was being breached. I decided to wait 48 hours until the Noongar Land Council produced evidence of the existence of an Aboriginal site. During the conversation at Nannup yesterday, the Forest Products Commission asked the land council to indicate where those sites were - it is sometimes possible for a site to be inadvertently left off the map. Nobody representing the council was able to indicate any sites. They could say only that sites might exist. My decision was to wait 48 hours until evidence was presented that would give serious cause to believe that section 17 or 18 of the Aboriginal Heritage Act had been breached. If the council fails to produce evidence, normal logging operations will resume. The impact is severe. Three contractors are involved in the coupe, all of whom have now effectively lost two full days of work. When I made my decision last night, I assumed it would rain in Nannup today and that it would not matter that the contractors could not work. The latest advice I have received is that it has not been raining. Those contractors could have worked for both those days. It is unfortunate. I hope it does not indicate a trend of future activities in which people’s lawful pursuits are interfered with. If it is a genuine issue in law, the Noongar Land Council needs the full opportunity to demonstrate that there is a matter of concern. My reading of the Act did not indicate that an authorised site had been interfered with in any way or that such a thing was likely to occur, but I am prepared to allow two days to provide time for the Noongar Land Council to demonstrate the existence of a site.
Hon KIM CHANCE replied: (1)-(3) I thank the member for this question, which relates to an extremely serious matter. Yesterday morning a logging contract team in the Nannup area - the name of the block escapes me - found unauthorised persons on the coupe. When those persons were approached, which the logging contractors must do for health and safety reasons, they claimed they had identified a potential Aboriginal site. The issue is not that Aboriginal sites are in the area, but that there might be. A meeting was later held in Nannup between an officer from the Forest Products Commission and a number of persons, including Mr Ken Colbung and Ms Beth Schultz. Another person at the meeting, a lawyer named Rattigan, claimed to represent the Noongar Land Council.. Rattigan apparently claimed that there was potential for an offence to be committed against section 17 of the Aboriginal Heritage Act if logging operations were to continue. During a later conversation, it transpired that an offence could also be committed against section 18 of the Aboriginal Heritage Act. I was informed around midday yesterday. At that stage the Forest Products Commission had decided to seek advice because threats had been made and it had been pointed out that it might be breaching a law. I considered the issues late yesterday afternoon. I did not have time to seek legal advice, but I read the Act. It seems possible that a breach could be occurring. Certainly, the Noongar Land Council’s legal adviser was of the view that it was possible the Act was being breached. I decided to wait 48 hours until the Noongar Land Council produced evidence of the existence of an Aboriginal site. During the conversation at Nannup yesterday, the Forest Products Commission asked the land council to indicate where those sites were - it is sometimes possible for a site to be inadvertently left off the map. Nobody representing the council was able to indicate any sites. They could say only that sites might exist. My decision was to wait 48 hours until evidence was presented that would give serious cause to believe that section 17 or 18 of the Aboriginal Heritage Act had been breached. If the council fails to produce evidence, normal logging operations will resume. The impact is severe. Three contractors are involved in the coupe, all of whom have now effectively lost two full days of work. When I made my decision last night, I assumed it would rain in Nannup today and that it would not matter that the contractors could not work. The latest advice I have received is that it has not been raining. Those contractors could have worked for both those days. It is unfortunate. I hope it does not indicate a trend of future activities in which people’s lawful pursuits are interfered with. If it is a genuine issue in law, the Noongar Land Council needs the full opportunity to demonstrate that there is a matter of concern. My reading of the Act did not indicate that an authorised site had been interfered with in any way or that such a thing was likely to occur, but I am prepared to allow two days to provide time for the Noongar Land Council to demonstrate the existence of a site.
(1)-(3) I thank the member for this question, which relates to an extremely serious matter. Yesterday morning a logging contract team in the Nannup area - the name of the block escapes me - found unauthorised persons on the coupe. When those persons were approached, which the logging contractors must do for health and safety reasons, they claimed they had identified a potential Aboriginal site. The issue is not that Aboriginal sites are in the area, but that there might be. A meeting was later held in Nannup between an officer from the Forest Products Commission and a number of persons, including Mr Ken Colbung and Ms Beth Schultz. Another person at the meeting, a lawyer named Rattigan, claimed to represent the Noongar Land Council.. Rattigan apparently claimed that there was potential for an offence to be committed against section 17 of the Aboriginal Heritage Act if logging operations were to continue. During a later conversation, it transpired that an offence could also be committed against section 18 of the Aboriginal Heritage Act. I was informed around midday yesterday. At that stage the Forest Products Commission had decided to seek advice because threats had been made and it had been pointed out that it might be breaching a law. I considered the issues late yesterday afternoon. I did not have time to seek legal advice, but I read the Act. It seems possible that a breach could be occurring. Certainly, the Noongar Land Council’s legal adviser was of the view that it was possible the Act was being breached. I decided to wait 48 hours until the Noongar Land Council produced evidence of the existence of an Aboriginal site. During the conversation at Nannup yesterday, the Forest Products Commission asked the land council to indicate where those sites were - it is sometimes possible for a site to be inadvertently left off the map. Nobody representing the council was able to indicate any sites. They could say only that sites might exist. My decision was to wait 48 hours until evidence was presented that would give serious cause to believe that section 17 or 18 of the Aboriginal Heritage Act had been breached. If the council fails to produce evidence, normal logging operations will resume. The impact is severe. Three contractors are involved in the coupe, all of whom have now effectively lost two full days of work. When I made my decision last night, I assumed it would rain in Nannup today and that it would not matter that the contractors could not work. The latest advice I have received is that it has not been raining. Those contractors could have worked for both those days. It is unfortunate. I hope it does not indicate a trend of future activities in which people’s lawful pursuits are interfered with. If it is a genuine issue in law, the Noongar Land Council needs the full opportunity to demonstrate that there is a matter of concern. My reading of the Act did not indicate that an authorised site had been interfered with in any way or that such a thing was likely to occur, but I am prepared to allow two days to provide time for the Noongar Land Council to demonstrate the existence of a site.
The impact is severe. Three contractors are involved in the coupe, all of whom have now effectively lost two full days of work. When I made my decision last night, I assumed it would rain in Nannup today and that it would not matter that the contractors could not work. The latest advice I have received is that it has not been raining. Those contractors could have worked for both those days. It is unfortunate. I hope it does not indicate a trend of future activities in which people’s lawful pursuits are interfered with. If it is a genuine issue in law, the Noongar Land Council needs the full opportunity to demonstrate that there is a matter of concern. My reading of the Act did not indicate that an authorised site had been interfered with in any way or that such a thing was likely to occur, but I am prepared to allow two days to provide time for the Noongar Land Council to demonstrate the existence of a site.
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.