❓ (1) In what part of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 , the Aboriginal Heritage Regulations 1974 , the Environmental Protection Act 1986 or the Environmental Protection Regulations 1987 is it stated th
AnsweredQoN 420Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
(1) In what part of the
Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972
, the
Aboriginal Heritage Regulations 1974
, the
Environmental Protection Act 1986
or the
Environmental Protection Regulations 1987
is it stated that if the Environmental Protection Authority had not completed an environmental impact assessment under the provisions of the
Environmental Protection Act 1986
, the Minister was not authorised by law to make such a section 18 decision?
(2) Why was the Minister not authorised by law to make such a decision in respect of the Apache section 18 application?
(3) In respect of (1) and (2), who in the Department of Indigenous Affairs (DIA)advised the Minister of such a legal requirement?
(4) Are the registered claimants of the area the Yaburara Mardudhunera WC96/089 and the Wong-Goo-Tt-Oo WC98/040?
(5) In respect of the insufficient consultation by Apache Northwest Pty Ltd with two native title groups regarding the construction and future operation of the Devil Creek gas plant and associated infrastructure, were the two groups referred to in the letter the Ngarluma and Kuruma Marthudunere Native Title Groups?
(6) Who within the DIA made the decision that the Ngarluma and Kuruma Marthudunere Native Title Groups should be consulted by Apache Northwest Pty Ltd in respect of their development?
(7) On what basis was the decision made that the Ngarluma and Kuruma Marthudunere Native Title Groups should be consulted by Apache Northwest Pty Ltd in respect of their development and why?
(8) Was any correspondence, communication or presentation received by the ACMC, the DIA or the Minister from the Ngarluma Native Title Group or entities representing or purporting to represent their views that they should be consulted?
(9) If yes to (8), from whom, on what date and by what method was this information received?
(10) Was any correspondence, communication or presentation received by the ACMC, the DIA or the Minister from the Kuruma Marthudunere Native Title Group or entities representing or purporting to represent their views that they should be consulted?
(11) If yes to (10), from whom on what date and by what method was this information received?
(12) If yes to (8) and (10), will the Minister table any correspondence associated with any such communication?
(13) If no to (12), why not?
Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972
, the
Aboriginal Heritage Regulations 1974
, the
Environmental Protection Act 1986
or the
Environmental Protection Regulations 1987
is it stated that if the Environmental Protection Authority had not completed an environmental impact assessment under the provisions of the
Environmental Protection Act 1986
, the Minister was not authorised by law to make such a section 18 decision?
(2) Why was the Minister not authorised by law to make such a decision in respect of the Apache section 18 application?
(3) In respect of (1) and (2), who in the Department of Indigenous Affairs (DIA)advised the Minister of such a legal requirement?
(4) Are the registered claimants of the area the Yaburara Mardudhunera WC96/089 and the Wong-Goo-Tt-Oo WC98/040?
(5) In respect of the insufficient consultation by Apache Northwest Pty Ltd with two native title groups regarding the construction and future operation of the Devil Creek gas plant and associated infrastructure, were the two groups referred to in the letter the Ngarluma and Kuruma Marthudunere Native Title Groups?
(6) Who within the DIA made the decision that the Ngarluma and Kuruma Marthudunere Native Title Groups should be consulted by Apache Northwest Pty Ltd in respect of their development?
(7) On what basis was the decision made that the Ngarluma and Kuruma Marthudunere Native Title Groups should be consulted by Apache Northwest Pty Ltd in respect of their development and why?
(8) Was any correspondence, communication or presentation received by the ACMC, the DIA or the Minister from the Ngarluma Native Title Group or entities representing or purporting to represent their views that they should be consulted?
(9) If yes to (8), from whom, on what date and by what method was this information received?
(10) Was any correspondence, communication or presentation received by the ACMC, the DIA or the Minister from the Kuruma Marthudunere Native Title Group or entities representing or purporting to represent their views that they should be consulted?
(11) If yes to (10), from whom on what date and by what method was this information received?
(12) If yes to (8) and (10), will the Minister table any correspondence associated with any such communication?
(13) If no to (12), why not?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
5 May 2009
Responded by
Minister for Transport representing the Minister for Indigenous Affairs
Response time
47 days
Section 41 of the
Environmental Protection Act 1986
.
The then Minister for Indigenous Affairs made a decision on those areas of the section 18 Notice that were not restrained by the provisions of section 41 of the
Environmental Protection Act 1986
.
The Acting Senior Legal Officer.
Yes.
Apache Northwest Pty Ltd sufficiently consulted with the relevant native title groups.
No decision was made by the Department of Indigenous Affairs regarding consultation with any particular native title group.
The Aboriginal Cultural Material Committee was of the view that consultation with the Ngarluma and Kuruma Marthudunera people, who may have an interest in the area, would enable it to give an informed recommendation to the Minister for Indigenous Affairs.
Yes.
Correspondance was received from Taylor Linfoot Holmes on behalf of Ngarluma (dated 22 January 2008), Anthropos Australis on behalf of Nargluma (dated 24 January 2008) and Ngarluma Aboriginal Corporation (dated 20 February 2008).
No.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Because no to (10)
Notice: This document is created or edited using unregistered or evaluation copy of rtLib valid for testing or development purposes only. To use it for productive or any other purposes please register it. You may purchase the license on
http://www.rtlib.com
Environmental Protection Act 1986
.
The then Minister for Indigenous Affairs made a decision on those areas of the section 18 Notice that were not restrained by the provisions of section 41 of the
Environmental Protection Act 1986
.
The Acting Senior Legal Officer.
Yes.
Apache Northwest Pty Ltd sufficiently consulted with the relevant native title groups.
No decision was made by the Department of Indigenous Affairs regarding consultation with any particular native title group.
The Aboriginal Cultural Material Committee was of the view that consultation with the Ngarluma and Kuruma Marthudunera people, who may have an interest in the area, would enable it to give an informed recommendation to the Minister for Indigenous Affairs.
Yes.
Correspondance was received from Taylor Linfoot Holmes on behalf of Ngarluma (dated 22 January 2008), Anthropos Australis on behalf of Nargluma (dated 24 January 2008) and Ngarluma Aboriginal Corporation (dated 20 February 2008).
No.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Because no to (10)
Notice: This document is created or edited using unregistered or evaluation copy of rtLib valid for testing or development purposes only. To use it for productive or any other purposes please register it. You may purchase the license on
http://www.rtlib.com
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.