❓ Hon Robin Chapple questions the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs regarding the reclassification of 37 heritage sites and the potential misadvice given to applicants regarding Section 18 of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972. The Minister acknowledges the question but requests more time to respond.
AnsweredQoN 800Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
ABORIGINAL HERITAGE ACT — HERITAGE SITES
800. Hon ROBIN CHAPPLE to the Minister
for Aboriginal Affairs:
I refer to the 37 heritage places the status of which was changed to ''not
a site'' as a result of legal advice from the State Solicitor's
Office on section 5(b) of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972.
(1) Were applicants subsequently advised
that consent under section 18 was not required to undertake activities at these
places that would otherwise contravene section 17 of the AHA?
(2) If yes, who issued this advice?
(3) If no, why not?
(4) Have the recipients of false and
misleading advice pursuant to these decisions been notified of the facts?
(5) Is the minister or the department aware
of the current status of these heritage places or the impacts on the projects
associated with the section 18 notices and any impediments and/or financial
implications for proponents?
(6) If no, why not?
(7) Is the minister willing to accept
responsibility for the dangerous and incompetent advice and undertakings of the
department and the Aboriginal Cultural Material Committee?
(8) What are the
legal implications of these errors of judgement?
800. Hon ROBIN CHAPPLE to the Minister
for Aboriginal Affairs:
I refer to the 37 heritage places the status of which was changed to ''not
a site'' as a result of legal advice from the State Solicitor's
Office on section 5(b) of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972.
(1) Were applicants subsequently advised
that consent under section 18 was not required to undertake activities at these
places that would otherwise contravene section 17 of the AHA?
(2) If yes, who issued this advice?
(3) If no, why not?
(4) Have the recipients of false and
misleading advice pursuant to these decisions been notified of the facts?
(5) Is the minister or the department aware
of the current status of these heritage places or the impacts on the projects
associated with the section 18 notices and any impediments and/or financial
implications for proponents?
(6) If no, why not?
(7) Is the minister willing to accept
responsibility for the dangerous and incompetent advice and undertakings of the
department and the Aboriginal Cultural Material Committee?
(8) What are the
legal implications of these errors of judgement?
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the
honourable member, but he did not mention that it was an eight-part question;
it was not all part of question (5). I apologise, but I cannot provide in the
time available this information to this eight-part question; however, I will
provide a response as soon as possible. I imagine it will be next Tuesday.
honourable member, but he did not mention that it was an eight-part question;
it was not all part of question (5). I apologise, but I cannot provide in the
time available this information to this eight-part question; however, I will
provide a response as soon as possible. I imagine it will be next Tuesday.
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.