❓ Mr Rundle questions the Minister for Planning about the impact of the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act on DevelopmentWA projects and resources. The Minister defends the Act, highlighting exemptions and accusing the opposition of a scare campaign.
AnsweredQoN 381Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
ABORIGINAL CULTURAL HERITAGE ACT — IMPLEMENTATION
381. Mr P.J. RUNDLE to the Minister for Planning:
I refer to the impending
implementation of the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act on 1 July. Has the
minister sought any advice from DevelopmentWA on any impacts the ACH act may
have in delivering development projects on time for Western Australia; and, if
so, what extra resources are in place for the agency to deal with the new
regime?
381. Mr P.J. RUNDLE to the Minister for Planning:
I refer to the impending
implementation of the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act on 1 July. Has the
minister sought any advice from DevelopmentWA on any impacts the ACH act may
have in delivering development projects on time for Western Australia; and, if
so, what extra resources are in place for the agency to deal with the new
regime?
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for his question.
We are already clearly on the record on this issue regarding the new act. As the Premier has already indicated, we are not
doing anything new. Consideration has always been given to Aboriginal cultural heritage. That is well known and that is on the record. As we have
said, when there is no Aboriginal cultural heritage present, there is no need
for approval. That is a fact. That is on the record. We have also said that
there is a range of exemptions. I note the commentary by the opposition, which
has been running a scare campaign. I believe
that the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs referred to the situational claims by
the opposition about swimming pools.
I want to be very clear about these exemptions. Under the new act, all
residential properties under 1 100 square metres will be exempt.
Further, regardless of the size of the residential lot, a range of activities,
which I have talked about, relating to a person's
home, including improvements, general maintenance and small projects, will also
be exempt. For land greater than 1 100 square metres, again a permit or
management plan will be required only if Aboriginal cultural heritage is
present. The advice given to me, for example, is that the majority of land that
is already disturbed in the metropolitan area will not be affected. Can we get
this on the record loud and clear: for existing
proposals and developments, developers and government agencies already have to
give consideration to Aboriginal
heritage. We know, for example, that we may have to negotiate an Indigenous
land use agreement with native title owners. There is always a recognition of
Aboriginal cultural heritage. There is a clear divide. We are seeing a scare
campaign by the opposition and we are hearing extraordinary statements by the
opposition, and we should not accept it.
We are already clearly on the record on this issue regarding the new act. As the Premier has already indicated, we are not
doing anything new. Consideration has always been given to Aboriginal cultural heritage. That is well known and that is on the record. As we have
said, when there is no Aboriginal cultural heritage present, there is no need
for approval. That is a fact. That is on the record. We have also said that
there is a range of exemptions. I note the commentary by the opposition, which
has been running a scare campaign. I believe
that the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs referred to the situational claims by
the opposition about swimming pools.
I want to be very clear about these exemptions. Under the new act, all
residential properties under 1 100 square metres will be exempt.
Further, regardless of the size of the residential lot, a range of activities,
which I have talked about, relating to a person's
home, including improvements, general maintenance and small projects, will also
be exempt. For land greater than 1 100 square metres, again a permit or
management plan will be required only if Aboriginal cultural heritage is
present. The advice given to me, for example, is that the majority of land that
is already disturbed in the metropolitan area will not be affected. Can we get
this on the record loud and clear: for existing
proposals and developments, developers and government agencies already have to
give consideration to Aboriginal
heritage. We know, for example, that we may have to negotiate an Indigenous
land use agreement with native title owners. There is always a recognition of
Aboriginal cultural heritage. There is a clear divide. We are seeing a scare
campaign by the opposition and we are hearing extraordinary statements by the
opposition, and we should not accept it.
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.