❓ Hon Robin Chapple questions the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs regarding the implications of the Robinson v Fielding Supreme Court decision on the interpretation and potential amendment of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972, particularly concerning sacred sites. The Minister acknowledges the decision and states the government is considering its implications, with no current plans to amend the Act.
AnsweredQoN 715Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
ABORIGINAL
HERITAGE ACT — HERITAGE SITES
715. Hon ROBIN CHAPPLE to the
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs:
I refer to the Supreme Court decision in Robinson v Fielding
[2015] WASC 108 handed down by Justice Chaney.
(1) Does the
minister agree with Justice Chaney's interpretation of section 5(b) of
the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972?
(2) Is the
binding interpretation of a sacred site, as delivered by Justice Chaney on
behalf of the Supreme Court of Western Australia, in relation to section 5(b)
of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 a cause for concern for the minister, his
department or this government?
(3) Does the
minister intend to amend section 5(b) of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 as a
result of the Supreme Court decision?
(4) If no to
(3), why not?
(5) Why do the
remaining deregistered sites require reassessment, given that the Supreme Court
decision is a binding interpretation?
HERITAGE ACT — HERITAGE SITES
715. Hon ROBIN CHAPPLE to the
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs:
I refer to the Supreme Court decision in Robinson v Fielding
[2015] WASC 108 handed down by Justice Chaney.
(1) Does the
minister agree with Justice Chaney's interpretation of section 5(b) of
the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972?
(2) Is the
binding interpretation of a sacred site, as delivered by Justice Chaney on
behalf of the Supreme Court of Western Australia, in relation to section 5(b)
of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 a cause for concern for the minister, his
department or this government?
(3) Does the
minister intend to amend section 5(b) of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 as a
result of the Supreme Court decision?
(4) If no to
(3), why not?
(5) Why do the
remaining deregistered sites require reassessment, given that the Supreme Court
decision is a binding interpretation?
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the honourable member for some notice of the
question.
(1) I respect
the decision of the Supreme Court. Justice Chaney's decision does not
provide a definitive interpretation of section 5 of the Aboriginal Heritage Act
1972; rather, it finds the interpretation of section 5(b) of the Aboriginal
Heritage Act 1972 used by the Aboriginal Cultural Material Committee was
inconsistent with the proper construction of section 5 of the Aboriginal
Heritage Act 1972.
(2)–(4)
The state government is taking Justice Chaney's decision very seriously
and is currently considering the implications of Justice Chaney's
decision. There is currently no proposal to amend section 5(b) of the
Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972.
(5) The
Supreme Court ruled that the decision of the Aboriginal Cultural Material
Committee as it relates to Marapikurrinya Yintha should be set aside and
referred back to the Aboriginal Cultural Material Committee for
reconsideration. It is the responsibility of the Aboriginal Cultural Material
Committee to determine whether places meet the definition in section 5 of the
Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972. Therefore, it is appropriate that similar cases
be referred back to the Aboriginal Cultural Material Committee for
reconsideration.
question.
(1) I respect
the decision of the Supreme Court. Justice Chaney's decision does not
provide a definitive interpretation of section 5 of the Aboriginal Heritage Act
1972; rather, it finds the interpretation of section 5(b) of the Aboriginal
Heritage Act 1972 used by the Aboriginal Cultural Material Committee was
inconsistent with the proper construction of section 5 of the Aboriginal
Heritage Act 1972.
(2)–(4)
The state government is taking Justice Chaney's decision very seriously
and is currently considering the implications of Justice Chaney's
decision. There is currently no proposal to amend section 5(b) of the
Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972.
(5) The
Supreme Court ruled that the decision of the Aboriginal Cultural Material
Committee as it relates to Marapikurrinya Yintha should be set aside and
referred back to the Aboriginal Cultural Material Committee for
reconsideration. It is the responsibility of the Aboriginal Cultural Material
Committee to determine whether places meet the definition in section 5 of the
Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972. Therefore, it is appropriate that similar cases
be referred back to the Aboriginal Cultural Material Committee for
reconsideration.
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.