❓ Question regarding the removal of the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act survey guidelines from the department's website and the Minister's response involving industry consultation and political commentary.
AnsweredQoN 431Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
ABORIGINAL CULTURAL
HERITAGE ACT — SURVEY GUIDELINES
431. Ms L. METTAM to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs:
I
refer to the minister's response to questions in budget estimates that
the survey guidelines for the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act, which
are crucial for industry to prepare for the 1 July start date of the new laws,
had not yet been published.
(1) Is the
minister aware and can he confirm that the survey guidelines were in fact
published on the department's website earlier this week, only to be
taken down hours later?
(2) If yes to (1), why were they
taken down?
(3) Was it because of industry
feedback to the survey guidelines?
HERITAGE ACT — SURVEY GUIDELINES
431. Ms L. METTAM to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs:
I
refer to the minister's response to questions in budget estimates that
the survey guidelines for the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act, which
are crucial for industry to prepare for the 1 July start date of the new laws,
had not yet been published.
(1) Is the
minister aware and can he confirm that the survey guidelines were in fact
published on the department's website earlier this week, only to be
taken down hours later?
(2) If yes to (1), why were they
taken down?
(3) Was it because of industry
feedback to the survey guidelines?
AnswerView source ↗
(1)–(3) Yes,
I was aware. They were up there for a brief time. That version should not have
gone up; it was some issue that we discussed with industry. We have a very
consultative process with industry and we want to make sure that industry is
comfortable. That is being worked on with industry and will be put up in due
course. I am glad the member for Vasse asked me about the Aboriginal Cultural
Heritage Act. Yesterday, there was an article in The West Australian on
Aboriginal cultural heritage.
Ms L. Mettam interjected.
The SPEAKER : Order, please!
Dr A.D. BUTI : Yesterday, an
article was published in the paper with the Leader of the Liberal Party behind
the president of the Pastoralists and Graziers Association, and he said —
Point of Order
Ms L. METTAM : The minister
has answered the question to his best ability. He is now straying into other
areas.
Several members interjected.
The SPEAKER : Please pause for
a moment. Because of the noise, I have not actually heard your point of order. Points of order, I remind members, are heard in
silence. I will adjudicate once I have actually heard the point of order.
Ms L. METTAM : The minister is
now going on his own political diatribe. I would like to ask my supplementary
question.
The SPEAKER : I am not
upholding that as a point of order. The minister has only briefly been on his
feet in an attempt to answer the question. It is up to him to answer how he
sees fit. I believe what he has said so far has been relevant to the question
asked.
Questions without Notice Resumed
Dr A.D. BUTI : We are talking
about the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act. I wonder whether the Leader of the
Liberal Party agrees with Tony Seabrook that the act that she voted for should
be scrapped. Does she believe that the act that she voted for in 2021 should be
scrapped? Josh Zimmerman has been writing a lot on this recently. He wrote an
article, I think, on Tuesday, and he said —
No one—at least no one
credible—is arguing against the intent of the new heritage laws.
Is the Leader of the Liberal Party
arguing against it?
Ms L. Mettam : We are not
arguing against the intent of the heritage act.
Dr A.D. BUTI : So you are not
supporting Tony Seabrook and that it should be scrapped?
Several members interjected.
Point of Order
Ms M.J. DAVIES : Point of
order, Madam Speaker.
Several members interjected.
The SPEAKER : Order, please! I
am going to be giving a member a call for a point of order, and I am again
going to remind members that points of order are heard in silence.
Ms M.J. DAVIES : I know that
the Speaker has provided guidance to the house previously that ministers are
not to ask the opposition questions during question time; that is, in fact, our
task.
The SPEAKER : There is a point
to be made here. From time to time, members ask rhetorical questions for which they do not expect an answer. A rhetorical
question is just part of a general speech, oratory or a response or the like .
There is nothing wrong with rhetorical questions. Occasionally, when someone is
prepared to take interjections or members are prepared to have a bit of
repartee, that is also allowed. On this occasion, I think the minister's
first question was definitely rhetorical. Some of the others have been more
individually directed at members. They have indicated
that they are not intending to respond. Your opportunity here is to respond to
the questions asked, something that
you are doing, but I just remind you particularly not to repeatedly ask
opposition members questions, especially when they have indicated that
they are not answering them.
Questions without Notice Resumed
Dr A.D. BUTI : Thank you very
much, Madam Speaker, I always look to your guidance and experience on the rules
and orders of the house.
I think the member needs to tell the
community where she stands, whether she supports the legislation or does not
support the legislation and whether she is prepared to stand behind someone. Do
members remember the posters against Julia Gillard in Canberra and the signs
that certain politicians stood behind? If a member is standing behind someone,
they have to tell the public whether they support them or not. We are talking
about regulations, guidelines and the act. I was surprised by the headline in
today's paper and the article that said that we were suddenly changing
the definition of Aboriginal cultural heritage. As I stated in my answer
yesterday, that is not the case. Intangible Aboriginal
culture heritage has been in place since 1972. One would have only to refer to
section 5(b) of the 1972 act to know
that is the case. One would have only to go to the decision of the Supreme
Court of 2015 to know that is the case. Section 5(b) of the Aboriginal
Heritage Act 1972, which is the current legislation, states that it is to the
protection of —
any sacred, ritual or
ceremonial site, which is of importance and special significance to persons of
Aboriginal descent;
The Barnett government in July 2013
sought to introduce guidelines to unilaterally determine that its
interpretation was —
� a place to be a sacred site
requires that it is devoted to religious use rather than a place subject to a mythological
story, song or belief.''
The Supreme Court rejected that.
Supreme Court Justice Chaney, in a very extensive decision—and members
can go to paragraph 73 if they want to look at it; they should do some research
rather than scaremongering—stated quite clearly that story and
songlines are sacred sites that are protected under the 1972 act. We have not
changed anything. If members read the headline this morning and read the
article, they would think we have made major changes in the last three days.
That is not the case.
Mr R.S. Love : You made none
of those points on those very elements.
Dr A.D. BUTI : Your question
yesterday —
Mr R.S. Love : You did not put
forward any of those points at that time.
Dr A.D. BUTI : I said
songlines. That is what I said yesterday in my answer when you asked me what it
was. I cannot believe you!
Mr R.S. Love : Go back and
look at Hansard of the consideration in detail.
Several members interjected.
The SPEAKER : Order, please,
members!
Dr A.D. BUTI : He should be
reading Hansard .
The SPEAKER : Pause for a moment
please, minister. Leader of the Opposition, this is not a question that you have
asked. We have already had a relatively lengthy answer. If we continue to have
this repartee, and frankly if we continue to have points of order, that will
limit the number of questions we get through today.
Dr A.D. BUTI : I am wrapping
up now, Madam Speaker.
Yesterday, in the answer to the question that the Leader of
the Opposition asked, in regard to the Premier and that we have changed the
law, I said no. ''Intangible'' has been part of the legislation
since 1972; it is just that we have expressly mentioned that word in the new
act.
The
member asked for examples and I said songlines and the sacred site at the top
of the hill. That is in the definition . The member should look at the
decision by Justice Chaney in 2015. That is what I said. The member must not
have been listening.
I was aware. They were up there for a brief time. That version should not have
gone up; it was some issue that we discussed with industry. We have a very
consultative process with industry and we want to make sure that industry is
comfortable. That is being worked on with industry and will be put up in due
course. I am glad the member for Vasse asked me about the Aboriginal Cultural
Heritage Act. Yesterday, there was an article in The West Australian on
Aboriginal cultural heritage.
Ms L. Mettam interjected.
The SPEAKER : Order, please!
Dr A.D. BUTI : Yesterday, an
article was published in the paper with the Leader of the Liberal Party behind
the president of the Pastoralists and Graziers Association, and he said —
Point of Order
Ms L. METTAM : The minister
has answered the question to his best ability. He is now straying into other
areas.
Several members interjected.
The SPEAKER : Please pause for
a moment. Because of the noise, I have not actually heard your point of order. Points of order, I remind members, are heard in
silence. I will adjudicate once I have actually heard the point of order.
Ms L. METTAM : The minister is
now going on his own political diatribe. I would like to ask my supplementary
question.
The SPEAKER : I am not
upholding that as a point of order. The minister has only briefly been on his
feet in an attempt to answer the question. It is up to him to answer how he
sees fit. I believe what he has said so far has been relevant to the question
asked.
Questions without Notice Resumed
Dr A.D. BUTI : We are talking
about the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act. I wonder whether the Leader of the
Liberal Party agrees with Tony Seabrook that the act that she voted for should
be scrapped. Does she believe that the act that she voted for in 2021 should be
scrapped? Josh Zimmerman has been writing a lot on this recently. He wrote an
article, I think, on Tuesday, and he said —
No one—at least no one
credible—is arguing against the intent of the new heritage laws.
Is the Leader of the Liberal Party
arguing against it?
Ms L. Mettam : We are not
arguing against the intent of the heritage act.
Dr A.D. BUTI : So you are not
supporting Tony Seabrook and that it should be scrapped?
Several members interjected.
Point of Order
Ms M.J. DAVIES : Point of
order, Madam Speaker.
Several members interjected.
The SPEAKER : Order, please! I
am going to be giving a member a call for a point of order, and I am again
going to remind members that points of order are heard in silence.
Ms M.J. DAVIES : I know that
the Speaker has provided guidance to the house previously that ministers are
not to ask the opposition questions during question time; that is, in fact, our
task.
The SPEAKER : There is a point
to be made here. From time to time, members ask rhetorical questions for which they do not expect an answer. A rhetorical
question is just part of a general speech, oratory or a response or the like .
There is nothing wrong with rhetorical questions. Occasionally, when someone is
prepared to take interjections or members are prepared to have a bit of
repartee, that is also allowed. On this occasion, I think the minister's
first question was definitely rhetorical. Some of the others have been more
individually directed at members. They have indicated
that they are not intending to respond. Your opportunity here is to respond to
the questions asked, something that
you are doing, but I just remind you particularly not to repeatedly ask
opposition members questions, especially when they have indicated that
they are not answering them.
Questions without Notice Resumed
Dr A.D. BUTI : Thank you very
much, Madam Speaker, I always look to your guidance and experience on the rules
and orders of the house.
I think the member needs to tell the
community where she stands, whether she supports the legislation or does not
support the legislation and whether she is prepared to stand behind someone. Do
members remember the posters against Julia Gillard in Canberra and the signs
that certain politicians stood behind? If a member is standing behind someone,
they have to tell the public whether they support them or not. We are talking
about regulations, guidelines and the act. I was surprised by the headline in
today's paper and the article that said that we were suddenly changing
the definition of Aboriginal cultural heritage. As I stated in my answer
yesterday, that is not the case. Intangible Aboriginal
culture heritage has been in place since 1972. One would have only to refer to
section 5(b) of the 1972 act to know
that is the case. One would have only to go to the decision of the Supreme
Court of 2015 to know that is the case. Section 5(b) of the Aboriginal
Heritage Act 1972, which is the current legislation, states that it is to the
protection of —
any sacred, ritual or
ceremonial site, which is of importance and special significance to persons of
Aboriginal descent;
The Barnett government in July 2013
sought to introduce guidelines to unilaterally determine that its
interpretation was —
� a place to be a sacred site
requires that it is devoted to religious use rather than a place subject to a mythological
story, song or belief.''
The Supreme Court rejected that.
Supreme Court Justice Chaney, in a very extensive decision—and members
can go to paragraph 73 if they want to look at it; they should do some research
rather than scaremongering—stated quite clearly that story and
songlines are sacred sites that are protected under the 1972 act. We have not
changed anything. If members read the headline this morning and read the
article, they would think we have made major changes in the last three days.
That is not the case.
Mr R.S. Love : You made none
of those points on those very elements.
Dr A.D. BUTI : Your question
yesterday —
Mr R.S. Love : You did not put
forward any of those points at that time.
Dr A.D. BUTI : I said
songlines. That is what I said yesterday in my answer when you asked me what it
was. I cannot believe you!
Mr R.S. Love : Go back and
look at Hansard of the consideration in detail.
Several members interjected.
The SPEAKER : Order, please,
members!
Dr A.D. BUTI : He should be
reading Hansard .
The SPEAKER : Pause for a moment
please, minister. Leader of the Opposition, this is not a question that you have
asked. We have already had a relatively lengthy answer. If we continue to have
this repartee, and frankly if we continue to have points of order, that will
limit the number of questions we get through today.
Dr A.D. BUTI : I am wrapping
up now, Madam Speaker.
Yesterday, in the answer to the question that the Leader of
the Opposition asked, in regard to the Premier and that we have changed the
law, I said no. ''Intangible'' has been part of the legislation
since 1972; it is just that we have expressly mentioned that word in the new
act.
The
member asked for examples and I said songlines and the sacred site at the top
of the hill. That is in the definition . The member should look at the
decision by Justice Chaney in 2015. That is what I said. The member must not
have been listening.
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.