❓ Question regarding the membership and industry representation on the proposed Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Committee under the amended 1972 act. The Minister clarifies the committee's purpose and membership criteria, emphasizing Aboriginal representation and expertise relevant to section 18 applications.
AnsweredQoN 465Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
ABORIGINAL CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE —
MEMBERSHIP
465. Ms M.J. DAVIES to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs:
I
refer to the government's proposal to rename the Aboriginal Cultural
Material Committee contained in the 1972 act to the Aboriginal Cultural
Heritage Committee and retain the membership of the committee established under
the 2021 legislation.
(1) How many members will the
committee have under the amended 1972 act?
(2) Does the
minister intend for the committee to have industry-specific representation in
addition to the members already appointed?
(3) If no to (2),
why not?
Mr P.J. Rundle :
Good question.
MEMBERSHIP
465. Ms M.J. DAVIES to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs:
I
refer to the government's proposal to rename the Aboriginal Cultural
Material Committee contained in the 1972 act to the Aboriginal Cultural
Heritage Committee and retain the membership of the committee established under
the 2021 legislation.
(1) How many members will the
committee have under the amended 1972 act?
(2) Does the
minister intend for the committee to have industry-specific representation in
addition to the members already appointed?
(3) If no to (2),
why not?
Mr P.J. Rundle :
Good question.
AnswerView source ↗
The member for
Roe said ''good question'', but I thought the member for Roe had
no idea of this area of law.
(1)–(3) The
members of the current committee under the 2021 act will of course not be
forced to be members, but they will be asked. As the member knows, it is
Aboriginal dominated and has Aboriginal co-chairs. We can change the number of
members if need be, but it will be 12; it could be 11 or 12. In regards to industry-specific representation, no—to be
a member of that committee a major aspect is to have Aboriginal descent,
but that is not the only requirement. A requirement is to have specific
interest and knowledge in areas that will be
relevant to section 18 applications. There are people on that committee now who
represent industries in mining and geology, for instance. I think
someone on it might have anthropological expertise but I cannot be sure. There
are people with a wide range of views. There will not be industry-specific
representation because that is not what the committee is about. The committee
is about looking at looking at section 18 applications under the new system and
whether an Aboriginal cultural heritage site is of significance, and if there
is a land proponent, whether there is a way that that can be managed in a way
that will minimise damage to the significant Aboriginal cultural heritage. That
is the thing I would like to point out that has been lost in this debate. Not
every Aboriginal cultural site or material will necessarily be protected; it is
those considered of significance. They are the ones that come under the 1972
act and will be subject to a section 18 consent process. In regards to the member's
question, they will come with wide and varied expertise and practice but we
will not have industry-specific representation because members are not there to represent their industry, they are there to
serve the purpose of the act, which is to protect Aboriginal cultural
heritage of significance, in a way that also allows a land proponent to proceed
with their proposal if a proper management system is in place or there is
consent to damage to the Aboriginal cultural site.
Roe said ''good question'', but I thought the member for Roe had
no idea of this area of law.
(1)–(3) The
members of the current committee under the 2021 act will of course not be
forced to be members, but they will be asked. As the member knows, it is
Aboriginal dominated and has Aboriginal co-chairs. We can change the number of
members if need be, but it will be 12; it could be 11 or 12. In regards to industry-specific representation, no—to be
a member of that committee a major aspect is to have Aboriginal descent,
but that is not the only requirement. A requirement is to have specific
interest and knowledge in areas that will be
relevant to section 18 applications. There are people on that committee now who
represent industries in mining and geology, for instance. I think
someone on it might have anthropological expertise but I cannot be sure. There
are people with a wide range of views. There will not be industry-specific
representation because that is not what the committee is about. The committee
is about looking at looking at section 18 applications under the new system and
whether an Aboriginal cultural heritage site is of significance, and if there
is a land proponent, whether there is a way that that can be managed in a way
that will minimise damage to the significant Aboriginal cultural heritage. That
is the thing I would like to point out that has been lost in this debate. Not
every Aboriginal cultural site or material will necessarily be protected; it is
those considered of significance. They are the ones that come under the 1972
act and will be subject to a section 18 consent process. In regards to the member's
question, they will come with wide and varied expertise and practice but we
will not have industry-specific representation because members are not there to represent their industry, they are there to
serve the purpose of the act, which is to protect Aboriginal cultural
heritage of significance, in a way that also allows a land proponent to proceed
with their proposal if a proper management system is in place or there is
consent to damage to the Aboriginal cultural site.
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.