Home›Questions on Notice›QoN 839

❓ A parliamentary question on notice regarding ground disturbing works at Perth Airport within the registered Aboriginal site Munday Swamp, potential breaches of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972, and the handling of a section 18 notice application. The Minister confirms a prior prosecution of the airport corporation for a similar offence.

AnsweredQoN 839Legislative Council

Asked

13 March 2018

Member

Hon Robin Chapple

Portfolio

Aboriginal Affairs

QuestionView source ↗

(1) Can the Minister confirm that it is an offence to damage, alter and/or conceal an Aboriginal site? (2) I refer to the land and the land owned and/or managed at Perth Airport and ask, were ground disturbing works conducted within the registered Aboriginal site known as Munday Swamp? (3) If yes to (2), when did this occur and by whom? (4) Did the Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage (DPLH) investigate the activities of Perth Airport within Munday Swamp? (5) If no to (4), why not? (6) If yes to (4), what were the findings of the investigation? (7) If yes to (4), will the Minister table the report of findings and recommendations? (8) If no to (7), why not? (9) When did Perth Airport submit a section 18 notice for works within Munday Swamp? (10) Was the section 18 notice application made after works had begun within Munday Swamp? (11) If yes to (10), was this application made due to advice provided by the DPLH? (12) If yes to (11), who within DPLH provided the advice? (13) If no to (11), please explain why and how the section 18 application was made after works had begun within Munday Swamp? (14) Will the Minister advise under which provision in the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 a retrospective section 18 may be submitted and granted after an offence has been committed? (15) If no to (14), why not? (16) Was ministerial advice provided by the Aboriginal Cultural Material Committee (ACMC) regarding Perth Airport, Munday Swamp and section 18? (17) If yes to (16), will the Minister table the advice? (18) If no to (17), why not? (19) If no to (16), why not? (20) Was the ministerial advice from the ACMC to recommend the section 18 notice application by Perth Airport for Munday Swamp declined? (21) Did the ACMC form the opinion that Munday Swamp is no longer an Aboriginal site? (22) Did the Minister accept the recommendation by his expert Committee, the ACMC? (23) If no to (22), what course of action did the Minister decide? (24) Has the Perth Airport been prosecuted for an offence under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 before? (25) If yes to (24), will the Minister please provide the details of the offences, and penalties imposed? (26) If no to (25), why not?

AnswerView source ↗

Answered

10 April 2018

Responded by

Minister for Environment representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs

Response time

9 days

(1) Yes
(2) Yes
(3) The works were undertaken on 15 June 2016 by contractors for the Perth Airport Corporation (Golder Associates and their drillers Direct Push Probing).
(4) Yes
(5) Not applicable
(6) A prima facie case was established that a breach of section 17 of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 had occurred.
(7) No
(8) It is open to the Honourable Member to seek the information directly from the Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage under the Freedom of Information process.
(9) 14 June 2017
(10) No. The works proposed in the section 18 notice applied to a future use of the land.
(11)-(13) Not applicable
(14) There is no such provision in the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972.
(15) Not applicable
(16) Yes
(17) No
(18) I am considering the Aboriginal Cultural Material Committee’s (ACMC) advice.
(19) Not applicable
(20) The ACMC’s advice is still under consideration.
(21) No
(22)-(23) See answer to part (20)
(24) Yes
(25) Westralia Airport Corporation was prosecuted on 12 December 2007 for disturbance of DIA 4001 Airport: Boronia/Phillips site in breach of section 17 of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 . The accused pleaded guilty and was fined $10,000.
(26) Not applicable

View on Parliament of WA