❓ Hon Giz Watson questions the Minister for Indigenous Affairs regarding a potential breach of the Aboriginal Heritage Act by JayKay Enterprises at Bennett Brook, specifically concerning works on Lot 14 without Section 18 clearance. The Minister defends the lack of prosecution, stating a s.18 clearance existed for adjacent lots and further application wasn't deemed necessary.
AnsweredQoN 328Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
In relation to the work done by JayKay Enterprises (operated by Roger Small) at Bennett Brook, Lot 14 Small Street, Caversham where there was no Section 18 application or consent to damage, alter, disturb and excavate a registered Aboriginal site, I ask the Minister -
(1) Does the Minister condone breaches of Section 18 of the
Aboriginal Heritage Act
?
(2) What are his reasons for not pursuing a prosecution for breach of the
Aboriginal Heritage Act
in the case of Bennett Brook?
(1) Does the Minister condone breaches of Section 18 of the
Aboriginal Heritage Act
?
(2) What are his reasons for not pursuing a prosecution for breach of the
Aboriginal Heritage Act
in the case of Bennett Brook?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
11 December 2001
Responded by
Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for Indigenous Affairs
Response time
26 days
(2) The proponent obtained a s.18 clearance for the development on Lots 12 and 13 in Short Street, Caversham. The fact that some works occurred on Lot 14 is acknowledged, however, on available information and after an examination of relevant issues, I am advised that it was not considered necessary for the proponent to submit a further s.18 application in relation to the works on Lot 14, and for this reason, a prosecution was not deemed an appropriate course of action.
The fact that some works occurred on Lot 14 is acknowledged, however, on available information and after an examination of relevant issues, I am advised that it was not considered necessary for the proponent to submit a further s.18 application in relation to the works on Lot 14, and for this reason, a prosecution was not deemed an appropriate course of action.
The fact that some works occurred on Lot 14 is acknowledged, however, on available information and after an examination of relevant issues, I am advised that it was not considered necessary for the proponent to submit a further s.18 application in relation to the works on Lot 14, and for this reason, a prosecution was not deemed an appropriate course of action.
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.