❓ A parliamentary question regarding the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs' handling of heritage site approvals and his public criticism of the Wintawari Guruma Aboriginal Corporation Chairman, particularly concerning the approval of destruction of sites for FMG's Solomon Project and the Minister's subsequent review of the Aboriginal Heritage Act.
AnsweredQoN 1070Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
(1) I
refer to comments made by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs published in The
West Australian newspaper on 15 March 2018, stating that
the Wintawari Guruma Chairman was petulant and offensive for
simply criticising the Minister’s decision, and I ask: (a) is the Minister aware, that the Chairman
of the Wintawari Guruma Aboriginal Corporation, holds in trust, the native
title rights and interests of the Eastern Guruma people; (b) is the Minister aware, that the primary mandate of the Chairman of the Wintawari Guruma Aboriginal Corporation and the Wintawari Guruma Aboriginal Corporation, is the preservation and protection of Eastern Guruma heritage sites and culture; (c) is the Minister aware, that he made his decision without considering cultural information, that his
own department and advisory body requested the Eastern Guruma people provide, at
their own expense, at a cost of more than $250,000; and (d) does the Minister believe the Wintawari Guruma Chairman was within his rights to be critical of the way, in which the
Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage had managed a statutory process, that
culminated in the Minister’s decision, to approve the destruction of a unique
area that has been used and maintained by Eastern Guruma for more than 23,000
years? (2) Given that in the same week, the Minister announced his review of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 , which centres around the principle of increasing the Aboriginal voice in the regulatory approvals process, with the catchcry “My Heritage, My Voice”, I ask: (a) does the Minister regret calling the Chairman of
Wintawari Guruma Aboriginal Corporation, who is a well respected Guruma leader,
petulant and offensive, for doing no more than voice his concerns about a
decision making process, that will result in the destruction of Eastern Guruma
heritage; (b) can
the Minister confirm that on 14 December 2017 and the 30 January 2018, the
Wintawari Guruma Aboriginal Corporation wrote to the Minister requesting a
meeting with him; (c) how
many times did the Minister meet with the Chairman of the Wintawari Guruma
Aboriginal Corporation, in response to these two requests; (d) if none to (c), why not; (e) how
many times did the Minister, or his staff, meet or discuss with Fortescue Metals Group Ltd (FMG) representatives, their section 18 notice for Phase 6 of FMG’s Solomon Project,
that was considered by the Aboriginal Cultural Material Committee (ACMC) in July 2017; (f) was the Minister aware that on 22 September 2017, the Registrar of Sites, on the advice of the ACMC, had provided written
authority to Wintawari Guruma Aboriginal Corporation, under section 16 of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972, to investigate 10 sites to determine
their importance and significance; (g) if yes to (f), was the Minister aware that on 24 November 2017, the Registrar of Sites granted an extension to Wintawari Guruma Aboriginal Corporation, to provide the cultural evaluation report to the Registrar, by 1 March 2018; (h) if yes to (g), why did the Minister not wait for this report, before he authorised the destruction of the 10 sites on 30 November 2017; (i) if no to (f), why not; (j) does the Minister consider it reasonable, that after being invited to contribute information to the decision-making process, at their own expense, the Eastern Guruma ‘voice’ is not considered because the Minister decided not to wait for it; (k) will the Minister apologise to the Chairman of Wintawari Guruma Aboriginal Corporation for his comments published in The West Australian, on 15 March 2018; (l) if no to (k), why not; (m) will the Minister concede, that his unprecedented public attack on an Aboriginal leader, will have the effect of discouraging Aboriginal participation in a regulatory process, that is designed to protect Aboriginal heritage; and (n) if no to (m), why not?
refer to comments made by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs published in The
West Australian newspaper on 15 March 2018, stating that
the Wintawari Guruma Chairman was petulant and offensive for
simply criticising the Minister’s decision, and I ask: (a) is the Minister aware, that the Chairman
of the Wintawari Guruma Aboriginal Corporation, holds in trust, the native
title rights and interests of the Eastern Guruma people; (b) is the Minister aware, that the primary mandate of the Chairman of the Wintawari Guruma Aboriginal Corporation and the Wintawari Guruma Aboriginal Corporation, is the preservation and protection of Eastern Guruma heritage sites and culture; (c) is the Minister aware, that he made his decision without considering cultural information, that his
own department and advisory body requested the Eastern Guruma people provide, at
their own expense, at a cost of more than $250,000; and (d) does the Minister believe the Wintawari Guruma Chairman was within his rights to be critical of the way, in which the
Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage had managed a statutory process, that
culminated in the Minister’s decision, to approve the destruction of a unique
area that has been used and maintained by Eastern Guruma for more than 23,000
years? (2) Given that in the same week, the Minister announced his review of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 , which centres around the principle of increasing the Aboriginal voice in the regulatory approvals process, with the catchcry “My Heritage, My Voice”, I ask: (a) does the Minister regret calling the Chairman of
Wintawari Guruma Aboriginal Corporation, who is a well respected Guruma leader,
petulant and offensive, for doing no more than voice his concerns about a
decision making process, that will result in the destruction of Eastern Guruma
heritage; (b) can
the Minister confirm that on 14 December 2017 and the 30 January 2018, the
Wintawari Guruma Aboriginal Corporation wrote to the Minister requesting a
meeting with him; (c) how
many times did the Minister meet with the Chairman of the Wintawari Guruma
Aboriginal Corporation, in response to these two requests; (d) if none to (c), why not; (e) how
many times did the Minister, or his staff, meet or discuss with Fortescue Metals Group Ltd (FMG) representatives, their section 18 notice for Phase 6 of FMG’s Solomon Project,
that was considered by the Aboriginal Cultural Material Committee (ACMC) in July 2017; (f) was the Minister aware that on 22 September 2017, the Registrar of Sites, on the advice of the ACMC, had provided written
authority to Wintawari Guruma Aboriginal Corporation, under section 16 of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972, to investigate 10 sites to determine
their importance and significance; (g) if yes to (f), was the Minister aware that on 24 November 2017, the Registrar of Sites granted an extension to Wintawari Guruma Aboriginal Corporation, to provide the cultural evaluation report to the Registrar, by 1 March 2018; (h) if yes to (g), why did the Minister not wait for this report, before he authorised the destruction of the 10 sites on 30 November 2017; (i) if no to (f), why not; (j) does the Minister consider it reasonable, that after being invited to contribute information to the decision-making process, at their own expense, the Eastern Guruma ‘voice’ is not considered because the Minister decided not to wait for it; (k) will the Minister apologise to the Chairman of Wintawari Guruma Aboriginal Corporation for his comments published in The West Australian, on 15 March 2018; (l) if no to (k), why not; (m) will the Minister concede, that his unprecedented public attack on an Aboriginal leader, will have the effect of discouraging Aboriginal participation in a regulatory process, that is designed to protect Aboriginal heritage; and (n) if no to (m), why not?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
8 May 2018
Responded by
Minister for Environment representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs
Response time
8 days
(a – n) As the issues set out in the Honourable Member’s questions relate to active proceedings before the Supreme Court, in accordance with longstanding principles governing Ministerial responsibilities and the principle of sub judice that applies to matters currently before the Court, it would not be appropriate to answer.
However, in respect of my comments about the Chairman of the Wintawari Guruma Aboriginal Corporation (WGAC), this was in respect to the Chairman’s statement that I, as Minister, had outsourced my responsibilities under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 to Fortescue Metals Group.
I dispute strongly those comments by the Chairman of the WGAC but accept my response could have been better articulated and regret that my comments have distracted from the legitimate concerns about the operation of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972.
However, in respect of my comments about the Chairman of the Wintawari Guruma Aboriginal Corporation (WGAC), this was in respect to the Chairman’s statement that I, as Minister, had outsourced my responsibilities under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 to Fortescue Metals Group.
I dispute strongly those comments by the Chairman of the WGAC but accept my response could have been better articulated and regret that my comments have distracted from the legitimate concerns about the operation of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972.
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.