❓ Question regarding the status of Aboriginal Heritage Site 23323 on the Burrup Peninsula, including assessment dates, consultation with Aboriginal parties, lobbying efforts, and protection levels. The site remains an interim registered site due to ongoing refinement of heritage values.
AnsweredQoN 5024Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to interim registered Aboriginal Heritage Site 23323 Burrup Peninsula, Murujuga, and ask -
(1) On what date was Site 23323 Burrup Peninsula lodged with the Department of Indigenous Affairs (DIA)?
(2) On what date did the Aboriginal Cultural Materials Committee (ACMC) finally assess Site 23323 Burrup Peninsula?
(3) Was the decision of the ACMC in respect of the assessment of Site 23323 Burrup Peninsula, that it met the criteria for a registered site?
(4) Were the Aboriginal parties to the Burrup Maitland Industrial Estates Agreement consulted by DIA staff in respect of the ACMC’s decision?
(5) If yes to (4), on what date and where did this consultation occur?
(6) Did the Aboriginal parties to the Burrup Maitland Industrial Estates Agreement support the decisions of the Aboriginal Cultural Materials Committee (ACMC) in respect of their assessment of Site 23323 Burrup Peninsula?
(7) What is the current status of Site 23323 Burrup Peninsula, is it now a registered site or still an interim registered heritage site?
(8) If Site 23323 Burrup Peninsula is still an interim registered heritage site, why?
(9) If Site 23323 Burrup Peninsula is now a registered heritage site, will its status be amended on the DIA website to reflect that it is now a registered site?
(10) Did the Department, Minister or the ACMC receive any lobbying or submissions from government agencies or industries in respect of the assessment of Site 23323 Burrup Peninsula by the ACMC?
(11) If yes to (10), which departments or industries lobbied or made submissions to the ACMC, DIA or the Minister in respect of Site 23323 Burrup Peninsula?
(12) What was the position put forward by each department or industry either by lobbying or written submission in respect of Site 23323 Burrup Peninsula?
(13) Is the same level of protection ascribed to an interim registered heritage site as a registered heritage site under the
Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972
?
(14) If yes to (3) and (13), why is the site not now a declared registered site?
(1) On what date was Site 23323 Burrup Peninsula lodged with the Department of Indigenous Affairs (DIA)?
(2) On what date did the Aboriginal Cultural Materials Committee (ACMC) finally assess Site 23323 Burrup Peninsula?
(3) Was the decision of the ACMC in respect of the assessment of Site 23323 Burrup Peninsula, that it met the criteria for a registered site?
(4) Were the Aboriginal parties to the Burrup Maitland Industrial Estates Agreement consulted by DIA staff in respect of the ACMC’s decision?
(5) If yes to (4), on what date and where did this consultation occur?
(6) Did the Aboriginal parties to the Burrup Maitland Industrial Estates Agreement support the decisions of the Aboriginal Cultural Materials Committee (ACMC) in respect of their assessment of Site 23323 Burrup Peninsula?
(7) What is the current status of Site 23323 Burrup Peninsula, is it now a registered site or still an interim registered heritage site?
(8) If Site 23323 Burrup Peninsula is still an interim registered heritage site, why?
(9) If Site 23323 Burrup Peninsula is now a registered heritage site, will its status be amended on the DIA website to reflect that it is now a registered site?
(10) Did the Department, Minister or the ACMC receive any lobbying or submissions from government agencies or industries in respect of the assessment of Site 23323 Burrup Peninsula by the ACMC?
(11) If yes to (10), which departments or industries lobbied or made submissions to the ACMC, DIA or the Minister in respect of Site 23323 Burrup Peninsula?
(12) What was the position put forward by each department or industry either by lobbying or written submission in respect of Site 23323 Burrup Peninsula?
(13) Is the same level of protection ascribed to an interim registered heritage site as a registered heritage site under the
Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972
?
(14) If yes to (3) and (13), why is the site not now a declared registered site?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
7 March 2012
Responded by
Minister for Indigenous Affairs
Response time
118 days
(1) 4 September 2006
(2) DIA 23323 was last discussed by the ACMC on 15 August 2011
(3) Yes
(4) No
(5) N/A
(6) N/A
(7) DIA 23323 retains the status of "insufficent information".
(8) The Register is yet to be updated to reflect the ACMC decision. The Department of Indigenous Affairs (DIA) is working with cultural groups of the Burrup to further refine information on the heritage values and boundaries of site DIA 23323 to ensure that the site properly reflects the heritage values and can be protected.
(9) Not until the process outlined in the response to (8) is complete.
(10) The DIA initiated briefings with other government agencies.
(11) The briefing included the Department of State Development and the Dampier Port Authority.
(12) Other agencies and industry were interested to learn the implications of the ACMC assessment and understand how a site of this magnitude can coexist with the designated industrial area.
(13) Yes
(14) DIA is currently doing further work with the Aboriginal groups of the Burrup to refine and confirm the heritage values of the site to maximise protection.
Notice: This document is created or edited using unregistered or evaluation copy of rtLib valid for testing or development purposes only. To use it for productive or any other purposes please register it. You may purchase the license on
http://www.rtlib.com
(2) DIA 23323 was last discussed by the ACMC on 15 August 2011
(3) Yes
(4) No
(5) N/A
(6) N/A
(7) DIA 23323 retains the status of "insufficent information".
(8) The Register is yet to be updated to reflect the ACMC decision. The Department of Indigenous Affairs (DIA) is working with cultural groups of the Burrup to further refine information on the heritage values and boundaries of site DIA 23323 to ensure that the site properly reflects the heritage values and can be protected.
(9) Not until the process outlined in the response to (8) is complete.
(10) The DIA initiated briefings with other government agencies.
(11) The briefing included the Department of State Development and the Dampier Port Authority.
(12) Other agencies and industry were interested to learn the implications of the ACMC assessment and understand how a site of this magnitude can coexist with the designated industrial area.
(13) Yes
(14) DIA is currently doing further work with the Aboriginal groups of the Burrup to refine and confirm the heritage values of the site to maximise protection.
Notice: This document is created or edited using unregistered or evaluation copy of rtLib valid for testing or development purposes only. To use it for productive or any other purposes please register it. You may purchase the license on
http://www.rtlib.com
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.