❓ Question on the WA Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act reforms, focusing on protection of culture and consultation. Minister defends the Act, highlighting its benefits and addressing criticisms from the opposition.
AnsweredQoN 352Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
ABORIGINAL CULTURAL HERITAGE ACT
352. Ms D.G. D'ANNA to the Minister for Aboriginal
Affairs:
I refer to this Labor government's
landmark reforms to WA's Aboriginal cultural heritage laws that were
passed by Parliament 18 months ago.
(1) Can the minister outline to the house how these
laws will protect one of the oldest living cultures in the world?
(2) Can the minister
advise the house how Aboriginal people in WA have been consulted throughout
this extensive reform process?
352. Ms D.G. D'ANNA to the Minister for Aboriginal
Affairs:
I refer to this Labor government's
landmark reforms to WA's Aboriginal cultural heritage laws that were
passed by Parliament 18 months ago.
(1) Can the minister outline to the house how these
laws will protect one of the oldest living cultures in the world?
(2) Can the minister
advise the house how Aboriginal people in WA have been consulted throughout
this extensive reform process?
AnswerView source ↗
(1)–(2) I
thank the member for her question and her interest in and advocacy for
preserving Aboriginal cultural heritage, and I thank her for the opportunity to
stand before the house to clarify some misinformation that has been fuelled by
the opposition and others.
We
are ready to transition to the new Aboriginal cultural heritage regime. People
need to realise that under the current act it is unlawful to harm
Aboriginal cultural heritage. There will be no change in that respect. It is
unlawful now. It is not a thing that will develop on 1 July. It is not that
suddenly harm to Aboriginal cultural
heritage will be unlawful on 1 July. It is unlawful as we speak. The new act
develops a better system that will reduce red tape and put Aboriginal
people at the centre, the focus, of protecting their cultural heritage, which I
think is appropriate.
The current act is over 50 years old.
It is outdated and changes needed to be made. As I said, the new legislation
prioritises Aboriginal people as the right people to speak on matters that
impact on their cultural heritage.
Consultation on the act and the regulations has been a five-year process. Last
year over 1 100 people attended 90-plus workshops around the state as
part of the co-design process for the regulations. Another 220 submissions were
received. Hundreds of meetings were held with Aboriginal organisations,
industry groups, resource sectors, developers, local governments and more. The
National Farmers' Federation and the Pastoralists and Graziers
Association were invited to attend these workshops. They decided not to attend.
But may I say that one of their policy officers in the consultation for the
bill that then became the act said that the consultation process was exemplary.
The new regime will commence on 1 July.
We have taken notice of some of the farmers and pastoralists who attended the
workshops. The peak organisations may not have attended or we were not notified
that they would attend. However, we listened
to some of the farmers and pastoralists and, as part of that feedback ,
we developed a tiered system that will allow for better processing of
applications for uses of land. Most farmers and pastoralists will not be
impacted. That is what is disappointing about the opposition. Have opposition
members read the act?
Mr P.J. Rundle : Yes, I have
it here.
Ms L. Mettam : Yes.
Dr A.D. BUTI : Have the
opposition members read it? They might have it there, but I do not think they
have read it. If opposition members had read it, Hon Neil Thomson would not
have gone on TV and said if someone builds a pool in a residential block of
whatever size —
Ms L. Mettam : Your deputy
director general could not clarify that on 6PR when asked. He could not answer
a simple question.
Dr A.D. BUTI : I am telling
you.
Ms L. Mettam : You haven't
done your job.
Dr A.D. BUTI : You are a shame.
You are a disgrace. Member for Vasse —
Ms L. Mettam interjected.
The SPEAKER : Order, please,
members! Minister, I think you have made the point and I am going to ask the
opposition not to continue to interject, but I will also ask you not to
continue to ask it questions.
Dr A.D. BUTI : Like-for-like
activities are exempt, so a farmer who has been grazing and cropping their
property year in, year out will be able to
continue to do that. They will not need to obtain approval for that. The member
for Roe was quoted as saying the act will grind normal farming
activities into the ground. Does the member honestly believe that? How will
that be if like-for-like farming activities are exempted?
Point of Order
Mr R.S. LOVE : This is just
argument. It is not an answer to a question. It is argument. We will be
debating a matter of public interest shortly and the minister will have an
opportunity to place his argument then. I ask him to get back to the point.
Several members interjected.
The SPEAKER : Members! I will
rule on that. It is not a point of order that I accept, although, minister, you
are continuing to goad the opposition, so when that occurs, you have to expect
a response. I ask you to perhaps draw your question towards a conclusion so
that we can move on to another question shortly.
Questions without Notice Resumed
Dr A.D. BUTI : Like-for-like
activities, which include most farming activities, will be exempt. If there is
no Aboriginal cultural heritage, there is no need to obtain approval. If it is
a like-for-like activity, there will be no need to obtain approval. I hope
members understand that and will consider that.
This is reminiscent of the debate that we had back in 1992
and 1993 over the Native Title Act. That is what is disappointing from the
opposition—the division. The member for Roe, in correspondence with my
office, has said that we are trying to divide Western Australia. Why is that
only ever raised when we try to do something for Aboriginal people? Why is it
only ever raised by the opposition—the Tories, the agrarian socialist
party, which is the Nationals WA, the sectarian party that it is—when
we seek to protect Aboriginal heritage or Aboriginal rights? Environmental and planning approval is needed and,
often, approval from local government is needed. The opposition does not
complain about that, but when approval might be needed to protect Aboriginal
culture, it is divisive. The same argument—that it is divisive—was
used by some of the Tories in regard to the Voice. Whenever we want to give
Aboriginal people a say —
Point of Order
Dr D.J. HONEY : I have a point
of order.
The SPEAKER : It is not an
opportunity for debate.
Dr D.J. HONEY : My point of
order is that this is drifting well beyond any answer to the question that was
asked.
The SPEAKER : That is not a point
of order either. The minister's comments are within the context of the
question that was asked, but I will ask you to draw your answer to a conclusion,
minister.
Questions without Notice Resumed
Dr A.D. BUTI : Thank you,
Madam Speaker. Of course, I will have more to say in the matter of public
interest debate.
I will conclude with a couple of
issues. As I stated, the department gave the opposition a special briefing on
the act, and it was completely misrepresented in the Countryman ,
including by Hon Neil Thomson saying that the act was going to destroy our
economy. As I said, the member for Roe was quoted as saying the act was going
to grind normal farming activities into the ground. This is exactly the same
scaremongering that was used by conservatives over
native title. I can go back and quote the then National Party leader, Tim
Fischer, who stated that the dispossession of Indigenous Australians was
inevitable, that their culture was stationary and not highly developed, and
that recognition of native title was going to put a brake on the economy and break
up Australia. You were on the wrong side of history then and you will be on the
wrong side of history with this piece of legislation.
thank the member for her question and her interest in and advocacy for
preserving Aboriginal cultural heritage, and I thank her for the opportunity to
stand before the house to clarify some misinformation that has been fuelled by
the opposition and others.
We
are ready to transition to the new Aboriginal cultural heritage regime. People
need to realise that under the current act it is unlawful to harm
Aboriginal cultural heritage. There will be no change in that respect. It is
unlawful now. It is not a thing that will develop on 1 July. It is not that
suddenly harm to Aboriginal cultural
heritage will be unlawful on 1 July. It is unlawful as we speak. The new act
develops a better system that will reduce red tape and put Aboriginal
people at the centre, the focus, of protecting their cultural heritage, which I
think is appropriate.
The current act is over 50 years old.
It is outdated and changes needed to be made. As I said, the new legislation
prioritises Aboriginal people as the right people to speak on matters that
impact on their cultural heritage.
Consultation on the act and the regulations has been a five-year process. Last
year over 1 100 people attended 90-plus workshops around the state as
part of the co-design process for the regulations. Another 220 submissions were
received. Hundreds of meetings were held with Aboriginal organisations,
industry groups, resource sectors, developers, local governments and more. The
National Farmers' Federation and the Pastoralists and Graziers
Association were invited to attend these workshops. They decided not to attend.
But may I say that one of their policy officers in the consultation for the
bill that then became the act said that the consultation process was exemplary.
The new regime will commence on 1 July.
We have taken notice of some of the farmers and pastoralists who attended the
workshops. The peak organisations may not have attended or we were not notified
that they would attend. However, we listened
to some of the farmers and pastoralists and, as part of that feedback ,
we developed a tiered system that will allow for better processing of
applications for uses of land. Most farmers and pastoralists will not be
impacted. That is what is disappointing about the opposition. Have opposition
members read the act?
Mr P.J. Rundle : Yes, I have
it here.
Ms L. Mettam : Yes.
Dr A.D. BUTI : Have the
opposition members read it? They might have it there, but I do not think they
have read it. If opposition members had read it, Hon Neil Thomson would not
have gone on TV and said if someone builds a pool in a residential block of
whatever size —
Ms L. Mettam : Your deputy
director general could not clarify that on 6PR when asked. He could not answer
a simple question.
Dr A.D. BUTI : I am telling
you.
Ms L. Mettam : You haven't
done your job.
Dr A.D. BUTI : You are a shame.
You are a disgrace. Member for Vasse —
Ms L. Mettam interjected.
The SPEAKER : Order, please,
members! Minister, I think you have made the point and I am going to ask the
opposition not to continue to interject, but I will also ask you not to
continue to ask it questions.
Dr A.D. BUTI : Like-for-like
activities are exempt, so a farmer who has been grazing and cropping their
property year in, year out will be able to
continue to do that. They will not need to obtain approval for that. The member
for Roe was quoted as saying the act will grind normal farming
activities into the ground. Does the member honestly believe that? How will
that be if like-for-like farming activities are exempted?
Point of Order
Mr R.S. LOVE : This is just
argument. It is not an answer to a question. It is argument. We will be
debating a matter of public interest shortly and the minister will have an
opportunity to place his argument then. I ask him to get back to the point.
Several members interjected.
The SPEAKER : Members! I will
rule on that. It is not a point of order that I accept, although, minister, you
are continuing to goad the opposition, so when that occurs, you have to expect
a response. I ask you to perhaps draw your question towards a conclusion so
that we can move on to another question shortly.
Questions without Notice Resumed
Dr A.D. BUTI : Like-for-like
activities, which include most farming activities, will be exempt. If there is
no Aboriginal cultural heritage, there is no need to obtain approval. If it is
a like-for-like activity, there will be no need to obtain approval. I hope
members understand that and will consider that.
This is reminiscent of the debate that we had back in 1992
and 1993 over the Native Title Act. That is what is disappointing from the
opposition—the division. The member for Roe, in correspondence with my
office, has said that we are trying to divide Western Australia. Why is that
only ever raised when we try to do something for Aboriginal people? Why is it
only ever raised by the opposition—the Tories, the agrarian socialist
party, which is the Nationals WA, the sectarian party that it is—when
we seek to protect Aboriginal heritage or Aboriginal rights? Environmental and planning approval is needed and,
often, approval from local government is needed. The opposition does not
complain about that, but when approval might be needed to protect Aboriginal
culture, it is divisive. The same argument—that it is divisive—was
used by some of the Tories in regard to the Voice. Whenever we want to give
Aboriginal people a say —
Point of Order
Dr D.J. HONEY : I have a point
of order.
The SPEAKER : It is not an
opportunity for debate.
Dr D.J. HONEY : My point of
order is that this is drifting well beyond any answer to the question that was
asked.
The SPEAKER : That is not a point
of order either. The minister's comments are within the context of the
question that was asked, but I will ask you to draw your answer to a conclusion,
minister.
Questions without Notice Resumed
Dr A.D. BUTI : Thank you,
Madam Speaker. Of course, I will have more to say in the matter of public
interest debate.
I will conclude with a couple of
issues. As I stated, the department gave the opposition a special briefing on
the act, and it was completely misrepresented in the Countryman ,
including by Hon Neil Thomson saying that the act was going to destroy our
economy. As I said, the member for Roe was quoted as saying the act was going
to grind normal farming activities into the ground. This is exactly the same
scaremongering that was used by conservatives over
native title. I can go back and quote the then National Party leader, Tim
Fischer, who stated that the dispossession of Indigenous Australians was
inevitable, that their culture was stationary and not highly developed, and
that recognition of native title was going to put a brake on the economy and break
up Australia. You were on the wrong side of history then and you will be on the
wrong side of history with this piece of legislation.
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.