❓ A parliamentary question investigates alleged damage to an Aboriginal site near Nullagine by a Main Roads contractor. The response confirms an investigation took place, but a prosecution was not recommended.
AnsweredQoN 3200Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
(1) Has the Department of Aboriginal Affairs (DAA) received during the term of the current Government a complaint that Main Roads Western Australia had damaged a site near Nullagine and, if so, which site, when and by what company? (2) If yes to (1), did a DAA officer carry out an investigation of the allegation and, if so, what recommendation did the officer make to the department? (3) Will the Minister table the officer’s report? (4) Did DAA undertake any subsequent action over the complaint and, if so, what? (5) What view did DAA form as to the significance of the site under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 ? (6) Was the status of the site changed after the site complaint was received and, if so, in what way? (7) Did DAA or the Minister receive any specific advice from the Deputy Director General in relation to the complaint of site damage and, if so, what was the substance of the advice? (8) Will the Minister table that advice?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
9 September 2015
Responded by
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs
Response time
85 days
1. Yes, on 25 November 2013, a complaint was made that a Main Roads contractor had damaged a traditional storage place known as Manganya Hill or Cave Hill.
2. Yes, seven Department of Aboriginal Affairs officers participated in an investigation. The investigation found that the ground disturbing activity had been undertaken some distance away from the traditional storage place. It was recommended to the Director General not to commence a prosecution.
3. No. The investigation report contains personal information about individuals and disclosure of the report may impair the effectiveness of investigation procedures under s17 of the
Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972
.
4. Yes. Subsequent to the investigation, the Department of Aboriginal Affairs became aware of the place known as Manganya Hill or Cave Hill and recorded information regarding the place.
5. The Aboriginal Cultural Material Committee is the only body that can make an assessment regarding the significance of a site under the
Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972
.
6. No.
7. No.
8. Not applicable.
2. Yes, seven Department of Aboriginal Affairs officers participated in an investigation. The investigation found that the ground disturbing activity had been undertaken some distance away from the traditional storage place. It was recommended to the Director General not to commence a prosecution.
3. No. The investigation report contains personal information about individuals and disclosure of the report may impair the effectiveness of investigation procedures under s17 of the
Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972
.
4. Yes. Subsequent to the investigation, the Department of Aboriginal Affairs became aware of the place known as Manganya Hill or Cave Hill and recorded information regarding the place.
5. The Aboriginal Cultural Material Committee is the only body that can make an assessment regarding the significance of a site under the
Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972
.
6. No.
7. No.
8. Not applicable.
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.