❓ A WA parliamentary question addresses disputes, mediation costs, and veto powers related to heritage agreements between miners and the Goldfields Land and Sea Council, focusing on the role of anthropologists and the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972.
AnsweredQoN 851Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
I refer the minister to the standard Goldfields Land and Sea Council heritage agreement provided by the Department of Industry and Resources. (1) In cases in which there is a dispute over some aspect of the agreement, will the cost of the mediation be carried by the miner? (2) Does the dispute resolution mechanism extend to disputes over the recommendations in the final report of the coordinating anthropologist; and, if not, why not? (3) Is any further appeal mechanism available for appeals against recommendations considered by the miner to be unsubstantiated if the mineral deposit zone is declared an area to be avoided; and, if so, what is it? (4) Is it correct that the heritage agreement process, by allowing for declaration of areas to be avoided, provides an effective power of veto over mining land grants that is not given to native title claimants or native title holders under the Native Title Act; and, if not, why not? Hon KEN TRAVERS
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for some notice of this question. I note that the answer I have is dated 24 September. I do not think there would be change to the answer as a result of that date, but the answer I will provide is accurate as of that date. I am advised - The standard Goldfields Land and Sea Council heritage agreement was negotiated between peak mining industry groups and the Goldfields Land and Sea Council, and the parties had assistance from the National Native Title Tribunal. (1) It is understood that any cost for a mediator would be resolved by agreement between the parties. (2) The agreement provides a process under clauses 9.2 and 9.3 for the parties to comment and consult on the coordinating anthropologist’s report. (3) There is no prohibition on conducting any legal exploration, and the miner must be aware of the penalties if he chooses at his own risk to not abide by the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972. The miner can, under condition 3.4 of the agreement, give the native title claim group at least 60 days written notice of his intention to apply for a section 18 notice under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972. The normal Aboriginal cultural committee processes would apply under the AHA. (4) No. The heritage agreement does not prevent the grant of a title. See (3) above.
(1) In cases in which there is a dispute over some aspect of the agreement, will the cost of the mediation be carried by the miner? (2) Does the dispute resolution mechanism extend to disputes over the recommendations in the final report of the coordinating anthropologist; and, if not, why not? (3) Is any further appeal mechanism available for appeals against recommendations considered by the miner to be unsubstantiated if the mineral deposit zone is declared an area to be avoided; and, if so, what is it? (4) Is it correct that the heritage agreement process, by allowing for declaration of areas to be avoided, provides an effective power of veto over mining land grants that is not given to native title claimants or native title holders under the Native Title Act; and, if not, why not? Hon KEN TRAVERS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. I note that the answer I have is dated 24 September. I do not think there would be change to the answer as a result of that date, but the answer I will provide is accurate as of that date. I am advised - The standard Goldfields Land and Sea Council heritage agreement was negotiated between peak mining industry groups and the Goldfields Land and Sea Council, and the parties had assistance from the National Native Title Tribunal. (1) It is understood that any cost for a mediator would be resolved by agreement between the parties. (2) The agreement provides a process under clauses 9.2 and 9.3 for the parties to comment and consult on the coordinating anthropologist’s report. (3) There is no prohibition on conducting any legal exploration, and the miner must be aware of the penalties if he chooses at his own risk to not abide by the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972. The miner can, under condition 3.4 of the agreement, give the native title claim group at least 60 days written notice of his intention to apply for a section 18 notice under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972. The normal Aboriginal cultural committee processes would apply under the AHA. (4) No. The heritage agreement does not prevent the grant of a title. See (3) above.
(2) Does the dispute resolution mechanism extend to disputes over the recommendations in the final report of the coordinating anthropologist; and, if not, why not? (3) Is any further appeal mechanism available for appeals against recommendations considered by the miner to be unsubstantiated if the mineral deposit zone is declared an area to be avoided; and, if so, what is it? (4) Is it correct that the heritage agreement process, by allowing for declaration of areas to be avoided, provides an effective power of veto over mining land grants that is not given to native title claimants or native title holders under the Native Title Act; and, if not, why not? Hon KEN TRAVERS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. I note that the answer I have is dated 24 September. I do not think there would be change to the answer as a result of that date, but the answer I will provide is accurate as of that date. I am advised - The standard Goldfields Land and Sea Council heritage agreement was negotiated between peak mining industry groups and the Goldfields Land and Sea Council, and the parties had assistance from the National Native Title Tribunal. (1) It is understood that any cost for a mediator would be resolved by agreement between the parties. (2) The agreement provides a process under clauses 9.2 and 9.3 for the parties to comment and consult on the coordinating anthropologist’s report. (3) There is no prohibition on conducting any legal exploration, and the miner must be aware of the penalties if he chooses at his own risk to not abide by the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972. The miner can, under condition 3.4 of the agreement, give the native title claim group at least 60 days written notice of his intention to apply for a section 18 notice under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972. The normal Aboriginal cultural committee processes would apply under the AHA. (4) No. The heritage agreement does not prevent the grant of a title. See (3) above.
(3) Is any further appeal mechanism available for appeals against recommendations considered by the miner to be unsubstantiated if the mineral deposit zone is declared an area to be avoided; and, if so, what is it? (4) Is it correct that the heritage agreement process, by allowing for declaration of areas to be avoided, provides an effective power of veto over mining land grants that is not given to native title claimants or native title holders under the Native Title Act; and, if not, why not? Hon KEN TRAVERS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. I note that the answer I have is dated 24 September. I do not think there would be change to the answer as a result of that date, but the answer I will provide is accurate as of that date. I am advised - The standard Goldfields Land and Sea Council heritage agreement was negotiated between peak mining industry groups and the Goldfields Land and Sea Council, and the parties had assistance from the National Native Title Tribunal. (1) It is understood that any cost for a mediator would be resolved by agreement between the parties. (2) The agreement provides a process under clauses 9.2 and 9.3 for the parties to comment and consult on the coordinating anthropologist’s report. (3) There is no prohibition on conducting any legal exploration, and the miner must be aware of the penalties if he chooses at his own risk to not abide by the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972. The miner can, under condition 3.4 of the agreement, give the native title claim group at least 60 days written notice of his intention to apply for a section 18 notice under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972. The normal Aboriginal cultural committee processes would apply under the AHA. (4) No. The heritage agreement does not prevent the grant of a title. See (3) above.
(4) Is it correct that the heritage agreement process, by allowing for declaration of areas to be avoided, provides an effective power of veto over mining land grants that is not given to native title claimants or native title holders under the Native Title Act; and, if not, why not? Hon KEN TRAVERS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. I note that the answer I have is dated 24 September. I do not think there would be change to the answer as a result of that date, but the answer I will provide is accurate as of that date. I am advised - The standard Goldfields Land and Sea Council heritage agreement was negotiated between peak mining industry groups and the Goldfields Land and Sea Council, and the parties had assistance from the National Native Title Tribunal. (1) It is understood that any cost for a mediator would be resolved by agreement between the parties. (2) The agreement provides a process under clauses 9.2 and 9.3 for the parties to comment and consult on the coordinating anthropologist’s report. (3) There is no prohibition on conducting any legal exploration, and the miner must be aware of the penalties if he chooses at his own risk to not abide by the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972. The miner can, under condition 3.4 of the agreement, give the native title claim group at least 60 days written notice of his intention to apply for a section 18 notice under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972. The normal Aboriginal cultural committee processes would apply under the AHA. (4) No. The heritage agreement does not prevent the grant of a title. See (3) above.
Hon KEN TRAVERS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. I note that the answer I have is dated 24 September. I do not think there would be change to the answer as a result of that date, but the answer I will provide is accurate as of that date. I am advised - The standard Goldfields Land and Sea Council heritage agreement was negotiated between peak mining industry groups and the Goldfields Land and Sea Council, and the parties had assistance from the National Native Title Tribunal. (1) It is understood that any cost for a mediator would be resolved by agreement between the parties. (2) The agreement provides a process under clauses 9.2 and 9.3 for the parties to comment and consult on the coordinating anthropologist’s report. (3) There is no prohibition on conducting any legal exploration, and the miner must be aware of the penalties if he chooses at his own risk to not abide by the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972. The miner can, under condition 3.4 of the agreement, give the native title claim group at least 60 days written notice of his intention to apply for a section 18 notice under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972. The normal Aboriginal cultural committee processes would apply under the AHA. (4) No. The heritage agreement does not prevent the grant of a title. See (3) above.
I thank the member for some notice of this question. I note that the answer I have is dated 24 September. I do not think there would be change to the answer as a result of that date, but the answer I will provide is accurate as of that date. I am advised - The standard Goldfields Land and Sea Council heritage agreement was negotiated between peak mining industry groups and the Goldfields Land and Sea Council, and the parties had assistance from the National Native Title Tribunal. (1) It is understood that any cost for a mediator would be resolved by agreement between the parties. (2) The agreement provides a process under clauses 9.2 and 9.3 for the parties to comment and consult on the coordinating anthropologist’s report. (3) There is no prohibition on conducting any legal exploration, and the miner must be aware of the penalties if he chooses at his own risk to not abide by the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972. The miner can, under condition 3.4 of the agreement, give the native title claim group at least 60 days written notice of his intention to apply for a section 18 notice under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972. The normal Aboriginal cultural committee processes would apply under the AHA. (4) No. The heritage agreement does not prevent the grant of a title. See (3) above.
The standard Goldfields Land and Sea Council heritage agreement was negotiated between peak mining industry groups and the Goldfields Land and Sea Council, and the parties had assistance from the National Native Title Tribunal. (1) It is understood that any cost for a mediator would be resolved by agreement between the parties. (2) The agreement provides a process under clauses 9.2 and 9.3 for the parties to comment and consult on the coordinating anthropologist’s report. (3) There is no prohibition on conducting any legal exploration, and the miner must be aware of the penalties if he chooses at his own risk to not abide by the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972. The miner can, under condition 3.4 of the agreement, give the native title claim group at least 60 days written notice of his intention to apply for a section 18 notice under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972. The normal Aboriginal cultural committee processes would apply under the AHA. (4) No. The heritage agreement does not prevent the grant of a title. See (3) above.
(1) It is understood that any cost for a mediator would be resolved by agreement between the parties. (2) The agreement provides a process under clauses 9.2 and 9.3 for the parties to comment and consult on the coordinating anthropologist’s report. (3) There is no prohibition on conducting any legal exploration, and the miner must be aware of the penalties if he chooses at his own risk to not abide by the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972. The miner can, under condition 3.4 of the agreement, give the native title claim group at least 60 days written notice of his intention to apply for a section 18 notice under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972. The normal Aboriginal cultural committee processes would apply under the AHA. (4) No. The heritage agreement does not prevent the grant of a title. See (3) above.
(2) The agreement provides a process under clauses 9.2 and 9.3 for the parties to comment and consult on the coordinating anthropologist’s report. (3) There is no prohibition on conducting any legal exploration, and the miner must be aware of the penalties if he chooses at his own risk to not abide by the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972. The miner can, under condition 3.4 of the agreement, give the native title claim group at least 60 days written notice of his intention to apply for a section 18 notice under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972. The normal Aboriginal cultural committee processes would apply under the AHA. (4) No. The heritage agreement does not prevent the grant of a title. See (3) above.
(3) There is no prohibition on conducting any legal exploration, and the miner must be aware of the penalties if he chooses at his own risk to not abide by the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972. The miner can, under condition 3.4 of the agreement, give the native title claim group at least 60 days written notice of his intention to apply for a section 18 notice under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972. The normal Aboriginal cultural committee processes would apply under the AHA. (4) No. The heritage agreement does not prevent the grant of a title. See (3) above.
(4) No. The heritage agreement does not prevent the grant of a title. See (3) above.
(1) In cases in which there is a dispute over some aspect of the agreement, will the cost of the mediation be carried by the miner? (2) Does the dispute resolution mechanism extend to disputes over the recommendations in the final report of the coordinating anthropologist; and, if not, why not? (3) Is any further appeal mechanism available for appeals against recommendations considered by the miner to be unsubstantiated if the mineral deposit zone is declared an area to be avoided; and, if so, what is it? (4) Is it correct that the heritage agreement process, by allowing for declaration of areas to be avoided, provides an effective power of veto over mining land grants that is not given to native title claimants or native title holders under the Native Title Act; and, if not, why not? Hon KEN TRAVERS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. I note that the answer I have is dated 24 September. I do not think there would be change to the answer as a result of that date, but the answer I will provide is accurate as of that date. I am advised - The standard Goldfields Land and Sea Council heritage agreement was negotiated between peak mining industry groups and the Goldfields Land and Sea Council, and the parties had assistance from the National Native Title Tribunal. (1) It is understood that any cost for a mediator would be resolved by agreement between the parties. (2) The agreement provides a process under clauses 9.2 and 9.3 for the parties to comment and consult on the coordinating anthropologist’s report. (3) There is no prohibition on conducting any legal exploration, and the miner must be aware of the penalties if he chooses at his own risk to not abide by the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972. The miner can, under condition 3.4 of the agreement, give the native title claim group at least 60 days written notice of his intention to apply for a section 18 notice under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972. The normal Aboriginal cultural committee processes would apply under the AHA. (4) No. The heritage agreement does not prevent the grant of a title. See (3) above.
(2) Does the dispute resolution mechanism extend to disputes over the recommendations in the final report of the coordinating anthropologist; and, if not, why not? (3) Is any further appeal mechanism available for appeals against recommendations considered by the miner to be unsubstantiated if the mineral deposit zone is declared an area to be avoided; and, if so, what is it? (4) Is it correct that the heritage agreement process, by allowing for declaration of areas to be avoided, provides an effective power of veto over mining land grants that is not given to native title claimants or native title holders under the Native Title Act; and, if not, why not? Hon KEN TRAVERS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. I note that the answer I have is dated 24 September. I do not think there would be change to the answer as a result of that date, but the answer I will provide is accurate as of that date. I am advised - The standard Goldfields Land and Sea Council heritage agreement was negotiated between peak mining industry groups and the Goldfields Land and Sea Council, and the parties had assistance from the National Native Title Tribunal. (1) It is understood that any cost for a mediator would be resolved by agreement between the parties. (2) The agreement provides a process under clauses 9.2 and 9.3 for the parties to comment and consult on the coordinating anthropologist’s report. (3) There is no prohibition on conducting any legal exploration, and the miner must be aware of the penalties if he chooses at his own risk to not abide by the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972. The miner can, under condition 3.4 of the agreement, give the native title claim group at least 60 days written notice of his intention to apply for a section 18 notice under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972. The normal Aboriginal cultural committee processes would apply under the AHA. (4) No. The heritage agreement does not prevent the grant of a title. See (3) above.
(3) Is any further appeal mechanism available for appeals against recommendations considered by the miner to be unsubstantiated if the mineral deposit zone is declared an area to be avoided; and, if so, what is it? (4) Is it correct that the heritage agreement process, by allowing for declaration of areas to be avoided, provides an effective power of veto over mining land grants that is not given to native title claimants or native title holders under the Native Title Act; and, if not, why not? Hon KEN TRAVERS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. I note that the answer I have is dated 24 September. I do not think there would be change to the answer as a result of that date, but the answer I will provide is accurate as of that date. I am advised - The standard Goldfields Land and Sea Council heritage agreement was negotiated between peak mining industry groups and the Goldfields Land and Sea Council, and the parties had assistance from the National Native Title Tribunal. (1) It is understood that any cost for a mediator would be resolved by agreement between the parties. (2) The agreement provides a process under clauses 9.2 and 9.3 for the parties to comment and consult on the coordinating anthropologist’s report. (3) There is no prohibition on conducting any legal exploration, and the miner must be aware of the penalties if he chooses at his own risk to not abide by the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972. The miner can, under condition 3.4 of the agreement, give the native title claim group at least 60 days written notice of his intention to apply for a section 18 notice under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972. The normal Aboriginal cultural committee processes would apply under the AHA. (4) No. The heritage agreement does not prevent the grant of a title. See (3) above.
(4) Is it correct that the heritage agreement process, by allowing for declaration of areas to be avoided, provides an effective power of veto over mining land grants that is not given to native title claimants or native title holders under the Native Title Act; and, if not, why not? Hon KEN TRAVERS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. I note that the answer I have is dated 24 September. I do not think there would be change to the answer as a result of that date, but the answer I will provide is accurate as of that date. I am advised - The standard Goldfields Land and Sea Council heritage agreement was negotiated between peak mining industry groups and the Goldfields Land and Sea Council, and the parties had assistance from the National Native Title Tribunal. (1) It is understood that any cost for a mediator would be resolved by agreement between the parties. (2) The agreement provides a process under clauses 9.2 and 9.3 for the parties to comment and consult on the coordinating anthropologist’s report. (3) There is no prohibition on conducting any legal exploration, and the miner must be aware of the penalties if he chooses at his own risk to not abide by the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972. The miner can, under condition 3.4 of the agreement, give the native title claim group at least 60 days written notice of his intention to apply for a section 18 notice under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972. The normal Aboriginal cultural committee processes would apply under the AHA. (4) No. The heritage agreement does not prevent the grant of a title. See (3) above.
Hon KEN TRAVERS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. I note that the answer I have is dated 24 September. I do not think there would be change to the answer as a result of that date, but the answer I will provide is accurate as of that date. I am advised - The standard Goldfields Land and Sea Council heritage agreement was negotiated between peak mining industry groups and the Goldfields Land and Sea Council, and the parties had assistance from the National Native Title Tribunal. (1) It is understood that any cost for a mediator would be resolved by agreement between the parties. (2) The agreement provides a process under clauses 9.2 and 9.3 for the parties to comment and consult on the coordinating anthropologist’s report. (3) There is no prohibition on conducting any legal exploration, and the miner must be aware of the penalties if he chooses at his own risk to not abide by the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972. The miner can, under condition 3.4 of the agreement, give the native title claim group at least 60 days written notice of his intention to apply for a section 18 notice under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972. The normal Aboriginal cultural committee processes would apply under the AHA. (4) No. The heritage agreement does not prevent the grant of a title. See (3) above.
I thank the member for some notice of this question. I note that the answer I have is dated 24 September. I do not think there would be change to the answer as a result of that date, but the answer I will provide is accurate as of that date. I am advised - The standard Goldfields Land and Sea Council heritage agreement was negotiated between peak mining industry groups and the Goldfields Land and Sea Council, and the parties had assistance from the National Native Title Tribunal. (1) It is understood that any cost for a mediator would be resolved by agreement between the parties. (2) The agreement provides a process under clauses 9.2 and 9.3 for the parties to comment and consult on the coordinating anthropologist’s report. (3) There is no prohibition on conducting any legal exploration, and the miner must be aware of the penalties if he chooses at his own risk to not abide by the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972. The miner can, under condition 3.4 of the agreement, give the native title claim group at least 60 days written notice of his intention to apply for a section 18 notice under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972. The normal Aboriginal cultural committee processes would apply under the AHA. (4) No. The heritage agreement does not prevent the grant of a title. See (3) above.
The standard Goldfields Land and Sea Council heritage agreement was negotiated between peak mining industry groups and the Goldfields Land and Sea Council, and the parties had assistance from the National Native Title Tribunal. (1) It is understood that any cost for a mediator would be resolved by agreement between the parties. (2) The agreement provides a process under clauses 9.2 and 9.3 for the parties to comment and consult on the coordinating anthropologist’s report. (3) There is no prohibition on conducting any legal exploration, and the miner must be aware of the penalties if he chooses at his own risk to not abide by the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972. The miner can, under condition 3.4 of the agreement, give the native title claim group at least 60 days written notice of his intention to apply for a section 18 notice under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972. The normal Aboriginal cultural committee processes would apply under the AHA. (4) No. The heritage agreement does not prevent the grant of a title. See (3) above.
(1) It is understood that any cost for a mediator would be resolved by agreement between the parties. (2) The agreement provides a process under clauses 9.2 and 9.3 for the parties to comment and consult on the coordinating anthropologist’s report. (3) There is no prohibition on conducting any legal exploration, and the miner must be aware of the penalties if he chooses at his own risk to not abide by the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972. The miner can, under condition 3.4 of the agreement, give the native title claim group at least 60 days written notice of his intention to apply for a section 18 notice under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972. The normal Aboriginal cultural committee processes would apply under the AHA. (4) No. The heritage agreement does not prevent the grant of a title. See (3) above.
(2) The agreement provides a process under clauses 9.2 and 9.3 for the parties to comment and consult on the coordinating anthropologist’s report. (3) There is no prohibition on conducting any legal exploration, and the miner must be aware of the penalties if he chooses at his own risk to not abide by the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972. The miner can, under condition 3.4 of the agreement, give the native title claim group at least 60 days written notice of his intention to apply for a section 18 notice under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972. The normal Aboriginal cultural committee processes would apply under the AHA. (4) No. The heritage agreement does not prevent the grant of a title. See (3) above.
(3) There is no prohibition on conducting any legal exploration, and the miner must be aware of the penalties if he chooses at his own risk to not abide by the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972. The miner can, under condition 3.4 of the agreement, give the native title claim group at least 60 days written notice of his intention to apply for a section 18 notice under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972. The normal Aboriginal cultural committee processes would apply under the AHA. (4) No. The heritage agreement does not prevent the grant of a title. See (3) above.
(4) No. The heritage agreement does not prevent the grant of a title. See (3) above.
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.