❓ Hon Neil Thomson asks about prosecutions under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 since 2017, specifically regarding tangible vs. intangible heritage and the Juukan Gorge disaster. The Minister's response details the number and nature of prosecutions and explains why Rio Tinto was not prosecuted.
AnsweredQoN 688Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
ABORIGINAL HERITAGE ACT — PROSECUTIONS
688. Hon NEIL THOMSON to the Leader of the House representing the
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs:
I refer to the Aboriginal Heritage
Act 1972.
(1) How many prosecutions have
occurred under this legislation since 2017?
(2) How many of those prosecutions related to the
destruction of tangible, as opposed to intangible, Aboriginal cultural
heritage?
(3) Was Rio Tinto prosecuted for the
Juukan Gorge disaster?
(4) If no to (3), why not?
688. Hon NEIL THOMSON to the Leader of the House representing the
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs:
I refer to the Aboriginal Heritage
Act 1972.
(1) How many prosecutions have
occurred under this legislation since 2017?
(2) How many of those prosecutions related to the
destruction of tangible, as opposed to intangible, Aboriginal cultural
heritage?
(3) Was Rio Tinto prosecuted for the
Juukan Gorge disaster?
(4) If no to (3), why not?
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the honourable member for some notice of the
question.
(1)–(2)
Since 2017, the following prosecutions have occurred under the Aboriginal
Heritage Act 1972. Nine prosecutions were
completed. Three involved artefact scatters and rock art/engraving sites, two involved mythological sites and four involved combined artefact scatters/fossils and
mythological sites. Two prosecutions are currently in court. Both involve
mythological sites.
(3)–(4) Rio Tinto was not prosecuted for breaching
the act as it was operating under a section 18 consent.
question.
(1)–(2)
Since 2017, the following prosecutions have occurred under the Aboriginal
Heritage Act 1972. Nine prosecutions were
completed. Three involved artefact scatters and rock art/engraving sites, two involved mythological sites and four involved combined artefact scatters/fossils and
mythological sites. Two prosecutions are currently in court. Both involve
mythological sites.
(3)–(4) Rio Tinto was not prosecuted for breaching
the act as it was operating under a section 18 consent.
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.