❓ Question seeks clarification on the legal basis for decisions related to Aboriginal heritage protection and consultation processes concerning the Devil Creek gas plant development, specifically regarding the role of the EPA and consultation with native title groups.
⏳ Awaiting AnswerQoN 6439Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
(1) In what part of the
Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972
, the
Aboriginal Heritage Regulations 1974
, the
Environmental Protection Act 1986
or the
Environmental Protection Regulations 1987
is it stated that if the Environmental Protection Authority had not completed an environmental impact assessment under the provisions of the
Environmental Protection Act 1986,
the Minister was not authorised by law to make such a section 18 decision?
(2) Why was the Minister not authorised by law to make such a decision in respect of the Apache section 18 application?
(3) In respect of (1) and (2), who in the Department of Indigenous Affairs (DIA)advised the Minister of such a legal requirement?
(4) Are the registered claimants of the area the Yaburara Mardudhunera WC96/089 and the Wong-Goo-Tt-Oo WC98/040?
(5) In respect of the insufficient consultation by Apache Northwest Pty Ltd with two native title groups regarding the construction and future operation of the Devil Creek gas plant and associated infrastructure, were the two groups referred to in the letter the Ngarluma and Kuruma Marthudunere Native Title Groups?
(6) Who within the DIA made the decision that the Ngarluma and Kuruma Marthudunere Native Title Groups should be consulted by Apache Northwest Pty Ltd in respect of their development?
(7) On what basis was the decision made that the Ngarluma and Kuruma Marthudunere Native Title Groups should be consulted by Apache Northwest Pty Ltd in respect of their development and why?
(8) Was any correspondence, communication or presentation received by the ACMC, the DIA or the Minister from the Ngarluma Native Title Group or entities representing or purporting to represent their views that they should be consulted?
(9) If yes to (8), from whom, on what date and by what method was this information received?
(10) Was any correspondence, communication or presentation received by the ACMC, the DIA or the Minister from the Kuruma Marthudunere Native Title Group or entities representing or purporting to represent their views that they should be consulted?
(11) If yes to (10), from whom on what date and by what method was this information received?
(12) If yes to (8) and (10), will the Minister table any correspondence associated with any such communication?
(13) If no to (12), why not?
Answered on
Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972
, the
Aboriginal Heritage Regulations 1974
, the
Environmental Protection Act 1986
or the
Environmental Protection Regulations 1987
is it stated that if the Environmental Protection Authority had not completed an environmental impact assessment under the provisions of the
Environmental Protection Act 1986,
the Minister was not authorised by law to make such a section 18 decision?
(2) Why was the Minister not authorised by law to make such a decision in respect of the Apache section 18 application?
(3) In respect of (1) and (2), who in the Department of Indigenous Affairs (DIA)advised the Minister of such a legal requirement?
(4) Are the registered claimants of the area the Yaburara Mardudhunera WC96/089 and the Wong-Goo-Tt-Oo WC98/040?
(5) In respect of the insufficient consultation by Apache Northwest Pty Ltd with two native title groups regarding the construction and future operation of the Devil Creek gas plant and associated infrastructure, were the two groups referred to in the letter the Ngarluma and Kuruma Marthudunere Native Title Groups?
(6) Who within the DIA made the decision that the Ngarluma and Kuruma Marthudunere Native Title Groups should be consulted by Apache Northwest Pty Ltd in respect of their development?
(7) On what basis was the decision made that the Ngarluma and Kuruma Marthudunere Native Title Groups should be consulted by Apache Northwest Pty Ltd in respect of their development and why?
(8) Was any correspondence, communication or presentation received by the ACMC, the DIA or the Minister from the Ngarluma Native Title Group or entities representing or purporting to represent their views that they should be consulted?
(9) If yes to (8), from whom, on what date and by what method was this information received?
(10) Was any correspondence, communication or presentation received by the ACMC, the DIA or the Minister from the Kuruma Marthudunere Native Title Group or entities representing or purporting to represent their views that they should be consulted?
(11) If yes to (10), from whom on what date and by what method was this information received?
(12) If yes to (8) and (10), will the Minister table any correspondence associated with any such communication?
(13) If no to (12), why not?
Answered on
AnswerView source ↗
⏳
This question is awaiting a response from the Minister.
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.