Home›Questions on Notice›QoN 14

❓ A WA parliamentary question on notice probes the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs regarding a proposed industrial jetty development at Entrance Point Reef in Broome, focusing on potential impacts to Aboriginal heritage sites, dinosaur footprints, and consultation processes. The Minister's response indicates no registered sites are directly impacted, but acknowledges the presence and significance of heritage features.

AnsweredQoN 14Legislative Council

Asked

8 April 2025

Member

Hon Dr Brad Pettitt

Portfolio

Aboriginal Affairs

QuestionView source ↗

I refer to Entrance Point Reef in Broome, that is within a registered Aboriginal Heritage Site and is the site of a proposed industrial floating jetty, and I ask: (a) what are the names of the registered Aboriginal Heritage Sites in the proposed development envelope; (b) when were the sites in (a) registered; (c) in reference to (b), who was the informant; (d) what is the significance of the site(s) to the Aboriginal informants of the site; (e) is the Minister aware that there are 130-million-year-old dinosaur footprints in the development area; (f) is the Minister aware of the heritage significance of the dinosaur footprints on the Broome coast, including that they are on the National Heritage List; (g) is the Minister aware of the significance of the dinosaur footprints to the Aboriginal people who ensured the site was registered as an Aboriginal Heritage Site; (h) is the Minister aware that some dinosaur footprints in the area are considered highly culturally significant to Aboriginal people of the region; (i) is the Minister aware that some of these footprints have been found in, or near, the proposed impact zone of the industrial jetty; (j) if yes to (i), how will the Minister ensure they are not damaged by infrastructure; (k) is the Minister aware that fossilised human footprints are present at Entrance Point in Broome; (l) if yes to (k), how will the Minister ensure they are not damaged by infrastructure; (m) have any studies been done within the development area determining whether fossilised human footprints could be under threat from this development, both within the intertidal zone and/or on the shoreline; (n) if yes to (m), will the Minister table the study; (o) did the Port of Broome authority inform Kimberley Marine Support Base (KMSB) that there was an Aboriginal Heritage Site, or sites, in the proposed impact zone of the floating jetty; (p) if yes to (o), when; (q) did KMSB apply for a Section 18 permit to destroy a site prior to undertaking exploratory drilling in October 2023; (r) if no to (q), did that potentially contravene the Aboriginal Heritage Act; (s) if no to (q), why not; (t) has the KMSB now applied for a Section 18 permit at the Port of Broome; (u) if yes to (t), when did they apply; (v) if yes to (t), was it referred to the Aboriginal Cultural Materials Committee (ACMC); (w) if yes to (v), when; (x) in reference to (v), has the ACMC made a recommendation on the application; (y) if yes to (t), when was the decision made; (z) in reference to (y), will the Minister table the minutes or record of the decision; (aa) if no to (z), why not; (bb) if the ACMC has made a recommendation, has the Minister accepted the recommendation and approved the Section 18 application; (cc) if yes to (bb), when was the decision made by the Minister; (dd) were the informants of the registered site/s, or their descendants, consulted on the Section 18 application; (ee) if no to (dd), why not; (ff) if yes to (dd), did the informants object to the granting of a Section 18 application; (gg) if yes to (ff), on what grounds did they object; (hh) if the informants were consulted around a Section 18 application, did say they were adequately consulted in a fair manner; (ii) if no to (hh), why did the informants say they weren’t consulted fairly; (jj) if the Section 18 application has been granted, what values of the Aboriginal Heritage Site are allowed to be destroyed; and (kk) has Native Title been extinguished at the Port of Broome?

AnswerView source ↗

Answered

20 May 2025

Responded by

Leader of the House representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs

Response time

6 days

(a)-(d) There are no registered Aboriginal sites where the proposed jetty/port infrastructure works are being undertaken by Kimberley Marine Support Base (KMSB).
(e) Based on the available information, there are no known dinosaur footprints intersecting with the KMSB development footprint.
(f)-(j) Yes.
(k)-(n) The Minister understands that fossilised human footprints are present at Entrance Point but that there are none that intersect the proposed development footprint.
(o)-(p) As referred to above, there are no registered Aboriginal sites within the proposed development footprint.
(q)-(s) KMSB’s exploratory drilling did not occur within the boundary of any Aboriginal site.
(t)-(jj) KMSB submitted a notice under section 18 of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 in April 2024. The Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Committee (ACHC) provides procedural fairness to interested parties, including the relevant native title party and any knowledge holders to provide comment on a section 18 notice. The views of these parties are taken into consideration by the ACHC and the Minister. As required by section 18, the Minister takes into consideration the recommendation of the ACHC and the general interests of the community in deciding whether to grant consent to a notice. Decisions of the Minister are published on the website of the Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage, including this consent which was granted on 6 August 2024. As noted above, no Aboriginal site intersects with the proposed KMSB development footprint.
(kk) No. The native title party is Yawuru Registered Native Title Holders Body Corporate.

View on Parliament of WA