Hundreds of community members turn out for Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act workshop at Waroona Memorial Hall

Protection of Aboriginal heritage has been “put back a decade” by the State Government’s handling of the implementation of the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act. Now to be abandoned by the government just weeks after the legislation came into effect, the new requirements to consult with traditional owners prior to commencing property works was opposed by various sectors including farming and local government. Shire of Harvey president Paul Gillett believed the way the State Government had managed the implementation of the legislation since July 1 had caused long term damage to the protection of Aboriginal heritage sites. “This has put things back a decade, maybe 20 years. It is something which was done with good intentions, but was ill thought out,” he said. Cr Gillett said the legislation to strengthen protections was created for “the right reasons” following Rio Tinto’s destruction of the Juukan Gorge rock caves in 2020, but the implementation had “soured things a little bit”. “More should have been done to get things right. Do a little bit more consultation and homework,” he said. “I think it has sort of muddied the waters a bit given what is happening in the political sphere. “Maybe the local members should have sat down and engaged with us a bit more before it is legislated.” The decision by the State Government to abandon the legislation follows wide spread community and industry concern, which came to a head locally last week at a meeting of about 250 landowners at the Waroona Memorial Hall. The Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage hosted a workshop in front of a bumper crowd at the venue, with attendees coming from as far away as Collie and Serpentine to be there. The lack of consultation by the State Government, as perceived by Cr Gillett, was also apparent in the feedback from those attending the Waroona meeting. At one point, a member of the crowd asked others present at the hall to put their hands up if they had attended one of the 35 community consultation sessions the department said it had held before the Act was passed. No one in the room raised their hand. Earlier Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage official Cesar Rodriguez took attendees through an overview of the legislation before the floor was opened up to questions. One topic which came up multiple times was the question of exemptions, with the difference between replacing existing fencing and creating new fencing highlighted. Mr Rodriguez said landowners could do like-for-like activities in the same area such as replacing an existing fence without any action, but a new fence would be a tier-one activity which required them to conduct “due diligence”. “The process says you need to do a visual inspection — if you don’t see anything there, then you can do it,” he said. Several grievances were also raised in relation to the DPLH’s Aboriginal Cultural Heritage map not containing all the information for landowners to make a determination as to whether there was Aboriginal cultural heritage on their land. Mr Rodriguez admitted the maps were only a starting point for those seeking to identify Aboriginal cultural heritage on their property. “I do understand the frustration, and we don’t have all of the information,” he said. Murray-Wellington MLA Robyn Clarke, who opened the workshop, spoke about potential changes to the Act as a result of community feedback, which led one attendee to accuse the Labor Party of “doing what they want” because it had a majority in both houses of State Parliament. Ms Clarke strenuously disputed the claim, however. Trent Rogers, the third generation of his family to toil on the same local block, told the forum he was concerned about a section of the Act regarding intangible “oral expression of cultural tradition”, saying Aboriginal corporations could “ransom” landowners to provide consultation about it. “They can make it up as they go,” the young dad and beef farmer said. “And as a landowner, we can’t disagree or question any decision of the LACHS (Local Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Services) regarding permit approvals. “Basically, those Aboriginal corporations can ransom you in any way they feel and there is absolutely nothing you can do.” Mr Rodriguez said he did not believe that would happen. He later said people and groups could be fined for making false claims under the Act, and claims of Aboriginal cultural heritage had to meet minimum standards before the department would accept them.