Add Category
Western Australia's planning authorities are fielding an average of 25 phone calls and 50 emails a day from landholders, confused over the state's new Aboriginal heritage laws.
Key points:
- WA's new Aboriginal Heritage Act took effect on July 1
- Since then, planning authorities have been fielding 50 emails and 25 calls a day from concerned landholders
- The Opposition has pledged to scrap new laws, but the government says progress is being made
The new laws, which reform the state's previous 70s-era act and create a tiered system of heritage requirements for landholders, took effect on July 1.
While designed to strengthen and streamline the protection of Aboriginal cultural heritage in the state, the laws have faced criticism from farming groups and the state opposition.
Concerns include the vague nature of the laws' rollout and the potential for inadvertent breaches.
Confusion over the laws has also triggered the cancellation of public events like tree plantings — something Aboriginal Affairs Minister Tony Buti insists should not be happening.
With the government pledging to take an "educational" approach for the act's first year, the Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage has been fielding an average of 50 emails and 25 calls a day since July 1.
"Many calls relate to individual circumstances, such as land users seeking clarification about activities on their land," a DPLH spokesperson said.
"Some callers needed technical assistance to navigate the online options, while others simply wanted general advice or information.
"As was anticipated when the new laws came into effect, there has also been increased traffic on the DPLH website as people familiarise themselves with the new act."
The spokesperson pointed to the formal establishment of the first Local Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Services — the key local decision makers on Aboriginal heritage under the act — in the Pilbara and Kimberley as a key sign of progress.
Farmers want to avoid breaking law
But the lack of these services in other areas has left local landholders facing a complex process of identifying the correct, local traditional owners and knowledge-holders.
Ross Woodhouse, a dairy farmer from Scott River, was fined $10,000 in 2018 after the construction of a dam on one of his properties.
"Once we purchased the property we were aware of Aboriginal heritage," Mr Woodhouse.
"We tried to navigate the Aboriginal heritage website and had extreme difficulty."
Mr Woodhouse said he called the department "about five or six times" and lodged all relevant applications, but built the dam before waiting for approval because of the complexities.
"It was near-on impossible, you could put in your location number, and then it just went nowhere," he said.
"Then we probably made assumptions because it was a blue-gum plantation and there were dams along the creek.
"The process was so difficult and wasn't transparent and very difficult to navigate, that we weren't able to get a conclusive outcome."
The $10,000 fine came under Western Australia's previous Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act.
However, Mr Woodhouse said he was also concerned about the lack of clarity over the new act.
"We don't have a transparent process that will help us identify sites and make it simple," Mr Woodhouse said.
He urged the government to create a simpler process for landholders to do the right thing.
"It's certainly going to create a lot of uncertainty and they need to look hard at simplifying the process."
Need for absolute clarity
An implementation group set up by the government to work through issues in the act's first year has held its first meeting.
The group includes government representatives, farming, pastoral, mining, property and Aboriginal groups.
Industry sources have questioned whether one online meeting a month is enough to address the many issues being raised.
WAFarmers President John Hassell said the act needed to be "absolutely clear cut".
"Farmers are almost paralysed with fear over what it will cost them if they breach," Mr Hassell said.
"What we need is some clear guidelines around where the legislation and the regulations need to change.
"At the moment it is too airy fairy, up in the air, and subject to interpretation – and regulations should not be subject to interpretation, they should be absolutely clear cut."
Mr Hassell said the 12-month interim period was too long to wait for clarity.
"I've heard of at least 10 bulldozing jobs that have been cancelled because people are worried about the outcomes of it," he said.
"I think that's not satisfactory — if the department's aware of it and can make the changes, they should get on and make the changes.
"None of us want to damage Aboriginal cultural heritage, but it just too open-ended for us to be able to make a decision the way it is."
Loading