Greens Member for the Mining and Pastoral Region Hon Robin Chapple MLC is appalled by the Barnett government’s decision to tear down homes at the Swan Valley Nyungah Community.
‘The tearing down of buildings that were designed and built in a cultural way and on sacred land is absolutely disgusting!’ said Mr Chapple.
‘Not only has the government ignored the concerns of the Nyungah Community, it has made many people homeless by evicting women, children and families from their homes,’ explained Mr Chapple.
‘I have a copy of the title for the land which states it is for the purpose of use and benefit of Aboriginal inhabitants. Today in Parliament I will call upon the Barnett government to explain under what legal grounds this has been allowed to happen,’ advised Mr Chapple.
The Greens WA have long supported the return of families to their homes at the Swan Valley Nyungah Community.
Serious concerns have been raised by a recent intern report about “The Effectiveness of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972”.
“Motivated by anecdotal evidence about issues with the functioning of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 I submitted this theme for detailed research in the annual parliamentary Intern program”.
Ms Madisson Barnsby recently completed her report under supervision from Murdoch University. It made the following findings:
The responsible authorities do not seem to be consulting with the relevant people in order to provide Aboriginal sites with the appropriate protection.
The appeals process involved is not effective enough in order to maintain an efficient system within the Department.
Section 18 is the most contentious part of the Act, and the Department has time and again approved the majority of Section 18 applications that are sent to them, regardless of the recommendations made by the Aboriginal Cultural Material Committee (ACMC).
The ACMC has a complicated job, which is complicated further by its lack of membership.
The Site Recording Forms used by the ACMC are no longer effective, as they can actually inhibit the registration of Aboriginal sites.
Problems within the Department have been shown to come down to Ministerial discretion, as well as the staff and their possible lack of relevant qualifications.
The DAA does not effectively monitor or enforce the Act, and
The use of the ‘Special Defence of Lack of Knowledge’ can be reduced with increased accessibility to the Act’s Due Diligence Guidelines.
To remedy the lack of process the report also suggests six recommendations:
1. More resources need to be put into the Department of Aboriginal Affairs in order for it to improve its appeals, monitoring and enforcement processes.
2. The Site Recording Forms need to again be amended so that they are simpler to use, and no longer inhibit the registering of Aboriginal sites.
3. Decisions regarding Section 18 applications need to involve the Department, and not just the Minister. These decisions should also be made after detailed consultations with the relevant groups of people have been sought and carried out.
4. The Aboriginal Cultural Material Committee needs to increase its membership as recommended by Dawn Casey, especially to statutorily include at least one specialist anthropologist, as the Aboriginal Heritage Act dictates.
5. Senior positions within the Department that deal with Aboriginal sites and their assessments should have the relevant qualifications in the fields of Archaeology and Anthropology.
6. The Aboriginal Heritage Act’s ‘Due Diligence Guidelines[1]’ should be more widely distributed and promoted.
“The findings of this report match the anecdotal evidence I and others have received in the past years. Aboriginal heritage is precious and needs to be better protected. The Department of Aboriginal Affairs must become more effective at monitoring, protecting and implementing the Act.”
The WA Stolen Wages Taskforce was established on May 2007 to identify the scope and extent of the stolen wages issue and suggest policy and administrative options. The Taskforce was comprised of representatives of the Departments of Premier and Cabinet, Treasury, Culture and the Arts, Child Protection, Communities and Indigenous Affairs. They were joined by Advisors who were appointed to provide cultural and ethical guidance and support to the Taskforce.
HON ROBIN CHAPPLE(Mining and Pastoral)[9.45 pm]: I rise tonight to commend the Parliamentary Education Office for running the successful parliamentary internship program. The parliamentary internship program has been running for 16 years, and offers tertiary students of politics, law and journalism an opportunity to closely work with members of Parliament and their staff on a particular research subject and create a research report. The subject is selected by the student from a list of themes presented by some members of this place, and the students are supervised in collaboration with the respective university. I was fortunate enough to have a young woman called Maddison Barnsby from Murdoch University as an intern in my office during the second semester of 2013. Maddison wrote “The Effectiveness of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972”. After conducting literature reviews, interviews and surveys, the main findings were as follows. The responsible authorities do not seem to be consulting with the relevant people in order to provide Aboriginal sites with the appropriate protection and the appeals process involved is not effective enough to maintain an efficient system within the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. Section 18 is the most contentious part of the act, and the department has time and again approved the majority of section 18 applications that are sent to it, regardless of the recommendations made by the Aboriginal Cultural Material Committee. The Aboriginal Cultural Material Committee has a complicated job, which is complicated further by its lack of membership. The site recording forms used by the ACMC are no longer effective, as they can actually inhibit the registration of Aboriginal sites. Problems within the department have been shown to come down to ministerial discretion, as well as the staff and their possible lack of relevant qualifications. The DAA does not effectively monitor or enforce the act, and the use of the special defence of lack of knowledge can be reduced with increased accessibility to the act’s due diligence guidelines.
Maddison concluded by offering six recommendations to help remedy the above issues, which are as follows. More resources need to be put into the Department of Aboriginal Affairs in order for it to improve its appeals, monitoring and enforcement processes. The site recording forms need to again be amended so that they are simpler to use and no longer inhibit the registration of Aboriginal sites. Decisions regarding section 18 applications need to involve the department, not just the minister, and the decisions should also be made after detailed consultations with the relevant groups of people have been sought and carried out. The Aboriginal Cultural Material Committee needs to increase its membership as recommended by Dawn Casey, especially to statutorily include at least one specialist anthropologist, as the Aboriginal Heritage Act dictates. People who hold senior positions within the department that deal with Aboriginal sites and their assessments should have the relevant qualifications in the fields of archaeology and anthropology. The Aboriginal Heritage Act’s due diligence guidelines should be more widely distributed and promoted.
The unsatisfactory protection of Aboriginal heritage sites has recently become visible again in Port Hedland. The plans for the multi-user outer harbour extension have been drawn up, and some significant information on heritage sites is missing. Better registration and easier access is imperative for protecting sites that, once destroyed, will be lost forever. We have another issue of sites that have been on the register for a very long time now being deregistered. I understand it is a complex research subject and was a challenging task for Maddison. I was deeply impressed by the professional approach that Maddison took to her analysis of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972. I would like to take this opportunity to thank her for the work she did in producing this report. I would also like to thank Maddison for the smiling face she brought to my office from time to time. On that basis, I seek leave to table the parliamentary internship report prepared by Maddison Barnsby from Murdoch University entitled “The Effectiveness of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972” and dated December 2013.
