| Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Parliament of Western Australia | |
| |
| Territorial extent | State of Western Australia |
| Assented to | 2 October 1972 |
| Administered by | Attorney-General of Western Australia |
| Status: Current legislation | |
TheAboriginal Heritage Act 1972 (AHA) is a law in the state ofWestern Australia governing the protection ofAboriginal cultural sites.[1] TheAboriginal Cultural Heritage Act 2021 (ACH Act[2]) was intended to replace the Act from 1 July 2023[3] but was revoked after only five weeks of operation.
The AHA protects allAboriginal cultural heritage in Western Australia, whether or not heritage sites are registered or mapped by theDepartment of Planning, Lands, and Heritage. Under the Act the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has the power to grant approval for any activity which would negatively impact Aboriginal heritage sites. Under the AHA, Aboriginal sites of outstanding importance can be declaredProtected Areas. The AHA also provides protection forAboriginal objects.[1][4]
After themining companyRio Tinto blew up the 46,000-year old caves inJuukan Gorge on 24 May 2020, which was legal under a Section 18 exemption of the Act,[5] WA Aboriginal Affairs MinisterBen Wyatt started a review of the Act.[6]
The interim report of a bipartisanparliamentary inquiry into the incident published on 9 December 2020, entitledNever Again, makes several recommendations, including a halt to all actions presently occurring under Section 18 of the AHA, and amoratorium on Section 18 applications. It also recommends that theWestern Australian Government review and reform the current state heritage laws, and that thefederal government review theAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984.[7] It also outlines deficiencies in the WA Act.[8]
There was a transitional period of around 18 months before theAboriginal Cultural Heritage Act 2021 came into force,[3] while the various regulations and processes were developed.[9] In February 2022 there was areference group appointed to assist in the co-design process.[10] The new law did away with the approval process determined by Section 18, and puttraditional owners into a more powerful position in the decision-making process.[9] The transition to the ACH Act ultimately failed as it was repealed soon after going into effect.[11]