Major Revegetation Project Cancelled After Aboriginal Corporation Demands $2.5 Million

In a picture taken on Jan. 2, 2010, cattle sit on dry farmland near Nannup in the south west corner of Western Australia. Greg Wood/AFP via Getty Images

A major revegetation event along the banks of the Canning River in Perth has been cancelled after the head of a local Aboriginal corporation demanded $2.5 million (US$1.7 million) citing cultural heritage laws.

The now-former CEO of the Whadjuk Aboriginal Corporation, David Collard, cited Western Australia’s contentious Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act 2021 as the reason for the demand, according to 7 News.

The Act was supposed to protect culturally significant landmarks in the state from potential “harm” and was updated following the destruction of the Juukan Gorge by mining giant Rio Tinto.

Yet there are concerns the laws lack clarity and farmers and landowners could be easily caught up in red tape or face heavy penalties.

“We’re standing here today in solidarity with some of these environmental groups saying somebody needs to clarify this legislation. It has become somewhat of a mess,” Patrick Hall, mayor of Canning, told 7 News.

Stephen Johnston of the South East Regional Centre for Urban Landcare said the two events—to plant 5,500 seedlings—were cancelled out of caution around the laws.

“I’ve been poring over the websites and the act, the 255-page act, the 47 pages of guidelines and the printouts, which are all available on the state government website,” he told ABC Radio Perth.

“So there’s a lot of information there, but there’s information that begs questions,” Mr. Johnston added, noting that it was unclear whether landcare activities were exempt from the new requirements.

“When you have the CEO of the Whadjuk Aboriginal Corporation making a demand like this, you don’t just sort of put the phone down and ignore it,” he said.

In response, the Whadjuk Corporation confirmed the event was cancelled after a discussion between Landcare and Mr. Collard, but added that it was not related to the Cultural Heritage Act.

The group also said it would reschedule another time to plant seedlings.

“The Canning River and its riverbanks are culturally significant to the Whadjuk people because the connection to this land is of central spiritual importance. The planting of seedlings will conserve this important area for our future generations,” said the chair of the Whadjuk Corporation, in a statement on July 17.

What do the Laws Mean for Farmers?

The updated Cultural Heritage Act came into effect on July 1 and establishes the Local Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Services (LACHS), which is responsible for ensuring areas of significance are not harmed.

Under the three-tiered system, a landowner with over 1,100 square metres of land (11,840.3 square feet) must first apply with LACHS if they wish to carry out work that could disturb over 50 centimetres of soil—encompassing activities like land clearing, drainage work, and even building a fence.

LACHS will send out a consultant—at the landowner’s expense at around $160 per hour—to determine if the site has any cultural significance.

“It’s open-ended, there’s no limit to how much time they can spend on your farm and there’s no way of actually contesting what they’re doing,” said Tony Seabrook, WA president of the Pastoralists and Graziers Association, in an interview with Sky News Australia.

“It even says in the legislation that just because you get a clearance today that what you’re doing doesn’t intersect with Aboriginal cultural heritage, it doesn’t mean they can’t change their mind at some point in the future,” he added.

WA Government Defends Laws

The WA government has defended the laws arguing there is no issue with clarity.

“There shouldn’t be a vacuum [of information] but we will continue educating the public and various stakeholders,” said Aboriginal Affairs Minister Tony Buti on July 17.

“I want to make it clear, there was no linkage between the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act and the ability to cancel that [tree-planting] event,” he told reporters.

“If the alleged communication by Mr. Collard is correct … that is completely unacceptable and I will not stand for that.”

The debate over the cultural heritage laws comes amid concerns that a federal move to change the Australian Constitution (to include greater recognition of Indigenous peoples) could spur overreach from advocacy groups.

The Voice proposal includes a change to the preamble of the nation’s founding document and will also introduce a near-permanent advisory body dedicated to representing Indigenous interests—on top of the already numerous lobby groups in Canberra.

This group will be elected by Indigenous people and will have the authority to make “representations” on issues deemed relevant to Aboriginal groups to the executive and Parliament.

In April, the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) government reached a settlement with the Ngambari people after they sued authorities for not officially recognising them as the traditional owners of Canberra.

ACT authorities have, for the last two decades, recognised the Ngunnawal people as the traditional owners.

The ACT was forced to apologise to the Ngambari people, who argued their human rights had been breached.

In turn, the United Ngunnawal Elders Council responded, saying they felt “mental anguish” from the whole episode.