A review into Native Title and Aboriginal Cultural Heritage processes in Western Australia announced by Premier Roger Cook in May 2025 has been tabled in WA Parliament on 9 June 2026, making 25 recommendations across eight focus areas, including heritage surveys, consultants, government coordination, Prescribed Body Corporate capacity and longer-term reform (the Report).
The WA government has released its own response to the recommendations made in the Report, indicating support, partial support or no support for each of the 25 recommendations.
Minimum heritage standards
Some of the recommendations made supported by the state government include removal of the condition for a Regional Standard Heritage Agreement (RSHA) in the expedited procedure process, the fast-tracking process for future acts (commonly the grant of licences for prospecting, exploration or petroleum). RSHAs typically contain minimum standards for the operation of heritage surveys, by contrast a Heritage Protection Agreement (HPA) typically contains more comprehensive terms capturing greater benefits to the native title party.
The government also indicated support for a set of minimum requirements in regard to native title and heritage protection and management to all tenures where the expedited procedure process applies, however does not support the recommendation to make failure to comply with state published guidelines around approaches to proponent conduct for the negotiation of HPAs a ground for refusal of grant of tenure.
Greater information and negotiation tools provided to proponents
The WA government also indicates support of the Report’s recommendation for the provision of more easily accessible information, resources and tools for proponents to improve understandings of Aboriginal cultural heritage requirements, including information on the DMPE website and provision of policy papers and practice notes from DPLH on heritage survey matters such as survey methodologies, survey validity, occupational health and safety requirements and intellectual property issues.
Additionally the state supports providing information to proponents about the operation of s 5 and s 17 of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 (AHA), sections directly relevant to sites of cultural significance to Aboriginal people rights and interests held by native title holders.
The state also indicates its support to review approaches to excess tonnage applications and indicated intention to engage archaeological and anthropological peak bodies in WA in regards to professional standards due to concerns regarding consulting fees in respect to heritage processes, in particular heritage surveys.
Support has also been indicated for development of a funding support program for PBCs to assist future act and heritage functions of PBCs including negotiation of heritage protection agreements in relation to proposed tenure grant under the expedited procedure, administrative activities and fixed costs associated with future acts and heritage activity, decision making processes and heritage survey and reporting activities (in cases where there is a shortfall in costs recovery from the proponent).
Recommendations supported only ‘in principle’ by the state government
Other measures suggested in the Report have either been only supported partially, supported ‘in principle’, or not supported at all.
It was recommended that the state as a matter of urgency adjust its approach to the administration of the expedited procedure in a manner that seeks to balance the interests of the parties, however this has only been given partial support by the state.
Similarly the government has indicated support ‘in principle’ only for the creation of minimum requirements through conditions, regulation or statutory change that are actually enforceable.
There is ‘in principle support’ also for the Report’s recommendation to provide government resources to implement a program for the development and negotiation of Indigenous Land Use Agreements (ILUAs) with native title parties across the state and establishing agreed future act processes for grants of mining, petroleum and other tenures.
The Report also recommended in the interest of procedural fairness within the AHA developing a framework and including already existing legislative measures within the AHA for consultation requirements surrounding s 18 information to state sanctioning destruction of Aboriginal cultural heritage sites, however the state government has indicated only ‘in principle support’ for legislative improvement of the AHA.
Recommendations unsupported by the state government
The state government indicated it won’t support the Report’s recommendation to calculate compensation to native title holders in reference to mineral exploration and prospecting activities. Currently state compensation is largely calculated on land based on its freehold value and excludes the value of any resources on the land.
The state is also unsupportive of the Report’s recommendation to conduct a functional review of the DPLH and Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Committee arrangements to address pressures and backlog with site assessments and s 18 matters.
Whilst the state government supports some improvements to the future acts system that operates as a crucial impediment to the exercise of native title rights and interests, much of the support appears to be ‘in principle’ and the more substantive recommendations endorsing legislative change to the key policies affecting Aboriginal cultural heritage protection and land rights remain unsupported.
Additional resources provided by the author
