Toodyay shire, contractor charged in first test of WA's amended Aboriginal Heritage Act laws following Juukan Gorge blasts
The amended laws are designed to prevent damage to cultural heritage sites like Juukan Gorge. (Supplied: Puutu Kunti Kurrama and Pinikura Aboriginal Corporation)
In the first public test of Western Australia’s newly amended heritage laws, the Shire of Toodyay and at least one contractor hired by the shire have been charged with breaching the Aboriginal Heritage Act.
The ABC understands the Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage has accused the shire and the contractor of breaching the act over construction work in several waterways.
It is understood some of the work included altering a waterway to prevent erosion under a footpath.
The WA government introduced sweeping changes to its cultural heritage laws in July last year in a bid to prevent an incident like Rio Tinto’s destruction of ancient caves at Juukan Gorge from occurring again.
But the state government scrapped the new legislation just five weeks after it was implemented amid widespread backlash about the complexity and effectiveness of the laws.
Amendments were made to the reinstated original 1972 Cultural Heritage Act in November, allowing traditional owners to appeal decisions made under the laws.
It is understood the shire and the contractor have been charged under the amended act, in the first publicised case of the laws in action.
Individuals found breaching the act will be fined $20,000 and jailed for nine months for first offences.
Subsequent offences have a penalty of $40,000 and two years’ imprisonment.
The penalty for the shire if it is found to be guilty of its first offence is a $50,000 fine, and a second or any subsequent offence has a penalty of $100,000.
The Shire of Toodyay has declined to comment because the case is before the court.
Toodyay man to fight charges
Toodyay real estate agent Tony Maddox was last year charged under the unamended 1972 act after building a creek crossing on his property.
Mr Maddox has pleaded not guilty and is due to appear in court again later this month.
The case became a focal point for groups opposed to the Indigenous Voice to Parliament in last year’s referendum.
The Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage has been contacted for comment.