❓ This parliamentary question scrutinises the WA Minister for the Environment and their department (DWER) regarding the Murujuga Declaration, which cited industrial emissions as a threat to rock art. It questions the state's regulatory adequacy and potential culpability for environmental and cultural damage.
⏳ Awaiting AnswerQoN 1712Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to the Murujuga Declaration made by Commonwealth Minster for the Environment and Heritage Murray Watt on 12 September 2025 under the ATSIHP Act, and the accompanying Statement of Reasons which states: 'The whole of the specified area is under threat of injury or desecration on the basis of activities related to industrial emissions from all ongoing and proposed industrial facilities,' and I ask:
(a) does the Minister or department accept this conclusion by the Commonwealth Minister;
(b) does the Minister or department accept that this conclusion could not have been reached by the Federal Minister under the ATSIHP Act if there was adequate regulatory arrangements in place at a state level to protect the rock art from industrial emissions;
(c) does the Minister accept that the regulatory arrangements under DWER have contributed to this threat of injury and desecration related to industrial emissions;
(d) what action has the Minister or DWER taken to improve regulation of industrial emissions following this finding;
(e) what action has the Minister or DWER taken to improve regulation of industrial emissions following this finding; and
(f) does the Minister accept that damages may have been caused to the conservation estate, to freehold lands, and in the form of cultural loss as a result of emissions authorised and regulated by the DWER?
Answered on
(a) does the Minister or department accept this conclusion by the Commonwealth Minister;
(b) does the Minister or department accept that this conclusion could not have been reached by the Federal Minister under the ATSIHP Act if there was adequate regulatory arrangements in place at a state level to protect the rock art from industrial emissions;
(c) does the Minister accept that the regulatory arrangements under DWER have contributed to this threat of injury and desecration related to industrial emissions;
(d) what action has the Minister or DWER taken to improve regulation of industrial emissions following this finding;
(e) what action has the Minister or DWER taken to improve regulation of industrial emissions following this finding; and
(f) does the Minister accept that damages may have been caused to the conservation estate, to freehold lands, and in the form of cultural loss as a result of emissions authorised and regulated by the DWER?
Answered on
AnswerView source ↗
⏳
This question is awaiting a response from the Minister.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.