Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 (WA) + Commonwealth heritage provisions (EPBC + Native Title)

Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 (WA) site-protection and reporting duties, with the EPBC Act National/Commonwealth Heritage prohibitions and Native Title Act future-act / ILUA provisions as a heritage-obligations cluster

Requirements: 9
Last reviewed: 22/05/2026
Next review: 22/05/2027
Source: Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 (WA) — official compilation [04-l0-01] on legislation.wa.gov.au, incorporating the Aboriginal Heritage Legislation Amendment and Repeal Act 2023 (No. 23 of 2023, in effect 15 November 2023). EPBC Act 1999 (Cth) and Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) — current Federal Register of Legislation compilations at 2026-05-22.

Reconciliation notes

Curated build raised as a Phase E framework during Phase C batch 5a wiring (S141, 2026-05-22) because GOV-POL-008 (Indigenous Heritage Policy) had no register anchor for its heritage-statute traceability rows. Primary anchor policy: GOV-POL-008. Scope decisions: (a) the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 (WA) is the substantive Act — the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act 2021 (WA) was repealed and the 1972 Act reinstated with amendments on 15 November 2023, so the 1972 Act as amended is current law; (b) five AH Act rows are captured against the provisions a logistics / project-logistics operator is exposed to — s.5 (what is an Aboriginal site; s.60(2) reverse onus), s.15 (duty to report findings), s.17 (offence to damage a site; s.57 penalties; s.58 officer liability), s.18 (the s.18 land-use consent process and s.55 breach-of-conditions exposure), and s.62 (special defence of lack of knowledge, which heritage due diligence operationalises); (c) s.16 (excavation authorisations) and the Part VI cultural-material classification provisions (incl. s.40) are not captured — they are Registrar/Minister powers, not duties borne by Westlink; (d) EPBC and Native Title provisions are folded in as a lighter heritage-obligations cluster per the build instruction, not full frameworks — EPBC ss 15B/15C (National Heritage) and ss 27B/27C (Commonwealth Heritage) as the operative significant-impact prohibitions (Indigenous cultural heritage value is a recognised National Heritage value), and Native Title Act Part 2 Division 3 future-act / right-to-negotiate machinery and the ILUA regime as the engagement context; (e) the Native Title future-act row is Reference only — Westlink is generally not the proponent of a future act, but operates under client tenements and must respect native-title procedural rights and negotiated heritage conditions. Coverage is assessed against GOV-POL-008 rev 3 (best-practice rewrite, 16/03/2026), which commits to AH Act / NTA / EPBC compliance, Aboriginal Heritage Inquiry System due-diligence searches, Traditional Owner engagement, a discovery stop-work protocol, and heritage awareness training. The recurring Partial-coverage theme is that operational controls (AHIS searches, project heritage management plans, route/laydown screening) sit at procedure level — no heritage management procedure exists yet. Total requirements: 9. Applicable: 8. Reference only: 1. Coverage: Full 1, Partial 7, Referenced-only 1, Gap 0.

Requirements

Showing 9 of 9 requirements

ID	Clause	Requirement	Applicability	Coverage	Evidence	Gap
AHA-5-01	AH Act 1972 (WA) s.5	The Act applies to, and an 'Aboriginal site' is, a place to which s.5 applies: (a) any place of importance and significance where persons of Aboriginal descent have, or appear to have, left an object connected with the traditional cultural life of the Aboriginal people; (b) any sacred, ritual or ceremonial site of importance and special significance to persons of Aboriginal descent; (c) any place that, in the opinion of the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Committee, is or was associated with Aboriginal people and is of historical, anthropological, archaeological or ethnographical interest warranting preservation; and (d) any place where objects to which the Act applies are traditionally stored or have been taken. Under s.60(2) the onus of proving the Act does not apply to a place or object rests on the accused.	Applicable	Partial	GOV-POL-008 §Scope — Policy scope covers all activities that may affect Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultural heritage — heavy haulage, site establishment, route planning, laydown areas, and ground-disturbing works — operating within the s.5 site definition by reference rather than restating the categories.	Low GOV-POL-008 adopts the statutory site concept by reference. The breadth of s.5 (including places not yet recorded and the s.60(2) reverse onus) is best operationalised through a heritage management procedure that drives Aboriginal Heritage Inquiry System searches and site screening before ground-disturbing work.
AHA-15-01	AH Act 1972 (WA) s.15	Any person who has knowledge of the existence of any thing in the nature of Aboriginal burial grounds, symbols or objects of sacred, ritual or ceremonial significance, cave or rock paintings or engravings, stone structures or arranged stones, carved trees, or of any other place or thing to which the Act applies or might reasonably be suspected to apply, must report its existence to the Registrar of Aboriginal Sites, or to a police officer, unless the person has reasonable cause to believe its existence is already known to the Registrar.	Applicable	Full	GOV-POL-008 §Policy Commitments — Policy commits to a stop-work protocol on discovery of a previously unidentified heritage site, object or Aboriginal ancestral remains — work ceases immediately, the area is secured, and the discovery is reported to the Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage (WA) per s.15 and s.17. The 'All Workers and Contractors' responsibility row requires workers to immediately cease work and report suspected heritage discoveries.
AHA-17-01	AH Act 1972 (WA) s.17 + s.57 + s.58	It is an offence for a person to (a) excavate, destroy, damage, conceal or in any way alter any Aboriginal site, or (b) alter, damage, remove, destroy, conceal, deal with in an unsanctioned manner, or assume possession, custody or control of any object on or under an Aboriginal site — unless acting with the Registrar's authorisation under s.16 or a Ministerial consent given under s.18(3)(a). Under s.57 a body corporate is liable to $50,000 for a first offence and $100,000 for a second or subsequent offence, plus a daily penalty; under s.58 the criminal liability of officers of a body corporate (Criminal Code s.39) applies to a s.17 offence.	Applicable	Partial	GOV-POL-008 §Policy Commitments — Policy commits to complying with the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 (WA) and to conducting heritage risk assessments and due-diligence searches of the Aboriginal Heritage Inquiry System before operations in new areas, establishing laydown facilities, or planning transport routes — controls that prevent a s.17 breach. The stop-work protocol prevents continued damage once a site is identified.	Medium Policy commitments exist, but the operational controls that prevent a s.17 offence (Aboriginal Heritage Inquiry System searches, project heritage management plans, route and laydown screening) sit at procedure level. Develop a heritage management procedure operationalising the GOV-POL-008 commitments; brief officers on the s.58 personal-liability exposure for a s.17 offence.
AHA-18-01	AH Act 1972 (WA) s.18 + s.55	Where the owner of land (a term that under s.18(1) includes a lessee from the Crown and the holder of a mining tenement or petroleum right) requires to use land for a purpose that, without consent, would be likely to breach s.17 in respect of an Aboriginal site, the owner must give notice to the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Committee; the Committee evaluates any site and recommends, and the Minister may consent (with conditions) or decline (s.18). A person who, having a consent or authorisation, breaches a condition to which it is subject commits an offence (s.55). Before ground-disturbing work, an operator must confirm that any required s.18 consent or other heritage approval is in place for the site and must work within its conditions.	Applicable	Partial	GOV-POL-008 §Policy Commitments — Policy commits to heritage risk assessments and due-diligence searches before mobilisation; the Responsibilities table assigns Project Managers to complete heritage due diligence before project mobilisation and to implement project-specific heritage management plans.	Medium Westlink typically operates on client or third-party land and is rarely the s.18 'owner', but remains exposed to s.55 where it works under a consent held by the landowner. A heritage management procedure should set the explicit pre-mobilisation check that a valid s.18 consent (and its conditions) is confirmed for the work area before ground-disturbing work begins.
AHA-62-01	AH Act 1972 (WA) s.62	In proceedings for an offence against the Act it is a defence for the person charged to prove that they did not know, and could not reasonably be expected to have known, that the place or object to which the charge relates was a place or object to which the Act applies. Whether an organisation 'could not reasonably be expected to have known' turns on demonstrable heritage due diligence — Aboriginal Heritage Inquiry System searches, heritage risk assessment, and Traditional Owner consultation before ground-disturbing work — and on retaining records of that diligence.	Applicable	Partial	GOV-POL-008 §Policy Commitments — Policy commits to due-diligence searches of the Aboriginal Heritage Inquiry System and to heritage risk assessments before operations in new areas — the diligence on which a s.62 defence would rest. Heritage awareness training supports worker-level recognition of potential sites.	Low The s.62 defence depends on documented diligence. A heritage management procedure should specify the AHIS search, risk-assessment and consultation steps and require that evidence of each is retained per the records retention schedule.
EPBC-NH-01	EPBC Act 1999 (Cth) s.15B / s.15C	A person must not take an action that has, will have, or is likely to have a significant impact on the National Heritage values of a National Heritage place — whether the place is on non-Commonwealth land (s.15B) or in a Commonwealth area (s.15C) — unless the action is approved or exempt under the EPBC Act. Indigenous (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) cultural heritage value is a recognised National Heritage value. These are civil-penalty and offence provisions; where a significant impact on a National Heritage place is possible, the action must be referred to the Commonwealth Environment Minister.	Applicable	Partial	GOV-POL-008 §Policy Commitments — Policy commits to complying with the heritage provisions of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth). GOV-POL-004 §Policy Statement — Environmental Management Policy commits to compliance with environmental legislation and to managing significant environmental aspects; EPBC referral assessment for actions near National Heritage places falls within this environmental compliance commitment.	Medium GOV-POL-008 names EPBC compliance but the EPBC self-assessment / referral test (is a significant impact on a National Heritage place likely?) is not operationalised. A heritage management procedure should include an EPBC National Heritage screening step for projects near listed places.
EPBC-CH-01	EPBC Act 1999 (Cth) s.27B / s.27C	A person must not take an action that has, will have, or is likely to have a significant impact on the Commonwealth Heritage values of a Commonwealth Heritage place, including in a Commonwealth area (s.27B, s.27C), unless the action is approved or exempt under the EPBC Act. Commonwealth Heritage places include heritage places on Commonwealth land — relevant where Westlink mobilises to, establishes on, or transports through Commonwealth or Defence sites.	Applicable	Partial	GOV-POL-008 §Policy Commitments — Policy commits to EPBC heritage compliance; the organisational context notes defence-sector work, which brings Commonwealth Heritage places into scope. GOV-POL-004 §Policy Statement — Environmental Management Policy environmental-compliance commitment extends to Commonwealth Heritage place obligations on Commonwealth and Defence sites.	Low Commonwealth Heritage screening for mobilisation to Commonwealth or Defence sites is not operationalised in policy. Fold a Commonwealth Heritage check into the heritage management procedure and into Defence-site mobilisation planning.
NTA-FA-01	Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) Pt 2 Div 3 (future acts) + Subdiv P (right to negotiate)	Acts done on land or waters that may affect native title are 'future acts' regulated under Part 2 Division 3 of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth); certain future acts (such as the grant of mining tenements or compulsory acquisition) attract the 'right to negotiate' under Subdivision P (ss 25-44), requiring notification of and good-faith negotiation with native title parties. Westlink is generally not the proponent of a future act, but where its operations are conducted under a client's tenement or project it must operate consistently with the native-title procedural rights and any negotiated heritage conditions applying to that land.	Reference only	Referenced-only	GOV-POL-008 §Policy Commitments — Policy commits to complying with the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) and to engaging Traditional Owners and Aboriginal communities. Westlink's exposure is indirect (operating under client tenements) — the future-act regime is the awareness context for that engagement.	Reference only — the future-act regime principally binds the proponent (client / tenement holder), not Westlink. Westlink's obligation is to operate within the heritage conditions of the project's native-title arrangements; no Westlink-side procedure gap beyond the heritage management procedure already noted.
NTA-ILUA-01	Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) Pt 2 Div 3 Subdiv B-E (Indigenous Land Use Agreements)	An Indigenous Land Use Agreement (ILUA) is a voluntary agreement between native title parties and others about the use and management of land and waters, registered with the National Native Title Tribunal; an ILUA may set heritage-protection protocols, survey requirements, and engagement procedures binding within the agreement area. Where a Westlink project or transport corridor falls within an ILUA area, Westlink must identify the ILUA, comply with its heritage and access protocols, and engage the relevant native title party or prescribed body corporate accordingly.	Applicable	Partial	GOV-POL-008 §Policy Commitments — Policy commits to genuine, respectful and timely engagement with Traditional Owners and Aboriginal communities when planning activities that may affect cultural heritage, applying free, prior and informed consent principles where practicable — the engagement an ILUA's protocols formalise.	Low Identifying whether a project area is covered by an ILUA, and complying with its heritage protocols, is not operationalised. The heritage management procedure should include an ILUA-coverage check at project planning and route selection.

Source document

Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 (WA) site-protection and reporting duties, with the EPBC Act National/Commonwealth Heritage prohibitions and Native Title Act future-act / ILUA provisions as a heritage-obligations cluster

9 normative shall-statements extracted from Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 (WA) + Commonwealth heritage provisions (EPBC + Native Title) (source: Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 (WA); Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth); Native Title Act 1993 (Cth)). The frontmatter requirements array is the source of truth — this body is rendered by scripts/render_compliance.py.

Coverage summary

Coverage	Count
✅ Full	1
🟡 Partial	7
🟠 Ref-only	1
🔴 Gap	0
— N/A	0

Gap severity distribution

Severity	Count
🔴 Critical	0
🟠 High	0
🟡 Medium	3
🟢 Low	4

Requirements

Clause AH Act 1972 (WA) s

ID	Coverage	Evidence	Gap	Notes
AHA-5-01	🟡 Partial	GOV-POL-008 §Scope	🟢 Low	GOV-POL-008 adopts the statutory site concept by reference. The breadth of s.5 (including places not yet recorded and the s.60(2) reverse onus) is best operationalised through a heritage management procedure that drives Aboriginal Heritage Inquiry System searches and site screening before ground-disturbing work.
AHA-15-01	✅ Full	[GOV-POL-008 §Policy Commitments](/wms/GOV-POL-008#sPolicy Commitments)
AHA-17-01	🟡 Partial	[GOV-POL-008 §Policy Commitments](/wms/GOV-POL-008#sPolicy Commitments)	🟡 Medium	Policy commitments exist, but the operational controls that prevent a s.17 offence (Aboriginal Heritage Inquiry System searches, project heritage management plans, route and laydown screening) sit at procedure level. Develop a heritage management procedure operationalising the GOV-POL-008 commitments; brief officers on the s.58 personal-liability exposure for a s.17 offence.
AHA-18-01	🟡 Partial	[GOV-POL-008 §Policy Commitments](/wms/GOV-POL-008#sPolicy Commitments)	🟡 Medium	Westlink typically operates on client or third-party land and is rarely the s.18 ‘owner’, but remains exposed to s.55 where it works under a consent held by the landowner. A heritage management procedure should set the explicit pre-mobilisation check that a valid s.18 consent (and its conditions) is confirmed for the work area before ground-disturbing work begins.
AHA-62-01	🟡 Partial	[GOV-POL-008 §Policy Commitments](/wms/GOV-POL-008#sPolicy Commitments)	🟢 Low	The s.62 defence depends on documented diligence. A heritage management procedure should specify the AHIS search, risk-assessment and consultation steps and require that evidence of each is retained per the records retention schedule.

Clause EPBC Act 1999 (Cth) s

ID	Coverage	Evidence	Gap	Notes
EPBC-NH-01	🟡 Partial	[GOV-POL-008 §Policy Commitments](/wms/GOV-POL-008#sPolicy Commitments) [GOV-POL-004 §Policy Statement](/wms/GOV-POL-004#sPolicy Statement)	🟡 Medium	GOV-POL-008 names EPBC compliance but the EPBC self-assessment / referral test (is a significant impact on a National Heritage place likely?) is not operationalised. A heritage management procedure should include an EPBC National Heritage screening step for projects near listed places.
EPBC-CH-01	🟡 Partial	[GOV-POL-008 §Policy Commitments](/wms/GOV-POL-008#sPolicy Commitments) [GOV-POL-004 §Policy Statement](/wms/GOV-POL-004#sPolicy Statement)	🟢 Low	Commonwealth Heritage screening for mobilisation to Commonwealth or Defence sites is not operationalised in policy. Fold a Commonwealth Heritage check into the heritage management procedure and into Defence-site mobilisation planning.

Clause Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) Pt 2 Div 3 (future acts) + Subdiv P (right to negotiate)

ID	Coverage	Evidence	Gap	Notes
NTA-FA-01	🟠 Ref-only	[GOV-POL-008 §Policy Commitments](/wms/GOV-POL-008#sPolicy Commitments)		Reference only — the future-act regime principally binds the proponent (client / tenement holder), not Westlink. Westlink’s obligation is to operate within the heritage conditions of the project’s native-title arrangements; no Westlink-side procedure gap beyond the heritage management procedure already noted.

Clause Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) Pt 2 Div 3 Subdiv B-E (Indigenous Land Use Agreements)

ID	Coverage	Evidence	Gap	Notes
NTA-ILUA-01	🟡 Partial	[GOV-POL-008 §Policy Commitments](/wms/GOV-POL-008#sPolicy Commitments)	🟢 Low	Identifying whether a project area is covered by an ILUA, and complying with its heritage protocols, is not operationalised. The heritage management procedure should include an ILUA-coverage check at project planning and route selection.

Rendered from frontmatter by scripts/render_compliance.py. Source extraction: scripts/extract_iso9001_requirements.py. Evidence population: scripts/populate_iso9001_evidence.py. Validate: scripts/compliance_validate.py.