Nationals leader David Littleproud slams WA’s cultural heritage laws

Today host Karl Stefanovic has weighed in on divisive new cultural heritage laws after 600 furious farmers packed a town meeting in an Outback town.

Nationals leader David Littleproud has thrown his weight behind 600 farmers who packed a shed in an Outback town to oppose Western Australia’s divisive new cultural heritage laws.

The Queensland-based federal MP today described the laws as “an overreach”, even warning of a national expansion.

On Monday, farmers from across the state filled a Katanning shed in opposition to the new cultural heritage laws.

The July 1 rollout of the new legislation that seeks to protect culturally significant sites in WA has been marred by confusion and outrage.

Key criticisms of the legislation initially passed in 2021 primarily revolve around its vague and confusing nature, a fear of accidental breaches and potentially costly land surveys.

Mr Littleproud was quizzed on the new laws on Thursday’s Today show.

Nationals leader David Littleproud was at a WAFarmers public meeting about new heritage laws in Katanning on Monday. Picture: Facebook

Host Karl Stefanovic, citing the meeting, inquired about the extent of WA farmers’ outrage.

“I watched this meeting unfold. I was watching the fallout closely. It takes an awful lot for a farmer to leave their land to protest. I mean, that’s how ticked off they are?”

Mr Littleproud, who was at the Katanning meeting, agreed with Stefanovic’s assessment.

“A farmer can’t dig if he wants to desilt a dam and lift more than 20 kilograms of dirt without getting a cultural heritage survey, which is about $120 to $190 an hour, $1200 a day,” he replied.

“If you’re talking fence lines, you are talking kilometres.”

The Nationals leader accused the Albanese Government of planning a National Cultural Heritage Act.

“It will have the power to prevent developments or redesign developments,’ he said of WA’s laws.

“This is an overreach. We’ve worked hand-in-hand with Indigenous Australians, but I can tell you, particularly in pastoral areas that are an intrinsic part, all this is doing for an overreach of these Labor governments is dividing us when just some common sense can prevail.

“Pastoralists actually do respect the cultural heritage there. We all want to preserve it and protect it, but not by overreaching.”

Around 600 farmers from around the state showed up in opposition of the new laws. Picture: Facebook

David Slade, a livestock farmer from Mount Barker and a member of WAFarmers’ livestock section, was at the meeting and told news.com.au that identifying cultural heritage areas was necessary “for all Australians”, but it was unfair farmers were bearing all the cost of the surveys.

“If we’ve got a cultural heritage site on our farm, we have to pay for the surveys – well, we don’t get any benefit from it, so why should we pay for their surveys?” he said, adding plenty of farmers felt their voices were not heard during the consultation process.

He said he was aware of survey quotes exceeding $100,000 for otherwise straightforward farm works such as sinking a bore on already cleared land.

“We’re talking on land that’s been cleared for 50 years – (Cultural heritage) is intangible, you can’t see it, you can’t feel it, but someone says it’s there, and you can’t argue about it.

“There’s no recourse on this. You can only go to the high court, which is completely out of the league of any farmer to challenge any ruling.”

“This just drives a massive wedge between everyone.”

WA’s Aboriginal cultural heritage laws took effect on July 1, imposing harsh penalties for damaging sites of traditional significance.

The rollout of the new laws has been marred by confusion and outrage. Picture: Facebook

The fundamental change under the new Act is the establishment of Local Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Services, or LACHS, which will determine whether an activity will cause “harm” to cultural heritage.

The law introduces a complex three-tiered system, under which anyone on more than 1100 square metres of land will be required to apply for a permit from their LACHS before carrying out certain activities, such as digging fences, planting trees or clearing tracks.

The landowner will be required to pay the LACHS to assess their application.

Under the fee guidelines, one senior Aboriginal consultant – defined as “an Aboriginal person who is recognised within their community as being senior and as having higher levels of knowledge, expertise, skills and authority in relation to [Aboriginal cultural heritage]” – can charge up to $160 an hour, or $1200 per day.

A LACHS chief executive can charge up to $280 an hour, while “other expert service providers” can charge up to $300 an hour.

An additional 20 per cent loading may apply to very remote areas, while costs such as travel, accommodation and meals “may be included in a fee structure”.

Farmers say they will struggle to deal with the costs involved with the new laws. Picture: Facebook

Penalties for damaging a cultural heritage site range from $25,000 to $1 million for individuals and $250,000 to $10 million for corporations, as well as jail time.

Labor MP Darren West, a farmer himself, was the only representative of the current Labor government to attend Monday’s meeting.

He told heated farmers that messaging surrounding the divisive laws had been “botched”.

“This law applied more to mining companies that drill, blast and dig than it does to us (farmers) who predominantly work on top of the ground as we have for a hundred or so years,” Mr West said.

“Now … we’ve botched the messaging, we haven’t messaged this well, and we acknowledge that, and we’re working on that.”

Mr West said penalties for violations that are not “blatant” are at this stage unlikely and hinted at some leeway regarding the penalties in the rollout’s early stages

“We’re not gonna charge people on day one unless it’s a blatant disregard for that cultural heritage,” Mr West told the crowd.

“We’re gonna spend the next 12 months working with the agricultural sector.”

He said there will be a “slight change in tack in how we’re gonna roll this out.”

“This bill is not to be feared. It wouldn’t have been passed by me, the Liberals and the Nationals if it was.”