ethnosciences - swan.wa.gov.au

Ethnosciences ABN 47 065 099 228

Aboriginal Heritage

Report on a Desktop Aboriginal Heritage Study of the Lombardo Landholdings, East Bullsbrook, Western Australia.

Prepared for the Amex Corporation

By Edward M. McDonald

February 2016


Aboriginal Heritage

Disclaimer

The results, conclusions and recommendations contained within this report are based on

information available at the time of its preparation. Whilst every effort has been made to

ensure that all relevant data has been collated, the author can take no responsibility for

omissions and/or inconsistencies that may result from information becoming available

subsequent to the report’s completion.

© Ethnosciences and the Amex Corporation 2015

Ethnosciences Job No.: AS1535-15


Aboriginal Heritage

Abbreviations

ACMC: Aboriginal Cultural Material Committee

AHA: Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972

AHIS: Aboriginal Heritage Inquiry System

DAA: Department of Aboriginal Affairs (Department of Indigenous Affairs, DIA)

MHA: McDonald, Hales & Associates

SWALSC: South West Aboriginal Land and Sea Council


Aboriginal Heritage

Contents 1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................ 1

1.1 Purpose of the Assessment ....................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Legislative Context .................................................................................................................... 1

1.3 Defining an ‘Aboriginal Site’ .................................................................................................... 4

2. DESKTOP ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY.............................................................................. 5

3. DESKTOP ASSESSMENT RESULTS ............................................................................................. 6

3.1 Previous Heritage Surveys ....................................................................................................... 6

3.2 Desktop Results .......................................................................................................................... 6

3.3 Aboriginal Heritage Due Diligence Guidelines ................................................................... 10

3.4 Relevant Aboriginal People .................................................................................................... 11

4. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................................... 13

REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................................... 15

Figures ................................................................................................................................................. 16

Appendix ............................................................................................................................................. 22

List of Figures

Figure 1: Map showing the Study Area: Lombardo Landholdings, East Bullsbrook

(Source: Amex Corporation) ............................................................................................................ 17

Figure 2: Map showing the extent of the O’Connor 1989 survey of the clay extraction area

within the Lombardo Landholdings (Source: AHIS) ................................................................. 18

Figure 3: Map showing the depiction of Aboriginal Site ID 3583 Ki-It Monger Brook 2 on

the AHIS in relation of the Study Area (Source: AHIS & Ethnosciences) ............................. 19

Figure 4: Map showing the depiction of ‘Other Heritage Places’ on the AHIS in relation of

the Study Area (Source: AHIS & Ethnosciences) ........................................................................ 20

Figure 5: Map showing the corrected locations of Registered Aboriginal Sites and ‘Other

Heritage Places’ on the AHIS in relation of the Study Area (Source: AHIS, DAA Site files

& Ethnosciences) ............................................................................................................................... 21


Aboriginal Heritage

1 Desktop Aboriginal Heritage Study of the Lombardo Landholdings, East Bullsbrook, Western

Australia

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Purpose of the Assessment

Ethnosciences was engaged by Amex Corporation to carry out a desktop Aboriginal heritage

assessment of a proposed residential development at East Bullsbrook, Western Australia

(Figure 1).

The 249.8643ha property, comprising Lots 433, 834, 1165, 1314, 1354, 1396 and 2792, together

with portions of Lots 3, 60 and 1288, is currently owned by the Lombardo family and the

Amex Corporation is examining the possibility of acquiring the land for the purposes of a

residential subdivision (the Study Area). The aim of the assessment is to determine if

Aboriginal heritage sites, as defined by the Aboriginal Heritage Act (1972) (AHA) and

associated procedures, create any fatal flaws in the proposal to develop the land as a

residential subdivision.

1.2 Legislative Context1

The Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 (AHA) is the primary piece of State legislation relating to

Aboriginal heritage and defines and protects Aboriginal Sites and objects. Aboriginal Sites are

places to which the Act applies by operation of Section 5 (outlined below) and are currently

protected whether they are known to the Department of Aboriginal Affairs (DAA, formerly

the DIA) or not.

Section 5 of the AHA defines an Aboriginal Site as follows:

a. any place of importance and significance where persons of Aboriginal descent have,

or appear to have, left any object, natural or artificial, used for, or made or adapted for

use for, any purpose connected with the traditional cultural life of Aboriginal people,

past or present;

b. any sacred, ritual or ceremonial site, which is of importance and special significance

to persons of Aboriginal descent;

1 This section draws on material prepared by Bryn Coldrick and Edward McDonald on another project and provides an overview of the main sections of the AHA and its current administration. We note, however, that we are not lawyers. The proponent should seek independent legal advice on any matters of concern in relation to the AHA and its operation.


Aboriginal Heritage


Australia

c. any place which, in the opinion of the Committee,2 is or was associated with

Aboriginal people and which is of historical, anthropological, archaeological or

ethnographic interest and should be preserved because of its importance and

significance to the cultural heritage of the State;

d. any place where objects to which the Act applies are traditionally stored, or to

which, under the provisions of this Act, such objects have been taken or removed.

Under Section 39(3), the AHA gives primacy to “associated sacred beliefs, and ritual or

ceremonial usage, in so far as such matters can be ascertained” in the Aboriginal Cultural

Material Committee’s (ACMC’s) evaluation of the importance of places and objects.

The State Government is currently proposing to amend the AHA and introduced the

Aboriginal Heritage Amendment Bill 2014 into the Legislative Assembly on 27 November

2014. Although many important sections of the Act (including Sections 5 and 17, outlined

below) will remain essentially unchanged, the application of Section 5 is being increasingly

restricted by the DAA through their administration and interpretation of the Act. The

Department recently introduced a set of ‘threshold criteria’ to assist in the interpretation of

Section 5 and, in effect, to limit the application of the AHA. However, aspects of these criteria

were recently found by the Supreme Court to be inconsistent with the proper construction of

Section 5 (Robinson v Fielding 2015) and they are now being revised.

Unauthorised disturbance of an Aboriginal Site is an offence under Section 17 which states

that:

17. A person who -

excavates, destroys, damages, conceals or in any way alters any Aboriginal site; or, in

any way alters, damages, removes, destroys, conceals, or who deals with in a manner

not sanctioned by relevant custom, or assumes the possession, custody or control of,

any object on or under an Aboriginal site, commits an offence unless he is acting with

2 The Aboriginal Cultural Material Committee (ACMC) whose role it is, among other functions, to evaluate on behalf of the community the importance of places and objects and to advise the Minister. The Aboriginal Heritage Amendment Bill 2014 is seeking to transfer the assessment function of the ACMC to the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the DAA.


Aboriginal Heritage


Australia

the authorisation of the Registrar under section 16 or the consent of the Minister under

section 18.

Based on our interpretation of this section of the Act and experience, we generally advise our

clients that where a place is a registered Aboriginal Site, or might reasonably be expected to

constitute an Aboriginal Site, that they should not undertake any of the activities outlined

above that might result in a breach of Section 17, and that they should apply for Ministerial

consent under Section 18 to limit their potential liability under the Act. In cases where a place

is “Lodged” with the DAA, we also recommend that clients take a precautionary approach

and seek Section 18 consent in order to clarify the status of the place under Section 5.

Section 18 provides a mechanism for landowners and proponents to seek consent to use land

that might contain an Aboriginal Site(s) (i.e., a place to which the Act applies), and in effect to

disturb those sites, from the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and thereby protect themselves

from potential prosecution under Section 17. After considering the recommendations of the

ACMC and having regard to the “general interest of the community”, the Minister may either

consent to the use of the land for the purpose sought or refuse consent. Current advice from

the DAA on the need or otherwise for Section 18 consent routinely makes reference to likely

impacts on “heritage values” (which are not referred to in the Act). They also routinely advise

proponents to apply the Aboriginal Heritage Due Diligence Guidelines (DIA 2013) so that

they can determine whether their proposed activities have the potential to breach Section 17,

and to seek advice from the Department where there is doubt.

Other State legislation, such as the Environmental Protection Act 1986 (EP Act), can in some

instances complement the AHA (for example, in cases where physical protection of the natural

environment is required to protect sites of heritage significance) (EPA 2004). Aboriginal

heritage can also be afforded protection by Commonwealth legislation, in particular the

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984. Aboriginal people who

believe that a significant place or object is under threat and that State Government protection

is inadequate can apply to the Federal Environment Minister to protect the place or object.


Aboriginal Heritage


Australia

1.3 Defining an ‘Aboriginal Site’

In this report, we use the term ‘Aboriginal Site’ to refer to a place that the Aboriginal Cultural

Material Committee (ACMC) has determined to be an ‘Aboriginal Site’ within the meaning of

Section 5 of the AHA and is therefore ‘registered’. While other places and objects may be

listed on the AHIS and in other sources, this does not necessarily mean they are registered

Aboriginal Sites. Indeed, many places and objects listed on the AHIS are in fact not Aboriginal

Sites for the purposes of the AHA.3

For example, there are places and objects within the system that are referred to as ‘Other

Heritage Places’.4 Such places and objects may either be ‘Lodged’ on the system (which

generally occurs following initial reporting of the place or object to the DAA and prior to

assessment by the ACMC) or for which it has been determined that there is insufficient

information available to allow the ACMC to determine whether or not they are Aboriginal

Sites. However, as there is a potential that such places might be found to be Aboriginal Sites

in the future if further information becomes available, it is prudent to treat ‘Lodged’ places

as if they are Aboriginal Sites until a determination has been made by the ACMC and the legal

status of the place has been established.

Another category of listing covered by the term ‘Other Heritage Places’ and which frequently

is the source of confusion is that relating to places and objects archived in ‘Stored Data’ (also

referred to as ‘Archived Data’). Typically, these are places and objects for which a

determination has been made by the ACMC and it has been concluded that they do not satisfy

the criteria set out in Section 5 of the AHA and are therefore not ‘Aboriginal Sites’ for the

purposes of the Act. Such places are therefore not subject to the Act’s provisions. However,

these places and objects are not deleted from the system (AHIS), but rather are maintained as

‘Stored’ or ‘Archived’ data in order to account for the possibility that new information may

be presented in the future that might warrant a reassessment by the ACMC, and so that the

DAA is aware if the same place is reported again.

3 Decisions by the ACMC and the DAA, of course, may be overturned by the courts and indeed may be revisited by the ACMC itself. 4 ‘Other Heritage Places’ were previously listed either on the ‘Interim Register’ or in ‘Stored Data’.


Aboriginal Heritage


Australia

It is also important to be cognisant of the possibility that places that do not have the legal

protection of State or Commonwealth heritage legislation may still have significance for

Aboriginal people and could therefore potentially have implications for the community, and

indeed for proposed developments, should they be impacted.

2. DESKTOP ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY

The desktop research involved in the first instance an examination of the Register of

Aboriginal Sites using the DAA’s online Aboriginal Heritage Inquiry System (AHIS) and

downloaded spatial data. Due to the presence of restricted sites overlapping the Study Area

on the publicly available AHIS, the Department of Aboriginal Affairs was also contacted and

requested copies of relevant files in order to determine as far as possible the precise location

of the places listed on the system. A number of the pertinent files, including Site ID 3583, Ki-

It Monger Brook 2 (i.e., the brook, etc.) are ‘Closed’ and can only be viewed with the consent

of the ‘Listed Informants’. Unfortunately time does not permit the process to be followed.

However, we are fairly confident, given our experience in the area and the other

documentation available that we have the relevant information. This additional

documentation includes the memo relating to an inspection of the land conducted by the late

Ken Colbung and presented to the Lombardo family in 1998 and a range of heritage survey

reports undertaken in the vicinity of the land, including surveys undertaken by McDonald,

Hales and Associates (MHA) in the vicinity. Based on the available information from all the

archival source, the actual locations of the Registered Aboriginal Sites and ‘Other Heritage

Places’ depicted on the AHIS as overlapping with the subject land (Figures 3 & 4) were

mapped in so far as their correct locations could be ascertained (Figure 5).

Also reviewed were the Amex Corporation draft development plans for the land in the context

of a number of other developments which had similar heritage issues, in particular projects

with waterways that have been listed as heritage sites.


Aboriginal Heritage


Australia

3. DESKTOP ASSESSMENT RESULTS

3.1 Previous Heritage Surveys

In addition to the informal survey conducted by the late Mr Colbung in 1998, a search of the

AHIS indicates that only one survey has been undertaken on the land. O’Connor undertook a

survey of the proposed clay extraction area on the land in 1989 (see Figure 2). Pearce

undertook a survey for Farnborough Pty Ltd for a proposed granite quarry in 1982 on Mr

Park’s farm. His survey resulted in the recording of a number of archaeological sites (three

artefact scatters and a man-made structure) along Nambah Creek located to the south of the

Lombardo land holdings (see below).

3.2 Desktop Results

The search of the Register of Aboriginal Sites using the public, online AHIS confirmed that

one registered Aboriginal Sites (Site ID 3583) and three ‘Other Heritage Places’ (Site IDs 3452,

3525 and 3941) impinges on the Study Area (Figures 3 & 4). Additionally, as mentioned above,

there are four archaeological sites recorded as part of the Farnborough survey by Pearce in

1982: Site IDs 3956 Farnborough Quarry 1, 3957 Farnborough Quarry 2, 3958 Farnborough

Quarry 3, 3959 Farnborough Quarry 4. These are incorrectly mapped by DAA outside and to

the east of the Study Area. Also outside and to the west of the Study Area in the vicinity of

the Chapel is Site ID 22669.

Site ID 3583 Ki-It Monger Brook 2 is a Registered Aboriginal site listed as a mythological and

ceremonial site, with a modified (scarred) tree. The site file is ‘Closed’ and permission of the

Listed Site Informant(s) is required to access the file. The late Ken Colbung is listed as the sole

informant. His daughter is usually the person now nominated as the ‘custodian’. As noted,

above, time did not permit me to contact her and get her written consent. However, between

the information provided to Mr Lombardo and previously recorded by me from Mr Colbung,

I am confident that all of the pertinent information about the place is available in order to

complete this review.


Aboriginal Heritage


Australia

Smith and McDonald (1989; 17) report:

Ki-It Monger Brook is of mythological significance. Nyungar mythology notes that

Ki-It Monger was created by a Waugal. The creek's headwaters are in a hill in the

Darling Scarp. This is also the site of an initiation ground. There, according to

myth, the Waugal laid a number of eggs. These fell from the hill-top and broke. The

remains of the eggs are represented by quartz and ochre scatters along the valley

floor. The white of the eggs (Monger) created the creek.

Similar information about the Brook was provided by the late Ken Colbung in subsequent

surveys in the Bullsbrook area undertaken by MHA (for example, Wesson, McDonald and

Locke 1990 and Prince, Lewington and Lamond 1996). This information about the site and its

significance is almost identical to that which the late Mr Colbung provided to the Lombardo

family (see Appendix). As is frequently the case with significant waterways, the DAA have

mapped the site as a series of large contiguous polygons (Figure 3) but the actual site is

confined to the Brook and its immediate surrounds. The previous rule of thumb was generally

a buffer of 30m from the bank on either side of the waterway, though some Nyungar groups

often requested a larger area in some cases up to 100m from the high-water mark. The late Mr

Colbung in his submission to the Lombardo family suggested that “the normal standard

stream buffer” ought to be applied to the Brook in order to protect the Brook.

The AHIS also shows the boundaries of Site ID 3525 Ellen Brook: Upper Swan, a mythological

site which is ‘Lodged’ as an ‘Other Heritage Place’ in the system, as overlapping with the land

(Figure 4). However, as with Ki-It Monger Brook, the actual site relates to the Brook itself and

not the surrounding areas (see Figure 5 for corrected location). It will not be directly impacted

upon by any development of the Study Area (Coldrick, Hovingh, and McDonald 2014 discuss

Ellen Brook and other waterways in the Bullsbrook area in detail). The late Robert Bropho is

listed as the site’s sole informant.

Two “Other Heritage Places’: Site ID 3452, Bullsbrook Camp and Site ID and Site ID 3941 Ki-

It Monger Brook 1, an artefact scatter are also both ‘Lodged’ and show on the AHIS as

overlapping with the Study Area (Figure 4). An examination of the site files and relevant

heritage reports indicates that both are actually located outside the study area (see Figure 5

for corrected locations). Site ID 3452, Bullsbrook Camp was recorded by Wesson, McDonald


Aboriginal Heritage


Australia

and Locke (1990) for the Defence Housing Authority housing project immediately north of

Lots 3, 1165 and 433. Though there was some indeterminacy regarding its precise location, the

site was reported to be north of the housing development and not in the current Study Area.

Site ID 3941 Ki-It Monger Brook 1, an artefact scatter was recorded and reported to the WA

Museum by a Mr Taylor in 1979, who noted that it was located on Lot 131 Hurd Road, to the

south of Ki-It Monger Brook. Lot 131 is outside the Study Area and immediately to the north

of Lot 1343 (Figure 5).

Site ID 22669 Bullya Spring is also an ‘Other Heritage Place’ (mythological) that is ‘Lodged’

on the system. It is located in the Lot 3 adjacent to the Chapel and outside the Study Area.

According to the site file, it was reported by Mr Corrie Bodney in 2005, apparently on the basis

that the spring, which reputedly had Nyungar significance that was “appropriated by non-

Aborigines”. ‘Bullya’ is a variant of Nyungar word ‘bulyer’, which is glossed as ‘magic’, and

would seem to be used in this context to refer to the reputed healing power of the water.

As noted, the AHIS other archaeological sites ( Site IDs 3956 Farnborough Quarry 1, Artefact

Scatter; Site ID 3957 Farnborough Quarry 2, Man-Made Structure; 3958 Farnborough Quarry

3, Artefact Scatter & 3959 Farnborough Quarry 4, Artefact Scatter) to the east of the Study

Area. These sites would seem to be mapped incorrectly by the DAA, as information provided

by Pearce on the site files clearly shows that they are located along Nambah Brook to the south

of the Study Area (Figure 5). Site ID 3957 Farnborough Quarry 2, the man-made structure has

a ‘Lodged’ status. The other three archaeological sites have been deemed not to meet the

criteria of s5 of the AHA and are not therefore Aboriginal Sites. Information about these three

places has been archived in ‘Stored Data’.

In summary the desktop study shows that a development of the Study Area would impact on

one Aboriginal Site: Site ID 3583 Ki-It Monger Brook 2. Though outside the Study Area, Site

ID 22669 Bullya Spring and having a ‘Lodged’ status, also in a way highlights the perceived

significance Brook and the related hydrological system to Nyungars. 5

5 There is no doubt that ‘water’ in its various forms is central to Aboriginal, including Nyungar, cosmology and that there is a particularly strong value, reflected in mythology, placed on what is commonly referred to by Aboriginal people in English as ‘Living Water’ or permanent water sources,


Aboriginal Heritage


Australia

The presence of a number of archaeological sites in the immediate area, though three have

been deemed not to be Aboriginal sites, highlights the potential for further archaeological sites

to be discovered in the area; one or more of which might meet the AHA’s criteria.

such as springs. As McDonald, Coldrick and Christensen (2008:65) note: “Water metaphorically frames social and environmental relationships and is an important source of cultural identity. Metaphors of blood and other bodily fluids figure centrally in Aboriginal conceptualisations of water and its flow and, .. Nyungar concerns are no exception”.


Aboriginal Heritage


Australia

3.3 Aboriginal Heritage Due Diligence Guidelines

The DAA recommends that prior to any development occurring, proponents refer to the

State’s Aboriginal Heritage Due Diligence Guidelines (DIA 2013) in order to inform

themselves of the potential risk of a proposed development impacting on Aboriginal

heritage.6

The Guidelines remind proponents that under Section 17 of the AHA, a person who

excavates, destroys, damages, conceals or in any way alters any Aboriginal site commits an

offence, unless he or she acts with the authorisation of the Registrar of Aboriginal Sites under

Section 16 or the consent of the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs under Section 18. All land users

who wish to use land for a purpose which might contravene Section 17 of the AHA must

exercise due diligence in trying to establish whether or not their proposed activity on a

specified area may damage or destroy an Aboriginal site (DIA 2013:4). This is done through a

number of due diligence exercises including consideration of the existing land form and the

nature of the proposed works, searching the Register of Aboriginal Sites, undertaking

consultation with relevant Aboriginal people, undertaking a heritage survey if required, and

contacting the DAA for advice.

The Guidelines include a risk assessment matrix to assist in assessing the risk of impacting

Aboriginal heritage (DIA 2013:15). A proposed residential development within the Study

Area would be considered “Major Disturbance” in a “Significantly Altered Environment”.

Under their matrix, the DAA would therefore be likely to consider there to be a “High” risk

of impacting Aboriginal heritage in this case:

Refer to the AHIS;

Consult with the DAA and the relevant Aboriginal people;

Potentially undertake an Aboriginal heritage survey;

6 The guidelines, which were developed by the DIA and the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, are accessible at: http://www.daa.wa.gov.au/Documents/HeritageCulture/Heritage%20management/AHA_Due_Diligence_Guidelines.pdf


Aboriginal Heritage


Australia

Modify the proposed activity and/or employ other heritage management strategies to

avoid or minimise impact to sites; and/or

Apply for Ministerial approval or consent to undertake the activity.

3.4 Relevant Aboriginal People

The Aboriginal Heritage Due Diligence Guidelines advise that information about the

Aboriginal heritage of a particular area is best obtained through consultation with “the

relevant Aboriginal people” (DIA 2013:9). The guidelines identify four categories of ‘relevant

Aboriginal people’ who “at least” should be consulted where there is a possibility that an

Aboriginal Site will be affected (DIA 2013:9). They are:

1. Determined Native Title Holders;

2. Registered Native Title Claimants;

3. Persons named as informants on Aboriginal site recording forms held in the Register at DIA [DAA]; and

4. Any other Aboriginal people who can demonstrate relevant cultural knowledge in a particular area (DIA 2013:9–10).

There are currently no determined Native Title Holders over the Study Area. However, a

search of the National native title Tribunal’s database shows that the Study Area is

encompassed by one registered Native Title Claim, namely the ‘Whadjuk People’ Native Title

Claim (WC2011/009) which is represented by the South West Aboriginal Land and Sea

Council (SWALSC). The Project is also encompassed by an unregistered and self-represented

Native Title claim, namely ‘Swan River People 2’ (WAD24/2011) which comprises members

of the Wilkes, Corunna, Bropho, Warrell and Garlett families whose members formerly

comprised the Combined Metropolitan Native Title Working Group (CMWG)/Nyungah

Circle of Elders.

The third category of ‘relevant Aboriginal people’ relates to listed site informants for

previously reported heritage places. As stated above, the listed informants for DAA Site ID

3583 (Ki-It Monger brook) is the late Mr Colbung, for Site ID 22669 (Bullya Spring) is Mr Corrie

Bodney and for Site ID 3525 Ellen Brook: Upper Swan it is the late Mr Bropho. In the case of

the late Messrs Colbung and Bropho the senior surviving members of their families normally

have to be consulted.


Aboriginal Heritage


Australia

The final category specified under the DAA’s Due Diligence Guidelines (“any other

Aboriginal people who can demonstrate relevant cultural knowledge in a particular area”) is

more problematic to quantify. However, if the above categories were satisfactorily addressed

in any future consultations, it is likely that the DAA/ACMC would consider the guidelines to

have been adequately met in this regard.

DAA now requires that the South West Aboriginal Land and Sea Council are consulted in the

selection of the relevant Aboriginal people. The Land and Sea Council charge a flat fee of

$3000 for their services in this regard and selected Aboriginal consultants are normally paid

$500pd.


Aboriginal Heritage


Australia

4. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The report presents the results of a desktop study of a 249.8643ha property, comprising Lots

433, 834, 1165, 1314, 1354, 1396 and 2792, together with portions of Lots 3, 60 and 1288, which

the Amex Corporation is considering purchasing from the Lombardo family with a view to

developing a residential subdivision.

The desktop study shows that a development of the Study Area would impact on one

Aboriginal Site: Site ID 3583 Ki-It Monger Brook 2, Registered Aboriginal site listed as a

mythological and ceremonial site, with a modified (scarred) tree. There is no doubt that this

site and its associated hydrology is of significance. Though shown as impinging on the land

Ellen Brook (Site ID 3525) would not be impacted by the development neither would “Other

Heritage Places’: Site ID 3452, Bullsbrook Camp and Site ID and Site ID 3941 Ki-It Monger

Brook 1 both of which are also located outside the Study Area .

The presence of a number of archaeological sites in the immediate area, including Site ID 3941

and the Farnborough sites indicates that there is a potential for further archaeological sites to

be discovered in the area, which may meet the AHA’s s5 criteria and be determined to be

Aboriginal sites.

The key issue is whether the presence of a significant waterway such as Ki-It Monger and its

status as an Aboriginal site would be a fatal flaw in the proposal to develop the area. From

my experience, without pre-empting the Minister’s decision, the answer is no. I have

undertaken numerous heritage assessments in the past 20 years and the clear indications are,

that in very few cases, the presence of Aboriginal sites does not overly inhibit development.

Two cases on which I worked serve to illustrate this. The first was Gray Road, Haynes where

the Study Area is overlapped by two site listings: the Southern River (DIA Site ID 3511) and

the Neerigen Brook (DIA Site ID 3714) which bisect the subject land in the west and north

respectively. The ACMC determined that Neerigen Brook was not a site. However, the


Aboriginal Heritage


Australia

Southern River continues to be registered. The development proceeded with appropriate

foreshore reserve and management of drainage, etc. (McDonald and Coldrick 2014). The

second example, is more complex and involved Peet’s Stratton land. This project involved the

realignment of Blackadder Creek a registered site (DAA ID 3720) as well as the creation of a

living stream, foreshore reserves, etc. Consent was obtained from the Minister and the only

conditions on development related to reporting on the impacts to the site.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the Amex Corporation proceed with the purchase of the Study Area

if no other impediments are identified.

It is recommended that the Amex Corporation consult with the relevant Aboriginal people

regarding the development of the Study Area.

It is further recommended that the Amex Corporation commission an archaeological survey

of the Study Area.


Aboriginal Heritage


Australia

REFERENCES

Coldrick, B, Hovingh, R. and McDonald, E. M. (2014) Report of an Aboriginal Heritage Desktop Assessment of the NorthLink WA Project (Perth–Darwin National Highway) Incorporating the Proposed Swan Valley Bypass and Tonkin Grade Separations. Unpublished report prepared by Amergin for Main Roads Western Australia on behalf of Coffey Environments Pty Ltd and BG&E Pty Ltd.

McDonald, E.M. (2015) Report on an Ethnographic Consultation in relation to Peet Stratton Pty Ltd’s Land (Lots 427, 50 and 102 Farrall Road) in Stratton & Midvale. Unpublished report prepared by Ethnosciences for Peet Stratton Pty Ltd

McDonald, E. M. and Coldrick, B. (2014) Report of an Ethnographic Reassessment and Community Consultation Regarding the Proposed Development of Lots 551, 554 and 555 Gray Road, Haynes, Western Australia. Unpublished report prepared by Ethnosciences for Wallis Consulting & Development Pty Ltd.

McDonald, E. M., Coldrick, B., & Christensen, W. (2008) “The Green Frog and Desalination: A Nyungar Metaphor for the (mis-) Management of Water Resources on the Swan Coastal Plain, Western Australia”. Oceania. Vol. 78; No. 1.

Pearce, R.H. (1982) Report on a survey for archaeological sites for Farnborough Pty Ltd.

Prince, C., Lewington, J. and Lamond, T. (1996) Report of an Aboriginal Heritage Survey Proposed Passing Lanes Great Northern Highway, Bullsbrook. Unpublished report prepared by McDonald, Hales and Associates for Main Roads Western Australia.

Smith, J and McDonald, E.M. (1989) An Archaeological and Ethnographic Survey of a Proposed Water Pipeline along the Great Northern Highway, From Upper Swan to East Bullsbrook. Unpublished report prepared by McDonald, Hales and Associates for the Water Authority of Western Australia.

Wesson, J.P., Mc Donald, E.M. & Locke, R.G. (1990) Report of an Archaeological and Ethnographic Survey of a Proposed Defence Housing Authority Housing Development Chittering Road, Bullsbrook. Unpublished report prepared by McDonald, Hales and Associates for Land Management International


Aboriginal Heritage


Australia

Figures


Aboriginal Heritage


Australia

Figure 1: Map showing the Study Area: Lombardo Landholdings, East Bullsbrook (Source: Amex Corporation)


Aboriginal Heritage


Australia

Figure 2: Map showing the extent of the O’Connor 1989 survey of the clay extraction area within the Lombardo Landholdings (Source: AHIS)


Aboriginal Heritage


Australia

Figure 3: Map showing the depiction of Aboriginal Site ID 3583 Ki-It Monger Brook 2 on the AHIS in relation of the Study Area (Source: AHIS & Ethnosciences)


Aboriginal Heritage


Australia

Figure 4: Map showing the depiction of ‘Other Heritage Places’ on the AHIS in relation of the Study Area (Source: AHIS & Ethnosciences)


Aboriginal Heritage


Australia

Figure 5: Map showing the corrected locations of Registered Aboriginal Sites and ‘Other Heritage Places’ on the AHIS in relation of the Study Area (Source: AHIS, DAA Site files & Ethnosciences)


Aboriginal Heritage


Australia

Appendix: Report of a Site Inspection of the Lombardo

Landholdings by the late K. Colbung 1998


Aboriginal Heritage


Australia