Key Points:
- An industry survey revealed that complying with Aboriginal Cultural Heritage (ACH) rules in Western Australia costs miners over $23,000 per day.
- Mining and exploration companies spend an average of 552 days per activity managing and complying with heritage rules.
- The Cook government is facing intense pressure to release its secret Kelly review on native title and heritage processes.
- Financial data reveals that most survey costs flow to third-party consultants, including lawyers and archaeologists, rather than Aboriginal groups.
Western Australia’s mining and exploration companies are facing astronomical costs to comply with local heritage laws, with survey fees frequently reaching over $23,000 per day. According to a comprehensive industry survey commissioned by the Association of Mining and Exploration Companies (AMEC), these regulations are placing a massive financial and administrative burden on the state’s resource sector. The independent study, conducted by consulting firm ACIL Allen, highlights growing industry frustration as companies navigate complex, slow-moving approval processes.
The data shows that the financial toll of these cultural heritage requirements frequently exceeds $1 million per project. On a per-activity basis, mining and exploration organizations spent an average of 552 days managing and complying with the state’s legislative heritage rules. This extended timeline has severely delayed key drilling campaigns and exploration projects, threatening the long-term pipeline of Australia’s multi-billion-dollar resources industry, which contributes significantly to national export revenues.
The release of this cost data has placed intense pressure on Premier Roger Cook’s Labor government. In May 2025, Premier Cook announced a high-level targeted review—known as the Kelly review—into native title and cultural heritage processes within the Western Australian resources sector. However, the government is currently refusing to say whether it will release the findings of this review to the public. Industry groups argue that keeping the report secret is a major mistake, especially as local governments, farmers, and explorers continue to grapple with regulatory confusion.
A massive regional backlash in regional Western Australia forced the state government to revert to the amended Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act 1972 after its disastrous 2021 update to the heritage act sparked public protests and political panic. Although the government repealed the failed 2021 laws, it kept a hundredfold increase in penalties for the unauthorized destruction of sacred sites. Companies now face crippling fines of up to $10 million, and executives face potential jail time for serious violations.
While miners fully support the protection of sacred Indigenous sites, they are increasingly questioning where their compliance money actually goes. The ACIL Allen survey discovered a major structural imbalance, revealing that the vast majority of these expensive survey costs do not benefit the Aboriginal groups themselves. Instead, the bulk of the funds flows directly to third-party consultants, including specialized lawyers, anthropologists, and archaeologists who charge premium hourly rates to draft complex compliance reports.
To address this imbalance, AMEC and other industry bodies are urging the government to reform the allocation of heritage funds. Rather than enriching corporate consultants, mining companies would prefer a system in which a greater share of survey fees flows directly to traditional owners and local Indigenous communities. Funding local rangers, investing in community housing, and supporting local business centers would generate genuine, long-term social benefits for regional Aboriginal groups who are often left out of the economic upside of mining developments.
The ongoing regulatory gridlock threatens to damage Western Australia’s reputation as a stable, globally competitive investment destination. Major international mining conglomerates are highly sensitive to regulatory delays and legal uncertainties. If the state government continues to hide the findings of its internal review and refuses to streamline the native title process, global capital could easily flee to other mineral-rich jurisdictions, such as North America or Africa, where mining approvals are faster and more predictable.
As the government continues to weigh its options, the local resources sector is demanding immediate transparency and practical reforms. Automating database searches, standardizing survey fees, and establishing clear guidelines for land-use agreements could easily reduce compliance times without compromising the protection of sacred cultural heritage. Finding a delicate balance between preserving Australia’s ancient Indigenous history and supporting its most important economic sector remains the defining challenge for Western Australia’s policy planners.
