Debate has continued in Western Australia's Parliament and beyond over the implementation of the state's new Aboriginal Heritage Act.

The new Act, replacing the notoriously racist and one-sided 1972 Act, was the subject of controversy and fierce debate long before it passed parliament in December 2021.

Earlier this week, important survey guidelines underpinning the new Act were published on the Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage website but removed promptly, reportedly after issues with the guidelines were raised by industry representatives.

Kellie Hill from Agreement Hub, an organisation that works with two Native Title bodies and a number of mining companies, told National Indigenous Times it was vital that the guidelines be made - and kept - public as soon as possible.

"We are less than two weeks out (from the Act coming into effect). The survey guide lines have not been released yet, which means mining companies are calling Aboriginal corporations and saying 'are you oK if we rely on this cultural heritage survey report?' and the corporations don't know. It might have been done five years ago or 10 years ago, there is uncertainty," she said.

"It would be really good if the government got that done, it would assist both the Aboriginal corporations and the mining industry."

It is also likely a new definition of Aboriginal cultural heritage under Western Australian law will be established within days to explicitly recognise "intangible elements" – which could include, but not be limited to, songlines and spiritual sites whether or not physical artefacts remain there, a significant advance on the 1972 Act which provided negligible protection for Aboriginal heritage, tangible or otherwise.

Ms Hill said Aboriginal organisations were doing their best to prepare for the new Act, particularly those who have nominated to act as Local Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Services.

"It's an extraordinary amount of extra responsibility at a time when everybody is already incredibly stretched," she said.

"The mining industry is in bloom and has an insatiable appetite for accessing land for exploration and mining, so the heritage survey requests are coming thick and fast.

"Nyamal Aboriginal Corporation (with whom Agreement Hub works) is only about a four-week delay, I am proud to say, but on the mining side, where most of my work is, they are experiencing delays of up to 18 months, so in that environment we have a new Act coming in to increase the responsibility of Aboriginal corporations at a time when it's already really busy."

She said Nyamal had obtained a $70,000 grant to assist in preparation.

"They are now in the process of preparing a readiness report, which is quite a big process, to work to these to identify the gaps, the strengths and the weaknesses to become a LACHS."

Ms Hill said WA needed a new Act, given the short-comings of the 1972 legislation, but that more certainty was needed.

Wayne Bergmann, who served as CEO of the Kimberley Land Council for a decade and has a long-running association with economic development and Aboriginal heritage, described the situation as "a time bomb waiting to go off".

"It doesn't support Aboriginal people in creating economic opportunities on their Country, it doesn't support industry and business in engaging with Traditional Owners in a fair way to establish solutions," he said.

Mr Bergmann, who is a co-owner of National Indigenous Times, said the costs associated with the duties of a LACHS shaped up as a major stumbling block.

"Most Aboriginal groups are not going to be in the position to manage the legal requirements in this Act," he said.

"It will cost WA productivity and it will cost Indigenous people the opportunity to engage in a fair way to find a balance on what can and can not be done on Country.

"We held protests at parliament, one to protect the heritage values of Fitzroy river, and one in which numerous Kimberley voices spoke about the government engagement on heritage reform. It seemed at the time everyone buried their heads in the sand and now the chickens have come home to roost."

Mr Bergmann encouraged Premier Roger Cook to intervene.

"Get industry, including farmers, and Indigenous representatives around the table to work out a solution with which we can all live," he said.

Minister for Aboriginal Affairs Dr Tony Buti wrote on 16 June that "what will change from July 1 is the introduction of a new carefully structured process that allows Aboriginal people to be consulted about activities that will impact Aboriginal cultural heritage and focus on agreement-making between Aboriginal people and land users".

In an opinion piece published in The West Australian, Dr Buti wrote that engagement "will take place through Native Title holders initially".

"They will be able to support the operation of the act, just as they have done for decades. And over time, Local Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Services, or LACHS, will be formed to be a locally focused one-stop-shop service for Aboriginal cultural heritage matters in their designated area."

Dr Buti said the government is "ready to implement this new system" across WA on July 1. He said the WA Opposition and "a small number of stakeholder groups… continue to scaremonger and spread misinformation".

"Regulations are in place. A new online system has been built. A new statutory body — the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Council — was appointed last year. Key guidance documents have been published, $77 million was allocated in the recent State Budget to develop the capacity of LACHS, and education sessions are well underway," he said.

A spokesperson for the Minister told National Indigenous Times that "nothing will be gained by delaying the implementation of the new Act".

"The system will be ready to go for July 1, and the government continues to engage with stakeholders and provide all relevant information about the new model," he said.

"WA's current legislation is outdated – it wasn't good for Aboriginal people or land users. It led to incidents like Juukan Gorge.

"The intent of the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act 2021 is to prevent such events from happening again by providing a clearer framework for direct engagement with local Aboriginal organisations on activities where there is a risk of harm to their cultural heritage. It also creates a more streamlined system that will result in swifter approvals."

More to come.