Campaign Story

Federal heritage law is failing.

Applications for the preservation and protection of specified areas from injury or desecration under the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984 (section 10) are routinely delayed for months or years. During that time, development can proceed. Projects become entrenched. Damage becomes irreversible.

Ruling on a three-and-a-half-year delay for a section 10 application in 2025, Justice Stewart of the Federal Court recently found:

I consider that the delay in the Minister making a decision in this case is unreasonable in the legal sense, and it has not been adequately explained. It is perverse that the decision should have taken as long as it has; no considered reason has been given for the delay.

The delay is the consequence of oversight and neglect.

This is not just a funding gap. It is a structural defect in the law.

This campaign is about providing the legal support needed to fix the gap between rights on paper and protection in practice.

The quote from Tickner v Bropho [1993] FCA 306; 40 FCR 183 at 211 that Stewart J in Cooper v The Minister for the Environment at [13] relied on is relevant:

The preservation of human cultural heritage as a public duty is recognised in the laws of many nations… The duty is recognised at international law by the Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage to which Australia is a party… The relevant Commonwealth legislation is the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984 (Cth). It was enacted with the express purpose of preserving and protecting from injury or desecration areas and objects in Australia that are of particular significance to Aboriginals in accordance with Aboriginal tradition. Informing its enactment however, was the idea that it would be used as a protective mechanism of last resort where State or Territory legislation was ineffective or inadequate to protect heritage areas or objects.

Further, at [14] Stewart J relies on French J’s statement in Bropho at 223-224 that:

[The Act] was enacted for the benefit of the whole community to preserve what remains of a beautiful and intricate culture and mythology. Its protection is a matter of public interest.

The ultimate aim is to reform federal law so that culturally and ecologically significant places are protected now, not after they are already gone.

Together with our clients, we do this by working “upstream,” changing the system itself so that delay can no longer be used as a pathway to destruction.

Who will benefit:

• First Nations communities seeking protection of sacred sites.
• Future generations, because the places we are fighting to protect cannot be rebuilt once they are gone.
• Australians who believe the law should mean what it says.

Johnson Legal brings litigation experience to this work, with a landmark legal challenge on delay in 2025, but the goal here is to fix the system before the next fight reaches court.

Who are our clients?

Johnson Legal’s clients are First Nations custodians seeking urgent protection for culturally significant areas. Many of our clients come to us when state systems have failed and federal protection is their last available pathway.

What our clients all share is that they are fighting for places that hold law, history, identity, and living culture. Our clients are almost always facing well-resourced opponents who understand that delay in heritage protection is their ally.

What is our goal?

Johnson Legal will continue to support clients on s10 applications on a pro bono basis, so that access to justice does not turn on financial capacity.

If we can raise $155,400 to fund a one-year law reform and advocacy campaign, this will give our team the sustained time needed to:

• Research systemic failures and issue a guidance report
• Draft legislative reform recommendations
• Engage with First Nations advocates and other stakeholders
• Run public and civic advocacy

Here is how the funding breaks down:

• Legal service provision: $26,080.00
  Legal support for First Nations clients on s10 applications - ongoing over 12 months
• Research and drafting: $52,160.00
  Research and drafting of report and law reform recommendations - 90 days
• Report and advocacy: $77,160.00
  Full reform and advocacy rollout - 9 months following drafting

Staffing – 60%

Sustained senior legal expertise (2 days per week for 12 months) to advise clients, research systemic delays, draft enforceable statutory timeframes, develop legislative amendments, and lead reform strategy.

Advocacy Partner Support – 20%

Collaboration with advocacy partners to support parliamentary briefings, stakeholder engagement, and strategic communications.

Administrative Support – 10%

Professional support to coordinate consultations, manage documentation, prepare submissions, and ensure disciplined project delivery.

Project Management – 4%

Project oversight, compliance, financial management, and reporting to ensure accountability and execution integrity.

Report Printing and Distribution – 3%

Design, publication, and targeted dissemination of the reform report to policymakers and key stakeholders.

Operating Costs – 3%

Essential operating expenses that enable delivery, including IT systems, compliance infrastructure, and professional regulatory requirements.

Total Costs: $155,400

Any surplus funds will be applied to continued pro bono representation of s10 applicants or ongoing advocacy to secure legislative reform of federal heritage protection laws. Donations will always stay within the purpose for which they were given.

If we do not reach the minimum funding threshold for preparation of an advocacy campaign, funds raised will be applied to enable ongoing pro bono service provision for s10 applicants. Funds will never be diverted to private or unrelated matters.

We are committed to keeping donors informed as the work develops, not just at the end. Updates will include:

• Quarterly written updates
• Milestone announcements (draft release, report publication, etc.)
• Advocacy progress reports
• A final public impact summary outlining outcomes and expenditure categories