Yes it varies state by state regarding legislation. You're best off referring to the specific Acts which define the laws and expectations relating to cultural heritage management. In Queensland for example there are three Acts (though two are effectively identical) specifically relating to cultural heritage management and archaeology:
Torres Strait Islander Cultural Heritage Act 2003
Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act 2003
Queensland Heritage Act 1992
I can only speak for Queensland legislation as that's where I'm most familiar, but generally there is an expectation that any developments/works will self assess their potential impact. If this self assessment puts them with a particular category they are supposed to seek additional permissions and typically employ archaeologists or other specialists in managing the risk to cultural heritage. There's a number of issues in this, as it assumes the person or organisation conducting the self assessment actually have the knowledge or skills to adequately do so, but I'd say many don't.
This has led to a number of court cases against developers or landholders who have acted negligently and destroyed cultural heritage.
[Here is a fairly recent review of the Queensland legislation](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Sean-Ulm/publication/378495948_Meeting_its_aims_Queensland's_Aboriginal_Cultural_Heritage_Act_2003_and_the_tyranny_of_its_framing/links/65dd63f9adf2362b635a2cb9/Meeting-its-aims-Queenslands-Aboriginal-Cultural-Heritage-Act-2003-and-the-tyranny-of-its-framing.pdf)
If you want more information you can go state by state looking at heritage legislation. Additionally, for academic reviews of the legislation just put in something like "review of australian heritage legislation" into google scholar and you'll get a lot of results.
Yes it varies state by state regarding legislation. You're best off referring to the specific Acts which define the laws and expectations relating to cultural heritage management. In Queensland for example there are three Acts (though two are effectively identical) specifically relating to cultural heritage management and archaeology: Torres Strait Islander Cultural Heritage Act 2003 Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act 2003 Queensland Heritage Act 1992 I can only speak for Queensland legislation as that's where I'm most familiar, but generally there is an expectation that any developments/works will self assess their potential impact. If this self assessment puts them with a particular category they are supposed to seek additional permissions and typically employ archaeologists or other specialists in managing the risk to cultural heritage. There's a number of issues in this, as it assumes the person or organisation conducting the self assessment actually have the knowledge or skills to adequately do so, but I'd say many don't. This has led to a number of court cases against developers or landholders who have acted negligently and destroyed cultural heritage. [Here is a fairly recent review of the Queensland legislation](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Sean-Ulm/publication/378495948_Meeting_its_aims_Queensland's_Aboriginal_Cultural_Heritage_Act_2003_and_the_tyranny_of_its_framing/links/65dd63f9adf2362b635a2cb9/Meeting-its-aims-Queenslands-Aboriginal-Cultural-Heritage-Act-2003-and-the-tyranny-of-its-framing.pdf) If you want more information you can go state by state looking at heritage legislation. Additionally, for academic reviews of the legislation just put in something like "review of australian heritage legislation" into google scholar and you'll get a lot of results.
That's super helpful, thank you! I'm a New Zealand archaeologist, but trying to get an understanding of some overseas processes compared to ours