A parliamentary question regarding the WA Labor Government's policy reversal on mining lease applications on pastoral leases, specifically concerning native title law and legal precedents. The Minister confirms the policy reflects legal requirements under native title law, citing relevant cases.

AnsweredQoN 370Legislative Council
Asked
1 June 2004
Portfolio
State Development

QuestionView source ↗

I refer the minister to the Government’s decision to reverse the former Government’s policy of processing and granting mining and exploration lease applications on pastoral leases that have been fenced or improved and on land previously subject to mining lease grants. (1) Have any legal cases confirmed the Labor Government’s position as reflecting a legal requirement under native title law? (2) If so, what are the cases? (3) If not, why has the Government not reversed its policy and allowed some of the backlogged applications to be processed, as was done under the previous Government? Hon KEN TRAVERS

AnswerView source ↗

I thank the member for some notice of this question. I am advised as follows - (1) Yes. (2) The State of Australia v Ward [2002] HCA 28; (2002) 191 ALR1; and Daniel v the State of Western Australia (2003) FCA 1425. (3) Not applicable.
(1) Have any legal cases confirmed the Labor Government’s position as reflecting a legal requirement under native title law? (2) If so, what are the cases? (3) If not, why has the Government not reversed its policy and allowed some of the backlogged applications to be processed, as was done under the previous Government? Hon KEN TRAVERS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. I am advised as follows - (1) Yes. (2) The State of Australia v Ward [2002] HCA 28; (2002) 191 ALR1; and Daniel v the State of Western Australia (2003) FCA 1425. (3) Not applicable.
(2) If so, what are the cases? (3) If not, why has the Government not reversed its policy and allowed some of the backlogged applications to be processed, as was done under the previous Government? Hon KEN TRAVERS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. I am advised as follows - (1) Yes. (2) The State of Australia v Ward [2002] HCA 28; (2002) 191 ALR1; and Daniel v the State of Western Australia (2003) FCA 1425. (3) Not applicable.
(3) If not, why has the Government not reversed its policy and allowed some of the backlogged applications to be processed, as was done under the previous Government? Hon KEN TRAVERS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. I am advised as follows - (1) Yes. (2) The State of Australia v Ward [2002] HCA 28; (2002) 191 ALR1; and Daniel v the State of Western Australia (2003) FCA 1425. (3) Not applicable.
Hon KEN TRAVERS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. I am advised as follows - (1) Yes. (2) The State of Australia v Ward [2002] HCA 28; (2002) 191 ALR1; and Daniel v the State of Western Australia (2003) FCA 1425. (3) Not applicable.
I thank the member for some notice of this question. I am advised as follows - (1) Yes. (2) The State of Australia v Ward [2002] HCA 28; (2002) 191 ALR1; and Daniel v the State of Western Australia (2003) FCA 1425. (3) Not applicable.
(1) Yes. (2) The State of Australia v Ward [2002] HCA 28; (2002) 191 ALR1; and Daniel v the State of Western Australia (2003) FCA 1425. (3) Not applicable.
(2) The State of Australia v Ward [2002] HCA 28; (2002) 191 ALR1; and Daniel v the State of Western Australia (2003) FCA 1425. (3) Not applicable.
(3) Not applicable.

Explore WA Government Data

Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.

Explore more