❓ The WA government aims to resolve native title claims through negotiation rather than litigation, highlighting funding shortages for native title bodies and urging the Federal Court to allow mediation opportunities. The Deputy Premier criticises the previous government's focus on litigation and seeks federal support.
AnsweredQoN 263Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
NATIVE TITLE LITIGATION
I refer to media reports on the settlement of the Tjurabalan native title application in the Kimberley, thereby avoiding a costly court trial. Is the Government in a position to avoid any further native title litigation? Mr Birney interjected. Mr RIPPER
I refer to media reports on the settlement of the Tjurabalan native title application in the Kimberley, thereby avoiding a costly court trial. Is the Government in a position to avoid any further native title litigation? Mr Birney interjected. Mr RIPPER
AnswerView source ↗
I heard the disgraceful interjection from the member for Kalgoorlie. I will not repeat it for the record, because it was unworthy of a member of Parliament. Of course the Government wants to resolve native title applications and avoid litigation where possible. I recently attended a conference in Brisbane dealing with the settlement of native title matters by agreement. I took the opportunity to visit the native title services division of the Queensland Department of the Premier and Cabinet. That office has been involved in 17 native title consent determinations. Only three such determinations have been handed down in Western Australia in the past eight years. The difficulty facing this State is the large number of matters heading for trial before the Federal Court; that is, trial dates have been set for 34 matters and judges have been allocated for another 11 matters, giving a total of 45 pending trials of native title claims. No other State or Territory is dealing with more matters. Preparing for trials is costly for both the native title representative bodies and the State Government. The previous State Government spent more than $20 million through Crown Law on native title matters. I have expressed concern to federal court representatives that in some cases the unrelenting schedule of trial dates is not assisting the process of mediation. It is disturbing that recent applications for matters to be adjourned to pursue mediation have been refused by the court. I have already pointed out that native title representative bodies are short of money - they have been financially crippled by the previous Government’s focus on litigation - so they are not in a position to pursue mediation and prepare for trial at the same time. That also presents a difficulty for the State Government. There are two solutions to this problem: first, the federal Government, which funds the native title representative bodies, must provide additional funding - it must face up to its responsibilities and provide those bodies with sufficient funds to pursue negotiation of native title matters; and, secondly, the Federal Court must recognise that the Western Australian State Government is a new Government and, as such, it has a new policy to provide opportunities for mediation. If the Federal Court does not respond favourably to reasonable requests for the adjournment of trials, it will be doing a great injustice; it will be denying this State the opportunity to reach out-of-court agreements with native title applicants and other parties. I call on the court to re-examine its approach to these matters.
Mr Birney interjected. Mr RIPPER replied: I heard the disgraceful interjection from the member for Kalgoorlie. I will not repeat it for the record, because it was unworthy of a member of Parliament. Of course the Government wants to resolve native title applications and avoid litigation where possible. I recently attended a conference in Brisbane dealing with the settlement of native title matters by agreement. I took the opportunity to visit the native title services division of the Queensland Department of the Premier and Cabinet. That office has been involved in 17 native title consent determinations. Only three such determinations have been handed down in Western Australia in the past eight years. The difficulty facing this State is the large number of matters heading for trial before the Federal Court; that is, trial dates have been set for 34 matters and judges have been allocated for another 11 matters, giving a total of 45 pending trials of native title claims. No other State or Territory is dealing with more matters. Preparing for trials is costly for both the native title representative bodies and the State Government. The previous State Government spent more than $20 million through Crown Law on native title matters. I have expressed concern to federal court representatives that in some cases the unrelenting schedule of trial dates is not assisting the process of mediation. It is disturbing that recent applications for matters to be adjourned to pursue mediation have been refused by the court. I have already pointed out that native title representative bodies are short of money - they have been financially crippled by the previous Government’s focus on litigation - so they are not in a position to pursue mediation and prepare for trial at the same time. That also presents a difficulty for the State Government. There are two solutions to this problem: first, the federal Government, which funds the native title representative bodies, must provide additional funding - it must face up to its responsibilities and provide those bodies with sufficient funds to pursue negotiation of native title matters; and, secondly, the Federal Court must recognise that the Western Australian State Government is a new Government and, as such, it has a new policy to provide opportunities for mediation. If the Federal Court does not respond favourably to reasonable requests for the adjournment of trials, it will be doing a great injustice; it will be denying this State the opportunity to reach out-of-court agreements with native title applicants and other parties. I call on the court to re-examine its approach to these matters.
Mr RIPPER replied: I heard the disgraceful interjection from the member for Kalgoorlie. I will not repeat it for the record, because it was unworthy of a member of Parliament. Of course the Government wants to resolve native title applications and avoid litigation where possible. I recently attended a conference in Brisbane dealing with the settlement of native title matters by agreement. I took the opportunity to visit the native title services division of the Queensland Department of the Premier and Cabinet. That office has been involved in 17 native title consent determinations. Only three such determinations have been handed down in Western Australia in the past eight years. The difficulty facing this State is the large number of matters heading for trial before the Federal Court; that is, trial dates have been set for 34 matters and judges have been allocated for another 11 matters, giving a total of 45 pending trials of native title claims. No other State or Territory is dealing with more matters. Preparing for trials is costly for both the native title representative bodies and the State Government. The previous State Government spent more than $20 million through Crown Law on native title matters. I have expressed concern to federal court representatives that in some cases the unrelenting schedule of trial dates is not assisting the process of mediation. It is disturbing that recent applications for matters to be adjourned to pursue mediation have been refused by the court. I have already pointed out that native title representative bodies are short of money - they have been financially crippled by the previous Government’s focus on litigation - so they are not in a position to pursue mediation and prepare for trial at the same time. That also presents a difficulty for the State Government. There are two solutions to this problem: first, the federal Government, which funds the native title representative bodies, must provide additional funding - it must face up to its responsibilities and provide those bodies with sufficient funds to pursue negotiation of native title matters; and, secondly, the Federal Court must recognise that the Western Australian State Government is a new Government and, as such, it has a new policy to provide opportunities for mediation. If the Federal Court does not respond favourably to reasonable requests for the adjournment of trials, it will be doing a great injustice; it will be denying this State the opportunity to reach out-of-court agreements with native title applicants and other parties. I call on the court to re-examine its approach to these matters.
I heard the disgraceful interjection from the member for Kalgoorlie. I will not repeat it for the record, because it was unworthy of a member of Parliament. Of course the Government wants to resolve native title applications and avoid litigation where possible. I recently attended a conference in Brisbane dealing with the settlement of native title matters by agreement. I took the opportunity to visit the native title services division of the Queensland Department of the Premier and Cabinet. That office has been involved in 17 native title consent determinations. Only three such determinations have been handed down in Western Australia in the past eight years. The difficulty facing this State is the large number of matters heading for trial before the Federal Court; that is, trial dates have been set for 34 matters and judges have been allocated for another 11 matters, giving a total of 45 pending trials of native title claims. No other State or Territory is dealing with more matters. Preparing for trials is costly for both the native title representative bodies and the State Government. The previous State Government spent more than $20 million through Crown Law on native title matters. I have expressed concern to federal court representatives that in some cases the unrelenting schedule of trial dates is not assisting the process of mediation. It is disturbing that recent applications for matters to be adjourned to pursue mediation have been refused by the court. I have already pointed out that native title representative bodies are short of money - they have been financially crippled by the previous Government’s focus on litigation - so they are not in a position to pursue mediation and prepare for trial at the same time. That also presents a difficulty for the State Government. There are two solutions to this problem: first, the federal Government, which funds the native title representative bodies, must provide additional funding - it must face up to its responsibilities and provide those bodies with sufficient funds to pursue negotiation of native title matters; and, secondly, the Federal Court must recognise that the Western Australian State Government is a new Government and, as such, it has a new policy to provide opportunities for mediation. If the Federal Court does not respond favourably to reasonable requests for the adjournment of trials, it will be doing a great injustice; it will be denying this State the opportunity to reach out-of-court agreements with native title applicants and other parties. I call on the court to re-examine its approach to these matters.
Of course the Government wants to resolve native title applications and avoid litigation where possible. I recently attended a conference in Brisbane dealing with the settlement of native title matters by agreement. I took the opportunity to visit the native title services division of the Queensland Department of the Premier and Cabinet. That office has been involved in 17 native title consent determinations. Only three such determinations have been handed down in Western Australia in the past eight years. The difficulty facing this State is the large number of matters heading for trial before the Federal Court; that is, trial dates have been set for 34 matters and judges have been allocated for another 11 matters, giving a total of 45 pending trials of native title claims. No other State or Territory is dealing with more matters. Preparing for trials is costly for both the native title representative bodies and the State Government. The previous State Government spent more than $20 million through Crown Law on native title matters. I have expressed concern to federal court representatives that in some cases the unrelenting schedule of trial dates is not assisting the process of mediation. It is disturbing that recent applications for matters to be adjourned to pursue mediation have been refused by the court. I have already pointed out that native title representative bodies are short of money - they have been financially crippled by the previous Government’s focus on litigation - so they are not in a position to pursue mediation and prepare for trial at the same time. That also presents a difficulty for the State Government. There are two solutions to this problem: first, the federal Government, which funds the native title representative bodies, must provide additional funding - it must face up to its responsibilities and provide those bodies with sufficient funds to pursue negotiation of native title matters; and, secondly, the Federal Court must recognise that the Western Australian State Government is a new Government and, as such, it has a new policy to provide opportunities for mediation. If the Federal Court does not respond favourably to reasonable requests for the adjournment of trials, it will be doing a great injustice; it will be denying this State the opportunity to reach out-of-court agreements with native title applicants and other parties. I call on the court to re-examine its approach to these matters.
Preparing for trials is costly for both the native title representative bodies and the State Government. The previous State Government spent more than $20 million through Crown Law on native title matters. I have expressed concern to federal court representatives that in some cases the unrelenting schedule of trial dates is not assisting the process of mediation. It is disturbing that recent applications for matters to be adjourned to pursue mediation have been refused by the court. I have already pointed out that native title representative bodies are short of money - they have been financially crippled by the previous Government’s focus on litigation - so they are not in a position to pursue mediation and prepare for trial at the same time. That also presents a difficulty for the State Government. There are two solutions to this problem: first, the federal Government, which funds the native title representative bodies, must provide additional funding - it must face up to its responsibilities and provide those bodies with sufficient funds to pursue negotiation of native title matters; and, secondly, the Federal Court must recognise that the Western Australian State Government is a new Government and, as such, it has a new policy to provide opportunities for mediation. If the Federal Court does not respond favourably to reasonable requests for the adjournment of trials, it will be doing a great injustice; it will be denying this State the opportunity to reach out-of-court agreements with native title applicants and other parties. I call on the court to re-examine its approach to these matters.
There are two solutions to this problem: first, the federal Government, which funds the native title representative bodies, must provide additional funding - it must face up to its responsibilities and provide those bodies with sufficient funds to pursue negotiation of native title matters; and, secondly, the Federal Court must recognise that the Western Australian State Government is a new Government and, as such, it has a new policy to provide opportunities for mediation. If the Federal Court does not respond favourably to reasonable requests for the adjournment of trials, it will be doing a great injustice; it will be denying this State the opportunity to reach out-of-court agreements with native title applicants and other parties. I call on the court to re-examine its approach to these matters.
Mr Birney interjected. Mr RIPPER replied: I heard the disgraceful interjection from the member for Kalgoorlie. I will not repeat it for the record, because it was unworthy of a member of Parliament. Of course the Government wants to resolve native title applications and avoid litigation where possible. I recently attended a conference in Brisbane dealing with the settlement of native title matters by agreement. I took the opportunity to visit the native title services division of the Queensland Department of the Premier and Cabinet. That office has been involved in 17 native title consent determinations. Only three such determinations have been handed down in Western Australia in the past eight years. The difficulty facing this State is the large number of matters heading for trial before the Federal Court; that is, trial dates have been set for 34 matters and judges have been allocated for another 11 matters, giving a total of 45 pending trials of native title claims. No other State or Territory is dealing with more matters. Preparing for trials is costly for both the native title representative bodies and the State Government. The previous State Government spent more than $20 million through Crown Law on native title matters. I have expressed concern to federal court representatives that in some cases the unrelenting schedule of trial dates is not assisting the process of mediation. It is disturbing that recent applications for matters to be adjourned to pursue mediation have been refused by the court. I have already pointed out that native title representative bodies are short of money - they have been financially crippled by the previous Government’s focus on litigation - so they are not in a position to pursue mediation and prepare for trial at the same time. That also presents a difficulty for the State Government. There are two solutions to this problem: first, the federal Government, which funds the native title representative bodies, must provide additional funding - it must face up to its responsibilities and provide those bodies with sufficient funds to pursue negotiation of native title matters; and, secondly, the Federal Court must recognise that the Western Australian State Government is a new Government and, as such, it has a new policy to provide opportunities for mediation. If the Federal Court does not respond favourably to reasonable requests for the adjournment of trials, it will be doing a great injustice; it will be denying this State the opportunity to reach out-of-court agreements with native title applicants and other parties. I call on the court to re-examine its approach to these matters.
Mr RIPPER replied: I heard the disgraceful interjection from the member for Kalgoorlie. I will not repeat it for the record, because it was unworthy of a member of Parliament. Of course the Government wants to resolve native title applications and avoid litigation where possible. I recently attended a conference in Brisbane dealing with the settlement of native title matters by agreement. I took the opportunity to visit the native title services division of the Queensland Department of the Premier and Cabinet. That office has been involved in 17 native title consent determinations. Only three such determinations have been handed down in Western Australia in the past eight years. The difficulty facing this State is the large number of matters heading for trial before the Federal Court; that is, trial dates have been set for 34 matters and judges have been allocated for another 11 matters, giving a total of 45 pending trials of native title claims. No other State or Territory is dealing with more matters. Preparing for trials is costly for both the native title representative bodies and the State Government. The previous State Government spent more than $20 million through Crown Law on native title matters. I have expressed concern to federal court representatives that in some cases the unrelenting schedule of trial dates is not assisting the process of mediation. It is disturbing that recent applications for matters to be adjourned to pursue mediation have been refused by the court. I have already pointed out that native title representative bodies are short of money - they have been financially crippled by the previous Government’s focus on litigation - so they are not in a position to pursue mediation and prepare for trial at the same time. That also presents a difficulty for the State Government. There are two solutions to this problem: first, the federal Government, which funds the native title representative bodies, must provide additional funding - it must face up to its responsibilities and provide those bodies with sufficient funds to pursue negotiation of native title matters; and, secondly, the Federal Court must recognise that the Western Australian State Government is a new Government and, as such, it has a new policy to provide opportunities for mediation. If the Federal Court does not respond favourably to reasonable requests for the adjournment of trials, it will be doing a great injustice; it will be denying this State the opportunity to reach out-of-court agreements with native title applicants and other parties. I call on the court to re-examine its approach to these matters.
I heard the disgraceful interjection from the member for Kalgoorlie. I will not repeat it for the record, because it was unworthy of a member of Parliament. Of course the Government wants to resolve native title applications and avoid litigation where possible. I recently attended a conference in Brisbane dealing with the settlement of native title matters by agreement. I took the opportunity to visit the native title services division of the Queensland Department of the Premier and Cabinet. That office has been involved in 17 native title consent determinations. Only three such determinations have been handed down in Western Australia in the past eight years. The difficulty facing this State is the large number of matters heading for trial before the Federal Court; that is, trial dates have been set for 34 matters and judges have been allocated for another 11 matters, giving a total of 45 pending trials of native title claims. No other State or Territory is dealing with more matters. Preparing for trials is costly for both the native title representative bodies and the State Government. The previous State Government spent more than $20 million through Crown Law on native title matters. I have expressed concern to federal court representatives that in some cases the unrelenting schedule of trial dates is not assisting the process of mediation. It is disturbing that recent applications for matters to be adjourned to pursue mediation have been refused by the court. I have already pointed out that native title representative bodies are short of money - they have been financially crippled by the previous Government’s focus on litigation - so they are not in a position to pursue mediation and prepare for trial at the same time. That also presents a difficulty for the State Government. There are two solutions to this problem: first, the federal Government, which funds the native title representative bodies, must provide additional funding - it must face up to its responsibilities and provide those bodies with sufficient funds to pursue negotiation of native title matters; and, secondly, the Federal Court must recognise that the Western Australian State Government is a new Government and, as such, it has a new policy to provide opportunities for mediation. If the Federal Court does not respond favourably to reasonable requests for the adjournment of trials, it will be doing a great injustice; it will be denying this State the opportunity to reach out-of-court agreements with native title applicants and other parties. I call on the court to re-examine its approach to these matters.
Of course the Government wants to resolve native title applications and avoid litigation where possible. I recently attended a conference in Brisbane dealing with the settlement of native title matters by agreement. I took the opportunity to visit the native title services division of the Queensland Department of the Premier and Cabinet. That office has been involved in 17 native title consent determinations. Only three such determinations have been handed down in Western Australia in the past eight years. The difficulty facing this State is the large number of matters heading for trial before the Federal Court; that is, trial dates have been set for 34 matters and judges have been allocated for another 11 matters, giving a total of 45 pending trials of native title claims. No other State or Territory is dealing with more matters. Preparing for trials is costly for both the native title representative bodies and the State Government. The previous State Government spent more than $20 million through Crown Law on native title matters. I have expressed concern to federal court representatives that in some cases the unrelenting schedule of trial dates is not assisting the process of mediation. It is disturbing that recent applications for matters to be adjourned to pursue mediation have been refused by the court. I have already pointed out that native title representative bodies are short of money - they have been financially crippled by the previous Government’s focus on litigation - so they are not in a position to pursue mediation and prepare for trial at the same time. That also presents a difficulty for the State Government. There are two solutions to this problem: first, the federal Government, which funds the native title representative bodies, must provide additional funding - it must face up to its responsibilities and provide those bodies with sufficient funds to pursue negotiation of native title matters; and, secondly, the Federal Court must recognise that the Western Australian State Government is a new Government and, as such, it has a new policy to provide opportunities for mediation. If the Federal Court does not respond favourably to reasonable requests for the adjournment of trials, it will be doing a great injustice; it will be denying this State the opportunity to reach out-of-court agreements with native title applicants and other parties. I call on the court to re-examine its approach to these matters.
Preparing for trials is costly for both the native title representative bodies and the State Government. The previous State Government spent more than $20 million through Crown Law on native title matters. I have expressed concern to federal court representatives that in some cases the unrelenting schedule of trial dates is not assisting the process of mediation. It is disturbing that recent applications for matters to be adjourned to pursue mediation have been refused by the court. I have already pointed out that native title representative bodies are short of money - they have been financially crippled by the previous Government’s focus on litigation - so they are not in a position to pursue mediation and prepare for trial at the same time. That also presents a difficulty for the State Government. There are two solutions to this problem: first, the federal Government, which funds the native title representative bodies, must provide additional funding - it must face up to its responsibilities and provide those bodies with sufficient funds to pursue negotiation of native title matters; and, secondly, the Federal Court must recognise that the Western Australian State Government is a new Government and, as such, it has a new policy to provide opportunities for mediation. If the Federal Court does not respond favourably to reasonable requests for the adjournment of trials, it will be doing a great injustice; it will be denying this State the opportunity to reach out-of-court agreements with native title applicants and other parties. I call on the court to re-examine its approach to these matters.
There are two solutions to this problem: first, the federal Government, which funds the native title representative bodies, must provide additional funding - it must face up to its responsibilities and provide those bodies with sufficient funds to pursue negotiation of native title matters; and, secondly, the Federal Court must recognise that the Western Australian State Government is a new Government and, as such, it has a new policy to provide opportunities for mediation. If the Federal Court does not respond favourably to reasonable requests for the adjournment of trials, it will be doing a great injustice; it will be denying this State the opportunity to reach out-of-court agreements with native title applicants and other parties. I call on the court to re-examine its approach to these matters.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.