❓ The Attorney General outlines the parameters guiding negotiations for a native title offer to the South West Aboriginal Land and Sea Council, detailing proposed agreements and government contributions.
AnsweredQoN 9Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
NATIVE TITLE OFFER — SOUTH WEST ABORIGINAL
LAND AND SEA COUNCIL
9. Mrs L.M. HARVEY to the Attorney General:
Will the Attorney General please outline the parameters that
will now guide the negotiations for the recent native title offer to the South
West Aboriginal Land and Sea Council?
LAND AND SEA COUNCIL
9. Mrs L.M. HARVEY to the Attorney General:
Will the Attorney General please outline the parameters that
will now guide the negotiations for the recent native title offer to the South
West Aboriginal Land and Sea Council?
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for her question. It is a very helpful and
timely question.
In the view of the government, what we are seeking to achieve
with the South West Aboriginal Land and Sea Council is so obviously and
rationally the proper and best way to resolve the issue we now face with native
title in the south west that the more people who know as much detail as
possible about what we are trying to achieve—particularly the opinion
leaders in this Parliament—and who can disseminate that information,
the higher the prospect that we will draw this negotiation to a conclusion.
I seek to give some broad idea about how this settlement is
hoped to be achieved. There are presently six different claimant groups: one
over the Perth metropolitan area; the second over the Jurien–Moora–Lancelin–Gingin
area; the third over Mandurah, Bunbury and Donnybrook; the fourth over
Busselton, Dunsborough, Margaret River, Pemberton and Nannup; the fifth over
Katanning and Albany; and the sixth and final over York, Northam, Hyden and
Kondinin. Members will see that the six claimant groups represent a claim over
a massive area of land. The claims are complicated in their respective legal
bases and strength, and they are complicated by the fact that they are overlapping.
The government is seeking to bring all those claims to a once-and-for-all final
resolution, and it is doing that in a way that is inherently practical and
inherently contractual. The government will do something, and do something very
significant, to try to reach an agreement. It will do three things. Let me
start first with the native title claimants and the three things that they
appear willing to do at this stage. The native title claimants will enter into
consent determinations with the view that the agreement would be that no native
title exists in relation to any of those six claim areas. That is the first
thing.
The second thing is that, in doing that, the native title
claimants would agree to the resolution of all overlapping native title claims
in the south west region. The third thing that native title claimants would
agree to is that all compensation liabilities arising from the south west
claims would be fully and finally discharged by any agreement that is reached.
These are significant concessions for Nyoongah people to be willing to make. In
recognition of those potential concessions, the government is also willing to
contribute in a very substantial way.
The way in which the final agreement would be reached is
through a variety of Indigenous land use agreements. If members like, they
would form the actual contractual document in which the Indigenous people would
make those three significant concessions, and the government would agree to six
things in those ILUAs. Firstly, there would be an agreement from the government
for a very significant financial contribution to an investment trust to be paid
over a period of 10 years. While those payments are going into the trust over
the 10 years, the trust could not be drawn down upon in any way—not in
capital or in interest—so that the 10-year period would allow that
trust to build up.
Secondly, the government, in
addition to building up that trust fund over 10 years, would make direct
financial contributions to the administration of a governance structure for the
Nyoongah people and those six claimant groups. That would also take place over
a period of time. Very briefly and in core summary, that government structure
would have a central Nyoongah administration and coordination body, six regional
Nyoongah councils and a local office of administration for each, representing
the six claimant groups, and a Nyoongah trust managing the assets and land
arising from the south west settlement. The trust would be the peak body that
would eventually determine how interest on the trust funds would be expended.
Perhaps in another question we can go into some more detail about that issue.
The third thing the government has
indicated a willingness to do is create a Nyoongah land estate in addition to
those two types of financial compensation that I mentioned. That is a process
of negotiation that we are in at the moment to identify land parcels, which, as
soon as practicable upon the execution of the ILUAs, could be transferred into
the ownership of the trust. There would also be a process, identified by
agreement, in which ongoing parcels of land could be identified and
transferred.
The fourth thing is joint management
of conservation estate and access to other state lands. It is again a very
important concession on the part of the government.
The fifth thing is that we have taken the opportunity in the
process of these already quite complicated negotiations to present streamlined
Aboriginal heritage protocols. That system works in a very clunky way at the
moment. The goodwill of the Nyoongah people is such that they are willing to
look at that issue in the context of this resolution.
Sixthly, the government has indicated a willingness to
establish a Nyoongah cultural and interpretive centre. All of this is a very
practical act of reconciliation. The one significant symbolic measure in all of
this would be an act, potentially of this Parliament, to recognise Nyoongah
people as the traditional custodians and owners of the land, over which native
title would, by agreement, be extinguished.
The Premier spoke at the first of
the negotiation meetings. Should this deal occur, it would be, first of all,
historic. Secondly, it has taken a colossal amount of work to get this far. I
thank the South West Aboriginal Land and Sea Council, the Department of the
Attorney General and the Office of Native Title, although there is much work to
do.
I close by saying that for all members present I will be
arranging by email full briefings from the Office of Native Title on exactly
how the details of this package are structured. I would hope that that could
serve the bipartisan purpose as follows: to understand what we are trying to do
as a Parliament with respect to these six complicated and overlapping claims,
the great welfare benefits it can engender for Nyoongah people and the final
certainty it can give both to Nyoongah people and to a whole range of
landowners in the region we have talked about and to understand the parameters
of this deal and communicate that deal to people who are at the moment, at
Heirisson Island and other places, protesting against that deal. The government
considers that if people actually knew what this could achieve, it would be
very difficult to rationally oppose it.
timely question.
In the view of the government, what we are seeking to achieve
with the South West Aboriginal Land and Sea Council is so obviously and
rationally the proper and best way to resolve the issue we now face with native
title in the south west that the more people who know as much detail as
possible about what we are trying to achieve—particularly the opinion
leaders in this Parliament—and who can disseminate that information,
the higher the prospect that we will draw this negotiation to a conclusion.
I seek to give some broad idea about how this settlement is
hoped to be achieved. There are presently six different claimant groups: one
over the Perth metropolitan area; the second over the Jurien–Moora–Lancelin–Gingin
area; the third over Mandurah, Bunbury and Donnybrook; the fourth over
Busselton, Dunsborough, Margaret River, Pemberton and Nannup; the fifth over
Katanning and Albany; and the sixth and final over York, Northam, Hyden and
Kondinin. Members will see that the six claimant groups represent a claim over
a massive area of land. The claims are complicated in their respective legal
bases and strength, and they are complicated by the fact that they are overlapping.
The government is seeking to bring all those claims to a once-and-for-all final
resolution, and it is doing that in a way that is inherently practical and
inherently contractual. The government will do something, and do something very
significant, to try to reach an agreement. It will do three things. Let me
start first with the native title claimants and the three things that they
appear willing to do at this stage. The native title claimants will enter into
consent determinations with the view that the agreement would be that no native
title exists in relation to any of those six claim areas. That is the first
thing.
The second thing is that, in doing that, the native title
claimants would agree to the resolution of all overlapping native title claims
in the south west region. The third thing that native title claimants would
agree to is that all compensation liabilities arising from the south west
claims would be fully and finally discharged by any agreement that is reached.
These are significant concessions for Nyoongah people to be willing to make. In
recognition of those potential concessions, the government is also willing to
contribute in a very substantial way.
The way in which the final agreement would be reached is
through a variety of Indigenous land use agreements. If members like, they
would form the actual contractual document in which the Indigenous people would
make those three significant concessions, and the government would agree to six
things in those ILUAs. Firstly, there would be an agreement from the government
for a very significant financial contribution to an investment trust to be paid
over a period of 10 years. While those payments are going into the trust over
the 10 years, the trust could not be drawn down upon in any way—not in
capital or in interest—so that the 10-year period would allow that
trust to build up.
Secondly, the government, in
addition to building up that trust fund over 10 years, would make direct
financial contributions to the administration of a governance structure for the
Nyoongah people and those six claimant groups. That would also take place over
a period of time. Very briefly and in core summary, that government structure
would have a central Nyoongah administration and coordination body, six regional
Nyoongah councils and a local office of administration for each, representing
the six claimant groups, and a Nyoongah trust managing the assets and land
arising from the south west settlement. The trust would be the peak body that
would eventually determine how interest on the trust funds would be expended.
Perhaps in another question we can go into some more detail about that issue.
The third thing the government has
indicated a willingness to do is create a Nyoongah land estate in addition to
those two types of financial compensation that I mentioned. That is a process
of negotiation that we are in at the moment to identify land parcels, which, as
soon as practicable upon the execution of the ILUAs, could be transferred into
the ownership of the trust. There would also be a process, identified by
agreement, in which ongoing parcels of land could be identified and
transferred.
The fourth thing is joint management
of conservation estate and access to other state lands. It is again a very
important concession on the part of the government.
The fifth thing is that we have taken the opportunity in the
process of these already quite complicated negotiations to present streamlined
Aboriginal heritage protocols. That system works in a very clunky way at the
moment. The goodwill of the Nyoongah people is such that they are willing to
look at that issue in the context of this resolution.
Sixthly, the government has indicated a willingness to
establish a Nyoongah cultural and interpretive centre. All of this is a very
practical act of reconciliation. The one significant symbolic measure in all of
this would be an act, potentially of this Parliament, to recognise Nyoongah
people as the traditional custodians and owners of the land, over which native
title would, by agreement, be extinguished.
The Premier spoke at the first of
the negotiation meetings. Should this deal occur, it would be, first of all,
historic. Secondly, it has taken a colossal amount of work to get this far. I
thank the South West Aboriginal Land and Sea Council, the Department of the
Attorney General and the Office of Native Title, although there is much work to
do.
I close by saying that for all members present I will be
arranging by email full briefings from the Office of Native Title on exactly
how the details of this package are structured. I would hope that that could
serve the bipartisan purpose as follows: to understand what we are trying to do
as a Parliament with respect to these six complicated and overlapping claims,
the great welfare benefits it can engender for Nyoongah people and the final
certainty it can give both to Nyoongah people and to a whole range of
landowners in the region we have talked about and to understand the parameters
of this deal and communicate that deal to people who are at the moment, at
Heirisson Island and other places, protesting against that deal. The government
considers that if people actually knew what this could achieve, it would be
very difficult to rationally oppose it.
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.