❓ A parliamentary question regarding the implications of a successful native title claim in the Perth metropolitan region, focusing on compensation, government support for local governments, and resources allocated to oppose the claim. The Deputy Premier's response provides a nuanced view, acknowledging uncertainties and existing procedural rights.
AnsweredQoN 666Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
NATIVE TITLE CLAIM - PERTH METROPOLITAN REGION
I refer to the recent successful native title claim over the metropolitan and surrounding regions. (1) Can the Deputy Premier guarantee that this decision will not result in compensation claims or the need for negotiated financial settlements with the native title holders? (2) What advice and assistance has the government provided to local governments regarding the impact of this decision? (3) Can the Deputy Premier guarantee that the government provided all the necessary resources to mount the best possible case against this decision? Mr E.S. RIPPER
I refer to the recent successful native title claim over the metropolitan and surrounding regions. (1) Can the Deputy Premier guarantee that this decision will not result in compensation claims or the need for negotiated financial settlements with the native title holders? (2) What advice and assistance has the government provided to local governments regarding the impact of this decision? (3) Can the Deputy Premier guarantee that the government provided all the necessary resources to mount the best possible case against this decision? Mr E.S. RIPPER
AnswerView source ↗
(1)-(3) Native title parties already have procedural rights. They have those procedural rights for developments over land they are claiming. Those procedural rights remain unless the claim is dismissed. The procedural rights that apply to native title holders are not essentially different from the procedural rights that apply to native title claimants while they are awaiting the resolution of their claims. Consequently, I do not expect that there will be any difference for people seeking to develop land in the Perth metropolitan region. The native title procedural rights that people already have will simply flow on to the new situation, which would, in any case, have continued until any appeal was resolved. With regard to compensation, the issue is somewhat unclear because there has not been a native title compensation case dealt with in the Australian courts. As I understand it, the position - I am not to be taken as a legal expert in this area of complexity - is that where native title exists but has been extinguished by an act that has occurred since 1975, that area of land can be the subject of a compensation claim. In 1998 the federal government offered to pay 75 per cent of any compensation obligation that would apply to the government of Western Australia. The issue of compensation will remain an issue for a considerable period into the future, despite all the native title litigation and negotiation that has occurred, because the question of compensation for the extinguishment of native title has not been tested in the courts. There are some uncertainties regarding the implication of the recent Federal Court decision. Those uncertainties are due in part to the inconsistent decisions of the Federal Court. Since the Mabo decision, native title law has gradually become clearer and clearer and more certainty has been provided for all the parties. However, recently a run of Federal Court decisions have been inconsistent with each other and with High Court decisions. That has produced more uncertainty for all parties involved in native title discussions. It is difficult for parties such as the state government to predict exactly what are some of the implications because we no longer have the certainty that we might once have had of native title law as a result of these inconsistent Federal Court decisions. The way in which inconsistencies are typically overcome in the court system is through the process of appeals. Although I would like to provide all the answers to all the questions people have asked the state government about the implications of the recent Federal Court decision, some of those questions and answers are, in effect, outside my control. I do not have quite the same confidence as I once had about the type of decision the Federal Court might make.
(1) Can the Deputy Premier guarantee that this decision will not result in compensation claims or the need for negotiated financial settlements with the native title holders? (2) What advice and assistance has the government provided to local governments regarding the impact of this decision? (3) Can the Deputy Premier guarantee that the government provided all the necessary resources to mount the best possible case against this decision? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (1)-(3) Native title parties already have procedural rights. They have those procedural rights for developments over land they are claiming. Those procedural rights remain unless the claim is dismissed. The procedural rights that apply to native title holders are not essentially different from the procedural rights that apply to native title claimants while they are awaiting the resolution of their claims. Consequently, I do not expect that there will be any difference for people seeking to develop land in the Perth metropolitan region. The native title procedural rights that people already have will simply flow on to the new situation, which would, in any case, have continued until any appeal was resolved. With regard to compensation, the issue is somewhat unclear because there has not been a native title compensation case dealt with in the Australian courts. As I understand it, the position - I am not to be taken as a legal expert in this area of complexity - is that where native title exists but has been extinguished by an act that has occurred since 1975, that area of land can be the subject of a compensation claim. In 1998 the federal government offered to pay 75 per cent of any compensation obligation that would apply to the government of Western Australia. The issue of compensation will remain an issue for a considerable period into the future, despite all the native title litigation and negotiation that has occurred, because the question of compensation for the extinguishment of native title has not been tested in the courts. There are some uncertainties regarding the implication of the recent Federal Court decision. Those uncertainties are due in part to the inconsistent decisions of the Federal Court. Since the Mabo decision, native title law has gradually become clearer and clearer and more certainty has been provided for all the parties. However, recently a run of Federal Court decisions have been inconsistent with each other and with High Court decisions. That has produced more uncertainty for all parties involved in native title discussions. It is difficult for parties such as the state government to predict exactly what are some of the implications because we no longer have the certainty that we might once have had of native title law as a result of these inconsistent Federal Court decisions. The way in which inconsistencies are typically overcome in the court system is through the process of appeals. Although I would like to provide all the answers to all the questions people have asked the state government about the implications of the recent Federal Court decision, some of those questions and answers are, in effect, outside my control. I do not have quite the same confidence as I once had about the type of decision the Federal Court might make.
(2) What advice and assistance has the government provided to local governments regarding the impact of this decision? (3) Can the Deputy Premier guarantee that the government provided all the necessary resources to mount the best possible case against this decision? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (1)-(3) Native title parties already have procedural rights. They have those procedural rights for developments over land they are claiming. Those procedural rights remain unless the claim is dismissed. The procedural rights that apply to native title holders are not essentially different from the procedural rights that apply to native title claimants while they are awaiting the resolution of their claims. Consequently, I do not expect that there will be any difference for people seeking to develop land in the Perth metropolitan region. The native title procedural rights that people already have will simply flow on to the new situation, which would, in any case, have continued until any appeal was resolved. With regard to compensation, the issue is somewhat unclear because there has not been a native title compensation case dealt with in the Australian courts. As I understand it, the position - I am not to be taken as a legal expert in this area of complexity - is that where native title exists but has been extinguished by an act that has occurred since 1975, that area of land can be the subject of a compensation claim. In 1998 the federal government offered to pay 75 per cent of any compensation obligation that would apply to the government of Western Australia. The issue of compensation will remain an issue for a considerable period into the future, despite all the native title litigation and negotiation that has occurred, because the question of compensation for the extinguishment of native title has not been tested in the courts. There are some uncertainties regarding the implication of the recent Federal Court decision. Those uncertainties are due in part to the inconsistent decisions of the Federal Court. Since the Mabo decision, native title law has gradually become clearer and clearer and more certainty has been provided for all the parties. However, recently a run of Federal Court decisions have been inconsistent with each other and with High Court decisions. That has produced more uncertainty for all parties involved in native title discussions. It is difficult for parties such as the state government to predict exactly what are some of the implications because we no longer have the certainty that we might once have had of native title law as a result of these inconsistent Federal Court decisions. The way in which inconsistencies are typically overcome in the court system is through the process of appeals. Although I would like to provide all the answers to all the questions people have asked the state government about the implications of the recent Federal Court decision, some of those questions and answers are, in effect, outside my control. I do not have quite the same confidence as I once had about the type of decision the Federal Court might make.
(3) Can the Deputy Premier guarantee that the government provided all the necessary resources to mount the best possible case against this decision? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (1)-(3) Native title parties already have procedural rights. They have those procedural rights for developments over land they are claiming. Those procedural rights remain unless the claim is dismissed. The procedural rights that apply to native title holders are not essentially different from the procedural rights that apply to native title claimants while they are awaiting the resolution of their claims. Consequently, I do not expect that there will be any difference for people seeking to develop land in the Perth metropolitan region. The native title procedural rights that people already have will simply flow on to the new situation, which would, in any case, have continued until any appeal was resolved. With regard to compensation, the issue is somewhat unclear because there has not been a native title compensation case dealt with in the Australian courts. As I understand it, the position - I am not to be taken as a legal expert in this area of complexity - is that where native title exists but has been extinguished by an act that has occurred since 1975, that area of land can be the subject of a compensation claim. In 1998 the federal government offered to pay 75 per cent of any compensation obligation that would apply to the government of Western Australia. The issue of compensation will remain an issue for a considerable period into the future, despite all the native title litigation and negotiation that has occurred, because the question of compensation for the extinguishment of native title has not been tested in the courts. There are some uncertainties regarding the implication of the recent Federal Court decision. Those uncertainties are due in part to the inconsistent decisions of the Federal Court. Since the Mabo decision, native title law has gradually become clearer and clearer and more certainty has been provided for all the parties. However, recently a run of Federal Court decisions have been inconsistent with each other and with High Court decisions. That has produced more uncertainty for all parties involved in native title discussions. It is difficult for parties such as the state government to predict exactly what are some of the implications because we no longer have the certainty that we might once have had of native title law as a result of these inconsistent Federal Court decisions. The way in which inconsistencies are typically overcome in the court system is through the process of appeals. Although I would like to provide all the answers to all the questions people have asked the state government about the implications of the recent Federal Court decision, some of those questions and answers are, in effect, outside my control. I do not have quite the same confidence as I once had about the type of decision the Federal Court might make.
Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (1)-(3) Native title parties already have procedural rights. They have those procedural rights for developments over land they are claiming. Those procedural rights remain unless the claim is dismissed. The procedural rights that apply to native title holders are not essentially different from the procedural rights that apply to native title claimants while they are awaiting the resolution of their claims. Consequently, I do not expect that there will be any difference for people seeking to develop land in the Perth metropolitan region. The native title procedural rights that people already have will simply flow on to the new situation, which would, in any case, have continued until any appeal was resolved. With regard to compensation, the issue is somewhat unclear because there has not been a native title compensation case dealt with in the Australian courts. As I understand it, the position - I am not to be taken as a legal expert in this area of complexity - is that where native title exists but has been extinguished by an act that has occurred since 1975, that area of land can be the subject of a compensation claim. In 1998 the federal government offered to pay 75 per cent of any compensation obligation that would apply to the government of Western Australia. The issue of compensation will remain an issue for a considerable period into the future, despite all the native title litigation and negotiation that has occurred, because the question of compensation for the extinguishment of native title has not been tested in the courts. There are some uncertainties regarding the implication of the recent Federal Court decision. Those uncertainties are due in part to the inconsistent decisions of the Federal Court. Since the Mabo decision, native title law has gradually become clearer and clearer and more certainty has been provided for all the parties. However, recently a run of Federal Court decisions have been inconsistent with each other and with High Court decisions. That has produced more uncertainty for all parties involved in native title discussions. It is difficult for parties such as the state government to predict exactly what are some of the implications because we no longer have the certainty that we might once have had of native title law as a result of these inconsistent Federal Court decisions. The way in which inconsistencies are typically overcome in the court system is through the process of appeals. Although I would like to provide all the answers to all the questions people have asked the state government about the implications of the recent Federal Court decision, some of those questions and answers are, in effect, outside my control. I do not have quite the same confidence as I once had about the type of decision the Federal Court might make.
(1)-(3) Native title parties already have procedural rights. They have those procedural rights for developments over land they are claiming. Those procedural rights remain unless the claim is dismissed. The procedural rights that apply to native title holders are not essentially different from the procedural rights that apply to native title claimants while they are awaiting the resolution of their claims. Consequently, I do not expect that there will be any difference for people seeking to develop land in the Perth metropolitan region. The native title procedural rights that people already have will simply flow on to the new situation, which would, in any case, have continued until any appeal was resolved. With regard to compensation, the issue is somewhat unclear because there has not been a native title compensation case dealt with in the Australian courts. As I understand it, the position - I am not to be taken as a legal expert in this area of complexity - is that where native title exists but has been extinguished by an act that has occurred since 1975, that area of land can be the subject of a compensation claim. In 1998 the federal government offered to pay 75 per cent of any compensation obligation that would apply to the government of Western Australia. The issue of compensation will remain an issue for a considerable period into the future, despite all the native title litigation and negotiation that has occurred, because the question of compensation for the extinguishment of native title has not been tested in the courts. There are some uncertainties regarding the implication of the recent Federal Court decision. Those uncertainties are due in part to the inconsistent decisions of the Federal Court. Since the Mabo decision, native title law has gradually become clearer and clearer and more certainty has been provided for all the parties. However, recently a run of Federal Court decisions have been inconsistent with each other and with High Court decisions. That has produced more uncertainty for all parties involved in native title discussions. It is difficult for parties such as the state government to predict exactly what are some of the implications because we no longer have the certainty that we might once have had of native title law as a result of these inconsistent Federal Court decisions. The way in which inconsistencies are typically overcome in the court system is through the process of appeals. Although I would like to provide all the answers to all the questions people have asked the state government about the implications of the recent Federal Court decision, some of those questions and answers are, in effect, outside my control. I do not have quite the same confidence as I once had about the type of decision the Federal Court might make.
(1) Can the Deputy Premier guarantee that this decision will not result in compensation claims or the need for negotiated financial settlements with the native title holders? (2) What advice and assistance has the government provided to local governments regarding the impact of this decision? (3) Can the Deputy Premier guarantee that the government provided all the necessary resources to mount the best possible case against this decision? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (1)-(3) Native title parties already have procedural rights. They have those procedural rights for developments over land they are claiming. Those procedural rights remain unless the claim is dismissed. The procedural rights that apply to native title holders are not essentially different from the procedural rights that apply to native title claimants while they are awaiting the resolution of their claims. Consequently, I do not expect that there will be any difference for people seeking to develop land in the Perth metropolitan region. The native title procedural rights that people already have will simply flow on to the new situation, which would, in any case, have continued until any appeal was resolved. With regard to compensation, the issue is somewhat unclear because there has not been a native title compensation case dealt with in the Australian courts. As I understand it, the position - I am not to be taken as a legal expert in this area of complexity - is that where native title exists but has been extinguished by an act that has occurred since 1975, that area of land can be the subject of a compensation claim. In 1998 the federal government offered to pay 75 per cent of any compensation obligation that would apply to the government of Western Australia. The issue of compensation will remain an issue for a considerable period into the future, despite all the native title litigation and negotiation that has occurred, because the question of compensation for the extinguishment of native title has not been tested in the courts. There are some uncertainties regarding the implication of the recent Federal Court decision. Those uncertainties are due in part to the inconsistent decisions of the Federal Court. Since the Mabo decision, native title law has gradually become clearer and clearer and more certainty has been provided for all the parties. However, recently a run of Federal Court decisions have been inconsistent with each other and with High Court decisions. That has produced more uncertainty for all parties involved in native title discussions. It is difficult for parties such as the state government to predict exactly what are some of the implications because we no longer have the certainty that we might once have had of native title law as a result of these inconsistent Federal Court decisions. The way in which inconsistencies are typically overcome in the court system is through the process of appeals. Although I would like to provide all the answers to all the questions people have asked the state government about the implications of the recent Federal Court decision, some of those questions and answers are, in effect, outside my control. I do not have quite the same confidence as I once had about the type of decision the Federal Court might make.
(2) What advice and assistance has the government provided to local governments regarding the impact of this decision? (3) Can the Deputy Premier guarantee that the government provided all the necessary resources to mount the best possible case against this decision? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (1)-(3) Native title parties already have procedural rights. They have those procedural rights for developments over land they are claiming. Those procedural rights remain unless the claim is dismissed. The procedural rights that apply to native title holders are not essentially different from the procedural rights that apply to native title claimants while they are awaiting the resolution of their claims. Consequently, I do not expect that there will be any difference for people seeking to develop land in the Perth metropolitan region. The native title procedural rights that people already have will simply flow on to the new situation, which would, in any case, have continued until any appeal was resolved. With regard to compensation, the issue is somewhat unclear because there has not been a native title compensation case dealt with in the Australian courts. As I understand it, the position - I am not to be taken as a legal expert in this area of complexity - is that where native title exists but has been extinguished by an act that has occurred since 1975, that area of land can be the subject of a compensation claim. In 1998 the federal government offered to pay 75 per cent of any compensation obligation that would apply to the government of Western Australia. The issue of compensation will remain an issue for a considerable period into the future, despite all the native title litigation and negotiation that has occurred, because the question of compensation for the extinguishment of native title has not been tested in the courts. There are some uncertainties regarding the implication of the recent Federal Court decision. Those uncertainties are due in part to the inconsistent decisions of the Federal Court. Since the Mabo decision, native title law has gradually become clearer and clearer and more certainty has been provided for all the parties. However, recently a run of Federal Court decisions have been inconsistent with each other and with High Court decisions. That has produced more uncertainty for all parties involved in native title discussions. It is difficult for parties such as the state government to predict exactly what are some of the implications because we no longer have the certainty that we might once have had of native title law as a result of these inconsistent Federal Court decisions. The way in which inconsistencies are typically overcome in the court system is through the process of appeals. Although I would like to provide all the answers to all the questions people have asked the state government about the implications of the recent Federal Court decision, some of those questions and answers are, in effect, outside my control. I do not have quite the same confidence as I once had about the type of decision the Federal Court might make.
(3) Can the Deputy Premier guarantee that the government provided all the necessary resources to mount the best possible case against this decision? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (1)-(3) Native title parties already have procedural rights. They have those procedural rights for developments over land they are claiming. Those procedural rights remain unless the claim is dismissed. The procedural rights that apply to native title holders are not essentially different from the procedural rights that apply to native title claimants while they are awaiting the resolution of their claims. Consequently, I do not expect that there will be any difference for people seeking to develop land in the Perth metropolitan region. The native title procedural rights that people already have will simply flow on to the new situation, which would, in any case, have continued until any appeal was resolved. With regard to compensation, the issue is somewhat unclear because there has not been a native title compensation case dealt with in the Australian courts. As I understand it, the position - I am not to be taken as a legal expert in this area of complexity - is that where native title exists but has been extinguished by an act that has occurred since 1975, that area of land can be the subject of a compensation claim. In 1998 the federal government offered to pay 75 per cent of any compensation obligation that would apply to the government of Western Australia. The issue of compensation will remain an issue for a considerable period into the future, despite all the native title litigation and negotiation that has occurred, because the question of compensation for the extinguishment of native title has not been tested in the courts. There are some uncertainties regarding the implication of the recent Federal Court decision. Those uncertainties are due in part to the inconsistent decisions of the Federal Court. Since the Mabo decision, native title law has gradually become clearer and clearer and more certainty has been provided for all the parties. However, recently a run of Federal Court decisions have been inconsistent with each other and with High Court decisions. That has produced more uncertainty for all parties involved in native title discussions. It is difficult for parties such as the state government to predict exactly what are some of the implications because we no longer have the certainty that we might once have had of native title law as a result of these inconsistent Federal Court decisions. The way in which inconsistencies are typically overcome in the court system is through the process of appeals. Although I would like to provide all the answers to all the questions people have asked the state government about the implications of the recent Federal Court decision, some of those questions and answers are, in effect, outside my control. I do not have quite the same confidence as I once had about the type of decision the Federal Court might make.
Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (1)-(3) Native title parties already have procedural rights. They have those procedural rights for developments over land they are claiming. Those procedural rights remain unless the claim is dismissed. The procedural rights that apply to native title holders are not essentially different from the procedural rights that apply to native title claimants while they are awaiting the resolution of their claims. Consequently, I do not expect that there will be any difference for people seeking to develop land in the Perth metropolitan region. The native title procedural rights that people already have will simply flow on to the new situation, which would, in any case, have continued until any appeal was resolved. With regard to compensation, the issue is somewhat unclear because there has not been a native title compensation case dealt with in the Australian courts. As I understand it, the position - I am not to be taken as a legal expert in this area of complexity - is that where native title exists but has been extinguished by an act that has occurred since 1975, that area of land can be the subject of a compensation claim. In 1998 the federal government offered to pay 75 per cent of any compensation obligation that would apply to the government of Western Australia. The issue of compensation will remain an issue for a considerable period into the future, despite all the native title litigation and negotiation that has occurred, because the question of compensation for the extinguishment of native title has not been tested in the courts. There are some uncertainties regarding the implication of the recent Federal Court decision. Those uncertainties are due in part to the inconsistent decisions of the Federal Court. Since the Mabo decision, native title law has gradually become clearer and clearer and more certainty has been provided for all the parties. However, recently a run of Federal Court decisions have been inconsistent with each other and with High Court decisions. That has produced more uncertainty for all parties involved in native title discussions. It is difficult for parties such as the state government to predict exactly what are some of the implications because we no longer have the certainty that we might once have had of native title law as a result of these inconsistent Federal Court decisions. The way in which inconsistencies are typically overcome in the court system is through the process of appeals. Although I would like to provide all the answers to all the questions people have asked the state government about the implications of the recent Federal Court decision, some of those questions and answers are, in effect, outside my control. I do not have quite the same confidence as I once had about the type of decision the Federal Court might make.
(1)-(3) Native title parties already have procedural rights. They have those procedural rights for developments over land they are claiming. Those procedural rights remain unless the claim is dismissed. The procedural rights that apply to native title holders are not essentially different from the procedural rights that apply to native title claimants while they are awaiting the resolution of their claims. Consequently, I do not expect that there will be any difference for people seeking to develop land in the Perth metropolitan region. The native title procedural rights that people already have will simply flow on to the new situation, which would, in any case, have continued until any appeal was resolved. With regard to compensation, the issue is somewhat unclear because there has not been a native title compensation case dealt with in the Australian courts. As I understand it, the position - I am not to be taken as a legal expert in this area of complexity - is that where native title exists but has been extinguished by an act that has occurred since 1975, that area of land can be the subject of a compensation claim. In 1998 the federal government offered to pay 75 per cent of any compensation obligation that would apply to the government of Western Australia. The issue of compensation will remain an issue for a considerable period into the future, despite all the native title litigation and negotiation that has occurred, because the question of compensation for the extinguishment of native title has not been tested in the courts. There are some uncertainties regarding the implication of the recent Federal Court decision. Those uncertainties are due in part to the inconsistent decisions of the Federal Court. Since the Mabo decision, native title law has gradually become clearer and clearer and more certainty has been provided for all the parties. However, recently a run of Federal Court decisions have been inconsistent with each other and with High Court decisions. That has produced more uncertainty for all parties involved in native title discussions. It is difficult for parties such as the state government to predict exactly what are some of the implications because we no longer have the certainty that we might once have had of native title law as a result of these inconsistent Federal Court decisions. The way in which inconsistencies are typically overcome in the court system is through the process of appeals. Although I would like to provide all the answers to all the questions people have asked the state government about the implications of the recent Federal Court decision, some of those questions and answers are, in effect, outside my control. I do not have quite the same confidence as I once had about the type of decision the Federal Court might make.
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.