❓ The Deputy Premier outlines the government's response to the Martu people's aspirations for recognition of their traditional attachment to the land covered by Rudall River National Park, including plans for joint management and potential transfer of title, contingent on certain conditions.
AnsweredQoN 935Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
Will the Deputy Premier please advise what steps the Government has taken to respond to the aspirations of the Martu people for recognition of their traditional attachment to the land covered by the Rudall River National Park? Mr E.S. RIPPER
AnswerView source ↗
The August 2002 High Court decision in the Miriuwung-Gajerrong native title application, or the Ward case, delivered a very cruel blow to the aspirations of Aboriginal people in general when it found the creation of a national park had the effect of extinguishing native title. That was a surprising aspect of the decision. It meant that the Martu native title application in September 2002 did not include the Rudall River National Park - known to the Martu as Karlamilyi - which had formed part of the claim area for many years. The park is 260 kilometres from Newman. It is the largest in Western Australia, links the Great Sandy Desert and the Little Sandy Desert and encompasses the Parngurr and Punmu Aboriginal communities. I know it is probably hoping a bit much from members of the Opposition in their current mode, but I ask them, along with all other members, to consider the position of the Martu people, who saw their traditional lands turned into a 1.2 million-hectare national park at the stroke of a pen on 22 April 1977. I ask members to think about that: the Martu people had their traditional lands suddenly turned into a national park without any consultation and at the stroke of a pen. Since then they have sought to have their native title rights recognised in the park, only to have the High Court decision sweep away any decision of native title on the park. Mr B.K. Masters: What about the traditional owners? Mr E.S. RIPPER: They are the traditional owners. Sir Charles Court’s decision to create the park extinguished native title. Members should think about that. The traditional owners with an interest in land suddenly had their land taken away from them at the stroke of a pen with no consultation and no compensation. Dr G.I. Gallop: Good old terra nullius from Vasse; that is what you are. Mr E.S. RIPPER: He is nullius in many other ways as well, Premier. At the Federal Court determination of the Martu native title application at Cotton Creek in September last year, the Martu people said that the High Court decision had effectively cut the heart out of their claim. At that time I told them that the Western Australian Government recognised that their rights as traditional owners did not stop at the boundaries of the park; that would simply defy logic. Last Sunday I attended a meeting on the bed of the Rudall River at Kulgan Kulgan to further outline the Government’s position to the Martu people. I confirmed that it was the State Government’s intention to enter into early negotiations with the Martu people for joint management of the park in accordance with the Government’s policy paper recently published by the Department of Conservation and Land Management. I also indicated that the Government agreed with the principle that some form of permanent title to the park should be transferred to the Martu people so that it could be held in perpetuity for future generations, in much the same way as Uluru is indigenous-owned but accessible to the public. Because the park is an A-class reserve, these arrangements will require legislative change. The Government’s offer is contingent on the area being leased back to CALM for conservation purposes and the indemnification of the State against any compensation liability arising from the creation of the park by the Government of Sir Charles Court in 1977; that is, two years after the passage of the commonwealth Racial Discrimination Act. That is the reason the compensation question was raised. Mr Speaker, I hope the resolution of this matter will go some way towards easing the deep sense of injustice felt by the Martu people for the past three decades. We have some way to go on these negotiations, but I believe this statement is evidence of the Gallop Government’s determination to put things right for indigenous people.
Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: The August 2002 High Court decision in the Miriuwung-Gajerrong native title application, or the Ward case, delivered a very cruel blow to the aspirations of Aboriginal people in general when it found the creation of a national park had the effect of extinguishing native title. That was a surprising aspect of the decision. It meant that the Martu native title application in September 2002 did not include the Rudall River National Park - known to the Martu as Karlamilyi - which had formed part of the claim area for many years. The park is 260 kilometres from Newman. It is the largest in Western Australia, links the Great Sandy Desert and the Little Sandy Desert and encompasses the Parngurr and Punmu Aboriginal communities. I know it is probably hoping a bit much from members of the Opposition in their current mode, but I ask them, along with all other members, to consider the position of the Martu people, who saw their traditional lands turned into a 1.2 million-hectare national park at the stroke of a pen on 22 April 1977. I ask members to think about that: the Martu people had their traditional lands suddenly turned into a national park without any consultation and at the stroke of a pen. Since then they have sought to have their native title rights recognised in the park, only to have the High Court decision sweep away any decision of native title on the park. Mr B.K. Masters: What about the traditional owners? Mr E.S. RIPPER: They are the traditional owners. Sir Charles Court’s decision to create the park extinguished native title. Members should think about that. The traditional owners with an interest in land suddenly had their land taken away from them at the stroke of a pen with no consultation and no compensation. Dr G.I. Gallop: Good old terra nullius from Vasse; that is what you are. Mr E.S. RIPPER: He is nullius in many other ways as well, Premier. At the Federal Court determination of the Martu native title application at Cotton Creek in September last year, the Martu people said that the High Court decision had effectively cut the heart out of their claim. At that time I told them that the Western Australian Government recognised that their rights as traditional owners did not stop at the boundaries of the park; that would simply defy logic. Last Sunday I attended a meeting on the bed of the Rudall River at Kulgan Kulgan to further outline the Government’s position to the Martu people. I confirmed that it was the State Government’s intention to enter into early negotiations with the Martu people for joint management of the park in accordance with the Government’s policy paper recently published by the Department of Conservation and Land Management. I also indicated that the Government agreed with the principle that some form of permanent title to the park should be transferred to the Martu people so that it could be held in perpetuity for future generations, in much the same way as Uluru is indigenous-owned but accessible to the public. Because the park is an A-class reserve, these arrangements will require legislative change. The Government’s offer is contingent on the area being leased back to CALM for conservation purposes and the indemnification of the State against any compensation liability arising from the creation of the park by the Government of Sir Charles Court in 1977; that is, two years after the passage of the commonwealth Racial Discrimination Act. That is the reason the compensation question was raised. Mr Speaker, I hope the resolution of this matter will go some way towards easing the deep sense of injustice felt by the Martu people for the past three decades. We have some way to go on these negotiations, but I believe this statement is evidence of the Gallop Government’s determination to put things right for indigenous people.
The August 2002 High Court decision in the Miriuwung-Gajerrong native title application, or the Ward case, delivered a very cruel blow to the aspirations of Aboriginal people in general when it found the creation of a national park had the effect of extinguishing native title. That was a surprising aspect of the decision. It meant that the Martu native title application in September 2002 did not include the Rudall River National Park - known to the Martu as Karlamilyi - which had formed part of the claim area for many years. The park is 260 kilometres from Newman. It is the largest in Western Australia, links the Great Sandy Desert and the Little Sandy Desert and encompasses the Parngurr and Punmu Aboriginal communities. I know it is probably hoping a bit much from members of the Opposition in their current mode, but I ask them, along with all other members, to consider the position of the Martu people, who saw their traditional lands turned into a 1.2 million-hectare national park at the stroke of a pen on 22 April 1977. I ask members to think about that: the Martu people had their traditional lands suddenly turned into a national park without any consultation and at the stroke of a pen. Since then they have sought to have their native title rights recognised in the park, only to have the High Court decision sweep away any decision of native title on the park. Mr B.K. Masters: What about the traditional owners? Mr E.S. RIPPER: They are the traditional owners. Sir Charles Court’s decision to create the park extinguished native title. Members should think about that. The traditional owners with an interest in land suddenly had their land taken away from them at the stroke of a pen with no consultation and no compensation. Dr G.I. Gallop: Good old terra nullius from Vasse; that is what you are. Mr E.S. RIPPER: He is nullius in many other ways as well, Premier. At the Federal Court determination of the Martu native title application at Cotton Creek in September last year, the Martu people said that the High Court decision had effectively cut the heart out of their claim. At that time I told them that the Western Australian Government recognised that their rights as traditional owners did not stop at the boundaries of the park; that would simply defy logic. Last Sunday I attended a meeting on the bed of the Rudall River at Kulgan Kulgan to further outline the Government’s position to the Martu people. I confirmed that it was the State Government’s intention to enter into early negotiations with the Martu people for joint management of the park in accordance with the Government’s policy paper recently published by the Department of Conservation and Land Management. I also indicated that the Government agreed with the principle that some form of permanent title to the park should be transferred to the Martu people so that it could be held in perpetuity for future generations, in much the same way as Uluru is indigenous-owned but accessible to the public. Because the park is an A-class reserve, these arrangements will require legislative change. The Government’s offer is contingent on the area being leased back to CALM for conservation purposes and the indemnification of the State against any compensation liability arising from the creation of the park by the Government of Sir Charles Court in 1977; that is, two years after the passage of the commonwealth Racial Discrimination Act. That is the reason the compensation question was raised. Mr Speaker, I hope the resolution of this matter will go some way towards easing the deep sense of injustice felt by the Martu people for the past three decades. We have some way to go on these negotiations, but I believe this statement is evidence of the Gallop Government’s determination to put things right for indigenous people.
I know it is probably hoping a bit much from members of the Opposition in their current mode, but I ask them, along with all other members, to consider the position of the Martu people, who saw their traditional lands turned into a 1.2 million-hectare national park at the stroke of a pen on 22 April 1977. I ask members to think about that: the Martu people had their traditional lands suddenly turned into a national park without any consultation and at the stroke of a pen. Since then they have sought to have their native title rights recognised in the park, only to have the High Court decision sweep away any decision of native title on the park. Mr B.K. Masters: What about the traditional owners? Mr E.S. RIPPER: They are the traditional owners. Sir Charles Court’s decision to create the park extinguished native title. Members should think about that. The traditional owners with an interest in land suddenly had their land taken away from them at the stroke of a pen with no consultation and no compensation. Dr G.I. Gallop: Good old terra nullius from Vasse; that is what you are. Mr E.S. RIPPER: He is nullius in many other ways as well, Premier. At the Federal Court determination of the Martu native title application at Cotton Creek in September last year, the Martu people said that the High Court decision had effectively cut the heart out of their claim. At that time I told them that the Western Australian Government recognised that their rights as traditional owners did not stop at the boundaries of the park; that would simply defy logic. Last Sunday I attended a meeting on the bed of the Rudall River at Kulgan Kulgan to further outline the Government’s position to the Martu people. I confirmed that it was the State Government’s intention to enter into early negotiations with the Martu people for joint management of the park in accordance with the Government’s policy paper recently published by the Department of Conservation and Land Management. I also indicated that the Government agreed with the principle that some form of permanent title to the park should be transferred to the Martu people so that it could be held in perpetuity for future generations, in much the same way as Uluru is indigenous-owned but accessible to the public. Because the park is an A-class reserve, these arrangements will require legislative change. The Government’s offer is contingent on the area being leased back to CALM for conservation purposes and the indemnification of the State against any compensation liability arising from the creation of the park by the Government of Sir Charles Court in 1977; that is, two years after the passage of the commonwealth Racial Discrimination Act. That is the reason the compensation question was raised. Mr Speaker, I hope the resolution of this matter will go some way towards easing the deep sense of injustice felt by the Martu people for the past three decades. We have some way to go on these negotiations, but I believe this statement is evidence of the Gallop Government’s determination to put things right for indigenous people.
Mr B.K. Masters: What about the traditional owners? Mr E.S. RIPPER: They are the traditional owners. Sir Charles Court’s decision to create the park extinguished native title. Members should think about that. The traditional owners with an interest in land suddenly had their land taken away from them at the stroke of a pen with no consultation and no compensation. Dr G.I. Gallop: Good old terra nullius from Vasse; that is what you are. Mr E.S. RIPPER: He is nullius in many other ways as well, Premier. At the Federal Court determination of the Martu native title application at Cotton Creek in September last year, the Martu people said that the High Court decision had effectively cut the heart out of their claim. At that time I told them that the Western Australian Government recognised that their rights as traditional owners did not stop at the boundaries of the park; that would simply defy logic. Last Sunday I attended a meeting on the bed of the Rudall River at Kulgan Kulgan to further outline the Government’s position to the Martu people. I confirmed that it was the State Government’s intention to enter into early negotiations with the Martu people for joint management of the park in accordance with the Government’s policy paper recently published by the Department of Conservation and Land Management. I also indicated that the Government agreed with the principle that some form of permanent title to the park should be transferred to the Martu people so that it could be held in perpetuity for future generations, in much the same way as Uluru is indigenous-owned but accessible to the public. Because the park is an A-class reserve, these arrangements will require legislative change. The Government’s offer is contingent on the area being leased back to CALM for conservation purposes and the indemnification of the State against any compensation liability arising from the creation of the park by the Government of Sir Charles Court in 1977; that is, two years after the passage of the commonwealth Racial Discrimination Act. That is the reason the compensation question was raised. Mr Speaker, I hope the resolution of this matter will go some way towards easing the deep sense of injustice felt by the Martu people for the past three decades. We have some way to go on these negotiations, but I believe this statement is evidence of the Gallop Government’s determination to put things right for indigenous people.
Mr E.S. RIPPER: They are the traditional owners. Sir Charles Court’s decision to create the park extinguished native title. Members should think about that. The traditional owners with an interest in land suddenly had their land taken away from them at the stroke of a pen with no consultation and no compensation. Dr G.I. Gallop: Good old terra nullius from Vasse; that is what you are. Mr E.S. RIPPER: He is nullius in many other ways as well, Premier. At the Federal Court determination of the Martu native title application at Cotton Creek in September last year, the Martu people said that the High Court decision had effectively cut the heart out of their claim. At that time I told them that the Western Australian Government recognised that their rights as traditional owners did not stop at the boundaries of the park; that would simply defy logic. Last Sunday I attended a meeting on the bed of the Rudall River at Kulgan Kulgan to further outline the Government’s position to the Martu people. I confirmed that it was the State Government’s intention to enter into early negotiations with the Martu people for joint management of the park in accordance with the Government’s policy paper recently published by the Department of Conservation and Land Management. I also indicated that the Government agreed with the principle that some form of permanent title to the park should be transferred to the Martu people so that it could be held in perpetuity for future generations, in much the same way as Uluru is indigenous-owned but accessible to the public. Because the park is an A-class reserve, these arrangements will require legislative change. The Government’s offer is contingent on the area being leased back to CALM for conservation purposes and the indemnification of the State against any compensation liability arising from the creation of the park by the Government of Sir Charles Court in 1977; that is, two years after the passage of the commonwealth Racial Discrimination Act. That is the reason the compensation question was raised. Mr Speaker, I hope the resolution of this matter will go some way towards easing the deep sense of injustice felt by the Martu people for the past three decades. We have some way to go on these negotiations, but I believe this statement is evidence of the Gallop Government’s determination to put things right for indigenous people.
Dr G.I. Gallop: Good old terra nullius from Vasse; that is what you are. Mr E.S. RIPPER: He is nullius in many other ways as well, Premier. At the Federal Court determination of the Martu native title application at Cotton Creek in September last year, the Martu people said that the High Court decision had effectively cut the heart out of their claim. At that time I told them that the Western Australian Government recognised that their rights as traditional owners did not stop at the boundaries of the park; that would simply defy logic. Last Sunday I attended a meeting on the bed of the Rudall River at Kulgan Kulgan to further outline the Government’s position to the Martu people. I confirmed that it was the State Government’s intention to enter into early negotiations with the Martu people for joint management of the park in accordance with the Government’s policy paper recently published by the Department of Conservation and Land Management. I also indicated that the Government agreed with the principle that some form of permanent title to the park should be transferred to the Martu people so that it could be held in perpetuity for future generations, in much the same way as Uluru is indigenous-owned but accessible to the public. Because the park is an A-class reserve, these arrangements will require legislative change. The Government’s offer is contingent on the area being leased back to CALM for conservation purposes and the indemnification of the State against any compensation liability arising from the creation of the park by the Government of Sir Charles Court in 1977; that is, two years after the passage of the commonwealth Racial Discrimination Act. That is the reason the compensation question was raised. Mr Speaker, I hope the resolution of this matter will go some way towards easing the deep sense of injustice felt by the Martu people for the past three decades. We have some way to go on these negotiations, but I believe this statement is evidence of the Gallop Government’s determination to put things right for indigenous people.
Mr E.S. RIPPER: He is nullius in many other ways as well, Premier. At the Federal Court determination of the Martu native title application at Cotton Creek in September last year, the Martu people said that the High Court decision had effectively cut the heart out of their claim. At that time I told them that the Western Australian Government recognised that their rights as traditional owners did not stop at the boundaries of the park; that would simply defy logic. Last Sunday I attended a meeting on the bed of the Rudall River at Kulgan Kulgan to further outline the Government’s position to the Martu people. I confirmed that it was the State Government’s intention to enter into early negotiations with the Martu people for joint management of the park in accordance with the Government’s policy paper recently published by the Department of Conservation and Land Management. I also indicated that the Government agreed with the principle that some form of permanent title to the park should be transferred to the Martu people so that it could be held in perpetuity for future generations, in much the same way as Uluru is indigenous-owned but accessible to the public. Because the park is an A-class reserve, these arrangements will require legislative change. The Government’s offer is contingent on the area being leased back to CALM for conservation purposes and the indemnification of the State against any compensation liability arising from the creation of the park by the Government of Sir Charles Court in 1977; that is, two years after the passage of the commonwealth Racial Discrimination Act. That is the reason the compensation question was raised. Mr Speaker, I hope the resolution of this matter will go some way towards easing the deep sense of injustice felt by the Martu people for the past three decades. We have some way to go on these negotiations, but I believe this statement is evidence of the Gallop Government’s determination to put things right for indigenous people.
At the Federal Court determination of the Martu native title application at Cotton Creek in September last year, the Martu people said that the High Court decision had effectively cut the heart out of their claim. At that time I told them that the Western Australian Government recognised that their rights as traditional owners did not stop at the boundaries of the park; that would simply defy logic. Last Sunday I attended a meeting on the bed of the Rudall River at Kulgan Kulgan to further outline the Government’s position to the Martu people. I confirmed that it was the State Government’s intention to enter into early negotiations with the Martu people for joint management of the park in accordance with the Government’s policy paper recently published by the Department of Conservation and Land Management. I also indicated that the Government agreed with the principle that some form of permanent title to the park should be transferred to the Martu people so that it could be held in perpetuity for future generations, in much the same way as Uluru is indigenous-owned but accessible to the public. Because the park is an A-class reserve, these arrangements will require legislative change. The Government’s offer is contingent on the area being leased back to CALM for conservation purposes and the indemnification of the State against any compensation liability arising from the creation of the park by the Government of Sir Charles Court in 1977; that is, two years after the passage of the commonwealth Racial Discrimination Act. That is the reason the compensation question was raised. Mr Speaker, I hope the resolution of this matter will go some way towards easing the deep sense of injustice felt by the Martu people for the past three decades. We have some way to go on these negotiations, but I believe this statement is evidence of the Gallop Government’s determination to put things right for indigenous people.
Last Sunday I attended a meeting on the bed of the Rudall River at Kulgan Kulgan to further outline the Government’s position to the Martu people. I confirmed that it was the State Government’s intention to enter into early negotiations with the Martu people for joint management of the park in accordance with the Government’s policy paper recently published by the Department of Conservation and Land Management. I also indicated that the Government agreed with the principle that some form of permanent title to the park should be transferred to the Martu people so that it could be held in perpetuity for future generations, in much the same way as Uluru is indigenous-owned but accessible to the public. Because the park is an A-class reserve, these arrangements will require legislative change. The Government’s offer is contingent on the area being leased back to CALM for conservation purposes and the indemnification of the State against any compensation liability arising from the creation of the park by the Government of Sir Charles Court in 1977; that is, two years after the passage of the commonwealth Racial Discrimination Act. That is the reason the compensation question was raised. Mr Speaker, I hope the resolution of this matter will go some way towards easing the deep sense of injustice felt by the Martu people for the past three decades. We have some way to go on these negotiations, but I believe this statement is evidence of the Gallop Government’s determination to put things right for indigenous people.
Because the park is an A-class reserve, these arrangements will require legislative change. The Government’s offer is contingent on the area being leased back to CALM for conservation purposes and the indemnification of the State against any compensation liability arising from the creation of the park by the Government of Sir Charles Court in 1977; that is, two years after the passage of the commonwealth Racial Discrimination Act. That is the reason the compensation question was raised. Mr Speaker, I hope the resolution of this matter will go some way towards easing the deep sense of injustice felt by the Martu people for the past three decades. We have some way to go on these negotiations, but I believe this statement is evidence of the Gallop Government’s determination to put things right for indigenous people.
Mr Speaker, I hope the resolution of this matter will go some way towards easing the deep sense of injustice felt by the Martu people for the past three decades. We have some way to go on these negotiations, but I believe this statement is evidence of the Gallop Government’s determination to put things right for indigenous people.
Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: The August 2002 High Court decision in the Miriuwung-Gajerrong native title application, or the Ward case, delivered a very cruel blow to the aspirations of Aboriginal people in general when it found the creation of a national park had the effect of extinguishing native title. That was a surprising aspect of the decision. It meant that the Martu native title application in September 2002 did not include the Rudall River National Park - known to the Martu as Karlamilyi - which had formed part of the claim area for many years. The park is 260 kilometres from Newman. It is the largest in Western Australia, links the Great Sandy Desert and the Little Sandy Desert and encompasses the Parngurr and Punmu Aboriginal communities. I know it is probably hoping a bit much from members of the Opposition in their current mode, but I ask them, along with all other members, to consider the position of the Martu people, who saw their traditional lands turned into a 1.2 million-hectare national park at the stroke of a pen on 22 April 1977. I ask members to think about that: the Martu people had their traditional lands suddenly turned into a national park without any consultation and at the stroke of a pen. Since then they have sought to have their native title rights recognised in the park, only to have the High Court decision sweep away any decision of native title on the park. Mr B.K. Masters: What about the traditional owners? Mr E.S. RIPPER: They are the traditional owners. Sir Charles Court’s decision to create the park extinguished native title. Members should think about that. The traditional owners with an interest in land suddenly had their land taken away from them at the stroke of a pen with no consultation and no compensation. Dr G.I. Gallop: Good old terra nullius from Vasse; that is what you are. Mr E.S. RIPPER: He is nullius in many other ways as well, Premier. At the Federal Court determination of the Martu native title application at Cotton Creek in September last year, the Martu people said that the High Court decision had effectively cut the heart out of their claim. At that time I told them that the Western Australian Government recognised that their rights as traditional owners did not stop at the boundaries of the park; that would simply defy logic. Last Sunday I attended a meeting on the bed of the Rudall River at Kulgan Kulgan to further outline the Government’s position to the Martu people. I confirmed that it was the State Government’s intention to enter into early negotiations with the Martu people for joint management of the park in accordance with the Government’s policy paper recently published by the Department of Conservation and Land Management. I also indicated that the Government agreed with the principle that some form of permanent title to the park should be transferred to the Martu people so that it could be held in perpetuity for future generations, in much the same way as Uluru is indigenous-owned but accessible to the public. Because the park is an A-class reserve, these arrangements will require legislative change. The Government’s offer is contingent on the area being leased back to CALM for conservation purposes and the indemnification of the State against any compensation liability arising from the creation of the park by the Government of Sir Charles Court in 1977; that is, two years after the passage of the commonwealth Racial Discrimination Act. That is the reason the compensation question was raised. Mr Speaker, I hope the resolution of this matter will go some way towards easing the deep sense of injustice felt by the Martu people for the past three decades. We have some way to go on these negotiations, but I believe this statement is evidence of the Gallop Government’s determination to put things right for indigenous people.
The August 2002 High Court decision in the Miriuwung-Gajerrong native title application, or the Ward case, delivered a very cruel blow to the aspirations of Aboriginal people in general when it found the creation of a national park had the effect of extinguishing native title. That was a surprising aspect of the decision. It meant that the Martu native title application in September 2002 did not include the Rudall River National Park - known to the Martu as Karlamilyi - which had formed part of the claim area for many years. The park is 260 kilometres from Newman. It is the largest in Western Australia, links the Great Sandy Desert and the Little Sandy Desert and encompasses the Parngurr and Punmu Aboriginal communities. I know it is probably hoping a bit much from members of the Opposition in their current mode, but I ask them, along with all other members, to consider the position of the Martu people, who saw their traditional lands turned into a 1.2 million-hectare national park at the stroke of a pen on 22 April 1977. I ask members to think about that: the Martu people had their traditional lands suddenly turned into a national park without any consultation and at the stroke of a pen. Since then they have sought to have their native title rights recognised in the park, only to have the High Court decision sweep away any decision of native title on the park. Mr B.K. Masters: What about the traditional owners? Mr E.S. RIPPER: They are the traditional owners. Sir Charles Court’s decision to create the park extinguished native title. Members should think about that. The traditional owners with an interest in land suddenly had their land taken away from them at the stroke of a pen with no consultation and no compensation. Dr G.I. Gallop: Good old terra nullius from Vasse; that is what you are. Mr E.S. RIPPER: He is nullius in many other ways as well, Premier. At the Federal Court determination of the Martu native title application at Cotton Creek in September last year, the Martu people said that the High Court decision had effectively cut the heart out of their claim. At that time I told them that the Western Australian Government recognised that their rights as traditional owners did not stop at the boundaries of the park; that would simply defy logic. Last Sunday I attended a meeting on the bed of the Rudall River at Kulgan Kulgan to further outline the Government’s position to the Martu people. I confirmed that it was the State Government’s intention to enter into early negotiations with the Martu people for joint management of the park in accordance with the Government’s policy paper recently published by the Department of Conservation and Land Management. I also indicated that the Government agreed with the principle that some form of permanent title to the park should be transferred to the Martu people so that it could be held in perpetuity for future generations, in much the same way as Uluru is indigenous-owned but accessible to the public. Because the park is an A-class reserve, these arrangements will require legislative change. The Government’s offer is contingent on the area being leased back to CALM for conservation purposes and the indemnification of the State against any compensation liability arising from the creation of the park by the Government of Sir Charles Court in 1977; that is, two years after the passage of the commonwealth Racial Discrimination Act. That is the reason the compensation question was raised. Mr Speaker, I hope the resolution of this matter will go some way towards easing the deep sense of injustice felt by the Martu people for the past three decades. We have some way to go on these negotiations, but I believe this statement is evidence of the Gallop Government’s determination to put things right for indigenous people.
I know it is probably hoping a bit much from members of the Opposition in their current mode, but I ask them, along with all other members, to consider the position of the Martu people, who saw their traditional lands turned into a 1.2 million-hectare national park at the stroke of a pen on 22 April 1977. I ask members to think about that: the Martu people had their traditional lands suddenly turned into a national park without any consultation and at the stroke of a pen. Since then they have sought to have their native title rights recognised in the park, only to have the High Court decision sweep away any decision of native title on the park. Mr B.K. Masters: What about the traditional owners? Mr E.S. RIPPER: They are the traditional owners. Sir Charles Court’s decision to create the park extinguished native title. Members should think about that. The traditional owners with an interest in land suddenly had their land taken away from them at the stroke of a pen with no consultation and no compensation. Dr G.I. Gallop: Good old terra nullius from Vasse; that is what you are. Mr E.S. RIPPER: He is nullius in many other ways as well, Premier. At the Federal Court determination of the Martu native title application at Cotton Creek in September last year, the Martu people said that the High Court decision had effectively cut the heart out of their claim. At that time I told them that the Western Australian Government recognised that their rights as traditional owners did not stop at the boundaries of the park; that would simply defy logic. Last Sunday I attended a meeting on the bed of the Rudall River at Kulgan Kulgan to further outline the Government’s position to the Martu people. I confirmed that it was the State Government’s intention to enter into early negotiations with the Martu people for joint management of the park in accordance with the Government’s policy paper recently published by the Department of Conservation and Land Management. I also indicated that the Government agreed with the principle that some form of permanent title to the park should be transferred to the Martu people so that it could be held in perpetuity for future generations, in much the same way as Uluru is indigenous-owned but accessible to the public. Because the park is an A-class reserve, these arrangements will require legislative change. The Government’s offer is contingent on the area being leased back to CALM for conservation purposes and the indemnification of the State against any compensation liability arising from the creation of the park by the Government of Sir Charles Court in 1977; that is, two years after the passage of the commonwealth Racial Discrimination Act. That is the reason the compensation question was raised. Mr Speaker, I hope the resolution of this matter will go some way towards easing the deep sense of injustice felt by the Martu people for the past three decades. We have some way to go on these negotiations, but I believe this statement is evidence of the Gallop Government’s determination to put things right for indigenous people.
Mr B.K. Masters: What about the traditional owners? Mr E.S. RIPPER: They are the traditional owners. Sir Charles Court’s decision to create the park extinguished native title. Members should think about that. The traditional owners with an interest in land suddenly had their land taken away from them at the stroke of a pen with no consultation and no compensation. Dr G.I. Gallop: Good old terra nullius from Vasse; that is what you are. Mr E.S. RIPPER: He is nullius in many other ways as well, Premier. At the Federal Court determination of the Martu native title application at Cotton Creek in September last year, the Martu people said that the High Court decision had effectively cut the heart out of their claim. At that time I told them that the Western Australian Government recognised that their rights as traditional owners did not stop at the boundaries of the park; that would simply defy logic. Last Sunday I attended a meeting on the bed of the Rudall River at Kulgan Kulgan to further outline the Government’s position to the Martu people. I confirmed that it was the State Government’s intention to enter into early negotiations with the Martu people for joint management of the park in accordance with the Government’s policy paper recently published by the Department of Conservation and Land Management. I also indicated that the Government agreed with the principle that some form of permanent title to the park should be transferred to the Martu people so that it could be held in perpetuity for future generations, in much the same way as Uluru is indigenous-owned but accessible to the public. Because the park is an A-class reserve, these arrangements will require legislative change. The Government’s offer is contingent on the area being leased back to CALM for conservation purposes and the indemnification of the State against any compensation liability arising from the creation of the park by the Government of Sir Charles Court in 1977; that is, two years after the passage of the commonwealth Racial Discrimination Act. That is the reason the compensation question was raised. Mr Speaker, I hope the resolution of this matter will go some way towards easing the deep sense of injustice felt by the Martu people for the past three decades. We have some way to go on these negotiations, but I believe this statement is evidence of the Gallop Government’s determination to put things right for indigenous people.
Mr E.S. RIPPER: They are the traditional owners. Sir Charles Court’s decision to create the park extinguished native title. Members should think about that. The traditional owners with an interest in land suddenly had their land taken away from them at the stroke of a pen with no consultation and no compensation. Dr G.I. Gallop: Good old terra nullius from Vasse; that is what you are. Mr E.S. RIPPER: He is nullius in many other ways as well, Premier. At the Federal Court determination of the Martu native title application at Cotton Creek in September last year, the Martu people said that the High Court decision had effectively cut the heart out of their claim. At that time I told them that the Western Australian Government recognised that their rights as traditional owners did not stop at the boundaries of the park; that would simply defy logic. Last Sunday I attended a meeting on the bed of the Rudall River at Kulgan Kulgan to further outline the Government’s position to the Martu people. I confirmed that it was the State Government’s intention to enter into early negotiations with the Martu people for joint management of the park in accordance with the Government’s policy paper recently published by the Department of Conservation and Land Management. I also indicated that the Government agreed with the principle that some form of permanent title to the park should be transferred to the Martu people so that it could be held in perpetuity for future generations, in much the same way as Uluru is indigenous-owned but accessible to the public. Because the park is an A-class reserve, these arrangements will require legislative change. The Government’s offer is contingent on the area being leased back to CALM for conservation purposes and the indemnification of the State against any compensation liability arising from the creation of the park by the Government of Sir Charles Court in 1977; that is, two years after the passage of the commonwealth Racial Discrimination Act. That is the reason the compensation question was raised. Mr Speaker, I hope the resolution of this matter will go some way towards easing the deep sense of injustice felt by the Martu people for the past three decades. We have some way to go on these negotiations, but I believe this statement is evidence of the Gallop Government’s determination to put things right for indigenous people.
Dr G.I. Gallop: Good old terra nullius from Vasse; that is what you are. Mr E.S. RIPPER: He is nullius in many other ways as well, Premier. At the Federal Court determination of the Martu native title application at Cotton Creek in September last year, the Martu people said that the High Court decision had effectively cut the heart out of their claim. At that time I told them that the Western Australian Government recognised that their rights as traditional owners did not stop at the boundaries of the park; that would simply defy logic. Last Sunday I attended a meeting on the bed of the Rudall River at Kulgan Kulgan to further outline the Government’s position to the Martu people. I confirmed that it was the State Government’s intention to enter into early negotiations with the Martu people for joint management of the park in accordance with the Government’s policy paper recently published by the Department of Conservation and Land Management. I also indicated that the Government agreed with the principle that some form of permanent title to the park should be transferred to the Martu people so that it could be held in perpetuity for future generations, in much the same way as Uluru is indigenous-owned but accessible to the public. Because the park is an A-class reserve, these arrangements will require legislative change. The Government’s offer is contingent on the area being leased back to CALM for conservation purposes and the indemnification of the State against any compensation liability arising from the creation of the park by the Government of Sir Charles Court in 1977; that is, two years after the passage of the commonwealth Racial Discrimination Act. That is the reason the compensation question was raised. Mr Speaker, I hope the resolution of this matter will go some way towards easing the deep sense of injustice felt by the Martu people for the past three decades. We have some way to go on these negotiations, but I believe this statement is evidence of the Gallop Government’s determination to put things right for indigenous people.
Mr E.S. RIPPER: He is nullius in many other ways as well, Premier. At the Federal Court determination of the Martu native title application at Cotton Creek in September last year, the Martu people said that the High Court decision had effectively cut the heart out of their claim. At that time I told them that the Western Australian Government recognised that their rights as traditional owners did not stop at the boundaries of the park; that would simply defy logic. Last Sunday I attended a meeting on the bed of the Rudall River at Kulgan Kulgan to further outline the Government’s position to the Martu people. I confirmed that it was the State Government’s intention to enter into early negotiations with the Martu people for joint management of the park in accordance with the Government’s policy paper recently published by the Department of Conservation and Land Management. I also indicated that the Government agreed with the principle that some form of permanent title to the park should be transferred to the Martu people so that it could be held in perpetuity for future generations, in much the same way as Uluru is indigenous-owned but accessible to the public. Because the park is an A-class reserve, these arrangements will require legislative change. The Government’s offer is contingent on the area being leased back to CALM for conservation purposes and the indemnification of the State against any compensation liability arising from the creation of the park by the Government of Sir Charles Court in 1977; that is, two years after the passage of the commonwealth Racial Discrimination Act. That is the reason the compensation question was raised. Mr Speaker, I hope the resolution of this matter will go some way towards easing the deep sense of injustice felt by the Martu people for the past three decades. We have some way to go on these negotiations, but I believe this statement is evidence of the Gallop Government’s determination to put things right for indigenous people.
At the Federal Court determination of the Martu native title application at Cotton Creek in September last year, the Martu people said that the High Court decision had effectively cut the heart out of their claim. At that time I told them that the Western Australian Government recognised that their rights as traditional owners did not stop at the boundaries of the park; that would simply defy logic. Last Sunday I attended a meeting on the bed of the Rudall River at Kulgan Kulgan to further outline the Government’s position to the Martu people. I confirmed that it was the State Government’s intention to enter into early negotiations with the Martu people for joint management of the park in accordance with the Government’s policy paper recently published by the Department of Conservation and Land Management. I also indicated that the Government agreed with the principle that some form of permanent title to the park should be transferred to the Martu people so that it could be held in perpetuity for future generations, in much the same way as Uluru is indigenous-owned but accessible to the public. Because the park is an A-class reserve, these arrangements will require legislative change. The Government’s offer is contingent on the area being leased back to CALM for conservation purposes and the indemnification of the State against any compensation liability arising from the creation of the park by the Government of Sir Charles Court in 1977; that is, two years after the passage of the commonwealth Racial Discrimination Act. That is the reason the compensation question was raised. Mr Speaker, I hope the resolution of this matter will go some way towards easing the deep sense of injustice felt by the Martu people for the past three decades. We have some way to go on these negotiations, but I believe this statement is evidence of the Gallop Government’s determination to put things right for indigenous people.
Last Sunday I attended a meeting on the bed of the Rudall River at Kulgan Kulgan to further outline the Government’s position to the Martu people. I confirmed that it was the State Government’s intention to enter into early negotiations with the Martu people for joint management of the park in accordance with the Government’s policy paper recently published by the Department of Conservation and Land Management. I also indicated that the Government agreed with the principle that some form of permanent title to the park should be transferred to the Martu people so that it could be held in perpetuity for future generations, in much the same way as Uluru is indigenous-owned but accessible to the public. Because the park is an A-class reserve, these arrangements will require legislative change. The Government’s offer is contingent on the area being leased back to CALM for conservation purposes and the indemnification of the State against any compensation liability arising from the creation of the park by the Government of Sir Charles Court in 1977; that is, two years after the passage of the commonwealth Racial Discrimination Act. That is the reason the compensation question was raised. Mr Speaker, I hope the resolution of this matter will go some way towards easing the deep sense of injustice felt by the Martu people for the past three decades. We have some way to go on these negotiations, but I believe this statement is evidence of the Gallop Government’s determination to put things right for indigenous people.
Because the park is an A-class reserve, these arrangements will require legislative change. The Government’s offer is contingent on the area being leased back to CALM for conservation purposes and the indemnification of the State against any compensation liability arising from the creation of the park by the Government of Sir Charles Court in 1977; that is, two years after the passage of the commonwealth Racial Discrimination Act. That is the reason the compensation question was raised. Mr Speaker, I hope the resolution of this matter will go some way towards easing the deep sense of injustice felt by the Martu people for the past three decades. We have some way to go on these negotiations, but I believe this statement is evidence of the Gallop Government’s determination to put things right for indigenous people.
Mr Speaker, I hope the resolution of this matter will go some way towards easing the deep sense of injustice felt by the Martu people for the past three decades. We have some way to go on these negotiations, but I believe this statement is evidence of the Gallop Government’s determination to put things right for indigenous people.
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.