❓ A parliamentary question addresses the WA government's appeal of the Rubibi native title determination, questioning their motives and commitment to recognising Yawuru native title rights. The government defends its position, citing legal concerns and highlighting its record in resolving native title claims.
AnsweredQoN 506Legislative Council
Asked
22 June 2006
Member
Portfolio
parliamentary secretary representing the Deputy
Premier
QuestionView source ↗
RUBIBI NATIVE TITLE CLAIM
I refer to the recent National Native Title Tribunal determination of the Rubibi claim. (1) What does the government hope to achieve by appealing this determination? (2) Why is the government opposed to recognising the native title rights of the Yawuru people? (3) Whose interests will the government seek to represent in the appeal? (4) What evidence can the Deputy Premier provide to prove that this government is doing anything other than seeking to frustrate native title claims? Hon KATE DOUST
I refer to the recent National Native Title Tribunal determination of the Rubibi claim. (1) What does the government hope to achieve by appealing this determination? (2) Why is the government opposed to recognising the native title rights of the Yawuru people? (3) Whose interests will the government seek to represent in the appeal? (4) What evidence can the Deputy Premier provide to prove that this government is doing anything other than seeking to frustrate native title claims? Hon KATE DOUST
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) The Rubibi native title determination raises serious and significant concerns about the application of native title law throughout Western Australia and Broome. The state government’s policy position is to recognise native title where it can be demonstrated to exist and to pursue the resolution of native title matters by agreement over litigation where possible. That policy position relies heavily on clarity and certainty in the law. (2) The government is not opposed to the Yawuru people having their native title rights recognised. The State Solicitor strongly advised that the government appeal the judge’s decision on the grounds that his reasoning was inconsistent with the law. (3) The interests of all Western Australians. (4) The evidence is the state government’s record. It has resolved 12 native title determinations covering over 500 000 square kilometres of land; entered into two major native title land use agreements over the Burrup and for the Ord region; targeted the resolution of a further six consent determinations in the next financial year and is progressing an additional 34 native title claims towards resolution; commenced development of an alternative process to avoid litigation for resolution of native title claims that cannot meet the legal thresholds to achieve a native title outcome; and established a $40 million land and equity fund to support the state’s native title negotiations.
(1) What does the government hope to achieve by appealing this determination? (2) Why is the government opposed to recognising the native title rights of the Yawuru people? (3) Whose interests will the government seek to represent in the appeal? (4) What evidence can the Deputy Premier provide to prove that this government is doing anything other than seeking to frustrate native title claims? Hon KATE DOUST replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) The Rubibi native title determination raises serious and significant concerns about the application of native title law throughout Western Australia and Broome. The state government’s policy position is to recognise native title where it can be demonstrated to exist and to pursue the resolution of native title matters by agreement over litigation where possible. That policy position relies heavily on clarity and certainty in the law. (2) The government is not opposed to the Yawuru people having their native title rights recognised. The State Solicitor strongly advised that the government appeal the judge’s decision on the grounds that his reasoning was inconsistent with the law. (3) The interests of all Western Australians. (4) The evidence is the state government’s record. It has resolved 12 native title determinations covering over 500 000 square kilometres of land; entered into two major native title land use agreements over the Burrup and for the Ord region; targeted the resolution of a further six consent determinations in the next financial year and is progressing an additional 34 native title claims towards resolution; commenced development of an alternative process to avoid litigation for resolution of native title claims that cannot meet the legal thresholds to achieve a native title outcome; and established a $40 million land and equity fund to support the state’s native title negotiations.
(2) Why is the government opposed to recognising the native title rights of the Yawuru people? (3) Whose interests will the government seek to represent in the appeal? (4) What evidence can the Deputy Premier provide to prove that this government is doing anything other than seeking to frustrate native title claims? Hon KATE DOUST replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) The Rubibi native title determination raises serious and significant concerns about the application of native title law throughout Western Australia and Broome. The state government’s policy position is to recognise native title where it can be demonstrated to exist and to pursue the resolution of native title matters by agreement over litigation where possible. That policy position relies heavily on clarity and certainty in the law. (2) The government is not opposed to the Yawuru people having their native title rights recognised. The State Solicitor strongly advised that the government appeal the judge’s decision on the grounds that his reasoning was inconsistent with the law. (3) The interests of all Western Australians. (4) The evidence is the state government’s record. It has resolved 12 native title determinations covering over 500 000 square kilometres of land; entered into two major native title land use agreements over the Burrup and for the Ord region; targeted the resolution of a further six consent determinations in the next financial year and is progressing an additional 34 native title claims towards resolution; commenced development of an alternative process to avoid litigation for resolution of native title claims that cannot meet the legal thresholds to achieve a native title outcome; and established a $40 million land and equity fund to support the state’s native title negotiations.
(3) Whose interests will the government seek to represent in the appeal? (4) What evidence can the Deputy Premier provide to prove that this government is doing anything other than seeking to frustrate native title claims? Hon KATE DOUST replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) The Rubibi native title determination raises serious and significant concerns about the application of native title law throughout Western Australia and Broome. The state government’s policy position is to recognise native title where it can be demonstrated to exist and to pursue the resolution of native title matters by agreement over litigation where possible. That policy position relies heavily on clarity and certainty in the law. (2) The government is not opposed to the Yawuru people having their native title rights recognised. The State Solicitor strongly advised that the government appeal the judge’s decision on the grounds that his reasoning was inconsistent with the law. (3) The interests of all Western Australians. (4) The evidence is the state government’s record. It has resolved 12 native title determinations covering over 500 000 square kilometres of land; entered into two major native title land use agreements over the Burrup and for the Ord region; targeted the resolution of a further six consent determinations in the next financial year and is progressing an additional 34 native title claims towards resolution; commenced development of an alternative process to avoid litigation for resolution of native title claims that cannot meet the legal thresholds to achieve a native title outcome; and established a $40 million land and equity fund to support the state’s native title negotiations.
(4) What evidence can the Deputy Premier provide to prove that this government is doing anything other than seeking to frustrate native title claims? Hon KATE DOUST replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) The Rubibi native title determination raises serious and significant concerns about the application of native title law throughout Western Australia and Broome. The state government’s policy position is to recognise native title where it can be demonstrated to exist and to pursue the resolution of native title matters by agreement over litigation where possible. That policy position relies heavily on clarity and certainty in the law. (2) The government is not opposed to the Yawuru people having their native title rights recognised. The State Solicitor strongly advised that the government appeal the judge’s decision on the grounds that his reasoning was inconsistent with the law. (3) The interests of all Western Australians. (4) The evidence is the state government’s record. It has resolved 12 native title determinations covering over 500 000 square kilometres of land; entered into two major native title land use agreements over the Burrup and for the Ord region; targeted the resolution of a further six consent determinations in the next financial year and is progressing an additional 34 native title claims towards resolution; commenced development of an alternative process to avoid litigation for resolution of native title claims that cannot meet the legal thresholds to achieve a native title outcome; and established a $40 million land and equity fund to support the state’s native title negotiations.
Hon KATE DOUST replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) The Rubibi native title determination raises serious and significant concerns about the application of native title law throughout Western Australia and Broome. The state government’s policy position is to recognise native title where it can be demonstrated to exist and to pursue the resolution of native title matters by agreement over litigation where possible. That policy position relies heavily on clarity and certainty in the law. (2) The government is not opposed to the Yawuru people having their native title rights recognised. The State Solicitor strongly advised that the government appeal the judge’s decision on the grounds that his reasoning was inconsistent with the law. (3) The interests of all Western Australians. (4) The evidence is the state government’s record. It has resolved 12 native title determinations covering over 500 000 square kilometres of land; entered into two major native title land use agreements over the Burrup and for the Ord region; targeted the resolution of a further six consent determinations in the next financial year and is progressing an additional 34 native title claims towards resolution; commenced development of an alternative process to avoid litigation for resolution of native title claims that cannot meet the legal thresholds to achieve a native title outcome; and established a $40 million land and equity fund to support the state’s native title negotiations.
I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) The Rubibi native title determination raises serious and significant concerns about the application of native title law throughout Western Australia and Broome. The state government’s policy position is to recognise native title where it can be demonstrated to exist and to pursue the resolution of native title matters by agreement over litigation where possible. That policy position relies heavily on clarity and certainty in the law. (2) The government is not opposed to the Yawuru people having their native title rights recognised. The State Solicitor strongly advised that the government appeal the judge’s decision on the grounds that his reasoning was inconsistent with the law. (3) The interests of all Western Australians. (4) The evidence is the state government’s record. It has resolved 12 native title determinations covering over 500 000 square kilometres of land; entered into two major native title land use agreements over the Burrup and for the Ord region; targeted the resolution of a further six consent determinations in the next financial year and is progressing an additional 34 native title claims towards resolution; commenced development of an alternative process to avoid litigation for resolution of native title claims that cannot meet the legal thresholds to achieve a native title outcome; and established a $40 million land and equity fund to support the state’s native title negotiations.
(1) The Rubibi native title determination raises serious and significant concerns about the application of native title law throughout Western Australia and Broome. The state government’s policy position is to recognise native title where it can be demonstrated to exist and to pursue the resolution of native title matters by agreement over litigation where possible. That policy position relies heavily on clarity and certainty in the law. (2) The government is not opposed to the Yawuru people having their native title rights recognised. The State Solicitor strongly advised that the government appeal the judge’s decision on the grounds that his reasoning was inconsistent with the law. (3) The interests of all Western Australians. (4) The evidence is the state government’s record. It has resolved 12 native title determinations covering over 500 000 square kilometres of land; entered into two major native title land use agreements over the Burrup and for the Ord region; targeted the resolution of a further six consent determinations in the next financial year and is progressing an additional 34 native title claims towards resolution; commenced development of an alternative process to avoid litigation for resolution of native title claims that cannot meet the legal thresholds to achieve a native title outcome; and established a $40 million land and equity fund to support the state’s native title negotiations.
(2) The government is not opposed to the Yawuru people having their native title rights recognised. The State Solicitor strongly advised that the government appeal the judge’s decision on the grounds that his reasoning was inconsistent with the law. (3) The interests of all Western Australians. (4) The evidence is the state government’s record. It has resolved 12 native title determinations covering over 500 000 square kilometres of land; entered into two major native title land use agreements over the Burrup and for the Ord region; targeted the resolution of a further six consent determinations in the next financial year and is progressing an additional 34 native title claims towards resolution; commenced development of an alternative process to avoid litigation for resolution of native title claims that cannot meet the legal thresholds to achieve a native title outcome; and established a $40 million land and equity fund to support the state’s native title negotiations.
(3) The interests of all Western Australians. (4) The evidence is the state government’s record. It has resolved 12 native title determinations covering over 500 000 square kilometres of land; entered into two major native title land use agreements over the Burrup and for the Ord region; targeted the resolution of a further six consent determinations in the next financial year and is progressing an additional 34 native title claims towards resolution; commenced development of an alternative process to avoid litigation for resolution of native title claims that cannot meet the legal thresholds to achieve a native title outcome; and established a $40 million land and equity fund to support the state’s native title negotiations.
(4) The evidence is the state government’s record. It has resolved 12 native title determinations covering over 500 000 square kilometres of land; entered into two major native title land use agreements over the Burrup and for the Ord region; targeted the resolution of a further six consent determinations in the next financial year and is progressing an additional 34 native title claims towards resolution; commenced development of an alternative process to avoid litigation for resolution of native title claims that cannot meet the legal thresholds to achieve a native title outcome; and established a $40 million land and equity fund to support the state’s native title negotiations.
(1) What does the government hope to achieve by appealing this determination? (2) Why is the government opposed to recognising the native title rights of the Yawuru people? (3) Whose interests will the government seek to represent in the appeal? (4) What evidence can the Deputy Premier provide to prove that this government is doing anything other than seeking to frustrate native title claims? Hon KATE DOUST replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) The Rubibi native title determination raises serious and significant concerns about the application of native title law throughout Western Australia and Broome. The state government’s policy position is to recognise native title where it can be demonstrated to exist and to pursue the resolution of native title matters by agreement over litigation where possible. That policy position relies heavily on clarity and certainty in the law. (2) The government is not opposed to the Yawuru people having their native title rights recognised. The State Solicitor strongly advised that the government appeal the judge’s decision on the grounds that his reasoning was inconsistent with the law. (3) The interests of all Western Australians. (4) The evidence is the state government’s record. It has resolved 12 native title determinations covering over 500 000 square kilometres of land; entered into two major native title land use agreements over the Burrup and for the Ord region; targeted the resolution of a further six consent determinations in the next financial year and is progressing an additional 34 native title claims towards resolution; commenced development of an alternative process to avoid litigation for resolution of native title claims that cannot meet the legal thresholds to achieve a native title outcome; and established a $40 million land and equity fund to support the state’s native title negotiations.
(2) Why is the government opposed to recognising the native title rights of the Yawuru people? (3) Whose interests will the government seek to represent in the appeal? (4) What evidence can the Deputy Premier provide to prove that this government is doing anything other than seeking to frustrate native title claims? Hon KATE DOUST replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) The Rubibi native title determination raises serious and significant concerns about the application of native title law throughout Western Australia and Broome. The state government’s policy position is to recognise native title where it can be demonstrated to exist and to pursue the resolution of native title matters by agreement over litigation where possible. That policy position relies heavily on clarity and certainty in the law. (2) The government is not opposed to the Yawuru people having their native title rights recognised. The State Solicitor strongly advised that the government appeal the judge’s decision on the grounds that his reasoning was inconsistent with the law. (3) The interests of all Western Australians. (4) The evidence is the state government’s record. It has resolved 12 native title determinations covering over 500 000 square kilometres of land; entered into two major native title land use agreements over the Burrup and for the Ord region; targeted the resolution of a further six consent determinations in the next financial year and is progressing an additional 34 native title claims towards resolution; commenced development of an alternative process to avoid litigation for resolution of native title claims that cannot meet the legal thresholds to achieve a native title outcome; and established a $40 million land and equity fund to support the state’s native title negotiations.
(3) Whose interests will the government seek to represent in the appeal? (4) What evidence can the Deputy Premier provide to prove that this government is doing anything other than seeking to frustrate native title claims? Hon KATE DOUST replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) The Rubibi native title determination raises serious and significant concerns about the application of native title law throughout Western Australia and Broome. The state government’s policy position is to recognise native title where it can be demonstrated to exist and to pursue the resolution of native title matters by agreement over litigation where possible. That policy position relies heavily on clarity and certainty in the law. (2) The government is not opposed to the Yawuru people having their native title rights recognised. The State Solicitor strongly advised that the government appeal the judge’s decision on the grounds that his reasoning was inconsistent with the law. (3) The interests of all Western Australians. (4) The evidence is the state government’s record. It has resolved 12 native title determinations covering over 500 000 square kilometres of land; entered into two major native title land use agreements over the Burrup and for the Ord region; targeted the resolution of a further six consent determinations in the next financial year and is progressing an additional 34 native title claims towards resolution; commenced development of an alternative process to avoid litigation for resolution of native title claims that cannot meet the legal thresholds to achieve a native title outcome; and established a $40 million land and equity fund to support the state’s native title negotiations.
(4) What evidence can the Deputy Premier provide to prove that this government is doing anything other than seeking to frustrate native title claims? Hon KATE DOUST replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) The Rubibi native title determination raises serious and significant concerns about the application of native title law throughout Western Australia and Broome. The state government’s policy position is to recognise native title where it can be demonstrated to exist and to pursue the resolution of native title matters by agreement over litigation where possible. That policy position relies heavily on clarity and certainty in the law. (2) The government is not opposed to the Yawuru people having their native title rights recognised. The State Solicitor strongly advised that the government appeal the judge’s decision on the grounds that his reasoning was inconsistent with the law. (3) The interests of all Western Australians. (4) The evidence is the state government’s record. It has resolved 12 native title determinations covering over 500 000 square kilometres of land; entered into two major native title land use agreements over the Burrup and for the Ord region; targeted the resolution of a further six consent determinations in the next financial year and is progressing an additional 34 native title claims towards resolution; commenced development of an alternative process to avoid litigation for resolution of native title claims that cannot meet the legal thresholds to achieve a native title outcome; and established a $40 million land and equity fund to support the state’s native title negotiations.
Hon KATE DOUST replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) The Rubibi native title determination raises serious and significant concerns about the application of native title law throughout Western Australia and Broome. The state government’s policy position is to recognise native title where it can be demonstrated to exist and to pursue the resolution of native title matters by agreement over litigation where possible. That policy position relies heavily on clarity and certainty in the law. (2) The government is not opposed to the Yawuru people having their native title rights recognised. The State Solicitor strongly advised that the government appeal the judge’s decision on the grounds that his reasoning was inconsistent with the law. (3) The interests of all Western Australians. (4) The evidence is the state government’s record. It has resolved 12 native title determinations covering over 500 000 square kilometres of land; entered into two major native title land use agreements over the Burrup and for the Ord region; targeted the resolution of a further six consent determinations in the next financial year and is progressing an additional 34 native title claims towards resolution; commenced development of an alternative process to avoid litigation for resolution of native title claims that cannot meet the legal thresholds to achieve a native title outcome; and established a $40 million land and equity fund to support the state’s native title negotiations.
I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) The Rubibi native title determination raises serious and significant concerns about the application of native title law throughout Western Australia and Broome. The state government’s policy position is to recognise native title where it can be demonstrated to exist and to pursue the resolution of native title matters by agreement over litigation where possible. That policy position relies heavily on clarity and certainty in the law. (2) The government is not opposed to the Yawuru people having their native title rights recognised. The State Solicitor strongly advised that the government appeal the judge’s decision on the grounds that his reasoning was inconsistent with the law. (3) The interests of all Western Australians. (4) The evidence is the state government’s record. It has resolved 12 native title determinations covering over 500 000 square kilometres of land; entered into two major native title land use agreements over the Burrup and for the Ord region; targeted the resolution of a further six consent determinations in the next financial year and is progressing an additional 34 native title claims towards resolution; commenced development of an alternative process to avoid litigation for resolution of native title claims that cannot meet the legal thresholds to achieve a native title outcome; and established a $40 million land and equity fund to support the state’s native title negotiations.
(1) The Rubibi native title determination raises serious and significant concerns about the application of native title law throughout Western Australia and Broome. The state government’s policy position is to recognise native title where it can be demonstrated to exist and to pursue the resolution of native title matters by agreement over litigation where possible. That policy position relies heavily on clarity and certainty in the law. (2) The government is not opposed to the Yawuru people having their native title rights recognised. The State Solicitor strongly advised that the government appeal the judge’s decision on the grounds that his reasoning was inconsistent with the law. (3) The interests of all Western Australians. (4) The evidence is the state government’s record. It has resolved 12 native title determinations covering over 500 000 square kilometres of land; entered into two major native title land use agreements over the Burrup and for the Ord region; targeted the resolution of a further six consent determinations in the next financial year and is progressing an additional 34 native title claims towards resolution; commenced development of an alternative process to avoid litigation for resolution of native title claims that cannot meet the legal thresholds to achieve a native title outcome; and established a $40 million land and equity fund to support the state’s native title negotiations.
(2) The government is not opposed to the Yawuru people having their native title rights recognised. The State Solicitor strongly advised that the government appeal the judge’s decision on the grounds that his reasoning was inconsistent with the law. (3) The interests of all Western Australians. (4) The evidence is the state government’s record. It has resolved 12 native title determinations covering over 500 000 square kilometres of land; entered into two major native title land use agreements over the Burrup and for the Ord region; targeted the resolution of a further six consent determinations in the next financial year and is progressing an additional 34 native title claims towards resolution; commenced development of an alternative process to avoid litigation for resolution of native title claims that cannot meet the legal thresholds to achieve a native title outcome; and established a $40 million land and equity fund to support the state’s native title negotiations.
(3) The interests of all Western Australians. (4) The evidence is the state government’s record. It has resolved 12 native title determinations covering over 500 000 square kilometres of land; entered into two major native title land use agreements over the Burrup and for the Ord region; targeted the resolution of a further six consent determinations in the next financial year and is progressing an additional 34 native title claims towards resolution; commenced development of an alternative process to avoid litigation for resolution of native title claims that cannot meet the legal thresholds to achieve a native title outcome; and established a $40 million land and equity fund to support the state’s native title negotiations.
(4) The evidence is the state government’s record. It has resolved 12 native title determinations covering over 500 000 square kilometres of land; entered into two major native title land use agreements over the Burrup and for the Ord region; targeted the resolution of a further six consent determinations in the next financial year and is progressing an additional 34 native title claims towards resolution; commenced development of an alternative process to avoid litigation for resolution of native title claims that cannot meet the legal thresholds to achieve a native title outcome; and established a $40 million land and equity fund to support the state’s native title negotiations.
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.