❓ The Premier responds to a question regarding the Federal Attorney-General's reaction to the Nyoongah native title decision, expressing disappointment and outlining the WA government's approach to native title claims, including a planned appeal to resolve legal inconsistencies.
AnsweredQoN 689Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
NATIVE TITLE - COMMENTS BY FEDERAL ATTORNEY-GENERAL
What is the Premier’s response to the federal Attorney-General’s reaction to last week’s Federal Court decision to grant the Nyoongah people native title over Perth? Mr A.J. CARPENTER
What is the Premier’s response to the federal Attorney-General’s reaction to last week’s Federal Court decision to grant the Nyoongah people native title over Perth? Mr A.J. CARPENTER
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for the question. This is a very important issue for Western Australia and Western Australians. I was extremely disappointed with the response of the federal Attorney-General, Philip Ruddock, to the decision that it would mean that Nyoongah people would deny access to our beaches to non-Nyoongah people and that chaos would flow from it. It was a completely unwarranted reaction from someone who knows better. I worked with him when he was the federal minister for indigenous affairs and he knows better. It was reminiscent of the very bad times we had in Western Australia in the 1990s when native title first became an issue and the then government ran those lines about the potential ramifications, including publishing maps asserting that people’s backyards would be taken from them, to scare people around Western Australia witless. This is a very serious issue for us, and I take great personal interest in the issue, because I want to make sure that out of this process comes a very good outcome for Nyoongah people in Western Australia. There is no doubt - in fact, I know and I believe every person in this chamber knows - that Nyoongah people are the traditional owners of not only the Perth area, but also the entire south west corner of Western Australia. They are the traditional owners of this country. Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. Mr A.J. CARPENTER : I believe that that very fact requires recognition and an acknowledgment of the status and particular privileges that should and do go with that. They are the traditional owners of this country which we are operating on and which I was born in and grew up in. I grew up in Albany knowing that the Nyoongah people were the traditional owners of the country; everybody else in Albany knew it as well. A very important decision was made the other day. It has thrown up some complexities for the government and for all Western Australians. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr A.J. CARPENTER : It probably does not throw up problems for the opposition, because we have a sense of its position on this matter, and it is very unfortunate if that is the case. I thought that, of all the opposition members, the member for Cottesloe would have a more enlightened view. He demonstrated it while he was in government, and I would expect him to demonstrate it while he is in opposition. This government, in contrast to the position of the previous government - individual members of that government took a different line - strongly supports the principle of native title, and we have worked from that principled position every moment that we have been in government. About 500 000 square kilometres of land in Western Australia has been acknowledged to be covered by native title. We have worked through all those cases. We have now reached consent determinations in Western Australia for nine outcomes. Seven of those were negotiated under our government. More than 20 others are under negotiation, and we are hoping for a consent agreement in those as well. What has arisen from Justice Wilcox’ decision is consistency - or not - in the application and interpretation of native title law. The evolution of the law has taken a giant movement one way or the other. Justice Wilcox’ decision, in the eyes of the legal teams that have observed it, is very different in its basis from the previous decisions on the application of native title law. There is a very good case for having that inconsistency resolved via an appeal to the Full Bench of the Federal Court, and that is the advice we have been given. I have taken that position into meetings that I have had with Nyoongah people over the past three days and have done my best to explain it. I do not expect the Nyoongah people in Western Australia to welcome this state government’s appealing that decision to the full court. However, I have to say that I have been almost amazed by the sympathetic reaction that I have had from the Nyoongah people in the meetings I have had with them. My experience of the Nyoongah people both before and through this situation leads me to believe that we can, as the government of Western Australia, negotiate a good and a positive outcome for the Nyoongah people of this state. I believe this decision provides us with a magnificent window of opportunity, because it means we need to focus very strongly and very clearly on these issues now. We do, though, need to have a clear understanding of how the law should apply. The consistency of the law is a major issue. I believe that we can negotiate an outcome, and I intend to make sure that we do. I do not want to see a situation in Western Australia in which this decision from Justice Wilcox delivers no benefit to anyone; and certainly delivers no benefit to the Nyoongah people. I believe it provides us with a great opportunity to deliver a good outcome for the Nyoongah people and to establish some clear principles upon which we can negotiate equally good outcomes, based on native title, across the rest of this state.
Mr A.J. CARPENTER replied: I thank the member for the question. This is a very important issue for Western Australia and Western Australians. I was extremely disappointed with the response of the federal Attorney-General, Philip Ruddock, to the decision that it would mean that Nyoongah people would deny access to our beaches to non-Nyoongah people and that chaos would flow from it. It was a completely unwarranted reaction from someone who knows better. I worked with him when he was the federal minister for indigenous affairs and he knows better. It was reminiscent of the very bad times we had in Western Australia in the 1990s when native title first became an issue and the then government ran those lines about the potential ramifications, including publishing maps asserting that people’s backyards would be taken from them, to scare people around Western Australia witless. This is a very serious issue for us, and I take great personal interest in the issue, because I want to make sure that out of this process comes a very good outcome for Nyoongah people in Western Australia. There is no doubt - in fact, I know and I believe every person in this chamber knows - that Nyoongah people are the traditional owners of not only the Perth area, but also the entire south west corner of Western Australia. They are the traditional owners of this country. Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. Mr A.J. CARPENTER : I believe that that very fact requires recognition and an acknowledgment of the status and particular privileges that should and do go with that. They are the traditional owners of this country which we are operating on and which I was born in and grew up in. I grew up in Albany knowing that the Nyoongah people were the traditional owners of the country; everybody else in Albany knew it as well. A very important decision was made the other day. It has thrown up some complexities for the government and for all Western Australians. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr A.J. CARPENTER : It probably does not throw up problems for the opposition, because we have a sense of its position on this matter, and it is very unfortunate if that is the case. I thought that, of all the opposition members, the member for Cottesloe would have a more enlightened view. He demonstrated it while he was in government, and I would expect him to demonstrate it while he is in opposition. This government, in contrast to the position of the previous government - individual members of that government took a different line - strongly supports the principle of native title, and we have worked from that principled position every moment that we have been in government. About 500 000 square kilometres of land in Western Australia has been acknowledged to be covered by native title. We have worked through all those cases. We have now reached consent determinations in Western Australia for nine outcomes. Seven of those were negotiated under our government. More than 20 others are under negotiation, and we are hoping for a consent agreement in those as well. What has arisen from Justice Wilcox’ decision is consistency - or not - in the application and interpretation of native title law. The evolution of the law has taken a giant movement one way or the other. Justice Wilcox’ decision, in the eyes of the legal teams that have observed it, is very different in its basis from the previous decisions on the application of native title law. There is a very good case for having that inconsistency resolved via an appeal to the Full Bench of the Federal Court, and that is the advice we have been given. I have taken that position into meetings that I have had with Nyoongah people over the past three days and have done my best to explain it. I do not expect the Nyoongah people in Western Australia to welcome this state government’s appealing that decision to the full court. However, I have to say that I have been almost amazed by the sympathetic reaction that I have had from the Nyoongah people in the meetings I have had with them. My experience of the Nyoongah people both before and through this situation leads me to believe that we can, as the government of Western Australia, negotiate a good and a positive outcome for the Nyoongah people of this state. I believe this decision provides us with a magnificent window of opportunity, because it means we need to focus very strongly and very clearly on these issues now. We do, though, need to have a clear understanding of how the law should apply. The consistency of the law is a major issue. I believe that we can negotiate an outcome, and I intend to make sure that we do. I do not want to see a situation in Western Australia in which this decision from Justice Wilcox delivers no benefit to anyone; and certainly delivers no benefit to the Nyoongah people. I believe it provides us with a great opportunity to deliver a good outcome for the Nyoongah people and to establish some clear principles upon which we can negotiate equally good outcomes, based on native title, across the rest of this state.
I thank the member for the question. This is a very important issue for Western Australia and Western Australians. I was extremely disappointed with the response of the federal Attorney-General, Philip Ruddock, to the decision that it would mean that Nyoongah people would deny access to our beaches to non-Nyoongah people and that chaos would flow from it. It was a completely unwarranted reaction from someone who knows better. I worked with him when he was the federal minister for indigenous affairs and he knows better. It was reminiscent of the very bad times we had in Western Australia in the 1990s when native title first became an issue and the then government ran those lines about the potential ramifications, including publishing maps asserting that people’s backyards would be taken from them, to scare people around Western Australia witless. This is a very serious issue for us, and I take great personal interest in the issue, because I want to make sure that out of this process comes a very good outcome for Nyoongah people in Western Australia. There is no doubt - in fact, I know and I believe every person in this chamber knows - that Nyoongah people are the traditional owners of not only the Perth area, but also the entire south west corner of Western Australia. They are the traditional owners of this country. Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. Mr A.J. CARPENTER : I believe that that very fact requires recognition and an acknowledgment of the status and particular privileges that should and do go with that. They are the traditional owners of this country which we are operating on and which I was born in and grew up in. I grew up in Albany knowing that the Nyoongah people were the traditional owners of the country; everybody else in Albany knew it as well. A very important decision was made the other day. It has thrown up some complexities for the government and for all Western Australians. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr A.J. CARPENTER : It probably does not throw up problems for the opposition, because we have a sense of its position on this matter, and it is very unfortunate if that is the case. I thought that, of all the opposition members, the member for Cottesloe would have a more enlightened view. He demonstrated it while he was in government, and I would expect him to demonstrate it while he is in opposition. This government, in contrast to the position of the previous government - individual members of that government took a different line - strongly supports the principle of native title, and we have worked from that principled position every moment that we have been in government. About 500 000 square kilometres of land in Western Australia has been acknowledged to be covered by native title. We have worked through all those cases. We have now reached consent determinations in Western Australia for nine outcomes. Seven of those were negotiated under our government. More than 20 others are under negotiation, and we are hoping for a consent agreement in those as well. What has arisen from Justice Wilcox’ decision is consistency - or not - in the application and interpretation of native title law. The evolution of the law has taken a giant movement one way or the other. Justice Wilcox’ decision, in the eyes of the legal teams that have observed it, is very different in its basis from the previous decisions on the application of native title law. There is a very good case for having that inconsistency resolved via an appeal to the Full Bench of the Federal Court, and that is the advice we have been given. I have taken that position into meetings that I have had with Nyoongah people over the past three days and have done my best to explain it. I do not expect the Nyoongah people in Western Australia to welcome this state government’s appealing that decision to the full court. However, I have to say that I have been almost amazed by the sympathetic reaction that I have had from the Nyoongah people in the meetings I have had with them. My experience of the Nyoongah people both before and through this situation leads me to believe that we can, as the government of Western Australia, negotiate a good and a positive outcome for the Nyoongah people of this state. I believe this decision provides us with a magnificent window of opportunity, because it means we need to focus very strongly and very clearly on these issues now. We do, though, need to have a clear understanding of how the law should apply. The consistency of the law is a major issue. I believe that we can negotiate an outcome, and I intend to make sure that we do. I do not want to see a situation in Western Australia in which this decision from Justice Wilcox delivers no benefit to anyone; and certainly delivers no benefit to the Nyoongah people. I believe it provides us with a great opportunity to deliver a good outcome for the Nyoongah people and to establish some clear principles upon which we can negotiate equally good outcomes, based on native title, across the rest of this state.
Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. Mr A.J. CARPENTER : I believe that that very fact requires recognition and an acknowledgment of the status and particular privileges that should and do go with that. They are the traditional owners of this country which we are operating on and which I was born in and grew up in. I grew up in Albany knowing that the Nyoongah people were the traditional owners of the country; everybody else in Albany knew it as well. A very important decision was made the other day. It has thrown up some complexities for the government and for all Western Australians. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr A.J. CARPENTER : It probably does not throw up problems for the opposition, because we have a sense of its position on this matter, and it is very unfortunate if that is the case. I thought that, of all the opposition members, the member for Cottesloe would have a more enlightened view. He demonstrated it while he was in government, and I would expect him to demonstrate it while he is in opposition. This government, in contrast to the position of the previous government - individual members of that government took a different line - strongly supports the principle of native title, and we have worked from that principled position every moment that we have been in government. About 500 000 square kilometres of land in Western Australia has been acknowledged to be covered by native title. We have worked through all those cases. We have now reached consent determinations in Western Australia for nine outcomes. Seven of those were negotiated under our government. More than 20 others are under negotiation, and we are hoping for a consent agreement in those as well. What has arisen from Justice Wilcox’ decision is consistency - or not - in the application and interpretation of native title law. The evolution of the law has taken a giant movement one way or the other. Justice Wilcox’ decision, in the eyes of the legal teams that have observed it, is very different in its basis from the previous decisions on the application of native title law. There is a very good case for having that inconsistency resolved via an appeal to the Full Bench of the Federal Court, and that is the advice we have been given. I have taken that position into meetings that I have had with Nyoongah people over the past three days and have done my best to explain it. I do not expect the Nyoongah people in Western Australia to welcome this state government’s appealing that decision to the full court. However, I have to say that I have been almost amazed by the sympathetic reaction that I have had from the Nyoongah people in the meetings I have had with them. My experience of the Nyoongah people both before and through this situation leads me to believe that we can, as the government of Western Australia, negotiate a good and a positive outcome for the Nyoongah people of this state. I believe this decision provides us with a magnificent window of opportunity, because it means we need to focus very strongly and very clearly on these issues now. We do, though, need to have a clear understanding of how the law should apply. The consistency of the law is a major issue. I believe that we can negotiate an outcome, and I intend to make sure that we do. I do not want to see a situation in Western Australia in which this decision from Justice Wilcox delivers no benefit to anyone; and certainly delivers no benefit to the Nyoongah people. I believe it provides us with a great opportunity to deliver a good outcome for the Nyoongah people and to establish some clear principles upon which we can negotiate equally good outcomes, based on native title, across the rest of this state.
Mr A.J. CARPENTER : I believe that that very fact requires recognition and an acknowledgment of the status and particular privileges that should and do go with that. They are the traditional owners of this country which we are operating on and which I was born in and grew up in. I grew up in Albany knowing that the Nyoongah people were the traditional owners of the country; everybody else in Albany knew it as well. A very important decision was made the other day. It has thrown up some complexities for the government and for all Western Australians. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr A.J. CARPENTER : It probably does not throw up problems for the opposition, because we have a sense of its position on this matter, and it is very unfortunate if that is the case. I thought that, of all the opposition members, the member for Cottesloe would have a more enlightened view. He demonstrated it while he was in government, and I would expect him to demonstrate it while he is in opposition. This government, in contrast to the position of the previous government - individual members of that government took a different line - strongly supports the principle of native title, and we have worked from that principled position every moment that we have been in government. About 500 000 square kilometres of land in Western Australia has been acknowledged to be covered by native title. We have worked through all those cases. We have now reached consent determinations in Western Australia for nine outcomes. Seven of those were negotiated under our government. More than 20 others are under negotiation, and we are hoping for a consent agreement in those as well. What has arisen from Justice Wilcox’ decision is consistency - or not - in the application and interpretation of native title law. The evolution of the law has taken a giant movement one way or the other. Justice Wilcox’ decision, in the eyes of the legal teams that have observed it, is very different in its basis from the previous decisions on the application of native title law. There is a very good case for having that inconsistency resolved via an appeal to the Full Bench of the Federal Court, and that is the advice we have been given. I have taken that position into meetings that I have had with Nyoongah people over the past three days and have done my best to explain it. I do not expect the Nyoongah people in Western Australia to welcome this state government’s appealing that decision to the full court. However, I have to say that I have been almost amazed by the sympathetic reaction that I have had from the Nyoongah people in the meetings I have had with them. My experience of the Nyoongah people both before and through this situation leads me to believe that we can, as the government of Western Australia, negotiate a good and a positive outcome for the Nyoongah people of this state. I believe this decision provides us with a magnificent window of opportunity, because it means we need to focus very strongly and very clearly on these issues now. We do, though, need to have a clear understanding of how the law should apply. The consistency of the law is a major issue. I believe that we can negotiate an outcome, and I intend to make sure that we do. I do not want to see a situation in Western Australia in which this decision from Justice Wilcox delivers no benefit to anyone; and certainly delivers no benefit to the Nyoongah people. I believe it provides us with a great opportunity to deliver a good outcome for the Nyoongah people and to establish some clear principles upon which we can negotiate equally good outcomes, based on native title, across the rest of this state.
A very important decision was made the other day. It has thrown up some complexities for the government and for all Western Australians. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr A.J. CARPENTER : It probably does not throw up problems for the opposition, because we have a sense of its position on this matter, and it is very unfortunate if that is the case. I thought that, of all the opposition members, the member for Cottesloe would have a more enlightened view. He demonstrated it while he was in government, and I would expect him to demonstrate it while he is in opposition. This government, in contrast to the position of the previous government - individual members of that government took a different line - strongly supports the principle of native title, and we have worked from that principled position every moment that we have been in government. About 500 000 square kilometres of land in Western Australia has been acknowledged to be covered by native title. We have worked through all those cases. We have now reached consent determinations in Western Australia for nine outcomes. Seven of those were negotiated under our government. More than 20 others are under negotiation, and we are hoping for a consent agreement in those as well. What has arisen from Justice Wilcox’ decision is consistency - or not - in the application and interpretation of native title law. The evolution of the law has taken a giant movement one way or the other. Justice Wilcox’ decision, in the eyes of the legal teams that have observed it, is very different in its basis from the previous decisions on the application of native title law. There is a very good case for having that inconsistency resolved via an appeal to the Full Bench of the Federal Court, and that is the advice we have been given. I have taken that position into meetings that I have had with Nyoongah people over the past three days and have done my best to explain it. I do not expect the Nyoongah people in Western Australia to welcome this state government’s appealing that decision to the full court. However, I have to say that I have been almost amazed by the sympathetic reaction that I have had from the Nyoongah people in the meetings I have had with them. My experience of the Nyoongah people both before and through this situation leads me to believe that we can, as the government of Western Australia, negotiate a good and a positive outcome for the Nyoongah people of this state. I believe this decision provides us with a magnificent window of opportunity, because it means we need to focus very strongly and very clearly on these issues now. We do, though, need to have a clear understanding of how the law should apply. The consistency of the law is a major issue. I believe that we can negotiate an outcome, and I intend to make sure that we do. I do not want to see a situation in Western Australia in which this decision from Justice Wilcox delivers no benefit to anyone; and certainly delivers no benefit to the Nyoongah people. I believe it provides us with a great opportunity to deliver a good outcome for the Nyoongah people and to establish some clear principles upon which we can negotiate equally good outcomes, based on native title, across the rest of this state.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr A.J. CARPENTER : It probably does not throw up problems for the opposition, because we have a sense of its position on this matter, and it is very unfortunate if that is the case. I thought that, of all the opposition members, the member for Cottesloe would have a more enlightened view. He demonstrated it while he was in government, and I would expect him to demonstrate it while he is in opposition. This government, in contrast to the position of the previous government - individual members of that government took a different line - strongly supports the principle of native title, and we have worked from that principled position every moment that we have been in government. About 500 000 square kilometres of land in Western Australia has been acknowledged to be covered by native title. We have worked through all those cases. We have now reached consent determinations in Western Australia for nine outcomes. Seven of those were negotiated under our government. More than 20 others are under negotiation, and we are hoping for a consent agreement in those as well. What has arisen from Justice Wilcox’ decision is consistency - or not - in the application and interpretation of native title law. The evolution of the law has taken a giant movement one way or the other. Justice Wilcox’ decision, in the eyes of the legal teams that have observed it, is very different in its basis from the previous decisions on the application of native title law. There is a very good case for having that inconsistency resolved via an appeal to the Full Bench of the Federal Court, and that is the advice we have been given. I have taken that position into meetings that I have had with Nyoongah people over the past three days and have done my best to explain it. I do not expect the Nyoongah people in Western Australia to welcome this state government’s appealing that decision to the full court. However, I have to say that I have been almost amazed by the sympathetic reaction that I have had from the Nyoongah people in the meetings I have had with them. My experience of the Nyoongah people both before and through this situation leads me to believe that we can, as the government of Western Australia, negotiate a good and a positive outcome for the Nyoongah people of this state. I believe this decision provides us with a magnificent window of opportunity, because it means we need to focus very strongly and very clearly on these issues now. We do, though, need to have a clear understanding of how the law should apply. The consistency of the law is a major issue. I believe that we can negotiate an outcome, and I intend to make sure that we do. I do not want to see a situation in Western Australia in which this decision from Justice Wilcox delivers no benefit to anyone; and certainly delivers no benefit to the Nyoongah people. I believe it provides us with a great opportunity to deliver a good outcome for the Nyoongah people and to establish some clear principles upon which we can negotiate equally good outcomes, based on native title, across the rest of this state.
The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr A.J. CARPENTER : It probably does not throw up problems for the opposition, because we have a sense of its position on this matter, and it is very unfortunate if that is the case. I thought that, of all the opposition members, the member for Cottesloe would have a more enlightened view. He demonstrated it while he was in government, and I would expect him to demonstrate it while he is in opposition. This government, in contrast to the position of the previous government - individual members of that government took a different line - strongly supports the principle of native title, and we have worked from that principled position every moment that we have been in government. About 500 000 square kilometres of land in Western Australia has been acknowledged to be covered by native title. We have worked through all those cases. We have now reached consent determinations in Western Australia for nine outcomes. Seven of those were negotiated under our government. More than 20 others are under negotiation, and we are hoping for a consent agreement in those as well. What has arisen from Justice Wilcox’ decision is consistency - or not - in the application and interpretation of native title law. The evolution of the law has taken a giant movement one way or the other. Justice Wilcox’ decision, in the eyes of the legal teams that have observed it, is very different in its basis from the previous decisions on the application of native title law. There is a very good case for having that inconsistency resolved via an appeal to the Full Bench of the Federal Court, and that is the advice we have been given. I have taken that position into meetings that I have had with Nyoongah people over the past three days and have done my best to explain it. I do not expect the Nyoongah people in Western Australia to welcome this state government’s appealing that decision to the full court. However, I have to say that I have been almost amazed by the sympathetic reaction that I have had from the Nyoongah people in the meetings I have had with them. My experience of the Nyoongah people both before and through this situation leads me to believe that we can, as the government of Western Australia, negotiate a good and a positive outcome for the Nyoongah people of this state. I believe this decision provides us with a magnificent window of opportunity, because it means we need to focus very strongly and very clearly on these issues now. We do, though, need to have a clear understanding of how the law should apply. The consistency of the law is a major issue. I believe that we can negotiate an outcome, and I intend to make sure that we do. I do not want to see a situation in Western Australia in which this decision from Justice Wilcox delivers no benefit to anyone; and certainly delivers no benefit to the Nyoongah people. I believe it provides us with a great opportunity to deliver a good outcome for the Nyoongah people and to establish some clear principles upon which we can negotiate equally good outcomes, based on native title, across the rest of this state.
Mr A.J. CARPENTER : It probably does not throw up problems for the opposition, because we have a sense of its position on this matter, and it is very unfortunate if that is the case. I thought that, of all the opposition members, the member for Cottesloe would have a more enlightened view. He demonstrated it while he was in government, and I would expect him to demonstrate it while he is in opposition. This government, in contrast to the position of the previous government - individual members of that government took a different line - strongly supports the principle of native title, and we have worked from that principled position every moment that we have been in government. About 500 000 square kilometres of land in Western Australia has been acknowledged to be covered by native title. We have worked through all those cases. We have now reached consent determinations in Western Australia for nine outcomes. Seven of those were negotiated under our government. More than 20 others are under negotiation, and we are hoping for a consent agreement in those as well. What has arisen from Justice Wilcox’ decision is consistency - or not - in the application and interpretation of native title law. The evolution of the law has taken a giant movement one way or the other. Justice Wilcox’ decision, in the eyes of the legal teams that have observed it, is very different in its basis from the previous decisions on the application of native title law. There is a very good case for having that inconsistency resolved via an appeal to the Full Bench of the Federal Court, and that is the advice we have been given. I have taken that position into meetings that I have had with Nyoongah people over the past three days and have done my best to explain it. I do not expect the Nyoongah people in Western Australia to welcome this state government’s appealing that decision to the full court. However, I have to say that I have been almost amazed by the sympathetic reaction that I have had from the Nyoongah people in the meetings I have had with them. My experience of the Nyoongah people both before and through this situation leads me to believe that we can, as the government of Western Australia, negotiate a good and a positive outcome for the Nyoongah people of this state. I believe this decision provides us with a magnificent window of opportunity, because it means we need to focus very strongly and very clearly on these issues now. We do, though, need to have a clear understanding of how the law should apply. The consistency of the law is a major issue. I believe that we can negotiate an outcome, and I intend to make sure that we do. I do not want to see a situation in Western Australia in which this decision from Justice Wilcox delivers no benefit to anyone; and certainly delivers no benefit to the Nyoongah people. I believe it provides us with a great opportunity to deliver a good outcome for the Nyoongah people and to establish some clear principles upon which we can negotiate equally good outcomes, based on native title, across the rest of this state.
This government, in contrast to the position of the previous government - individual members of that government took a different line - strongly supports the principle of native title, and we have worked from that principled position every moment that we have been in government. About 500 000 square kilometres of land in Western Australia has been acknowledged to be covered by native title. We have worked through all those cases. We have now reached consent determinations in Western Australia for nine outcomes. Seven of those were negotiated under our government. More than 20 others are under negotiation, and we are hoping for a consent agreement in those as well. What has arisen from Justice Wilcox’ decision is consistency - or not - in the application and interpretation of native title law. The evolution of the law has taken a giant movement one way or the other. Justice Wilcox’ decision, in the eyes of the legal teams that have observed it, is very different in its basis from the previous decisions on the application of native title law. There is a very good case for having that inconsistency resolved via an appeal to the Full Bench of the Federal Court, and that is the advice we have been given. I have taken that position into meetings that I have had with Nyoongah people over the past three days and have done my best to explain it. I do not expect the Nyoongah people in Western Australia to welcome this state government’s appealing that decision to the full court. However, I have to say that I have been almost amazed by the sympathetic reaction that I have had from the Nyoongah people in the meetings I have had with them. My experience of the Nyoongah people both before and through this situation leads me to believe that we can, as the government of Western Australia, negotiate a good and a positive outcome for the Nyoongah people of this state. I believe this decision provides us with a magnificent window of opportunity, because it means we need to focus very strongly and very clearly on these issues now. We do, though, need to have a clear understanding of how the law should apply. The consistency of the law is a major issue. I believe that we can negotiate an outcome, and I intend to make sure that we do. I do not want to see a situation in Western Australia in which this decision from Justice Wilcox delivers no benefit to anyone; and certainly delivers no benefit to the Nyoongah people. I believe it provides us with a great opportunity to deliver a good outcome for the Nyoongah people and to establish some clear principles upon which we can negotiate equally good outcomes, based on native title, across the rest of this state.
Mr A.J. CARPENTER replied: I thank the member for the question. This is a very important issue for Western Australia and Western Australians. I was extremely disappointed with the response of the federal Attorney-General, Philip Ruddock, to the decision that it would mean that Nyoongah people would deny access to our beaches to non-Nyoongah people and that chaos would flow from it. It was a completely unwarranted reaction from someone who knows better. I worked with him when he was the federal minister for indigenous affairs and he knows better. It was reminiscent of the very bad times we had in Western Australia in the 1990s when native title first became an issue and the then government ran those lines about the potential ramifications, including publishing maps asserting that people’s backyards would be taken from them, to scare people around Western Australia witless. This is a very serious issue for us, and I take great personal interest in the issue, because I want to make sure that out of this process comes a very good outcome for Nyoongah people in Western Australia. There is no doubt - in fact, I know and I believe every person in this chamber knows - that Nyoongah people are the traditional owners of not only the Perth area, but also the entire south west corner of Western Australia. They are the traditional owners of this country. Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. Mr A.J. CARPENTER : I believe that that very fact requires recognition and an acknowledgment of the status and particular privileges that should and do go with that. They are the traditional owners of this country which we are operating on and which I was born in and grew up in. I grew up in Albany knowing that the Nyoongah people were the traditional owners of the country; everybody else in Albany knew it as well. A very important decision was made the other day. It has thrown up some complexities for the government and for all Western Australians. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr A.J. CARPENTER : It probably does not throw up problems for the opposition, because we have a sense of its position on this matter, and it is very unfortunate if that is the case. I thought that, of all the opposition members, the member for Cottesloe would have a more enlightened view. He demonstrated it while he was in government, and I would expect him to demonstrate it while he is in opposition. This government, in contrast to the position of the previous government - individual members of that government took a different line - strongly supports the principle of native title, and we have worked from that principled position every moment that we have been in government. About 500 000 square kilometres of land in Western Australia has been acknowledged to be covered by native title. We have worked through all those cases. We have now reached consent determinations in Western Australia for nine outcomes. Seven of those were negotiated under our government. More than 20 others are under negotiation, and we are hoping for a consent agreement in those as well. What has arisen from Justice Wilcox’ decision is consistency - or not - in the application and interpretation of native title law. The evolution of the law has taken a giant movement one way or the other. Justice Wilcox’ decision, in the eyes of the legal teams that have observed it, is very different in its basis from the previous decisions on the application of native title law. There is a very good case for having that inconsistency resolved via an appeal to the Full Bench of the Federal Court, and that is the advice we have been given. I have taken that position into meetings that I have had with Nyoongah people over the past three days and have done my best to explain it. I do not expect the Nyoongah people in Western Australia to welcome this state government’s appealing that decision to the full court. However, I have to say that I have been almost amazed by the sympathetic reaction that I have had from the Nyoongah people in the meetings I have had with them. My experience of the Nyoongah people both before and through this situation leads me to believe that we can, as the government of Western Australia, negotiate a good and a positive outcome for the Nyoongah people of this state. I believe this decision provides us with a magnificent window of opportunity, because it means we need to focus very strongly and very clearly on these issues now. We do, though, need to have a clear understanding of how the law should apply. The consistency of the law is a major issue. I believe that we can negotiate an outcome, and I intend to make sure that we do. I do not want to see a situation in Western Australia in which this decision from Justice Wilcox delivers no benefit to anyone; and certainly delivers no benefit to the Nyoongah people. I believe it provides us with a great opportunity to deliver a good outcome for the Nyoongah people and to establish some clear principles upon which we can negotiate equally good outcomes, based on native title, across the rest of this state.
I thank the member for the question. This is a very important issue for Western Australia and Western Australians. I was extremely disappointed with the response of the federal Attorney-General, Philip Ruddock, to the decision that it would mean that Nyoongah people would deny access to our beaches to non-Nyoongah people and that chaos would flow from it. It was a completely unwarranted reaction from someone who knows better. I worked with him when he was the federal minister for indigenous affairs and he knows better. It was reminiscent of the very bad times we had in Western Australia in the 1990s when native title first became an issue and the then government ran those lines about the potential ramifications, including publishing maps asserting that people’s backyards would be taken from them, to scare people around Western Australia witless. This is a very serious issue for us, and I take great personal interest in the issue, because I want to make sure that out of this process comes a very good outcome for Nyoongah people in Western Australia. There is no doubt - in fact, I know and I believe every person in this chamber knows - that Nyoongah people are the traditional owners of not only the Perth area, but also the entire south west corner of Western Australia. They are the traditional owners of this country. Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. Mr A.J. CARPENTER : I believe that that very fact requires recognition and an acknowledgment of the status and particular privileges that should and do go with that. They are the traditional owners of this country which we are operating on and which I was born in and grew up in. I grew up in Albany knowing that the Nyoongah people were the traditional owners of the country; everybody else in Albany knew it as well. A very important decision was made the other day. It has thrown up some complexities for the government and for all Western Australians. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr A.J. CARPENTER : It probably does not throw up problems for the opposition, because we have a sense of its position on this matter, and it is very unfortunate if that is the case. I thought that, of all the opposition members, the member for Cottesloe would have a more enlightened view. He demonstrated it while he was in government, and I would expect him to demonstrate it while he is in opposition. This government, in contrast to the position of the previous government - individual members of that government took a different line - strongly supports the principle of native title, and we have worked from that principled position every moment that we have been in government. About 500 000 square kilometres of land in Western Australia has been acknowledged to be covered by native title. We have worked through all those cases. We have now reached consent determinations in Western Australia for nine outcomes. Seven of those were negotiated under our government. More than 20 others are under negotiation, and we are hoping for a consent agreement in those as well. What has arisen from Justice Wilcox’ decision is consistency - or not - in the application and interpretation of native title law. The evolution of the law has taken a giant movement one way or the other. Justice Wilcox’ decision, in the eyes of the legal teams that have observed it, is very different in its basis from the previous decisions on the application of native title law. There is a very good case for having that inconsistency resolved via an appeal to the Full Bench of the Federal Court, and that is the advice we have been given. I have taken that position into meetings that I have had with Nyoongah people over the past three days and have done my best to explain it. I do not expect the Nyoongah people in Western Australia to welcome this state government’s appealing that decision to the full court. However, I have to say that I have been almost amazed by the sympathetic reaction that I have had from the Nyoongah people in the meetings I have had with them. My experience of the Nyoongah people both before and through this situation leads me to believe that we can, as the government of Western Australia, negotiate a good and a positive outcome for the Nyoongah people of this state. I believe this decision provides us with a magnificent window of opportunity, because it means we need to focus very strongly and very clearly on these issues now. We do, though, need to have a clear understanding of how the law should apply. The consistency of the law is a major issue. I believe that we can negotiate an outcome, and I intend to make sure that we do. I do not want to see a situation in Western Australia in which this decision from Justice Wilcox delivers no benefit to anyone; and certainly delivers no benefit to the Nyoongah people. I believe it provides us with a great opportunity to deliver a good outcome for the Nyoongah people and to establish some clear principles upon which we can negotiate equally good outcomes, based on native title, across the rest of this state.
Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. Mr A.J. CARPENTER : I believe that that very fact requires recognition and an acknowledgment of the status and particular privileges that should and do go with that. They are the traditional owners of this country which we are operating on and which I was born in and grew up in. I grew up in Albany knowing that the Nyoongah people were the traditional owners of the country; everybody else in Albany knew it as well. A very important decision was made the other day. It has thrown up some complexities for the government and for all Western Australians. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr A.J. CARPENTER : It probably does not throw up problems for the opposition, because we have a sense of its position on this matter, and it is very unfortunate if that is the case. I thought that, of all the opposition members, the member for Cottesloe would have a more enlightened view. He demonstrated it while he was in government, and I would expect him to demonstrate it while he is in opposition. This government, in contrast to the position of the previous government - individual members of that government took a different line - strongly supports the principle of native title, and we have worked from that principled position every moment that we have been in government. About 500 000 square kilometres of land in Western Australia has been acknowledged to be covered by native title. We have worked through all those cases. We have now reached consent determinations in Western Australia for nine outcomes. Seven of those were negotiated under our government. More than 20 others are under negotiation, and we are hoping for a consent agreement in those as well. What has arisen from Justice Wilcox’ decision is consistency - or not - in the application and interpretation of native title law. The evolution of the law has taken a giant movement one way or the other. Justice Wilcox’ decision, in the eyes of the legal teams that have observed it, is very different in its basis from the previous decisions on the application of native title law. There is a very good case for having that inconsistency resolved via an appeal to the Full Bench of the Federal Court, and that is the advice we have been given. I have taken that position into meetings that I have had with Nyoongah people over the past three days and have done my best to explain it. I do not expect the Nyoongah people in Western Australia to welcome this state government’s appealing that decision to the full court. However, I have to say that I have been almost amazed by the sympathetic reaction that I have had from the Nyoongah people in the meetings I have had with them. My experience of the Nyoongah people both before and through this situation leads me to believe that we can, as the government of Western Australia, negotiate a good and a positive outcome for the Nyoongah people of this state. I believe this decision provides us with a magnificent window of opportunity, because it means we need to focus very strongly and very clearly on these issues now. We do, though, need to have a clear understanding of how the law should apply. The consistency of the law is a major issue. I believe that we can negotiate an outcome, and I intend to make sure that we do. I do not want to see a situation in Western Australia in which this decision from Justice Wilcox delivers no benefit to anyone; and certainly delivers no benefit to the Nyoongah people. I believe it provides us with a great opportunity to deliver a good outcome for the Nyoongah people and to establish some clear principles upon which we can negotiate equally good outcomes, based on native title, across the rest of this state.
Mr A.J. CARPENTER : I believe that that very fact requires recognition and an acknowledgment of the status and particular privileges that should and do go with that. They are the traditional owners of this country which we are operating on and which I was born in and grew up in. I grew up in Albany knowing that the Nyoongah people were the traditional owners of the country; everybody else in Albany knew it as well. A very important decision was made the other day. It has thrown up some complexities for the government and for all Western Australians. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr A.J. CARPENTER : It probably does not throw up problems for the opposition, because we have a sense of its position on this matter, and it is very unfortunate if that is the case. I thought that, of all the opposition members, the member for Cottesloe would have a more enlightened view. He demonstrated it while he was in government, and I would expect him to demonstrate it while he is in opposition. This government, in contrast to the position of the previous government - individual members of that government took a different line - strongly supports the principle of native title, and we have worked from that principled position every moment that we have been in government. About 500 000 square kilometres of land in Western Australia has been acknowledged to be covered by native title. We have worked through all those cases. We have now reached consent determinations in Western Australia for nine outcomes. Seven of those were negotiated under our government. More than 20 others are under negotiation, and we are hoping for a consent agreement in those as well. What has arisen from Justice Wilcox’ decision is consistency - or not - in the application and interpretation of native title law. The evolution of the law has taken a giant movement one way or the other. Justice Wilcox’ decision, in the eyes of the legal teams that have observed it, is very different in its basis from the previous decisions on the application of native title law. There is a very good case for having that inconsistency resolved via an appeal to the Full Bench of the Federal Court, and that is the advice we have been given. I have taken that position into meetings that I have had with Nyoongah people over the past three days and have done my best to explain it. I do not expect the Nyoongah people in Western Australia to welcome this state government’s appealing that decision to the full court. However, I have to say that I have been almost amazed by the sympathetic reaction that I have had from the Nyoongah people in the meetings I have had with them. My experience of the Nyoongah people both before and through this situation leads me to believe that we can, as the government of Western Australia, negotiate a good and a positive outcome for the Nyoongah people of this state. I believe this decision provides us with a magnificent window of opportunity, because it means we need to focus very strongly and very clearly on these issues now. We do, though, need to have a clear understanding of how the law should apply. The consistency of the law is a major issue. I believe that we can negotiate an outcome, and I intend to make sure that we do. I do not want to see a situation in Western Australia in which this decision from Justice Wilcox delivers no benefit to anyone; and certainly delivers no benefit to the Nyoongah people. I believe it provides us with a great opportunity to deliver a good outcome for the Nyoongah people and to establish some clear principles upon which we can negotiate equally good outcomes, based on native title, across the rest of this state.
A very important decision was made the other day. It has thrown up some complexities for the government and for all Western Australians. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr A.J. CARPENTER : It probably does not throw up problems for the opposition, because we have a sense of its position on this matter, and it is very unfortunate if that is the case. I thought that, of all the opposition members, the member for Cottesloe would have a more enlightened view. He demonstrated it while he was in government, and I would expect him to demonstrate it while he is in opposition. This government, in contrast to the position of the previous government - individual members of that government took a different line - strongly supports the principle of native title, and we have worked from that principled position every moment that we have been in government. About 500 000 square kilometres of land in Western Australia has been acknowledged to be covered by native title. We have worked through all those cases. We have now reached consent determinations in Western Australia for nine outcomes. Seven of those were negotiated under our government. More than 20 others are under negotiation, and we are hoping for a consent agreement in those as well. What has arisen from Justice Wilcox’ decision is consistency - or not - in the application and interpretation of native title law. The evolution of the law has taken a giant movement one way or the other. Justice Wilcox’ decision, in the eyes of the legal teams that have observed it, is very different in its basis from the previous decisions on the application of native title law. There is a very good case for having that inconsistency resolved via an appeal to the Full Bench of the Federal Court, and that is the advice we have been given. I have taken that position into meetings that I have had with Nyoongah people over the past three days and have done my best to explain it. I do not expect the Nyoongah people in Western Australia to welcome this state government’s appealing that decision to the full court. However, I have to say that I have been almost amazed by the sympathetic reaction that I have had from the Nyoongah people in the meetings I have had with them. My experience of the Nyoongah people both before and through this situation leads me to believe that we can, as the government of Western Australia, negotiate a good and a positive outcome for the Nyoongah people of this state. I believe this decision provides us with a magnificent window of opportunity, because it means we need to focus very strongly and very clearly on these issues now. We do, though, need to have a clear understanding of how the law should apply. The consistency of the law is a major issue. I believe that we can negotiate an outcome, and I intend to make sure that we do. I do not want to see a situation in Western Australia in which this decision from Justice Wilcox delivers no benefit to anyone; and certainly delivers no benefit to the Nyoongah people. I believe it provides us with a great opportunity to deliver a good outcome for the Nyoongah people and to establish some clear principles upon which we can negotiate equally good outcomes, based on native title, across the rest of this state.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr A.J. CARPENTER : It probably does not throw up problems for the opposition, because we have a sense of its position on this matter, and it is very unfortunate if that is the case. I thought that, of all the opposition members, the member for Cottesloe would have a more enlightened view. He demonstrated it while he was in government, and I would expect him to demonstrate it while he is in opposition. This government, in contrast to the position of the previous government - individual members of that government took a different line - strongly supports the principle of native title, and we have worked from that principled position every moment that we have been in government. About 500 000 square kilometres of land in Western Australia has been acknowledged to be covered by native title. We have worked through all those cases. We have now reached consent determinations in Western Australia for nine outcomes. Seven of those were negotiated under our government. More than 20 others are under negotiation, and we are hoping for a consent agreement in those as well. What has arisen from Justice Wilcox’ decision is consistency - or not - in the application and interpretation of native title law. The evolution of the law has taken a giant movement one way or the other. Justice Wilcox’ decision, in the eyes of the legal teams that have observed it, is very different in its basis from the previous decisions on the application of native title law. There is a very good case for having that inconsistency resolved via an appeal to the Full Bench of the Federal Court, and that is the advice we have been given. I have taken that position into meetings that I have had with Nyoongah people over the past three days and have done my best to explain it. I do not expect the Nyoongah people in Western Australia to welcome this state government’s appealing that decision to the full court. However, I have to say that I have been almost amazed by the sympathetic reaction that I have had from the Nyoongah people in the meetings I have had with them. My experience of the Nyoongah people both before and through this situation leads me to believe that we can, as the government of Western Australia, negotiate a good and a positive outcome for the Nyoongah people of this state. I believe this decision provides us with a magnificent window of opportunity, because it means we need to focus very strongly and very clearly on these issues now. We do, though, need to have a clear understanding of how the law should apply. The consistency of the law is a major issue. I believe that we can negotiate an outcome, and I intend to make sure that we do. I do not want to see a situation in Western Australia in which this decision from Justice Wilcox delivers no benefit to anyone; and certainly delivers no benefit to the Nyoongah people. I believe it provides us with a great opportunity to deliver a good outcome for the Nyoongah people and to establish some clear principles upon which we can negotiate equally good outcomes, based on native title, across the rest of this state.
The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr A.J. CARPENTER : It probably does not throw up problems for the opposition, because we have a sense of its position on this matter, and it is very unfortunate if that is the case. I thought that, of all the opposition members, the member for Cottesloe would have a more enlightened view. He demonstrated it while he was in government, and I would expect him to demonstrate it while he is in opposition. This government, in contrast to the position of the previous government - individual members of that government took a different line - strongly supports the principle of native title, and we have worked from that principled position every moment that we have been in government. About 500 000 square kilometres of land in Western Australia has been acknowledged to be covered by native title. We have worked through all those cases. We have now reached consent determinations in Western Australia for nine outcomes. Seven of those were negotiated under our government. More than 20 others are under negotiation, and we are hoping for a consent agreement in those as well. What has arisen from Justice Wilcox’ decision is consistency - or not - in the application and interpretation of native title law. The evolution of the law has taken a giant movement one way or the other. Justice Wilcox’ decision, in the eyes of the legal teams that have observed it, is very different in its basis from the previous decisions on the application of native title law. There is a very good case for having that inconsistency resolved via an appeal to the Full Bench of the Federal Court, and that is the advice we have been given. I have taken that position into meetings that I have had with Nyoongah people over the past three days and have done my best to explain it. I do not expect the Nyoongah people in Western Australia to welcome this state government’s appealing that decision to the full court. However, I have to say that I have been almost amazed by the sympathetic reaction that I have had from the Nyoongah people in the meetings I have had with them. My experience of the Nyoongah people both before and through this situation leads me to believe that we can, as the government of Western Australia, negotiate a good and a positive outcome for the Nyoongah people of this state. I believe this decision provides us with a magnificent window of opportunity, because it means we need to focus very strongly and very clearly on these issues now. We do, though, need to have a clear understanding of how the law should apply. The consistency of the law is a major issue. I believe that we can negotiate an outcome, and I intend to make sure that we do. I do not want to see a situation in Western Australia in which this decision from Justice Wilcox delivers no benefit to anyone; and certainly delivers no benefit to the Nyoongah people. I believe it provides us with a great opportunity to deliver a good outcome for the Nyoongah people and to establish some clear principles upon which we can negotiate equally good outcomes, based on native title, across the rest of this state.
Mr A.J. CARPENTER : It probably does not throw up problems for the opposition, because we have a sense of its position on this matter, and it is very unfortunate if that is the case. I thought that, of all the opposition members, the member for Cottesloe would have a more enlightened view. He demonstrated it while he was in government, and I would expect him to demonstrate it while he is in opposition. This government, in contrast to the position of the previous government - individual members of that government took a different line - strongly supports the principle of native title, and we have worked from that principled position every moment that we have been in government. About 500 000 square kilometres of land in Western Australia has been acknowledged to be covered by native title. We have worked through all those cases. We have now reached consent determinations in Western Australia for nine outcomes. Seven of those were negotiated under our government. More than 20 others are under negotiation, and we are hoping for a consent agreement in those as well. What has arisen from Justice Wilcox’ decision is consistency - or not - in the application and interpretation of native title law. The evolution of the law has taken a giant movement one way or the other. Justice Wilcox’ decision, in the eyes of the legal teams that have observed it, is very different in its basis from the previous decisions on the application of native title law. There is a very good case for having that inconsistency resolved via an appeal to the Full Bench of the Federal Court, and that is the advice we have been given. I have taken that position into meetings that I have had with Nyoongah people over the past three days and have done my best to explain it. I do not expect the Nyoongah people in Western Australia to welcome this state government’s appealing that decision to the full court. However, I have to say that I have been almost amazed by the sympathetic reaction that I have had from the Nyoongah people in the meetings I have had with them. My experience of the Nyoongah people both before and through this situation leads me to believe that we can, as the government of Western Australia, negotiate a good and a positive outcome for the Nyoongah people of this state. I believe this decision provides us with a magnificent window of opportunity, because it means we need to focus very strongly and very clearly on these issues now. We do, though, need to have a clear understanding of how the law should apply. The consistency of the law is a major issue. I believe that we can negotiate an outcome, and I intend to make sure that we do. I do not want to see a situation in Western Australia in which this decision from Justice Wilcox delivers no benefit to anyone; and certainly delivers no benefit to the Nyoongah people. I believe it provides us with a great opportunity to deliver a good outcome for the Nyoongah people and to establish some clear principles upon which we can negotiate equally good outcomes, based on native title, across the rest of this state.
This government, in contrast to the position of the previous government - individual members of that government took a different line - strongly supports the principle of native title, and we have worked from that principled position every moment that we have been in government. About 500 000 square kilometres of land in Western Australia has been acknowledged to be covered by native title. We have worked through all those cases. We have now reached consent determinations in Western Australia for nine outcomes. Seven of those were negotiated under our government. More than 20 others are under negotiation, and we are hoping for a consent agreement in those as well. What has arisen from Justice Wilcox’ decision is consistency - or not - in the application and interpretation of native title law. The evolution of the law has taken a giant movement one way or the other. Justice Wilcox’ decision, in the eyes of the legal teams that have observed it, is very different in its basis from the previous decisions on the application of native title law. There is a very good case for having that inconsistency resolved via an appeal to the Full Bench of the Federal Court, and that is the advice we have been given. I have taken that position into meetings that I have had with Nyoongah people over the past three days and have done my best to explain it. I do not expect the Nyoongah people in Western Australia to welcome this state government’s appealing that decision to the full court. However, I have to say that I have been almost amazed by the sympathetic reaction that I have had from the Nyoongah people in the meetings I have had with them. My experience of the Nyoongah people both before and through this situation leads me to believe that we can, as the government of Western Australia, negotiate a good and a positive outcome for the Nyoongah people of this state. I believe this decision provides us with a magnificent window of opportunity, because it means we need to focus very strongly and very clearly on these issues now. We do, though, need to have a clear understanding of how the law should apply. The consistency of the law is a major issue. I believe that we can negotiate an outcome, and I intend to make sure that we do. I do not want to see a situation in Western Australia in which this decision from Justice Wilcox delivers no benefit to anyone; and certainly delivers no benefit to the Nyoongah people. I believe it provides us with a great opportunity to deliver a good outcome for the Nyoongah people and to establish some clear principles upon which we can negotiate equally good outcomes, based on native title, across the rest of this state.
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.