❓ The question criticizes the former coalition government's economic record and asks about the Gallop Government's economic policies and the risks posed by the coalition's policies. The answer defends the Gallop Government's approach to native title and mining agreements, contrasting it with the opposition's perceived confrontational stance.
AnsweredQoN 751Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
I refer the minister to the dismal economic record of the former coalition Government. (1) What policies has the Gallop Government used to grow the Western Australian economy, and have they been successful? (2) What are the risks to the Western Australian economy from the policies being pursued by the coalition? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr C.M. BROWN
AnswerView source ↗
I am going to miss this place! (1)-(2) It is interesting to reflect on the past four years in that regard. Members will remember that during the coalition’s time in office, members opposite said that native title and mining would not mix. They introduced a racist piece of legislation in this State designed to remove the rights of Aboriginal people because they said that agreement could not be reached between mining and indigenous interests on mining development in this State. We said that it could be done - they doubted it. This Government recently put through this Parliament a Bill containing major amendments to the Mining Act; in fact, these were the most significant amendments in 25 years, which were agreed to by the Chamber of Minerals and Energy, by the Association of Mining and Exploration Companies and by five of the six native title bodies in Western Australia. That was not a bad policy position! For the first time, a coherent process is in place for dealing with a large backlog of mining leases in Western Australia. This will be done in a way that will not prejudice the interests of the traditional owners in this State. We said in opposition that a strong review of the approvals process was needed, and we said that an inquiry should be carried out. Do members remember the fun poked at us by members opposite who said, “You’re having another inquiry! Why are you having the inquiry? It’s a waste of time.” We instituted the inquiry called the Keating review, and 55 of its 56 recommendations have broadly been endorsed. What has the Opposition said in one of its recent discussion papers about the Keating inquiry? “We will implement the Keating review,” they say! They have come a long way. The Government has shown in those two areas that by working collaboratively, clearly and fairly with traditional owners and with industry, a good approach can be adopted to development in this State. Let us contrast that with the statements made by the Leader of the Opposition yesterday. The Leader of the Opposition outlined what his approach will be; namely, to confiscate lands held by traditional owners and to force traditional owners into courts to seek compensation. What sort of bitterness do members think that would create in Western Australia? What sort of writs of prohibitions and delay will be caused in Western Australia by that approach? What sort of a harmony will we have in Western Australia between traditional owners and those of us who have elected to make Australia our home? What sort of community will that be? What will the risks be when international investors look at the State and see project after project held up in the courts by writs of prohibition because members opposite want to confiscate land to which title is held or claimed by traditional owners? It is a disgrace. Frankly, if anyone thinks that is the way to go for economic development in this State, they still have the racist tendencies that should have disappeared with the 1967 referendum in Australia. Frankly, they are not about an inclusive society, and they do not accept the reality of today in which industry, traditional owners and sophisticated government can reach agreement and get on with the task of generating strong economic development in Western Australia, as proudly seen under the Gallop Government.
(1) What policies has the Gallop Government used to grow the Western Australian economy, and have they been successful? (2) What are the risks to the Western Australian economy from the policies being pursued by the coalition? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr C.M. BROWN replied: I am going to miss this place! (1)-(2) It is interesting to reflect on the past four years in that regard. Members will remember that during the coalition’s time in office, members opposite said that native title and mining would not mix. They introduced a racist piece of legislation in this State designed to remove the rights of Aboriginal people because they said that agreement could not be reached between mining and indigenous interests on mining development in this State. We said that it could be done - they doubted it. This Government recently put through this Parliament a Bill containing major amendments to the Mining Act; in fact, these were the most significant amendments in 25 years, which were agreed to by the Chamber of Minerals and Energy, by the Association of Mining and Exploration Companies and by five of the six native title bodies in Western Australia. That was not a bad policy position! For the first time, a coherent process is in place for dealing with a large backlog of mining leases in Western Australia. This will be done in a way that will not prejudice the interests of the traditional owners in this State. We said in opposition that a strong review of the approvals process was needed, and we said that an inquiry should be carried out. Do members remember the fun poked at us by members opposite who said, “You’re having another inquiry! Why are you having the inquiry? It’s a waste of time.” We instituted the inquiry called the Keating review, and 55 of its 56 recommendations have broadly been endorsed. What has the Opposition said in one of its recent discussion papers about the Keating inquiry? “We will implement the Keating review,” they say! They have come a long way. The Government has shown in those two areas that by working collaboratively, clearly and fairly with traditional owners and with industry, a good approach can be adopted to development in this State. Let us contrast that with the statements made by the Leader of the Opposition yesterday. The Leader of the Opposition outlined what his approach will be; namely, to confiscate lands held by traditional owners and to force traditional owners into courts to seek compensation. What sort of bitterness do members think that would create in Western Australia? What sort of writs of prohibitions and delay will be caused in Western Australia by that approach? What sort of a harmony will we have in Western Australia between traditional owners and those of us who have elected to make Australia our home? What sort of community will that be? What will the risks be when international investors look at the State and see project after project held up in the courts by writs of prohibition because members opposite want to confiscate land to which title is held or claimed by traditional owners? It is a disgrace. Frankly, if anyone thinks that is the way to go for economic development in this State, they still have the racist tendencies that should have disappeared with the 1967 referendum in Australia. Frankly, they are not about an inclusive society, and they do not accept the reality of today in which industry, traditional owners and sophisticated government can reach agreement and get on with the task of generating strong economic development in Western Australia, as proudly seen under the Gallop Government.
(2) What are the risks to the Western Australian economy from the policies being pursued by the coalition? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr C.M. BROWN replied: I am going to miss this place! (1)-(2) It is interesting to reflect on the past four years in that regard. Members will remember that during the coalition’s time in office, members opposite said that native title and mining would not mix. They introduced a racist piece of legislation in this State designed to remove the rights of Aboriginal people because they said that agreement could not be reached between mining and indigenous interests on mining development in this State. We said that it could be done - they doubted it. This Government recently put through this Parliament a Bill containing major amendments to the Mining Act; in fact, these were the most significant amendments in 25 years, which were agreed to by the Chamber of Minerals and Energy, by the Association of Mining and Exploration Companies and by five of the six native title bodies in Western Australia. That was not a bad policy position! For the first time, a coherent process is in place for dealing with a large backlog of mining leases in Western Australia. This will be done in a way that will not prejudice the interests of the traditional owners in this State. We said in opposition that a strong review of the approvals process was needed, and we said that an inquiry should be carried out. Do members remember the fun poked at us by members opposite who said, “You’re having another inquiry! Why are you having the inquiry? It’s a waste of time.” We instituted the inquiry called the Keating review, and 55 of its 56 recommendations have broadly been endorsed. What has the Opposition said in one of its recent discussion papers about the Keating inquiry? “We will implement the Keating review,” they say! They have come a long way. The Government has shown in those two areas that by working collaboratively, clearly and fairly with traditional owners and with industry, a good approach can be adopted to development in this State. Let us contrast that with the statements made by the Leader of the Opposition yesterday. The Leader of the Opposition outlined what his approach will be; namely, to confiscate lands held by traditional owners and to force traditional owners into courts to seek compensation. What sort of bitterness do members think that would create in Western Australia? What sort of writs of prohibitions and delay will be caused in Western Australia by that approach? What sort of a harmony will we have in Western Australia between traditional owners and those of us who have elected to make Australia our home? What sort of community will that be? What will the risks be when international investors look at the State and see project after project held up in the courts by writs of prohibition because members opposite want to confiscate land to which title is held or claimed by traditional owners? It is a disgrace. Frankly, if anyone thinks that is the way to go for economic development in this State, they still have the racist tendencies that should have disappeared with the 1967 referendum in Australia. Frankly, they are not about an inclusive society, and they do not accept the reality of today in which industry, traditional owners and sophisticated government can reach agreement and get on with the task of generating strong economic development in Western Australia, as proudly seen under the Gallop Government.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr C.M. BROWN replied: I am going to miss this place! (1)-(2) It is interesting to reflect on the past four years in that regard. Members will remember that during the coalition’s time in office, members opposite said that native title and mining would not mix. They introduced a racist piece of legislation in this State designed to remove the rights of Aboriginal people because they said that agreement could not be reached between mining and indigenous interests on mining development in this State. We said that it could be done - they doubted it. This Government recently put through this Parliament a Bill containing major amendments to the Mining Act; in fact, these were the most significant amendments in 25 years, which were agreed to by the Chamber of Minerals and Energy, by the Association of Mining and Exploration Companies and by five of the six native title bodies in Western Australia. That was not a bad policy position! For the first time, a coherent process is in place for dealing with a large backlog of mining leases in Western Australia. This will be done in a way that will not prejudice the interests of the traditional owners in this State. We said in opposition that a strong review of the approvals process was needed, and we said that an inquiry should be carried out. Do members remember the fun poked at us by members opposite who said, “You’re having another inquiry! Why are you having the inquiry? It’s a waste of time.” We instituted the inquiry called the Keating review, and 55 of its 56 recommendations have broadly been endorsed. What has the Opposition said in one of its recent discussion papers about the Keating inquiry? “We will implement the Keating review,” they say! They have come a long way. The Government has shown in those two areas that by working collaboratively, clearly and fairly with traditional owners and with industry, a good approach can be adopted to development in this State. Let us contrast that with the statements made by the Leader of the Opposition yesterday. The Leader of the Opposition outlined what his approach will be; namely, to confiscate lands held by traditional owners and to force traditional owners into courts to seek compensation. What sort of bitterness do members think that would create in Western Australia? What sort of writs of prohibitions and delay will be caused in Western Australia by that approach? What sort of a harmony will we have in Western Australia between traditional owners and those of us who have elected to make Australia our home? What sort of community will that be? What will the risks be when international investors look at the State and see project after project held up in the courts by writs of prohibition because members opposite want to confiscate land to which title is held or claimed by traditional owners? It is a disgrace. Frankly, if anyone thinks that is the way to go for economic development in this State, they still have the racist tendencies that should have disappeared with the 1967 referendum in Australia. Frankly, they are not about an inclusive society, and they do not accept the reality of today in which industry, traditional owners and sophisticated government can reach agreement and get on with the task of generating strong economic development in Western Australia, as proudly seen under the Gallop Government.
The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr C.M. BROWN replied: I am going to miss this place! (1)-(2) It is interesting to reflect on the past four years in that regard. Members will remember that during the coalition’s time in office, members opposite said that native title and mining would not mix. They introduced a racist piece of legislation in this State designed to remove the rights of Aboriginal people because they said that agreement could not be reached between mining and indigenous interests on mining development in this State. We said that it could be done - they doubted it. This Government recently put through this Parliament a Bill containing major amendments to the Mining Act; in fact, these were the most significant amendments in 25 years, which were agreed to by the Chamber of Minerals and Energy, by the Association of Mining and Exploration Companies and by five of the six native title bodies in Western Australia. That was not a bad policy position! For the first time, a coherent process is in place for dealing with a large backlog of mining leases in Western Australia. This will be done in a way that will not prejudice the interests of the traditional owners in this State. We said in opposition that a strong review of the approvals process was needed, and we said that an inquiry should be carried out. Do members remember the fun poked at us by members opposite who said, “You’re having another inquiry! Why are you having the inquiry? It’s a waste of time.” We instituted the inquiry called the Keating review, and 55 of its 56 recommendations have broadly been endorsed. What has the Opposition said in one of its recent discussion papers about the Keating inquiry? “We will implement the Keating review,” they say! They have come a long way. The Government has shown in those two areas that by working collaboratively, clearly and fairly with traditional owners and with industry, a good approach can be adopted to development in this State. Let us contrast that with the statements made by the Leader of the Opposition yesterday. The Leader of the Opposition outlined what his approach will be; namely, to confiscate lands held by traditional owners and to force traditional owners into courts to seek compensation. What sort of bitterness do members think that would create in Western Australia? What sort of writs of prohibitions and delay will be caused in Western Australia by that approach? What sort of a harmony will we have in Western Australia between traditional owners and those of us who have elected to make Australia our home? What sort of community will that be? What will the risks be when international investors look at the State and see project after project held up in the courts by writs of prohibition because members opposite want to confiscate land to which title is held or claimed by traditional owners? It is a disgrace. Frankly, if anyone thinks that is the way to go for economic development in this State, they still have the racist tendencies that should have disappeared with the 1967 referendum in Australia. Frankly, they are not about an inclusive society, and they do not accept the reality of today in which industry, traditional owners and sophisticated government can reach agreement and get on with the task of generating strong economic development in Western Australia, as proudly seen under the Gallop Government.
Mr C.M. BROWN replied: I am going to miss this place! (1)-(2) It is interesting to reflect on the past four years in that regard. Members will remember that during the coalition’s time in office, members opposite said that native title and mining would not mix. They introduced a racist piece of legislation in this State designed to remove the rights of Aboriginal people because they said that agreement could not be reached between mining and indigenous interests on mining development in this State. We said that it could be done - they doubted it. This Government recently put through this Parliament a Bill containing major amendments to the Mining Act; in fact, these were the most significant amendments in 25 years, which were agreed to by the Chamber of Minerals and Energy, by the Association of Mining and Exploration Companies and by five of the six native title bodies in Western Australia. That was not a bad policy position! For the first time, a coherent process is in place for dealing with a large backlog of mining leases in Western Australia. This will be done in a way that will not prejudice the interests of the traditional owners in this State. We said in opposition that a strong review of the approvals process was needed, and we said that an inquiry should be carried out. Do members remember the fun poked at us by members opposite who said, “You’re having another inquiry! Why are you having the inquiry? It’s a waste of time.” We instituted the inquiry called the Keating review, and 55 of its 56 recommendations have broadly been endorsed. What has the Opposition said in one of its recent discussion papers about the Keating inquiry? “We will implement the Keating review,” they say! They have come a long way. The Government has shown in those two areas that by working collaboratively, clearly and fairly with traditional owners and with industry, a good approach can be adopted to development in this State. Let us contrast that with the statements made by the Leader of the Opposition yesterday. The Leader of the Opposition outlined what his approach will be; namely, to confiscate lands held by traditional owners and to force traditional owners into courts to seek compensation. What sort of bitterness do members think that would create in Western Australia? What sort of writs of prohibitions and delay will be caused in Western Australia by that approach? What sort of a harmony will we have in Western Australia between traditional owners and those of us who have elected to make Australia our home? What sort of community will that be? What will the risks be when international investors look at the State and see project after project held up in the courts by writs of prohibition because members opposite want to confiscate land to which title is held or claimed by traditional owners? It is a disgrace. Frankly, if anyone thinks that is the way to go for economic development in this State, they still have the racist tendencies that should have disappeared with the 1967 referendum in Australia. Frankly, they are not about an inclusive society, and they do not accept the reality of today in which industry, traditional owners and sophisticated government can reach agreement and get on with the task of generating strong economic development in Western Australia, as proudly seen under the Gallop Government.
I am going to miss this place! (1)-(2) It is interesting to reflect on the past four years in that regard. Members will remember that during the coalition’s time in office, members opposite said that native title and mining would not mix. They introduced a racist piece of legislation in this State designed to remove the rights of Aboriginal people because they said that agreement could not be reached between mining and indigenous interests on mining development in this State. We said that it could be done - they doubted it. This Government recently put through this Parliament a Bill containing major amendments to the Mining Act; in fact, these were the most significant amendments in 25 years, which were agreed to by the Chamber of Minerals and Energy, by the Association of Mining and Exploration Companies and by five of the six native title bodies in Western Australia. That was not a bad policy position! For the first time, a coherent process is in place for dealing with a large backlog of mining leases in Western Australia. This will be done in a way that will not prejudice the interests of the traditional owners in this State. We said in opposition that a strong review of the approvals process was needed, and we said that an inquiry should be carried out. Do members remember the fun poked at us by members opposite who said, “You’re having another inquiry! Why are you having the inquiry? It’s a waste of time.” We instituted the inquiry called the Keating review, and 55 of its 56 recommendations have broadly been endorsed. What has the Opposition said in one of its recent discussion papers about the Keating inquiry? “We will implement the Keating review,” they say! They have come a long way. The Government has shown in those two areas that by working collaboratively, clearly and fairly with traditional owners and with industry, a good approach can be adopted to development in this State. Let us contrast that with the statements made by the Leader of the Opposition yesterday. The Leader of the Opposition outlined what his approach will be; namely, to confiscate lands held by traditional owners and to force traditional owners into courts to seek compensation. What sort of bitterness do members think that would create in Western Australia? What sort of writs of prohibitions and delay will be caused in Western Australia by that approach? What sort of a harmony will we have in Western Australia between traditional owners and those of us who have elected to make Australia our home? What sort of community will that be? What will the risks be when international investors look at the State and see project after project held up in the courts by writs of prohibition because members opposite want to confiscate land to which title is held or claimed by traditional owners? It is a disgrace. Frankly, if anyone thinks that is the way to go for economic development in this State, they still have the racist tendencies that should have disappeared with the 1967 referendum in Australia. Frankly, they are not about an inclusive society, and they do not accept the reality of today in which industry, traditional owners and sophisticated government can reach agreement and get on with the task of generating strong economic development in Western Australia, as proudly seen under the Gallop Government.
(1)-(2) It is interesting to reflect on the past four years in that regard. Members will remember that during the coalition’s time in office, members opposite said that native title and mining would not mix. They introduced a racist piece of legislation in this State designed to remove the rights of Aboriginal people because they said that agreement could not be reached between mining and indigenous interests on mining development in this State. We said that it could be done - they doubted it. This Government recently put through this Parliament a Bill containing major amendments to the Mining Act; in fact, these were the most significant amendments in 25 years, which were agreed to by the Chamber of Minerals and Energy, by the Association of Mining and Exploration Companies and by five of the six native title bodies in Western Australia. That was not a bad policy position! For the first time, a coherent process is in place for dealing with a large backlog of mining leases in Western Australia. This will be done in a way that will not prejudice the interests of the traditional owners in this State. We said in opposition that a strong review of the approvals process was needed, and we said that an inquiry should be carried out. Do members remember the fun poked at us by members opposite who said, “You’re having another inquiry! Why are you having the inquiry? It’s a waste of time.” We instituted the inquiry called the Keating review, and 55 of its 56 recommendations have broadly been endorsed. What has the Opposition said in one of its recent discussion papers about the Keating inquiry? “We will implement the Keating review,” they say! They have come a long way. The Government has shown in those two areas that by working collaboratively, clearly and fairly with traditional owners and with industry, a good approach can be adopted to development in this State. Let us contrast that with the statements made by the Leader of the Opposition yesterday. The Leader of the Opposition outlined what his approach will be; namely, to confiscate lands held by traditional owners and to force traditional owners into courts to seek compensation. What sort of bitterness do members think that would create in Western Australia? What sort of writs of prohibitions and delay will be caused in Western Australia by that approach? What sort of a harmony will we have in Western Australia between traditional owners and those of us who have elected to make Australia our home? What sort of community will that be? What will the risks be when international investors look at the State and see project after project held up in the courts by writs of prohibition because members opposite want to confiscate land to which title is held or claimed by traditional owners? It is a disgrace. Frankly, if anyone thinks that is the way to go for economic development in this State, they still have the racist tendencies that should have disappeared with the 1967 referendum in Australia. Frankly, they are not about an inclusive society, and they do not accept the reality of today in which industry, traditional owners and sophisticated government can reach agreement and get on with the task of generating strong economic development in Western Australia, as proudly seen under the Gallop Government.
Let us contrast that with the statements made by the Leader of the Opposition yesterday. The Leader of the Opposition outlined what his approach will be; namely, to confiscate lands held by traditional owners and to force traditional owners into courts to seek compensation. What sort of bitterness do members think that would create in Western Australia? What sort of writs of prohibitions and delay will be caused in Western Australia by that approach? What sort of a harmony will we have in Western Australia between traditional owners and those of us who have elected to make Australia our home? What sort of community will that be? What will the risks be when international investors look at the State and see project after project held up in the courts by writs of prohibition because members opposite want to confiscate land to which title is held or claimed by traditional owners? It is a disgrace. Frankly, if anyone thinks that is the way to go for economic development in this State, they still have the racist tendencies that should have disappeared with the 1967 referendum in Australia. Frankly, they are not about an inclusive society, and they do not accept the reality of today in which industry, traditional owners and sophisticated government can reach agreement and get on with the task of generating strong economic development in Western Australia, as proudly seen under the Gallop Government.
(1) What policies has the Gallop Government used to grow the Western Australian economy, and have they been successful? (2) What are the risks to the Western Australian economy from the policies being pursued by the coalition? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr C.M. BROWN replied: I am going to miss this place! (1)-(2) It is interesting to reflect on the past four years in that regard. Members will remember that during the coalition’s time in office, members opposite said that native title and mining would not mix. They introduced a racist piece of legislation in this State designed to remove the rights of Aboriginal people because they said that agreement could not be reached between mining and indigenous interests on mining development in this State. We said that it could be done - they doubted it. This Government recently put through this Parliament a Bill containing major amendments to the Mining Act; in fact, these were the most significant amendments in 25 years, which were agreed to by the Chamber of Minerals and Energy, by the Association of Mining and Exploration Companies and by five of the six native title bodies in Western Australia. That was not a bad policy position! For the first time, a coherent process is in place for dealing with a large backlog of mining leases in Western Australia. This will be done in a way that will not prejudice the interests of the traditional owners in this State. We said in opposition that a strong review of the approvals process was needed, and we said that an inquiry should be carried out. Do members remember the fun poked at us by members opposite who said, “You’re having another inquiry! Why are you having the inquiry? It’s a waste of time.” We instituted the inquiry called the Keating review, and 55 of its 56 recommendations have broadly been endorsed. What has the Opposition said in one of its recent discussion papers about the Keating inquiry? “We will implement the Keating review,” they say! They have come a long way. The Government has shown in those two areas that by working collaboratively, clearly and fairly with traditional owners and with industry, a good approach can be adopted to development in this State. Let us contrast that with the statements made by the Leader of the Opposition yesterday. The Leader of the Opposition outlined what his approach will be; namely, to confiscate lands held by traditional owners and to force traditional owners into courts to seek compensation. What sort of bitterness do members think that would create in Western Australia? What sort of writs of prohibitions and delay will be caused in Western Australia by that approach? What sort of a harmony will we have in Western Australia between traditional owners and those of us who have elected to make Australia our home? What sort of community will that be? What will the risks be when international investors look at the State and see project after project held up in the courts by writs of prohibition because members opposite want to confiscate land to which title is held or claimed by traditional owners? It is a disgrace. Frankly, if anyone thinks that is the way to go for economic development in this State, they still have the racist tendencies that should have disappeared with the 1967 referendum in Australia. Frankly, they are not about an inclusive society, and they do not accept the reality of today in which industry, traditional owners and sophisticated government can reach agreement and get on with the task of generating strong economic development in Western Australia, as proudly seen under the Gallop Government.
(2) What are the risks to the Western Australian economy from the policies being pursued by the coalition? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr C.M. BROWN replied: I am going to miss this place! (1)-(2) It is interesting to reflect on the past four years in that regard. Members will remember that during the coalition’s time in office, members opposite said that native title and mining would not mix. They introduced a racist piece of legislation in this State designed to remove the rights of Aboriginal people because they said that agreement could not be reached between mining and indigenous interests on mining development in this State. We said that it could be done - they doubted it. This Government recently put through this Parliament a Bill containing major amendments to the Mining Act; in fact, these were the most significant amendments in 25 years, which were agreed to by the Chamber of Minerals and Energy, by the Association of Mining and Exploration Companies and by five of the six native title bodies in Western Australia. That was not a bad policy position! For the first time, a coherent process is in place for dealing with a large backlog of mining leases in Western Australia. This will be done in a way that will not prejudice the interests of the traditional owners in this State. We said in opposition that a strong review of the approvals process was needed, and we said that an inquiry should be carried out. Do members remember the fun poked at us by members opposite who said, “You’re having another inquiry! Why are you having the inquiry? It’s a waste of time.” We instituted the inquiry called the Keating review, and 55 of its 56 recommendations have broadly been endorsed. What has the Opposition said in one of its recent discussion papers about the Keating inquiry? “We will implement the Keating review,” they say! They have come a long way. The Government has shown in those two areas that by working collaboratively, clearly and fairly with traditional owners and with industry, a good approach can be adopted to development in this State. Let us contrast that with the statements made by the Leader of the Opposition yesterday. The Leader of the Opposition outlined what his approach will be; namely, to confiscate lands held by traditional owners and to force traditional owners into courts to seek compensation. What sort of bitterness do members think that would create in Western Australia? What sort of writs of prohibitions and delay will be caused in Western Australia by that approach? What sort of a harmony will we have in Western Australia between traditional owners and those of us who have elected to make Australia our home? What sort of community will that be? What will the risks be when international investors look at the State and see project after project held up in the courts by writs of prohibition because members opposite want to confiscate land to which title is held or claimed by traditional owners? It is a disgrace. Frankly, if anyone thinks that is the way to go for economic development in this State, they still have the racist tendencies that should have disappeared with the 1967 referendum in Australia. Frankly, they are not about an inclusive society, and they do not accept the reality of today in which industry, traditional owners and sophisticated government can reach agreement and get on with the task of generating strong economic development in Western Australia, as proudly seen under the Gallop Government.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr C.M. BROWN replied: I am going to miss this place! (1)-(2) It is interesting to reflect on the past four years in that regard. Members will remember that during the coalition’s time in office, members opposite said that native title and mining would not mix. They introduced a racist piece of legislation in this State designed to remove the rights of Aboriginal people because they said that agreement could not be reached between mining and indigenous interests on mining development in this State. We said that it could be done - they doubted it. This Government recently put through this Parliament a Bill containing major amendments to the Mining Act; in fact, these were the most significant amendments in 25 years, which were agreed to by the Chamber of Minerals and Energy, by the Association of Mining and Exploration Companies and by five of the six native title bodies in Western Australia. That was not a bad policy position! For the first time, a coherent process is in place for dealing with a large backlog of mining leases in Western Australia. This will be done in a way that will not prejudice the interests of the traditional owners in this State. We said in opposition that a strong review of the approvals process was needed, and we said that an inquiry should be carried out. Do members remember the fun poked at us by members opposite who said, “You’re having another inquiry! Why are you having the inquiry? It’s a waste of time.” We instituted the inquiry called the Keating review, and 55 of its 56 recommendations have broadly been endorsed. What has the Opposition said in one of its recent discussion papers about the Keating inquiry? “We will implement the Keating review,” they say! They have come a long way. The Government has shown in those two areas that by working collaboratively, clearly and fairly with traditional owners and with industry, a good approach can be adopted to development in this State. Let us contrast that with the statements made by the Leader of the Opposition yesterday. The Leader of the Opposition outlined what his approach will be; namely, to confiscate lands held by traditional owners and to force traditional owners into courts to seek compensation. What sort of bitterness do members think that would create in Western Australia? What sort of writs of prohibitions and delay will be caused in Western Australia by that approach? What sort of a harmony will we have in Western Australia between traditional owners and those of us who have elected to make Australia our home? What sort of community will that be? What will the risks be when international investors look at the State and see project after project held up in the courts by writs of prohibition because members opposite want to confiscate land to which title is held or claimed by traditional owners? It is a disgrace. Frankly, if anyone thinks that is the way to go for economic development in this State, they still have the racist tendencies that should have disappeared with the 1967 referendum in Australia. Frankly, they are not about an inclusive society, and they do not accept the reality of today in which industry, traditional owners and sophisticated government can reach agreement and get on with the task of generating strong economic development in Western Australia, as proudly seen under the Gallop Government.
The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr C.M. BROWN replied: I am going to miss this place! (1)-(2) It is interesting to reflect on the past four years in that regard. Members will remember that during the coalition’s time in office, members opposite said that native title and mining would not mix. They introduced a racist piece of legislation in this State designed to remove the rights of Aboriginal people because they said that agreement could not be reached between mining and indigenous interests on mining development in this State. We said that it could be done - they doubted it. This Government recently put through this Parliament a Bill containing major amendments to the Mining Act; in fact, these were the most significant amendments in 25 years, which were agreed to by the Chamber of Minerals and Energy, by the Association of Mining and Exploration Companies and by five of the six native title bodies in Western Australia. That was not a bad policy position! For the first time, a coherent process is in place for dealing with a large backlog of mining leases in Western Australia. This will be done in a way that will not prejudice the interests of the traditional owners in this State. We said in opposition that a strong review of the approvals process was needed, and we said that an inquiry should be carried out. Do members remember the fun poked at us by members opposite who said, “You’re having another inquiry! Why are you having the inquiry? It’s a waste of time.” We instituted the inquiry called the Keating review, and 55 of its 56 recommendations have broadly been endorsed. What has the Opposition said in one of its recent discussion papers about the Keating inquiry? “We will implement the Keating review,” they say! They have come a long way. The Government has shown in those two areas that by working collaboratively, clearly and fairly with traditional owners and with industry, a good approach can be adopted to development in this State. Let us contrast that with the statements made by the Leader of the Opposition yesterday. The Leader of the Opposition outlined what his approach will be; namely, to confiscate lands held by traditional owners and to force traditional owners into courts to seek compensation. What sort of bitterness do members think that would create in Western Australia? What sort of writs of prohibitions and delay will be caused in Western Australia by that approach? What sort of a harmony will we have in Western Australia between traditional owners and those of us who have elected to make Australia our home? What sort of community will that be? What will the risks be when international investors look at the State and see project after project held up in the courts by writs of prohibition because members opposite want to confiscate land to which title is held or claimed by traditional owners? It is a disgrace. Frankly, if anyone thinks that is the way to go for economic development in this State, they still have the racist tendencies that should have disappeared with the 1967 referendum in Australia. Frankly, they are not about an inclusive society, and they do not accept the reality of today in which industry, traditional owners and sophisticated government can reach agreement and get on with the task of generating strong economic development in Western Australia, as proudly seen under the Gallop Government.
Mr C.M. BROWN replied: I am going to miss this place! (1)-(2) It is interesting to reflect on the past four years in that regard. Members will remember that during the coalition’s time in office, members opposite said that native title and mining would not mix. They introduced a racist piece of legislation in this State designed to remove the rights of Aboriginal people because they said that agreement could not be reached between mining and indigenous interests on mining development in this State. We said that it could be done - they doubted it. This Government recently put through this Parliament a Bill containing major amendments to the Mining Act; in fact, these were the most significant amendments in 25 years, which were agreed to by the Chamber of Minerals and Energy, by the Association of Mining and Exploration Companies and by five of the six native title bodies in Western Australia. That was not a bad policy position! For the first time, a coherent process is in place for dealing with a large backlog of mining leases in Western Australia. This will be done in a way that will not prejudice the interests of the traditional owners in this State. We said in opposition that a strong review of the approvals process was needed, and we said that an inquiry should be carried out. Do members remember the fun poked at us by members opposite who said, “You’re having another inquiry! Why are you having the inquiry? It’s a waste of time.” We instituted the inquiry called the Keating review, and 55 of its 56 recommendations have broadly been endorsed. What has the Opposition said in one of its recent discussion papers about the Keating inquiry? “We will implement the Keating review,” they say! They have come a long way. The Government has shown in those two areas that by working collaboratively, clearly and fairly with traditional owners and with industry, a good approach can be adopted to development in this State. Let us contrast that with the statements made by the Leader of the Opposition yesterday. The Leader of the Opposition outlined what his approach will be; namely, to confiscate lands held by traditional owners and to force traditional owners into courts to seek compensation. What sort of bitterness do members think that would create in Western Australia? What sort of writs of prohibitions and delay will be caused in Western Australia by that approach? What sort of a harmony will we have in Western Australia between traditional owners and those of us who have elected to make Australia our home? What sort of community will that be? What will the risks be when international investors look at the State and see project after project held up in the courts by writs of prohibition because members opposite want to confiscate land to which title is held or claimed by traditional owners? It is a disgrace. Frankly, if anyone thinks that is the way to go for economic development in this State, they still have the racist tendencies that should have disappeared with the 1967 referendum in Australia. Frankly, they are not about an inclusive society, and they do not accept the reality of today in which industry, traditional owners and sophisticated government can reach agreement and get on with the task of generating strong economic development in Western Australia, as proudly seen under the Gallop Government.
I am going to miss this place! (1)-(2) It is interesting to reflect on the past four years in that regard. Members will remember that during the coalition’s time in office, members opposite said that native title and mining would not mix. They introduced a racist piece of legislation in this State designed to remove the rights of Aboriginal people because they said that agreement could not be reached between mining and indigenous interests on mining development in this State. We said that it could be done - they doubted it. This Government recently put through this Parliament a Bill containing major amendments to the Mining Act; in fact, these were the most significant amendments in 25 years, which were agreed to by the Chamber of Minerals and Energy, by the Association of Mining and Exploration Companies and by five of the six native title bodies in Western Australia. That was not a bad policy position! For the first time, a coherent process is in place for dealing with a large backlog of mining leases in Western Australia. This will be done in a way that will not prejudice the interests of the traditional owners in this State. We said in opposition that a strong review of the approvals process was needed, and we said that an inquiry should be carried out. Do members remember the fun poked at us by members opposite who said, “You’re having another inquiry! Why are you having the inquiry? It’s a waste of time.” We instituted the inquiry called the Keating review, and 55 of its 56 recommendations have broadly been endorsed. What has the Opposition said in one of its recent discussion papers about the Keating inquiry? “We will implement the Keating review,” they say! They have come a long way. The Government has shown in those two areas that by working collaboratively, clearly and fairly with traditional owners and with industry, a good approach can be adopted to development in this State. Let us contrast that with the statements made by the Leader of the Opposition yesterday. The Leader of the Opposition outlined what his approach will be; namely, to confiscate lands held by traditional owners and to force traditional owners into courts to seek compensation. What sort of bitterness do members think that would create in Western Australia? What sort of writs of prohibitions and delay will be caused in Western Australia by that approach? What sort of a harmony will we have in Western Australia between traditional owners and those of us who have elected to make Australia our home? What sort of community will that be? What will the risks be when international investors look at the State and see project after project held up in the courts by writs of prohibition because members opposite want to confiscate land to which title is held or claimed by traditional owners? It is a disgrace. Frankly, if anyone thinks that is the way to go for economic development in this State, they still have the racist tendencies that should have disappeared with the 1967 referendum in Australia. Frankly, they are not about an inclusive society, and they do not accept the reality of today in which industry, traditional owners and sophisticated government can reach agreement and get on with the task of generating strong economic development in Western Australia, as proudly seen under the Gallop Government.
(1)-(2) It is interesting to reflect on the past four years in that regard. Members will remember that during the coalition’s time in office, members opposite said that native title and mining would not mix. They introduced a racist piece of legislation in this State designed to remove the rights of Aboriginal people because they said that agreement could not be reached between mining and indigenous interests on mining development in this State. We said that it could be done - they doubted it. This Government recently put through this Parliament a Bill containing major amendments to the Mining Act; in fact, these were the most significant amendments in 25 years, which were agreed to by the Chamber of Minerals and Energy, by the Association of Mining and Exploration Companies and by five of the six native title bodies in Western Australia. That was not a bad policy position! For the first time, a coherent process is in place for dealing with a large backlog of mining leases in Western Australia. This will be done in a way that will not prejudice the interests of the traditional owners in this State. We said in opposition that a strong review of the approvals process was needed, and we said that an inquiry should be carried out. Do members remember the fun poked at us by members opposite who said, “You’re having another inquiry! Why are you having the inquiry? It’s a waste of time.” We instituted the inquiry called the Keating review, and 55 of its 56 recommendations have broadly been endorsed. What has the Opposition said in one of its recent discussion papers about the Keating inquiry? “We will implement the Keating review,” they say! They have come a long way. The Government has shown in those two areas that by working collaboratively, clearly and fairly with traditional owners and with industry, a good approach can be adopted to development in this State. Let us contrast that with the statements made by the Leader of the Opposition yesterday. The Leader of the Opposition outlined what his approach will be; namely, to confiscate lands held by traditional owners and to force traditional owners into courts to seek compensation. What sort of bitterness do members think that would create in Western Australia? What sort of writs of prohibitions and delay will be caused in Western Australia by that approach? What sort of a harmony will we have in Western Australia between traditional owners and those of us who have elected to make Australia our home? What sort of community will that be? What will the risks be when international investors look at the State and see project after project held up in the courts by writs of prohibition because members opposite want to confiscate land to which title is held or claimed by traditional owners? It is a disgrace. Frankly, if anyone thinks that is the way to go for economic development in this State, they still have the racist tendencies that should have disappeared with the 1967 referendum in Australia. Frankly, they are not about an inclusive society, and they do not accept the reality of today in which industry, traditional owners and sophisticated government can reach agreement and get on with the task of generating strong economic development in Western Australia, as proudly seen under the Gallop Government.
Let us contrast that with the statements made by the Leader of the Opposition yesterday. The Leader of the Opposition outlined what his approach will be; namely, to confiscate lands held by traditional owners and to force traditional owners into courts to seek compensation. What sort of bitterness do members think that would create in Western Australia? What sort of writs of prohibitions and delay will be caused in Western Australia by that approach? What sort of a harmony will we have in Western Australia between traditional owners and those of us who have elected to make Australia our home? What sort of community will that be? What will the risks be when international investors look at the State and see project after project held up in the courts by writs of prohibition because members opposite want to confiscate land to which title is held or claimed by traditional owners? It is a disgrace. Frankly, if anyone thinks that is the way to go for economic development in this State, they still have the racist tendencies that should have disappeared with the 1967 referendum in Australia. Frankly, they are not about an inclusive society, and they do not accept the reality of today in which industry, traditional owners and sophisticated government can reach agreement and get on with the task of generating strong economic development in Western Australia, as proudly seen under the Gallop Government.
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.