❓ Mr Bowler asks about native title settlement funding. Mr Porter responds, criticising the Commonwealth government for reneging on a deal to fund 75% of native title compensation costs, potentially costing WA over $1 billion.
AnsweredQoN 859Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
NATIVE TITLE SETTLEMENTS — FUNDING
Can the Attorney General please provide an update on the most significant funding issue involving native title settlements in Western Australia? Mr C.C. PORTER
Can the Attorney General please provide an update on the most significant funding issue involving native title settlements in Western Australia? Mr C.C. PORTER
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for his question. I know that this is an enormous issue in his electorate. This matter was raised by the Premier last week. It relates to the commonwealth government reneging on a deal that it had with the states on native title. By way of background, there are now more than 910 000 square metres of determined land in WA, and that amount of determined land will increase. That is an area larger than the entire state of South Australia. Mrs M.H. Roberts : Do you mean metres or kilometres? Mr C.C. PORTER : Sorry; square kilometres. The member is quite right. I should always defer to her better judgement on these matters of accuracy. Other than the issue of the goods and services tax, this is the most significant state–federal financial issue facing the state. This is a $1 billion plus issue going into the future for WA. The lack of media attention to it so far has been absolutely astonishing, though probably not as astonishing as the issue itself. In the hope of generating a bit more interest in this issue, with the Premier’s permission, I will table some letters today involving correspondence between Prime Ministers and Premiers of this state. In about August 2009 the commonwealth Attorney-General, in effect, advised me by letter, and later at a native title ministers’ meeting, that there would be a suspension of the deal that had been reached between the states and the commonwealth. We thought at that stage that that was a suspension. The concept put by the commonwealth Attorney-General at that stage was that the suspension was necessary because of the global financial crisis in 2009. What was the deal that was going to be suspended? I can explain that by tabling two letters today. The first is a letter of 3 February 1994 that came from the then Prime Minister, Paul Keating, to Richard Court. In that letter the Prime Minister said to the Premier of WA at the time that the commonwealth would bear “the lion’s share of the burden” for compensating for native title. In fact, the argument at that stage was whether or not the commonwealth should fund 100 per cent of the compensation costs for native title. Perhaps Prime Minister Keating had a point when he said that a 100 per cent commonwealth contribution would leave no financial restraint on the part of the states in negotiating settlement costs. The offer made by Paul Keating to Richard Court was that the commonwealth would fund up to 75 per cent of the compensation costs arising from the validation of past acts—75 per cent commonwealth money to compensate for past acts on determined native title land. I will table that letter. [See paper 4318.] Mr C.C. PORTER : Many letters follow, but the next key letter is dated 22 August 1998 from then Prime Minister Howard to then Premier Richard Court, which, again, is very clear in its terms. That said that the offer made, and the accepted offer by the state, was that the commonwealth would fund 75 per cent of all future native title compensation as well as validation of past acts, so it was a slightly better deal than was offered by Paul Keating, and it was accepted by the state. [See paper 4317.] Mr C.C. PORTER : In the view of this state government and any reasonable person looking at that correspondence, those two letters evidence a formal agreement of the basic principles, which were to govern the settlement and compensation of native title claims. That much is absolutely clear. On 23 May 2011 a further letter went to our present Premier from the present Prime Minister. In that, the present Prime Minister says — Western Australia’s claim appears to be based on a September 1998 Western Australia agreement to a Commonwealth offer of financial assistance to pay 75 per cent of state and territory native title compensation costs. Well, yes, that was exactly it. The Prime Minister then goes on to say — It is clear from the correspondence that what was agreed then was an outline of a revised offer that was subject to a final agreement being reached. I will table that letter. [See paper 4319.] Mr C.C. PORTER : The present Prime Minister of Australia now says that what was agreed in these letters never became formalised into a financial assistance agreement and, therefore, can now be ignored. Mr E.S. Ripper : That is very bad news. Mr C.J. Barnett : That is what I said to you a week ago and you denied it. Mr E.S. Ripper : No, I didn’t deny it; I pointed out the offer made by John Howard. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Leader of the Opposition! Premier! Mr C.C. PORTER : We are in furious agreement. It is nothing short of scandalous. These were not preliminary offers from haggling undertaken at officer level; they represent an outcome agreed at the highest levels of Australian government—an agreement concerning the most fundamental terms of the final document, which we now await to be drafted. These offers by the commonwealth, it is important to also understand, were absolutely instrumental in securing the support of this state and every other state in Australia to both the Native Title Act 1993 and the critical amendments made to it in 1998. I will table a final letter from the Prime Minister of the Australian nation in which she says now that the commonwealth bears “no legal or other obligation to Western Australia for the cost of native title compensation and settlements”. [See paper 4320.] Mr C.C. PORTER : I have two quick observations about that. The first is that this was originally put to the states on the basis that it would be a temporary cessation of an agreement made because of the global financial crisis. The first obvious point is that there was no reason to have even a temporary cessation of this agreement. If the commonwealth was actually posing a temporary reneging, based on a financial consideration of the GFC, the reality is that those very same financial impediments affect the states at the same time. Native title is a reality that has to be compensated. The second thing, and what is absolutely scandalous about this situation, is that the commonwealth legislated to confer rights that have led to the states and territories incurring and being exposed to immense financial cost. This state agreed to that on a commonwealth promise and acknowledgement by the commonwealth that it would bear the lion’s share of the cost, and in one letter the Prime Minister simply and breathlessly reneges on that agreement. I will table this interesting letter from our own Premier to the Prime Minister. [See paper 4321.] Mr C.C. PORTER : As things presently stand in this state, based on that 75 per cent agreement, the commonwealth debt is $241 333 466. That is a debt that the commonwealth owes this state. What really sticks in the craw of this government is watching the Prime Minister publicly speak about closing the gap when she has turned her back on native title—turn her back on the compensation for native title. What we are now facing, members opposite, is the process of negotiating under the auspices of the Single Noongar claim for the south west, and their Prime Minister—the Prime Minister of this nation, the leader of their party—has promised us that she will break the promise that has been made by successive Prime Ministers and said that she is unwilling to contribute to that agreement going forward. That agreement will not go forward without the commonwealth’s assistance and without the commonwealth making good on its promise.
Mr C.C. PORTER replied: I thank the member for his question. I know that this is an enormous issue in his electorate. This matter was raised by the Premier last week. It relates to the commonwealth government reneging on a deal that it had with the states on native title. By way of background, there are now more than 910 000 square metres of determined land in WA, and that amount of determined land will increase. That is an area larger than the entire state of South Australia. Mrs M.H. Roberts : Do you mean metres or kilometres? Mr C.C. PORTER : Sorry; square kilometres. The member is quite right. I should always defer to her better judgement on these matters of accuracy. Other than the issue of the goods and services tax, this is the most significant state–federal financial issue facing the state. This is a $1 billion plus issue going into the future for WA. The lack of media attention to it so far has been absolutely astonishing, though probably not as astonishing as the issue itself. In the hope of generating a bit more interest in this issue, with the Premier’s permission, I will table some letters today involving correspondence between Prime Ministers and Premiers of this state. In about August 2009 the commonwealth Attorney-General, in effect, advised me by letter, and later at a native title ministers’ meeting, that there would be a suspension of the deal that had been reached between the states and the commonwealth. We thought at that stage that that was a suspension. The concept put by the commonwealth Attorney-General at that stage was that the suspension was necessary because of the global financial crisis in 2009. What was the deal that was going to be suspended? I can explain that by tabling two letters today. The first is a letter of 3 February 1994 that came from the then Prime Minister, Paul Keating, to Richard Court. In that letter the Prime Minister said to the Premier of WA at the time that the commonwealth would bear “the lion’s share of the burden” for compensating for native title. In fact, the argument at that stage was whether or not the commonwealth should fund 100 per cent of the compensation costs for native title. Perhaps Prime Minister Keating had a point when he said that a 100 per cent commonwealth contribution would leave no financial restraint on the part of the states in negotiating settlement costs. The offer made by Paul Keating to Richard Court was that the commonwealth would fund up to 75 per cent of the compensation costs arising from the validation of past acts—75 per cent commonwealth money to compensate for past acts on determined native title land. I will table that letter. [See paper 4318.] Mr C.C. PORTER : Many letters follow, but the next key letter is dated 22 August 1998 from then Prime Minister Howard to then Premier Richard Court, which, again, is very clear in its terms. That said that the offer made, and the accepted offer by the state, was that the commonwealth would fund 75 per cent of all future native title compensation as well as validation of past acts, so it was a slightly better deal than was offered by Paul Keating, and it was accepted by the state. [See paper 4317.] Mr C.C. PORTER : In the view of this state government and any reasonable person looking at that correspondence, those two letters evidence a formal agreement of the basic principles, which were to govern the settlement and compensation of native title claims. That much is absolutely clear. On 23 May 2011 a further letter went to our present Premier from the present Prime Minister. In that, the present Prime Minister says — Western Australia’s claim appears to be based on a September 1998 Western Australia agreement to a Commonwealth offer of financial assistance to pay 75 per cent of state and territory native title compensation costs. Well, yes, that was exactly it. The Prime Minister then goes on to say — It is clear from the correspondence that what was agreed then was an outline of a revised offer that was subject to a final agreement being reached. I will table that letter. [See paper 4319.] Mr C.C. PORTER : The present Prime Minister of Australia now says that what was agreed in these letters never became formalised into a financial assistance agreement and, therefore, can now be ignored. Mr E.S. Ripper : That is very bad news. Mr C.J. Barnett : That is what I said to you a week ago and you denied it. Mr E.S. Ripper : No, I didn’t deny it; I pointed out the offer made by John Howard. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Leader of the Opposition! Premier! Mr C.C. PORTER : We are in furious agreement. It is nothing short of scandalous. These were not preliminary offers from haggling undertaken at officer level; they represent an outcome agreed at the highest levels of Australian government—an agreement concerning the most fundamental terms of the final document, which we now await to be drafted. These offers by the commonwealth, it is important to also understand, were absolutely instrumental in securing the support of this state and every other state in Australia to both the Native Title Act 1993 and the critical amendments made to it in 1998. I will table a final letter from the Prime Minister of the Australian nation in which she says now that the commonwealth bears “no legal or other obligation to Western Australia for the cost of native title compensation and settlements”. [See paper 4320.] Mr C.C. PORTER : I have two quick observations about that. The first is that this was originally put to the states on the basis that it would be a temporary cessation of an agreement made because of the global financial crisis. The first obvious point is that there was no reason to have even a temporary cessation of this agreement. If the commonwealth was actually posing a temporary reneging, based on a financial consideration of the GFC, the reality is that those very same financial impediments affect the states at the same time. Native title is a reality that has to be compensated. The second thing, and what is absolutely scandalous about this situation, is that the commonwealth legislated to confer rights that have led to the states and territories incurring and being exposed to immense financial cost. This state agreed to that on a commonwealth promise and acknowledgement by the commonwealth that it would bear the lion’s share of the cost, and in one letter the Prime Minister simply and breathlessly reneges on that agreement. I will table this interesting letter from our own Premier to the Prime Minister. [See paper 4321.] Mr C.C. PORTER : As things presently stand in this state, based on that 75 per cent agreement, the commonwealth debt is $241 333 466. That is a debt that the commonwealth owes this state. What really sticks in the craw of this government is watching the Prime Minister publicly speak about closing the gap when she has turned her back on native title—turn her back on the compensation for native title. What we are now facing, members opposite, is the process of negotiating under the auspices of the Single Noongar claim for the south west, and their Prime Minister—the Prime Minister of this nation, the leader of their party—has promised us that she will break the promise that has been made by successive Prime Ministers and said that she is unwilling to contribute to that agreement going forward. That agreement will not go forward without the commonwealth’s assistance and without the commonwealth making good on its promise.
I thank the member for his question. I know that this is an enormous issue in his electorate. This matter was raised by the Premier last week. It relates to the commonwealth government reneging on a deal that it had with the states on native title. By way of background, there are now more than 910 000 square metres of determined land in WA, and that amount of determined land will increase. That is an area larger than the entire state of South Australia. Mrs M.H. Roberts : Do you mean metres or kilometres? Mr C.C. PORTER : Sorry; square kilometres. The member is quite right. I should always defer to her better judgement on these matters of accuracy. Other than the issue of the goods and services tax, this is the most significant state–federal financial issue facing the state. This is a $1 billion plus issue going into the future for WA. The lack of media attention to it so far has been absolutely astonishing, though probably not as astonishing as the issue itself. In the hope of generating a bit more interest in this issue, with the Premier’s permission, I will table some letters today involving correspondence between Prime Ministers and Premiers of this state. In about August 2009 the commonwealth Attorney-General, in effect, advised me by letter, and later at a native title ministers’ meeting, that there would be a suspension of the deal that had been reached between the states and the commonwealth. We thought at that stage that that was a suspension. The concept put by the commonwealth Attorney-General at that stage was that the suspension was necessary because of the global financial crisis in 2009. What was the deal that was going to be suspended? I can explain that by tabling two letters today. The first is a letter of 3 February 1994 that came from the then Prime Minister, Paul Keating, to Richard Court. In that letter the Prime Minister said to the Premier of WA at the time that the commonwealth would bear “the lion’s share of the burden” for compensating for native title. In fact, the argument at that stage was whether or not the commonwealth should fund 100 per cent of the compensation costs for native title. Perhaps Prime Minister Keating had a point when he said that a 100 per cent commonwealth contribution would leave no financial restraint on the part of the states in negotiating settlement costs. The offer made by Paul Keating to Richard Court was that the commonwealth would fund up to 75 per cent of the compensation costs arising from the validation of past acts—75 per cent commonwealth money to compensate for past acts on determined native title land. I will table that letter. [See paper 4318.] Mr C.C. PORTER : Many letters follow, but the next key letter is dated 22 August 1998 from then Prime Minister Howard to then Premier Richard Court, which, again, is very clear in its terms. That said that the offer made, and the accepted offer by the state, was that the commonwealth would fund 75 per cent of all future native title compensation as well as validation of past acts, so it was a slightly better deal than was offered by Paul Keating, and it was accepted by the state. [See paper 4317.] Mr C.C. PORTER : In the view of this state government and any reasonable person looking at that correspondence, those two letters evidence a formal agreement of the basic principles, which were to govern the settlement and compensation of native title claims. That much is absolutely clear. On 23 May 2011 a further letter went to our present Premier from the present Prime Minister. In that, the present Prime Minister says — Western Australia’s claim appears to be based on a September 1998 Western Australia agreement to a Commonwealth offer of financial assistance to pay 75 per cent of state and territory native title compensation costs. Well, yes, that was exactly it. The Prime Minister then goes on to say — It is clear from the correspondence that what was agreed then was an outline of a revised offer that was subject to a final agreement being reached. I will table that letter. [See paper 4319.] Mr C.C. PORTER : The present Prime Minister of Australia now says that what was agreed in these letters never became formalised into a financial assistance agreement and, therefore, can now be ignored. Mr E.S. Ripper : That is very bad news. Mr C.J. Barnett : That is what I said to you a week ago and you denied it. Mr E.S. Ripper : No, I didn’t deny it; I pointed out the offer made by John Howard. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Leader of the Opposition! Premier! Mr C.C. PORTER : We are in furious agreement. It is nothing short of scandalous. These were not preliminary offers from haggling undertaken at officer level; they represent an outcome agreed at the highest levels of Australian government—an agreement concerning the most fundamental terms of the final document, which we now await to be drafted. These offers by the commonwealth, it is important to also understand, were absolutely instrumental in securing the support of this state and every other state in Australia to both the Native Title Act 1993 and the critical amendments made to it in 1998. I will table a final letter from the Prime Minister of the Australian nation in which she says now that the commonwealth bears “no legal or other obligation to Western Australia for the cost of native title compensation and settlements”. [See paper 4320.] Mr C.C. PORTER : I have two quick observations about that. The first is that this was originally put to the states on the basis that it would be a temporary cessation of an agreement made because of the global financial crisis. The first obvious point is that there was no reason to have even a temporary cessation of this agreement. If the commonwealth was actually posing a temporary reneging, based on a financial consideration of the GFC, the reality is that those very same financial impediments affect the states at the same time. Native title is a reality that has to be compensated. The second thing, and what is absolutely scandalous about this situation, is that the commonwealth legislated to confer rights that have led to the states and territories incurring and being exposed to immense financial cost. This state agreed to that on a commonwealth promise and acknowledgement by the commonwealth that it would bear the lion’s share of the cost, and in one letter the Prime Minister simply and breathlessly reneges on that agreement. I will table this interesting letter from our own Premier to the Prime Minister. [See paper 4321.] Mr C.C. PORTER : As things presently stand in this state, based on that 75 per cent agreement, the commonwealth debt is $241 333 466. That is a debt that the commonwealth owes this state. What really sticks in the craw of this government is watching the Prime Minister publicly speak about closing the gap when she has turned her back on native title—turn her back on the compensation for native title. What we are now facing, members opposite, is the process of negotiating under the auspices of the Single Noongar claim for the south west, and their Prime Minister—the Prime Minister of this nation, the leader of their party—has promised us that she will break the promise that has been made by successive Prime Ministers and said that she is unwilling to contribute to that agreement going forward. That agreement will not go forward without the commonwealth’s assistance and without the commonwealth making good on its promise.
Mrs M.H. Roberts : Do you mean metres or kilometres? Mr C.C. PORTER : Sorry; square kilometres. The member is quite right. I should always defer to her better judgement on these matters of accuracy. Other than the issue of the goods and services tax, this is the most significant state–federal financial issue facing the state. This is a $1 billion plus issue going into the future for WA. The lack of media attention to it so far has been absolutely astonishing, though probably not as astonishing as the issue itself. In the hope of generating a bit more interest in this issue, with the Premier’s permission, I will table some letters today involving correspondence between Prime Ministers and Premiers of this state. In about August 2009 the commonwealth Attorney-General, in effect, advised me by letter, and later at a native title ministers’ meeting, that there would be a suspension of the deal that had been reached between the states and the commonwealth. We thought at that stage that that was a suspension. The concept put by the commonwealth Attorney-General at that stage was that the suspension was necessary because of the global financial crisis in 2009. What was the deal that was going to be suspended? I can explain that by tabling two letters today. The first is a letter of 3 February 1994 that came from the then Prime Minister, Paul Keating, to Richard Court. In that letter the Prime Minister said to the Premier of WA at the time that the commonwealth would bear “the lion’s share of the burden” for compensating for native title. In fact, the argument at that stage was whether or not the commonwealth should fund 100 per cent of the compensation costs for native title. Perhaps Prime Minister Keating had a point when he said that a 100 per cent commonwealth contribution would leave no financial restraint on the part of the states in negotiating settlement costs. The offer made by Paul Keating to Richard Court was that the commonwealth would fund up to 75 per cent of the compensation costs arising from the validation of past acts—75 per cent commonwealth money to compensate for past acts on determined native title land. I will table that letter. [See paper 4318.] Mr C.C. PORTER : Many letters follow, but the next key letter is dated 22 August 1998 from then Prime Minister Howard to then Premier Richard Court, which, again, is very clear in its terms. That said that the offer made, and the accepted offer by the state, was that the commonwealth would fund 75 per cent of all future native title compensation as well as validation of past acts, so it was a slightly better deal than was offered by Paul Keating, and it was accepted by the state. [See paper 4317.] Mr C.C. PORTER : In the view of this state government and any reasonable person looking at that correspondence, those two letters evidence a formal agreement of the basic principles, which were to govern the settlement and compensation of native title claims. That much is absolutely clear. On 23 May 2011 a further letter went to our present Premier from the present Prime Minister. In that, the present Prime Minister says — Western Australia’s claim appears to be based on a September 1998 Western Australia agreement to a Commonwealth offer of financial assistance to pay 75 per cent of state and territory native title compensation costs. Well, yes, that was exactly it. The Prime Minister then goes on to say — It is clear from the correspondence that what was agreed then was an outline of a revised offer that was subject to a final agreement being reached. I will table that letter. [See paper 4319.] Mr C.C. PORTER : The present Prime Minister of Australia now says that what was agreed in these letters never became formalised into a financial assistance agreement and, therefore, can now be ignored. Mr E.S. Ripper : That is very bad news. Mr C.J. Barnett : That is what I said to you a week ago and you denied it. Mr E.S. Ripper : No, I didn’t deny it; I pointed out the offer made by John Howard. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Leader of the Opposition! Premier! Mr C.C. PORTER : We are in furious agreement. It is nothing short of scandalous. These were not preliminary offers from haggling undertaken at officer level; they represent an outcome agreed at the highest levels of Australian government—an agreement concerning the most fundamental terms of the final document, which we now await to be drafted. These offers by the commonwealth, it is important to also understand, were absolutely instrumental in securing the support of this state and every other state in Australia to both the Native Title Act 1993 and the critical amendments made to it in 1998. I will table a final letter from the Prime Minister of the Australian nation in which she says now that the commonwealth bears “no legal or other obligation to Western Australia for the cost of native title compensation and settlements”. [See paper 4320.] Mr C.C. PORTER : I have two quick observations about that. The first is that this was originally put to the states on the basis that it would be a temporary cessation of an agreement made because of the global financial crisis. The first obvious point is that there was no reason to have even a temporary cessation of this agreement. If the commonwealth was actually posing a temporary reneging, based on a financial consideration of the GFC, the reality is that those very same financial impediments affect the states at the same time. Native title is a reality that has to be compensated. The second thing, and what is absolutely scandalous about this situation, is that the commonwealth legislated to confer rights that have led to the states and territories incurring and being exposed to immense financial cost. This state agreed to that on a commonwealth promise and acknowledgement by the commonwealth that it would bear the lion’s share of the cost, and in one letter the Prime Minister simply and breathlessly reneges on that agreement. I will table this interesting letter from our own Premier to the Prime Minister. [See paper 4321.] Mr C.C. PORTER : As things presently stand in this state, based on that 75 per cent agreement, the commonwealth debt is $241 333 466. That is a debt that the commonwealth owes this state. What really sticks in the craw of this government is watching the Prime Minister publicly speak about closing the gap when she has turned her back on native title—turn her back on the compensation for native title. What we are now facing, members opposite, is the process of negotiating under the auspices of the Single Noongar claim for the south west, and their Prime Minister—the Prime Minister of this nation, the leader of their party—has promised us that she will break the promise that has been made by successive Prime Ministers and said that she is unwilling to contribute to that agreement going forward. That agreement will not go forward without the commonwealth’s assistance and without the commonwealth making good on its promise.
Mr C.C. PORTER : Sorry; square kilometres. The member is quite right. I should always defer to her better judgement on these matters of accuracy. Other than the issue of the goods and services tax, this is the most significant state–federal financial issue facing the state. This is a $1 billion plus issue going into the future for WA. The lack of media attention to it so far has been absolutely astonishing, though probably not as astonishing as the issue itself. In the hope of generating a bit more interest in this issue, with the Premier’s permission, I will table some letters today involving correspondence between Prime Ministers and Premiers of this state. In about August 2009 the commonwealth Attorney-General, in effect, advised me by letter, and later at a native title ministers’ meeting, that there would be a suspension of the deal that had been reached between the states and the commonwealth. We thought at that stage that that was a suspension. The concept put by the commonwealth Attorney-General at that stage was that the suspension was necessary because of the global financial crisis in 2009. What was the deal that was going to be suspended? I can explain that by tabling two letters today. The first is a letter of 3 February 1994 that came from the then Prime Minister, Paul Keating, to Richard Court. In that letter the Prime Minister said to the Premier of WA at the time that the commonwealth would bear “the lion’s share of the burden” for compensating for native title. In fact, the argument at that stage was whether or not the commonwealth should fund 100 per cent of the compensation costs for native title. Perhaps Prime Minister Keating had a point when he said that a 100 per cent commonwealth contribution would leave no financial restraint on the part of the states in negotiating settlement costs. The offer made by Paul Keating to Richard Court was that the commonwealth would fund up to 75 per cent of the compensation costs arising from the validation of past acts—75 per cent commonwealth money to compensate for past acts on determined native title land. I will table that letter. [See paper 4318.] Mr C.C. PORTER : Many letters follow, but the next key letter is dated 22 August 1998 from then Prime Minister Howard to then Premier Richard Court, which, again, is very clear in its terms. That said that the offer made, and the accepted offer by the state, was that the commonwealth would fund 75 per cent of all future native title compensation as well as validation of past acts, so it was a slightly better deal than was offered by Paul Keating, and it was accepted by the state. [See paper 4317.] Mr C.C. PORTER : In the view of this state government and any reasonable person looking at that correspondence, those two letters evidence a formal agreement of the basic principles, which were to govern the settlement and compensation of native title claims. That much is absolutely clear. On 23 May 2011 a further letter went to our present Premier from the present Prime Minister. In that, the present Prime Minister says — Western Australia’s claim appears to be based on a September 1998 Western Australia agreement to a Commonwealth offer of financial assistance to pay 75 per cent of state and territory native title compensation costs. Well, yes, that was exactly it. The Prime Minister then goes on to say — It is clear from the correspondence that what was agreed then was an outline of a revised offer that was subject to a final agreement being reached. I will table that letter. [See paper 4319.] Mr C.C. PORTER : The present Prime Minister of Australia now says that what was agreed in these letters never became formalised into a financial assistance agreement and, therefore, can now be ignored. Mr E.S. Ripper : That is very bad news. Mr C.J. Barnett : That is what I said to you a week ago and you denied it. Mr E.S. Ripper : No, I didn’t deny it; I pointed out the offer made by John Howard. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Leader of the Opposition! Premier! Mr C.C. PORTER : We are in furious agreement. It is nothing short of scandalous. These were not preliminary offers from haggling undertaken at officer level; they represent an outcome agreed at the highest levels of Australian government—an agreement concerning the most fundamental terms of the final document, which we now await to be drafted. These offers by the commonwealth, it is important to also understand, were absolutely instrumental in securing the support of this state and every other state in Australia to both the Native Title Act 1993 and the critical amendments made to it in 1998. I will table a final letter from the Prime Minister of the Australian nation in which she says now that the commonwealth bears “no legal or other obligation to Western Australia for the cost of native title compensation and settlements”. [See paper 4320.] Mr C.C. PORTER : I have two quick observations about that. The first is that this was originally put to the states on the basis that it would be a temporary cessation of an agreement made because of the global financial crisis. The first obvious point is that there was no reason to have even a temporary cessation of this agreement. If the commonwealth was actually posing a temporary reneging, based on a financial consideration of the GFC, the reality is that those very same financial impediments affect the states at the same time. Native title is a reality that has to be compensated. The second thing, and what is absolutely scandalous about this situation, is that the commonwealth legislated to confer rights that have led to the states and territories incurring and being exposed to immense financial cost. This state agreed to that on a commonwealth promise and acknowledgement by the commonwealth that it would bear the lion’s share of the cost, and in one letter the Prime Minister simply and breathlessly reneges on that agreement. I will table this interesting letter from our own Premier to the Prime Minister. [See paper 4321.] Mr C.C. PORTER : As things presently stand in this state, based on that 75 per cent agreement, the commonwealth debt is $241 333 466. That is a debt that the commonwealth owes this state. What really sticks in the craw of this government is watching the Prime Minister publicly speak about closing the gap when she has turned her back on native title—turn her back on the compensation for native title. What we are now facing, members opposite, is the process of negotiating under the auspices of the Single Noongar claim for the south west, and their Prime Minister—the Prime Minister of this nation, the leader of their party—has promised us that she will break the promise that has been made by successive Prime Ministers and said that she is unwilling to contribute to that agreement going forward. That agreement will not go forward without the commonwealth’s assistance and without the commonwealth making good on its promise.
Other than the issue of the goods and services tax, this is the most significant state–federal financial issue facing the state. This is a $1 billion plus issue going into the future for WA. The lack of media attention to it so far has been absolutely astonishing, though probably not as astonishing as the issue itself. In the hope of generating a bit more interest in this issue, with the Premier’s permission, I will table some letters today involving correspondence between Prime Ministers and Premiers of this state. In about August 2009 the commonwealth Attorney-General, in effect, advised me by letter, and later at a native title ministers’ meeting, that there would be a suspension of the deal that had been reached between the states and the commonwealth. We thought at that stage that that was a suspension. The concept put by the commonwealth Attorney-General at that stage was that the suspension was necessary because of the global financial crisis in 2009. What was the deal that was going to be suspended? I can explain that by tabling two letters today. The first is a letter of 3 February 1994 that came from the then Prime Minister, Paul Keating, to Richard Court. In that letter the Prime Minister said to the Premier of WA at the time that the commonwealth would bear “the lion’s share of the burden” for compensating for native title. In fact, the argument at that stage was whether or not the commonwealth should fund 100 per cent of the compensation costs for native title. Perhaps Prime Minister Keating had a point when he said that a 100 per cent commonwealth contribution would leave no financial restraint on the part of the states in negotiating settlement costs. The offer made by Paul Keating to Richard Court was that the commonwealth would fund up to 75 per cent of the compensation costs arising from the validation of past acts—75 per cent commonwealth money to compensate for past acts on determined native title land. I will table that letter. [See paper 4318.] Mr C.C. PORTER : Many letters follow, but the next key letter is dated 22 August 1998 from then Prime Minister Howard to then Premier Richard Court, which, again, is very clear in its terms. That said that the offer made, and the accepted offer by the state, was that the commonwealth would fund 75 per cent of all future native title compensation as well as validation of past acts, so it was a slightly better deal than was offered by Paul Keating, and it was accepted by the state. [See paper 4317.] Mr C.C. PORTER : In the view of this state government and any reasonable person looking at that correspondence, those two letters evidence a formal agreement of the basic principles, which were to govern the settlement and compensation of native title claims. That much is absolutely clear. On 23 May 2011 a further letter went to our present Premier from the present Prime Minister. In that, the present Prime Minister says — Western Australia’s claim appears to be based on a September 1998 Western Australia agreement to a Commonwealth offer of financial assistance to pay 75 per cent of state and territory native title compensation costs. Well, yes, that was exactly it. The Prime Minister then goes on to say — It is clear from the correspondence that what was agreed then was an outline of a revised offer that was subject to a final agreement being reached. I will table that letter. [See paper 4319.] Mr C.C. PORTER : The present Prime Minister of Australia now says that what was agreed in these letters never became formalised into a financial assistance agreement and, therefore, can now be ignored. Mr E.S. Ripper : That is very bad news. Mr C.J. Barnett : That is what I said to you a week ago and you denied it. Mr E.S. Ripper : No, I didn’t deny it; I pointed out the offer made by John Howard. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Leader of the Opposition! Premier! Mr C.C. PORTER : We are in furious agreement. It is nothing short of scandalous. These were not preliminary offers from haggling undertaken at officer level; they represent an outcome agreed at the highest levels of Australian government—an agreement concerning the most fundamental terms of the final document, which we now await to be drafted. These offers by the commonwealth, it is important to also understand, were absolutely instrumental in securing the support of this state and every other state in Australia to both the Native Title Act 1993 and the critical amendments made to it in 1998. I will table a final letter from the Prime Minister of the Australian nation in which she says now that the commonwealth bears “no legal or other obligation to Western Australia for the cost of native title compensation and settlements”. [See paper 4320.] Mr C.C. PORTER : I have two quick observations about that. The first is that this was originally put to the states on the basis that it would be a temporary cessation of an agreement made because of the global financial crisis. The first obvious point is that there was no reason to have even a temporary cessation of this agreement. If the commonwealth was actually posing a temporary reneging, based on a financial consideration of the GFC, the reality is that those very same financial impediments affect the states at the same time. Native title is a reality that has to be compensated. The second thing, and what is absolutely scandalous about this situation, is that the commonwealth legislated to confer rights that have led to the states and territories incurring and being exposed to immense financial cost. This state agreed to that on a commonwealth promise and acknowledgement by the commonwealth that it would bear the lion’s share of the cost, and in one letter the Prime Minister simply and breathlessly reneges on that agreement. I will table this interesting letter from our own Premier to the Prime Minister. [See paper 4321.] Mr C.C. PORTER : As things presently stand in this state, based on that 75 per cent agreement, the commonwealth debt is $241 333 466. That is a debt that the commonwealth owes this state. What really sticks in the craw of this government is watching the Prime Minister publicly speak about closing the gap when she has turned her back on native title—turn her back on the compensation for native title. What we are now facing, members opposite, is the process of negotiating under the auspices of the Single Noongar claim for the south west, and their Prime Minister—the Prime Minister of this nation, the leader of their party—has promised us that she will break the promise that has been made by successive Prime Ministers and said that she is unwilling to contribute to that agreement going forward. That agreement will not go forward without the commonwealth’s assistance and without the commonwealth making good on its promise.
In about August 2009 the commonwealth Attorney-General, in effect, advised me by letter, and later at a native title ministers’ meeting, that there would be a suspension of the deal that had been reached between the states and the commonwealth. We thought at that stage that that was a suspension. The concept put by the commonwealth Attorney-General at that stage was that the suspension was necessary because of the global financial crisis in 2009. What was the deal that was going to be suspended? I can explain that by tabling two letters today. The first is a letter of 3 February 1994 that came from the then Prime Minister, Paul Keating, to Richard Court. In that letter the Prime Minister said to the Premier of WA at the time that the commonwealth would bear “the lion’s share of the burden” for compensating for native title. In fact, the argument at that stage was whether or not the commonwealth should fund 100 per cent of the compensation costs for native title. Perhaps Prime Minister Keating had a point when he said that a 100 per cent commonwealth contribution would leave no financial restraint on the part of the states in negotiating settlement costs. The offer made by Paul Keating to Richard Court was that the commonwealth would fund up to 75 per cent of the compensation costs arising from the validation of past acts—75 per cent commonwealth money to compensate for past acts on determined native title land. I will table that letter. [See paper 4318.] Mr C.C. PORTER : Many letters follow, but the next key letter is dated 22 August 1998 from then Prime Minister Howard to then Premier Richard Court, which, again, is very clear in its terms. That said that the offer made, and the accepted offer by the state, was that the commonwealth would fund 75 per cent of all future native title compensation as well as validation of past acts, so it was a slightly better deal than was offered by Paul Keating, and it was accepted by the state. [See paper 4317.] Mr C.C. PORTER : In the view of this state government and any reasonable person looking at that correspondence, those two letters evidence a formal agreement of the basic principles, which were to govern the settlement and compensation of native title claims. That much is absolutely clear. On 23 May 2011 a further letter went to our present Premier from the present Prime Minister. In that, the present Prime Minister says — Western Australia’s claim appears to be based on a September 1998 Western Australia agreement to a Commonwealth offer of financial assistance to pay 75 per cent of state and territory native title compensation costs. Well, yes, that was exactly it. The Prime Minister then goes on to say — It is clear from the correspondence that what was agreed then was an outline of a revised offer that was subject to a final agreement being reached. I will table that letter. [See paper 4319.] Mr C.C. PORTER : The present Prime Minister of Australia now says that what was agreed in these letters never became formalised into a financial assistance agreement and, therefore, can now be ignored. Mr E.S. Ripper : That is very bad news. Mr C.J. Barnett : That is what I said to you a week ago and you denied it. Mr E.S. Ripper : No, I didn’t deny it; I pointed out the offer made by John Howard. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Leader of the Opposition! Premier! Mr C.C. PORTER : We are in furious agreement. It is nothing short of scandalous. These were not preliminary offers from haggling undertaken at officer level; they represent an outcome agreed at the highest levels of Australian government—an agreement concerning the most fundamental terms of the final document, which we now await to be drafted. These offers by the commonwealth, it is important to also understand, were absolutely instrumental in securing the support of this state and every other state in Australia to both the Native Title Act 1993 and the critical amendments made to it in 1998. I will table a final letter from the Prime Minister of the Australian nation in which she says now that the commonwealth bears “no legal or other obligation to Western Australia for the cost of native title compensation and settlements”. [See paper 4320.] Mr C.C. PORTER : I have two quick observations about that. The first is that this was originally put to the states on the basis that it would be a temporary cessation of an agreement made because of the global financial crisis. The first obvious point is that there was no reason to have even a temporary cessation of this agreement. If the commonwealth was actually posing a temporary reneging, based on a financial consideration of the GFC, the reality is that those very same financial impediments affect the states at the same time. Native title is a reality that has to be compensated. The second thing, and what is absolutely scandalous about this situation, is that the commonwealth legislated to confer rights that have led to the states and territories incurring and being exposed to immense financial cost. This state agreed to that on a commonwealth promise and acknowledgement by the commonwealth that it would bear the lion’s share of the cost, and in one letter the Prime Minister simply and breathlessly reneges on that agreement. I will table this interesting letter from our own Premier to the Prime Minister. [See paper 4321.] Mr C.C. PORTER : As things presently stand in this state, based on that 75 per cent agreement, the commonwealth debt is $241 333 466. That is a debt that the commonwealth owes this state. What really sticks in the craw of this government is watching the Prime Minister publicly speak about closing the gap when she has turned her back on native title—turn her back on the compensation for native title. What we are now facing, members opposite, is the process of negotiating under the auspices of the Single Noongar claim for the south west, and their Prime Minister—the Prime Minister of this nation, the leader of their party—has promised us that she will break the promise that has been made by successive Prime Ministers and said that she is unwilling to contribute to that agreement going forward. That agreement will not go forward without the commonwealth’s assistance and without the commonwealth making good on its promise.
[See paper 4318.] Mr C.C. PORTER : Many letters follow, but the next key letter is dated 22 August 1998 from then Prime Minister Howard to then Premier Richard Court, which, again, is very clear in its terms. That said that the offer made, and the accepted offer by the state, was that the commonwealth would fund 75 per cent of all future native title compensation as well as validation of past acts, so it was a slightly better deal than was offered by Paul Keating, and it was accepted by the state. [See paper 4317.] Mr C.C. PORTER : In the view of this state government and any reasonable person looking at that correspondence, those two letters evidence a formal agreement of the basic principles, which were to govern the settlement and compensation of native title claims. That much is absolutely clear. On 23 May 2011 a further letter went to our present Premier from the present Prime Minister. In that, the present Prime Minister says — Western Australia’s claim appears to be based on a September 1998 Western Australia agreement to a Commonwealth offer of financial assistance to pay 75 per cent of state and territory native title compensation costs. Well, yes, that was exactly it. The Prime Minister then goes on to say — It is clear from the correspondence that what was agreed then was an outline of a revised offer that was subject to a final agreement being reached. I will table that letter. [See paper 4319.] Mr C.C. PORTER : The present Prime Minister of Australia now says that what was agreed in these letters never became formalised into a financial assistance agreement and, therefore, can now be ignored. Mr E.S. Ripper : That is very bad news. Mr C.J. Barnett : That is what I said to you a week ago and you denied it. Mr E.S. Ripper : No, I didn’t deny it; I pointed out the offer made by John Howard. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Leader of the Opposition! Premier! Mr C.C. PORTER : We are in furious agreement. It is nothing short of scandalous. These were not preliminary offers from haggling undertaken at officer level; they represent an outcome agreed at the highest levels of Australian government—an agreement concerning the most fundamental terms of the final document, which we now await to be drafted. These offers by the commonwealth, it is important to also understand, were absolutely instrumental in securing the support of this state and every other state in Australia to both the Native Title Act 1993 and the critical amendments made to it in 1998. I will table a final letter from the Prime Minister of the Australian nation in which she says now that the commonwealth bears “no legal or other obligation to Western Australia for the cost of native title compensation and settlements”. [See paper 4320.] Mr C.C. PORTER : I have two quick observations about that. The first is that this was originally put to the states on the basis that it would be a temporary cessation of an agreement made because of the global financial crisis. The first obvious point is that there was no reason to have even a temporary cessation of this agreement. If the commonwealth was actually posing a temporary reneging, based on a financial consideration of the GFC, the reality is that those very same financial impediments affect the states at the same time. Native title is a reality that has to be compensated. The second thing, and what is absolutely scandalous about this situation, is that the commonwealth legislated to confer rights that have led to the states and territories incurring and being exposed to immense financial cost. This state agreed to that on a commonwealth promise and acknowledgement by the commonwealth that it would bear the lion’s share of the cost, and in one letter the Prime Minister simply and breathlessly reneges on that agreement. I will table this interesting letter from our own Premier to the Prime Minister. [See paper 4321.] Mr C.C. PORTER : As things presently stand in this state, based on that 75 per cent agreement, the commonwealth debt is $241 333 466. That is a debt that the commonwealth owes this state. What really sticks in the craw of this government is watching the Prime Minister publicly speak about closing the gap when she has turned her back on native title—turn her back on the compensation for native title. What we are now facing, members opposite, is the process of negotiating under the auspices of the Single Noongar claim for the south west, and their Prime Minister—the Prime Minister of this nation, the leader of their party—has promised us that she will break the promise that has been made by successive Prime Ministers and said that she is unwilling to contribute to that agreement going forward. That agreement will not go forward without the commonwealth’s assistance and without the commonwealth making good on its promise.
Mr C.C. PORTER : Many letters follow, but the next key letter is dated 22 August 1998 from then Prime Minister Howard to then Premier Richard Court, which, again, is very clear in its terms. That said that the offer made, and the accepted offer by the state, was that the commonwealth would fund 75 per cent of all future native title compensation as well as validation of past acts, so it was a slightly better deal than was offered by Paul Keating, and it was accepted by the state. [See paper 4317.] Mr C.C. PORTER : In the view of this state government and any reasonable person looking at that correspondence, those two letters evidence a formal agreement of the basic principles, which were to govern the settlement and compensation of native title claims. That much is absolutely clear. On 23 May 2011 a further letter went to our present Premier from the present Prime Minister. In that, the present Prime Minister says — Western Australia’s claim appears to be based on a September 1998 Western Australia agreement to a Commonwealth offer of financial assistance to pay 75 per cent of state and territory native title compensation costs. Well, yes, that was exactly it. The Prime Minister then goes on to say — It is clear from the correspondence that what was agreed then was an outline of a revised offer that was subject to a final agreement being reached. I will table that letter. [See paper 4319.] Mr C.C. PORTER : The present Prime Minister of Australia now says that what was agreed in these letters never became formalised into a financial assistance agreement and, therefore, can now be ignored. Mr E.S. Ripper : That is very bad news. Mr C.J. Barnett : That is what I said to you a week ago and you denied it. Mr E.S. Ripper : No, I didn’t deny it; I pointed out the offer made by John Howard. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Leader of the Opposition! Premier! Mr C.C. PORTER : We are in furious agreement. It is nothing short of scandalous. These were not preliminary offers from haggling undertaken at officer level; they represent an outcome agreed at the highest levels of Australian government—an agreement concerning the most fundamental terms of the final document, which we now await to be drafted. These offers by the commonwealth, it is important to also understand, were absolutely instrumental in securing the support of this state and every other state in Australia to both the Native Title Act 1993 and the critical amendments made to it in 1998. I will table a final letter from the Prime Minister of the Australian nation in which she says now that the commonwealth bears “no legal or other obligation to Western Australia for the cost of native title compensation and settlements”. [See paper 4320.] Mr C.C. PORTER : I have two quick observations about that. The first is that this was originally put to the states on the basis that it would be a temporary cessation of an agreement made because of the global financial crisis. The first obvious point is that there was no reason to have even a temporary cessation of this agreement. If the commonwealth was actually posing a temporary reneging, based on a financial consideration of the GFC, the reality is that those very same financial impediments affect the states at the same time. Native title is a reality that has to be compensated. The second thing, and what is absolutely scandalous about this situation, is that the commonwealth legislated to confer rights that have led to the states and territories incurring and being exposed to immense financial cost. This state agreed to that on a commonwealth promise and acknowledgement by the commonwealth that it would bear the lion’s share of the cost, and in one letter the Prime Minister simply and breathlessly reneges on that agreement. I will table this interesting letter from our own Premier to the Prime Minister. [See paper 4321.] Mr C.C. PORTER : As things presently stand in this state, based on that 75 per cent agreement, the commonwealth debt is $241 333 466. That is a debt that the commonwealth owes this state. What really sticks in the craw of this government is watching the Prime Minister publicly speak about closing the gap when she has turned her back on native title—turn her back on the compensation for native title. What we are now facing, members opposite, is the process of negotiating under the auspices of the Single Noongar claim for the south west, and their Prime Minister—the Prime Minister of this nation, the leader of their party—has promised us that she will break the promise that has been made by successive Prime Ministers and said that she is unwilling to contribute to that agreement going forward. That agreement will not go forward without the commonwealth’s assistance and without the commonwealth making good on its promise.
[See paper 4317.] Mr C.C. PORTER : In the view of this state government and any reasonable person looking at that correspondence, those two letters evidence a formal agreement of the basic principles, which were to govern the settlement and compensation of native title claims. That much is absolutely clear. On 23 May 2011 a further letter went to our present Premier from the present Prime Minister. In that, the present Prime Minister says — Western Australia’s claim appears to be based on a September 1998 Western Australia agreement to a Commonwealth offer of financial assistance to pay 75 per cent of state and territory native title compensation costs. Well, yes, that was exactly it. The Prime Minister then goes on to say — It is clear from the correspondence that what was agreed then was an outline of a revised offer that was subject to a final agreement being reached. I will table that letter. [See paper 4319.] Mr C.C. PORTER : The present Prime Minister of Australia now says that what was agreed in these letters never became formalised into a financial assistance agreement and, therefore, can now be ignored. Mr E.S. Ripper : That is very bad news. Mr C.J. Barnett : That is what I said to you a week ago and you denied it. Mr E.S. Ripper : No, I didn’t deny it; I pointed out the offer made by John Howard. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Leader of the Opposition! Premier! Mr C.C. PORTER : We are in furious agreement. It is nothing short of scandalous. These were not preliminary offers from haggling undertaken at officer level; they represent an outcome agreed at the highest levels of Australian government—an agreement concerning the most fundamental terms of the final document, which we now await to be drafted. These offers by the commonwealth, it is important to also understand, were absolutely instrumental in securing the support of this state and every other state in Australia to both the Native Title Act 1993 and the critical amendments made to it in 1998. I will table a final letter from the Prime Minister of the Australian nation in which she says now that the commonwealth bears “no legal or other obligation to Western Australia for the cost of native title compensation and settlements”. [See paper 4320.] Mr C.C. PORTER : I have two quick observations about that. The first is that this was originally put to the states on the basis that it would be a temporary cessation of an agreement made because of the global financial crisis. The first obvious point is that there was no reason to have even a temporary cessation of this agreement. If the commonwealth was actually posing a temporary reneging, based on a financial consideration of the GFC, the reality is that those very same financial impediments affect the states at the same time. Native title is a reality that has to be compensated. The second thing, and what is absolutely scandalous about this situation, is that the commonwealth legislated to confer rights that have led to the states and territories incurring and being exposed to immense financial cost. This state agreed to that on a commonwealth promise and acknowledgement by the commonwealth that it would bear the lion’s share of the cost, and in one letter the Prime Minister simply and breathlessly reneges on that agreement. I will table this interesting letter from our own Premier to the Prime Minister. [See paper 4321.] Mr C.C. PORTER : As things presently stand in this state, based on that 75 per cent agreement, the commonwealth debt is $241 333 466. That is a debt that the commonwealth owes this state. What really sticks in the craw of this government is watching the Prime Minister publicly speak about closing the gap when she has turned her back on native title—turn her back on the compensation for native title. What we are now facing, members opposite, is the process of negotiating under the auspices of the Single Noongar claim for the south west, and their Prime Minister—the Prime Minister of this nation, the leader of their party—has promised us that she will break the promise that has been made by successive Prime Ministers and said that she is unwilling to contribute to that agreement going forward. That agreement will not go forward without the commonwealth’s assistance and without the commonwealth making good on its promise.
Mr C.C. PORTER : In the view of this state government and any reasonable person looking at that correspondence, those two letters evidence a formal agreement of the basic principles, which were to govern the settlement and compensation of native title claims. That much is absolutely clear. On 23 May 2011 a further letter went to our present Premier from the present Prime Minister. In that, the present Prime Minister says — Western Australia’s claim appears to be based on a September 1998 Western Australia agreement to a Commonwealth offer of financial assistance to pay 75 per cent of state and territory native title compensation costs. Well, yes, that was exactly it. The Prime Minister then goes on to say — It is clear from the correspondence that what was agreed then was an outline of a revised offer that was subject to a final agreement being reached. I will table that letter. [See paper 4319.] Mr C.C. PORTER : The present Prime Minister of Australia now says that what was agreed in these letters never became formalised into a financial assistance agreement and, therefore, can now be ignored. Mr E.S. Ripper : That is very bad news. Mr C.J. Barnett : That is what I said to you a week ago and you denied it. Mr E.S. Ripper : No, I didn’t deny it; I pointed out the offer made by John Howard. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Leader of the Opposition! Premier! Mr C.C. PORTER : We are in furious agreement. It is nothing short of scandalous. These were not preliminary offers from haggling undertaken at officer level; they represent an outcome agreed at the highest levels of Australian government—an agreement concerning the most fundamental terms of the final document, which we now await to be drafted. These offers by the commonwealth, it is important to also understand, were absolutely instrumental in securing the support of this state and every other state in Australia to both the Native Title Act 1993 and the critical amendments made to it in 1998. I will table a final letter from the Prime Minister of the Australian nation in which she says now that the commonwealth bears “no legal or other obligation to Western Australia for the cost of native title compensation and settlements”. [See paper 4320.] Mr C.C. PORTER : I have two quick observations about that. The first is that this was originally put to the states on the basis that it would be a temporary cessation of an agreement made because of the global financial crisis. The first obvious point is that there was no reason to have even a temporary cessation of this agreement. If the commonwealth was actually posing a temporary reneging, based on a financial consideration of the GFC, the reality is that those very same financial impediments affect the states at the same time. Native title is a reality that has to be compensated. The second thing, and what is absolutely scandalous about this situation, is that the commonwealth legislated to confer rights that have led to the states and territories incurring and being exposed to immense financial cost. This state agreed to that on a commonwealth promise and acknowledgement by the commonwealth that it would bear the lion’s share of the cost, and in one letter the Prime Minister simply and breathlessly reneges on that agreement. I will table this interesting letter from our own Premier to the Prime Minister. [See paper 4321.] Mr C.C. PORTER : As things presently stand in this state, based on that 75 per cent agreement, the commonwealth debt is $241 333 466. That is a debt that the commonwealth owes this state. What really sticks in the craw of this government is watching the Prime Minister publicly speak about closing the gap when she has turned her back on native title—turn her back on the compensation for native title. What we are now facing, members opposite, is the process of negotiating under the auspices of the Single Noongar claim for the south west, and their Prime Minister—the Prime Minister of this nation, the leader of their party—has promised us that she will break the promise that has been made by successive Prime Ministers and said that she is unwilling to contribute to that agreement going forward. That agreement will not go forward without the commonwealth’s assistance and without the commonwealth making good on its promise.
[See paper 4319.] Mr C.C. PORTER : The present Prime Minister of Australia now says that what was agreed in these letters never became formalised into a financial assistance agreement and, therefore, can now be ignored. Mr E.S. Ripper : That is very bad news. Mr C.J. Barnett : That is what I said to you a week ago and you denied it. Mr E.S. Ripper : No, I didn’t deny it; I pointed out the offer made by John Howard. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Leader of the Opposition! Premier! Mr C.C. PORTER : We are in furious agreement. It is nothing short of scandalous. These were not preliminary offers from haggling undertaken at officer level; they represent an outcome agreed at the highest levels of Australian government—an agreement concerning the most fundamental terms of the final document, which we now await to be drafted. These offers by the commonwealth, it is important to also understand, were absolutely instrumental in securing the support of this state and every other state in Australia to both the Native Title Act 1993 and the critical amendments made to it in 1998. I will table a final letter from the Prime Minister of the Australian nation in which she says now that the commonwealth bears “no legal or other obligation to Western Australia for the cost of native title compensation and settlements”. [See paper 4320.] Mr C.C. PORTER : I have two quick observations about that. The first is that this was originally put to the states on the basis that it would be a temporary cessation of an agreement made because of the global financial crisis. The first obvious point is that there was no reason to have even a temporary cessation of this agreement. If the commonwealth was actually posing a temporary reneging, based on a financial consideration of the GFC, the reality is that those very same financial impediments affect the states at the same time. Native title is a reality that has to be compensated. The second thing, and what is absolutely scandalous about this situation, is that the commonwealth legislated to confer rights that have led to the states and territories incurring and being exposed to immense financial cost. This state agreed to that on a commonwealth promise and acknowledgement by the commonwealth that it would bear the lion’s share of the cost, and in one letter the Prime Minister simply and breathlessly reneges on that agreement. I will table this interesting letter from our own Premier to the Prime Minister. [See paper 4321.] Mr C.C. PORTER : As things presently stand in this state, based on that 75 per cent agreement, the commonwealth debt is $241 333 466. That is a debt that the commonwealth owes this state. What really sticks in the craw of this government is watching the Prime Minister publicly speak about closing the gap when she has turned her back on native title—turn her back on the compensation for native title. What we are now facing, members opposite, is the process of negotiating under the auspices of the Single Noongar claim for the south west, and their Prime Minister—the Prime Minister of this nation, the leader of their party—has promised us that she will break the promise that has been made by successive Prime Ministers and said that she is unwilling to contribute to that agreement going forward. That agreement will not go forward without the commonwealth’s assistance and without the commonwealth making good on its promise.
Mr C.C. PORTER : The present Prime Minister of Australia now says that what was agreed in these letters never became formalised into a financial assistance agreement and, therefore, can now be ignored. Mr E.S. Ripper : That is very bad news. Mr C.J. Barnett : That is what I said to you a week ago and you denied it. Mr E.S. Ripper : No, I didn’t deny it; I pointed out the offer made by John Howard. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Leader of the Opposition! Premier! Mr C.C. PORTER : We are in furious agreement. It is nothing short of scandalous. These were not preliminary offers from haggling undertaken at officer level; they represent an outcome agreed at the highest levels of Australian government—an agreement concerning the most fundamental terms of the final document, which we now await to be drafted. These offers by the commonwealth, it is important to also understand, were absolutely instrumental in securing the support of this state and every other state in Australia to both the Native Title Act 1993 and the critical amendments made to it in 1998. I will table a final letter from the Prime Minister of the Australian nation in which she says now that the commonwealth bears “no legal or other obligation to Western Australia for the cost of native title compensation and settlements”. [See paper 4320.] Mr C.C. PORTER : I have two quick observations about that. The first is that this was originally put to the states on the basis that it would be a temporary cessation of an agreement made because of the global financial crisis. The first obvious point is that there was no reason to have even a temporary cessation of this agreement. If the commonwealth was actually posing a temporary reneging, based on a financial consideration of the GFC, the reality is that those very same financial impediments affect the states at the same time. Native title is a reality that has to be compensated. The second thing, and what is absolutely scandalous about this situation, is that the commonwealth legislated to confer rights that have led to the states and territories incurring and being exposed to immense financial cost. This state agreed to that on a commonwealth promise and acknowledgement by the commonwealth that it would bear the lion’s share of the cost, and in one letter the Prime Minister simply and breathlessly reneges on that agreement. I will table this interesting letter from our own Premier to the Prime Minister. [See paper 4321.] Mr C.C. PORTER : As things presently stand in this state, based on that 75 per cent agreement, the commonwealth debt is $241 333 466. That is a debt that the commonwealth owes this state. What really sticks in the craw of this government is watching the Prime Minister publicly speak about closing the gap when she has turned her back on native title—turn her back on the compensation for native title. What we are now facing, members opposite, is the process of negotiating under the auspices of the Single Noongar claim for the south west, and their Prime Minister—the Prime Minister of this nation, the leader of their party—has promised us that she will break the promise that has been made by successive Prime Ministers and said that she is unwilling to contribute to that agreement going forward. That agreement will not go forward without the commonwealth’s assistance and without the commonwealth making good on its promise.
Mr E.S. Ripper : That is very bad news. Mr C.J. Barnett : That is what I said to you a week ago and you denied it. Mr E.S. Ripper : No, I didn’t deny it; I pointed out the offer made by John Howard. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Leader of the Opposition! Premier! Mr C.C. PORTER : We are in furious agreement. It is nothing short of scandalous. These were not preliminary offers from haggling undertaken at officer level; they represent an outcome agreed at the highest levels of Australian government—an agreement concerning the most fundamental terms of the final document, which we now await to be drafted. These offers by the commonwealth, it is important to also understand, were absolutely instrumental in securing the support of this state and every other state in Australia to both the Native Title Act 1993 and the critical amendments made to it in 1998. I will table a final letter from the Prime Minister of the Australian nation in which she says now that the commonwealth bears “no legal or other obligation to Western Australia for the cost of native title compensation and settlements”. [See paper 4320.] Mr C.C. PORTER : I have two quick observations about that. The first is that this was originally put to the states on the basis that it would be a temporary cessation of an agreement made because of the global financial crisis. The first obvious point is that there was no reason to have even a temporary cessation of this agreement. If the commonwealth was actually posing a temporary reneging, based on a financial consideration of the GFC, the reality is that those very same financial impediments affect the states at the same time. Native title is a reality that has to be compensated. The second thing, and what is absolutely scandalous about this situation, is that the commonwealth legislated to confer rights that have led to the states and territories incurring and being exposed to immense financial cost. This state agreed to that on a commonwealth promise and acknowledgement by the commonwealth that it would bear the lion’s share of the cost, and in one letter the Prime Minister simply and breathlessly reneges on that agreement. I will table this interesting letter from our own Premier to the Prime Minister. [See paper 4321.] Mr C.C. PORTER : As things presently stand in this state, based on that 75 per cent agreement, the commonwealth debt is $241 333 466. That is a debt that the commonwealth owes this state. What really sticks in the craw of this government is watching the Prime Minister publicly speak about closing the gap when she has turned her back on native title—turn her back on the compensation for native title. What we are now facing, members opposite, is the process of negotiating under the auspices of the Single Noongar claim for the south west, and their Prime Minister—the Prime Minister of this nation, the leader of their party—has promised us that she will break the promise that has been made by successive Prime Ministers and said that she is unwilling to contribute to that agreement going forward. That agreement will not go forward without the commonwealth’s assistance and without the commonwealth making good on its promise.
Mr C.J. Barnett : That is what I said to you a week ago and you denied it. Mr E.S. Ripper : No, I didn’t deny it; I pointed out the offer made by John Howard. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Leader of the Opposition! Premier! Mr C.C. PORTER : We are in furious agreement. It is nothing short of scandalous. These were not preliminary offers from haggling undertaken at officer level; they represent an outcome agreed at the highest levels of Australian government—an agreement concerning the most fundamental terms of the final document, which we now await to be drafted. These offers by the commonwealth, it is important to also understand, were absolutely instrumental in securing the support of this state and every other state in Australia to both the Native Title Act 1993 and the critical amendments made to it in 1998. I will table a final letter from the Prime Minister of the Australian nation in which she says now that the commonwealth bears “no legal or other obligation to Western Australia for the cost of native title compensation and settlements”. [See paper 4320.] Mr C.C. PORTER : I have two quick observations about that. The first is that this was originally put to the states on the basis that it would be a temporary cessation of an agreement made because of the global financial crisis. The first obvious point is that there was no reason to have even a temporary cessation of this agreement. If the commonwealth was actually posing a temporary reneging, based on a financial consideration of the GFC, the reality is that those very same financial impediments affect the states at the same time. Native title is a reality that has to be compensated. The second thing, and what is absolutely scandalous about this situation, is that the commonwealth legislated to confer rights that have led to the states and territories incurring and being exposed to immense financial cost. This state agreed to that on a commonwealth promise and acknowledgement by the commonwealth that it would bear the lion’s share of the cost, and in one letter the Prime Minister simply and breathlessly reneges on that agreement. I will table this interesting letter from our own Premier to the Prime Minister. [See paper 4321.] Mr C.C. PORTER : As things presently stand in this state, based on that 75 per cent agreement, the commonwealth debt is $241 333 466. That is a debt that the commonwealth owes this state. What really sticks in the craw of this government is watching the Prime Minister publicly speak about closing the gap when she has turned her back on native title—turn her back on the compensation for native title. What we are now facing, members opposite, is the process of negotiating under the auspices of the Single Noongar claim for the south west, and their Prime Minister—the Prime Minister of this nation, the leader of their party—has promised us that she will break the promise that has been made by successive Prime Ministers and said that she is unwilling to contribute to that agreement going forward. That agreement will not go forward without the commonwealth’s assistance and without the commonwealth making good on its promise.
Mr E.S. Ripper : No, I didn’t deny it; I pointed out the offer made by John Howard. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Leader of the Opposition! Premier! Mr C.C. PORTER : We are in furious agreement. It is nothing short of scandalous. These were not preliminary offers from haggling undertaken at officer level; they represent an outcome agreed at the highest levels of Australian government—an agreement concerning the most fundamental terms of the final document, which we now await to be drafted. These offers by the commonwealth, it is important to also understand, were absolutely instrumental in securing the support of this state and every other state in Australia to both the Native Title Act 1993 and the critical amendments made to it in 1998. I will table a final letter from the Prime Minister of the Australian nation in which she says now that the commonwealth bears “no legal or other obligation to Western Australia for the cost of native title compensation and settlements”. [See paper 4320.] Mr C.C. PORTER : I have two quick observations about that. The first is that this was originally put to the states on the basis that it would be a temporary cessation of an agreement made because of the global financial crisis. The first obvious point is that there was no reason to have even a temporary cessation of this agreement. If the commonwealth was actually posing a temporary reneging, based on a financial consideration of the GFC, the reality is that those very same financial impediments affect the states at the same time. Native title is a reality that has to be compensated. The second thing, and what is absolutely scandalous about this situation, is that the commonwealth legislated to confer rights that have led to the states and territories incurring and being exposed to immense financial cost. This state agreed to that on a commonwealth promise and acknowledgement by the commonwealth that it would bear the lion’s share of the cost, and in one letter the Prime Minister simply and breathlessly reneges on that agreement. I will table this interesting letter from our own Premier to the Prime Minister. [See paper 4321.] Mr C.C. PORTER : As things presently stand in this state, based on that 75 per cent agreement, the commonwealth debt is $241 333 466. That is a debt that the commonwealth owes this state. What really sticks in the craw of this government is watching the Prime Minister publicly speak about closing the gap when she has turned her back on native title—turn her back on the compensation for native title. What we are now facing, members opposite, is the process of negotiating under the auspices of the Single Noongar claim for the south west, and their Prime Minister—the Prime Minister of this nation, the leader of their party—has promised us that she will break the promise that has been made by successive Prime Ministers and said that she is unwilling to contribute to that agreement going forward. That agreement will not go forward without the commonwealth’s assistance and without the commonwealth making good on its promise.
The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Leader of the Opposition! Premier! Mr C.C. PORTER : We are in furious agreement. It is nothing short of scandalous. These were not preliminary offers from haggling undertaken at officer level; they represent an outcome agreed at the highest levels of Australian government—an agreement concerning the most fundamental terms of the final document, which we now await to be drafted. These offers by the commonwealth, it is important to also understand, were absolutely instrumental in securing the support of this state and every other state in Australia to both the Native Title Act 1993 and the critical amendments made to it in 1998. I will table a final letter from the Prime Minister of the Australian nation in which she says now that the commonwealth bears “no legal or other obligation to Western Australia for the cost of native title compensation and settlements”. [See paper 4320.] Mr C.C. PORTER : I have two quick observations about that. The first is that this was originally put to the states on the basis that it would be a temporary cessation of an agreement made because of the global financial crisis. The first obvious point is that there was no reason to have even a temporary cessation of this agreement. If the commonwealth was actually posing a temporary reneging, based on a financial consideration of the GFC, the reality is that those very same financial impediments affect the states at the same time. Native title is a reality that has to be compensated. The second thing, and what is absolutely scandalous about this situation, is that the commonwealth legislated to confer rights that have led to the states and territories incurring and being exposed to immense financial cost. This state agreed to that on a commonwealth promise and acknowledgement by the commonwealth that it would bear the lion’s share of the cost, and in one letter the Prime Minister simply and breathlessly reneges on that agreement. I will table this interesting letter from our own Premier to the Prime Minister. [See paper 4321.] Mr C.C. PORTER : As things presently stand in this state, based on that 75 per cent agreement, the commonwealth debt is $241 333 466. That is a debt that the commonwealth owes this state. What really sticks in the craw of this government is watching the Prime Minister publicly speak about closing the gap when she has turned her back on native title—turn her back on the compensation for native title. What we are now facing, members opposite, is the process of negotiating under the auspices of the Single Noongar claim for the south west, and their Prime Minister—the Prime Minister of this nation, the leader of their party—has promised us that she will break the promise that has been made by successive Prime Ministers and said that she is unwilling to contribute to that agreement going forward. That agreement will not go forward without the commonwealth’s assistance and without the commonwealth making good on its promise.
Mr C.C. PORTER : We are in furious agreement. It is nothing short of scandalous. These were not preliminary offers from haggling undertaken at officer level; they represent an outcome agreed at the highest levels of Australian government—an agreement concerning the most fundamental terms of the final document, which we now await to be drafted. These offers by the commonwealth, it is important to also understand, were absolutely instrumental in securing the support of this state and every other state in Australia to both the Native Title Act 1993 and the critical amendments made to it in 1998. I will table a final letter from the Prime Minister of the Australian nation in which she says now that the commonwealth bears “no legal or other obligation to Western Australia for the cost of native title compensation and settlements”. [See paper 4320.] Mr C.C. PORTER : I have two quick observations about that. The first is that this was originally put to the states on the basis that it would be a temporary cessation of an agreement made because of the global financial crisis. The first obvious point is that there was no reason to have even a temporary cessation of this agreement. If the commonwealth was actually posing a temporary reneging, based on a financial consideration of the GFC, the reality is that those very same financial impediments affect the states at the same time. Native title is a reality that has to be compensated. The second thing, and what is absolutely scandalous about this situation, is that the commonwealth legislated to confer rights that have led to the states and territories incurring and being exposed to immense financial cost. This state agreed to that on a commonwealth promise and acknowledgement by the commonwealth that it would bear the lion’s share of the cost, and in one letter the Prime Minister simply and breathlessly reneges on that agreement. I will table this interesting letter from our own Premier to the Prime Minister. [See paper 4321.] Mr C.C. PORTER : As things presently stand in this state, based on that 75 per cent agreement, the commonwealth debt is $241 333 466. That is a debt that the commonwealth owes this state. What really sticks in the craw of this government is watching the Prime Minister publicly speak about closing the gap when she has turned her back on native title—turn her back on the compensation for native title. What we are now facing, members opposite, is the process of negotiating under the auspices of the Single Noongar claim for the south west, and their Prime Minister—the Prime Minister of this nation, the leader of their party—has promised us that she will break the promise that has been made by successive Prime Ministers and said that she is unwilling to contribute to that agreement going forward. That agreement will not go forward without the commonwealth’s assistance and without the commonwealth making good on its promise.
[See paper 4320.] Mr C.C. PORTER : I have two quick observations about that. The first is that this was originally put to the states on the basis that it would be a temporary cessation of an agreement made because of the global financial crisis. The first obvious point is that there was no reason to have even a temporary cessation of this agreement. If the commonwealth was actually posing a temporary reneging, based on a financial consideration of the GFC, the reality is that those very same financial impediments affect the states at the same time. Native title is a reality that has to be compensated. The second thing, and what is absolutely scandalous about this situation, is that the commonwealth legislated to confer rights that have led to the states and territories incurring and being exposed to immense financial cost. This state agreed to that on a commonwealth promise and acknowledgement by the commonwealth that it would bear the lion’s share of the cost, and in one letter the Prime Minister simply and breathlessly reneges on that agreement. I will table this interesting letter from our own Premier to the Prime Minister. [See paper 4321.] Mr C.C. PORTER : As things presently stand in this state, based on that 75 per cent agreement, the commonwealth debt is $241 333 466. That is a debt that the commonwealth owes this state. What really sticks in the craw of this government is watching the Prime Minister publicly speak about closing the gap when she has turned her back on native title—turn her back on the compensation for native title. What we are now facing, members opposite, is the process of negotiating under the auspices of the Single Noongar claim for the south west, and their Prime Minister—the Prime Minister of this nation, the leader of their party—has promised us that she will break the promise that has been made by successive Prime Ministers and said that she is unwilling to contribute to that agreement going forward. That agreement will not go forward without the commonwealth’s assistance and without the commonwealth making good on its promise.
Mr C.C. PORTER : I have two quick observations about that. The first is that this was originally put to the states on the basis that it would be a temporary cessation of an agreement made because of the global financial crisis. The first obvious point is that there was no reason to have even a temporary cessation of this agreement. If the commonwealth was actually posing a temporary reneging, based on a financial consideration of the GFC, the reality is that those very same financial impediments affect the states at the same time. Native title is a reality that has to be compensated. The second thing, and what is absolutely scandalous about this situation, is that the commonwealth legislated to confer rights that have led to the states and territories incurring and being exposed to immense financial cost. This state agreed to that on a commonwealth promise and acknowledgement by the commonwealth that it would bear the lion’s share of the cost, and in one letter the Prime Minister simply and breathlessly reneges on that agreement. I will table this interesting letter from our own Premier to the Prime Minister. [See paper 4321.] Mr C.C. PORTER : As things presently stand in this state, based on that 75 per cent agreement, the commonwealth debt is $241 333 466. That is a debt that the commonwealth owes this state. What really sticks in the craw of this government is watching the Prime Minister publicly speak about closing the gap when she has turned her back on native title—turn her back on the compensation for native title. What we are now facing, members opposite, is the process of negotiating under the auspices of the Single Noongar claim for the south west, and their Prime Minister—the Prime Minister of this nation, the leader of their party—has promised us that she will break the promise that has been made by successive Prime Ministers and said that she is unwilling to contribute to that agreement going forward. That agreement will not go forward without the commonwealth’s assistance and without the commonwealth making good on its promise.
I will table this interesting letter from our own Premier to the Prime Minister. [See paper 4321.] Mr C.C. PORTER : As things presently stand in this state, based on that 75 per cent agreement, the commonwealth debt is $241 333 466. That is a debt that the commonwealth owes this state. What really sticks in the craw of this government is watching the Prime Minister publicly speak about closing the gap when she has turned her back on native title—turn her back on the compensation for native title. What we are now facing, members opposite, is the process of negotiating under the auspices of the Single Noongar claim for the south west, and their Prime Minister—the Prime Minister of this nation, the leader of their party—has promised us that she will break the promise that has been made by successive Prime Ministers and said that she is unwilling to contribute to that agreement going forward. That agreement will not go forward without the commonwealth’s assistance and without the commonwealth making good on its promise.
[See paper 4321.] Mr C.C. PORTER : As things presently stand in this state, based on that 75 per cent agreement, the commonwealth debt is $241 333 466. That is a debt that the commonwealth owes this state. What really sticks in the craw of this government is watching the Prime Minister publicly speak about closing the gap when she has turned her back on native title—turn her back on the compensation for native title. What we are now facing, members opposite, is the process of negotiating under the auspices of the Single Noongar claim for the south west, and their Prime Minister—the Prime Minister of this nation, the leader of their party—has promised us that she will break the promise that has been made by successive Prime Ministers and said that she is unwilling to contribute to that agreement going forward. That agreement will not go forward without the commonwealth’s assistance and without the commonwealth making good on its promise.
Mr C.C. PORTER : As things presently stand in this state, based on that 75 per cent agreement, the commonwealth debt is $241 333 466. That is a debt that the commonwealth owes this state. What really sticks in the craw of this government is watching the Prime Minister publicly speak about closing the gap when she has turned her back on native title—turn her back on the compensation for native title. What we are now facing, members opposite, is the process of negotiating under the auspices of the Single Noongar claim for the south west, and their Prime Minister—the Prime Minister of this nation, the leader of their party—has promised us that she will break the promise that has been made by successive Prime Ministers and said that she is unwilling to contribute to that agreement going forward. That agreement will not go forward without the commonwealth’s assistance and without the commonwealth making good on its promise.
Mr C.C. PORTER replied: I thank the member for his question. I know that this is an enormous issue in his electorate. This matter was raised by the Premier last week. It relates to the commonwealth government reneging on a deal that it had with the states on native title. By way of background, there are now more than 910 000 square metres of determined land in WA, and that amount of determined land will increase. That is an area larger than the entire state of South Australia. Mrs M.H. Roberts : Do you mean metres or kilometres? Mr C.C. PORTER : Sorry; square kilometres. The member is quite right. I should always defer to her better judgement on these matters of accuracy. Other than the issue of the goods and services tax, this is the most significant state–federal financial issue facing the state. This is a $1 billion plus issue going into the future for WA. The lack of media attention to it so far has been absolutely astonishing, though probably not as astonishing as the issue itself. In the hope of generating a bit more interest in this issue, with the Premier’s permission, I will table some letters today involving correspondence between Prime Ministers and Premiers of this state. In about August 2009 the commonwealth Attorney-General, in effect, advised me by letter, and later at a native title ministers’ meeting, that there would be a suspension of the deal that had been reached between the states and the commonwealth. We thought at that stage that that was a suspension. The concept put by the commonwealth Attorney-General at that stage was that the suspension was necessary because of the global financial crisis in 2009. What was the deal that was going to be suspended? I can explain that by tabling two letters today. The first is a letter of 3 February 1994 that came from the then Prime Minister, Paul Keating, to Richard Court. In that letter the Prime Minister said to the Premier of WA at the time that the commonwealth would bear “the lion’s share of the burden” for compensating for native title. In fact, the argument at that stage was whether or not the commonwealth should fund 100 per cent of the compensation costs for native title. Perhaps Prime Minister Keating had a point when he said that a 100 per cent commonwealth contribution would leave no financial restraint on the part of the states in negotiating settlement costs. The offer made by Paul Keating to Richard Court was that the commonwealth would fund up to 75 per cent of the compensation costs arising from the validation of past acts—75 per cent commonwealth money to compensate for past acts on determined native title land. I will table that letter. [See paper 4318.] Mr C.C. PORTER : Many letters follow, but the next key letter is dated 22 August 1998 from then Prime Minister Howard to then Premier Richard Court, which, again, is very clear in its terms. That said that the offer made, and the accepted offer by the state, was that the commonwealth would fund 75 per cent of all future native title compensation as well as validation of past acts, so it was a slightly better deal than was offered by Paul Keating, and it was accepted by the state. [See paper 4317.] Mr C.C. PORTER : In the view of this state government and any reasonable person looking at that correspondence, those two letters evidence a formal agreement of the basic principles, which were to govern the settlement and compensation of native title claims. That much is absolutely clear. On 23 May 2011 a further letter went to our present Premier from the present Prime Minister. In that, the present Prime Minister says — Western Australia’s claim appears to be based on a September 1998 Western Australia agreement to a Commonwealth offer of financial assistance to pay 75 per cent of state and territory native title compensation costs. Well, yes, that was exactly it. The Prime Minister then goes on to say — It is clear from the correspondence that what was agreed then was an outline of a revised offer that was subject to a final agreement being reached. I will table that letter. [See paper 4319.] Mr C.C. PORTER : The present Prime Minister of Australia now says that what was agreed in these letters never became formalised into a financial assistance agreement and, therefore, can now be ignored. Mr E.S. Ripper : That is very bad news. Mr C.J. Barnett : That is what I said to you a week ago and you denied it. Mr E.S. Ripper : No, I didn’t deny it; I pointed out the offer made by John Howard. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Leader of the Opposition! Premier! Mr C.C. PORTER : We are in furious agreement. It is nothing short of scandalous. These were not preliminary offers from haggling undertaken at officer level; they represent an outcome agreed at the highest levels of Australian government—an agreement concerning the most fundamental terms of the final document, which we now await to be drafted. These offers by the commonwealth, it is important to also understand, were absolutely instrumental in securing the support of this state and every other state in Australia to both the Native Title Act 1993 and the critical amendments made to it in 1998. I will table a final letter from the Prime Minister of the Australian nation in which she says now that the commonwealth bears “no legal or other obligation to Western Australia for the cost of native title compensation and settlements”. [See paper 4320.] Mr C.C. PORTER : I have two quick observations about that. The first is that this was originally put to the states on the basis that it would be a temporary cessation of an agreement made because of the global financial crisis. The first obvious point is that there was no reason to have even a temporary cessation of this agreement. If the commonwealth was actually posing a temporary reneging, based on a financial consideration of the GFC, the reality is that those very same financial impediments affect the states at the same time. Native title is a reality that has to be compensated. The second thing, and what is absolutely scandalous about this situation, is that the commonwealth legislated to confer rights that have led to the states and territories incurring and being exposed to immense financial cost. This state agreed to that on a commonwealth promise and acknowledgement by the commonwealth that it would bear the lion’s share of the cost, and in one letter the Prime Minister simply and breathlessly reneges on that agreement. I will table this interesting letter from our own Premier to the Prime Minister. [See paper 4321.] Mr C.C. PORTER : As things presently stand in this state, based on that 75 per cent agreement, the commonwealth debt is $241 333 466. That is a debt that the commonwealth owes this state. What really sticks in the craw of this government is watching the Prime Minister publicly speak about closing the gap when she has turned her back on native title—turn her back on the compensation for native title. What we are now facing, members opposite, is the process of negotiating under the auspices of the Single Noongar claim for the south west, and their Prime Minister—the Prime Minister of this nation, the leader of their party—has promised us that she will break the promise that has been made by successive Prime Ministers and said that she is unwilling to contribute to that agreement going forward. That agreement will not go forward without the commonwealth’s assistance and without the commonwealth making good on its promise.
I thank the member for his question. I know that this is an enormous issue in his electorate. This matter was raised by the Premier last week. It relates to the commonwealth government reneging on a deal that it had with the states on native title. By way of background, there are now more than 910 000 square metres of determined land in WA, and that amount of determined land will increase. That is an area larger than the entire state of South Australia. Mrs M.H. Roberts : Do you mean metres or kilometres? Mr C.C. PORTER : Sorry; square kilometres. The member is quite right. I should always defer to her better judgement on these matters of accuracy. Other than the issue of the goods and services tax, this is the most significant state–federal financial issue facing the state. This is a $1 billion plus issue going into the future for WA. The lack of media attention to it so far has been absolutely astonishing, though probably not as astonishing as the issue itself. In the hope of generating a bit more interest in this issue, with the Premier’s permission, I will table some letters today involving correspondence between Prime Ministers and Premiers of this state. In about August 2009 the commonwealth Attorney-General, in effect, advised me by letter, and later at a native title ministers’ meeting, that there would be a suspension of the deal that had been reached between the states and the commonwealth. We thought at that stage that that was a suspension. The concept put by the commonwealth Attorney-General at that stage was that the suspension was necessary because of the global financial crisis in 2009. What was the deal that was going to be suspended? I can explain that by tabling two letters today. The first is a letter of 3 February 1994 that came from the then Prime Minister, Paul Keating, to Richard Court. In that letter the Prime Minister said to the Premier of WA at the time that the commonwealth would bear “the lion’s share of the burden” for compensating for native title. In fact, the argument at that stage was whether or not the commonwealth should fund 100 per cent of the compensation costs for native title. Perhaps Prime Minister Keating had a point when he said that a 100 per cent commonwealth contribution would leave no financial restraint on the part of the states in negotiating settlement costs. The offer made by Paul Keating to Richard Court was that the commonwealth would fund up to 75 per cent of the compensation costs arising from the validation of past acts—75 per cent commonwealth money to compensate for past acts on determined native title land. I will table that letter. [See paper 4318.] Mr C.C. PORTER : Many letters follow, but the next key letter is dated 22 August 1998 from then Prime Minister Howard to then Premier Richard Court, which, again, is very clear in its terms. That said that the offer made, and the accepted offer by the state, was that the commonwealth would fund 75 per cent of all future native title compensation as well as validation of past acts, so it was a slightly better deal than was offered by Paul Keating, and it was accepted by the state. [See paper 4317.] Mr C.C. PORTER : In the view of this state government and any reasonable person looking at that correspondence, those two letters evidence a formal agreement of the basic principles, which were to govern the settlement and compensation of native title claims. That much is absolutely clear. On 23 May 2011 a further letter went to our present Premier from the present Prime Minister. In that, the present Prime Minister says — Western Australia’s claim appears to be based on a September 1998 Western Australia agreement to a Commonwealth offer of financial assistance to pay 75 per cent of state and territory native title compensation costs. Well, yes, that was exactly it. The Prime Minister then goes on to say — It is clear from the correspondence that what was agreed then was an outline of a revised offer that was subject to a final agreement being reached. I will table that letter. [See paper 4319.] Mr C.C. PORTER : The present Prime Minister of Australia now says that what was agreed in these letters never became formalised into a financial assistance agreement and, therefore, can now be ignored. Mr E.S. Ripper : That is very bad news. Mr C.J. Barnett : That is what I said to you a week ago and you denied it. Mr E.S. Ripper : No, I didn’t deny it; I pointed out the offer made by John Howard. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Leader of the Opposition! Premier! Mr C.C. PORTER : We are in furious agreement. It is nothing short of scandalous. These were not preliminary offers from haggling undertaken at officer level; they represent an outcome agreed at the highest levels of Australian government—an agreement concerning the most fundamental terms of the final document, which we now await to be drafted. These offers by the commonwealth, it is important to also understand, were absolutely instrumental in securing the support of this state and every other state in Australia to both the Native Title Act 1993 and the critical amendments made to it in 1998. I will table a final letter from the Prime Minister of the Australian nation in which she says now that the commonwealth bears “no legal or other obligation to Western Australia for the cost of native title compensation and settlements”. [See paper 4320.] Mr C.C. PORTER : I have two quick observations about that. The first is that this was originally put to the states on the basis that it would be a temporary cessation of an agreement made because of the global financial crisis. The first obvious point is that there was no reason to have even a temporary cessation of this agreement. If the commonwealth was actually posing a temporary reneging, based on a financial consideration of the GFC, the reality is that those very same financial impediments affect the states at the same time. Native title is a reality that has to be compensated. The second thing, and what is absolutely scandalous about this situation, is that the commonwealth legislated to confer rights that have led to the states and territories incurring and being exposed to immense financial cost. This state agreed to that on a commonwealth promise and acknowledgement by the commonwealth that it would bear the lion’s share of the cost, and in one letter the Prime Minister simply and breathlessly reneges on that agreement. I will table this interesting letter from our own Premier to the Prime Minister. [See paper 4321.] Mr C.C. PORTER : As things presently stand in this state, based on that 75 per cent agreement, the commonwealth debt is $241 333 466. That is a debt that the commonwealth owes this state. What really sticks in the craw of this government is watching the Prime Minister publicly speak about closing the gap when she has turned her back on native title—turn her back on the compensation for native title. What we are now facing, members opposite, is the process of negotiating under the auspices of the Single Noongar claim for the south west, and their Prime Minister—the Prime Minister of this nation, the leader of their party—has promised us that she will break the promise that has been made by successive Prime Ministers and said that she is unwilling to contribute to that agreement going forward. That agreement will not go forward without the commonwealth’s assistance and without the commonwealth making good on its promise.
Mrs M.H. Roberts : Do you mean metres or kilometres? Mr C.C. PORTER : Sorry; square kilometres. The member is quite right. I should always defer to her better judgement on these matters of accuracy. Other than the issue of the goods and services tax, this is the most significant state–federal financial issue facing the state. This is a $1 billion plus issue going into the future for WA. The lack of media attention to it so far has been absolutely astonishing, though probably not as astonishing as the issue itself. In the hope of generating a bit more interest in this issue, with the Premier’s permission, I will table some letters today involving correspondence between Prime Ministers and Premiers of this state. In about August 2009 the commonwealth Attorney-General, in effect, advised me by letter, and later at a native title ministers’ meeting, that there would be a suspension of the deal that had been reached between the states and the commonwealth. We thought at that stage that that was a suspension. The concept put by the commonwealth Attorney-General at that stage was that the suspension was necessary because of the global financial crisis in 2009. What was the deal that was going to be suspended? I can explain that by tabling two letters today. The first is a letter of 3 February 1994 that came from the then Prime Minister, Paul Keating, to Richard Court. In that letter the Prime Minister said to the Premier of WA at the time that the commonwealth would bear “the lion’s share of the burden” for compensating for native title. In fact, the argument at that stage was whether or not the commonwealth should fund 100 per cent of the compensation costs for native title. Perhaps Prime Minister Keating had a point when he said that a 100 per cent commonwealth contribution would leave no financial restraint on the part of the states in negotiating settlement costs. The offer made by Paul Keating to Richard Court was that the commonwealth would fund up to 75 per cent of the compensation costs arising from the validation of past acts—75 per cent commonwealth money to compensate for past acts on determined native title land. I will table that letter. [See paper 4318.] Mr C.C. PORTER : Many letters follow, but the next key letter is dated 22 August 1998 from then Prime Minister Howard to then Premier Richard Court, which, again, is very clear in its terms. That said that the offer made, and the accepted offer by the state, was that the commonwealth would fund 75 per cent of all future native title compensation as well as validation of past acts, so it was a slightly better deal than was offered by Paul Keating, and it was accepted by the state. [See paper 4317.] Mr C.C. PORTER : In the view of this state government and any reasonable person looking at that correspondence, those two letters evidence a formal agreement of the basic principles, which were to govern the settlement and compensation of native title claims. That much is absolutely clear. On 23 May 2011 a further letter went to our present Premier from the present Prime Minister. In that, the present Prime Minister says — Western Australia’s claim appears to be based on a September 1998 Western Australia agreement to a Commonwealth offer of financial assistance to pay 75 per cent of state and territory native title compensation costs. Well, yes, that was exactly it. The Prime Minister then goes on to say — It is clear from the correspondence that what was agreed then was an outline of a revised offer that was subject to a final agreement being reached. I will table that letter. [See paper 4319.] Mr C.C. PORTER : The present Prime Minister of Australia now says that what was agreed in these letters never became formalised into a financial assistance agreement and, therefore, can now be ignored. Mr E.S. Ripper : That is very bad news. Mr C.J. Barnett : That is what I said to you a week ago and you denied it. Mr E.S. Ripper : No, I didn’t deny it; I pointed out the offer made by John Howard. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Leader of the Opposition! Premier! Mr C.C. PORTER : We are in furious agreement. It is nothing short of scandalous. These were not preliminary offers from haggling undertaken at officer level; they represent an outcome agreed at the highest levels of Australian government—an agreement concerning the most fundamental terms of the final document, which we now await to be drafted. These offers by the commonwealth, it is important to also understand, were absolutely instrumental in securing the support of this state and every other state in Australia to both the Native Title Act 1993 and the critical amendments made to it in 1998. I will table a final letter from the Prime Minister of the Australian nation in which she says now that the commonwealth bears “no legal or other obligation to Western Australia for the cost of native title compensation and settlements”. [See paper 4320.] Mr C.C. PORTER : I have two quick observations about that. The first is that this was originally put to the states on the basis that it would be a temporary cessation of an agreement made because of the global financial crisis. The first obvious point is that there was no reason to have even a temporary cessation of this agreement. If the commonwealth was actually posing a temporary reneging, based on a financial consideration of the GFC, the reality is that those very same financial impediments affect the states at the same time. Native title is a reality that has to be compensated. The second thing, and what is absolutely scandalous about this situation, is that the commonwealth legislated to confer rights that have led to the states and territories incurring and being exposed to immense financial cost. This state agreed to that on a commonwealth promise and acknowledgement by the commonwealth that it would bear the lion’s share of the cost, and in one letter the Prime Minister simply and breathlessly reneges on that agreement. I will table this interesting letter from our own Premier to the Prime Minister. [See paper 4321.] Mr C.C. PORTER : As things presently stand in this state, based on that 75 per cent agreement, the commonwealth debt is $241 333 466. That is a debt that the commonwealth owes this state. What really sticks in the craw of this government is watching the Prime Minister publicly speak about closing the gap when she has turned her back on native title—turn her back on the compensation for native title. What we are now facing, members opposite, is the process of negotiating under the auspices of the Single Noongar claim for the south west, and their Prime Minister—the Prime Minister of this nation, the leader of their party—has promised us that she will break the promise that has been made by successive Prime Ministers and said that she is unwilling to contribute to that agreement going forward. That agreement will not go forward without the commonwealth’s assistance and without the commonwealth making good on its promise.
Mr C.C. PORTER : Sorry; square kilometres. The member is quite right. I should always defer to her better judgement on these matters of accuracy. Other than the issue of the goods and services tax, this is the most significant state–federal financial issue facing the state. This is a $1 billion plus issue going into the future for WA. The lack of media attention to it so far has been absolutely astonishing, though probably not as astonishing as the issue itself. In the hope of generating a bit more interest in this issue, with the Premier’s permission, I will table some letters today involving correspondence between Prime Ministers and Premiers of this state. In about August 2009 the commonwealth Attorney-General, in effect, advised me by letter, and later at a native title ministers’ meeting, that there would be a suspension of the deal that had been reached between the states and the commonwealth. We thought at that stage that that was a suspension. The concept put by the commonwealth Attorney-General at that stage was that the suspension was necessary because of the global financial crisis in 2009. What was the deal that was going to be suspended? I can explain that by tabling two letters today. The first is a letter of 3 February 1994 that came from the then Prime Minister, Paul Keating, to Richard Court. In that letter the Prime Minister said to the Premier of WA at the time that the commonwealth would bear “the lion’s share of the burden” for compensating for native title. In fact, the argument at that stage was whether or not the commonwealth should fund 100 per cent of the compensation costs for native title. Perhaps Prime Minister Keating had a point when he said that a 100 per cent commonwealth contribution would leave no financial restraint on the part of the states in negotiating settlement costs. The offer made by Paul Keating to Richard Court was that the commonwealth would fund up to 75 per cent of the compensation costs arising from the validation of past acts—75 per cent commonwealth money to compensate for past acts on determined native title land. I will table that letter. [See paper 4318.] Mr C.C. PORTER : Many letters follow, but the next key letter is dated 22 August 1998 from then Prime Minister Howard to then Premier Richard Court, which, again, is very clear in its terms. That said that the offer made, and the accepted offer by the state, was that the commonwealth would fund 75 per cent of all future native title compensation as well as validation of past acts, so it was a slightly better deal than was offered by Paul Keating, and it was accepted by the state. [See paper 4317.] Mr C.C. PORTER : In the view of this state government and any reasonable person looking at that correspondence, those two letters evidence a formal agreement of the basic principles, which were to govern the settlement and compensation of native title claims. That much is absolutely clear. On 23 May 2011 a further letter went to our present Premier from the present Prime Minister. In that, the present Prime Minister says — Western Australia’s claim appears to be based on a September 1998 Western Australia agreement to a Commonwealth offer of financial assistance to pay 75 per cent of state and territory native title compensation costs. Well, yes, that was exactly it. The Prime Minister then goes on to say — It is clear from the correspondence that what was agreed then was an outline of a revised offer that was subject to a final agreement being reached. I will table that letter. [See paper 4319.] Mr C.C. PORTER : The present Prime Minister of Australia now says that what was agreed in these letters never became formalised into a financial assistance agreement and, therefore, can now be ignored. Mr E.S. Ripper : That is very bad news. Mr C.J. Barnett : That is what I said to you a week ago and you denied it. Mr E.S. Ripper : No, I didn’t deny it; I pointed out the offer made by John Howard. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Leader of the Opposition! Premier! Mr C.C. PORTER : We are in furious agreement. It is nothing short of scandalous. These were not preliminary offers from haggling undertaken at officer level; they represent an outcome agreed at the highest levels of Australian government—an agreement concerning the most fundamental terms of the final document, which we now await to be drafted. These offers by the commonwealth, it is important to also understand, were absolutely instrumental in securing the support of this state and every other state in Australia to both the Native Title Act 1993 and the critical amendments made to it in 1998. I will table a final letter from the Prime Minister of the Australian nation in which she says now that the commonwealth bears “no legal or other obligation to Western Australia for the cost of native title compensation and settlements”. [See paper 4320.] Mr C.C. PORTER : I have two quick observations about that. The first is that this was originally put to the states on the basis that it would be a temporary cessation of an agreement made because of the global financial crisis. The first obvious point is that there was no reason to have even a temporary cessation of this agreement. If the commonwealth was actually posing a temporary reneging, based on a financial consideration of the GFC, the reality is that those very same financial impediments affect the states at the same time. Native title is a reality that has to be compensated. The second thing, and what is absolutely scandalous about this situation, is that the commonwealth legislated to confer rights that have led to the states and territories incurring and being exposed to immense financial cost. This state agreed to that on a commonwealth promise and acknowledgement by the commonwealth that it would bear the lion’s share of the cost, and in one letter the Prime Minister simply and breathlessly reneges on that agreement. I will table this interesting letter from our own Premier to the Prime Minister. [See paper 4321.] Mr C.C. PORTER : As things presently stand in this state, based on that 75 per cent agreement, the commonwealth debt is $241 333 466. That is a debt that the commonwealth owes this state. What really sticks in the craw of this government is watching the Prime Minister publicly speak about closing the gap when she has turned her back on native title—turn her back on the compensation for native title. What we are now facing, members opposite, is the process of negotiating under the auspices of the Single Noongar claim for the south west, and their Prime Minister—the Prime Minister of this nation, the leader of their party—has promised us that she will break the promise that has been made by successive Prime Ministers and said that she is unwilling to contribute to that agreement going forward. That agreement will not go forward without the commonwealth’s assistance and without the commonwealth making good on its promise.
Other than the issue of the goods and services tax, this is the most significant state–federal financial issue facing the state. This is a $1 billion plus issue going into the future for WA. The lack of media attention to it so far has been absolutely astonishing, though probably not as astonishing as the issue itself. In the hope of generating a bit more interest in this issue, with the Premier’s permission, I will table some letters today involving correspondence between Prime Ministers and Premiers of this state. In about August 2009 the commonwealth Attorney-General, in effect, advised me by letter, and later at a native title ministers’ meeting, that there would be a suspension of the deal that had been reached between the states and the commonwealth. We thought at that stage that that was a suspension. The concept put by the commonwealth Attorney-General at that stage was that the suspension was necessary because of the global financial crisis in 2009. What was the deal that was going to be suspended? I can explain that by tabling two letters today. The first is a letter of 3 February 1994 that came from the then Prime Minister, Paul Keating, to Richard Court. In that letter the Prime Minister said to the Premier of WA at the time that the commonwealth would bear “the lion’s share of the burden” for compensating for native title. In fact, the argument at that stage was whether or not the commonwealth should fund 100 per cent of the compensation costs for native title. Perhaps Prime Minister Keating had a point when he said that a 100 per cent commonwealth contribution would leave no financial restraint on the part of the states in negotiating settlement costs. The offer made by Paul Keating to Richard Court was that the commonwealth would fund up to 75 per cent of the compensation costs arising from the validation of past acts—75 per cent commonwealth money to compensate for past acts on determined native title land. I will table that letter. [See paper 4318.] Mr C.C. PORTER : Many letters follow, but the next key letter is dated 22 August 1998 from then Prime Minister Howard to then Premier Richard Court, which, again, is very clear in its terms. That said that the offer made, and the accepted offer by the state, was that the commonwealth would fund 75 per cent of all future native title compensation as well as validation of past acts, so it was a slightly better deal than was offered by Paul Keating, and it was accepted by the state. [See paper 4317.] Mr C.C. PORTER : In the view of this state government and any reasonable person looking at that correspondence, those two letters evidence a formal agreement of the basic principles, which were to govern the settlement and compensation of native title claims. That much is absolutely clear. On 23 May 2011 a further letter went to our present Premier from the present Prime Minister. In that, the present Prime Minister says — Western Australia’s claim appears to be based on a September 1998 Western Australia agreement to a Commonwealth offer of financial assistance to pay 75 per cent of state and territory native title compensation costs. Well, yes, that was exactly it. The Prime Minister then goes on to say — It is clear from the correspondence that what was agreed then was an outline of a revised offer that was subject to a final agreement being reached. I will table that letter. [See paper 4319.] Mr C.C. PORTER : The present Prime Minister of Australia now says that what was agreed in these letters never became formalised into a financial assistance agreement and, therefore, can now be ignored. Mr E.S. Ripper : That is very bad news. Mr C.J. Barnett : That is what I said to you a week ago and you denied it. Mr E.S. Ripper : No, I didn’t deny it; I pointed out the offer made by John Howard. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Leader of the Opposition! Premier! Mr C.C. PORTER : We are in furious agreement. It is nothing short of scandalous. These were not preliminary offers from haggling undertaken at officer level; they represent an outcome agreed at the highest levels of Australian government—an agreement concerning the most fundamental terms of the final document, which we now await to be drafted. These offers by the commonwealth, it is important to also understand, were absolutely instrumental in securing the support of this state and every other state in Australia to both the Native Title Act 1993 and the critical amendments made to it in 1998. I will table a final letter from the Prime Minister of the Australian nation in which she says now that the commonwealth bears “no legal or other obligation to Western Australia for the cost of native title compensation and settlements”. [See paper 4320.] Mr C.C. PORTER : I have two quick observations about that. The first is that this was originally put to the states on the basis that it would be a temporary cessation of an agreement made because of the global financial crisis. The first obvious point is that there was no reason to have even a temporary cessation of this agreement. If the commonwealth was actually posing a temporary reneging, based on a financial consideration of the GFC, the reality is that those very same financial impediments affect the states at the same time. Native title is a reality that has to be compensated. The second thing, and what is absolutely scandalous about this situation, is that the commonwealth legislated to confer rights that have led to the states and territories incurring and being exposed to immense financial cost. This state agreed to that on a commonwealth promise and acknowledgement by the commonwealth that it would bear the lion’s share of the cost, and in one letter the Prime Minister simply and breathlessly reneges on that agreement. I will table this interesting letter from our own Premier to the Prime Minister. [See paper 4321.] Mr C.C. PORTER : As things presently stand in this state, based on that 75 per cent agreement, the commonwealth debt is $241 333 466. That is a debt that the commonwealth owes this state. What really sticks in the craw of this government is watching the Prime Minister publicly speak about closing the gap when she has turned her back on native title—turn her back on the compensation for native title. What we are now facing, members opposite, is the process of negotiating under the auspices of the Single Noongar claim for the south west, and their Prime Minister—the Prime Minister of this nation, the leader of their party—has promised us that she will break the promise that has been made by successive Prime Ministers and said that she is unwilling to contribute to that agreement going forward. That agreement will not go forward without the commonwealth’s assistance and without the commonwealth making good on its promise.
In about August 2009 the commonwealth Attorney-General, in effect, advised me by letter, and later at a native title ministers’ meeting, that there would be a suspension of the deal that had been reached between the states and the commonwealth. We thought at that stage that that was a suspension. The concept put by the commonwealth Attorney-General at that stage was that the suspension was necessary because of the global financial crisis in 2009. What was the deal that was going to be suspended? I can explain that by tabling two letters today. The first is a letter of 3 February 1994 that came from the then Prime Minister, Paul Keating, to Richard Court. In that letter the Prime Minister said to the Premier of WA at the time that the commonwealth would bear “the lion’s share of the burden” for compensating for native title. In fact, the argument at that stage was whether or not the commonwealth should fund 100 per cent of the compensation costs for native title. Perhaps Prime Minister Keating had a point when he said that a 100 per cent commonwealth contribution would leave no financial restraint on the part of the states in negotiating settlement costs. The offer made by Paul Keating to Richard Court was that the commonwealth would fund up to 75 per cent of the compensation costs arising from the validation of past acts—75 per cent commonwealth money to compensate for past acts on determined native title land. I will table that letter. [See paper 4318.] Mr C.C. PORTER : Many letters follow, but the next key letter is dated 22 August 1998 from then Prime Minister Howard to then Premier Richard Court, which, again, is very clear in its terms. That said that the offer made, and the accepted offer by the state, was that the commonwealth would fund 75 per cent of all future native title compensation as well as validation of past acts, so it was a slightly better deal than was offered by Paul Keating, and it was accepted by the state. [See paper 4317.] Mr C.C. PORTER : In the view of this state government and any reasonable person looking at that correspondence, those two letters evidence a formal agreement of the basic principles, which were to govern the settlement and compensation of native title claims. That much is absolutely clear. On 23 May 2011 a further letter went to our present Premier from the present Prime Minister. In that, the present Prime Minister says — Western Australia’s claim appears to be based on a September 1998 Western Australia agreement to a Commonwealth offer of financial assistance to pay 75 per cent of state and territory native title compensation costs. Well, yes, that was exactly it. The Prime Minister then goes on to say — It is clear from the correspondence that what was agreed then was an outline of a revised offer that was subject to a final agreement being reached. I will table that letter. [See paper 4319.] Mr C.C. PORTER : The present Prime Minister of Australia now says that what was agreed in these letters never became formalised into a financial assistance agreement and, therefore, can now be ignored. Mr E.S. Ripper : That is very bad news. Mr C.J. Barnett : That is what I said to you a week ago and you denied it. Mr E.S. Ripper : No, I didn’t deny it; I pointed out the offer made by John Howard. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Leader of the Opposition! Premier! Mr C.C. PORTER : We are in furious agreement. It is nothing short of scandalous. These were not preliminary offers from haggling undertaken at officer level; they represent an outcome agreed at the highest levels of Australian government—an agreement concerning the most fundamental terms of the final document, which we now await to be drafted. These offers by the commonwealth, it is important to also understand, were absolutely instrumental in securing the support of this state and every other state in Australia to both the Native Title Act 1993 and the critical amendments made to it in 1998. I will table a final letter from the Prime Minister of the Australian nation in which she says now that the commonwealth bears “no legal or other obligation to Western Australia for the cost of native title compensation and settlements”. [See paper 4320.] Mr C.C. PORTER : I have two quick observations about that. The first is that this was originally put to the states on the basis that it would be a temporary cessation of an agreement made because of the global financial crisis. The first obvious point is that there was no reason to have even a temporary cessation of this agreement. If the commonwealth was actually posing a temporary reneging, based on a financial consideration of the GFC, the reality is that those very same financial impediments affect the states at the same time. Native title is a reality that has to be compensated. The second thing, and what is absolutely scandalous about this situation, is that the commonwealth legislated to confer rights that have led to the states and territories incurring and being exposed to immense financial cost. This state agreed to that on a commonwealth promise and acknowledgement by the commonwealth that it would bear the lion’s share of the cost, and in one letter the Prime Minister simply and breathlessly reneges on that agreement. I will table this interesting letter from our own Premier to the Prime Minister. [See paper 4321.] Mr C.C. PORTER : As things presently stand in this state, based on that 75 per cent agreement, the commonwealth debt is $241 333 466. That is a debt that the commonwealth owes this state. What really sticks in the craw of this government is watching the Prime Minister publicly speak about closing the gap when she has turned her back on native title—turn her back on the compensation for native title. What we are now facing, members opposite, is the process of negotiating under the auspices of the Single Noongar claim for the south west, and their Prime Minister—the Prime Minister of this nation, the leader of their party—has promised us that she will break the promise that has been made by successive Prime Ministers and said that she is unwilling to contribute to that agreement going forward. That agreement will not go forward without the commonwealth’s assistance and without the commonwealth making good on its promise.
[See paper 4318.] Mr C.C. PORTER : Many letters follow, but the next key letter is dated 22 August 1998 from then Prime Minister Howard to then Premier Richard Court, which, again, is very clear in its terms. That said that the offer made, and the accepted offer by the state, was that the commonwealth would fund 75 per cent of all future native title compensation as well as validation of past acts, so it was a slightly better deal than was offered by Paul Keating, and it was accepted by the state. [See paper 4317.] Mr C.C. PORTER : In the view of this state government and any reasonable person looking at that correspondence, those two letters evidence a formal agreement of the basic principles, which were to govern the settlement and compensation of native title claims. That much is absolutely clear. On 23 May 2011 a further letter went to our present Premier from the present Prime Minister. In that, the present Prime Minister says — Western Australia’s claim appears to be based on a September 1998 Western Australia agreement to a Commonwealth offer of financial assistance to pay 75 per cent of state and territory native title compensation costs. Well, yes, that was exactly it. The Prime Minister then goes on to say — It is clear from the correspondence that what was agreed then was an outline of a revised offer that was subject to a final agreement being reached. I will table that letter. [See paper 4319.] Mr C.C. PORTER : The present Prime Minister of Australia now says that what was agreed in these letters never became formalised into a financial assistance agreement and, therefore, can now be ignored. Mr E.S. Ripper : That is very bad news. Mr C.J. Barnett : That is what I said to you a week ago and you denied it. Mr E.S. Ripper : No, I didn’t deny it; I pointed out the offer made by John Howard. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Leader of the Opposition! Premier! Mr C.C. PORTER : We are in furious agreement. It is nothing short of scandalous. These were not preliminary offers from haggling undertaken at officer level; they represent an outcome agreed at the highest levels of Australian government—an agreement concerning the most fundamental terms of the final document, which we now await to be drafted. These offers by the commonwealth, it is important to also understand, were absolutely instrumental in securing the support of this state and every other state in Australia to both the Native Title Act 1993 and the critical amendments made to it in 1998. I will table a final letter from the Prime Minister of the Australian nation in which she says now that the commonwealth bears “no legal or other obligation to Western Australia for the cost of native title compensation and settlements”. [See paper 4320.] Mr C.C. PORTER : I have two quick observations about that. The first is that this was originally put to the states on the basis that it would be a temporary cessation of an agreement made because of the global financial crisis. The first obvious point is that there was no reason to have even a temporary cessation of this agreement. If the commonwealth was actually posing a temporary reneging, based on a financial consideration of the GFC, the reality is that those very same financial impediments affect the states at the same time. Native title is a reality that has to be compensated. The second thing, and what is absolutely scandalous about this situation, is that the commonwealth legislated to confer rights that have led to the states and territories incurring and being exposed to immense financial cost. This state agreed to that on a commonwealth promise and acknowledgement by the commonwealth that it would bear the lion’s share of the cost, and in one letter the Prime Minister simply and breathlessly reneges on that agreement. I will table this interesting letter from our own Premier to the Prime Minister. [See paper 4321.] Mr C.C. PORTER : As things presently stand in this state, based on that 75 per cent agreement, the commonwealth debt is $241 333 466. That is a debt that the commonwealth owes this state. What really sticks in the craw of this government is watching the Prime Minister publicly speak about closing the gap when she has turned her back on native title—turn her back on the compensation for native title. What we are now facing, members opposite, is the process of negotiating under the auspices of the Single Noongar claim for the south west, and their Prime Minister—the Prime Minister of this nation, the leader of their party—has promised us that she will break the promise that has been made by successive Prime Ministers and said that she is unwilling to contribute to that agreement going forward. That agreement will not go forward without the commonwealth’s assistance and without the commonwealth making good on its promise.
Mr C.C. PORTER : Many letters follow, but the next key letter is dated 22 August 1998 from then Prime Minister Howard to then Premier Richard Court, which, again, is very clear in its terms. That said that the offer made, and the accepted offer by the state, was that the commonwealth would fund 75 per cent of all future native title compensation as well as validation of past acts, so it was a slightly better deal than was offered by Paul Keating, and it was accepted by the state. [See paper 4317.] Mr C.C. PORTER : In the view of this state government and any reasonable person looking at that correspondence, those two letters evidence a formal agreement of the basic principles, which were to govern the settlement and compensation of native title claims. That much is absolutely clear. On 23 May 2011 a further letter went to our present Premier from the present Prime Minister. In that, the present Prime Minister says — Western Australia’s claim appears to be based on a September 1998 Western Australia agreement to a Commonwealth offer of financial assistance to pay 75 per cent of state and territory native title compensation costs. Well, yes, that was exactly it. The Prime Minister then goes on to say — It is clear from the correspondence that what was agreed then was an outline of a revised offer that was subject to a final agreement being reached. I will table that letter. [See paper 4319.] Mr C.C. PORTER : The present Prime Minister of Australia now says that what was agreed in these letters never became formalised into a financial assistance agreement and, therefore, can now be ignored. Mr E.S. Ripper : That is very bad news. Mr C.J. Barnett : That is what I said to you a week ago and you denied it. Mr E.S. Ripper : No, I didn’t deny it; I pointed out the offer made by John Howard. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Leader of the Opposition! Premier! Mr C.C. PORTER : We are in furious agreement. It is nothing short of scandalous. These were not preliminary offers from haggling undertaken at officer level; they represent an outcome agreed at the highest levels of Australian government—an agreement concerning the most fundamental terms of the final document, which we now await to be drafted. These offers by the commonwealth, it is important to also understand, were absolutely instrumental in securing the support of this state and every other state in Australia to both the Native Title Act 1993 and the critical amendments made to it in 1998. I will table a final letter from the Prime Minister of the Australian nation in which she says now that the commonwealth bears “no legal or other obligation to Western Australia for the cost of native title compensation and settlements”. [See paper 4320.] Mr C.C. PORTER : I have two quick observations about that. The first is that this was originally put to the states on the basis that it would be a temporary cessation of an agreement made because of the global financial crisis. The first obvious point is that there was no reason to have even a temporary cessation of this agreement. If the commonwealth was actually posing a temporary reneging, based on a financial consideration of the GFC, the reality is that those very same financial impediments affect the states at the same time. Native title is a reality that has to be compensated. The second thing, and what is absolutely scandalous about this situation, is that the commonwealth legislated to confer rights that have led to the states and territories incurring and being exposed to immense financial cost. This state agreed to that on a commonwealth promise and acknowledgement by the commonwealth that it would bear the lion’s share of the cost, and in one letter the Prime Minister simply and breathlessly reneges on that agreement. I will table this interesting letter from our own Premier to the Prime Minister. [See paper 4321.] Mr C.C. PORTER : As things presently stand in this state, based on that 75 per cent agreement, the commonwealth debt is $241 333 466. That is a debt that the commonwealth owes this state. What really sticks in the craw of this government is watching the Prime Minister publicly speak about closing the gap when she has turned her back on native title—turn her back on the compensation for native title. What we are now facing, members opposite, is the process of negotiating under the auspices of the Single Noongar claim for the south west, and their Prime Minister—the Prime Minister of this nation, the leader of their party—has promised us that she will break the promise that has been made by successive Prime Ministers and said that she is unwilling to contribute to that agreement going forward. That agreement will not go forward without the commonwealth’s assistance and without the commonwealth making good on its promise.
[See paper 4317.] Mr C.C. PORTER : In the view of this state government and any reasonable person looking at that correspondence, those two letters evidence a formal agreement of the basic principles, which were to govern the settlement and compensation of native title claims. That much is absolutely clear. On 23 May 2011 a further letter went to our present Premier from the present Prime Minister. In that, the present Prime Minister says — Western Australia’s claim appears to be based on a September 1998 Western Australia agreement to a Commonwealth offer of financial assistance to pay 75 per cent of state and territory native title compensation costs. Well, yes, that was exactly it. The Prime Minister then goes on to say — It is clear from the correspondence that what was agreed then was an outline of a revised offer that was subject to a final agreement being reached. I will table that letter. [See paper 4319.] Mr C.C. PORTER : The present Prime Minister of Australia now says that what was agreed in these letters never became formalised into a financial assistance agreement and, therefore, can now be ignored. Mr E.S. Ripper : That is very bad news. Mr C.J. Barnett : That is what I said to you a week ago and you denied it. Mr E.S. Ripper : No, I didn’t deny it; I pointed out the offer made by John Howard. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Leader of the Opposition! Premier! Mr C.C. PORTER : We are in furious agreement. It is nothing short of scandalous. These were not preliminary offers from haggling undertaken at officer level; they represent an outcome agreed at the highest levels of Australian government—an agreement concerning the most fundamental terms of the final document, which we now await to be drafted. These offers by the commonwealth, it is important to also understand, were absolutely instrumental in securing the support of this state and every other state in Australia to both the Native Title Act 1993 and the critical amendments made to it in 1998. I will table a final letter from the Prime Minister of the Australian nation in which she says now that the commonwealth bears “no legal or other obligation to Western Australia for the cost of native title compensation and settlements”. [See paper 4320.] Mr C.C. PORTER : I have two quick observations about that. The first is that this was originally put to the states on the basis that it would be a temporary cessation of an agreement made because of the global financial crisis. The first obvious point is that there was no reason to have even a temporary cessation of this agreement. If the commonwealth was actually posing a temporary reneging, based on a financial consideration of the GFC, the reality is that those very same financial impediments affect the states at the same time. Native title is a reality that has to be compensated. The second thing, and what is absolutely scandalous about this situation, is that the commonwealth legislated to confer rights that have led to the states and territories incurring and being exposed to immense financial cost. This state agreed to that on a commonwealth promise and acknowledgement by the commonwealth that it would bear the lion’s share of the cost, and in one letter the Prime Minister simply and breathlessly reneges on that agreement. I will table this interesting letter from our own Premier to the Prime Minister. [See paper 4321.] Mr C.C. PORTER : As things presently stand in this state, based on that 75 per cent agreement, the commonwealth debt is $241 333 466. That is a debt that the commonwealth owes this state. What really sticks in the craw of this government is watching the Prime Minister publicly speak about closing the gap when she has turned her back on native title—turn her back on the compensation for native title. What we are now facing, members opposite, is the process of negotiating under the auspices of the Single Noongar claim for the south west, and their Prime Minister—the Prime Minister of this nation, the leader of their party—has promised us that she will break the promise that has been made by successive Prime Ministers and said that she is unwilling to contribute to that agreement going forward. That agreement will not go forward without the commonwealth’s assistance and without the commonwealth making good on its promise.
Mr C.C. PORTER : In the view of this state government and any reasonable person looking at that correspondence, those two letters evidence a formal agreement of the basic principles, which were to govern the settlement and compensation of native title claims. That much is absolutely clear. On 23 May 2011 a further letter went to our present Premier from the present Prime Minister. In that, the present Prime Minister says — Western Australia’s claim appears to be based on a September 1998 Western Australia agreement to a Commonwealth offer of financial assistance to pay 75 per cent of state and territory native title compensation costs. Well, yes, that was exactly it. The Prime Minister then goes on to say — It is clear from the correspondence that what was agreed then was an outline of a revised offer that was subject to a final agreement being reached. I will table that letter. [See paper 4319.] Mr C.C. PORTER : The present Prime Minister of Australia now says that what was agreed in these letters never became formalised into a financial assistance agreement and, therefore, can now be ignored. Mr E.S. Ripper : That is very bad news. Mr C.J. Barnett : That is what I said to you a week ago and you denied it. Mr E.S. Ripper : No, I didn’t deny it; I pointed out the offer made by John Howard. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Leader of the Opposition! Premier! Mr C.C. PORTER : We are in furious agreement. It is nothing short of scandalous. These were not preliminary offers from haggling undertaken at officer level; they represent an outcome agreed at the highest levels of Australian government—an agreement concerning the most fundamental terms of the final document, which we now await to be drafted. These offers by the commonwealth, it is important to also understand, were absolutely instrumental in securing the support of this state and every other state in Australia to both the Native Title Act 1993 and the critical amendments made to it in 1998. I will table a final letter from the Prime Minister of the Australian nation in which she says now that the commonwealth bears “no legal or other obligation to Western Australia for the cost of native title compensation and settlements”. [See paper 4320.] Mr C.C. PORTER : I have two quick observations about that. The first is that this was originally put to the states on the basis that it would be a temporary cessation of an agreement made because of the global financial crisis. The first obvious point is that there was no reason to have even a temporary cessation of this agreement. If the commonwealth was actually posing a temporary reneging, based on a financial consideration of the GFC, the reality is that those very same financial impediments affect the states at the same time. Native title is a reality that has to be compensated. The second thing, and what is absolutely scandalous about this situation, is that the commonwealth legislated to confer rights that have led to the states and territories incurring and being exposed to immense financial cost. This state agreed to that on a commonwealth promise and acknowledgement by the commonwealth that it would bear the lion’s share of the cost, and in one letter the Prime Minister simply and breathlessly reneges on that agreement. I will table this interesting letter from our own Premier to the Prime Minister. [See paper 4321.] Mr C.C. PORTER : As things presently stand in this state, based on that 75 per cent agreement, the commonwealth debt is $241 333 466. That is a debt that the commonwealth owes this state. What really sticks in the craw of this government is watching the Prime Minister publicly speak about closing the gap when she has turned her back on native title—turn her back on the compensation for native title. What we are now facing, members opposite, is the process of negotiating under the auspices of the Single Noongar claim for the south west, and their Prime Minister—the Prime Minister of this nation, the leader of their party—has promised us that she will break the promise that has been made by successive Prime Ministers and said that she is unwilling to contribute to that agreement going forward. That agreement will not go forward without the commonwealth’s assistance and without the commonwealth making good on its promise.
[See paper 4319.] Mr C.C. PORTER : The present Prime Minister of Australia now says that what was agreed in these letters never became formalised into a financial assistance agreement and, therefore, can now be ignored. Mr E.S. Ripper : That is very bad news. Mr C.J. Barnett : That is what I said to you a week ago and you denied it. Mr E.S. Ripper : No, I didn’t deny it; I pointed out the offer made by John Howard. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Leader of the Opposition! Premier! Mr C.C. PORTER : We are in furious agreement. It is nothing short of scandalous. These were not preliminary offers from haggling undertaken at officer level; they represent an outcome agreed at the highest levels of Australian government—an agreement concerning the most fundamental terms of the final document, which we now await to be drafted. These offers by the commonwealth, it is important to also understand, were absolutely instrumental in securing the support of this state and every other state in Australia to both the Native Title Act 1993 and the critical amendments made to it in 1998. I will table a final letter from the Prime Minister of the Australian nation in which she says now that the commonwealth bears “no legal or other obligation to Western Australia for the cost of native title compensation and settlements”. [See paper 4320.] Mr C.C. PORTER : I have two quick observations about that. The first is that this was originally put to the states on the basis that it would be a temporary cessation of an agreement made because of the global financial crisis. The first obvious point is that there was no reason to have even a temporary cessation of this agreement. If the commonwealth was actually posing a temporary reneging, based on a financial consideration of the GFC, the reality is that those very same financial impediments affect the states at the same time. Native title is a reality that has to be compensated. The second thing, and what is absolutely scandalous about this situation, is that the commonwealth legislated to confer rights that have led to the states and territories incurring and being exposed to immense financial cost. This state agreed to that on a commonwealth promise and acknowledgement by the commonwealth that it would bear the lion’s share of the cost, and in one letter the Prime Minister simply and breathlessly reneges on that agreement. I will table this interesting letter from our own Premier to the Prime Minister. [See paper 4321.] Mr C.C. PORTER : As things presently stand in this state, based on that 75 per cent agreement, the commonwealth debt is $241 333 466. That is a debt that the commonwealth owes this state. What really sticks in the craw of this government is watching the Prime Minister publicly speak about closing the gap when she has turned her back on native title—turn her back on the compensation for native title. What we are now facing, members opposite, is the process of negotiating under the auspices of the Single Noongar claim for the south west, and their Prime Minister—the Prime Minister of this nation, the leader of their party—has promised us that she will break the promise that has been made by successive Prime Ministers and said that she is unwilling to contribute to that agreement going forward. That agreement will not go forward without the commonwealth’s assistance and without the commonwealth making good on its promise.
Mr C.C. PORTER : The present Prime Minister of Australia now says that what was agreed in these letters never became formalised into a financial assistance agreement and, therefore, can now be ignored. Mr E.S. Ripper : That is very bad news. Mr C.J. Barnett : That is what I said to you a week ago and you denied it. Mr E.S. Ripper : No, I didn’t deny it; I pointed out the offer made by John Howard. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Leader of the Opposition! Premier! Mr C.C. PORTER : We are in furious agreement. It is nothing short of scandalous. These were not preliminary offers from haggling undertaken at officer level; they represent an outcome agreed at the highest levels of Australian government—an agreement concerning the most fundamental terms of the final document, which we now await to be drafted. These offers by the commonwealth, it is important to also understand, were absolutely instrumental in securing the support of this state and every other state in Australia to both the Native Title Act 1993 and the critical amendments made to it in 1998. I will table a final letter from the Prime Minister of the Australian nation in which she says now that the commonwealth bears “no legal or other obligation to Western Australia for the cost of native title compensation and settlements”. [See paper 4320.] Mr C.C. PORTER : I have two quick observations about that. The first is that this was originally put to the states on the basis that it would be a temporary cessation of an agreement made because of the global financial crisis. The first obvious point is that there was no reason to have even a temporary cessation of this agreement. If the commonwealth was actually posing a temporary reneging, based on a financial consideration of the GFC, the reality is that those very same financial impediments affect the states at the same time. Native title is a reality that has to be compensated. The second thing, and what is absolutely scandalous about this situation, is that the commonwealth legislated to confer rights that have led to the states and territories incurring and being exposed to immense financial cost. This state agreed to that on a commonwealth promise and acknowledgement by the commonwealth that it would bear the lion’s share of the cost, and in one letter the Prime Minister simply and breathlessly reneges on that agreement. I will table this interesting letter from our own Premier to the Prime Minister. [See paper 4321.] Mr C.C. PORTER : As things presently stand in this state, based on that 75 per cent agreement, the commonwealth debt is $241 333 466. That is a debt that the commonwealth owes this state. What really sticks in the craw of this government is watching the Prime Minister publicly speak about closing the gap when she has turned her back on native title—turn her back on the compensation for native title. What we are now facing, members opposite, is the process of negotiating under the auspices of the Single Noongar claim for the south west, and their Prime Minister—the Prime Minister of this nation, the leader of their party—has promised us that she will break the promise that has been made by successive Prime Ministers and said that she is unwilling to contribute to that agreement going forward. That agreement will not go forward without the commonwealth’s assistance and without the commonwealth making good on its promise.
Mr E.S. Ripper : That is very bad news. Mr C.J. Barnett : That is what I said to you a week ago and you denied it. Mr E.S. Ripper : No, I didn’t deny it; I pointed out the offer made by John Howard. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Leader of the Opposition! Premier! Mr C.C. PORTER : We are in furious agreement. It is nothing short of scandalous. These were not preliminary offers from haggling undertaken at officer level; they represent an outcome agreed at the highest levels of Australian government—an agreement concerning the most fundamental terms of the final document, which we now await to be drafted. These offers by the commonwealth, it is important to also understand, were absolutely instrumental in securing the support of this state and every other state in Australia to both the Native Title Act 1993 and the critical amendments made to it in 1998. I will table a final letter from the Prime Minister of the Australian nation in which she says now that the commonwealth bears “no legal or other obligation to Western Australia for the cost of native title compensation and settlements”. [See paper 4320.] Mr C.C. PORTER : I have two quick observations about that. The first is that this was originally put to the states on the basis that it would be a temporary cessation of an agreement made because of the global financial crisis. The first obvious point is that there was no reason to have even a temporary cessation of this agreement. If the commonwealth was actually posing a temporary reneging, based on a financial consideration of the GFC, the reality is that those very same financial impediments affect the states at the same time. Native title is a reality that has to be compensated. The second thing, and what is absolutely scandalous about this situation, is that the commonwealth legislated to confer rights that have led to the states and territories incurring and being exposed to immense financial cost. This state agreed to that on a commonwealth promise and acknowledgement by the commonwealth that it would bear the lion’s share of the cost, and in one letter the Prime Minister simply and breathlessly reneges on that agreement. I will table this interesting letter from our own Premier to the Prime Minister. [See paper 4321.] Mr C.C. PORTER : As things presently stand in this state, based on that 75 per cent agreement, the commonwealth debt is $241 333 466. That is a debt that the commonwealth owes this state. What really sticks in the craw of this government is watching the Prime Minister publicly speak about closing the gap when she has turned her back on native title—turn her back on the compensation for native title. What we are now facing, members opposite, is the process of negotiating under the auspices of the Single Noongar claim for the south west, and their Prime Minister—the Prime Minister of this nation, the leader of their party—has promised us that she will break the promise that has been made by successive Prime Ministers and said that she is unwilling to contribute to that agreement going forward. That agreement will not go forward without the commonwealth’s assistance and without the commonwealth making good on its promise.
Mr C.J. Barnett : That is what I said to you a week ago and you denied it. Mr E.S. Ripper : No, I didn’t deny it; I pointed out the offer made by John Howard. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Leader of the Opposition! Premier! Mr C.C. PORTER : We are in furious agreement. It is nothing short of scandalous. These were not preliminary offers from haggling undertaken at officer level; they represent an outcome agreed at the highest levels of Australian government—an agreement concerning the most fundamental terms of the final document, which we now await to be drafted. These offers by the commonwealth, it is important to also understand, were absolutely instrumental in securing the support of this state and every other state in Australia to both the Native Title Act 1993 and the critical amendments made to it in 1998. I will table a final letter from the Prime Minister of the Australian nation in which she says now that the commonwealth bears “no legal or other obligation to Western Australia for the cost of native title compensation and settlements”. [See paper 4320.] Mr C.C. PORTER : I have two quick observations about that. The first is that this was originally put to the states on the basis that it would be a temporary cessation of an agreement made because of the global financial crisis. The first obvious point is that there was no reason to have even a temporary cessation of this agreement. If the commonwealth was actually posing a temporary reneging, based on a financial consideration of the GFC, the reality is that those very same financial impediments affect the states at the same time. Native title is a reality that has to be compensated. The second thing, and what is absolutely scandalous about this situation, is that the commonwealth legislated to confer rights that have led to the states and territories incurring and being exposed to immense financial cost. This state agreed to that on a commonwealth promise and acknowledgement by the commonwealth that it would bear the lion’s share of the cost, and in one letter the Prime Minister simply and breathlessly reneges on that agreement. I will table this interesting letter from our own Premier to the Prime Minister. [See paper 4321.] Mr C.C. PORTER : As things presently stand in this state, based on that 75 per cent agreement, the commonwealth debt is $241 333 466. That is a debt that the commonwealth owes this state. What really sticks in the craw of this government is watching the Prime Minister publicly speak about closing the gap when she has turned her back on native title—turn her back on the compensation for native title. What we are now facing, members opposite, is the process of negotiating under the auspices of the Single Noongar claim for the south west, and their Prime Minister—the Prime Minister of this nation, the leader of their party—has promised us that she will break the promise that has been made by successive Prime Ministers and said that she is unwilling to contribute to that agreement going forward. That agreement will not go forward without the commonwealth’s assistance and without the commonwealth making good on its promise.
Mr E.S. Ripper : No, I didn’t deny it; I pointed out the offer made by John Howard. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Leader of the Opposition! Premier! Mr C.C. PORTER : We are in furious agreement. It is nothing short of scandalous. These were not preliminary offers from haggling undertaken at officer level; they represent an outcome agreed at the highest levels of Australian government—an agreement concerning the most fundamental terms of the final document, which we now await to be drafted. These offers by the commonwealth, it is important to also understand, were absolutely instrumental in securing the support of this state and every other state in Australia to both the Native Title Act 1993 and the critical amendments made to it in 1998. I will table a final letter from the Prime Minister of the Australian nation in which she says now that the commonwealth bears “no legal or other obligation to Western Australia for the cost of native title compensation and settlements”. [See paper 4320.] Mr C.C. PORTER : I have two quick observations about that. The first is that this was originally put to the states on the basis that it would be a temporary cessation of an agreement made because of the global financial crisis. The first obvious point is that there was no reason to have even a temporary cessation of this agreement. If the commonwealth was actually posing a temporary reneging, based on a financial consideration of the GFC, the reality is that those very same financial impediments affect the states at the same time. Native title is a reality that has to be compensated. The second thing, and what is absolutely scandalous about this situation, is that the commonwealth legislated to confer rights that have led to the states and territories incurring and being exposed to immense financial cost. This state agreed to that on a commonwealth promise and acknowledgement by the commonwealth that it would bear the lion’s share of the cost, and in one letter the Prime Minister simply and breathlessly reneges on that agreement. I will table this interesting letter from our own Premier to the Prime Minister. [See paper 4321.] Mr C.C. PORTER : As things presently stand in this state, based on that 75 per cent agreement, the commonwealth debt is $241 333 466. That is a debt that the commonwealth owes this state. What really sticks in the craw of this government is watching the Prime Minister publicly speak about closing the gap when she has turned her back on native title—turn her back on the compensation for native title. What we are now facing, members opposite, is the process of negotiating under the auspices of the Single Noongar claim for the south west, and their Prime Minister—the Prime Minister of this nation, the leader of their party—has promised us that she will break the promise that has been made by successive Prime Ministers and said that she is unwilling to contribute to that agreement going forward. That agreement will not go forward without the commonwealth’s assistance and without the commonwealth making good on its promise.
The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Leader of the Opposition! Premier! Mr C.C. PORTER : We are in furious agreement. It is nothing short of scandalous. These were not preliminary offers from haggling undertaken at officer level; they represent an outcome agreed at the highest levels of Australian government—an agreement concerning the most fundamental terms of the final document, which we now await to be drafted. These offers by the commonwealth, it is important to also understand, were absolutely instrumental in securing the support of this state and every other state in Australia to both the Native Title Act 1993 and the critical amendments made to it in 1998. I will table a final letter from the Prime Minister of the Australian nation in which she says now that the commonwealth bears “no legal or other obligation to Western Australia for the cost of native title compensation and settlements”. [See paper 4320.] Mr C.C. PORTER : I have two quick observations about that. The first is that this was originally put to the states on the basis that it would be a temporary cessation of an agreement made because of the global financial crisis. The first obvious point is that there was no reason to have even a temporary cessation of this agreement. If the commonwealth was actually posing a temporary reneging, based on a financial consideration of the GFC, the reality is that those very same financial impediments affect the states at the same time. Native title is a reality that has to be compensated. The second thing, and what is absolutely scandalous about this situation, is that the commonwealth legislated to confer rights that have led to the states and territories incurring and being exposed to immense financial cost. This state agreed to that on a commonwealth promise and acknowledgement by the commonwealth that it would bear the lion’s share of the cost, and in one letter the Prime Minister simply and breathlessly reneges on that agreement. I will table this interesting letter from our own Premier to the Prime Minister. [See paper 4321.] Mr C.C. PORTER : As things presently stand in this state, based on that 75 per cent agreement, the commonwealth debt is $241 333 466. That is a debt that the commonwealth owes this state. What really sticks in the craw of this government is watching the Prime Minister publicly speak about closing the gap when she has turned her back on native title—turn her back on the compensation for native title. What we are now facing, members opposite, is the process of negotiating under the auspices of the Single Noongar claim for the south west, and their Prime Minister—the Prime Minister of this nation, the leader of their party—has promised us that she will break the promise that has been made by successive Prime Ministers and said that she is unwilling to contribute to that agreement going forward. That agreement will not go forward without the commonwealth’s assistance and without the commonwealth making good on its promise.
Mr C.C. PORTER : We are in furious agreement. It is nothing short of scandalous. These were not preliminary offers from haggling undertaken at officer level; they represent an outcome agreed at the highest levels of Australian government—an agreement concerning the most fundamental terms of the final document, which we now await to be drafted. These offers by the commonwealth, it is important to also understand, were absolutely instrumental in securing the support of this state and every other state in Australia to both the Native Title Act 1993 and the critical amendments made to it in 1998. I will table a final letter from the Prime Minister of the Australian nation in which she says now that the commonwealth bears “no legal or other obligation to Western Australia for the cost of native title compensation and settlements”. [See paper 4320.] Mr C.C. PORTER : I have two quick observations about that. The first is that this was originally put to the states on the basis that it would be a temporary cessation of an agreement made because of the global financial crisis. The first obvious point is that there was no reason to have even a temporary cessation of this agreement. If the commonwealth was actually posing a temporary reneging, based on a financial consideration of the GFC, the reality is that those very same financial impediments affect the states at the same time. Native title is a reality that has to be compensated. The second thing, and what is absolutely scandalous about this situation, is that the commonwealth legislated to confer rights that have led to the states and territories incurring and being exposed to immense financial cost. This state agreed to that on a commonwealth promise and acknowledgement by the commonwealth that it would bear the lion’s share of the cost, and in one letter the Prime Minister simply and breathlessly reneges on that agreement. I will table this interesting letter from our own Premier to the Prime Minister. [See paper 4321.] Mr C.C. PORTER : As things presently stand in this state, based on that 75 per cent agreement, the commonwealth debt is $241 333 466. That is a debt that the commonwealth owes this state. What really sticks in the craw of this government is watching the Prime Minister publicly speak about closing the gap when she has turned her back on native title—turn her back on the compensation for native title. What we are now facing, members opposite, is the process of negotiating under the auspices of the Single Noongar claim for the south west, and their Prime Minister—the Prime Minister of this nation, the leader of their party—has promised us that she will break the promise that has been made by successive Prime Ministers and said that she is unwilling to contribute to that agreement going forward. That agreement will not go forward without the commonwealth’s assistance and without the commonwealth making good on its promise.
[See paper 4320.] Mr C.C. PORTER : I have two quick observations about that. The first is that this was originally put to the states on the basis that it would be a temporary cessation of an agreement made because of the global financial crisis. The first obvious point is that there was no reason to have even a temporary cessation of this agreement. If the commonwealth was actually posing a temporary reneging, based on a financial consideration of the GFC, the reality is that those very same financial impediments affect the states at the same time. Native title is a reality that has to be compensated. The second thing, and what is absolutely scandalous about this situation, is that the commonwealth legislated to confer rights that have led to the states and territories incurring and being exposed to immense financial cost. This state agreed to that on a commonwealth promise and acknowledgement by the commonwealth that it would bear the lion’s share of the cost, and in one letter the Prime Minister simply and breathlessly reneges on that agreement. I will table this interesting letter from our own Premier to the Prime Minister. [See paper 4321.] Mr C.C. PORTER : As things presently stand in this state, based on that 75 per cent agreement, the commonwealth debt is $241 333 466. That is a debt that the commonwealth owes this state. What really sticks in the craw of this government is watching the Prime Minister publicly speak about closing the gap when she has turned her back on native title—turn her back on the compensation for native title. What we are now facing, members opposite, is the process of negotiating under the auspices of the Single Noongar claim for the south west, and their Prime Minister—the Prime Minister of this nation, the leader of their party—has promised us that she will break the promise that has been made by successive Prime Ministers and said that she is unwilling to contribute to that agreement going forward. That agreement will not go forward without the commonwealth’s assistance and without the commonwealth making good on its promise.
Mr C.C. PORTER : I have two quick observations about that. The first is that this was originally put to the states on the basis that it would be a temporary cessation of an agreement made because of the global financial crisis. The first obvious point is that there was no reason to have even a temporary cessation of this agreement. If the commonwealth was actually posing a temporary reneging, based on a financial consideration of the GFC, the reality is that those very same financial impediments affect the states at the same time. Native title is a reality that has to be compensated. The second thing, and what is absolutely scandalous about this situation, is that the commonwealth legislated to confer rights that have led to the states and territories incurring and being exposed to immense financial cost. This state agreed to that on a commonwealth promise and acknowledgement by the commonwealth that it would bear the lion’s share of the cost, and in one letter the Prime Minister simply and breathlessly reneges on that agreement. I will table this interesting letter from our own Premier to the Prime Minister. [See paper 4321.] Mr C.C. PORTER : As things presently stand in this state, based on that 75 per cent agreement, the commonwealth debt is $241 333 466. That is a debt that the commonwealth owes this state. What really sticks in the craw of this government is watching the Prime Minister publicly speak about closing the gap when she has turned her back on native title—turn her back on the compensation for native title. What we are now facing, members opposite, is the process of negotiating under the auspices of the Single Noongar claim for the south west, and their Prime Minister—the Prime Minister of this nation, the leader of their party—has promised us that she will break the promise that has been made by successive Prime Ministers and said that she is unwilling to contribute to that agreement going forward. That agreement will not go forward without the commonwealth’s assistance and without the commonwealth making good on its promise.
I will table this interesting letter from our own Premier to the Prime Minister. [See paper 4321.] Mr C.C. PORTER : As things presently stand in this state, based on that 75 per cent agreement, the commonwealth debt is $241 333 466. That is a debt that the commonwealth owes this state. What really sticks in the craw of this government is watching the Prime Minister publicly speak about closing the gap when she has turned her back on native title—turn her back on the compensation for native title. What we are now facing, members opposite, is the process of negotiating under the auspices of the Single Noongar claim for the south west, and their Prime Minister—the Prime Minister of this nation, the leader of their party—has promised us that she will break the promise that has been made by successive Prime Ministers and said that she is unwilling to contribute to that agreement going forward. That agreement will not go forward without the commonwealth’s assistance and without the commonwealth making good on its promise.
[See paper 4321.] Mr C.C. PORTER : As things presently stand in this state, based on that 75 per cent agreement, the commonwealth debt is $241 333 466. That is a debt that the commonwealth owes this state. What really sticks in the craw of this government is watching the Prime Minister publicly speak about closing the gap when she has turned her back on native title—turn her back on the compensation for native title. What we are now facing, members opposite, is the process of negotiating under the auspices of the Single Noongar claim for the south west, and their Prime Minister—the Prime Minister of this nation, the leader of their party—has promised us that she will break the promise that has been made by successive Prime Ministers and said that she is unwilling to contribute to that agreement going forward. That agreement will not go forward without the commonwealth’s assistance and without the commonwealth making good on its promise.
Mr C.C. PORTER : As things presently stand in this state, based on that 75 per cent agreement, the commonwealth debt is $241 333 466. That is a debt that the commonwealth owes this state. What really sticks in the craw of this government is watching the Prime Minister publicly speak about closing the gap when she has turned her back on native title—turn her back on the compensation for native title. What we are now facing, members opposite, is the process of negotiating under the auspices of the Single Noongar claim for the south west, and their Prime Minister—the Prime Minister of this nation, the leader of their party—has promised us that she will break the promise that has been made by successive Prime Ministers and said that she is unwilling to contribute to that agreement going forward. That agreement will not go forward without the commonwealth’s assistance and without the commonwealth making good on its promise.
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.