❓ A WA parliamentary question scrutinises the Burrup Native Title Agreement, focusing on the implications of a Federal Court judgement and the basis for compensation payments despite uncertain native title claims. The Deputy Premier defends the agreement as crucial for investment and providing benefits to the local Aboriginal community, regardless of native title validation.
AnsweredQoN 1304Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
(1) Can the Deputy Premier confirm that a Federal Court judgement found there was no native title on the Burrup?
(2) Can the Deputy Premier confirm that the same Federal Court judgement found that the three native title groups involved in the Burrup native title agreement did not all have claims to other areas where native title was found to exist?
(3) Was the Deputy Premier advised by the Native Title Unit, or any other Government source, as to the impact of that decision on his proposed Burrup Native Title Agreement?
(4) If so, will the Deputy Premier table the advice, and if not, why not?
(5) Does the Government intend to proceed with the Burrup agreement by paying Native Title compensation despite the finding of the Federal Court?
(6) If so, can the Deputy Premier provide a detailed explanation of the basis on which the Government’s compensation offer was formulated?
(7) Can the Deputy Premier explain why there was no clause in the Burrup agreement that would make the agreement subject to validation of native title claims?
(8) Is the Deputy Premier aware that native title compensation is lawfully paid for extinguishment of native title and the loss of traditional usage of land over which native title exists, which depends on the existence of native title?
(9) If so, by what legal authority is the Government proposing to make payments to native title claimants who have not proven their native title claims, as is the case with claims specifically covering the Burrup Peninsula?
(2) Can the Deputy Premier confirm that the same Federal Court judgement found that the three native title groups involved in the Burrup native title agreement did not all have claims to other areas where native title was found to exist?
(3) Was the Deputy Premier advised by the Native Title Unit, or any other Government source, as to the impact of that decision on his proposed Burrup Native Title Agreement?
(4) If so, will the Deputy Premier table the advice, and if not, why not?
(5) Does the Government intend to proceed with the Burrup agreement by paying Native Title compensation despite the finding of the Federal Court?
(6) If so, can the Deputy Premier provide a detailed explanation of the basis on which the Government’s compensation offer was formulated?
(7) Can the Deputy Premier explain why there was no clause in the Burrup agreement that would make the agreement subject to validation of native title claims?
(8) Is the Deputy Premier aware that native title compensation is lawfully paid for extinguishment of native title and the loss of traditional usage of land over which native title exists, which depends on the existence of native title?
(9) If so, by what legal authority is the Government proposing to make payments to native title claimants who have not proven their native title claims, as is the case with claims specifically covering the Burrup Peninsula?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
14 November 2003
Responded by
Minister for Local Government and Regional Development representing the Deputy Premier
Response time
24 days
2. The 3 native title claim groups that are parties to the Burrup Agreement all claimed native title over the area the subject of the Federal Court judgment. The findings articulated in that judgment are that one of those groups has native title over part of that area, and that the other 2 groups do not to have native title to any of the area. This native title case has not yet been settled (see 1 above). 3. I have been advised of the implications of this Federal Court judgment for the Burrup Agreement. The judgment has no significant implications for the Burrup Agreement because the Agreement operates irrespective of whether or not native title is ultimately found to exist. This arrangement allows the Government to deal with the land covered by the Burrup agreement with certainty and has thereby paved the way for $5million worth of investment in gas processing projects on the Burrup Peninsula. As I have pointed out in relation to question 1, in the event that appeals are lodged against the Federal Court judgement, we would not have been able to deal with the land with any certainty. The Burrup Agreement gives us that certainty. It also ensures that the Agreement will provide enduring benefits for the local Aboriginal community, irrespective of whether those people are ultimately able to meet the onerous legal requirements necessary to establish native title. The fact that the local Aboriginal community now has an economic stake in the development of the region is an outcome that is long overdue. 4. It is unnecessary for this advice to be tabled. I have already addressed this issue. 5. The State’s commitments under the Burrup Agreement apply irrespective of whether native title is ultimately found to exist over part or all of the area covered by the Burrup Agreement. It is certainly the Government’s intention to honour those commitments. See 3 above. 6. The primary purpose of the Agreement was to allow development to proceed, in accordance with the requirements of the Commonwealth Native Title Act, pending the final resolution of the native title claims over that area. The Burrup Agreement has achieved that objective. Native title compensation is payable only in certain circumstances where native title is found to have existed and has been extinguished. In the event that the State bears any compensation liability for the acts covered by the Burrup agreement, the money benefits provided under that agreement are to be set off against that liability. The fact that the Burrup Agreement has also settled any native title compensation issues in the area is an ancillary benefit to the State and the taxpayer. As I have said before, the Government has done the right thing by giving some of the poorest people in the Pilbara, who have been frozen out of economic development in that region for generations, a stake in the economic development in the region. The Government has also been fiscally responsible by ensuring that there will be no double dipping by that Aboriginal community in the future. They cannot, in addition to the benefits provided under the Burrup Agreement, obtain native title compensation from the State. The issue of whether or not they would have been entitled to claim native title compensation is still unresolved. However, thanks to the Burrup Agreement, it is an issue of no consequence. The Government’s holistic and far-sighted approach has avoided the need for protracted litigation, which may otherwise have been needed to resolve the issue. This is in the best interests of all concerned. 7. As already stated at 3 above the primary purpose of the Burrup Agreement was to settle native title issues to pave the way for $5billion worth of investment in gas processing projects on the Burrup Peninsula. An invalidity clause was the subject of negotiation but finally proved a barrier to reaching agreement. The Burrup Agreement allows industrial development to proceed without the need to await the outcome of any appeals to the Federal Court decision. 8. Yes. 9. The Government was required to follow the provisions of the Commonwealth Native Title Act 1993 to validly compulsorily acquire any native title rights and interests that may have existed over the Burrup Industrial Estate, the Maitland Industrial Estate and Karratha land required for residential and light industrial purposes. As explained previously the Agreement stands whether native title was found to exist over the area or not.
3. I have been advised of the implications of this Federal Court judgment for the Burrup Agreement. The judgment has no significant implications for the Burrup Agreement because the Agreement operates irrespective of whether or not native title is ultimately found to exist. This arrangement allows the Government to deal with the land covered by the Burrup agreement with certainty and has thereby paved the way for $5million worth of investment in gas processing projects on the Burrup Peninsula. As I have pointed out in relation to question 1, in the event that appeals are lodged against the Federal Court judgement, we would not have been able to deal with the land with any certainty. The Burrup Agreement gives us that certainty. It also ensures that the Agreement will provide enduring benefits for the local Aboriginal community, irrespective of whether those people are ultimately able to meet the onerous legal requirements necessary to establish native title. The fact that the local Aboriginal community now has an economic stake in the development of the region is an outcome that is long overdue. 4. It is unnecessary for this advice to be tabled. I have already addressed this issue. 5. The State’s commitments under the Burrup Agreement apply irrespective of whether native title is ultimately found to exist over part or all of the area covered by the Burrup Agreement. It is certainly the Government’s intention to honour those commitments. See 3 above. 6. The primary purpose of the Agreement was to allow development to proceed, in accordance with the requirements of the Commonwealth Native Title Act, pending the final resolution of the native title claims over that area. The Burrup Agreement has achieved that objective. Native title compensation is payable only in certain circumstances where native title is found to have existed and has been extinguished. In the event that the State bears any compensation liability for the acts covered by the Burrup agreement, the money benefits provided under that agreement are to be set off against that liability. The fact that the Burrup Agreement has also settled any native title compensation issues in the area is an ancillary benefit to the State and the taxpayer. As I have said before, the Government has done the right thing by giving some of the poorest people in the Pilbara, who have been frozen out of economic development in that region for generations, a stake in the economic development in the region. The Government has also been fiscally responsible by ensuring that there will be no double dipping by that Aboriginal community in the future. They cannot, in addition to the benefits provided under the Burrup Agreement, obtain native title compensation from the State. The issue of whether or not they would have been entitled to claim native title compensation is still unresolved. However, thanks to the Burrup Agreement, it is an issue of no consequence. The Government’s holistic and far-sighted approach has avoided the need for protracted litigation, which may otherwise have been needed to resolve the issue. This is in the best interests of all concerned. 7. As already stated at 3 above the primary purpose of the Burrup Agreement was to settle native title issues to pave the way for $5billion worth of investment in gas processing projects on the Burrup Peninsula. An invalidity clause was the subject of negotiation but finally proved a barrier to reaching agreement. The Burrup Agreement allows industrial development to proceed without the need to await the outcome of any appeals to the Federal Court decision. 8. Yes. 9. The Government was required to follow the provisions of the Commonwealth Native Title Act 1993 to validly compulsorily acquire any native title rights and interests that may have existed over the Burrup Industrial Estate, the Maitland Industrial Estate and Karratha land required for residential and light industrial purposes. As explained previously the Agreement stands whether native title was found to exist over the area or not.
4. It is unnecessary for this advice to be tabled. I have already addressed this issue. 5. The State’s commitments under the Burrup Agreement apply irrespective of whether native title is ultimately found to exist over part or all of the area covered by the Burrup Agreement. It is certainly the Government’s intention to honour those commitments. See 3 above. 6. The primary purpose of the Agreement was to allow development to proceed, in accordance with the requirements of the Commonwealth Native Title Act, pending the final resolution of the native title claims over that area. The Burrup Agreement has achieved that objective. Native title compensation is payable only in certain circumstances where native title is found to have existed and has been extinguished. In the event that the State bears any compensation liability for the acts covered by the Burrup agreement, the money benefits provided under that agreement are to be set off against that liability. The fact that the Burrup Agreement has also settled any native title compensation issues in the area is an ancillary benefit to the State and the taxpayer. As I have said before, the Government has done the right thing by giving some of the poorest people in the Pilbara, who have been frozen out of economic development in that region for generations, a stake in the economic development in the region. The Government has also been fiscally responsible by ensuring that there will be no double dipping by that Aboriginal community in the future. They cannot, in addition to the benefits provided under the Burrup Agreement, obtain native title compensation from the State. The issue of whether or not they would have been entitled to claim native title compensation is still unresolved. However, thanks to the Burrup Agreement, it is an issue of no consequence. The Government’s holistic and far-sighted approach has avoided the need for protracted litigation, which may otherwise have been needed to resolve the issue. This is in the best interests of all concerned. 7. As already stated at 3 above the primary purpose of the Burrup Agreement was to settle native title issues to pave the way for $5billion worth of investment in gas processing projects on the Burrup Peninsula. An invalidity clause was the subject of negotiation but finally proved a barrier to reaching agreement. The Burrup Agreement allows industrial development to proceed without the need to await the outcome of any appeals to the Federal Court decision. 8. Yes. 9. The Government was required to follow the provisions of the Commonwealth Native Title Act 1993 to validly compulsorily acquire any native title rights and interests that may have existed over the Burrup Industrial Estate, the Maitland Industrial Estate and Karratha land required for residential and light industrial purposes. As explained previously the Agreement stands whether native title was found to exist over the area or not.
5. The State’s commitments under the Burrup Agreement apply irrespective of whether native title is ultimately found to exist over part or all of the area covered by the Burrup Agreement. It is certainly the Government’s intention to honour those commitments. See 3 above. 6. The primary purpose of the Agreement was to allow development to proceed, in accordance with the requirements of the Commonwealth Native Title Act, pending the final resolution of the native title claims over that area. The Burrup Agreement has achieved that objective. Native title compensation is payable only in certain circumstances where native title is found to have existed and has been extinguished. In the event that the State bears any compensation liability for the acts covered by the Burrup agreement, the money benefits provided under that agreement are to be set off against that liability. The fact that the Burrup Agreement has also settled any native title compensation issues in the area is an ancillary benefit to the State and the taxpayer. As I have said before, the Government has done the right thing by giving some of the poorest people in the Pilbara, who have been frozen out of economic development in that region for generations, a stake in the economic development in the region. The Government has also been fiscally responsible by ensuring that there will be no double dipping by that Aboriginal community in the future. They cannot, in addition to the benefits provided under the Burrup Agreement, obtain native title compensation from the State. The issue of whether or not they would have been entitled to claim native title compensation is still unresolved. However, thanks to the Burrup Agreement, it is an issue of no consequence. The Government’s holistic and far-sighted approach has avoided the need for protracted litigation, which may otherwise have been needed to resolve the issue. This is in the best interests of all concerned. 7. As already stated at 3 above the primary purpose of the Burrup Agreement was to settle native title issues to pave the way for $5billion worth of investment in gas processing projects on the Burrup Peninsula. An invalidity clause was the subject of negotiation but finally proved a barrier to reaching agreement. The Burrup Agreement allows industrial development to proceed without the need to await the outcome of any appeals to the Federal Court decision. 8. Yes. 9. The Government was required to follow the provisions of the Commonwealth Native Title Act 1993 to validly compulsorily acquire any native title rights and interests that may have existed over the Burrup Industrial Estate, the Maitland Industrial Estate and Karratha land required for residential and light industrial purposes. As explained previously the Agreement stands whether native title was found to exist over the area or not.
6. The primary purpose of the Agreement was to allow development to proceed, in accordance with the requirements of the Commonwealth Native Title Act, pending the final resolution of the native title claims over that area. The Burrup Agreement has achieved that objective. Native title compensation is payable only in certain circumstances where native title is found to have existed and has been extinguished. In the event that the State bears any compensation liability for the acts covered by the Burrup agreement, the money benefits provided under that agreement are to be set off against that liability. The fact that the Burrup Agreement has also settled any native title compensation issues in the area is an ancillary benefit to the State and the taxpayer. As I have said before, the Government has done the right thing by giving some of the poorest people in the Pilbara, who have been frozen out of economic development in that region for generations, a stake in the economic development in the region. The Government has also been fiscally responsible by ensuring that there will be no double dipping by that Aboriginal community in the future. They cannot, in addition to the benefits provided under the Burrup Agreement, obtain native title compensation from the State. The issue of whether or not they would have been entitled to claim native title compensation is still unresolved. However, thanks to the Burrup Agreement, it is an issue of no consequence. The Government’s holistic and far-sighted approach has avoided the need for protracted litigation, which may otherwise have been needed to resolve the issue. This is in the best interests of all concerned. 7. As already stated at 3 above the primary purpose of the Burrup Agreement was to settle native title issues to pave the way for $5billion worth of investment in gas processing projects on the Burrup Peninsula. An invalidity clause was the subject of negotiation but finally proved a barrier to reaching agreement. The Burrup Agreement allows industrial development to proceed without the need to await the outcome of any appeals to the Federal Court decision. 8. Yes. 9. The Government was required to follow the provisions of the Commonwealth Native Title Act 1993 to validly compulsorily acquire any native title rights and interests that may have existed over the Burrup Industrial Estate, the Maitland Industrial Estate and Karratha land required for residential and light industrial purposes. As explained previously the Agreement stands whether native title was found to exist over the area or not.
3. I have been advised of the implications of this Federal Court judgment for the Burrup Agreement. The judgment has no significant implications for the Burrup Agreement because the Agreement operates irrespective of whether or not native title is ultimately found to exist. This arrangement allows the Government to deal with the land covered by the Burrup agreement with certainty and has thereby paved the way for $5million worth of investment in gas processing projects on the Burrup Peninsula. As I have pointed out in relation to question 1, in the event that appeals are lodged against the Federal Court judgement, we would not have been able to deal with the land with any certainty. The Burrup Agreement gives us that certainty. It also ensures that the Agreement will provide enduring benefits for the local Aboriginal community, irrespective of whether those people are ultimately able to meet the onerous legal requirements necessary to establish native title. The fact that the local Aboriginal community now has an economic stake in the development of the region is an outcome that is long overdue. 4. It is unnecessary for this advice to be tabled. I have already addressed this issue. 5. The State’s commitments under the Burrup Agreement apply irrespective of whether native title is ultimately found to exist over part or all of the area covered by the Burrup Agreement. It is certainly the Government’s intention to honour those commitments. See 3 above. 6. The primary purpose of the Agreement was to allow development to proceed, in accordance with the requirements of the Commonwealth Native Title Act, pending the final resolution of the native title claims over that area. The Burrup Agreement has achieved that objective. Native title compensation is payable only in certain circumstances where native title is found to have existed and has been extinguished. In the event that the State bears any compensation liability for the acts covered by the Burrup agreement, the money benefits provided under that agreement are to be set off against that liability. The fact that the Burrup Agreement has also settled any native title compensation issues in the area is an ancillary benefit to the State and the taxpayer. As I have said before, the Government has done the right thing by giving some of the poorest people in the Pilbara, who have been frozen out of economic development in that region for generations, a stake in the economic development in the region. The Government has also been fiscally responsible by ensuring that there will be no double dipping by that Aboriginal community in the future. They cannot, in addition to the benefits provided under the Burrup Agreement, obtain native title compensation from the State. The issue of whether or not they would have been entitled to claim native title compensation is still unresolved. However, thanks to the Burrup Agreement, it is an issue of no consequence. The Government’s holistic and far-sighted approach has avoided the need for protracted litigation, which may otherwise have been needed to resolve the issue. This is in the best interests of all concerned. 7. As already stated at 3 above the primary purpose of the Burrup Agreement was to settle native title issues to pave the way for $5billion worth of investment in gas processing projects on the Burrup Peninsula. An invalidity clause was the subject of negotiation but finally proved a barrier to reaching agreement. The Burrup Agreement allows industrial development to proceed without the need to await the outcome of any appeals to the Federal Court decision. 8. Yes. 9. The Government was required to follow the provisions of the Commonwealth Native Title Act 1993 to validly compulsorily acquire any native title rights and interests that may have existed over the Burrup Industrial Estate, the Maitland Industrial Estate and Karratha land required for residential and light industrial purposes. As explained previously the Agreement stands whether native title was found to exist over the area or not.
4. It is unnecessary for this advice to be tabled. I have already addressed this issue. 5. The State’s commitments under the Burrup Agreement apply irrespective of whether native title is ultimately found to exist over part or all of the area covered by the Burrup Agreement. It is certainly the Government’s intention to honour those commitments. See 3 above. 6. The primary purpose of the Agreement was to allow development to proceed, in accordance with the requirements of the Commonwealth Native Title Act, pending the final resolution of the native title claims over that area. The Burrup Agreement has achieved that objective. Native title compensation is payable only in certain circumstances where native title is found to have existed and has been extinguished. In the event that the State bears any compensation liability for the acts covered by the Burrup agreement, the money benefits provided under that agreement are to be set off against that liability. The fact that the Burrup Agreement has also settled any native title compensation issues in the area is an ancillary benefit to the State and the taxpayer. As I have said before, the Government has done the right thing by giving some of the poorest people in the Pilbara, who have been frozen out of economic development in that region for generations, a stake in the economic development in the region. The Government has also been fiscally responsible by ensuring that there will be no double dipping by that Aboriginal community in the future. They cannot, in addition to the benefits provided under the Burrup Agreement, obtain native title compensation from the State. The issue of whether or not they would have been entitled to claim native title compensation is still unresolved. However, thanks to the Burrup Agreement, it is an issue of no consequence. The Government’s holistic and far-sighted approach has avoided the need for protracted litigation, which may otherwise have been needed to resolve the issue. This is in the best interests of all concerned. 7. As already stated at 3 above the primary purpose of the Burrup Agreement was to settle native title issues to pave the way for $5billion worth of investment in gas processing projects on the Burrup Peninsula. An invalidity clause was the subject of negotiation but finally proved a barrier to reaching agreement. The Burrup Agreement allows industrial development to proceed without the need to await the outcome of any appeals to the Federal Court decision. 8. Yes. 9. The Government was required to follow the provisions of the Commonwealth Native Title Act 1993 to validly compulsorily acquire any native title rights and interests that may have existed over the Burrup Industrial Estate, the Maitland Industrial Estate and Karratha land required for residential and light industrial purposes. As explained previously the Agreement stands whether native title was found to exist over the area or not.
5. The State’s commitments under the Burrup Agreement apply irrespective of whether native title is ultimately found to exist over part or all of the area covered by the Burrup Agreement. It is certainly the Government’s intention to honour those commitments. See 3 above. 6. The primary purpose of the Agreement was to allow development to proceed, in accordance with the requirements of the Commonwealth Native Title Act, pending the final resolution of the native title claims over that area. The Burrup Agreement has achieved that objective. Native title compensation is payable only in certain circumstances where native title is found to have existed and has been extinguished. In the event that the State bears any compensation liability for the acts covered by the Burrup agreement, the money benefits provided under that agreement are to be set off against that liability. The fact that the Burrup Agreement has also settled any native title compensation issues in the area is an ancillary benefit to the State and the taxpayer. As I have said before, the Government has done the right thing by giving some of the poorest people in the Pilbara, who have been frozen out of economic development in that region for generations, a stake in the economic development in the region. The Government has also been fiscally responsible by ensuring that there will be no double dipping by that Aboriginal community in the future. They cannot, in addition to the benefits provided under the Burrup Agreement, obtain native title compensation from the State. The issue of whether or not they would have been entitled to claim native title compensation is still unresolved. However, thanks to the Burrup Agreement, it is an issue of no consequence. The Government’s holistic and far-sighted approach has avoided the need for protracted litigation, which may otherwise have been needed to resolve the issue. This is in the best interests of all concerned. 7. As already stated at 3 above the primary purpose of the Burrup Agreement was to settle native title issues to pave the way for $5billion worth of investment in gas processing projects on the Burrup Peninsula. An invalidity clause was the subject of negotiation but finally proved a barrier to reaching agreement. The Burrup Agreement allows industrial development to proceed without the need to await the outcome of any appeals to the Federal Court decision. 8. Yes. 9. The Government was required to follow the provisions of the Commonwealth Native Title Act 1993 to validly compulsorily acquire any native title rights and interests that may have existed over the Burrup Industrial Estate, the Maitland Industrial Estate and Karratha land required for residential and light industrial purposes. As explained previously the Agreement stands whether native title was found to exist over the area or not.
6. The primary purpose of the Agreement was to allow development to proceed, in accordance with the requirements of the Commonwealth Native Title Act, pending the final resolution of the native title claims over that area. The Burrup Agreement has achieved that objective. Native title compensation is payable only in certain circumstances where native title is found to have existed and has been extinguished. In the event that the State bears any compensation liability for the acts covered by the Burrup agreement, the money benefits provided under that agreement are to be set off against that liability. The fact that the Burrup Agreement has also settled any native title compensation issues in the area is an ancillary benefit to the State and the taxpayer. As I have said before, the Government has done the right thing by giving some of the poorest people in the Pilbara, who have been frozen out of economic development in that region for generations, a stake in the economic development in the region. The Government has also been fiscally responsible by ensuring that there will be no double dipping by that Aboriginal community in the future. They cannot, in addition to the benefits provided under the Burrup Agreement, obtain native title compensation from the State. The issue of whether or not they would have been entitled to claim native title compensation is still unresolved. However, thanks to the Burrup Agreement, it is an issue of no consequence. The Government’s holistic and far-sighted approach has avoided the need for protracted litigation, which may otherwise have been needed to resolve the issue. This is in the best interests of all concerned. 7. As already stated at 3 above the primary purpose of the Burrup Agreement was to settle native title issues to pave the way for $5billion worth of investment in gas processing projects on the Burrup Peninsula. An invalidity clause was the subject of negotiation but finally proved a barrier to reaching agreement. The Burrup Agreement allows industrial development to proceed without the need to await the outcome of any appeals to the Federal Court decision. 8. Yes. 9. The Government was required to follow the provisions of the Commonwealth Native Title Act 1993 to validly compulsorily acquire any native title rights and interests that may have existed over the Burrup Industrial Estate, the Maitland Industrial Estate and Karratha land required for residential and light industrial purposes. As explained previously the Agreement stands whether native title was found to exist over the area or not.
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.