❓ The Deputy Premier reports on the national native title ministers' meeting, highlighting the universal endorsement of negotiation over litigation and criticising the state opposition leader's stance on native title.
AnsweredQoN 539Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
Will the Deputy Premier report to the house on the outcome of the first national meeting of native title ministers in Canberra last week? Mr E.S. RIPPER
AnswerView source ↗
I attended a meeting of native title ministers convened by the federal Attorney General. One thing that was very noteworthy about the meeting was the universal endorsement, by all governments represented, of an approach to native title based on negotiation and agreement making rather than litigation. Negotiation, not litigation, is the policy of this government. It is the policy on which the government was elected twice, and it has delivered for both indigenous people and economic development in this state. Now this policy is endorsed by the Australian government. The communiqué agreed to by all the governments represented at the meeting states - . . . agreement making provides an effective mechanism for resolving native title issues, which can be quicker and less resource intensive than pursuing outcomes through protracted litigation. If only all Liberals took the same attitude. During the estimates committee process this year, the Leader of the Opposition attacked the government’s approach, asking - Is native title the only area in which the government is prepared to settle before the claim goes to court . . . I have news for the Leader of the Opposition. About 90 per cent of claims in all areas of law never go before a court. Mr M.J. Birney : You only settle when you think you are going to lose, not when you are likely to win. Mr E.S. RIPPER : The Leader of the Opposition is again chipping in with some legal advice. During the estimates committee hearing, I asked him how much he charged for his legal advice, and he said “nothing”. That is exactly what it is worth. This is not the only statement on native title by the Leader of the Opposition in which his preparedness to return us to the politics of conflict and propaganda is evident. This is what he said about the Native Title Act three months ago, as reported in the Kalgoorlie Miner . It was probably tailored to what he thought the audience would be. The article reads - “With a working majority in the senate it is a good opportunity to revisit what has been a disastrous piece of legislation carved by a hostile to industry senate . . . The Leader of the Opposition wants to take us back to 1998, a time when there was warfare between the stakeholders in the native title deals, and the promotion of community fear and division over native title issues. However, there is no interest from the federal government in the approach of the Leader of the Opposition, and there is also no interest from the Minerals Council of Australia. The federal Attorney General has asserted over and over again that he is not interested in changing the balance reached on native title in 1998; he is interested only in making minor technical amendments. He said in his media release dated 7 September - This is not about challenging the fundamental principles of native title or seeking to wind back native title rights. We remain committed to protecting those rights . . . I have a lot of criticism of the federal government. I never thought I would have anything positive to say about the federal Attorney General on any matter. However, if we take him at his word on native title issues, he is light years ahead of the state opposition. He is certainly light years ahead of the state Leader of the Opposition, whose approach is characterised by rank opportunism and underlying racism.
Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: I attended a meeting of native title ministers convened by the federal Attorney General. One thing that was very noteworthy about the meeting was the universal endorsement, by all governments represented, of an approach to native title based on negotiation and agreement making rather than litigation. Negotiation, not litigation, is the policy of this government. It is the policy on which the government was elected twice, and it has delivered for both indigenous people and economic development in this state. Now this policy is endorsed by the Australian government. The communiqué agreed to by all the governments represented at the meeting states - . . . agreement making provides an effective mechanism for resolving native title issues, which can be quicker and less resource intensive than pursuing outcomes through protracted litigation. If only all Liberals took the same attitude. During the estimates committee process this year, the Leader of the Opposition attacked the government’s approach, asking - Is native title the only area in which the government is prepared to settle before the claim goes to court . . . I have news for the Leader of the Opposition. About 90 per cent of claims in all areas of law never go before a court. Mr M.J. Birney : You only settle when you think you are going to lose, not when you are likely to win. Mr E.S. RIPPER : The Leader of the Opposition is again chipping in with some legal advice. During the estimates committee hearing, I asked him how much he charged for his legal advice, and he said “nothing”. That is exactly what it is worth. This is not the only statement on native title by the Leader of the Opposition in which his preparedness to return us to the politics of conflict and propaganda is evident. This is what he said about the Native Title Act three months ago, as reported in the Kalgoorlie Miner . It was probably tailored to what he thought the audience would be. The article reads - “With a working majority in the senate it is a good opportunity to revisit what has been a disastrous piece of legislation carved by a hostile to industry senate . . . The Leader of the Opposition wants to take us back to 1998, a time when there was warfare between the stakeholders in the native title deals, and the promotion of community fear and division over native title issues. However, there is no interest from the federal government in the approach of the Leader of the Opposition, and there is also no interest from the Minerals Council of Australia. The federal Attorney General has asserted over and over again that he is not interested in changing the balance reached on native title in 1998; he is interested only in making minor technical amendments. He said in his media release dated 7 September - This is not about challenging the fundamental principles of native title or seeking to wind back native title rights. We remain committed to protecting those rights . . . I have a lot of criticism of the federal government. I never thought I would have anything positive to say about the federal Attorney General on any matter. However, if we take him at his word on native title issues, he is light years ahead of the state opposition. He is certainly light years ahead of the state Leader of the Opposition, whose approach is characterised by rank opportunism and underlying racism.
I attended a meeting of native title ministers convened by the federal Attorney General. One thing that was very noteworthy about the meeting was the universal endorsement, by all governments represented, of an approach to native title based on negotiation and agreement making rather than litigation. Negotiation, not litigation, is the policy of this government. It is the policy on which the government was elected twice, and it has delivered for both indigenous people and economic development in this state. Now this policy is endorsed by the Australian government. The communiqué agreed to by all the governments represented at the meeting states - . . . agreement making provides an effective mechanism for resolving native title issues, which can be quicker and less resource intensive than pursuing outcomes through protracted litigation. If only all Liberals took the same attitude. During the estimates committee process this year, the Leader of the Opposition attacked the government’s approach, asking - Is native title the only area in which the government is prepared to settle before the claim goes to court . . . I have news for the Leader of the Opposition. About 90 per cent of claims in all areas of law never go before a court. Mr M.J. Birney : You only settle when you think you are going to lose, not when you are likely to win. Mr E.S. RIPPER : The Leader of the Opposition is again chipping in with some legal advice. During the estimates committee hearing, I asked him how much he charged for his legal advice, and he said “nothing”. That is exactly what it is worth. This is not the only statement on native title by the Leader of the Opposition in which his preparedness to return us to the politics of conflict and propaganda is evident. This is what he said about the Native Title Act three months ago, as reported in the Kalgoorlie Miner . It was probably tailored to what he thought the audience would be. The article reads - “With a working majority in the senate it is a good opportunity to revisit what has been a disastrous piece of legislation carved by a hostile to industry senate . . . The Leader of the Opposition wants to take us back to 1998, a time when there was warfare between the stakeholders in the native title deals, and the promotion of community fear and division over native title issues. However, there is no interest from the federal government in the approach of the Leader of the Opposition, and there is also no interest from the Minerals Council of Australia. The federal Attorney General has asserted over and over again that he is not interested in changing the balance reached on native title in 1998; he is interested only in making minor technical amendments. He said in his media release dated 7 September - This is not about challenging the fundamental principles of native title or seeking to wind back native title rights. We remain committed to protecting those rights . . . I have a lot of criticism of the federal government. I never thought I would have anything positive to say about the federal Attorney General on any matter. However, if we take him at his word on native title issues, he is light years ahead of the state opposition. He is certainly light years ahead of the state Leader of the Opposition, whose approach is characterised by rank opportunism and underlying racism.
Mr M.J. Birney : You only settle when you think you are going to lose, not when you are likely to win. Mr E.S. RIPPER : The Leader of the Opposition is again chipping in with some legal advice. During the estimates committee hearing, I asked him how much he charged for his legal advice, and he said “nothing”. That is exactly what it is worth. This is not the only statement on native title by the Leader of the Opposition in which his preparedness to return us to the politics of conflict and propaganda is evident. This is what he said about the Native Title Act three months ago, as reported in the Kalgoorlie Miner . It was probably tailored to what he thought the audience would be. The article reads - “With a working majority in the senate it is a good opportunity to revisit what has been a disastrous piece of legislation carved by a hostile to industry senate . . . The Leader of the Opposition wants to take us back to 1998, a time when there was warfare between the stakeholders in the native title deals, and the promotion of community fear and division over native title issues. However, there is no interest from the federal government in the approach of the Leader of the Opposition, and there is also no interest from the Minerals Council of Australia. The federal Attorney General has asserted over and over again that he is not interested in changing the balance reached on native title in 1998; he is interested only in making minor technical amendments. He said in his media release dated 7 September - This is not about challenging the fundamental principles of native title or seeking to wind back native title rights. We remain committed to protecting those rights . . . I have a lot of criticism of the federal government. I never thought I would have anything positive to say about the federal Attorney General on any matter. However, if we take him at his word on native title issues, he is light years ahead of the state opposition. He is certainly light years ahead of the state Leader of the Opposition, whose approach is characterised by rank opportunism and underlying racism.
Mr E.S. RIPPER : The Leader of the Opposition is again chipping in with some legal advice. During the estimates committee hearing, I asked him how much he charged for his legal advice, and he said “nothing”. That is exactly what it is worth. This is not the only statement on native title by the Leader of the Opposition in which his preparedness to return us to the politics of conflict and propaganda is evident. This is what he said about the Native Title Act three months ago, as reported in the Kalgoorlie Miner . It was probably tailored to what he thought the audience would be. The article reads - “With a working majority in the senate it is a good opportunity to revisit what has been a disastrous piece of legislation carved by a hostile to industry senate . . . The Leader of the Opposition wants to take us back to 1998, a time when there was warfare between the stakeholders in the native title deals, and the promotion of community fear and division over native title issues. However, there is no interest from the federal government in the approach of the Leader of the Opposition, and there is also no interest from the Minerals Council of Australia. The federal Attorney General has asserted over and over again that he is not interested in changing the balance reached on native title in 1998; he is interested only in making minor technical amendments. He said in his media release dated 7 September - This is not about challenging the fundamental principles of native title or seeking to wind back native title rights. We remain committed to protecting those rights . . . I have a lot of criticism of the federal government. I never thought I would have anything positive to say about the federal Attorney General on any matter. However, if we take him at his word on native title issues, he is light years ahead of the state opposition. He is certainly light years ahead of the state Leader of the Opposition, whose approach is characterised by rank opportunism and underlying racism.
Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: I attended a meeting of native title ministers convened by the federal Attorney General. One thing that was very noteworthy about the meeting was the universal endorsement, by all governments represented, of an approach to native title based on negotiation and agreement making rather than litigation. Negotiation, not litigation, is the policy of this government. It is the policy on which the government was elected twice, and it has delivered for both indigenous people and economic development in this state. Now this policy is endorsed by the Australian government. The communiqué agreed to by all the governments represented at the meeting states - . . . agreement making provides an effective mechanism for resolving native title issues, which can be quicker and less resource intensive than pursuing outcomes through protracted litigation. If only all Liberals took the same attitude. During the estimates committee process this year, the Leader of the Opposition attacked the government’s approach, asking - Is native title the only area in which the government is prepared to settle before the claim goes to court . . . I have news for the Leader of the Opposition. About 90 per cent of claims in all areas of law never go before a court. Mr M.J. Birney : You only settle when you think you are going to lose, not when you are likely to win. Mr E.S. RIPPER : The Leader of the Opposition is again chipping in with some legal advice. During the estimates committee hearing, I asked him how much he charged for his legal advice, and he said “nothing”. That is exactly what it is worth. This is not the only statement on native title by the Leader of the Opposition in which his preparedness to return us to the politics of conflict and propaganda is evident. This is what he said about the Native Title Act three months ago, as reported in the Kalgoorlie Miner . It was probably tailored to what he thought the audience would be. The article reads - “With a working majority in the senate it is a good opportunity to revisit what has been a disastrous piece of legislation carved by a hostile to industry senate . . . The Leader of the Opposition wants to take us back to 1998, a time when there was warfare between the stakeholders in the native title deals, and the promotion of community fear and division over native title issues. However, there is no interest from the federal government in the approach of the Leader of the Opposition, and there is also no interest from the Minerals Council of Australia. The federal Attorney General has asserted over and over again that he is not interested in changing the balance reached on native title in 1998; he is interested only in making minor technical amendments. He said in his media release dated 7 September - This is not about challenging the fundamental principles of native title or seeking to wind back native title rights. We remain committed to protecting those rights . . . I have a lot of criticism of the federal government. I never thought I would have anything positive to say about the federal Attorney General on any matter. However, if we take him at his word on native title issues, he is light years ahead of the state opposition. He is certainly light years ahead of the state Leader of the Opposition, whose approach is characterised by rank opportunism and underlying racism.
I attended a meeting of native title ministers convened by the federal Attorney General. One thing that was very noteworthy about the meeting was the universal endorsement, by all governments represented, of an approach to native title based on negotiation and agreement making rather than litigation. Negotiation, not litigation, is the policy of this government. It is the policy on which the government was elected twice, and it has delivered for both indigenous people and economic development in this state. Now this policy is endorsed by the Australian government. The communiqué agreed to by all the governments represented at the meeting states - . . . agreement making provides an effective mechanism for resolving native title issues, which can be quicker and less resource intensive than pursuing outcomes through protracted litigation. If only all Liberals took the same attitude. During the estimates committee process this year, the Leader of the Opposition attacked the government’s approach, asking - Is native title the only area in which the government is prepared to settle before the claim goes to court . . . I have news for the Leader of the Opposition. About 90 per cent of claims in all areas of law never go before a court. Mr M.J. Birney : You only settle when you think you are going to lose, not when you are likely to win. Mr E.S. RIPPER : The Leader of the Opposition is again chipping in with some legal advice. During the estimates committee hearing, I asked him how much he charged for his legal advice, and he said “nothing”. That is exactly what it is worth. This is not the only statement on native title by the Leader of the Opposition in which his preparedness to return us to the politics of conflict and propaganda is evident. This is what he said about the Native Title Act three months ago, as reported in the Kalgoorlie Miner . It was probably tailored to what he thought the audience would be. The article reads - “With a working majority in the senate it is a good opportunity to revisit what has been a disastrous piece of legislation carved by a hostile to industry senate . . . The Leader of the Opposition wants to take us back to 1998, a time when there was warfare between the stakeholders in the native title deals, and the promotion of community fear and division over native title issues. However, there is no interest from the federal government in the approach of the Leader of the Opposition, and there is also no interest from the Minerals Council of Australia. The federal Attorney General has asserted over and over again that he is not interested in changing the balance reached on native title in 1998; he is interested only in making minor technical amendments. He said in his media release dated 7 September - This is not about challenging the fundamental principles of native title or seeking to wind back native title rights. We remain committed to protecting those rights . . . I have a lot of criticism of the federal government. I never thought I would have anything positive to say about the federal Attorney General on any matter. However, if we take him at his word on native title issues, he is light years ahead of the state opposition. He is certainly light years ahead of the state Leader of the Opposition, whose approach is characterised by rank opportunism and underlying racism.
Mr M.J. Birney : You only settle when you think you are going to lose, not when you are likely to win. Mr E.S. RIPPER : The Leader of the Opposition is again chipping in with some legal advice. During the estimates committee hearing, I asked him how much he charged for his legal advice, and he said “nothing”. That is exactly what it is worth. This is not the only statement on native title by the Leader of the Opposition in which his preparedness to return us to the politics of conflict and propaganda is evident. This is what he said about the Native Title Act three months ago, as reported in the Kalgoorlie Miner . It was probably tailored to what he thought the audience would be. The article reads - “With a working majority in the senate it is a good opportunity to revisit what has been a disastrous piece of legislation carved by a hostile to industry senate . . . The Leader of the Opposition wants to take us back to 1998, a time when there was warfare between the stakeholders in the native title deals, and the promotion of community fear and division over native title issues. However, there is no interest from the federal government in the approach of the Leader of the Opposition, and there is also no interest from the Minerals Council of Australia. The federal Attorney General has asserted over and over again that he is not interested in changing the balance reached on native title in 1998; he is interested only in making minor technical amendments. He said in his media release dated 7 September - This is not about challenging the fundamental principles of native title or seeking to wind back native title rights. We remain committed to protecting those rights . . . I have a lot of criticism of the federal government. I never thought I would have anything positive to say about the federal Attorney General on any matter. However, if we take him at his word on native title issues, he is light years ahead of the state opposition. He is certainly light years ahead of the state Leader of the Opposition, whose approach is characterised by rank opportunism and underlying racism.
Mr E.S. RIPPER : The Leader of the Opposition is again chipping in with some legal advice. During the estimates committee hearing, I asked him how much he charged for his legal advice, and he said “nothing”. That is exactly what it is worth. This is not the only statement on native title by the Leader of the Opposition in which his preparedness to return us to the politics of conflict and propaganda is evident. This is what he said about the Native Title Act three months ago, as reported in the Kalgoorlie Miner . It was probably tailored to what he thought the audience would be. The article reads - “With a working majority in the senate it is a good opportunity to revisit what has been a disastrous piece of legislation carved by a hostile to industry senate . . . The Leader of the Opposition wants to take us back to 1998, a time when there was warfare between the stakeholders in the native title deals, and the promotion of community fear and division over native title issues. However, there is no interest from the federal government in the approach of the Leader of the Opposition, and there is also no interest from the Minerals Council of Australia. The federal Attorney General has asserted over and over again that he is not interested in changing the balance reached on native title in 1998; he is interested only in making minor technical amendments. He said in his media release dated 7 September - This is not about challenging the fundamental principles of native title or seeking to wind back native title rights. We remain committed to protecting those rights . . . I have a lot of criticism of the federal government. I never thought I would have anything positive to say about the federal Attorney General on any matter. However, if we take him at his word on native title issues, he is light years ahead of the state opposition. He is certainly light years ahead of the state Leader of the Opposition, whose approach is characterised by rank opportunism and underlying racism.
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.