❓ Shadow Minister Ripper questions Premier Barnett on perceived inconsistencies in environmental protection standards between Margaret River (coal mine proposal) and the Kimberley (James Price Point), particularly regarding Indigenous communities. Barnett defends his government's approach.
AnsweredQoN 470Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
LD OPERATIONS ltd — MARGARET RIVER COALMINE
Before I ask my question, I will say that I expect my members to protect small businesses in their electorates. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Vasse! Mr E.S. RIPPER : I refer to the Premier’s comments on Monday about the proposal by LD Operations to build a coalmine near Margaret River that — The state government will give some consideration to special legislation to protect the Margaret River area … (1) Why has the Premier not shown the same care and respect to the Kimberley Indigenous community as he is showing to the people of Margaret River on issues of development, mining and environmental protection? (2) Is the Kimberley not at least as environmentally sensitive as Margaret River? (3) Why does it appear that the people of Margaret River have more political clout on this issue than the Indigenous people of the Kimberley? Mr C.J. BARNETT
Before I ask my question, I will say that I expect my members to protect small businesses in their electorates. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Vasse! Mr E.S. RIPPER : I refer to the Premier’s comments on Monday about the proposal by LD Operations to build a coalmine near Margaret River that — The state government will give some consideration to special legislation to protect the Margaret River area … (1) Why has the Premier not shown the same care and respect to the Kimberley Indigenous community as he is showing to the people of Margaret River on issues of development, mining and environmental protection? (2) Is the Kimberley not at least as environmentally sensitive as Margaret River? (3) Why does it appear that the people of Margaret River have more political clout on this issue than the Indigenous people of the Kimberley? Mr C.J. BARNETT
AnswerView source ↗
(1)–(3) There were a whole lot of suppositions in that question but I will comment on the Margaret River circumstance first. Members may recall that the Liberal–National government brought in legislation in the 1990s to protect the Swan Valley, to protect the areas that were suitable and have been used for basically grape and wine production, and to protect the character of the area as a wine-producing area and as an important tourist component. Mr W.J. Johnston : But not tourism facilities! Mr C.J. BARNETT : I just said that. Several members interjected. Mr W.J. Johnston : How come you’re not protecting the — Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do not listen to her; listen to me and the member might learn something! The SPEAKER : Premier, take a seat. Member for Cannington — Mr W.J. Johnston : He took the interjection! The SPEAKER : Member for Cannington, I am on my feet; you will be quiet for a moment. What I am going to tell you is that you have been formally called for the first time today. Mr C.J. BARNETT : That was a decision taken by the Liberal–National government to protect the character and the unique characteristics of the Swan Valley. As some members may be aware—certainly, the member for Vasse would be aware—a local group in the Margaret River area has for some time argued that the Margaret River area should receive some similar planning protection. Indeed — Mr P. Papalia interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member is very ordinary, is he not? Margaret River has gained for itself an international reputation for the quality of its wines and for the tourist attraction of the area. The concerns of the people in Margaret River are primarily, as it was put to me, about urban encroachment on some of the best soils for wine production. It is actually about soil type and preserving that resource. In fact, I recently met in my electorate with a major wine producer and he talked to me about the work that had been going on. We have yet to progress this in government, but I said that in principle we would give consideration to legislation to try to protect the winegrowing area and the character of Margaret River as a major wine and tourist location along similar lines to what this government did in the 1990s for the Swan Valley. Bear in mind that the boundaries of that probably do not include the site where the proposed coalmine would be. That is the reality. They are different issues. The coal company had leases granted to it by a Labor government in the 1980s. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : That is the truth! That happened — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I know members opposite do not like the truth, but I just point out that it was granted in the 1980s. The company has legal entitlement to pursue it. What I have said publicly is that because of the nature of the area, people can expect a very high environmental standard to apply to that area, as a very high environmental standard would apply to any development in the Kimberley, including James Price Point. James Price Point was selected from 40 sites; it came down to four sites and then finally to James Price Point. One of the major reasons that James Price Point was selected was that it was seen to be environmentally acceptable by the responsible environmental agencies. Mr E.S. Ripper : You completely stuffed up that process! Mr R.H. Cook : You just waded in and messed up the entire negotiation process! Mr C.J. BARNETT : How long do I have, Mr Speaker? How long have I got to tell the story of negotiations because the Labor Party in government gave the Kimberley Land Council a right of veto—something no-one else has! It gave it a right of veto over land that is not Aboriginal Lands Trust land and not found to have native title, although it may well. The decision on James Price Point, made after two years and after more than $16 million of expenditure, is a decision that is proper. If members read the newspaper this morning, they would have seen the notice of intent to acquire that land in accordance with the Native Title Act and the Land Administration Act. Therefore, the process is underway, and there will be good faith negotiations during the course of that process. I believe that we will reach a consent agreement during that negotiation. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I remind members opposite—in fact, I think the signature might have been that of the now Leader of the Opposition—of the issue of a notice of intent to acquire the land of the Ord River after native title had been determined.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Vasse! Mr E.S. RIPPER : I refer to the Premier’s comments on Monday about the proposal by LD Operations to build a coalmine near Margaret River that — The state government will give some consideration to special legislation to protect the Margaret River area … (1) Why has the Premier not shown the same care and respect to the Kimberley Indigenous community as he is showing to the people of Margaret River on issues of development, mining and environmental protection? (2) Is the Kimberley not at least as environmentally sensitive as Margaret River? (3) Why does it appear that the people of Margaret River have more political clout on this issue than the Indigenous people of the Kimberley? Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: (1)–(3) There were a whole lot of suppositions in that question but I will comment on the Margaret River circumstance first. Members may recall that the Liberal–National government brought in legislation in the 1990s to protect the Swan Valley, to protect the areas that were suitable and have been used for basically grape and wine production, and to protect the character of the area as a wine-producing area and as an important tourist component. Mr W.J. Johnston : But not tourism facilities! Mr C.J. BARNETT : I just said that. Several members interjected. Mr W.J. Johnston : How come you’re not protecting the — Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do not listen to her; listen to me and the member might learn something! The SPEAKER : Premier, take a seat. Member for Cannington — Mr W.J. Johnston : He took the interjection! The SPEAKER : Member for Cannington, I am on my feet; you will be quiet for a moment. What I am going to tell you is that you have been formally called for the first time today. Mr C.J. BARNETT : That was a decision taken by the Liberal–National government to protect the character and the unique characteristics of the Swan Valley. As some members may be aware—certainly, the member for Vasse would be aware—a local group in the Margaret River area has for some time argued that the Margaret River area should receive some similar planning protection. Indeed — Mr P. Papalia interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member is very ordinary, is he not? Margaret River has gained for itself an international reputation for the quality of its wines and for the tourist attraction of the area. The concerns of the people in Margaret River are primarily, as it was put to me, about urban encroachment on some of the best soils for wine production. It is actually about soil type and preserving that resource. In fact, I recently met in my electorate with a major wine producer and he talked to me about the work that had been going on. We have yet to progress this in government, but I said that in principle we would give consideration to legislation to try to protect the winegrowing area and the character of Margaret River as a major wine and tourist location along similar lines to what this government did in the 1990s for the Swan Valley. Bear in mind that the boundaries of that probably do not include the site where the proposed coalmine would be. That is the reality. They are different issues. The coal company had leases granted to it by a Labor government in the 1980s. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : That is the truth! That happened — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I know members opposite do not like the truth, but I just point out that it was granted in the 1980s. The company has legal entitlement to pursue it. What I have said publicly is that because of the nature of the area, people can expect a very high environmental standard to apply to that area, as a very high environmental standard would apply to any development in the Kimberley, including James Price Point. James Price Point was selected from 40 sites; it came down to four sites and then finally to James Price Point. One of the major reasons that James Price Point was selected was that it was seen to be environmentally acceptable by the responsible environmental agencies. Mr E.S. Ripper : You completely stuffed up that process! Mr R.H. Cook : You just waded in and messed up the entire negotiation process! Mr C.J. BARNETT : How long do I have, Mr Speaker? How long have I got to tell the story of negotiations because the Labor Party in government gave the Kimberley Land Council a right of veto—something no-one else has! It gave it a right of veto over land that is not Aboriginal Lands Trust land and not found to have native title, although it may well. The decision on James Price Point, made after two years and after more than $16 million of expenditure, is a decision that is proper. If members read the newspaper this morning, they would have seen the notice of intent to acquire that land in accordance with the Native Title Act and the Land Administration Act. Therefore, the process is underway, and there will be good faith negotiations during the course of that process. I believe that we will reach a consent agreement during that negotiation. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I remind members opposite—in fact, I think the signature might have been that of the now Leader of the Opposition—of the issue of a notice of intent to acquire the land of the Ord River after native title had been determined.
The SPEAKER : Member for Vasse! Mr E.S. RIPPER : I refer to the Premier’s comments on Monday about the proposal by LD Operations to build a coalmine near Margaret River that — The state government will give some consideration to special legislation to protect the Margaret River area … (1) Why has the Premier not shown the same care and respect to the Kimberley Indigenous community as he is showing to the people of Margaret River on issues of development, mining and environmental protection? (2) Is the Kimberley not at least as environmentally sensitive as Margaret River? (3) Why does it appear that the people of Margaret River have more political clout on this issue than the Indigenous people of the Kimberley? Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: (1)–(3) There were a whole lot of suppositions in that question but I will comment on the Margaret River circumstance first. Members may recall that the Liberal–National government brought in legislation in the 1990s to protect the Swan Valley, to protect the areas that were suitable and have been used for basically grape and wine production, and to protect the character of the area as a wine-producing area and as an important tourist component. Mr W.J. Johnston : But not tourism facilities! Mr C.J. BARNETT : I just said that. Several members interjected. Mr W.J. Johnston : How come you’re not protecting the — Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do not listen to her; listen to me and the member might learn something! The SPEAKER : Premier, take a seat. Member for Cannington — Mr W.J. Johnston : He took the interjection! The SPEAKER : Member for Cannington, I am on my feet; you will be quiet for a moment. What I am going to tell you is that you have been formally called for the first time today. Mr C.J. BARNETT : That was a decision taken by the Liberal–National government to protect the character and the unique characteristics of the Swan Valley. As some members may be aware—certainly, the member for Vasse would be aware—a local group in the Margaret River area has for some time argued that the Margaret River area should receive some similar planning protection. Indeed — Mr P. Papalia interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member is very ordinary, is he not? Margaret River has gained for itself an international reputation for the quality of its wines and for the tourist attraction of the area. The concerns of the people in Margaret River are primarily, as it was put to me, about urban encroachment on some of the best soils for wine production. It is actually about soil type and preserving that resource. In fact, I recently met in my electorate with a major wine producer and he talked to me about the work that had been going on. We have yet to progress this in government, but I said that in principle we would give consideration to legislation to try to protect the winegrowing area and the character of Margaret River as a major wine and tourist location along similar lines to what this government did in the 1990s for the Swan Valley. Bear in mind that the boundaries of that probably do not include the site where the proposed coalmine would be. That is the reality. They are different issues. The coal company had leases granted to it by a Labor government in the 1980s. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : That is the truth! That happened — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I know members opposite do not like the truth, but I just point out that it was granted in the 1980s. The company has legal entitlement to pursue it. What I have said publicly is that because of the nature of the area, people can expect a very high environmental standard to apply to that area, as a very high environmental standard would apply to any development in the Kimberley, including James Price Point. James Price Point was selected from 40 sites; it came down to four sites and then finally to James Price Point. One of the major reasons that James Price Point was selected was that it was seen to be environmentally acceptable by the responsible environmental agencies. Mr E.S. Ripper : You completely stuffed up that process! Mr R.H. Cook : You just waded in and messed up the entire negotiation process! Mr C.J. BARNETT : How long do I have, Mr Speaker? How long have I got to tell the story of negotiations because the Labor Party in government gave the Kimberley Land Council a right of veto—something no-one else has! It gave it a right of veto over land that is not Aboriginal Lands Trust land and not found to have native title, although it may well. The decision on James Price Point, made after two years and after more than $16 million of expenditure, is a decision that is proper. If members read the newspaper this morning, they would have seen the notice of intent to acquire that land in accordance with the Native Title Act and the Land Administration Act. Therefore, the process is underway, and there will be good faith negotiations during the course of that process. I believe that we will reach a consent agreement during that negotiation. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I remind members opposite—in fact, I think the signature might have been that of the now Leader of the Opposition—of the issue of a notice of intent to acquire the land of the Ord River after native title had been determined.
Mr E.S. RIPPER : I refer to the Premier’s comments on Monday about the proposal by LD Operations to build a coalmine near Margaret River that — The state government will give some consideration to special legislation to protect the Margaret River area … (1) Why has the Premier not shown the same care and respect to the Kimberley Indigenous community as he is showing to the people of Margaret River on issues of development, mining and environmental protection? (2) Is the Kimberley not at least as environmentally sensitive as Margaret River? (3) Why does it appear that the people of Margaret River have more political clout on this issue than the Indigenous people of the Kimberley? Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: (1)–(3) There were a whole lot of suppositions in that question but I will comment on the Margaret River circumstance first. Members may recall that the Liberal–National government brought in legislation in the 1990s to protect the Swan Valley, to protect the areas that were suitable and have been used for basically grape and wine production, and to protect the character of the area as a wine-producing area and as an important tourist component. Mr W.J. Johnston : But not tourism facilities! Mr C.J. BARNETT : I just said that. Several members interjected. Mr W.J. Johnston : How come you’re not protecting the — Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do not listen to her; listen to me and the member might learn something! The SPEAKER : Premier, take a seat. Member for Cannington — Mr W.J. Johnston : He took the interjection! The SPEAKER : Member for Cannington, I am on my feet; you will be quiet for a moment. What I am going to tell you is that you have been formally called for the first time today. Mr C.J. BARNETT : That was a decision taken by the Liberal–National government to protect the character and the unique characteristics of the Swan Valley. As some members may be aware—certainly, the member for Vasse would be aware—a local group in the Margaret River area has for some time argued that the Margaret River area should receive some similar planning protection. Indeed — Mr P. Papalia interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member is very ordinary, is he not? Margaret River has gained for itself an international reputation for the quality of its wines and for the tourist attraction of the area. The concerns of the people in Margaret River are primarily, as it was put to me, about urban encroachment on some of the best soils for wine production. It is actually about soil type and preserving that resource. In fact, I recently met in my electorate with a major wine producer and he talked to me about the work that had been going on. We have yet to progress this in government, but I said that in principle we would give consideration to legislation to try to protect the winegrowing area and the character of Margaret River as a major wine and tourist location along similar lines to what this government did in the 1990s for the Swan Valley. Bear in mind that the boundaries of that probably do not include the site where the proposed coalmine would be. That is the reality. They are different issues. The coal company had leases granted to it by a Labor government in the 1980s. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : That is the truth! That happened — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I know members opposite do not like the truth, but I just point out that it was granted in the 1980s. The company has legal entitlement to pursue it. What I have said publicly is that because of the nature of the area, people can expect a very high environmental standard to apply to that area, as a very high environmental standard would apply to any development in the Kimberley, including James Price Point. James Price Point was selected from 40 sites; it came down to four sites and then finally to James Price Point. One of the major reasons that James Price Point was selected was that it was seen to be environmentally acceptable by the responsible environmental agencies. Mr E.S. Ripper : You completely stuffed up that process! Mr R.H. Cook : You just waded in and messed up the entire negotiation process! Mr C.J. BARNETT : How long do I have, Mr Speaker? How long have I got to tell the story of negotiations because the Labor Party in government gave the Kimberley Land Council a right of veto—something no-one else has! It gave it a right of veto over land that is not Aboriginal Lands Trust land and not found to have native title, although it may well. The decision on James Price Point, made after two years and after more than $16 million of expenditure, is a decision that is proper. If members read the newspaper this morning, they would have seen the notice of intent to acquire that land in accordance with the Native Title Act and the Land Administration Act. Therefore, the process is underway, and there will be good faith negotiations during the course of that process. I believe that we will reach a consent agreement during that negotiation. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I remind members opposite—in fact, I think the signature might have been that of the now Leader of the Opposition—of the issue of a notice of intent to acquire the land of the Ord River after native title had been determined.
(2) Is the Kimberley not at least as environmentally sensitive as Margaret River? (3) Why does it appear that the people of Margaret River have more political clout on this issue than the Indigenous people of the Kimberley? Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: (1)–(3) There were a whole lot of suppositions in that question but I will comment on the Margaret River circumstance first. Members may recall that the Liberal–National government brought in legislation in the 1990s to protect the Swan Valley, to protect the areas that were suitable and have been used for basically grape and wine production, and to protect the character of the area as a wine-producing area and as an important tourist component. Mr W.J. Johnston : But not tourism facilities! Mr C.J. BARNETT : I just said that. Several members interjected. Mr W.J. Johnston : How come you’re not protecting the — Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do not listen to her; listen to me and the member might learn something! The SPEAKER : Premier, take a seat. Member for Cannington — Mr W.J. Johnston : He took the interjection! The SPEAKER : Member for Cannington, I am on my feet; you will be quiet for a moment. What I am going to tell you is that you have been formally called for the first time today. Mr C.J. BARNETT : That was a decision taken by the Liberal–National government to protect the character and the unique characteristics of the Swan Valley. As some members may be aware—certainly, the member for Vasse would be aware—a local group in the Margaret River area has for some time argued that the Margaret River area should receive some similar planning protection. Indeed — Mr P. Papalia interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member is very ordinary, is he not? Margaret River has gained for itself an international reputation for the quality of its wines and for the tourist attraction of the area. The concerns of the people in Margaret River are primarily, as it was put to me, about urban encroachment on some of the best soils for wine production. It is actually about soil type and preserving that resource. In fact, I recently met in my electorate with a major wine producer and he talked to me about the work that had been going on. We have yet to progress this in government, but I said that in principle we would give consideration to legislation to try to protect the winegrowing area and the character of Margaret River as a major wine and tourist location along similar lines to what this government did in the 1990s for the Swan Valley. Bear in mind that the boundaries of that probably do not include the site where the proposed coalmine would be. That is the reality. They are different issues. The coal company had leases granted to it by a Labor government in the 1980s. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : That is the truth! That happened — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I know members opposite do not like the truth, but I just point out that it was granted in the 1980s. The company has legal entitlement to pursue it. What I have said publicly is that because of the nature of the area, people can expect a very high environmental standard to apply to that area, as a very high environmental standard would apply to any development in the Kimberley, including James Price Point. James Price Point was selected from 40 sites; it came down to four sites and then finally to James Price Point. One of the major reasons that James Price Point was selected was that it was seen to be environmentally acceptable by the responsible environmental agencies. Mr E.S. Ripper : You completely stuffed up that process! Mr R.H. Cook : You just waded in and messed up the entire negotiation process! Mr C.J. BARNETT : How long do I have, Mr Speaker? How long have I got to tell the story of negotiations because the Labor Party in government gave the Kimberley Land Council a right of veto—something no-one else has! It gave it a right of veto over land that is not Aboriginal Lands Trust land and not found to have native title, although it may well. The decision on James Price Point, made after two years and after more than $16 million of expenditure, is a decision that is proper. If members read the newspaper this morning, they would have seen the notice of intent to acquire that land in accordance with the Native Title Act and the Land Administration Act. Therefore, the process is underway, and there will be good faith negotiations during the course of that process. I believe that we will reach a consent agreement during that negotiation. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I remind members opposite—in fact, I think the signature might have been that of the now Leader of the Opposition—of the issue of a notice of intent to acquire the land of the Ord River after native title had been determined.
(3) Why does it appear that the people of Margaret River have more political clout on this issue than the Indigenous people of the Kimberley? Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: (1)–(3) There were a whole lot of suppositions in that question but I will comment on the Margaret River circumstance first. Members may recall that the Liberal–National government brought in legislation in the 1990s to protect the Swan Valley, to protect the areas that were suitable and have been used for basically grape and wine production, and to protect the character of the area as a wine-producing area and as an important tourist component. Mr W.J. Johnston : But not tourism facilities! Mr C.J. BARNETT : I just said that. Several members interjected. Mr W.J. Johnston : How come you’re not protecting the — Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do not listen to her; listen to me and the member might learn something! The SPEAKER : Premier, take a seat. Member for Cannington — Mr W.J. Johnston : He took the interjection! The SPEAKER : Member for Cannington, I am on my feet; you will be quiet for a moment. What I am going to tell you is that you have been formally called for the first time today. Mr C.J. BARNETT : That was a decision taken by the Liberal–National government to protect the character and the unique characteristics of the Swan Valley. As some members may be aware—certainly, the member for Vasse would be aware—a local group in the Margaret River area has for some time argued that the Margaret River area should receive some similar planning protection. Indeed — Mr P. Papalia interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member is very ordinary, is he not? Margaret River has gained for itself an international reputation for the quality of its wines and for the tourist attraction of the area. The concerns of the people in Margaret River are primarily, as it was put to me, about urban encroachment on some of the best soils for wine production. It is actually about soil type and preserving that resource. In fact, I recently met in my electorate with a major wine producer and he talked to me about the work that had been going on. We have yet to progress this in government, but I said that in principle we would give consideration to legislation to try to protect the winegrowing area and the character of Margaret River as a major wine and tourist location along similar lines to what this government did in the 1990s for the Swan Valley. Bear in mind that the boundaries of that probably do not include the site where the proposed coalmine would be. That is the reality. They are different issues. The coal company had leases granted to it by a Labor government in the 1980s. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : That is the truth! That happened — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I know members opposite do not like the truth, but I just point out that it was granted in the 1980s. The company has legal entitlement to pursue it. What I have said publicly is that because of the nature of the area, people can expect a very high environmental standard to apply to that area, as a very high environmental standard would apply to any development in the Kimberley, including James Price Point. James Price Point was selected from 40 sites; it came down to four sites and then finally to James Price Point. One of the major reasons that James Price Point was selected was that it was seen to be environmentally acceptable by the responsible environmental agencies. Mr E.S. Ripper : You completely stuffed up that process! Mr R.H. Cook : You just waded in and messed up the entire negotiation process! Mr C.J. BARNETT : How long do I have, Mr Speaker? How long have I got to tell the story of negotiations because the Labor Party in government gave the Kimberley Land Council a right of veto—something no-one else has! It gave it a right of veto over land that is not Aboriginal Lands Trust land and not found to have native title, although it may well. The decision on James Price Point, made after two years and after more than $16 million of expenditure, is a decision that is proper. If members read the newspaper this morning, they would have seen the notice of intent to acquire that land in accordance with the Native Title Act and the Land Administration Act. Therefore, the process is underway, and there will be good faith negotiations during the course of that process. I believe that we will reach a consent agreement during that negotiation. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I remind members opposite—in fact, I think the signature might have been that of the now Leader of the Opposition—of the issue of a notice of intent to acquire the land of the Ord River after native title had been determined.
Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: (1)–(3) There were a whole lot of suppositions in that question but I will comment on the Margaret River circumstance first. Members may recall that the Liberal–National government brought in legislation in the 1990s to protect the Swan Valley, to protect the areas that were suitable and have been used for basically grape and wine production, and to protect the character of the area as a wine-producing area and as an important tourist component. Mr W.J. Johnston : But not tourism facilities! Mr C.J. BARNETT : I just said that. Several members interjected. Mr W.J. Johnston : How come you’re not protecting the — Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do not listen to her; listen to me and the member might learn something! The SPEAKER : Premier, take a seat. Member for Cannington — Mr W.J. Johnston : He took the interjection! The SPEAKER : Member for Cannington, I am on my feet; you will be quiet for a moment. What I am going to tell you is that you have been formally called for the first time today. Mr C.J. BARNETT : That was a decision taken by the Liberal–National government to protect the character and the unique characteristics of the Swan Valley. As some members may be aware—certainly, the member for Vasse would be aware—a local group in the Margaret River area has for some time argued that the Margaret River area should receive some similar planning protection. Indeed — Mr P. Papalia interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member is very ordinary, is he not? Margaret River has gained for itself an international reputation for the quality of its wines and for the tourist attraction of the area. The concerns of the people in Margaret River are primarily, as it was put to me, about urban encroachment on some of the best soils for wine production. It is actually about soil type and preserving that resource. In fact, I recently met in my electorate with a major wine producer and he talked to me about the work that had been going on. We have yet to progress this in government, but I said that in principle we would give consideration to legislation to try to protect the winegrowing area and the character of Margaret River as a major wine and tourist location along similar lines to what this government did in the 1990s for the Swan Valley. Bear in mind that the boundaries of that probably do not include the site where the proposed coalmine would be. That is the reality. They are different issues. The coal company had leases granted to it by a Labor government in the 1980s. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : That is the truth! That happened — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I know members opposite do not like the truth, but I just point out that it was granted in the 1980s. The company has legal entitlement to pursue it. What I have said publicly is that because of the nature of the area, people can expect a very high environmental standard to apply to that area, as a very high environmental standard would apply to any development in the Kimberley, including James Price Point. James Price Point was selected from 40 sites; it came down to four sites and then finally to James Price Point. One of the major reasons that James Price Point was selected was that it was seen to be environmentally acceptable by the responsible environmental agencies. Mr E.S. Ripper : You completely stuffed up that process! Mr R.H. Cook : You just waded in and messed up the entire negotiation process! Mr C.J. BARNETT : How long do I have, Mr Speaker? How long have I got to tell the story of negotiations because the Labor Party in government gave the Kimberley Land Council a right of veto—something no-one else has! It gave it a right of veto over land that is not Aboriginal Lands Trust land and not found to have native title, although it may well. The decision on James Price Point, made after two years and after more than $16 million of expenditure, is a decision that is proper. If members read the newspaper this morning, they would have seen the notice of intent to acquire that land in accordance with the Native Title Act and the Land Administration Act. Therefore, the process is underway, and there will be good faith negotiations during the course of that process. I believe that we will reach a consent agreement during that negotiation. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I remind members opposite—in fact, I think the signature might have been that of the now Leader of the Opposition—of the issue of a notice of intent to acquire the land of the Ord River after native title had been determined.
(1)–(3) There were a whole lot of suppositions in that question but I will comment on the Margaret River circumstance first. Members may recall that the Liberal–National government brought in legislation in the 1990s to protect the Swan Valley, to protect the areas that were suitable and have been used for basically grape and wine production, and to protect the character of the area as a wine-producing area and as an important tourist component. Mr W.J. Johnston : But not tourism facilities! Mr C.J. BARNETT : I just said that. Several members interjected. Mr W.J. Johnston : How come you’re not protecting the — Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do not listen to her; listen to me and the member might learn something! The SPEAKER : Premier, take a seat. Member for Cannington — Mr W.J. Johnston : He took the interjection! The SPEAKER : Member for Cannington, I am on my feet; you will be quiet for a moment. What I am going to tell you is that you have been formally called for the first time today. Mr C.J. BARNETT : That was a decision taken by the Liberal–National government to protect the character and the unique characteristics of the Swan Valley. As some members may be aware—certainly, the member for Vasse would be aware—a local group in the Margaret River area has for some time argued that the Margaret River area should receive some similar planning protection. Indeed — Mr P. Papalia interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member is very ordinary, is he not? Margaret River has gained for itself an international reputation for the quality of its wines and for the tourist attraction of the area. The concerns of the people in Margaret River are primarily, as it was put to me, about urban encroachment on some of the best soils for wine production. It is actually about soil type and preserving that resource. In fact, I recently met in my electorate with a major wine producer and he talked to me about the work that had been going on. We have yet to progress this in government, but I said that in principle we would give consideration to legislation to try to protect the winegrowing area and the character of Margaret River as a major wine and tourist location along similar lines to what this government did in the 1990s for the Swan Valley. Bear in mind that the boundaries of that probably do not include the site where the proposed coalmine would be. That is the reality. They are different issues. The coal company had leases granted to it by a Labor government in the 1980s. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : That is the truth! That happened — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I know members opposite do not like the truth, but I just point out that it was granted in the 1980s. The company has legal entitlement to pursue it. What I have said publicly is that because of the nature of the area, people can expect a very high environmental standard to apply to that area, as a very high environmental standard would apply to any development in the Kimberley, including James Price Point. James Price Point was selected from 40 sites; it came down to four sites and then finally to James Price Point. One of the major reasons that James Price Point was selected was that it was seen to be environmentally acceptable by the responsible environmental agencies. Mr E.S. Ripper : You completely stuffed up that process! Mr R.H. Cook : You just waded in and messed up the entire negotiation process! Mr C.J. BARNETT : How long do I have, Mr Speaker? How long have I got to tell the story of negotiations because the Labor Party in government gave the Kimberley Land Council a right of veto—something no-one else has! It gave it a right of veto over land that is not Aboriginal Lands Trust land and not found to have native title, although it may well. The decision on James Price Point, made after two years and after more than $16 million of expenditure, is a decision that is proper. If members read the newspaper this morning, they would have seen the notice of intent to acquire that land in accordance with the Native Title Act and the Land Administration Act. Therefore, the process is underway, and there will be good faith negotiations during the course of that process. I believe that we will reach a consent agreement during that negotiation. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I remind members opposite—in fact, I think the signature might have been that of the now Leader of the Opposition—of the issue of a notice of intent to acquire the land of the Ord River after native title had been determined.
Mr W.J. Johnston : But not tourism facilities! Mr C.J. BARNETT : I just said that. Several members interjected. Mr W.J. Johnston : How come you’re not protecting the — Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do not listen to her; listen to me and the member might learn something! The SPEAKER : Premier, take a seat. Member for Cannington — Mr W.J. Johnston : He took the interjection! The SPEAKER : Member for Cannington, I am on my feet; you will be quiet for a moment. What I am going to tell you is that you have been formally called for the first time today. Mr C.J. BARNETT : That was a decision taken by the Liberal–National government to protect the character and the unique characteristics of the Swan Valley. As some members may be aware—certainly, the member for Vasse would be aware—a local group in the Margaret River area has for some time argued that the Margaret River area should receive some similar planning protection. Indeed — Mr P. Papalia interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member is very ordinary, is he not? Margaret River has gained for itself an international reputation for the quality of its wines and for the tourist attraction of the area. The concerns of the people in Margaret River are primarily, as it was put to me, about urban encroachment on some of the best soils for wine production. It is actually about soil type and preserving that resource. In fact, I recently met in my electorate with a major wine producer and he talked to me about the work that had been going on. We have yet to progress this in government, but I said that in principle we would give consideration to legislation to try to protect the winegrowing area and the character of Margaret River as a major wine and tourist location along similar lines to what this government did in the 1990s for the Swan Valley. Bear in mind that the boundaries of that probably do not include the site where the proposed coalmine would be. That is the reality. They are different issues. The coal company had leases granted to it by a Labor government in the 1980s. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : That is the truth! That happened — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I know members opposite do not like the truth, but I just point out that it was granted in the 1980s. The company has legal entitlement to pursue it. What I have said publicly is that because of the nature of the area, people can expect a very high environmental standard to apply to that area, as a very high environmental standard would apply to any development in the Kimberley, including James Price Point. James Price Point was selected from 40 sites; it came down to four sites and then finally to James Price Point. One of the major reasons that James Price Point was selected was that it was seen to be environmentally acceptable by the responsible environmental agencies. Mr E.S. Ripper : You completely stuffed up that process! Mr R.H. Cook : You just waded in and messed up the entire negotiation process! Mr C.J. BARNETT : How long do I have, Mr Speaker? How long have I got to tell the story of negotiations because the Labor Party in government gave the Kimberley Land Council a right of veto—something no-one else has! It gave it a right of veto over land that is not Aboriginal Lands Trust land and not found to have native title, although it may well. The decision on James Price Point, made after two years and after more than $16 million of expenditure, is a decision that is proper. If members read the newspaper this morning, they would have seen the notice of intent to acquire that land in accordance with the Native Title Act and the Land Administration Act. Therefore, the process is underway, and there will be good faith negotiations during the course of that process. I believe that we will reach a consent agreement during that negotiation. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I remind members opposite—in fact, I think the signature might have been that of the now Leader of the Opposition—of the issue of a notice of intent to acquire the land of the Ord River after native title had been determined.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : I just said that. Several members interjected. Mr W.J. Johnston : How come you’re not protecting the — Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do not listen to her; listen to me and the member might learn something! The SPEAKER : Premier, take a seat. Member for Cannington — Mr W.J. Johnston : He took the interjection! The SPEAKER : Member for Cannington, I am on my feet; you will be quiet for a moment. What I am going to tell you is that you have been formally called for the first time today. Mr C.J. BARNETT : That was a decision taken by the Liberal–National government to protect the character and the unique characteristics of the Swan Valley. As some members may be aware—certainly, the member for Vasse would be aware—a local group in the Margaret River area has for some time argued that the Margaret River area should receive some similar planning protection. Indeed — Mr P. Papalia interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member is very ordinary, is he not? Margaret River has gained for itself an international reputation for the quality of its wines and for the tourist attraction of the area. The concerns of the people in Margaret River are primarily, as it was put to me, about urban encroachment on some of the best soils for wine production. It is actually about soil type and preserving that resource. In fact, I recently met in my electorate with a major wine producer and he talked to me about the work that had been going on. We have yet to progress this in government, but I said that in principle we would give consideration to legislation to try to protect the winegrowing area and the character of Margaret River as a major wine and tourist location along similar lines to what this government did in the 1990s for the Swan Valley. Bear in mind that the boundaries of that probably do not include the site where the proposed coalmine would be. That is the reality. They are different issues. The coal company had leases granted to it by a Labor government in the 1980s. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : That is the truth! That happened — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I know members opposite do not like the truth, but I just point out that it was granted in the 1980s. The company has legal entitlement to pursue it. What I have said publicly is that because of the nature of the area, people can expect a very high environmental standard to apply to that area, as a very high environmental standard would apply to any development in the Kimberley, including James Price Point. James Price Point was selected from 40 sites; it came down to four sites and then finally to James Price Point. One of the major reasons that James Price Point was selected was that it was seen to be environmentally acceptable by the responsible environmental agencies. Mr E.S. Ripper : You completely stuffed up that process! Mr R.H. Cook : You just waded in and messed up the entire negotiation process! Mr C.J. BARNETT : How long do I have, Mr Speaker? How long have I got to tell the story of negotiations because the Labor Party in government gave the Kimberley Land Council a right of veto—something no-one else has! It gave it a right of veto over land that is not Aboriginal Lands Trust land and not found to have native title, although it may well. The decision on James Price Point, made after two years and after more than $16 million of expenditure, is a decision that is proper. If members read the newspaper this morning, they would have seen the notice of intent to acquire that land in accordance with the Native Title Act and the Land Administration Act. Therefore, the process is underway, and there will be good faith negotiations during the course of that process. I believe that we will reach a consent agreement during that negotiation. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I remind members opposite—in fact, I think the signature might have been that of the now Leader of the Opposition—of the issue of a notice of intent to acquire the land of the Ord River after native title had been determined.
Several members interjected. Mr W.J. Johnston : How come you’re not protecting the — Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do not listen to her; listen to me and the member might learn something! The SPEAKER : Premier, take a seat. Member for Cannington — Mr W.J. Johnston : He took the interjection! The SPEAKER : Member for Cannington, I am on my feet; you will be quiet for a moment. What I am going to tell you is that you have been formally called for the first time today. Mr C.J. BARNETT : That was a decision taken by the Liberal–National government to protect the character and the unique characteristics of the Swan Valley. As some members may be aware—certainly, the member for Vasse would be aware—a local group in the Margaret River area has for some time argued that the Margaret River area should receive some similar planning protection. Indeed — Mr P. Papalia interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member is very ordinary, is he not? Margaret River has gained for itself an international reputation for the quality of its wines and for the tourist attraction of the area. The concerns of the people in Margaret River are primarily, as it was put to me, about urban encroachment on some of the best soils for wine production. It is actually about soil type and preserving that resource. In fact, I recently met in my electorate with a major wine producer and he talked to me about the work that had been going on. We have yet to progress this in government, but I said that in principle we would give consideration to legislation to try to protect the winegrowing area and the character of Margaret River as a major wine and tourist location along similar lines to what this government did in the 1990s for the Swan Valley. Bear in mind that the boundaries of that probably do not include the site where the proposed coalmine would be. That is the reality. They are different issues. The coal company had leases granted to it by a Labor government in the 1980s. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : That is the truth! That happened — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I know members opposite do not like the truth, but I just point out that it was granted in the 1980s. The company has legal entitlement to pursue it. What I have said publicly is that because of the nature of the area, people can expect a very high environmental standard to apply to that area, as a very high environmental standard would apply to any development in the Kimberley, including James Price Point. James Price Point was selected from 40 sites; it came down to four sites and then finally to James Price Point. One of the major reasons that James Price Point was selected was that it was seen to be environmentally acceptable by the responsible environmental agencies. Mr E.S. Ripper : You completely stuffed up that process! Mr R.H. Cook : You just waded in and messed up the entire negotiation process! Mr C.J. BARNETT : How long do I have, Mr Speaker? How long have I got to tell the story of negotiations because the Labor Party in government gave the Kimberley Land Council a right of veto—something no-one else has! It gave it a right of veto over land that is not Aboriginal Lands Trust land and not found to have native title, although it may well. The decision on James Price Point, made after two years and after more than $16 million of expenditure, is a decision that is proper. If members read the newspaper this morning, they would have seen the notice of intent to acquire that land in accordance with the Native Title Act and the Land Administration Act. Therefore, the process is underway, and there will be good faith negotiations during the course of that process. I believe that we will reach a consent agreement during that negotiation. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I remind members opposite—in fact, I think the signature might have been that of the now Leader of the Opposition—of the issue of a notice of intent to acquire the land of the Ord River after native title had been determined.
Mr W.J. Johnston : How come you’re not protecting the — Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do not listen to her; listen to me and the member might learn something! The SPEAKER : Premier, take a seat. Member for Cannington — Mr W.J. Johnston : He took the interjection! The SPEAKER : Member for Cannington, I am on my feet; you will be quiet for a moment. What I am going to tell you is that you have been formally called for the first time today. Mr C.J. BARNETT : That was a decision taken by the Liberal–National government to protect the character and the unique characteristics of the Swan Valley. As some members may be aware—certainly, the member for Vasse would be aware—a local group in the Margaret River area has for some time argued that the Margaret River area should receive some similar planning protection. Indeed — Mr P. Papalia interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member is very ordinary, is he not? Margaret River has gained for itself an international reputation for the quality of its wines and for the tourist attraction of the area. The concerns of the people in Margaret River are primarily, as it was put to me, about urban encroachment on some of the best soils for wine production. It is actually about soil type and preserving that resource. In fact, I recently met in my electorate with a major wine producer and he talked to me about the work that had been going on. We have yet to progress this in government, but I said that in principle we would give consideration to legislation to try to protect the winegrowing area and the character of Margaret River as a major wine and tourist location along similar lines to what this government did in the 1990s for the Swan Valley. Bear in mind that the boundaries of that probably do not include the site where the proposed coalmine would be. That is the reality. They are different issues. The coal company had leases granted to it by a Labor government in the 1980s. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : That is the truth! That happened — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I know members opposite do not like the truth, but I just point out that it was granted in the 1980s. The company has legal entitlement to pursue it. What I have said publicly is that because of the nature of the area, people can expect a very high environmental standard to apply to that area, as a very high environmental standard would apply to any development in the Kimberley, including James Price Point. James Price Point was selected from 40 sites; it came down to four sites and then finally to James Price Point. One of the major reasons that James Price Point was selected was that it was seen to be environmentally acceptable by the responsible environmental agencies. Mr E.S. Ripper : You completely stuffed up that process! Mr R.H. Cook : You just waded in and messed up the entire negotiation process! Mr C.J. BARNETT : How long do I have, Mr Speaker? How long have I got to tell the story of negotiations because the Labor Party in government gave the Kimberley Land Council a right of veto—something no-one else has! It gave it a right of veto over land that is not Aboriginal Lands Trust land and not found to have native title, although it may well. The decision on James Price Point, made after two years and after more than $16 million of expenditure, is a decision that is proper. If members read the newspaper this morning, they would have seen the notice of intent to acquire that land in accordance with the Native Title Act and the Land Administration Act. Therefore, the process is underway, and there will be good faith negotiations during the course of that process. I believe that we will reach a consent agreement during that negotiation. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I remind members opposite—in fact, I think the signature might have been that of the now Leader of the Opposition—of the issue of a notice of intent to acquire the land of the Ord River after native title had been determined.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do not listen to her; listen to me and the member might learn something! The SPEAKER : Premier, take a seat. Member for Cannington — Mr W.J. Johnston : He took the interjection! The SPEAKER : Member for Cannington, I am on my feet; you will be quiet for a moment. What I am going to tell you is that you have been formally called for the first time today. Mr C.J. BARNETT : That was a decision taken by the Liberal–National government to protect the character and the unique characteristics of the Swan Valley. As some members may be aware—certainly, the member for Vasse would be aware—a local group in the Margaret River area has for some time argued that the Margaret River area should receive some similar planning protection. Indeed — Mr P. Papalia interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member is very ordinary, is he not? Margaret River has gained for itself an international reputation for the quality of its wines and for the tourist attraction of the area. The concerns of the people in Margaret River are primarily, as it was put to me, about urban encroachment on some of the best soils for wine production. It is actually about soil type and preserving that resource. In fact, I recently met in my electorate with a major wine producer and he talked to me about the work that had been going on. We have yet to progress this in government, but I said that in principle we would give consideration to legislation to try to protect the winegrowing area and the character of Margaret River as a major wine and tourist location along similar lines to what this government did in the 1990s for the Swan Valley. Bear in mind that the boundaries of that probably do not include the site where the proposed coalmine would be. That is the reality. They are different issues. The coal company had leases granted to it by a Labor government in the 1980s. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : That is the truth! That happened — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I know members opposite do not like the truth, but I just point out that it was granted in the 1980s. The company has legal entitlement to pursue it. What I have said publicly is that because of the nature of the area, people can expect a very high environmental standard to apply to that area, as a very high environmental standard would apply to any development in the Kimberley, including James Price Point. James Price Point was selected from 40 sites; it came down to four sites and then finally to James Price Point. One of the major reasons that James Price Point was selected was that it was seen to be environmentally acceptable by the responsible environmental agencies. Mr E.S. Ripper : You completely stuffed up that process! Mr R.H. Cook : You just waded in and messed up the entire negotiation process! Mr C.J. BARNETT : How long do I have, Mr Speaker? How long have I got to tell the story of negotiations because the Labor Party in government gave the Kimberley Land Council a right of veto—something no-one else has! It gave it a right of veto over land that is not Aboriginal Lands Trust land and not found to have native title, although it may well. The decision on James Price Point, made after two years and after more than $16 million of expenditure, is a decision that is proper. If members read the newspaper this morning, they would have seen the notice of intent to acquire that land in accordance with the Native Title Act and the Land Administration Act. Therefore, the process is underway, and there will be good faith negotiations during the course of that process. I believe that we will reach a consent agreement during that negotiation. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I remind members opposite—in fact, I think the signature might have been that of the now Leader of the Opposition—of the issue of a notice of intent to acquire the land of the Ord River after native title had been determined.
The SPEAKER : Premier, take a seat. Member for Cannington — Mr W.J. Johnston : He took the interjection! The SPEAKER : Member for Cannington, I am on my feet; you will be quiet for a moment. What I am going to tell you is that you have been formally called for the first time today. Mr C.J. BARNETT : That was a decision taken by the Liberal–National government to protect the character and the unique characteristics of the Swan Valley. As some members may be aware—certainly, the member for Vasse would be aware—a local group in the Margaret River area has for some time argued that the Margaret River area should receive some similar planning protection. Indeed — Mr P. Papalia interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member is very ordinary, is he not? Margaret River has gained for itself an international reputation for the quality of its wines and for the tourist attraction of the area. The concerns of the people in Margaret River are primarily, as it was put to me, about urban encroachment on some of the best soils for wine production. It is actually about soil type and preserving that resource. In fact, I recently met in my electorate with a major wine producer and he talked to me about the work that had been going on. We have yet to progress this in government, but I said that in principle we would give consideration to legislation to try to protect the winegrowing area and the character of Margaret River as a major wine and tourist location along similar lines to what this government did in the 1990s for the Swan Valley. Bear in mind that the boundaries of that probably do not include the site where the proposed coalmine would be. That is the reality. They are different issues. The coal company had leases granted to it by a Labor government in the 1980s. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : That is the truth! That happened — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I know members opposite do not like the truth, but I just point out that it was granted in the 1980s. The company has legal entitlement to pursue it. What I have said publicly is that because of the nature of the area, people can expect a very high environmental standard to apply to that area, as a very high environmental standard would apply to any development in the Kimberley, including James Price Point. James Price Point was selected from 40 sites; it came down to four sites and then finally to James Price Point. One of the major reasons that James Price Point was selected was that it was seen to be environmentally acceptable by the responsible environmental agencies. Mr E.S. Ripper : You completely stuffed up that process! Mr R.H. Cook : You just waded in and messed up the entire negotiation process! Mr C.J. BARNETT : How long do I have, Mr Speaker? How long have I got to tell the story of negotiations because the Labor Party in government gave the Kimberley Land Council a right of veto—something no-one else has! It gave it a right of veto over land that is not Aboriginal Lands Trust land and not found to have native title, although it may well. The decision on James Price Point, made after two years and after more than $16 million of expenditure, is a decision that is proper. If members read the newspaper this morning, they would have seen the notice of intent to acquire that land in accordance with the Native Title Act and the Land Administration Act. Therefore, the process is underway, and there will be good faith negotiations during the course of that process. I believe that we will reach a consent agreement during that negotiation. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I remind members opposite—in fact, I think the signature might have been that of the now Leader of the Opposition—of the issue of a notice of intent to acquire the land of the Ord River after native title had been determined.
Mr W.J. Johnston : He took the interjection! The SPEAKER : Member for Cannington, I am on my feet; you will be quiet for a moment. What I am going to tell you is that you have been formally called for the first time today. Mr C.J. BARNETT : That was a decision taken by the Liberal–National government to protect the character and the unique characteristics of the Swan Valley. As some members may be aware—certainly, the member for Vasse would be aware—a local group in the Margaret River area has for some time argued that the Margaret River area should receive some similar planning protection. Indeed — Mr P. Papalia interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member is very ordinary, is he not? Margaret River has gained for itself an international reputation for the quality of its wines and for the tourist attraction of the area. The concerns of the people in Margaret River are primarily, as it was put to me, about urban encroachment on some of the best soils for wine production. It is actually about soil type and preserving that resource. In fact, I recently met in my electorate with a major wine producer and he talked to me about the work that had been going on. We have yet to progress this in government, but I said that in principle we would give consideration to legislation to try to protect the winegrowing area and the character of Margaret River as a major wine and tourist location along similar lines to what this government did in the 1990s for the Swan Valley. Bear in mind that the boundaries of that probably do not include the site where the proposed coalmine would be. That is the reality. They are different issues. The coal company had leases granted to it by a Labor government in the 1980s. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : That is the truth! That happened — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I know members opposite do not like the truth, but I just point out that it was granted in the 1980s. The company has legal entitlement to pursue it. What I have said publicly is that because of the nature of the area, people can expect a very high environmental standard to apply to that area, as a very high environmental standard would apply to any development in the Kimberley, including James Price Point. James Price Point was selected from 40 sites; it came down to four sites and then finally to James Price Point. One of the major reasons that James Price Point was selected was that it was seen to be environmentally acceptable by the responsible environmental agencies. Mr E.S. Ripper : You completely stuffed up that process! Mr R.H. Cook : You just waded in and messed up the entire negotiation process! Mr C.J. BARNETT : How long do I have, Mr Speaker? How long have I got to tell the story of negotiations because the Labor Party in government gave the Kimberley Land Council a right of veto—something no-one else has! It gave it a right of veto over land that is not Aboriginal Lands Trust land and not found to have native title, although it may well. The decision on James Price Point, made after two years and after more than $16 million of expenditure, is a decision that is proper. If members read the newspaper this morning, they would have seen the notice of intent to acquire that land in accordance with the Native Title Act and the Land Administration Act. Therefore, the process is underway, and there will be good faith negotiations during the course of that process. I believe that we will reach a consent agreement during that negotiation. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I remind members opposite—in fact, I think the signature might have been that of the now Leader of the Opposition—of the issue of a notice of intent to acquire the land of the Ord River after native title had been determined.
The SPEAKER : Member for Cannington, I am on my feet; you will be quiet for a moment. What I am going to tell you is that you have been formally called for the first time today. Mr C.J. BARNETT : That was a decision taken by the Liberal–National government to protect the character and the unique characteristics of the Swan Valley. As some members may be aware—certainly, the member for Vasse would be aware—a local group in the Margaret River area has for some time argued that the Margaret River area should receive some similar planning protection. Indeed — Mr P. Papalia interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member is very ordinary, is he not? Margaret River has gained for itself an international reputation for the quality of its wines and for the tourist attraction of the area. The concerns of the people in Margaret River are primarily, as it was put to me, about urban encroachment on some of the best soils for wine production. It is actually about soil type and preserving that resource. In fact, I recently met in my electorate with a major wine producer and he talked to me about the work that had been going on. We have yet to progress this in government, but I said that in principle we would give consideration to legislation to try to protect the winegrowing area and the character of Margaret River as a major wine and tourist location along similar lines to what this government did in the 1990s for the Swan Valley. Bear in mind that the boundaries of that probably do not include the site where the proposed coalmine would be. That is the reality. They are different issues. The coal company had leases granted to it by a Labor government in the 1980s. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : That is the truth! That happened — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I know members opposite do not like the truth, but I just point out that it was granted in the 1980s. The company has legal entitlement to pursue it. What I have said publicly is that because of the nature of the area, people can expect a very high environmental standard to apply to that area, as a very high environmental standard would apply to any development in the Kimberley, including James Price Point. James Price Point was selected from 40 sites; it came down to four sites and then finally to James Price Point. One of the major reasons that James Price Point was selected was that it was seen to be environmentally acceptable by the responsible environmental agencies. Mr E.S. Ripper : You completely stuffed up that process! Mr R.H. Cook : You just waded in and messed up the entire negotiation process! Mr C.J. BARNETT : How long do I have, Mr Speaker? How long have I got to tell the story of negotiations because the Labor Party in government gave the Kimberley Land Council a right of veto—something no-one else has! It gave it a right of veto over land that is not Aboriginal Lands Trust land and not found to have native title, although it may well. The decision on James Price Point, made after two years and after more than $16 million of expenditure, is a decision that is proper. If members read the newspaper this morning, they would have seen the notice of intent to acquire that land in accordance with the Native Title Act and the Land Administration Act. Therefore, the process is underway, and there will be good faith negotiations during the course of that process. I believe that we will reach a consent agreement during that negotiation. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I remind members opposite—in fact, I think the signature might have been that of the now Leader of the Opposition—of the issue of a notice of intent to acquire the land of the Ord River after native title had been determined.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : That was a decision taken by the Liberal–National government to protect the character and the unique characteristics of the Swan Valley. As some members may be aware—certainly, the member for Vasse would be aware—a local group in the Margaret River area has for some time argued that the Margaret River area should receive some similar planning protection. Indeed — Mr P. Papalia interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member is very ordinary, is he not? Margaret River has gained for itself an international reputation for the quality of its wines and for the tourist attraction of the area. The concerns of the people in Margaret River are primarily, as it was put to me, about urban encroachment on some of the best soils for wine production. It is actually about soil type and preserving that resource. In fact, I recently met in my electorate with a major wine producer and he talked to me about the work that had been going on. We have yet to progress this in government, but I said that in principle we would give consideration to legislation to try to protect the winegrowing area and the character of Margaret River as a major wine and tourist location along similar lines to what this government did in the 1990s for the Swan Valley. Bear in mind that the boundaries of that probably do not include the site where the proposed coalmine would be. That is the reality. They are different issues. The coal company had leases granted to it by a Labor government in the 1980s. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : That is the truth! That happened — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I know members opposite do not like the truth, but I just point out that it was granted in the 1980s. The company has legal entitlement to pursue it. What I have said publicly is that because of the nature of the area, people can expect a very high environmental standard to apply to that area, as a very high environmental standard would apply to any development in the Kimberley, including James Price Point. James Price Point was selected from 40 sites; it came down to four sites and then finally to James Price Point. One of the major reasons that James Price Point was selected was that it was seen to be environmentally acceptable by the responsible environmental agencies. Mr E.S. Ripper : You completely stuffed up that process! Mr R.H. Cook : You just waded in and messed up the entire negotiation process! Mr C.J. BARNETT : How long do I have, Mr Speaker? How long have I got to tell the story of negotiations because the Labor Party in government gave the Kimberley Land Council a right of veto—something no-one else has! It gave it a right of veto over land that is not Aboriginal Lands Trust land and not found to have native title, although it may well. The decision on James Price Point, made after two years and after more than $16 million of expenditure, is a decision that is proper. If members read the newspaper this morning, they would have seen the notice of intent to acquire that land in accordance with the Native Title Act and the Land Administration Act. Therefore, the process is underway, and there will be good faith negotiations during the course of that process. I believe that we will reach a consent agreement during that negotiation. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I remind members opposite—in fact, I think the signature might have been that of the now Leader of the Opposition—of the issue of a notice of intent to acquire the land of the Ord River after native title had been determined.
Mr P. Papalia interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member is very ordinary, is he not? Margaret River has gained for itself an international reputation for the quality of its wines and for the tourist attraction of the area. The concerns of the people in Margaret River are primarily, as it was put to me, about urban encroachment on some of the best soils for wine production. It is actually about soil type and preserving that resource. In fact, I recently met in my electorate with a major wine producer and he talked to me about the work that had been going on. We have yet to progress this in government, but I said that in principle we would give consideration to legislation to try to protect the winegrowing area and the character of Margaret River as a major wine and tourist location along similar lines to what this government did in the 1990s for the Swan Valley. Bear in mind that the boundaries of that probably do not include the site where the proposed coalmine would be. That is the reality. They are different issues. The coal company had leases granted to it by a Labor government in the 1980s. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : That is the truth! That happened — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I know members opposite do not like the truth, but I just point out that it was granted in the 1980s. The company has legal entitlement to pursue it. What I have said publicly is that because of the nature of the area, people can expect a very high environmental standard to apply to that area, as a very high environmental standard would apply to any development in the Kimberley, including James Price Point. James Price Point was selected from 40 sites; it came down to four sites and then finally to James Price Point. One of the major reasons that James Price Point was selected was that it was seen to be environmentally acceptable by the responsible environmental agencies. Mr E.S. Ripper : You completely stuffed up that process! Mr R.H. Cook : You just waded in and messed up the entire negotiation process! Mr C.J. BARNETT : How long do I have, Mr Speaker? How long have I got to tell the story of negotiations because the Labor Party in government gave the Kimberley Land Council a right of veto—something no-one else has! It gave it a right of veto over land that is not Aboriginal Lands Trust land and not found to have native title, although it may well. The decision on James Price Point, made after two years and after more than $16 million of expenditure, is a decision that is proper. If members read the newspaper this morning, they would have seen the notice of intent to acquire that land in accordance with the Native Title Act and the Land Administration Act. Therefore, the process is underway, and there will be good faith negotiations during the course of that process. I believe that we will reach a consent agreement during that negotiation. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I remind members opposite—in fact, I think the signature might have been that of the now Leader of the Opposition—of the issue of a notice of intent to acquire the land of the Ord River after native title had been determined.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member is very ordinary, is he not? Margaret River has gained for itself an international reputation for the quality of its wines and for the tourist attraction of the area. The concerns of the people in Margaret River are primarily, as it was put to me, about urban encroachment on some of the best soils for wine production. It is actually about soil type and preserving that resource. In fact, I recently met in my electorate with a major wine producer and he talked to me about the work that had been going on. We have yet to progress this in government, but I said that in principle we would give consideration to legislation to try to protect the winegrowing area and the character of Margaret River as a major wine and tourist location along similar lines to what this government did in the 1990s for the Swan Valley. Bear in mind that the boundaries of that probably do not include the site where the proposed coalmine would be. That is the reality. They are different issues. The coal company had leases granted to it by a Labor government in the 1980s. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : That is the truth! That happened — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I know members opposite do not like the truth, but I just point out that it was granted in the 1980s. The company has legal entitlement to pursue it. What I have said publicly is that because of the nature of the area, people can expect a very high environmental standard to apply to that area, as a very high environmental standard would apply to any development in the Kimberley, including James Price Point. James Price Point was selected from 40 sites; it came down to four sites and then finally to James Price Point. One of the major reasons that James Price Point was selected was that it was seen to be environmentally acceptable by the responsible environmental agencies. Mr E.S. Ripper : You completely stuffed up that process! Mr R.H. Cook : You just waded in and messed up the entire negotiation process! Mr C.J. BARNETT : How long do I have, Mr Speaker? How long have I got to tell the story of negotiations because the Labor Party in government gave the Kimberley Land Council a right of veto—something no-one else has! It gave it a right of veto over land that is not Aboriginal Lands Trust land and not found to have native title, although it may well. The decision on James Price Point, made after two years and after more than $16 million of expenditure, is a decision that is proper. If members read the newspaper this morning, they would have seen the notice of intent to acquire that land in accordance with the Native Title Act and the Land Administration Act. Therefore, the process is underway, and there will be good faith negotiations during the course of that process. I believe that we will reach a consent agreement during that negotiation. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I remind members opposite—in fact, I think the signature might have been that of the now Leader of the Opposition—of the issue of a notice of intent to acquire the land of the Ord River after native title had been determined.
Margaret River has gained for itself an international reputation for the quality of its wines and for the tourist attraction of the area. The concerns of the people in Margaret River are primarily, as it was put to me, about urban encroachment on some of the best soils for wine production. It is actually about soil type and preserving that resource. In fact, I recently met in my electorate with a major wine producer and he talked to me about the work that had been going on. We have yet to progress this in government, but I said that in principle we would give consideration to legislation to try to protect the winegrowing area and the character of Margaret River as a major wine and tourist location along similar lines to what this government did in the 1990s for the Swan Valley. Bear in mind that the boundaries of that probably do not include the site where the proposed coalmine would be. That is the reality. They are different issues. The coal company had leases granted to it by a Labor government in the 1980s. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : That is the truth! That happened — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I know members opposite do not like the truth, but I just point out that it was granted in the 1980s. The company has legal entitlement to pursue it. What I have said publicly is that because of the nature of the area, people can expect a very high environmental standard to apply to that area, as a very high environmental standard would apply to any development in the Kimberley, including James Price Point. James Price Point was selected from 40 sites; it came down to four sites and then finally to James Price Point. One of the major reasons that James Price Point was selected was that it was seen to be environmentally acceptable by the responsible environmental agencies. Mr E.S. Ripper : You completely stuffed up that process! Mr R.H. Cook : You just waded in and messed up the entire negotiation process! Mr C.J. BARNETT : How long do I have, Mr Speaker? How long have I got to tell the story of negotiations because the Labor Party in government gave the Kimberley Land Council a right of veto—something no-one else has! It gave it a right of veto over land that is not Aboriginal Lands Trust land and not found to have native title, although it may well. The decision on James Price Point, made after two years and after more than $16 million of expenditure, is a decision that is proper. If members read the newspaper this morning, they would have seen the notice of intent to acquire that land in accordance with the Native Title Act and the Land Administration Act. Therefore, the process is underway, and there will be good faith negotiations during the course of that process. I believe that we will reach a consent agreement during that negotiation. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I remind members opposite—in fact, I think the signature might have been that of the now Leader of the Opposition—of the issue of a notice of intent to acquire the land of the Ord River after native title had been determined.
The coal company had leases granted to it by a Labor government in the 1980s. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : That is the truth! That happened — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I know members opposite do not like the truth, but I just point out that it was granted in the 1980s. The company has legal entitlement to pursue it. What I have said publicly is that because of the nature of the area, people can expect a very high environmental standard to apply to that area, as a very high environmental standard would apply to any development in the Kimberley, including James Price Point. James Price Point was selected from 40 sites; it came down to four sites and then finally to James Price Point. One of the major reasons that James Price Point was selected was that it was seen to be environmentally acceptable by the responsible environmental agencies. Mr E.S. Ripper : You completely stuffed up that process! Mr R.H. Cook : You just waded in and messed up the entire negotiation process! Mr C.J. BARNETT : How long do I have, Mr Speaker? How long have I got to tell the story of negotiations because the Labor Party in government gave the Kimberley Land Council a right of veto—something no-one else has! It gave it a right of veto over land that is not Aboriginal Lands Trust land and not found to have native title, although it may well. The decision on James Price Point, made after two years and after more than $16 million of expenditure, is a decision that is proper. If members read the newspaper this morning, they would have seen the notice of intent to acquire that land in accordance with the Native Title Act and the Land Administration Act. Therefore, the process is underway, and there will be good faith negotiations during the course of that process. I believe that we will reach a consent agreement during that negotiation. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I remind members opposite—in fact, I think the signature might have been that of the now Leader of the Opposition—of the issue of a notice of intent to acquire the land of the Ord River after native title had been determined.
Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : That is the truth! That happened — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I know members opposite do not like the truth, but I just point out that it was granted in the 1980s. The company has legal entitlement to pursue it. What I have said publicly is that because of the nature of the area, people can expect a very high environmental standard to apply to that area, as a very high environmental standard would apply to any development in the Kimberley, including James Price Point. James Price Point was selected from 40 sites; it came down to four sites and then finally to James Price Point. One of the major reasons that James Price Point was selected was that it was seen to be environmentally acceptable by the responsible environmental agencies. Mr E.S. Ripper : You completely stuffed up that process! Mr R.H. Cook : You just waded in and messed up the entire negotiation process! Mr C.J. BARNETT : How long do I have, Mr Speaker? How long have I got to tell the story of negotiations because the Labor Party in government gave the Kimberley Land Council a right of veto—something no-one else has! It gave it a right of veto over land that is not Aboriginal Lands Trust land and not found to have native title, although it may well. The decision on James Price Point, made after two years and after more than $16 million of expenditure, is a decision that is proper. If members read the newspaper this morning, they would have seen the notice of intent to acquire that land in accordance with the Native Title Act and the Land Administration Act. Therefore, the process is underway, and there will be good faith negotiations during the course of that process. I believe that we will reach a consent agreement during that negotiation. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I remind members opposite—in fact, I think the signature might have been that of the now Leader of the Opposition—of the issue of a notice of intent to acquire the land of the Ord River after native title had been determined.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : That is the truth! That happened — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I know members opposite do not like the truth, but I just point out that it was granted in the 1980s. The company has legal entitlement to pursue it. What I have said publicly is that because of the nature of the area, people can expect a very high environmental standard to apply to that area, as a very high environmental standard would apply to any development in the Kimberley, including James Price Point. James Price Point was selected from 40 sites; it came down to four sites and then finally to James Price Point. One of the major reasons that James Price Point was selected was that it was seen to be environmentally acceptable by the responsible environmental agencies. Mr E.S. Ripper : You completely stuffed up that process! Mr R.H. Cook : You just waded in and messed up the entire negotiation process! Mr C.J. BARNETT : How long do I have, Mr Speaker? How long have I got to tell the story of negotiations because the Labor Party in government gave the Kimberley Land Council a right of veto—something no-one else has! It gave it a right of veto over land that is not Aboriginal Lands Trust land and not found to have native title, although it may well. The decision on James Price Point, made after two years and after more than $16 million of expenditure, is a decision that is proper. If members read the newspaper this morning, they would have seen the notice of intent to acquire that land in accordance with the Native Title Act and the Land Administration Act. Therefore, the process is underway, and there will be good faith negotiations during the course of that process. I believe that we will reach a consent agreement during that negotiation. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I remind members opposite—in fact, I think the signature might have been that of the now Leader of the Opposition—of the issue of a notice of intent to acquire the land of the Ord River after native title had been determined.
Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I know members opposite do not like the truth, but I just point out that it was granted in the 1980s. The company has legal entitlement to pursue it. What I have said publicly is that because of the nature of the area, people can expect a very high environmental standard to apply to that area, as a very high environmental standard would apply to any development in the Kimberley, including James Price Point. James Price Point was selected from 40 sites; it came down to four sites and then finally to James Price Point. One of the major reasons that James Price Point was selected was that it was seen to be environmentally acceptable by the responsible environmental agencies. Mr E.S. Ripper : You completely stuffed up that process! Mr R.H. Cook : You just waded in and messed up the entire negotiation process! Mr C.J. BARNETT : How long do I have, Mr Speaker? How long have I got to tell the story of negotiations because the Labor Party in government gave the Kimberley Land Council a right of veto—something no-one else has! It gave it a right of veto over land that is not Aboriginal Lands Trust land and not found to have native title, although it may well. The decision on James Price Point, made after two years and after more than $16 million of expenditure, is a decision that is proper. If members read the newspaper this morning, they would have seen the notice of intent to acquire that land in accordance with the Native Title Act and the Land Administration Act. Therefore, the process is underway, and there will be good faith negotiations during the course of that process. I believe that we will reach a consent agreement during that negotiation. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I remind members opposite—in fact, I think the signature might have been that of the now Leader of the Opposition—of the issue of a notice of intent to acquire the land of the Ord River after native title had been determined.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : I know members opposite do not like the truth, but I just point out that it was granted in the 1980s. The company has legal entitlement to pursue it. What I have said publicly is that because of the nature of the area, people can expect a very high environmental standard to apply to that area, as a very high environmental standard would apply to any development in the Kimberley, including James Price Point. James Price Point was selected from 40 sites; it came down to four sites and then finally to James Price Point. One of the major reasons that James Price Point was selected was that it was seen to be environmentally acceptable by the responsible environmental agencies. Mr E.S. Ripper : You completely stuffed up that process! Mr R.H. Cook : You just waded in and messed up the entire negotiation process! Mr C.J. BARNETT : How long do I have, Mr Speaker? How long have I got to tell the story of negotiations because the Labor Party in government gave the Kimberley Land Council a right of veto—something no-one else has! It gave it a right of veto over land that is not Aboriginal Lands Trust land and not found to have native title, although it may well. The decision on James Price Point, made after two years and after more than $16 million of expenditure, is a decision that is proper. If members read the newspaper this morning, they would have seen the notice of intent to acquire that land in accordance with the Native Title Act and the Land Administration Act. Therefore, the process is underway, and there will be good faith negotiations during the course of that process. I believe that we will reach a consent agreement during that negotiation. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I remind members opposite—in fact, I think the signature might have been that of the now Leader of the Opposition—of the issue of a notice of intent to acquire the land of the Ord River after native title had been determined.
Mr E.S. Ripper : You completely stuffed up that process! Mr R.H. Cook : You just waded in and messed up the entire negotiation process! Mr C.J. BARNETT : How long do I have, Mr Speaker? How long have I got to tell the story of negotiations because the Labor Party in government gave the Kimberley Land Council a right of veto—something no-one else has! It gave it a right of veto over land that is not Aboriginal Lands Trust land and not found to have native title, although it may well. The decision on James Price Point, made after two years and after more than $16 million of expenditure, is a decision that is proper. If members read the newspaper this morning, they would have seen the notice of intent to acquire that land in accordance with the Native Title Act and the Land Administration Act. Therefore, the process is underway, and there will be good faith negotiations during the course of that process. I believe that we will reach a consent agreement during that negotiation. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I remind members opposite—in fact, I think the signature might have been that of the now Leader of the Opposition—of the issue of a notice of intent to acquire the land of the Ord River after native title had been determined.
Mr R.H. Cook : You just waded in and messed up the entire negotiation process! Mr C.J. BARNETT : How long do I have, Mr Speaker? How long have I got to tell the story of negotiations because the Labor Party in government gave the Kimberley Land Council a right of veto—something no-one else has! It gave it a right of veto over land that is not Aboriginal Lands Trust land and not found to have native title, although it may well. The decision on James Price Point, made after two years and after more than $16 million of expenditure, is a decision that is proper. If members read the newspaper this morning, they would have seen the notice of intent to acquire that land in accordance with the Native Title Act and the Land Administration Act. Therefore, the process is underway, and there will be good faith negotiations during the course of that process. I believe that we will reach a consent agreement during that negotiation. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I remind members opposite—in fact, I think the signature might have been that of the now Leader of the Opposition—of the issue of a notice of intent to acquire the land of the Ord River after native title had been determined.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : How long do I have, Mr Speaker? How long have I got to tell the story of negotiations because the Labor Party in government gave the Kimberley Land Council a right of veto—something no-one else has! It gave it a right of veto over land that is not Aboriginal Lands Trust land and not found to have native title, although it may well. The decision on James Price Point, made after two years and after more than $16 million of expenditure, is a decision that is proper. If members read the newspaper this morning, they would have seen the notice of intent to acquire that land in accordance with the Native Title Act and the Land Administration Act. Therefore, the process is underway, and there will be good faith negotiations during the course of that process. I believe that we will reach a consent agreement during that negotiation. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I remind members opposite—in fact, I think the signature might have been that of the now Leader of the Opposition—of the issue of a notice of intent to acquire the land of the Ord River after native title had been determined.
The decision on James Price Point, made after two years and after more than $16 million of expenditure, is a decision that is proper. If members read the newspaper this morning, they would have seen the notice of intent to acquire that land in accordance with the Native Title Act and the Land Administration Act. Therefore, the process is underway, and there will be good faith negotiations during the course of that process. I believe that we will reach a consent agreement during that negotiation. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I remind members opposite—in fact, I think the signature might have been that of the now Leader of the Opposition—of the issue of a notice of intent to acquire the land of the Ord River after native title had been determined.
Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I remind members opposite—in fact, I think the signature might have been that of the now Leader of the Opposition—of the issue of a notice of intent to acquire the land of the Ord River after native title had been determined.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : I remind members opposite—in fact, I think the signature might have been that of the now Leader of the Opposition—of the issue of a notice of intent to acquire the land of the Ord River after native title had been determined.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Vasse! Mr E.S. RIPPER : I refer to the Premier’s comments on Monday about the proposal by LD Operations to build a coalmine near Margaret River that — The state government will give some consideration to special legislation to protect the Margaret River area … (1) Why has the Premier not shown the same care and respect to the Kimberley Indigenous community as he is showing to the people of Margaret River on issues of development, mining and environmental protection? (2) Is the Kimberley not at least as environmentally sensitive as Margaret River? (3) Why does it appear that the people of Margaret River have more political clout on this issue than the Indigenous people of the Kimberley? Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: (1)–(3) There were a whole lot of suppositions in that question but I will comment on the Margaret River circumstance first. Members may recall that the Liberal–National government brought in legislation in the 1990s to protect the Swan Valley, to protect the areas that were suitable and have been used for basically grape and wine production, and to protect the character of the area as a wine-producing area and as an important tourist component. Mr W.J. Johnston : But not tourism facilities! Mr C.J. BARNETT : I just said that. Several members interjected. Mr W.J. Johnston : How come you’re not protecting the — Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do not listen to her; listen to me and the member might learn something! The SPEAKER : Premier, take a seat. Member for Cannington — Mr W.J. Johnston : He took the interjection! The SPEAKER : Member for Cannington, I am on my feet; you will be quiet for a moment. What I am going to tell you is that you have been formally called for the first time today. Mr C.J. BARNETT : That was a decision taken by the Liberal–National government to protect the character and the unique characteristics of the Swan Valley. As some members may be aware—certainly, the member for Vasse would be aware—a local group in the Margaret River area has for some time argued that the Margaret River area should receive some similar planning protection. Indeed — Mr P. Papalia interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member is very ordinary, is he not? Margaret River has gained for itself an international reputation for the quality of its wines and for the tourist attraction of the area. The concerns of the people in Margaret River are primarily, as it was put to me, about urban encroachment on some of the best soils for wine production. It is actually about soil type and preserving that resource. In fact, I recently met in my electorate with a major wine producer and he talked to me about the work that had been going on. We have yet to progress this in government, but I said that in principle we would give consideration to legislation to try to protect the winegrowing area and the character of Margaret River as a major wine and tourist location along similar lines to what this government did in the 1990s for the Swan Valley. Bear in mind that the boundaries of that probably do not include the site where the proposed coalmine would be. That is the reality. They are different issues. The coal company had leases granted to it by a Labor government in the 1980s. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : That is the truth! That happened — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I know members opposite do not like the truth, but I just point out that it was granted in the 1980s. The company has legal entitlement to pursue it. What I have said publicly is that because of the nature of the area, people can expect a very high environmental standard to apply to that area, as a very high environmental standard would apply to any development in the Kimberley, including James Price Point. James Price Point was selected from 40 sites; it came down to four sites and then finally to James Price Point. One of the major reasons that James Price Point was selected was that it was seen to be environmentally acceptable by the responsible environmental agencies. Mr E.S. Ripper : You completely stuffed up that process! Mr R.H. Cook : You just waded in and messed up the entire negotiation process! Mr C.J. BARNETT : How long do I have, Mr Speaker? How long have I got to tell the story of negotiations because the Labor Party in government gave the Kimberley Land Council a right of veto—something no-one else has! It gave it a right of veto over land that is not Aboriginal Lands Trust land and not found to have native title, although it may well. The decision on James Price Point, made after two years and after more than $16 million of expenditure, is a decision that is proper. If members read the newspaper this morning, they would have seen the notice of intent to acquire that land in accordance with the Native Title Act and the Land Administration Act. Therefore, the process is underway, and there will be good faith negotiations during the course of that process. I believe that we will reach a consent agreement during that negotiation. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I remind members opposite—in fact, I think the signature might have been that of the now Leader of the Opposition—of the issue of a notice of intent to acquire the land of the Ord River after native title had been determined.
The SPEAKER : Member for Vasse! Mr E.S. RIPPER : I refer to the Premier’s comments on Monday about the proposal by LD Operations to build a coalmine near Margaret River that — The state government will give some consideration to special legislation to protect the Margaret River area … (1) Why has the Premier not shown the same care and respect to the Kimberley Indigenous community as he is showing to the people of Margaret River on issues of development, mining and environmental protection? (2) Is the Kimberley not at least as environmentally sensitive as Margaret River? (3) Why does it appear that the people of Margaret River have more political clout on this issue than the Indigenous people of the Kimberley? Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: (1)–(3) There were a whole lot of suppositions in that question but I will comment on the Margaret River circumstance first. Members may recall that the Liberal–National government brought in legislation in the 1990s to protect the Swan Valley, to protect the areas that were suitable and have been used for basically grape and wine production, and to protect the character of the area as a wine-producing area and as an important tourist component. Mr W.J. Johnston : But not tourism facilities! Mr C.J. BARNETT : I just said that. Several members interjected. Mr W.J. Johnston : How come you’re not protecting the — Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do not listen to her; listen to me and the member might learn something! The SPEAKER : Premier, take a seat. Member for Cannington — Mr W.J. Johnston : He took the interjection! The SPEAKER : Member for Cannington, I am on my feet; you will be quiet for a moment. What I am going to tell you is that you have been formally called for the first time today. Mr C.J. BARNETT : That was a decision taken by the Liberal–National government to protect the character and the unique characteristics of the Swan Valley. As some members may be aware—certainly, the member for Vasse would be aware—a local group in the Margaret River area has for some time argued that the Margaret River area should receive some similar planning protection. Indeed — Mr P. Papalia interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member is very ordinary, is he not? Margaret River has gained for itself an international reputation for the quality of its wines and for the tourist attraction of the area. The concerns of the people in Margaret River are primarily, as it was put to me, about urban encroachment on some of the best soils for wine production. It is actually about soil type and preserving that resource. In fact, I recently met in my electorate with a major wine producer and he talked to me about the work that had been going on. We have yet to progress this in government, but I said that in principle we would give consideration to legislation to try to protect the winegrowing area and the character of Margaret River as a major wine and tourist location along similar lines to what this government did in the 1990s for the Swan Valley. Bear in mind that the boundaries of that probably do not include the site where the proposed coalmine would be. That is the reality. They are different issues. The coal company had leases granted to it by a Labor government in the 1980s. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : That is the truth! That happened — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I know members opposite do not like the truth, but I just point out that it was granted in the 1980s. The company has legal entitlement to pursue it. What I have said publicly is that because of the nature of the area, people can expect a very high environmental standard to apply to that area, as a very high environmental standard would apply to any development in the Kimberley, including James Price Point. James Price Point was selected from 40 sites; it came down to four sites and then finally to James Price Point. One of the major reasons that James Price Point was selected was that it was seen to be environmentally acceptable by the responsible environmental agencies. Mr E.S. Ripper : You completely stuffed up that process! Mr R.H. Cook : You just waded in and messed up the entire negotiation process! Mr C.J. BARNETT : How long do I have, Mr Speaker? How long have I got to tell the story of negotiations because the Labor Party in government gave the Kimberley Land Council a right of veto—something no-one else has! It gave it a right of veto over land that is not Aboriginal Lands Trust land and not found to have native title, although it may well. The decision on James Price Point, made after two years and after more than $16 million of expenditure, is a decision that is proper. If members read the newspaper this morning, they would have seen the notice of intent to acquire that land in accordance with the Native Title Act and the Land Administration Act. Therefore, the process is underway, and there will be good faith negotiations during the course of that process. I believe that we will reach a consent agreement during that negotiation. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I remind members opposite—in fact, I think the signature might have been that of the now Leader of the Opposition—of the issue of a notice of intent to acquire the land of the Ord River after native title had been determined.
Mr E.S. RIPPER : I refer to the Premier’s comments on Monday about the proposal by LD Operations to build a coalmine near Margaret River that — The state government will give some consideration to special legislation to protect the Margaret River area … (1) Why has the Premier not shown the same care and respect to the Kimberley Indigenous community as he is showing to the people of Margaret River on issues of development, mining and environmental protection? (2) Is the Kimberley not at least as environmentally sensitive as Margaret River? (3) Why does it appear that the people of Margaret River have more political clout on this issue than the Indigenous people of the Kimberley? Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: (1)–(3) There were a whole lot of suppositions in that question but I will comment on the Margaret River circumstance first. Members may recall that the Liberal–National government brought in legislation in the 1990s to protect the Swan Valley, to protect the areas that were suitable and have been used for basically grape and wine production, and to protect the character of the area as a wine-producing area and as an important tourist component. Mr W.J. Johnston : But not tourism facilities! Mr C.J. BARNETT : I just said that. Several members interjected. Mr W.J. Johnston : How come you’re not protecting the — Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do not listen to her; listen to me and the member might learn something! The SPEAKER : Premier, take a seat. Member for Cannington — Mr W.J. Johnston : He took the interjection! The SPEAKER : Member for Cannington, I am on my feet; you will be quiet for a moment. What I am going to tell you is that you have been formally called for the first time today. Mr C.J. BARNETT : That was a decision taken by the Liberal–National government to protect the character and the unique characteristics of the Swan Valley. As some members may be aware—certainly, the member for Vasse would be aware—a local group in the Margaret River area has for some time argued that the Margaret River area should receive some similar planning protection. Indeed — Mr P. Papalia interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member is very ordinary, is he not? Margaret River has gained for itself an international reputation for the quality of its wines and for the tourist attraction of the area. The concerns of the people in Margaret River are primarily, as it was put to me, about urban encroachment on some of the best soils for wine production. It is actually about soil type and preserving that resource. In fact, I recently met in my electorate with a major wine producer and he talked to me about the work that had been going on. We have yet to progress this in government, but I said that in principle we would give consideration to legislation to try to protect the winegrowing area and the character of Margaret River as a major wine and tourist location along similar lines to what this government did in the 1990s for the Swan Valley. Bear in mind that the boundaries of that probably do not include the site where the proposed coalmine would be. That is the reality. They are different issues. The coal company had leases granted to it by a Labor government in the 1980s. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : That is the truth! That happened — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I know members opposite do not like the truth, but I just point out that it was granted in the 1980s. The company has legal entitlement to pursue it. What I have said publicly is that because of the nature of the area, people can expect a very high environmental standard to apply to that area, as a very high environmental standard would apply to any development in the Kimberley, including James Price Point. James Price Point was selected from 40 sites; it came down to four sites and then finally to James Price Point. One of the major reasons that James Price Point was selected was that it was seen to be environmentally acceptable by the responsible environmental agencies. Mr E.S. Ripper : You completely stuffed up that process! Mr R.H. Cook : You just waded in and messed up the entire negotiation process! Mr C.J. BARNETT : How long do I have, Mr Speaker? How long have I got to tell the story of negotiations because the Labor Party in government gave the Kimberley Land Council a right of veto—something no-one else has! It gave it a right of veto over land that is not Aboriginal Lands Trust land and not found to have native title, although it may well. The decision on James Price Point, made after two years and after more than $16 million of expenditure, is a decision that is proper. If members read the newspaper this morning, they would have seen the notice of intent to acquire that land in accordance with the Native Title Act and the Land Administration Act. Therefore, the process is underway, and there will be good faith negotiations during the course of that process. I believe that we will reach a consent agreement during that negotiation. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I remind members opposite—in fact, I think the signature might have been that of the now Leader of the Opposition—of the issue of a notice of intent to acquire the land of the Ord River after native title had been determined.
(2) Is the Kimberley not at least as environmentally sensitive as Margaret River? (3) Why does it appear that the people of Margaret River have more political clout on this issue than the Indigenous people of the Kimberley? Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: (1)–(3) There were a whole lot of suppositions in that question but I will comment on the Margaret River circumstance first. Members may recall that the Liberal–National government brought in legislation in the 1990s to protect the Swan Valley, to protect the areas that were suitable and have been used for basically grape and wine production, and to protect the character of the area as a wine-producing area and as an important tourist component. Mr W.J. Johnston : But not tourism facilities! Mr C.J. BARNETT : I just said that. Several members interjected. Mr W.J. Johnston : How come you’re not protecting the — Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do not listen to her; listen to me and the member might learn something! The SPEAKER : Premier, take a seat. Member for Cannington — Mr W.J. Johnston : He took the interjection! The SPEAKER : Member for Cannington, I am on my feet; you will be quiet for a moment. What I am going to tell you is that you have been formally called for the first time today. Mr C.J. BARNETT : That was a decision taken by the Liberal–National government to protect the character and the unique characteristics of the Swan Valley. As some members may be aware—certainly, the member for Vasse would be aware—a local group in the Margaret River area has for some time argued that the Margaret River area should receive some similar planning protection. Indeed — Mr P. Papalia interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member is very ordinary, is he not? Margaret River has gained for itself an international reputation for the quality of its wines and for the tourist attraction of the area. The concerns of the people in Margaret River are primarily, as it was put to me, about urban encroachment on some of the best soils for wine production. It is actually about soil type and preserving that resource. In fact, I recently met in my electorate with a major wine producer and he talked to me about the work that had been going on. We have yet to progress this in government, but I said that in principle we would give consideration to legislation to try to protect the winegrowing area and the character of Margaret River as a major wine and tourist location along similar lines to what this government did in the 1990s for the Swan Valley. Bear in mind that the boundaries of that probably do not include the site where the proposed coalmine would be. That is the reality. They are different issues. The coal company had leases granted to it by a Labor government in the 1980s. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : That is the truth! That happened — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I know members opposite do not like the truth, but I just point out that it was granted in the 1980s. The company has legal entitlement to pursue it. What I have said publicly is that because of the nature of the area, people can expect a very high environmental standard to apply to that area, as a very high environmental standard would apply to any development in the Kimberley, including James Price Point. James Price Point was selected from 40 sites; it came down to four sites and then finally to James Price Point. One of the major reasons that James Price Point was selected was that it was seen to be environmentally acceptable by the responsible environmental agencies. Mr E.S. Ripper : You completely stuffed up that process! Mr R.H. Cook : You just waded in and messed up the entire negotiation process! Mr C.J. BARNETT : How long do I have, Mr Speaker? How long have I got to tell the story of negotiations because the Labor Party in government gave the Kimberley Land Council a right of veto—something no-one else has! It gave it a right of veto over land that is not Aboriginal Lands Trust land and not found to have native title, although it may well. The decision on James Price Point, made after two years and after more than $16 million of expenditure, is a decision that is proper. If members read the newspaper this morning, they would have seen the notice of intent to acquire that land in accordance with the Native Title Act and the Land Administration Act. Therefore, the process is underway, and there will be good faith negotiations during the course of that process. I believe that we will reach a consent agreement during that negotiation. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I remind members opposite—in fact, I think the signature might have been that of the now Leader of the Opposition—of the issue of a notice of intent to acquire the land of the Ord River after native title had been determined.
(3) Why does it appear that the people of Margaret River have more political clout on this issue than the Indigenous people of the Kimberley? Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: (1)–(3) There were a whole lot of suppositions in that question but I will comment on the Margaret River circumstance first. Members may recall that the Liberal–National government brought in legislation in the 1990s to protect the Swan Valley, to protect the areas that were suitable and have been used for basically grape and wine production, and to protect the character of the area as a wine-producing area and as an important tourist component. Mr W.J. Johnston : But not tourism facilities! Mr C.J. BARNETT : I just said that. Several members interjected. Mr W.J. Johnston : How come you’re not protecting the — Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do not listen to her; listen to me and the member might learn something! The SPEAKER : Premier, take a seat. Member for Cannington — Mr W.J. Johnston : He took the interjection! The SPEAKER : Member for Cannington, I am on my feet; you will be quiet for a moment. What I am going to tell you is that you have been formally called for the first time today. Mr C.J. BARNETT : That was a decision taken by the Liberal–National government to protect the character and the unique characteristics of the Swan Valley. As some members may be aware—certainly, the member for Vasse would be aware—a local group in the Margaret River area has for some time argued that the Margaret River area should receive some similar planning protection. Indeed — Mr P. Papalia interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member is very ordinary, is he not? Margaret River has gained for itself an international reputation for the quality of its wines and for the tourist attraction of the area. The concerns of the people in Margaret River are primarily, as it was put to me, about urban encroachment on some of the best soils for wine production. It is actually about soil type and preserving that resource. In fact, I recently met in my electorate with a major wine producer and he talked to me about the work that had been going on. We have yet to progress this in government, but I said that in principle we would give consideration to legislation to try to protect the winegrowing area and the character of Margaret River as a major wine and tourist location along similar lines to what this government did in the 1990s for the Swan Valley. Bear in mind that the boundaries of that probably do not include the site where the proposed coalmine would be. That is the reality. They are different issues. The coal company had leases granted to it by a Labor government in the 1980s. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : That is the truth! That happened — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I know members opposite do not like the truth, but I just point out that it was granted in the 1980s. The company has legal entitlement to pursue it. What I have said publicly is that because of the nature of the area, people can expect a very high environmental standard to apply to that area, as a very high environmental standard would apply to any development in the Kimberley, including James Price Point. James Price Point was selected from 40 sites; it came down to four sites and then finally to James Price Point. One of the major reasons that James Price Point was selected was that it was seen to be environmentally acceptable by the responsible environmental agencies. Mr E.S. Ripper : You completely stuffed up that process! Mr R.H. Cook : You just waded in and messed up the entire negotiation process! Mr C.J. BARNETT : How long do I have, Mr Speaker? How long have I got to tell the story of negotiations because the Labor Party in government gave the Kimberley Land Council a right of veto—something no-one else has! It gave it a right of veto over land that is not Aboriginal Lands Trust land and not found to have native title, although it may well. The decision on James Price Point, made after two years and after more than $16 million of expenditure, is a decision that is proper. If members read the newspaper this morning, they would have seen the notice of intent to acquire that land in accordance with the Native Title Act and the Land Administration Act. Therefore, the process is underway, and there will be good faith negotiations during the course of that process. I believe that we will reach a consent agreement during that negotiation. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I remind members opposite—in fact, I think the signature might have been that of the now Leader of the Opposition—of the issue of a notice of intent to acquire the land of the Ord River after native title had been determined.
Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: (1)–(3) There were a whole lot of suppositions in that question but I will comment on the Margaret River circumstance first. Members may recall that the Liberal–National government brought in legislation in the 1990s to protect the Swan Valley, to protect the areas that were suitable and have been used for basically grape and wine production, and to protect the character of the area as a wine-producing area and as an important tourist component. Mr W.J. Johnston : But not tourism facilities! Mr C.J. BARNETT : I just said that. Several members interjected. Mr W.J. Johnston : How come you’re not protecting the — Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do not listen to her; listen to me and the member might learn something! The SPEAKER : Premier, take a seat. Member for Cannington — Mr W.J. Johnston : He took the interjection! The SPEAKER : Member for Cannington, I am on my feet; you will be quiet for a moment. What I am going to tell you is that you have been formally called for the first time today. Mr C.J. BARNETT : That was a decision taken by the Liberal–National government to protect the character and the unique characteristics of the Swan Valley. As some members may be aware—certainly, the member for Vasse would be aware—a local group in the Margaret River area has for some time argued that the Margaret River area should receive some similar planning protection. Indeed — Mr P. Papalia interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member is very ordinary, is he not? Margaret River has gained for itself an international reputation for the quality of its wines and for the tourist attraction of the area. The concerns of the people in Margaret River are primarily, as it was put to me, about urban encroachment on some of the best soils for wine production. It is actually about soil type and preserving that resource. In fact, I recently met in my electorate with a major wine producer and he talked to me about the work that had been going on. We have yet to progress this in government, but I said that in principle we would give consideration to legislation to try to protect the winegrowing area and the character of Margaret River as a major wine and tourist location along similar lines to what this government did in the 1990s for the Swan Valley. Bear in mind that the boundaries of that probably do not include the site where the proposed coalmine would be. That is the reality. They are different issues. The coal company had leases granted to it by a Labor government in the 1980s. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : That is the truth! That happened — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I know members opposite do not like the truth, but I just point out that it was granted in the 1980s. The company has legal entitlement to pursue it. What I have said publicly is that because of the nature of the area, people can expect a very high environmental standard to apply to that area, as a very high environmental standard would apply to any development in the Kimberley, including James Price Point. James Price Point was selected from 40 sites; it came down to four sites and then finally to James Price Point. One of the major reasons that James Price Point was selected was that it was seen to be environmentally acceptable by the responsible environmental agencies. Mr E.S. Ripper : You completely stuffed up that process! Mr R.H. Cook : You just waded in and messed up the entire negotiation process! Mr C.J. BARNETT : How long do I have, Mr Speaker? How long have I got to tell the story of negotiations because the Labor Party in government gave the Kimberley Land Council a right of veto—something no-one else has! It gave it a right of veto over land that is not Aboriginal Lands Trust land and not found to have native title, although it may well. The decision on James Price Point, made after two years and after more than $16 million of expenditure, is a decision that is proper. If members read the newspaper this morning, they would have seen the notice of intent to acquire that land in accordance with the Native Title Act and the Land Administration Act. Therefore, the process is underway, and there will be good faith negotiations during the course of that process. I believe that we will reach a consent agreement during that negotiation. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I remind members opposite—in fact, I think the signature might have been that of the now Leader of the Opposition—of the issue of a notice of intent to acquire the land of the Ord River after native title had been determined.
(1)–(3) There were a whole lot of suppositions in that question but I will comment on the Margaret River circumstance first. Members may recall that the Liberal–National government brought in legislation in the 1990s to protect the Swan Valley, to protect the areas that were suitable and have been used for basically grape and wine production, and to protect the character of the area as a wine-producing area and as an important tourist component. Mr W.J. Johnston : But not tourism facilities! Mr C.J. BARNETT : I just said that. Several members interjected. Mr W.J. Johnston : How come you’re not protecting the — Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do not listen to her; listen to me and the member might learn something! The SPEAKER : Premier, take a seat. Member for Cannington — Mr W.J. Johnston : He took the interjection! The SPEAKER : Member for Cannington, I am on my feet; you will be quiet for a moment. What I am going to tell you is that you have been formally called for the first time today. Mr C.J. BARNETT : That was a decision taken by the Liberal–National government to protect the character and the unique characteristics of the Swan Valley. As some members may be aware—certainly, the member for Vasse would be aware—a local group in the Margaret River area has for some time argued that the Margaret River area should receive some similar planning protection. Indeed — Mr P. Papalia interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member is very ordinary, is he not? Margaret River has gained for itself an international reputation for the quality of its wines and for the tourist attraction of the area. The concerns of the people in Margaret River are primarily, as it was put to me, about urban encroachment on some of the best soils for wine production. It is actually about soil type and preserving that resource. In fact, I recently met in my electorate with a major wine producer and he talked to me about the work that had been going on. We have yet to progress this in government, but I said that in principle we would give consideration to legislation to try to protect the winegrowing area and the character of Margaret River as a major wine and tourist location along similar lines to what this government did in the 1990s for the Swan Valley. Bear in mind that the boundaries of that probably do not include the site where the proposed coalmine would be. That is the reality. They are different issues. The coal company had leases granted to it by a Labor government in the 1980s. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : That is the truth! That happened — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I know members opposite do not like the truth, but I just point out that it was granted in the 1980s. The company has legal entitlement to pursue it. What I have said publicly is that because of the nature of the area, people can expect a very high environmental standard to apply to that area, as a very high environmental standard would apply to any development in the Kimberley, including James Price Point. James Price Point was selected from 40 sites; it came down to four sites and then finally to James Price Point. One of the major reasons that James Price Point was selected was that it was seen to be environmentally acceptable by the responsible environmental agencies. Mr E.S. Ripper : You completely stuffed up that process! Mr R.H. Cook : You just waded in and messed up the entire negotiation process! Mr C.J. BARNETT : How long do I have, Mr Speaker? How long have I got to tell the story of negotiations because the Labor Party in government gave the Kimberley Land Council a right of veto—something no-one else has! It gave it a right of veto over land that is not Aboriginal Lands Trust land and not found to have native title, although it may well. The decision on James Price Point, made after two years and after more than $16 million of expenditure, is a decision that is proper. If members read the newspaper this morning, they would have seen the notice of intent to acquire that land in accordance with the Native Title Act and the Land Administration Act. Therefore, the process is underway, and there will be good faith negotiations during the course of that process. I believe that we will reach a consent agreement during that negotiation. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I remind members opposite—in fact, I think the signature might have been that of the now Leader of the Opposition—of the issue of a notice of intent to acquire the land of the Ord River after native title had been determined.
Mr W.J. Johnston : But not tourism facilities! Mr C.J. BARNETT : I just said that. Several members interjected. Mr W.J. Johnston : How come you’re not protecting the — Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do not listen to her; listen to me and the member might learn something! The SPEAKER : Premier, take a seat. Member for Cannington — Mr W.J. Johnston : He took the interjection! The SPEAKER : Member for Cannington, I am on my feet; you will be quiet for a moment. What I am going to tell you is that you have been formally called for the first time today. Mr C.J. BARNETT : That was a decision taken by the Liberal–National government to protect the character and the unique characteristics of the Swan Valley. As some members may be aware—certainly, the member for Vasse would be aware—a local group in the Margaret River area has for some time argued that the Margaret River area should receive some similar planning protection. Indeed — Mr P. Papalia interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member is very ordinary, is he not? Margaret River has gained for itself an international reputation for the quality of its wines and for the tourist attraction of the area. The concerns of the people in Margaret River are primarily, as it was put to me, about urban encroachment on some of the best soils for wine production. It is actually about soil type and preserving that resource. In fact, I recently met in my electorate with a major wine producer and he talked to me about the work that had been going on. We have yet to progress this in government, but I said that in principle we would give consideration to legislation to try to protect the winegrowing area and the character of Margaret River as a major wine and tourist location along similar lines to what this government did in the 1990s for the Swan Valley. Bear in mind that the boundaries of that probably do not include the site where the proposed coalmine would be. That is the reality. They are different issues. The coal company had leases granted to it by a Labor government in the 1980s. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : That is the truth! That happened — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I know members opposite do not like the truth, but I just point out that it was granted in the 1980s. The company has legal entitlement to pursue it. What I have said publicly is that because of the nature of the area, people can expect a very high environmental standard to apply to that area, as a very high environmental standard would apply to any development in the Kimberley, including James Price Point. James Price Point was selected from 40 sites; it came down to four sites and then finally to James Price Point. One of the major reasons that James Price Point was selected was that it was seen to be environmentally acceptable by the responsible environmental agencies. Mr E.S. Ripper : You completely stuffed up that process! Mr R.H. Cook : You just waded in and messed up the entire negotiation process! Mr C.J. BARNETT : How long do I have, Mr Speaker? How long have I got to tell the story of negotiations because the Labor Party in government gave the Kimberley Land Council a right of veto—something no-one else has! It gave it a right of veto over land that is not Aboriginal Lands Trust land and not found to have native title, although it may well. The decision on James Price Point, made after two years and after more than $16 million of expenditure, is a decision that is proper. If members read the newspaper this morning, they would have seen the notice of intent to acquire that land in accordance with the Native Title Act and the Land Administration Act. Therefore, the process is underway, and there will be good faith negotiations during the course of that process. I believe that we will reach a consent agreement during that negotiation. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I remind members opposite—in fact, I think the signature might have been that of the now Leader of the Opposition—of the issue of a notice of intent to acquire the land of the Ord River after native title had been determined.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : I just said that. Several members interjected. Mr W.J. Johnston : How come you’re not protecting the — Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do not listen to her; listen to me and the member might learn something! The SPEAKER : Premier, take a seat. Member for Cannington — Mr W.J. Johnston : He took the interjection! The SPEAKER : Member for Cannington, I am on my feet; you will be quiet for a moment. What I am going to tell you is that you have been formally called for the first time today. Mr C.J. BARNETT : That was a decision taken by the Liberal–National government to protect the character and the unique characteristics of the Swan Valley. As some members may be aware—certainly, the member for Vasse would be aware—a local group in the Margaret River area has for some time argued that the Margaret River area should receive some similar planning protection. Indeed — Mr P. Papalia interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member is very ordinary, is he not? Margaret River has gained for itself an international reputation for the quality of its wines and for the tourist attraction of the area. The concerns of the people in Margaret River are primarily, as it was put to me, about urban encroachment on some of the best soils for wine production. It is actually about soil type and preserving that resource. In fact, I recently met in my electorate with a major wine producer and he talked to me about the work that had been going on. We have yet to progress this in government, but I said that in principle we would give consideration to legislation to try to protect the winegrowing area and the character of Margaret River as a major wine and tourist location along similar lines to what this government did in the 1990s for the Swan Valley. Bear in mind that the boundaries of that probably do not include the site where the proposed coalmine would be. That is the reality. They are different issues. The coal company had leases granted to it by a Labor government in the 1980s. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : That is the truth! That happened — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I know members opposite do not like the truth, but I just point out that it was granted in the 1980s. The company has legal entitlement to pursue it. What I have said publicly is that because of the nature of the area, people can expect a very high environmental standard to apply to that area, as a very high environmental standard would apply to any development in the Kimberley, including James Price Point. James Price Point was selected from 40 sites; it came down to four sites and then finally to James Price Point. One of the major reasons that James Price Point was selected was that it was seen to be environmentally acceptable by the responsible environmental agencies. Mr E.S. Ripper : You completely stuffed up that process! Mr R.H. Cook : You just waded in and messed up the entire negotiation process! Mr C.J. BARNETT : How long do I have, Mr Speaker? How long have I got to tell the story of negotiations because the Labor Party in government gave the Kimberley Land Council a right of veto—something no-one else has! It gave it a right of veto over land that is not Aboriginal Lands Trust land and not found to have native title, although it may well. The decision on James Price Point, made after two years and after more than $16 million of expenditure, is a decision that is proper. If members read the newspaper this morning, they would have seen the notice of intent to acquire that land in accordance with the Native Title Act and the Land Administration Act. Therefore, the process is underway, and there will be good faith negotiations during the course of that process. I believe that we will reach a consent agreement during that negotiation. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I remind members opposite—in fact, I think the signature might have been that of the now Leader of the Opposition—of the issue of a notice of intent to acquire the land of the Ord River after native title had been determined.
Several members interjected. Mr W.J. Johnston : How come you’re not protecting the — Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do not listen to her; listen to me and the member might learn something! The SPEAKER : Premier, take a seat. Member for Cannington — Mr W.J. Johnston : He took the interjection! The SPEAKER : Member for Cannington, I am on my feet; you will be quiet for a moment. What I am going to tell you is that you have been formally called for the first time today. Mr C.J. BARNETT : That was a decision taken by the Liberal–National government to protect the character and the unique characteristics of the Swan Valley. As some members may be aware—certainly, the member for Vasse would be aware—a local group in the Margaret River area has for some time argued that the Margaret River area should receive some similar planning protection. Indeed — Mr P. Papalia interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member is very ordinary, is he not? Margaret River has gained for itself an international reputation for the quality of its wines and for the tourist attraction of the area. The concerns of the people in Margaret River are primarily, as it was put to me, about urban encroachment on some of the best soils for wine production. It is actually about soil type and preserving that resource. In fact, I recently met in my electorate with a major wine producer and he talked to me about the work that had been going on. We have yet to progress this in government, but I said that in principle we would give consideration to legislation to try to protect the winegrowing area and the character of Margaret River as a major wine and tourist location along similar lines to what this government did in the 1990s for the Swan Valley. Bear in mind that the boundaries of that probably do not include the site where the proposed coalmine would be. That is the reality. They are different issues. The coal company had leases granted to it by a Labor government in the 1980s. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : That is the truth! That happened — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I know members opposite do not like the truth, but I just point out that it was granted in the 1980s. The company has legal entitlement to pursue it. What I have said publicly is that because of the nature of the area, people can expect a very high environmental standard to apply to that area, as a very high environmental standard would apply to any development in the Kimberley, including James Price Point. James Price Point was selected from 40 sites; it came down to four sites and then finally to James Price Point. One of the major reasons that James Price Point was selected was that it was seen to be environmentally acceptable by the responsible environmental agencies. Mr E.S. Ripper : You completely stuffed up that process! Mr R.H. Cook : You just waded in and messed up the entire negotiation process! Mr C.J. BARNETT : How long do I have, Mr Speaker? How long have I got to tell the story of negotiations because the Labor Party in government gave the Kimberley Land Council a right of veto—something no-one else has! It gave it a right of veto over land that is not Aboriginal Lands Trust land and not found to have native title, although it may well. The decision on James Price Point, made after two years and after more than $16 million of expenditure, is a decision that is proper. If members read the newspaper this morning, they would have seen the notice of intent to acquire that land in accordance with the Native Title Act and the Land Administration Act. Therefore, the process is underway, and there will be good faith negotiations during the course of that process. I believe that we will reach a consent agreement during that negotiation. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I remind members opposite—in fact, I think the signature might have been that of the now Leader of the Opposition—of the issue of a notice of intent to acquire the land of the Ord River after native title had been determined.
Mr W.J. Johnston : How come you’re not protecting the — Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do not listen to her; listen to me and the member might learn something! The SPEAKER : Premier, take a seat. Member for Cannington — Mr W.J. Johnston : He took the interjection! The SPEAKER : Member for Cannington, I am on my feet; you will be quiet for a moment. What I am going to tell you is that you have been formally called for the first time today. Mr C.J. BARNETT : That was a decision taken by the Liberal–National government to protect the character and the unique characteristics of the Swan Valley. As some members may be aware—certainly, the member for Vasse would be aware—a local group in the Margaret River area has for some time argued that the Margaret River area should receive some similar planning protection. Indeed — Mr P. Papalia interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member is very ordinary, is he not? Margaret River has gained for itself an international reputation for the quality of its wines and for the tourist attraction of the area. The concerns of the people in Margaret River are primarily, as it was put to me, about urban encroachment on some of the best soils for wine production. It is actually about soil type and preserving that resource. In fact, I recently met in my electorate with a major wine producer and he talked to me about the work that had been going on. We have yet to progress this in government, but I said that in principle we would give consideration to legislation to try to protect the winegrowing area and the character of Margaret River as a major wine and tourist location along similar lines to what this government did in the 1990s for the Swan Valley. Bear in mind that the boundaries of that probably do not include the site where the proposed coalmine would be. That is the reality. They are different issues. The coal company had leases granted to it by a Labor government in the 1980s. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : That is the truth! That happened — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I know members opposite do not like the truth, but I just point out that it was granted in the 1980s. The company has legal entitlement to pursue it. What I have said publicly is that because of the nature of the area, people can expect a very high environmental standard to apply to that area, as a very high environmental standard would apply to any development in the Kimberley, including James Price Point. James Price Point was selected from 40 sites; it came down to four sites and then finally to James Price Point. One of the major reasons that James Price Point was selected was that it was seen to be environmentally acceptable by the responsible environmental agencies. Mr E.S. Ripper : You completely stuffed up that process! Mr R.H. Cook : You just waded in and messed up the entire negotiation process! Mr C.J. BARNETT : How long do I have, Mr Speaker? How long have I got to tell the story of negotiations because the Labor Party in government gave the Kimberley Land Council a right of veto—something no-one else has! It gave it a right of veto over land that is not Aboriginal Lands Trust land and not found to have native title, although it may well. The decision on James Price Point, made after two years and after more than $16 million of expenditure, is a decision that is proper. If members read the newspaper this morning, they would have seen the notice of intent to acquire that land in accordance with the Native Title Act and the Land Administration Act. Therefore, the process is underway, and there will be good faith negotiations during the course of that process. I believe that we will reach a consent agreement during that negotiation. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I remind members opposite—in fact, I think the signature might have been that of the now Leader of the Opposition—of the issue of a notice of intent to acquire the land of the Ord River after native title had been determined.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do not listen to her; listen to me and the member might learn something! The SPEAKER : Premier, take a seat. Member for Cannington — Mr W.J. Johnston : He took the interjection! The SPEAKER : Member for Cannington, I am on my feet; you will be quiet for a moment. What I am going to tell you is that you have been formally called for the first time today. Mr C.J. BARNETT : That was a decision taken by the Liberal–National government to protect the character and the unique characteristics of the Swan Valley. As some members may be aware—certainly, the member for Vasse would be aware—a local group in the Margaret River area has for some time argued that the Margaret River area should receive some similar planning protection. Indeed — Mr P. Papalia interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member is very ordinary, is he not? Margaret River has gained for itself an international reputation for the quality of its wines and for the tourist attraction of the area. The concerns of the people in Margaret River are primarily, as it was put to me, about urban encroachment on some of the best soils for wine production. It is actually about soil type and preserving that resource. In fact, I recently met in my electorate with a major wine producer and he talked to me about the work that had been going on. We have yet to progress this in government, but I said that in principle we would give consideration to legislation to try to protect the winegrowing area and the character of Margaret River as a major wine and tourist location along similar lines to what this government did in the 1990s for the Swan Valley. Bear in mind that the boundaries of that probably do not include the site where the proposed coalmine would be. That is the reality. They are different issues. The coal company had leases granted to it by a Labor government in the 1980s. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : That is the truth! That happened — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I know members opposite do not like the truth, but I just point out that it was granted in the 1980s. The company has legal entitlement to pursue it. What I have said publicly is that because of the nature of the area, people can expect a very high environmental standard to apply to that area, as a very high environmental standard would apply to any development in the Kimberley, including James Price Point. James Price Point was selected from 40 sites; it came down to four sites and then finally to James Price Point. One of the major reasons that James Price Point was selected was that it was seen to be environmentally acceptable by the responsible environmental agencies. Mr E.S. Ripper : You completely stuffed up that process! Mr R.H. Cook : You just waded in and messed up the entire negotiation process! Mr C.J. BARNETT : How long do I have, Mr Speaker? How long have I got to tell the story of negotiations because the Labor Party in government gave the Kimberley Land Council a right of veto—something no-one else has! It gave it a right of veto over land that is not Aboriginal Lands Trust land and not found to have native title, although it may well. The decision on James Price Point, made after two years and after more than $16 million of expenditure, is a decision that is proper. If members read the newspaper this morning, they would have seen the notice of intent to acquire that land in accordance with the Native Title Act and the Land Administration Act. Therefore, the process is underway, and there will be good faith negotiations during the course of that process. I believe that we will reach a consent agreement during that negotiation. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I remind members opposite—in fact, I think the signature might have been that of the now Leader of the Opposition—of the issue of a notice of intent to acquire the land of the Ord River after native title had been determined.
The SPEAKER : Premier, take a seat. Member for Cannington — Mr W.J. Johnston : He took the interjection! The SPEAKER : Member for Cannington, I am on my feet; you will be quiet for a moment. What I am going to tell you is that you have been formally called for the first time today. Mr C.J. BARNETT : That was a decision taken by the Liberal–National government to protect the character and the unique characteristics of the Swan Valley. As some members may be aware—certainly, the member for Vasse would be aware—a local group in the Margaret River area has for some time argued that the Margaret River area should receive some similar planning protection. Indeed — Mr P. Papalia interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member is very ordinary, is he not? Margaret River has gained for itself an international reputation for the quality of its wines and for the tourist attraction of the area. The concerns of the people in Margaret River are primarily, as it was put to me, about urban encroachment on some of the best soils for wine production. It is actually about soil type and preserving that resource. In fact, I recently met in my electorate with a major wine producer and he talked to me about the work that had been going on. We have yet to progress this in government, but I said that in principle we would give consideration to legislation to try to protect the winegrowing area and the character of Margaret River as a major wine and tourist location along similar lines to what this government did in the 1990s for the Swan Valley. Bear in mind that the boundaries of that probably do not include the site where the proposed coalmine would be. That is the reality. They are different issues. The coal company had leases granted to it by a Labor government in the 1980s. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : That is the truth! That happened — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I know members opposite do not like the truth, but I just point out that it was granted in the 1980s. The company has legal entitlement to pursue it. What I have said publicly is that because of the nature of the area, people can expect a very high environmental standard to apply to that area, as a very high environmental standard would apply to any development in the Kimberley, including James Price Point. James Price Point was selected from 40 sites; it came down to four sites and then finally to James Price Point. One of the major reasons that James Price Point was selected was that it was seen to be environmentally acceptable by the responsible environmental agencies. Mr E.S. Ripper : You completely stuffed up that process! Mr R.H. Cook : You just waded in and messed up the entire negotiation process! Mr C.J. BARNETT : How long do I have, Mr Speaker? How long have I got to tell the story of negotiations because the Labor Party in government gave the Kimberley Land Council a right of veto—something no-one else has! It gave it a right of veto over land that is not Aboriginal Lands Trust land and not found to have native title, although it may well. The decision on James Price Point, made after two years and after more than $16 million of expenditure, is a decision that is proper. If members read the newspaper this morning, they would have seen the notice of intent to acquire that land in accordance with the Native Title Act and the Land Administration Act. Therefore, the process is underway, and there will be good faith negotiations during the course of that process. I believe that we will reach a consent agreement during that negotiation. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I remind members opposite—in fact, I think the signature might have been that of the now Leader of the Opposition—of the issue of a notice of intent to acquire the land of the Ord River after native title had been determined.
Mr W.J. Johnston : He took the interjection! The SPEAKER : Member for Cannington, I am on my feet; you will be quiet for a moment. What I am going to tell you is that you have been formally called for the first time today. Mr C.J. BARNETT : That was a decision taken by the Liberal–National government to protect the character and the unique characteristics of the Swan Valley. As some members may be aware—certainly, the member for Vasse would be aware—a local group in the Margaret River area has for some time argued that the Margaret River area should receive some similar planning protection. Indeed — Mr P. Papalia interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member is very ordinary, is he not? Margaret River has gained for itself an international reputation for the quality of its wines and for the tourist attraction of the area. The concerns of the people in Margaret River are primarily, as it was put to me, about urban encroachment on some of the best soils for wine production. It is actually about soil type and preserving that resource. In fact, I recently met in my electorate with a major wine producer and he talked to me about the work that had been going on. We have yet to progress this in government, but I said that in principle we would give consideration to legislation to try to protect the winegrowing area and the character of Margaret River as a major wine and tourist location along similar lines to what this government did in the 1990s for the Swan Valley. Bear in mind that the boundaries of that probably do not include the site where the proposed coalmine would be. That is the reality. They are different issues. The coal company had leases granted to it by a Labor government in the 1980s. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : That is the truth! That happened — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I know members opposite do not like the truth, but I just point out that it was granted in the 1980s. The company has legal entitlement to pursue it. What I have said publicly is that because of the nature of the area, people can expect a very high environmental standard to apply to that area, as a very high environmental standard would apply to any development in the Kimberley, including James Price Point. James Price Point was selected from 40 sites; it came down to four sites and then finally to James Price Point. One of the major reasons that James Price Point was selected was that it was seen to be environmentally acceptable by the responsible environmental agencies. Mr E.S. Ripper : You completely stuffed up that process! Mr R.H. Cook : You just waded in and messed up the entire negotiation process! Mr C.J. BARNETT : How long do I have, Mr Speaker? How long have I got to tell the story of negotiations because the Labor Party in government gave the Kimberley Land Council a right of veto—something no-one else has! It gave it a right of veto over land that is not Aboriginal Lands Trust land and not found to have native title, although it may well. The decision on James Price Point, made after two years and after more than $16 million of expenditure, is a decision that is proper. If members read the newspaper this morning, they would have seen the notice of intent to acquire that land in accordance with the Native Title Act and the Land Administration Act. Therefore, the process is underway, and there will be good faith negotiations during the course of that process. I believe that we will reach a consent agreement during that negotiation. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I remind members opposite—in fact, I think the signature might have been that of the now Leader of the Opposition—of the issue of a notice of intent to acquire the land of the Ord River after native title had been determined.
The SPEAKER : Member for Cannington, I am on my feet; you will be quiet for a moment. What I am going to tell you is that you have been formally called for the first time today. Mr C.J. BARNETT : That was a decision taken by the Liberal–National government to protect the character and the unique characteristics of the Swan Valley. As some members may be aware—certainly, the member for Vasse would be aware—a local group in the Margaret River area has for some time argued that the Margaret River area should receive some similar planning protection. Indeed — Mr P. Papalia interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member is very ordinary, is he not? Margaret River has gained for itself an international reputation for the quality of its wines and for the tourist attraction of the area. The concerns of the people in Margaret River are primarily, as it was put to me, about urban encroachment on some of the best soils for wine production. It is actually about soil type and preserving that resource. In fact, I recently met in my electorate with a major wine producer and he talked to me about the work that had been going on. We have yet to progress this in government, but I said that in principle we would give consideration to legislation to try to protect the winegrowing area and the character of Margaret River as a major wine and tourist location along similar lines to what this government did in the 1990s for the Swan Valley. Bear in mind that the boundaries of that probably do not include the site where the proposed coalmine would be. That is the reality. They are different issues. The coal company had leases granted to it by a Labor government in the 1980s. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : That is the truth! That happened — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I know members opposite do not like the truth, but I just point out that it was granted in the 1980s. The company has legal entitlement to pursue it. What I have said publicly is that because of the nature of the area, people can expect a very high environmental standard to apply to that area, as a very high environmental standard would apply to any development in the Kimberley, including James Price Point. James Price Point was selected from 40 sites; it came down to four sites and then finally to James Price Point. One of the major reasons that James Price Point was selected was that it was seen to be environmentally acceptable by the responsible environmental agencies. Mr E.S. Ripper : You completely stuffed up that process! Mr R.H. Cook : You just waded in and messed up the entire negotiation process! Mr C.J. BARNETT : How long do I have, Mr Speaker? How long have I got to tell the story of negotiations because the Labor Party in government gave the Kimberley Land Council a right of veto—something no-one else has! It gave it a right of veto over land that is not Aboriginal Lands Trust land and not found to have native title, although it may well. The decision on James Price Point, made after two years and after more than $16 million of expenditure, is a decision that is proper. If members read the newspaper this morning, they would have seen the notice of intent to acquire that land in accordance with the Native Title Act and the Land Administration Act. Therefore, the process is underway, and there will be good faith negotiations during the course of that process. I believe that we will reach a consent agreement during that negotiation. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I remind members opposite—in fact, I think the signature might have been that of the now Leader of the Opposition—of the issue of a notice of intent to acquire the land of the Ord River after native title had been determined.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : That was a decision taken by the Liberal–National government to protect the character and the unique characteristics of the Swan Valley. As some members may be aware—certainly, the member for Vasse would be aware—a local group in the Margaret River area has for some time argued that the Margaret River area should receive some similar planning protection. Indeed — Mr P. Papalia interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member is very ordinary, is he not? Margaret River has gained for itself an international reputation for the quality of its wines and for the tourist attraction of the area. The concerns of the people in Margaret River are primarily, as it was put to me, about urban encroachment on some of the best soils for wine production. It is actually about soil type and preserving that resource. In fact, I recently met in my electorate with a major wine producer and he talked to me about the work that had been going on. We have yet to progress this in government, but I said that in principle we would give consideration to legislation to try to protect the winegrowing area and the character of Margaret River as a major wine and tourist location along similar lines to what this government did in the 1990s for the Swan Valley. Bear in mind that the boundaries of that probably do not include the site where the proposed coalmine would be. That is the reality. They are different issues. The coal company had leases granted to it by a Labor government in the 1980s. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : That is the truth! That happened — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I know members opposite do not like the truth, but I just point out that it was granted in the 1980s. The company has legal entitlement to pursue it. What I have said publicly is that because of the nature of the area, people can expect a very high environmental standard to apply to that area, as a very high environmental standard would apply to any development in the Kimberley, including James Price Point. James Price Point was selected from 40 sites; it came down to four sites and then finally to James Price Point. One of the major reasons that James Price Point was selected was that it was seen to be environmentally acceptable by the responsible environmental agencies. Mr E.S. Ripper : You completely stuffed up that process! Mr R.H. Cook : You just waded in and messed up the entire negotiation process! Mr C.J. BARNETT : How long do I have, Mr Speaker? How long have I got to tell the story of negotiations because the Labor Party in government gave the Kimberley Land Council a right of veto—something no-one else has! It gave it a right of veto over land that is not Aboriginal Lands Trust land and not found to have native title, although it may well. The decision on James Price Point, made after two years and after more than $16 million of expenditure, is a decision that is proper. If members read the newspaper this morning, they would have seen the notice of intent to acquire that land in accordance with the Native Title Act and the Land Administration Act. Therefore, the process is underway, and there will be good faith negotiations during the course of that process. I believe that we will reach a consent agreement during that negotiation. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I remind members opposite—in fact, I think the signature might have been that of the now Leader of the Opposition—of the issue of a notice of intent to acquire the land of the Ord River after native title had been determined.
Mr P. Papalia interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member is very ordinary, is he not? Margaret River has gained for itself an international reputation for the quality of its wines and for the tourist attraction of the area. The concerns of the people in Margaret River are primarily, as it was put to me, about urban encroachment on some of the best soils for wine production. It is actually about soil type and preserving that resource. In fact, I recently met in my electorate with a major wine producer and he talked to me about the work that had been going on. We have yet to progress this in government, but I said that in principle we would give consideration to legislation to try to protect the winegrowing area and the character of Margaret River as a major wine and tourist location along similar lines to what this government did in the 1990s for the Swan Valley. Bear in mind that the boundaries of that probably do not include the site where the proposed coalmine would be. That is the reality. They are different issues. The coal company had leases granted to it by a Labor government in the 1980s. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : That is the truth! That happened — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I know members opposite do not like the truth, but I just point out that it was granted in the 1980s. The company has legal entitlement to pursue it. What I have said publicly is that because of the nature of the area, people can expect a very high environmental standard to apply to that area, as a very high environmental standard would apply to any development in the Kimberley, including James Price Point. James Price Point was selected from 40 sites; it came down to four sites and then finally to James Price Point. One of the major reasons that James Price Point was selected was that it was seen to be environmentally acceptable by the responsible environmental agencies. Mr E.S. Ripper : You completely stuffed up that process! Mr R.H. Cook : You just waded in and messed up the entire negotiation process! Mr C.J. BARNETT : How long do I have, Mr Speaker? How long have I got to tell the story of negotiations because the Labor Party in government gave the Kimberley Land Council a right of veto—something no-one else has! It gave it a right of veto over land that is not Aboriginal Lands Trust land and not found to have native title, although it may well. The decision on James Price Point, made after two years and after more than $16 million of expenditure, is a decision that is proper. If members read the newspaper this morning, they would have seen the notice of intent to acquire that land in accordance with the Native Title Act and the Land Administration Act. Therefore, the process is underway, and there will be good faith negotiations during the course of that process. I believe that we will reach a consent agreement during that negotiation. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I remind members opposite—in fact, I think the signature might have been that of the now Leader of the Opposition—of the issue of a notice of intent to acquire the land of the Ord River after native title had been determined.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member is very ordinary, is he not? Margaret River has gained for itself an international reputation for the quality of its wines and for the tourist attraction of the area. The concerns of the people in Margaret River are primarily, as it was put to me, about urban encroachment on some of the best soils for wine production. It is actually about soil type and preserving that resource. In fact, I recently met in my electorate with a major wine producer and he talked to me about the work that had been going on. We have yet to progress this in government, but I said that in principle we would give consideration to legislation to try to protect the winegrowing area and the character of Margaret River as a major wine and tourist location along similar lines to what this government did in the 1990s for the Swan Valley. Bear in mind that the boundaries of that probably do not include the site where the proposed coalmine would be. That is the reality. They are different issues. The coal company had leases granted to it by a Labor government in the 1980s. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : That is the truth! That happened — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I know members opposite do not like the truth, but I just point out that it was granted in the 1980s. The company has legal entitlement to pursue it. What I have said publicly is that because of the nature of the area, people can expect a very high environmental standard to apply to that area, as a very high environmental standard would apply to any development in the Kimberley, including James Price Point. James Price Point was selected from 40 sites; it came down to four sites and then finally to James Price Point. One of the major reasons that James Price Point was selected was that it was seen to be environmentally acceptable by the responsible environmental agencies. Mr E.S. Ripper : You completely stuffed up that process! Mr R.H. Cook : You just waded in and messed up the entire negotiation process! Mr C.J. BARNETT : How long do I have, Mr Speaker? How long have I got to tell the story of negotiations because the Labor Party in government gave the Kimberley Land Council a right of veto—something no-one else has! It gave it a right of veto over land that is not Aboriginal Lands Trust land and not found to have native title, although it may well. The decision on James Price Point, made after two years and after more than $16 million of expenditure, is a decision that is proper. If members read the newspaper this morning, they would have seen the notice of intent to acquire that land in accordance with the Native Title Act and the Land Administration Act. Therefore, the process is underway, and there will be good faith negotiations during the course of that process. I believe that we will reach a consent agreement during that negotiation. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I remind members opposite—in fact, I think the signature might have been that of the now Leader of the Opposition—of the issue of a notice of intent to acquire the land of the Ord River after native title had been determined.
Margaret River has gained for itself an international reputation for the quality of its wines and for the tourist attraction of the area. The concerns of the people in Margaret River are primarily, as it was put to me, about urban encroachment on some of the best soils for wine production. It is actually about soil type and preserving that resource. In fact, I recently met in my electorate with a major wine producer and he talked to me about the work that had been going on. We have yet to progress this in government, but I said that in principle we would give consideration to legislation to try to protect the winegrowing area and the character of Margaret River as a major wine and tourist location along similar lines to what this government did in the 1990s for the Swan Valley. Bear in mind that the boundaries of that probably do not include the site where the proposed coalmine would be. That is the reality. They are different issues. The coal company had leases granted to it by a Labor government in the 1980s. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : That is the truth! That happened — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I know members opposite do not like the truth, but I just point out that it was granted in the 1980s. The company has legal entitlement to pursue it. What I have said publicly is that because of the nature of the area, people can expect a very high environmental standard to apply to that area, as a very high environmental standard would apply to any development in the Kimberley, including James Price Point. James Price Point was selected from 40 sites; it came down to four sites and then finally to James Price Point. One of the major reasons that James Price Point was selected was that it was seen to be environmentally acceptable by the responsible environmental agencies. Mr E.S. Ripper : You completely stuffed up that process! Mr R.H. Cook : You just waded in and messed up the entire negotiation process! Mr C.J. BARNETT : How long do I have, Mr Speaker? How long have I got to tell the story of negotiations because the Labor Party in government gave the Kimberley Land Council a right of veto—something no-one else has! It gave it a right of veto over land that is not Aboriginal Lands Trust land and not found to have native title, although it may well. The decision on James Price Point, made after two years and after more than $16 million of expenditure, is a decision that is proper. If members read the newspaper this morning, they would have seen the notice of intent to acquire that land in accordance with the Native Title Act and the Land Administration Act. Therefore, the process is underway, and there will be good faith negotiations during the course of that process. I believe that we will reach a consent agreement during that negotiation. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I remind members opposite—in fact, I think the signature might have been that of the now Leader of the Opposition—of the issue of a notice of intent to acquire the land of the Ord River after native title had been determined.
The coal company had leases granted to it by a Labor government in the 1980s. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : That is the truth! That happened — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I know members opposite do not like the truth, but I just point out that it was granted in the 1980s. The company has legal entitlement to pursue it. What I have said publicly is that because of the nature of the area, people can expect a very high environmental standard to apply to that area, as a very high environmental standard would apply to any development in the Kimberley, including James Price Point. James Price Point was selected from 40 sites; it came down to four sites and then finally to James Price Point. One of the major reasons that James Price Point was selected was that it was seen to be environmentally acceptable by the responsible environmental agencies. Mr E.S. Ripper : You completely stuffed up that process! Mr R.H. Cook : You just waded in and messed up the entire negotiation process! Mr C.J. BARNETT : How long do I have, Mr Speaker? How long have I got to tell the story of negotiations because the Labor Party in government gave the Kimberley Land Council a right of veto—something no-one else has! It gave it a right of veto over land that is not Aboriginal Lands Trust land and not found to have native title, although it may well. The decision on James Price Point, made after two years and after more than $16 million of expenditure, is a decision that is proper. If members read the newspaper this morning, they would have seen the notice of intent to acquire that land in accordance with the Native Title Act and the Land Administration Act. Therefore, the process is underway, and there will be good faith negotiations during the course of that process. I believe that we will reach a consent agreement during that negotiation. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I remind members opposite—in fact, I think the signature might have been that of the now Leader of the Opposition—of the issue of a notice of intent to acquire the land of the Ord River after native title had been determined.
Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : That is the truth! That happened — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I know members opposite do not like the truth, but I just point out that it was granted in the 1980s. The company has legal entitlement to pursue it. What I have said publicly is that because of the nature of the area, people can expect a very high environmental standard to apply to that area, as a very high environmental standard would apply to any development in the Kimberley, including James Price Point. James Price Point was selected from 40 sites; it came down to four sites and then finally to James Price Point. One of the major reasons that James Price Point was selected was that it was seen to be environmentally acceptable by the responsible environmental agencies. Mr E.S. Ripper : You completely stuffed up that process! Mr R.H. Cook : You just waded in and messed up the entire negotiation process! Mr C.J. BARNETT : How long do I have, Mr Speaker? How long have I got to tell the story of negotiations because the Labor Party in government gave the Kimberley Land Council a right of veto—something no-one else has! It gave it a right of veto over land that is not Aboriginal Lands Trust land and not found to have native title, although it may well. The decision on James Price Point, made after two years and after more than $16 million of expenditure, is a decision that is proper. If members read the newspaper this morning, they would have seen the notice of intent to acquire that land in accordance with the Native Title Act and the Land Administration Act. Therefore, the process is underway, and there will be good faith negotiations during the course of that process. I believe that we will reach a consent agreement during that negotiation. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I remind members opposite—in fact, I think the signature might have been that of the now Leader of the Opposition—of the issue of a notice of intent to acquire the land of the Ord River after native title had been determined.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : That is the truth! That happened — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I know members opposite do not like the truth, but I just point out that it was granted in the 1980s. The company has legal entitlement to pursue it. What I have said publicly is that because of the nature of the area, people can expect a very high environmental standard to apply to that area, as a very high environmental standard would apply to any development in the Kimberley, including James Price Point. James Price Point was selected from 40 sites; it came down to four sites and then finally to James Price Point. One of the major reasons that James Price Point was selected was that it was seen to be environmentally acceptable by the responsible environmental agencies. Mr E.S. Ripper : You completely stuffed up that process! Mr R.H. Cook : You just waded in and messed up the entire negotiation process! Mr C.J. BARNETT : How long do I have, Mr Speaker? How long have I got to tell the story of negotiations because the Labor Party in government gave the Kimberley Land Council a right of veto—something no-one else has! It gave it a right of veto over land that is not Aboriginal Lands Trust land and not found to have native title, although it may well. The decision on James Price Point, made after two years and after more than $16 million of expenditure, is a decision that is proper. If members read the newspaper this morning, they would have seen the notice of intent to acquire that land in accordance with the Native Title Act and the Land Administration Act. Therefore, the process is underway, and there will be good faith negotiations during the course of that process. I believe that we will reach a consent agreement during that negotiation. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I remind members opposite—in fact, I think the signature might have been that of the now Leader of the Opposition—of the issue of a notice of intent to acquire the land of the Ord River after native title had been determined.
Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I know members opposite do not like the truth, but I just point out that it was granted in the 1980s. The company has legal entitlement to pursue it. What I have said publicly is that because of the nature of the area, people can expect a very high environmental standard to apply to that area, as a very high environmental standard would apply to any development in the Kimberley, including James Price Point. James Price Point was selected from 40 sites; it came down to four sites and then finally to James Price Point. One of the major reasons that James Price Point was selected was that it was seen to be environmentally acceptable by the responsible environmental agencies. Mr E.S. Ripper : You completely stuffed up that process! Mr R.H. Cook : You just waded in and messed up the entire negotiation process! Mr C.J. BARNETT : How long do I have, Mr Speaker? How long have I got to tell the story of negotiations because the Labor Party in government gave the Kimberley Land Council a right of veto—something no-one else has! It gave it a right of veto over land that is not Aboriginal Lands Trust land and not found to have native title, although it may well. The decision on James Price Point, made after two years and after more than $16 million of expenditure, is a decision that is proper. If members read the newspaper this morning, they would have seen the notice of intent to acquire that land in accordance with the Native Title Act and the Land Administration Act. Therefore, the process is underway, and there will be good faith negotiations during the course of that process. I believe that we will reach a consent agreement during that negotiation. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I remind members opposite—in fact, I think the signature might have been that of the now Leader of the Opposition—of the issue of a notice of intent to acquire the land of the Ord River after native title had been determined.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : I know members opposite do not like the truth, but I just point out that it was granted in the 1980s. The company has legal entitlement to pursue it. What I have said publicly is that because of the nature of the area, people can expect a very high environmental standard to apply to that area, as a very high environmental standard would apply to any development in the Kimberley, including James Price Point. James Price Point was selected from 40 sites; it came down to four sites and then finally to James Price Point. One of the major reasons that James Price Point was selected was that it was seen to be environmentally acceptable by the responsible environmental agencies. Mr E.S. Ripper : You completely stuffed up that process! Mr R.H. Cook : You just waded in and messed up the entire negotiation process! Mr C.J. BARNETT : How long do I have, Mr Speaker? How long have I got to tell the story of negotiations because the Labor Party in government gave the Kimberley Land Council a right of veto—something no-one else has! It gave it a right of veto over land that is not Aboriginal Lands Trust land and not found to have native title, although it may well. The decision on James Price Point, made after two years and after more than $16 million of expenditure, is a decision that is proper. If members read the newspaper this morning, they would have seen the notice of intent to acquire that land in accordance with the Native Title Act and the Land Administration Act. Therefore, the process is underway, and there will be good faith negotiations during the course of that process. I believe that we will reach a consent agreement during that negotiation. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I remind members opposite—in fact, I think the signature might have been that of the now Leader of the Opposition—of the issue of a notice of intent to acquire the land of the Ord River after native title had been determined.
Mr E.S. Ripper : You completely stuffed up that process! Mr R.H. Cook : You just waded in and messed up the entire negotiation process! Mr C.J. BARNETT : How long do I have, Mr Speaker? How long have I got to tell the story of negotiations because the Labor Party in government gave the Kimberley Land Council a right of veto—something no-one else has! It gave it a right of veto over land that is not Aboriginal Lands Trust land and not found to have native title, although it may well. The decision on James Price Point, made after two years and after more than $16 million of expenditure, is a decision that is proper. If members read the newspaper this morning, they would have seen the notice of intent to acquire that land in accordance with the Native Title Act and the Land Administration Act. Therefore, the process is underway, and there will be good faith negotiations during the course of that process. I believe that we will reach a consent agreement during that negotiation. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I remind members opposite—in fact, I think the signature might have been that of the now Leader of the Opposition—of the issue of a notice of intent to acquire the land of the Ord River after native title had been determined.
Mr R.H. Cook : You just waded in and messed up the entire negotiation process! Mr C.J. BARNETT : How long do I have, Mr Speaker? How long have I got to tell the story of negotiations because the Labor Party in government gave the Kimberley Land Council a right of veto—something no-one else has! It gave it a right of veto over land that is not Aboriginal Lands Trust land and not found to have native title, although it may well. The decision on James Price Point, made after two years and after more than $16 million of expenditure, is a decision that is proper. If members read the newspaper this morning, they would have seen the notice of intent to acquire that land in accordance with the Native Title Act and the Land Administration Act. Therefore, the process is underway, and there will be good faith negotiations during the course of that process. I believe that we will reach a consent agreement during that negotiation. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I remind members opposite—in fact, I think the signature might have been that of the now Leader of the Opposition—of the issue of a notice of intent to acquire the land of the Ord River after native title had been determined.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : How long do I have, Mr Speaker? How long have I got to tell the story of negotiations because the Labor Party in government gave the Kimberley Land Council a right of veto—something no-one else has! It gave it a right of veto over land that is not Aboriginal Lands Trust land and not found to have native title, although it may well. The decision on James Price Point, made after two years and after more than $16 million of expenditure, is a decision that is proper. If members read the newspaper this morning, they would have seen the notice of intent to acquire that land in accordance with the Native Title Act and the Land Administration Act. Therefore, the process is underway, and there will be good faith negotiations during the course of that process. I believe that we will reach a consent agreement during that negotiation. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I remind members opposite—in fact, I think the signature might have been that of the now Leader of the Opposition—of the issue of a notice of intent to acquire the land of the Ord River after native title had been determined.
The decision on James Price Point, made after two years and after more than $16 million of expenditure, is a decision that is proper. If members read the newspaper this morning, they would have seen the notice of intent to acquire that land in accordance with the Native Title Act and the Land Administration Act. Therefore, the process is underway, and there will be good faith negotiations during the course of that process. I believe that we will reach a consent agreement during that negotiation. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I remind members opposite—in fact, I think the signature might have been that of the now Leader of the Opposition—of the issue of a notice of intent to acquire the land of the Ord River after native title had been determined.
Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I remind members opposite—in fact, I think the signature might have been that of the now Leader of the Opposition—of the issue of a notice of intent to acquire the land of the Ord River after native title had been determined.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : I remind members opposite—in fact, I think the signature might have been that of the now Leader of the Opposition—of the issue of a notice of intent to acquire the land of the Ord River after native title had been determined.
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.