❓ Hon. Norman Moore questions the Burrup native title agreement, specifically regarding compensation payments regardless of native title validation. The Deputy Premier defends the agreement, citing economic benefits and compliance with the Native Title Act.
AnsweredQoN 1513Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
I refer the Deputy Premier to his answer to question on notice 1304 concerning the Burrup native title agreement. (1) Did anyone advising the Government on the Burrup native title agreement recommend that a clause be included to make it clear that native title compensation can only be paid subject to validation of native title claims? (2) Was the Government advised that failure to prove native title means that claimants cannot be paid compensation under the native title Act regime? (3) If so, why did the Government proceed with an agreement that means that the State will pay native title compensation irrespective of whether native title is found to exist? (4) Will the Deputy Premier explain by what legislative power he is authorised to make native title compensation payments to Burrup native title claimants who failed to prove their claims at law? Hon TOM STEPHENS
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1) The primary purpose of the Burrup agreement was to settle native title issues to pave the way for $5 billion worth of investment in gas processing projects on the Burrup Peninsula. An invalidity clause was the subject of negotiations but finally proved a barrier to reaching an agreement. The Burrup agreement allows industrial development to proceed without the need to await the outcome of any appeals to the decision made by the Federal Court of Australia. (2) Yes. (3) The Burrup agreement allows development to proceed, in accordance with the requirements of the commonwealth Native Title Act, pending the final resolution of the native title claims over that area. Native title compensation is payable only in certain circumstances where native title is found to have existed and has been extinguished. In the event that the State Government bears any compensation liability for the acts covered by the Burrup agreement, the money benefits provided under the agreement are to be set off against that liability. The State Government has also been fiscally responsible by ensuring that there will be no double dipping by the Aboriginal community in the future. The Aboriginal groups cannot, in addition to the benefits provided under the Burrup agreement, obtain native title compensation from the State Government. The issue of whether the Aboriginal groups would have been entitled to claim native title compensation is still unresolved. However, thanks to the Burrup agreement, it is an issue of no consequence. The State Government’s holistic and far-sighted approach has avoided the need for protracted litigation that may otherwise have been needed to resolve the issue. This is in the best interests of all concerned. (4) The State Government was required to follow the provisions of the commonwealth Native Title Act 1993 to validly, compulsorily acquire any native title rights and interests that may have existed over the Burrup industrial estate, the Maitland industrial estate and Karratha land required for residential and light industrial purposes. As explained previously, the Burrup agreement stands whether native title was found to exist over the area or not.
(1) Did anyone advising the Government on the Burrup native title agreement recommend that a clause be included to make it clear that native title compensation can only be paid subject to validation of native title claims? (2) Was the Government advised that failure to prove native title means that claimants cannot be paid compensation under the native title Act regime? (3) If so, why did the Government proceed with an agreement that means that the State will pay native title compensation irrespective of whether native title is found to exist? (4) Will the Deputy Premier explain by what legislative power he is authorised to make native title compensation payments to Burrup native title claimants who failed to prove their claims at law? Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1) The primary purpose of the Burrup agreement was to settle native title issues to pave the way for $5 billion worth of investment in gas processing projects on the Burrup Peninsula. An invalidity clause was the subject of negotiations but finally proved a barrier to reaching an agreement. The Burrup agreement allows industrial development to proceed without the need to await the outcome of any appeals to the decision made by the Federal Court of Australia. (2) Yes. (3) The Burrup agreement allows development to proceed, in accordance with the requirements of the commonwealth Native Title Act, pending the final resolution of the native title claims over that area. Native title compensation is payable only in certain circumstances where native title is found to have existed and has been extinguished. In the event that the State Government bears any compensation liability for the acts covered by the Burrup agreement, the money benefits provided under the agreement are to be set off against that liability. The State Government has also been fiscally responsible by ensuring that there will be no double dipping by the Aboriginal community in the future. The Aboriginal groups cannot, in addition to the benefits provided under the Burrup agreement, obtain native title compensation from the State Government. The issue of whether the Aboriginal groups would have been entitled to claim native title compensation is still unresolved. However, thanks to the Burrup agreement, it is an issue of no consequence. The State Government’s holistic and far-sighted approach has avoided the need for protracted litigation that may otherwise have been needed to resolve the issue. This is in the best interests of all concerned. (4) The State Government was required to follow the provisions of the commonwealth Native Title Act 1993 to validly, compulsorily acquire any native title rights and interests that may have existed over the Burrup industrial estate, the Maitland industrial estate and Karratha land required for residential and light industrial purposes. As explained previously, the Burrup agreement stands whether native title was found to exist over the area or not.
(2) Was the Government advised that failure to prove native title means that claimants cannot be paid compensation under the native title Act regime? (3) If so, why did the Government proceed with an agreement that means that the State will pay native title compensation irrespective of whether native title is found to exist? (4) Will the Deputy Premier explain by what legislative power he is authorised to make native title compensation payments to Burrup native title claimants who failed to prove their claims at law? Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1) The primary purpose of the Burrup agreement was to settle native title issues to pave the way for $5 billion worth of investment in gas processing projects on the Burrup Peninsula. An invalidity clause was the subject of negotiations but finally proved a barrier to reaching an agreement. The Burrup agreement allows industrial development to proceed without the need to await the outcome of any appeals to the decision made by the Federal Court of Australia. (2) Yes. (3) The Burrup agreement allows development to proceed, in accordance with the requirements of the commonwealth Native Title Act, pending the final resolution of the native title claims over that area. Native title compensation is payable only in certain circumstances where native title is found to have existed and has been extinguished. In the event that the State Government bears any compensation liability for the acts covered by the Burrup agreement, the money benefits provided under the agreement are to be set off against that liability. The State Government has also been fiscally responsible by ensuring that there will be no double dipping by the Aboriginal community in the future. The Aboriginal groups cannot, in addition to the benefits provided under the Burrup agreement, obtain native title compensation from the State Government. The issue of whether the Aboriginal groups would have been entitled to claim native title compensation is still unresolved. However, thanks to the Burrup agreement, it is an issue of no consequence. The State Government’s holistic and far-sighted approach has avoided the need for protracted litigation that may otherwise have been needed to resolve the issue. This is in the best interests of all concerned. (4) The State Government was required to follow the provisions of the commonwealth Native Title Act 1993 to validly, compulsorily acquire any native title rights and interests that may have existed over the Burrup industrial estate, the Maitland industrial estate and Karratha land required for residential and light industrial purposes. As explained previously, the Burrup agreement stands whether native title was found to exist over the area or not.
(3) If so, why did the Government proceed with an agreement that means that the State will pay native title compensation irrespective of whether native title is found to exist? (4) Will the Deputy Premier explain by what legislative power he is authorised to make native title compensation payments to Burrup native title claimants who failed to prove their claims at law? Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1) The primary purpose of the Burrup agreement was to settle native title issues to pave the way for $5 billion worth of investment in gas processing projects on the Burrup Peninsula. An invalidity clause was the subject of negotiations but finally proved a barrier to reaching an agreement. The Burrup agreement allows industrial development to proceed without the need to await the outcome of any appeals to the decision made by the Federal Court of Australia. (2) Yes. (3) The Burrup agreement allows development to proceed, in accordance with the requirements of the commonwealth Native Title Act, pending the final resolution of the native title claims over that area. Native title compensation is payable only in certain circumstances where native title is found to have existed and has been extinguished. In the event that the State Government bears any compensation liability for the acts covered by the Burrup agreement, the money benefits provided under the agreement are to be set off against that liability. The State Government has also been fiscally responsible by ensuring that there will be no double dipping by the Aboriginal community in the future. The Aboriginal groups cannot, in addition to the benefits provided under the Burrup agreement, obtain native title compensation from the State Government. The issue of whether the Aboriginal groups would have been entitled to claim native title compensation is still unresolved. However, thanks to the Burrup agreement, it is an issue of no consequence. The State Government’s holistic and far-sighted approach has avoided the need for protracted litigation that may otherwise have been needed to resolve the issue. This is in the best interests of all concerned. (4) The State Government was required to follow the provisions of the commonwealth Native Title Act 1993 to validly, compulsorily acquire any native title rights and interests that may have existed over the Burrup industrial estate, the Maitland industrial estate and Karratha land required for residential and light industrial purposes. As explained previously, the Burrup agreement stands whether native title was found to exist over the area or not.
(4) Will the Deputy Premier explain by what legislative power he is authorised to make native title compensation payments to Burrup native title claimants who failed to prove their claims at law? Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1) The primary purpose of the Burrup agreement was to settle native title issues to pave the way for $5 billion worth of investment in gas processing projects on the Burrup Peninsula. An invalidity clause was the subject of negotiations but finally proved a barrier to reaching an agreement. The Burrup agreement allows industrial development to proceed without the need to await the outcome of any appeals to the decision made by the Federal Court of Australia. (2) Yes. (3) The Burrup agreement allows development to proceed, in accordance with the requirements of the commonwealth Native Title Act, pending the final resolution of the native title claims over that area. Native title compensation is payable only in certain circumstances where native title is found to have existed and has been extinguished. In the event that the State Government bears any compensation liability for the acts covered by the Burrup agreement, the money benefits provided under the agreement are to be set off against that liability. The State Government has also been fiscally responsible by ensuring that there will be no double dipping by the Aboriginal community in the future. The Aboriginal groups cannot, in addition to the benefits provided under the Burrup agreement, obtain native title compensation from the State Government. The issue of whether the Aboriginal groups would have been entitled to claim native title compensation is still unresolved. However, thanks to the Burrup agreement, it is an issue of no consequence. The State Government’s holistic and far-sighted approach has avoided the need for protracted litigation that may otherwise have been needed to resolve the issue. This is in the best interests of all concerned. (4) The State Government was required to follow the provisions of the commonwealth Native Title Act 1993 to validly, compulsorily acquire any native title rights and interests that may have existed over the Burrup industrial estate, the Maitland industrial estate and Karratha land required for residential and light industrial purposes. As explained previously, the Burrup agreement stands whether native title was found to exist over the area or not.
Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1) The primary purpose of the Burrup agreement was to settle native title issues to pave the way for $5 billion worth of investment in gas processing projects on the Burrup Peninsula. An invalidity clause was the subject of negotiations but finally proved a barrier to reaching an agreement. The Burrup agreement allows industrial development to proceed without the need to await the outcome of any appeals to the decision made by the Federal Court of Australia. (2) Yes. (3) The Burrup agreement allows development to proceed, in accordance with the requirements of the commonwealth Native Title Act, pending the final resolution of the native title claims over that area. Native title compensation is payable only in certain circumstances where native title is found to have existed and has been extinguished. In the event that the State Government bears any compensation liability for the acts covered by the Burrup agreement, the money benefits provided under the agreement are to be set off against that liability. The State Government has also been fiscally responsible by ensuring that there will be no double dipping by the Aboriginal community in the future. The Aboriginal groups cannot, in addition to the benefits provided under the Burrup agreement, obtain native title compensation from the State Government. The issue of whether the Aboriginal groups would have been entitled to claim native title compensation is still unresolved. However, thanks to the Burrup agreement, it is an issue of no consequence. The State Government’s holistic and far-sighted approach has avoided the need for protracted litigation that may otherwise have been needed to resolve the issue. This is in the best interests of all concerned. (4) The State Government was required to follow the provisions of the commonwealth Native Title Act 1993 to validly, compulsorily acquire any native title rights and interests that may have existed over the Burrup industrial estate, the Maitland industrial estate and Karratha land required for residential and light industrial purposes. As explained previously, the Burrup agreement stands whether native title was found to exist over the area or not.
I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1) The primary purpose of the Burrup agreement was to settle native title issues to pave the way for $5 billion worth of investment in gas processing projects on the Burrup Peninsula. An invalidity clause was the subject of negotiations but finally proved a barrier to reaching an agreement. The Burrup agreement allows industrial development to proceed without the need to await the outcome of any appeals to the decision made by the Federal Court of Australia. (2) Yes. (3) The Burrup agreement allows development to proceed, in accordance with the requirements of the commonwealth Native Title Act, pending the final resolution of the native title claims over that area. Native title compensation is payable only in certain circumstances where native title is found to have existed and has been extinguished. In the event that the State Government bears any compensation liability for the acts covered by the Burrup agreement, the money benefits provided under the agreement are to be set off against that liability. The State Government has also been fiscally responsible by ensuring that there will be no double dipping by the Aboriginal community in the future. The Aboriginal groups cannot, in addition to the benefits provided under the Burrup agreement, obtain native title compensation from the State Government. The issue of whether the Aboriginal groups would have been entitled to claim native title compensation is still unresolved. However, thanks to the Burrup agreement, it is an issue of no consequence. The State Government’s holistic and far-sighted approach has avoided the need for protracted litigation that may otherwise have been needed to resolve the issue. This is in the best interests of all concerned. (4) The State Government was required to follow the provisions of the commonwealth Native Title Act 1993 to validly, compulsorily acquire any native title rights and interests that may have existed over the Burrup industrial estate, the Maitland industrial estate and Karratha land required for residential and light industrial purposes. As explained previously, the Burrup agreement stands whether native title was found to exist over the area or not.
(1) The primary purpose of the Burrup agreement was to settle native title issues to pave the way for $5 billion worth of investment in gas processing projects on the Burrup Peninsula. An invalidity clause was the subject of negotiations but finally proved a barrier to reaching an agreement. The Burrup agreement allows industrial development to proceed without the need to await the outcome of any appeals to the decision made by the Federal Court of Australia. (2) Yes. (3) The Burrup agreement allows development to proceed, in accordance with the requirements of the commonwealth Native Title Act, pending the final resolution of the native title claims over that area. Native title compensation is payable only in certain circumstances where native title is found to have existed and has been extinguished. In the event that the State Government bears any compensation liability for the acts covered by the Burrup agreement, the money benefits provided under the agreement are to be set off against that liability. The State Government has also been fiscally responsible by ensuring that there will be no double dipping by the Aboriginal community in the future. The Aboriginal groups cannot, in addition to the benefits provided under the Burrup agreement, obtain native title compensation from the State Government. The issue of whether the Aboriginal groups would have been entitled to claim native title compensation is still unresolved. However, thanks to the Burrup agreement, it is an issue of no consequence. The State Government’s holistic and far-sighted approach has avoided the need for protracted litigation that may otherwise have been needed to resolve the issue. This is in the best interests of all concerned. (4) The State Government was required to follow the provisions of the commonwealth Native Title Act 1993 to validly, compulsorily acquire any native title rights and interests that may have existed over the Burrup industrial estate, the Maitland industrial estate and Karratha land required for residential and light industrial purposes. As explained previously, the Burrup agreement stands whether native title was found to exist over the area or not.
(2) Yes. (3) The Burrup agreement allows development to proceed, in accordance with the requirements of the commonwealth Native Title Act, pending the final resolution of the native title claims over that area. Native title compensation is payable only in certain circumstances where native title is found to have existed and has been extinguished. In the event that the State Government bears any compensation liability for the acts covered by the Burrup agreement, the money benefits provided under the agreement are to be set off against that liability. The State Government has also been fiscally responsible by ensuring that there will be no double dipping by the Aboriginal community in the future. The Aboriginal groups cannot, in addition to the benefits provided under the Burrup agreement, obtain native title compensation from the State Government. The issue of whether the Aboriginal groups would have been entitled to claim native title compensation is still unresolved. However, thanks to the Burrup agreement, it is an issue of no consequence. The State Government’s holistic and far-sighted approach has avoided the need for protracted litigation that may otherwise have been needed to resolve the issue. This is in the best interests of all concerned. (4) The State Government was required to follow the provisions of the commonwealth Native Title Act 1993 to validly, compulsorily acquire any native title rights and interests that may have existed over the Burrup industrial estate, the Maitland industrial estate and Karratha land required for residential and light industrial purposes. As explained previously, the Burrup agreement stands whether native title was found to exist over the area or not.
(3) The Burrup agreement allows development to proceed, in accordance with the requirements of the commonwealth Native Title Act, pending the final resolution of the native title claims over that area. Native title compensation is payable only in certain circumstances where native title is found to have existed and has been extinguished. In the event that the State Government bears any compensation liability for the acts covered by the Burrup agreement, the money benefits provided under the agreement are to be set off against that liability. The State Government has also been fiscally responsible by ensuring that there will be no double dipping by the Aboriginal community in the future. The Aboriginal groups cannot, in addition to the benefits provided under the Burrup agreement, obtain native title compensation from the State Government. The issue of whether the Aboriginal groups would have been entitled to claim native title compensation is still unresolved. However, thanks to the Burrup agreement, it is an issue of no consequence. The State Government’s holistic and far-sighted approach has avoided the need for protracted litigation that may otherwise have been needed to resolve the issue. This is in the best interests of all concerned. (4) The State Government was required to follow the provisions of the commonwealth Native Title Act 1993 to validly, compulsorily acquire any native title rights and interests that may have existed over the Burrup industrial estate, the Maitland industrial estate and Karratha land required for residential and light industrial purposes. As explained previously, the Burrup agreement stands whether native title was found to exist over the area or not.
(1) Did anyone advising the Government on the Burrup native title agreement recommend that a clause be included to make it clear that native title compensation can only be paid subject to validation of native title claims? (2) Was the Government advised that failure to prove native title means that claimants cannot be paid compensation under the native title Act regime? (3) If so, why did the Government proceed with an agreement that means that the State will pay native title compensation irrespective of whether native title is found to exist? (4) Will the Deputy Premier explain by what legislative power he is authorised to make native title compensation payments to Burrup native title claimants who failed to prove their claims at law? Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1) The primary purpose of the Burrup agreement was to settle native title issues to pave the way for $5 billion worth of investment in gas processing projects on the Burrup Peninsula. An invalidity clause was the subject of negotiations but finally proved a barrier to reaching an agreement. The Burrup agreement allows industrial development to proceed without the need to await the outcome of any appeals to the decision made by the Federal Court of Australia. (2) Yes. (3) The Burrup agreement allows development to proceed, in accordance with the requirements of the commonwealth Native Title Act, pending the final resolution of the native title claims over that area. Native title compensation is payable only in certain circumstances where native title is found to have existed and has been extinguished. In the event that the State Government bears any compensation liability for the acts covered by the Burrup agreement, the money benefits provided under the agreement are to be set off against that liability. The State Government has also been fiscally responsible by ensuring that there will be no double dipping by the Aboriginal community in the future. The Aboriginal groups cannot, in addition to the benefits provided under the Burrup agreement, obtain native title compensation from the State Government. The issue of whether the Aboriginal groups would have been entitled to claim native title compensation is still unresolved. However, thanks to the Burrup agreement, it is an issue of no consequence. The State Government’s holistic and far-sighted approach has avoided the need for protracted litigation that may otherwise have been needed to resolve the issue. This is in the best interests of all concerned. (4) The State Government was required to follow the provisions of the commonwealth Native Title Act 1993 to validly, compulsorily acquire any native title rights and interests that may have existed over the Burrup industrial estate, the Maitland industrial estate and Karratha land required for residential and light industrial purposes. As explained previously, the Burrup agreement stands whether native title was found to exist over the area or not.
(2) Was the Government advised that failure to prove native title means that claimants cannot be paid compensation under the native title Act regime? (3) If so, why did the Government proceed with an agreement that means that the State will pay native title compensation irrespective of whether native title is found to exist? (4) Will the Deputy Premier explain by what legislative power he is authorised to make native title compensation payments to Burrup native title claimants who failed to prove their claims at law? Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1) The primary purpose of the Burrup agreement was to settle native title issues to pave the way for $5 billion worth of investment in gas processing projects on the Burrup Peninsula. An invalidity clause was the subject of negotiations but finally proved a barrier to reaching an agreement. The Burrup agreement allows industrial development to proceed without the need to await the outcome of any appeals to the decision made by the Federal Court of Australia. (2) Yes. (3) The Burrup agreement allows development to proceed, in accordance with the requirements of the commonwealth Native Title Act, pending the final resolution of the native title claims over that area. Native title compensation is payable only in certain circumstances where native title is found to have existed and has been extinguished. In the event that the State Government bears any compensation liability for the acts covered by the Burrup agreement, the money benefits provided under the agreement are to be set off against that liability. The State Government has also been fiscally responsible by ensuring that there will be no double dipping by the Aboriginal community in the future. The Aboriginal groups cannot, in addition to the benefits provided under the Burrup agreement, obtain native title compensation from the State Government. The issue of whether the Aboriginal groups would have been entitled to claim native title compensation is still unresolved. However, thanks to the Burrup agreement, it is an issue of no consequence. The State Government’s holistic and far-sighted approach has avoided the need for protracted litigation that may otherwise have been needed to resolve the issue. This is in the best interests of all concerned. (4) The State Government was required to follow the provisions of the commonwealth Native Title Act 1993 to validly, compulsorily acquire any native title rights and interests that may have existed over the Burrup industrial estate, the Maitland industrial estate and Karratha land required for residential and light industrial purposes. As explained previously, the Burrup agreement stands whether native title was found to exist over the area or not.
(3) If so, why did the Government proceed with an agreement that means that the State will pay native title compensation irrespective of whether native title is found to exist? (4) Will the Deputy Premier explain by what legislative power he is authorised to make native title compensation payments to Burrup native title claimants who failed to prove their claims at law? Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1) The primary purpose of the Burrup agreement was to settle native title issues to pave the way for $5 billion worth of investment in gas processing projects on the Burrup Peninsula. An invalidity clause was the subject of negotiations but finally proved a barrier to reaching an agreement. The Burrup agreement allows industrial development to proceed without the need to await the outcome of any appeals to the decision made by the Federal Court of Australia. (2) Yes. (3) The Burrup agreement allows development to proceed, in accordance with the requirements of the commonwealth Native Title Act, pending the final resolution of the native title claims over that area. Native title compensation is payable only in certain circumstances where native title is found to have existed and has been extinguished. In the event that the State Government bears any compensation liability for the acts covered by the Burrup agreement, the money benefits provided under the agreement are to be set off against that liability. The State Government has also been fiscally responsible by ensuring that there will be no double dipping by the Aboriginal community in the future. The Aboriginal groups cannot, in addition to the benefits provided under the Burrup agreement, obtain native title compensation from the State Government. The issue of whether the Aboriginal groups would have been entitled to claim native title compensation is still unresolved. However, thanks to the Burrup agreement, it is an issue of no consequence. The State Government’s holistic and far-sighted approach has avoided the need for protracted litigation that may otherwise have been needed to resolve the issue. This is in the best interests of all concerned. (4) The State Government was required to follow the provisions of the commonwealth Native Title Act 1993 to validly, compulsorily acquire any native title rights and interests that may have existed over the Burrup industrial estate, the Maitland industrial estate and Karratha land required for residential and light industrial purposes. As explained previously, the Burrup agreement stands whether native title was found to exist over the area or not.
(4) Will the Deputy Premier explain by what legislative power he is authorised to make native title compensation payments to Burrup native title claimants who failed to prove their claims at law? Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1) The primary purpose of the Burrup agreement was to settle native title issues to pave the way for $5 billion worth of investment in gas processing projects on the Burrup Peninsula. An invalidity clause was the subject of negotiations but finally proved a barrier to reaching an agreement. The Burrup agreement allows industrial development to proceed without the need to await the outcome of any appeals to the decision made by the Federal Court of Australia. (2) Yes. (3) The Burrup agreement allows development to proceed, in accordance with the requirements of the commonwealth Native Title Act, pending the final resolution of the native title claims over that area. Native title compensation is payable only in certain circumstances where native title is found to have existed and has been extinguished. In the event that the State Government bears any compensation liability for the acts covered by the Burrup agreement, the money benefits provided under the agreement are to be set off against that liability. The State Government has also been fiscally responsible by ensuring that there will be no double dipping by the Aboriginal community in the future. The Aboriginal groups cannot, in addition to the benefits provided under the Burrup agreement, obtain native title compensation from the State Government. The issue of whether the Aboriginal groups would have been entitled to claim native title compensation is still unresolved. However, thanks to the Burrup agreement, it is an issue of no consequence. The State Government’s holistic and far-sighted approach has avoided the need for protracted litigation that may otherwise have been needed to resolve the issue. This is in the best interests of all concerned. (4) The State Government was required to follow the provisions of the commonwealth Native Title Act 1993 to validly, compulsorily acquire any native title rights and interests that may have existed over the Burrup industrial estate, the Maitland industrial estate and Karratha land required for residential and light industrial purposes. As explained previously, the Burrup agreement stands whether native title was found to exist over the area or not.
Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1) The primary purpose of the Burrup agreement was to settle native title issues to pave the way for $5 billion worth of investment in gas processing projects on the Burrup Peninsula. An invalidity clause was the subject of negotiations but finally proved a barrier to reaching an agreement. The Burrup agreement allows industrial development to proceed without the need to await the outcome of any appeals to the decision made by the Federal Court of Australia. (2) Yes. (3) The Burrup agreement allows development to proceed, in accordance with the requirements of the commonwealth Native Title Act, pending the final resolution of the native title claims over that area. Native title compensation is payable only in certain circumstances where native title is found to have existed and has been extinguished. In the event that the State Government bears any compensation liability for the acts covered by the Burrup agreement, the money benefits provided under the agreement are to be set off against that liability. The State Government has also been fiscally responsible by ensuring that there will be no double dipping by the Aboriginal community in the future. The Aboriginal groups cannot, in addition to the benefits provided under the Burrup agreement, obtain native title compensation from the State Government. The issue of whether the Aboriginal groups would have been entitled to claim native title compensation is still unresolved. However, thanks to the Burrup agreement, it is an issue of no consequence. The State Government’s holistic and far-sighted approach has avoided the need for protracted litigation that may otherwise have been needed to resolve the issue. This is in the best interests of all concerned. (4) The State Government was required to follow the provisions of the commonwealth Native Title Act 1993 to validly, compulsorily acquire any native title rights and interests that may have existed over the Burrup industrial estate, the Maitland industrial estate and Karratha land required for residential and light industrial purposes. As explained previously, the Burrup agreement stands whether native title was found to exist over the area or not.
I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1) The primary purpose of the Burrup agreement was to settle native title issues to pave the way for $5 billion worth of investment in gas processing projects on the Burrup Peninsula. An invalidity clause was the subject of negotiations but finally proved a barrier to reaching an agreement. The Burrup agreement allows industrial development to proceed without the need to await the outcome of any appeals to the decision made by the Federal Court of Australia. (2) Yes. (3) The Burrup agreement allows development to proceed, in accordance with the requirements of the commonwealth Native Title Act, pending the final resolution of the native title claims over that area. Native title compensation is payable only in certain circumstances where native title is found to have existed and has been extinguished. In the event that the State Government bears any compensation liability for the acts covered by the Burrup agreement, the money benefits provided under the agreement are to be set off against that liability. The State Government has also been fiscally responsible by ensuring that there will be no double dipping by the Aboriginal community in the future. The Aboriginal groups cannot, in addition to the benefits provided under the Burrup agreement, obtain native title compensation from the State Government. The issue of whether the Aboriginal groups would have been entitled to claim native title compensation is still unresolved. However, thanks to the Burrup agreement, it is an issue of no consequence. The State Government’s holistic and far-sighted approach has avoided the need for protracted litigation that may otherwise have been needed to resolve the issue. This is in the best interests of all concerned. (4) The State Government was required to follow the provisions of the commonwealth Native Title Act 1993 to validly, compulsorily acquire any native title rights and interests that may have existed over the Burrup industrial estate, the Maitland industrial estate and Karratha land required for residential and light industrial purposes. As explained previously, the Burrup agreement stands whether native title was found to exist over the area or not.
(1) The primary purpose of the Burrup agreement was to settle native title issues to pave the way for $5 billion worth of investment in gas processing projects on the Burrup Peninsula. An invalidity clause was the subject of negotiations but finally proved a barrier to reaching an agreement. The Burrup agreement allows industrial development to proceed without the need to await the outcome of any appeals to the decision made by the Federal Court of Australia. (2) Yes. (3) The Burrup agreement allows development to proceed, in accordance with the requirements of the commonwealth Native Title Act, pending the final resolution of the native title claims over that area. Native title compensation is payable only in certain circumstances where native title is found to have existed and has been extinguished. In the event that the State Government bears any compensation liability for the acts covered by the Burrup agreement, the money benefits provided under the agreement are to be set off against that liability. The State Government has also been fiscally responsible by ensuring that there will be no double dipping by the Aboriginal community in the future. The Aboriginal groups cannot, in addition to the benefits provided under the Burrup agreement, obtain native title compensation from the State Government. The issue of whether the Aboriginal groups would have been entitled to claim native title compensation is still unresolved. However, thanks to the Burrup agreement, it is an issue of no consequence. The State Government’s holistic and far-sighted approach has avoided the need for protracted litigation that may otherwise have been needed to resolve the issue. This is in the best interests of all concerned. (4) The State Government was required to follow the provisions of the commonwealth Native Title Act 1993 to validly, compulsorily acquire any native title rights and interests that may have existed over the Burrup industrial estate, the Maitland industrial estate and Karratha land required for residential and light industrial purposes. As explained previously, the Burrup agreement stands whether native title was found to exist over the area or not.
(2) Yes. (3) The Burrup agreement allows development to proceed, in accordance with the requirements of the commonwealth Native Title Act, pending the final resolution of the native title claims over that area. Native title compensation is payable only in certain circumstances where native title is found to have existed and has been extinguished. In the event that the State Government bears any compensation liability for the acts covered by the Burrup agreement, the money benefits provided under the agreement are to be set off against that liability. The State Government has also been fiscally responsible by ensuring that there will be no double dipping by the Aboriginal community in the future. The Aboriginal groups cannot, in addition to the benefits provided under the Burrup agreement, obtain native title compensation from the State Government. The issue of whether the Aboriginal groups would have been entitled to claim native title compensation is still unresolved. However, thanks to the Burrup agreement, it is an issue of no consequence. The State Government’s holistic and far-sighted approach has avoided the need for protracted litigation that may otherwise have been needed to resolve the issue. This is in the best interests of all concerned. (4) The State Government was required to follow the provisions of the commonwealth Native Title Act 1993 to validly, compulsorily acquire any native title rights and interests that may have existed over the Burrup industrial estate, the Maitland industrial estate and Karratha land required for residential and light industrial purposes. As explained previously, the Burrup agreement stands whether native title was found to exist over the area or not.
(3) The Burrup agreement allows development to proceed, in accordance with the requirements of the commonwealth Native Title Act, pending the final resolution of the native title claims over that area. Native title compensation is payable only in certain circumstances where native title is found to have existed and has been extinguished. In the event that the State Government bears any compensation liability for the acts covered by the Burrup agreement, the money benefits provided under the agreement are to be set off against that liability. The State Government has also been fiscally responsible by ensuring that there will be no double dipping by the Aboriginal community in the future. The Aboriginal groups cannot, in addition to the benefits provided under the Burrup agreement, obtain native title compensation from the State Government. The issue of whether the Aboriginal groups would have been entitled to claim native title compensation is still unresolved. However, thanks to the Burrup agreement, it is an issue of no consequence. The State Government’s holistic and far-sighted approach has avoided the need for protracted litigation that may otherwise have been needed to resolve the issue. This is in the best interests of all concerned. (4) The State Government was required to follow the provisions of the commonwealth Native Title Act 1993 to validly, compulsorily acquire any native title rights and interests that may have existed over the Burrup industrial estate, the Maitland industrial estate and Karratha land required for residential and light industrial purposes. As explained previously, the Burrup agreement stands whether native title was found to exist over the area or not.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.