❓ Hon Robin Chapple questions the Attorney General (represented by the parliamentary secretary) regarding access to an agreement between Mayala native title applicants and Pluton Resources Ltd, specifically concerning the applicants' difficulty in obtaining a copy. The government declines to intervene, stating it's a private matter.
AnsweredQoN 302Legislative Council
Asked
23 May 2012
Member
Portfolio
parliamentary secretary representing the Attorney General
QuestionView source ↗
MAYALA NATIVE TITLE APPLICANTS — PLUTON RESOURCES LTD —
AGREEMENT
302. Hon ROBIN CHAPPLE to the parliamentary secretary
representing the Attorney General:
I refer to the agreement signed by
the Mayala native title applicants and Pluton Resources Ltd over access and
usage of part of Irvine Island for the Irvine Island mining development.
(1) Is the minister
aware that three of the five named Mayala applicants have been trying
unsuccessfully to acquire a copy of the signed agreement between themselves and
Pluton?
(2) Will the
minister ensure that the agreement is released by either Pluton Resources or the
Kimberley Land Council to all of the named Mayala applicants?
(3) If no to (2), why not?
(4) If yes to (2), when will this
happen?
(5) Is it
normal practice to withhold signed agreements from Indigenous parties who are
part of negotiations over land access by a mining company to traditional lands?
AGREEMENT
302. Hon ROBIN CHAPPLE to the parliamentary secretary
representing the Attorney General:
I refer to the agreement signed by
the Mayala native title applicants and Pluton Resources Ltd over access and
usage of part of Irvine Island for the Irvine Island mining development.
(1) Is the minister
aware that three of the five named Mayala applicants have been trying
unsuccessfully to acquire a copy of the signed agreement between themselves and
Pluton?
(2) Will the
minister ensure that the agreement is released by either Pluton Resources or the
Kimberley Land Council to all of the named Mayala applicants?
(3) If no to (2), why not?
(4) If yes to (2), when will this
happen?
(5) Is it
normal practice to withhold signed agreements from Indigenous parties who are
part of negotiations over land access by a mining company to traditional lands?
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the honourable member for some notice of the
question.
(1) This is a
matter for the native title claimants, their legal representatives, the
Kimberley Land Council and Pluton Resources Ltd. The state government is not a
party to native title negotiations between claimants and resource companies and
has no jurisdiction over the content or its management. The answer states —
The Minister for Mines would not
have any knowledge of the contents of any private access and heritage
protection agreement that is ancillary to a Section 31 (Native Title Act) State
Deed.
I only just noticed that. I am not
sure whether it was meant to be the Attorney General as opposed to the Minister
for Mines because the Minister for Mines is in a better position to answer
that. In any event, that is the answer I have been given. I suppose it flows
from the fact that the state is not a party and it would apply equally to both
ministers.
(2) As noted,
the government has no role in this matter. The agreement is a private agreement
between a mining company and native title claimants. The government cannot
ensure the agreement is released.
(3) This is outside the business of government.
(4) Not applicable.
(5) The
management of agreements in this context is not the business of government.
Multiple agreements of a similar nature, leading to a state deed which allows a
future act to proceed, are made every year in Western Australia with native
title claimants.
question.
(1) This is a
matter for the native title claimants, their legal representatives, the
Kimberley Land Council and Pluton Resources Ltd. The state government is not a
party to native title negotiations between claimants and resource companies and
has no jurisdiction over the content or its management. The answer states —
The Minister for Mines would not
have any knowledge of the contents of any private access and heritage
protection agreement that is ancillary to a Section 31 (Native Title Act) State
Deed.
I only just noticed that. I am not
sure whether it was meant to be the Attorney General as opposed to the Minister
for Mines because the Minister for Mines is in a better position to answer
that. In any event, that is the answer I have been given. I suppose it flows
from the fact that the state is not a party and it would apply equally to both
ministers.
(2) As noted,
the government has no role in this matter. The agreement is a private agreement
between a mining company and native title claimants. The government cannot
ensure the agreement is released.
(3) This is outside the business of government.
(4) Not applicable.
(5) The
management of agreements in this context is not the business of government.
Multiple agreements of a similar nature, leading to a state deed which allows a
future act to proceed, are made every year in Western Australia with native
title claimants.
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.