Opp'n proposed amendments to Native Title Act slammed

27/11/97

Premier Richard Court says the Labor Party's proposed amendments to the Native Title Act provide firm proof that the Federal Opposition Leader Kim Beazley has abandoned the interests of Western Australians.

Mr Court said this was exemplified by the fact that through his amendments, Mr Beazley was refusing to review existing ambit claims in the native title system which had been made before June 27, 1996 - the date when changes in the registration test for claims were proposed.

"At that time, 57 per cent of WA was claimed, including several competing claims over all of metropolitan Perth, nearly all of the Goldfields, much of the South-West, and numerous North-West developments," the Premier said.

"These claims have included demands for exclusive possession of pastoral leases, freehold blocks in Bremer Bay and the Perth Airport.

"Mr Beazley promised that Labor would draft amendments to improve the workability of the Native Title Act, and in particular better scrutinise claims and cull ambit claims. It has failed to do so.

"The Federal Opposition's amendments ignore the deficiencies of the Act it created and seem intent on making it even more unworkable."

Mr Court implored Mr Beazley to take a closer interest in what was really happening under the Native Title Act in WA.

"Labor needs to come to grips with the practical consequences of what its amendments will do and reconsider them if the community is to regain any confidence in the operation of the Act," he said.

Mr Court said examples of the consequences of Labor's suggested amendments were:

- the State Government and title holders included in native title claims made before 27 June, 1996 would have to defend their interests in court;

- titles issued since January 1, 1994 would remain open to challenge under the Racial Discrimination Act;

- pastoralists access to off-lease water would be diminished;

- local government leases to sporting and community groups would not be able to be renewed without the consent of Aboriginal claimants;

- new Government infrastructure for water, gas, electricity etc would require prior notification and consent by Aboriginal claimants before it could be provided;

- the existing right to renew mining leases would now incur the 'right to negotiate' by Aboriginal claimants leaving existing production facilities in an insecure position;

- in responding to claims, interest holders as opposed to land holders would be excluded from the process, eg fishermen, bee-keepers, tourist operators and the holders of water rights;

- a Federal Tribunal in approving a future act could award a share of profits to a claimant who is later determined to have no native title interest;

- native title holders would have a right to compensation which goes beyond the rights of other title holders;

- under the 'fast-track' compensation provisions, non-native title holders could be awarded up to $50,000 as compensation, without proving their claim;

- Aboriginal Lands Councils and other representative bodies would control the claims and negotiation processes and be accountable only to ATSIC;

- native title claimants would be treated as if they were freeholders in any negotiation, even though legally in many cases such rights could never be achieved;

- as there is no confirmation of historical extinguishment all forms of land tenure will remain claimable; and -

- existing Government facilities could not be repaired or re-furbished without having to apply expensive notification procedures to native title claimants.

"If Labor is to be taken seriously they must stem the emotional debate, get back to the substance and accept their responsibility in making their unworkable legislation workable," Mr Court said.

Media Contact: Casey Cahill 9222 9475