Extract from Hansard [COUNCIL - Wednesday, 11 November 2009] P8729b-8730A Hon Brian Ellis

Extract from Hansard [COUNCIL - Wednesday, 11 November 2009] p8729b-8730a Hon Brian Ellis KIMBERLEY LIQUEFIED NATURAL GAS PRECINCT Motion Resumed from an earlier stage of the sitting. HON BRIAN ELLIS (Agricultural) [5.37 pm]: I return to the Premier’s comments on the key features of the proposed agreement with the Aboriginal communities. They included a commitment to developing the liquefied natural gas precinct in a manner that, where possible, will avoid impacts on Aboriginal heritage sites or will minimise any impacts on Aboriginal heritage sites, and will ensure participation of the traditional owners in the development and management of the LNG precinct consistent with the agreed framework. The Premier reiterated that a key feature of the proposed agreement would be benefits from the project being used for good things, including housing, education, training, alleviation of poverty, business development and keeping their culture strong. It does not sound to me as though he was failing to negotiate in good faith, as the motion suggests. The Premier said in the fact sheet that the parties noted that matters of detail are to be negotiated and agreed as part of the ILUA process. With respect to resumption of the land, the Premier made it clear that, among other things the government would commit to, the following would occur: taking only land that is required for the precinct when it is required; not extinguishing native title; returning the land fully remediated to the traditional owners when it is no longer needed; providing to the traditional owners an equivalent area of land under freehold title that can be developed; and providing opportunities to benefit from the precinct development. The Premier also made it clear that the government would commit funding for the Indigenous management of nature and heritage reserves and that Indigenous land title issues on the Dampier Peninsula would be resolved. Moreover, the commonwealth would work with the state and traditional owners through the closing-the-gap initiative. This will prioritise the west Kimberley for additional investment in government programs and services. The Premier noted that the decision by the Kimberley traditional owners to support the LNG precinct at James Price Point was the culmination of 18 months of engagement with 12 coastal traditional owner groups represented by the Kimberley Land Council. The Kimberley Land Council’s spokesman, Wayne Bergmann, is reported to have said in a doorstop interview on 1 April 2009 that he thought the ability to engage with a whole range of issues in this process had far outstripped any negotiations that he had personally experienced or was aware of anywhere in Australia and the world. Despite all of Labor’s consultation with Indigenous people, it failed to achieve a resolution to this matter. It is no wonder that the incoming Premier set a time line. The Premier did not sound like a man making veiled threats to the Indigenous people. He did not sound like he had failed to negotiate in good faith when he headlined a media statement on 27 April 2009 in a way that acknowledged the Indigenous country. The media statement was titled “Kimberley LNG head of agreement signed on country”. The press release stated that the Premier and the representatives of Woodside and the Kimberley Land Council signed the heads of agreement in front of traditional owners and the community. The Premier is reported to have said that the government would work with traditional owners through the KLC to identify the exact location of the precinct, develop an Indigenous land use agreement and involve them in the design and construction of the precinct. That is hardly a veiled threat. It is more like a promise of close collaboration and cooperation. The Premier then reiterated a statement from his earlier fact sheet when he said that this agreement involves the creation of real jobs for Aboriginal people and strong investment in the education, housing and health of the Kimberley. That is hardly a veiled threat. It is more like a promise of good things to come. On 27 July 2009, Wayne Bergmann of the Kimberley Land Council is reported to have said on ABC radio that the claims that there was a document preventing people from speaking were wrong and that there was simply an agreement that there would be a single spokesman for the group. In fact, ABC radio had already reported on 15 April 2009 that the Kimberley Land Council said traditional owners were feeling proud and strong after negotiating the $1 billion benefits package. A couple of weeks earlier, at a doorstop interview on 1 April 2009, Mr Bergmann estimated that the negotiations had encompassed more than 1 000 traditional owners. Given the differences of opinion that are routinely expressed in this place, which is made up of only one-tenth of that number, I would not be surprised if there were a few people who had a different opinion. Nevertheless, the Koori Mail reported on 6 May 2009 that Mr Bergmann said that more than 90 per cent of the traditional owners had agreed to the package. That is a significant amount of people when it is taken as a percentage of the 1 000 participants. Mr Bergmann made three interesting points at the April doorstop when he said that what had changed was that there was a different kind of dynamic in the negotiation. He said that the negotiation had been more interest-based rather than positional and that he thought the parties were trying to find a solution that they could all live with. That does not sound to me like people operating under a veiled threat. The majority eventually decides the final outcome, just as it does in Parliament, but this does not mean that the traditional owners who have concerns cannot have a further say about the future of their country, because there is still more [1] Extract from Hansard [COUNCIL - Wednesday, 11 November 2009] p8729b-8730a Hon Brian Ellis talking to be done. James Price Point has been selected but the exact location of the LNG project will be determined after further consultation. The Koori Mail also reported on 6 May 2009 that the WA Premier, Colin Barnett, said the government would work with the owners through the KLC to identify the exact location of the precinct and would develop an Indigenous land use agreement and involve them in the design and construction of the project. The Premier told the Koori Mail that this was a significant step forward for economic self- determination and for the improvement in the living standards of the Aboriginal people in the Kimberley. The Premier also said that it may become a milestone along the way to reconciliation across Australia. I again refer to the wording of the motion. Once again, this does not sound to me like a veiled threat. I certainly hope that it is a sign of things to come. What is Labor’s record on this matter? How much did Labor consult with the traditional owners when Labor was in government? I offer an example from an article titled “Circling sacred ground” that was published in The Australian on 10 May 2007 and relates to an Inpex drilling rig off the Kimberley coast. The then Deputy Premier, Eric Ripper, who was then also the Minister for State Development, said that the Inpex project could go ahead only with the informed consent of the Aboriginal people and with their substantial participation in the development. The article also said that although that may have been so, matters appeared to have got off to a bad start. The Kimberley Land Council executive director, Wayne Bergmann, said that the Kimberley Land Council received a letter announcing that Inpex had begun geotechnical drilling, yet it had not received the approval of the area’s traditional owners. The article reported that Bergmann was furious with a native title future act, under which proponents of the exploration or mining activity must consult with registered Aboriginal claimants of an area, because the act had been sidestepped by Inpex and the state government. Mr Bergmann then reportedly said that that incredibly offensive drilling had occurred in someone’s backyard without their permission. He was also reported to have said that in the previous month Eric Ripper had apologised for the disgraceful treatment of Indigenous people in the Kimberley in the Noonkanbah dispute but that it seemed to Mr Bergmann that companies were prepared to treat traditional owners in exactly the same way today. Members of this government are not going to apologise for having a decisive Premier. The Aboriginal community will be aware that the Premier’s capacity for decisive action extends equally to large companies that are looking with interest at the Aboriginal communities’ traditional grounds. On 30 July, the Premier made it plain to Woodside Petroleum’s Browse Basin joint venture partners—BHP Billiton, BP, Chevron and Shell— that the James Price Point hub would proceed because the alternative would be LNG projects popping up all along the coastline with pipes all over the place. The Premier also said that the state government would not allow LNG projects to be built on the Burrup Peninsula, which has the world’s greatest collection of ancient rock art, to service gas that is 1 000 kilometres away. I am speaking to this motion because the Premier is concerned with protecting the interests of traditional owners rather than with making veiled threats, and I think this is a promise of good things to come. I cannot understand why the Western Australian Labor Party is so critical of this project, when the federal Labor Party seems to have high praise for it.

Load more