❓ This parliamentary question scrutinizes the WA Government's oversight of Native Title Agreements, focusing on financial management, reporting compliance, and governance principles established in 2014, seeking detailed data on their implementation and effectiveness.
⏳ Awaiting AnswerQoN 2522Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to the Government's Governance Principles for Native Title Agreements originally established in 2014 and I ask:
(a) Given the Principles were designed to ensure benefits are managed 'responsibly and sustainably for all Beneficiaries', how has the Government measured the sustainability of these benefits for the members of Native Title Parties over the last 12 years;
(b) Given Principle 3.1 requires financial reporting to be consistent with the Australian Accounting Standards, are there any native title bodies corporate currently operating under State agreements that have been granted legal exemptions from these standards;
(c) Of the active native title agreements in 2026, what percentage have received a 'Satisfactory' preliminary view from the State regarding Principle 3 (Integrity in financial management and reporting)
;
(d) Given Principle 3.3 requires bodies corporate to report on forecasts of how funds will be spent in the next few years, how many native title bodies failed to meet these reporting timeframes in the last three fiscal years;
(e) Given Principle 4.2 asks if a risk assessment should be provided to the State, how many corporate bodies have submitted a formal risk management plan to the Department of the Premier and Cabinet since 2017; and
(f) Regarding Principle 2.2, what is the current average number of independent (non-executive) directors serving on boards across all State-negotiated native title agreements?
Answered on
(a) Given the Principles were designed to ensure benefits are managed 'responsibly and sustainably for all Beneficiaries', how has the Government measured the sustainability of these benefits for the members of Native Title Parties over the last 12 years;
(b) Given Principle 3.1 requires financial reporting to be consistent with the Australian Accounting Standards, are there any native title bodies corporate currently operating under State agreements that have been granted legal exemptions from these standards;
(c) Of the active native title agreements in 2026, what percentage have received a 'Satisfactory' preliminary view from the State regarding Principle 3 (Integrity in financial management and reporting)
;
(d) Given Principle 3.3 requires bodies corporate to report on forecasts of how funds will be spent in the next few years, how many native title bodies failed to meet these reporting timeframes in the last three fiscal years;
(e) Given Principle 4.2 asks if a risk assessment should be provided to the State, how many corporate bodies have submitted a formal risk management plan to the Department of the Premier and Cabinet since 2017; and
(f) Regarding Principle 2.2, what is the current average number of independent (non-executive) directors serving on boards across all State-negotiated native title agreements?
Answered on
AnswerView source ↗
⏳
This question is awaiting a response from the Minister.
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.