Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise in the House tonight to express my support for the Native Title Amendment Bill 2006. While I understand the argument advanced by many people that it would have been more cost-effective and beneficial to Indigenous Australians for native title to have been extinguished and full compensation paid, the government must deal with the situation as it currently exists. The support the government has, and hopefully the opposition will also provide, for these amendments to the Native Title Act is very important insofar as there have not been changes made to the Native Title Act by way of substantial amendment for a period of some eight years.

As the Attorney-General indicated in introducing the bill late last year, the key catalyst for the present reforms is the absolute commitment by the government to improving the performance of the native title system. I think every member of parliament, regardless of the party they represent, has been the recipient of complaints about the native title system—about the delays and about the lost business and employment opportunities resulting from the system. Of course, the sad thing is that Indigenous Australians have not themselves benefited in the way that they would have had there been a more efficient system. That is why these measures are important to reform a system which has been in need of reform for some time.

It is important to always recognise that this government does consult, and these reforms were not developed in a vacuum. The process of going out into the community and finding what the community wants is something that this Attorney and this government have been particularly diligently in following through during the period since 1996, when we were entrusted with government. The honourable member for Wills seemed to criticise a lack of consultation by the government with respect to this legislation. The government rejects that; the government has consulted key stakeholders across the native title system.

The Attorney-General originally announced the framework for reforms in September 2005. These comprise a series of six complementary elements aimed at addressing all aspects of the system. Back then, the Attorney-General emphasised the desire to achieve a better result for all parties involved in native title and undertook to ensure that stakeholder concerns were taken into account. On my submission, this bill does in fact take into account the concerns expressed by stakeholders. There has been substantial consultation in relation to all elements of the legislation currently before the chamber, and the results of that consultation, in the view of the government, are accurately represented in the clauses the House is currently debating.

The four schedules in the bill before the House will respectively implement aspects of four of the six elements of the government’s reform package. These aspects include measures to clarify the key institutional arrangements for the resolution of native title claims through the implementation of a series of key recommendations made by the Native Title Claims Resolution Review on how the National Native Title Tribunal and the Federal Court might work more effectively on native title matters.

The bill, as the Attorney has indicated, also includes particular measures to improve the effectiveness of representative bodies in the area of native title which generally represent claimants in the native title system and to encourage the effective functioning of prescribed bodies corporate—the bodies established to manage native title once it has been recognised. In addition, the bill will broaden the existing provision for assistance to non-claimant parties so that government assistance can be provided in a wider range of circumstances to respondents participating in the right to negotiate process. I think that this additional assistance will mean that the system will be streamlined and hopefully more satisfactory outcomes will be achieved more expeditiously.

Collectively, the measures will reflect a balanced and considered approach to improving native title processes without disrupting the overall system or undermining the current balance of rights under the Native Title Act. It is important to appreciate that these reforms are part of a broader package intended to address all key elements of the system in an appropriate way. I am advised that there will be further legislation before the House to implement outstanding measures and that it should be introduced to the parliament later in the 2007 calendar year and will include a number of amendments, some minor and technical, which have also been the subject of detailed discussion.

The honourable member for Wills mentioned that the Attorney-General claimed the support of the states. The simple fact of the matter is that the government has sought to work with the states and territories to secure and ensure agreement on improvements to the native title system. As recently as December 2006 the Attorney-General convened a meeting of native title ministers and they noted the proposed package of reforms and, significantly, agreed that all parties, including governments, should continue to build on this package. That is an indication that the ministers are broadly happy with what the government is doing. It is important that we in the House recognise that, while it is inherently complex, native title can and has assisted in securing meaningful outcomes for Indigenous Australians. That is a view which might be disputed by some, and I suspect that the benefits of native title have not been received by some Indigenous Australians, but native title has probably assisted in securing meaningful outcomes for Indigenous Australians.

I am advised that, up until the present day, there have been over 90 determinations of native title. In many of these cases, the determinations have been by agreement. About nine per cent of Australia’s land mass has been the subject of native title determinations, an area comprising over three times the state of Victoria. If you went out in the community, many people would see this as a matter of some concern. Many people in the community also would have been incredibly surprised when the High Court found that native title had survived. As I said at the outset in this speech, the government has to deal with the situation that we have, and this bill seeks to improve the administration of native title. Engagement between parties on native title processes can assist in building meaningful and productive relationships which may endure beyond the resolution of specific claims. This bill offers a way forward. It seeks to improve the administration of native title and, in doing so, achieve a more efficient and effective outcome, which is in the interests of not only Indigenous Australians but also the broader Australian community. I am pleased to be able to commend the Native Title Amendment Bill 2006 to the House for its consideration.

See this speech in context