Barry Wakelin (Grey, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Native Title Amendment Bill 2006 as someone who was in this place in 1993, when the first native title legislation created a record in this place, particularly in the Senate, for the length of the debate. I seem to recall it was Saturday morning before we were finally able to go to our respective homes across Australia after this matter had been resolved as far as it could be at the time.

My electorate saw one of the first experiments in a form of native title, in the Pitjantjatjara lands, where really the first land rights legislation was put into place for inalienable freehold title. That legislation, which has recently been the subject of some change in South Australia, was put through the state parliament almost 30 years ago. In the subsequent period, I seem to remember Senator Harradine of Tasmania being involved in native title, and we ended up leaving a number of matters to the states and territories. From those early years, the various players, the complexity and the dealings with the High Court, we can understand what has led us to further change in the chamber tonight.

I, of course, support the bill. It includes a series of significant and balanced reforms to the Native Title Act 1993, which has not been the subject of substantial amendment for more than eight years. As the Attorney-General noted in introducing the bill late last year, the key catalyst for the present reforms is the government’s commitment to improve the performance of the native title system. It is important to acknowledge these reforms were not developed in a vacuum but have instead been informed by an extensive consultation process involving key stakeholders across the native title system.

The Attorney-General originally announced the broad framework for reforms to the native title system in September 2005. This framework comprised a series of six complementary elements aimed at addressing all aspects of the system. At that time, the Attorney-General emphasised the need to achieve better outcomes for all parties—I repeat ‘for all parties’—involved in native title and undertook to ensure stakeholder concerns were taken into account. Since then the government has undertaken consultation on all elements of the reform package, and the outcome of such consultation is reflected in the legislation currently before the House.

The four schedules in the current bill will, respectively, implement aspects of four of the six elements of the government’s reform package. Those aspects include measures to clarify the key institutional arrangements for the resolution of native title claims through implementation of a series of key recommendations made by the Native Title Claims Resolution Review in relation to how the National Native Title Tribunal and the Federal Court might work more effectively on native title matters. If you look at the bill, you will see it does make very genuine efforts to bring about a greater meeting of minds to avoid duplication, which has apparently been a serious issue up till now.

The bill also includes specific measures to improve the effectiveness of native title representative bodies, 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.

Finally, 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 hear the concerns from the previous speakers from the opposition, most recently the member for Jagajaga, and I believe that that measure does address some—not all, I am sure—of those resource issues.

Collectively these measures reflect a balanced and considered approach to improving native title processes without disrupting the overall system and without undermining the existing balance of rights under the Native Title Act. People will well recall 1993 and the period eight years ago—which I have just been reminded of—when there was very extensive debate and the effort to try and get a balance tested the whole structure of this parliament.

It is critical that we recognise these reforms as part of a broader package which is intended to address all key elements of the system in a rational and coherent way. I understand a second bill to implement outstanding measures will be introduced into parliament later this sitting and will include minor and technical amendments which have also been the subject of detailed consultation.

The government has also sought to work with the states and territories to secure agreement on improvements to the native title system. This can quite often be overlooked, but the states and territories, at the end of the day, have responsibility for our land title system. Whilst we endeavour to put a national template there, a national framework, there is a very significant responsibility with our states and territories.

In December last year the Attorney-General convened a meeting of native title ministers from the states and territories. Ministers noted the proposed package of reforms and, significantly, agreed that all parties, including governments, should continue to build on this package. It is important that we in this House acknowledge that, while native title is inherently complex, it can and has assisted in securing meaningful outcomes for Indigenous Australians.

To date, there have been over 90 determinations of native title, the majority of which have been reached with the consent of all parties. Nearly nine per cent of Australia’s landmass has been the subject of native title determinations. I also note that engagement between parties on native title processes can assist in building meaningful and productive relationships which may endure beyond resolution of specific claims. I know that from my own electorate. The current bill offers a means to build on this with a view to achieving more efficient and effective outcomes, which is in the interests of all Australians. I commend the bill to the House.

See this speech in context