Robert McClelland (Barton, Australian Labor Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Hansard source

in reply—I would like to thank members for their contributions to the debate on the Native Title Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2010 and thank the House for dealing with this matter expeditiously. There is no doubt that improving housing and reducing overcrowding in Indigenous communities is central to the government’s efforts to close the gap in Indigenous disadvantage and to address issues of abuse and community safety. To this end, the Council of Australian Governments has committed $5.5 billion over 10 years to deliver much-needed Indigenous housing in remote Indigenous communities across Australia.

The member for Murray, in her speech immediately preceding me, outlined some undoubtedly chronic issues and spoke of the shame that our First Australians are living and dying in such conditions. Indeed, these have been intergenerational issues. They did not happen overnight; they happened during the 12 years of neglect of the former government. It was not until the former government received the Little children are sacred report that they were motivated to action. It expedited their attention, but the reality is that the chronic problems and the cultures are set in and it is taking a great deal of work, obviously, to address these chronic issues that it would be incumbent on any government to address and to address quickly. Hence the reason why we are seeking urgency in the passage of this legislation.

I would like to respond to some specific comments from the member for Menzies and the member for Murray. The Australian government, as I have mentioned, is delivering $5.5 billion to address the significant overcrowding, homelessness, poor housing and severe housing shortage in Indigenous communities. The government has put in place secure tenure arrangements as a precondition for housing investment so that responsibilities are clear and people can be masters of their own domain. We are ensuring standard tenancy management arrangements are in place so that rents can be collected and repairs and maintenance can be carried out, and 352 new houses have already been completed, with construction underway on another 165 homes across the country. A further 1,186 houses have been rebuilt or refurbished, with 338 rebuilds or refurbishments currently underway.

We are holding state and territory governments accountable for the delivery of targets under the National Partnership Agreement on Remote Indigenous Housing. At the Australian government’s insistence, the national partnership was renegotiated in December last year, when it became clear that insufficient progress was being made by jurisdictions to meet targets. These Australian government reforms created a renewed sense of drive and urgency across all jurisdictions. Consequently, the states and the Northern Territory delivered 316 new homes and 828 refurbishments in remote Indigenous communities in 2009-10. While this was just four houses short of the new houses target, the refurbishment target was exceeded by some 241 refurbishments. The Australian government is continuing to drive improvements in the delivery of Indigenous housing programs across Australia.

Returning to issues raised in respect of the content of the bill, I can confirm that the proposed amendments will enable housing and infrastructure to be built in Indigenous communities on Indigenous held land where native title may exist after—and I emphasise: after—consultation with native title parties takes place. The bill’s coverage of housing and associated infrastructure, including staff housing, represents a holistic approach that recognises that community health and wellbeing depends on the availability or all of these public services for communities. The new process gives native title parties an opportunity to provide input into the design and delivery of urgently needed housing and public infrastructure, and also flexibility to choose the level of consultation that is appropriate and necessary in the circumstances. In this way, the new process balances proper consultation with the need to ensure public housing and infrastructure projects proceed in a timely, definite and certain way.

The non-extinguishment principle, compensation and consultation mechanisms provided in the bill will ensure that any native title rights are not adversely affected in the long term. The bill’s sunset period of 10 years provides an incentive to state and territory governments to deliver on housing and infrastructure commitments in a timely manner in accordance with the national partnership agreements on remote indigenous housing and remote service delivery. That partnership stresses the issue of urgency.

The amendments in the bill are not intended to replace Indigenous land use agreements but provide an alternative mechanism to secure appropriate tenure for housing and infrastructure construction on land in Indigenous communities. The proposed amendments are necessary to mitigate the risk that uncertainty about the existence of native title and also uncertainty about which native title processes may apply will delay government’s ability to secure appropriate tenure for housing and infrastructure construction. There has been greater success in putting in place secure tenure arrangements in Indigenous communities where these uncertainties do not arise, such as on Aboriginal land rights land in the Northern Territory.

The bill addresses real concerns that state and territory governments would not be able to meet their Council of Australian Government targets because of delays caused by native title. So far, state and territory governments have largely met their housing targets, but they have been doing so by targeting non-native-title land. But that land is running out. With the construction expected to trigger native title issues, from 2011 to 2012, there is no certainty that existing native title processes can be relied upon to deliver secure tenure arrangements in a timely manner. There is also a risk that, without a bill, program delivery will be skewed towards sites where native title processes do not have to be followed rather than on the basis of greatest need, and that would be a distortion of where the services should properly be allocated.

In conclusion, this bill facilitates the delivery of the government’s unprecedented funding commitment to improve housing and reduce overcrowding in Indigenous communities, whether that is based on native title or otherwise. It does this by ensuring investment in housing and community infrastructure proceeds expeditiously and in a manner consistent with the government’s commitment to work in partnership with Indigenous Australians. I commend the bill to the House.

See this speech in context