Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Attorney General) Share this | Hansard source

Labor will be voting for the Native Title Amendment (Indigenous Land Use Agreements) Bill 2017 in the form in which it has been amended by the Senate. But let's give it some context.

Labor voted against this bill when it came to the House of Representatives in mid-February because this government, showing no respect for native title—showing no understanding of the significance of native title in Australia—decided it would rush this bill through this House and try to rush this bill right through the parliament without any proper consultation with Indigenous communities across Australia. It is because Labor said to this government, 'Show some respect for native title and for Indigenous people in this country' that the bill has been able to be amended with a number of amendments that would never have happened if the government had been allowed to rush this bill through the parliament in the way in which it originally thought to do so.

This bill went to a Senate committee because Labor insisted that it go to a Senate committee. One of the amendments that came up in the course of that Senate committee inquiry and that went through the Senate—because there have been several amendments now made to this bill—was the recommendation that the government not be permitted to give itself unfettered power over Indigenous land use agreements. We insisted, through that Senate committee process, on amendments that make sure that control will continue to rest with native title holders and not with politicians in Canberra.

There are other amendments which have been made possible by taking the extra time to consult with Indigenous communities across Australia. They include the amendments that were brought forward at the request of the Cape York Land Council. Again I say that, had this government been permitted to rush the bill through in the way it sought to do, those amendments would never have been made either. The government has stuffed up the handling of this bill from the start. I am sorry for the colloquial language, but it is appropriate. The attempts to rush this bill through parliament without proper consultation were disgraceful.

Labor has had to drag the government to talks with Indigenous people across Australia. Labor has had to ensure that there was an opportunity for submissions to be made on the bill through the Senate committee process. That is why there were more than 50 written submissions. Labor had to drag the government to a meeting with Indigenous groups across the country. And the suggestion that, in some way, Labor's insistence on consultation was in any sense the wrong thing to do—it is breathtaking for the Minister for Justice to say what he has just said in introducing the bill, as amended, to this House.

Labor has understood from the start the need for validation of the 126 Indigenous land use agreements across Australia, whose status was thrown into doubt by the decision of the Full Federal Court in the McGlade case on 2 February. But Labor has ensured that the bill is restricted in the form in which it is now going forward to validation of those Indigenous land use agreements that are already registered and those Indigenous land use agreements that have been authorised, signed and submitted for registration—because it is appropriate that those agreements, having been negotiated under an understanding of the law as it was, should go forward. The disruption that was potentially going to be caused had there not been this validation is the reason for this legislation. In addition, the bill is going to provide for what should be the situation in the negotiation of Indigenous land use agreements of this type in the future, again to restore, as far as possible, certainty to the native title system in this country.

But, make no mistake, there has been incompetent handling by the government. There has been quite unnecessary difficulty caused by the way in which the government tried to rush this bill through. In every sense, this government should hang its head in shame for the attitude it has shown to native title and the level of respect that should be accorded to native title in this country. The Native Title Act is no ordinary piece of legislation. It is not something that can be treated as the Prime Minister thought to do when he was in India, where he said to the head of the Adani Corporation that the laws that stood in the way of their mine would be fixed. Those were the Prime Minister's words. He needs to learn that native title is not just another act of parliament 'to be fixed', as he said.

See this speech in context