Kevin Andrews (Menzies, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Families, Housing and Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Indigenous Affairs Legislation Amendment Bill 2011. This bill contains three schedules. Schedule 1 and 2 of this bill were originally included in Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Other Legislation Amendment (Budget and Other Measures) Bill 2010. I note that these schedules were removed from the original bill by the government when concerns were raised by the coalition. In removing the schedules, the government agreed to debate the issues separately from other measures.

The first schedule would see the addition of further parcels of land in the Northern Territory to the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976. This will enable the land to be granted to Aboriginal Lands Trust. The intertidal zone surrounding the land and islands listed in the schedule includes significant recreational fishing grounds and their scheduling may have made these waters subject to the precedent created by the Blue Mud Bay case, namely resulting in restricted access to those waters. The government has resolved the issue by scheduling those parcels associated to the Borroloola land claim to the high-water mark instead of the low-water mark thus negating the impact of the Blue Mud Bay case. The Port Patterson islands are adjacent to the long-running Kenbi land claim and will become part of the Kenbi land grant. A negotiated deal between the government, the traditional owners and recreational fishing interests has been reached to maintain fishing access. The coalition has successfully negotiated with government to ensure ongoing access to the intertidal zones. The coalition therefore supports this schedule.

The second schedule would make changes to Indigenous land corporations to introduce new powers for the minister to make guidelines that for what such corporations must give regard to in discharging their functions, particularly with respect to native title settlements. This schedule was the subject of a parliamentary inquiry conducted by the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs committee, which reported on 9 February 2011. This bill makes a change to the previous bill in that it clarifies that the Indigenous Land Corporation has the discretion to decide whether to perform its functions in support of native title settlements. If the ILC does decide to perform its functions in support of native title settlements it must have regard to any guidelines in force at the time.

In July 2008 the Attorney-General indicated the Commonwealth would provide the states with financial assistance to settle outstanding native title claims. This support was not forthcoming. Instead, in August 2009 the Attorney-General promised the states that the government would propose alternative funding options. This bill provides such an option. Non-government senators recommended in the Senate committee report that a review into the operation and functions of the ILC be conducted to ensure that the ILC continued to meet its objectives. Those senators held that any changes to the land acquisition functions should only be proposed after such a review and not prior to it. he majority Senate committee report also recommended that the government release draft ministerial guidelines before proceeding with this measure. The government has not released any such guidelines. The coalition does not support the passage of this schedule and the coalition notes the government's circulated amendments which seek to omit this schedule.

Schedule 3 is a new measure and would see changes to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Act 2005 to remove the connection between the election of members to the Torres Strait Regional Authority and the Queensland local government elections and to provide powers for the minister to determine how the Torres Strait Regional Authority is constituted rather than by notice in the Gazette as is the current practice. The Torres Strait Regional Authority has indicated its support for the provisions contained within the schedule. The coalition supports this schedule.

The Labor-Greens alliance have failed in the area of Indigenous affairs. They have failed to deliver and they have failed, unfortunately, to act. They have presided over waste and mismanagement in program after program. Those members of the Labor-Greens alliance should hang their heads in shame in relation to Indigenous affairs, because for all the talk and all the smoke and mirrors they have done little, from the so-called bipartisan commission that the former Prime Minister was to establish to the Indigenous housing programs to Indigenous health programs, such as their failure on dialysis. And let us not forget the way in which this government has bungled the Northern Territory intervention, failing to deliver the desired outcomes to Indigenous communities. Regrettably, the legacy this minister will leave in this area is one of hollow promises, one of inaction and, worst of all, one of failure and neglect.

Deborah O'Neill (Robertson, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in support of the Indigenous Affairs Legislation Amendment Bill 2011. There are few issues of greater national priority than those affecting the first Australians. This bill predominantly concerns the issue of Indigenous land rights and represents significant progress in the way in which native title is recognised and managed. Additionally, this bill transfers ownership of land near Borroloola and of the Port Patterson Islands to the relevant Aboriginal land trust. This specific provision of the amendment bill concerns a native title claim made under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act.

As the member for Robertson, I understand that native title issues are very significant in the Northern Territory. In a way they are not quite as dominant in the landscape of the seat of Robertson. Despite this the Central Coast, including my electorate, has a proud Indigenous heritage which I always feel very proud to represent here in this place. Indeed, this heritage is demonstrated with the proud culture of the Darkinjung and Guringai people from my area, who I have the privilege of being in contact with in my role here as a member of parliament. Whilst the Darkinjung land council operates under New South Wales legislation, it is an immensely significant organisation in my electorate which effectively represents the interests of the Darkinjung people. There are large numbers of significant leaders in the Aboriginal community right across the Central Coast doing wonderful work for our community.

The welfare of the first Australians is something that affects all Australians. Whilst the issues in this bill may largely be geographically confined, the welfare of Indigenous Australians and the cultural heritage of our nation are issues that affect us all. Indeed, whilst the Darkinjung and Guringai people are separate nations of Indigenous people, the large geographical distance from the Northern Territory does not prevent a shared cultural heritage or mean there is a lack of interest from afar.

Since the Mabo and Wik decisions of 1990, native title has achieved a long overdue significant place in Australian property law. I understand and respect the role of native title in legally respecting and recognising traditional land ownership. Indeed, it is through native title and the Native Title Act that we as a parliament recognise that Australia was not terra nullius, or a land that belonged to nobody, before 1788. It is through this Native Title Act that the custodial relationships that our first Australians have with the land, stretching back 20,000 years, can be recognised in legal form. As a member of parliament, I am proud that as a nation we have eventually been able to develop a just and mature approach to recognising native title and enabling it to be maintained within the boundaries of Australian property law.

This bill reflects the ideal that native title is best established and administered through settlements rather than through expensive litigation. Litigation will always have the disadvantage of being inherently adversarial, and in the context of native title it is prone to community division. Therefore, in my opinion, the promotion of native title through settlement is inherently culturally appropriate and beneficial in the maintenance of Aboriginal land rights. I believe that this bill will be very successful in advancing this practical and pragmatic objective.

A significant reform of this bill is enabling the minister for Indigenous affairs to make guidelines to which the Indigenous Land Corporation must have regard before deciding to perform its functions in support of a native title settlement. This will assist in providing guidance to the Indigenous Land Corporation, enabling it to be more effective in the manner in which it carries out its functions. As the minister stated in her second reading speech, the Indigenous Land Corporation was established shortly after the Native Title Act came into being in 1993. The establishment of the Indigenous Land Corporation was recognition that not all native title claims would be successful and that alternative means of recognising Indigenous land ownership were needed. The Indigenous Land Corporation plays important roles in assisting Indigenous communities to acquire and maintain land. The ILC acquires land and grants it to Indigenous corporations for the purpose of achieving economic, social and cultural benefits. To acquire land grants by this method, Indigenous communities need to demonstrate a commitment and a capacity to sustainably manage the property. They also have to show a capacity and a commitment to the achievement of continuing benefits, particularly in the areas of training and employment. The ILC also plays a vital range of roles in assisting Indigenous communities to manage land through land management projects. These projects have the goal of ensuring that Indigenous land ownership leads to very practical and tangible economic, social and cultural gains.

Such achievements require a huge effort, and there will always be challenges. However, as a member of parliament, I am proud to support this government, which is persevering in our aim to improve the living standards of our first Australians. Matters affecting the first Australians should never again be out of sight or out of mind, which for far too long they were. This bill reflects recognition by the government that the Indigenous Land Corporation is useful in assisting with resolution of native title disputes. It will provide the minister with the ability to make guidelines concerning matters to which the ILC must have regard and improve its functions in support of settlement. roposed section 191F(2A) will require the ILC to have regard to these guidelines when making any decisions to perform its functions in relation to a native title settlement.

The third component of this bill is the reforms to the elections and composition of the Torres Strait Regional Authority. It is vital to recognise the distinct difference between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultures, and the importance of being aware of these differences is embedded in the amendment. Again, the issues that affect Torres Strait Islanders affect all Australians. This is because of the need to sustain our treasured national cultural heritage, in which the Torres Strait Islander people play a significant role. Indeed, it was a Torres Strait Islander who took the step of successfully asserting land rights in the High Court. Regardless of differing opinions concerning native title, it can never be denied that Eddie Mabo's successful High Court challenge forever changed and improved the manner in which we view Indigenous land ownership.

This bill seeks to confer greater authority to the Torres Strait Regional Authority by firstly by removing the connection between elections to the Torres Strait Regional Authority and Queensland local government. This reform is required because section 142Y of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Act 2005 requires that elections to the Torres Strait Regional Authority occur every three years. However, since 2009 Queensland local government elections have been occurring every four years. Additionally, amendments to section 142S of the ATSI Act remove a connection between the TSRA and Queensland local government. This provides the minister with the freedom to determine how the TSRA is constituted. Importantly, this reform will reduce the potential for conflicts of interest between the roles of people elected to both the TSRA and the Queensland local government councils. This will further ensure that the TSRA provides good governance for the Torres Strait Islands.

It is within the national interest that the proud people of the Torres Strait are provided with the means of effective self-governance. Indigenous affairs has been one of the most challenging issues affecting our nation and one we should all endeavour to address in the short, the medium and the long term. Indeed, throughout the last 20 years many significant events in our national history have occurred concerning the past treatment of Indigenous Australians. We had the Mabo and Wik decisions, in addition to the Native Title Act, establishing the legal basis for the traditional ownership of land. We had the groundbreaking Bringing them home report, released in 1997, exposing once and for all the terrible and shameful reality of the stolen generations. We had the apology that occurred a long 10 years after the report, and a recognition that, as a parliament and as a nation, we accept responsibility for actions which when we look back can only be described as reprehensible.

The road to improving the living standards of Indigenous communities and increasing educational outcomes is a long one. The Northern Territory intervention is perhaps one of the most contentious policies ever passed by an Australian parliament and enforced by Australian governments. I welcome the proposed replacements to the intervention when the Northern Territory Emergency Response ends in 2012. Like this legislation, those replacements will ensure that future policies in relation to Indigenous communities are developed and enforced in partnership with those communities.

As a parliament, we must never shy away from our obligation to fight to ensure that the next generation of Indigenous Australians has a better future than the previous generations. We must remain ever vigilant in moving towards closing the gap. It is by doing this that we can ensure we achieve justice that honours our first people and enhances our democracy. On that basis, I commend the bill to the House.

Barry Haase (Durack, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to address the Indigenous Affairs Legislation Amendment Bill 2011. There are three schedules in this bill as it stands. I had a firm understanding that schedule 2 was going to be dropped. Regardless of that, the point that I would like to discuss in some detail is the very sensible decision to give a little more land back to those Indigenous persons so it can be handed over to the Aboriginal Lands Trust. This has been a win-win situation, I believe, because what we want to maintain is that all Australians have the right to throw a fishing line in a tidal creek. Where there was some demand for control over lands down to the low water mark, that demand will now be eased by the knowledge that more land will be available to go into the Aboriginal Lands Trust.

We are broadly in support of this legislation, but the nature of it and the fact that we have been debating it here in the House today raises the whole issue of legislation and consequential funding that surrounds matters Indigenous in Australia today. Many of us on this side of the House have had a long association with Indigenous affairs, broadly representing more remote areas of Australia, and I believe that more and more today the community at large is asking about the veracity and the effectiveness of specific funding for Indigenous causes. Recent media has highlighted this concern and raises the questions: are we on the right track? Are we doing the best for Indigenous people with the taxpayer funds that are being spent on Indigenous people? Do we have the right strategies in place? Are those strategies based on the correct philosophy? Do we wish to give rebirth to Indigenous culture across this nation? Do we want to see the eventual repatriation of some 600 Indigenous languages?

We have a huge philosophical dilemma here. The purists would have us believe that we need to fund ad nauseam all manner of Indigenous causes to take the culture back to where it rightfully belongs. Others would argue that we do not need to focus on any more than the basic essentials of good education, health and housing conditions. We need, of course, to wrestle with the whole concept of regional and remote communities. That has also raised its head in debate, as to whether or not we have a legitimate right to make people captive in communities with welfare as opposed to providing real employment opportunities outside those communities.

That philosophical question has never been satisfactorily addressed in this place or, I might add, in any other major institution in Australia. The dilemma remains as to whether we should be supporting with welfare and other essential services those populations that choose to live in remote communities because they are their traditional lands, or whether we should be drawing people away from those communities to where they would have real-life opportunities, from the basics of good education through to job training, independent living and all that follows from being economically independent.

That is an issue that many people will glibly tell you is clear cut. They will tell you that Indigenous people have the right to live on their country and we as the taxpayers of Australia should support them with water, sewage, electricity, roads, education, health and housing. They will tell you that Indigenous people have every right to choose that lifestyle and that, given that there is no employment in those areas, they have the right to be dependent upon taxpayers through welfare.

But I put the question: are we doing the right thing in providing this financial crutch to thousands of people in remote Australia, almost making them captive in those locations by not underlining the alternative? We make no public statement about serious mutual obligation. We do little to reinforce our philosophy that mutual obligation is important, especially under the Australian welfare system.

There are numerous programs talked about today under the broad headings of income management and welfare quarantining. The basic idea is that, in some cases, welfare payments are not being managed to the advantage of families at large and that we ought to influence the way in which those funds are spent—we ought to, for instance, prevent welfare being spent on alcohol, tobacco and other drugs and insist that a high proportion go towards housing, clothing and food. I find it quite unbelievable that many spokespeople in this country would take umbrage at that sort of guidance, assistance and management.

We have all seen far too often the results of the total lack of management of welfare income for Indigenous groups and others in remote communities. When the report Little children are sacred was handed down, it revealed the addiction to substances, domestic violence and child abuse in so many Indigenous communities across this nation that Minister Mal Brough and the Howard government at the time instigated inquiries, medical checks and quarantining of welfare. That was applauded roundly by many, many people in those environments, who knew the state of affairs and the damage that was created. But there were sectors of the community—less well-informed, in my opinion—that were very critical of those new measures imposed to assist in the education and general wellbeing of community people.

And that argument goes on. I believe that it is an important argument, but it is no good just arguing about it; we need to come to a resolution and come to a point where legislation is proposed that we can boldly say is to the advantage of Indigenous people. We need to be able to boldly say that the expenditure in such legislation on Indigenous programs would be to the good of Indigenous people as opposed to the good of individual Indigenous people who—and it would seem that this happens too often—misappropriate the funds for particular programs.

Before anyone accuses me of overgeneralising, I know full well that the Indigenous population is represented by numerous professional, capable people who are committed to their families, hold solid jobs and do the right thing as Australians. Sadly, there are also far too many examples of Indigenous leaders with access to funds for particular programs who do not have the skill or the experience, or perhaps the will, to acquit funds in the appropriate manner. The media love to inform Australians about the failed programs. That can cast a general slur across the many programs that are greatly beneficial. personally believe that much more stuff of a very serious nature needs to be done to look at the whole question of advancement of Indigenous peoples. The whole question exists as to whether the government's funding focus should be on promoting wellbeing, life expectancy, education, financial independence et cetera or should be on assisting in the rebirth or redevelopment of Indigenous culture for all its complexity. I said at the beginning of my contribution that in the past we had some 600 languages across Australia. If we are to seriously contemplate what we are going to do to give pride and perhaps motivation to each of those original groups, I think we might agree that that would be a mammoth task that would take a lot of time and a lot of money and we may lose the plot in the meantime.

So, as I said, I believe we need to look at health, education and longevity. We need to apply tough love. We need to develop policies that will see Indigenous people realise that mutual obligation is vitally important and that welfare is not the answer. Noel Pearson for decades has been saying just that. Jackie Dann from Derby in the late 1980s wrote a paper on the welfare paddock, condemning its influence on his people.

Indigenous people, broadly speaking, need a better crack at life, and I think that will come with better education. Better education will only come if there is motivation to attend school on a regular basis. Schooling ought not be accidental. Schooling ought to be as important for Indigenous people living in communities as it is for the average Joe Blow and their kids living in suburbia. It is certainly not at this stage. If anyone believes there is an expectation amongst Indigenous families living in remote communities that their children will regularly attend school, get a primary school education, do well in secondary education, get job training and have a job for life, then those people need to think again. That is not a general expectation. Until such time as education is seen as a vital link to life for Indigenous people then education will be neglected and those individuals subsequently will not have the crack at life that mainstream Australians do.

We as a parliament need to get serious in looking at a better way. We need to realise once and for all that the money that has been spent has not been spent wisely. The programs that have been devised by Canberra bureaucrats in the main—ticking boxes and handing out ticked reports to other people who tick other boxes—are not solutions. For decades it has been recognised by people who know that that is not a solution. We have not seriously bitten the bullet and had a debate for the good of Indigenous people. We have had a debate about what is good for the longevity of governments, but not about what is good for Indigenous people. Some tough love needs to be applied. Some greater understanding of the Australian population at large needs to be acquired. We need to do a better job for the sake of Indigenous people into the future. (Time expired)

Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I support the Indigenous Affairs Legislation Amendment Bill 2011 and the government amendments. This bill has three purposes. I want to use this opportunity to speak about Indigenous Affairs generally and also refer to what is happening in my electorate and commend certain people for their wonderful work. I recognise the commitment of the member for Durack. He and I disagree on a lot of things in politics, but I believe he is absolutely genuine in his commitment to improve the lot of our Indigenous peoples, not just in his area in Western Australia but across the country. I want to thank him personally for the great cooperation he gave during the Doing timereport we undertook. I look forward to working with him on the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs in its inquiry into languages in Indigenous communities. We will be looking at not just the effectiveness and efficiency of English language teaching in Indigenous communities but the loss of Indigenous languages across the country. We can identify about 250 Indigenous languages, but only 20 or 30 are viable. You cannot divorce one thing from another—you cannot divorce employment, health, language and land rights. All of it is linked to what has happened with our Indigenous peoples across the country.

I will go off on a tangent. A number of great speeches have been made by both Labor and Liberal Prime Ministers in this country over the years. I think of former Labor Prime Minister John Curtin's speech turning to America at the height of World War II, Liberal Prime Minister Robert Menzies's forgotten people speech and his speech in opposition rallying conservative forces to retake government in 1949. I think also of the speeches of two great Labor Prime Ministers on indigenous affairs. Former Labor Prime Minister Paul Keating's Redfern speech in my view was the greatest speech he ever made. He talked about dispossession and what we need to do about native title and helping our Indigenous brothers and sisters. Former Labor Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's sorry speech in this place I think is the greatest speech he has ever made as well. It is interesting that a number of these speeches from these greats of Australian political life, if I can use that term, have dealt with Indigenous issues, because that taps into our hearts and into Australia's psyche. What we are doing here is making a difference. Some of it is a bit pedantic, but some of it is listening to what Indigenous people want to say and have to say about their land rights and what they want and responding to that. he first aspect of this particular legislation deals with land rights, as I mentioned. I think land rights are crucial and linked in to the Closing the Gap policies, which I understand to be bipartisan. We have a lot of terminology in relation to these things—such as Closing the Gap, national partnership agreements and building blocks—with which we want to make sure that Indigenous people have a better say and a better go. We want to close the gap in longevity of life, to lift employment outcomes and to improve school attendance and completion of school rates.

I want to briefly address some of the things in this bill. One of the purposes of this bill is to amend the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976, known as the Land Rights Act, to insert Borroloola and Port Patterson Islands into schedule 1. Again, there has been consultation in relation to this, making sure that this is important to land rights in the Northern Territory, it is important in relation to Aboriginal land trusts and it is an amendment which will make a difference to Indigenous people.

The second aspect of these amendments will withdraw the Indigenous Land Corporation measure from the original bill. The measure was going to introduce a power to the minister to make guidelines that the Indigenous Land Corporation must have regard to in deciding whether to perform its functions in support of a native title settlement and, if it decided to perform its function in support of a native title settlement, in performing its function in support of that settlement. The measure is being withdrawn from the bill pending further consultation on proposed guidelines. With the withdrawal of this measure, consultations can take place without any further delay to the remaining measures in this bill.

The other measures are scheduling, as I said before, in relation to Aboriginal land and amendments in relation to the election of Torres Strait islander regional authority members. We also have a problem in Queensland in relation to local government elections, which happen to be falling in March 2012, as well as the situation with respect to the Queensland election, which is also due in March 2012. The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Act 2005 currently provides for elections for the TSRA being held every three years.

The timing of those elections, of course, are linked into local government elections. We have a problem in that regard, so we are removing the connectivity between the two sets of elections, which will reduce the potential for conflicts of interests between the roles of people elected to the TSRA and the Queensland local government councils. One of the aspects of that is that a lot of Indigenous leaders perform roles in both. It is important that people understand the role of their respective members and that they have an opportunity to actually have a say in which particular people are elected to which different roles so that there is no confusion in the public's mind.

This week, in recognising a number of important people in this country, we recognised the contribution of people like Nancy Wake. I want to pay tribute to the loss of a great friend of Indigenous Australians, the Hon. Clyde Holding, the former Aboriginal affairs minister under the Hawke government. I mentioned before a number of great prime ministers, prime ministers who said things about Indigenous affairs and wanted to lift up the role of Indigenous people in this country. They wanted to say it like it is. They did not want to worry about black armband views of history but about actually telling it like it is and making the point that we need to turn the page. There is a degree of recognition, of repentance, required, but there is a commitment that I believe this federal Labor government has to closing the gap.

Clyde Holding believed that. He believed that all his political life. In the roughhouse of Victorian politics, with all the machinations that went on, he retained his ideals of lifting up the poor, the weak, the oppressed and people from all walks of life, regardless of their colour, race or creed. He was all about helping those in disadvantage. Mabo was a wonderful outcome for this country, and it took a federal Labor government, against the opposition of the forces of conservatism, to legislate in relation to those issues.

Sadly, when those opposite sit on this side of the House, they always seem to want to take away from the rights of Aboriginal people. They say one thing, as the shadow minister said— criticising us when in opposition—but when they are on this side of the House they never seem to have the political will or commitment, the money or the determination, to carry these things out. Clyde Holding believed we needed to do it, and in his conduct of the affairs in Aboriginal jurisdictions he made that commitment and he fought for it all of his life. Of the Mabo judgment he said it provided our nation with a matchless opportunity to:

… redress Australia's oldest and most continuous social wrong and to recognise the depth, nature and spiritual attachment of Aboriginal people to this land.

Once again, a social reform is brought forward by this federal Labor government which makes a difference in terms of Aboriginal land rights and Aboriginal land in this country, and I commend the legislation to the House.

Jenny Macklin (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This bill contains some non-budget measures relating to Indigenous affairs. Firstly, the bill continues the government's important program under Aboriginal land rights legislation for the Northern Territory by adding parcels of land near Borroloola and the Port Patterson Islands to schedule 1 to the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976. The scheduling of these parcels of land will help to resolve two long-running and very complex land claims.

The parcels of land near Borroloola are associated with the Borroloola land claim, which was the first land claim made under the land rights act. Once these parcels of land are granted, the Borroloola land claim will be resolved. The Port Patterson Islands relate to the Kenbi land claim over the Cox Peninsula near Darwin. The scheduling of the Port Patterson Islands will enable this land to be added to a grant associated with the Kenbi land claim to be considered later this year in accordance with the heads of the agreement between the Australian and Northern Territory governments and the Northern Land Council, which was announced by the Prime Minister on 29 June 2011. he bill also amends the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Act 2005 in relation to the Torres Strait Regional Authority established under that act. The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Act provides for election of members to the Torres Strait Regional Authority. Presently, there is a connection between the election of members to the Torres Strait Regional Authority and the timing of Queensland local government elections. This bill removes that connection so that elections to the authority are conducted solely in accordance with the provisions of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Act. Removing the connection between the two sets of elections will also reduce the potential for conflicts of interest between the roles of people elected to both the authority and the Queensland local government councils. The authority has commissioned a governance review of its structure and the method of appointment of its members. The bill also amends the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Act to allow for a wider range of options for the composition of the authority following that review.

The bill as introduced includes amendments to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Act in relation to the Indigenous Land Corporation established under that act. The amendments were intended to allow ministerial guidelines to be made which the Indigenous Land Corporation must have regard to in deciding whether to perform its functions in support of a native title settlement and, if it decides to perform its functions in support of a native title settlement, in performing its functions in support of that settlement. However, amendments will be moved to withdraw that measure from the bill pending further consultation on the proposed guidelines. With the withdrawal of the measure, consultations can continue without delaying the remaining measures in the bill. As I mentioned, the other measures are scheduling further Aboriginal land and amendments in connection with the election of members to the Torres Strait Regional Authority. These will now be able to progress with a view to passage as soon as possible.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.