Steve Georganas (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I understand it is the wish of the House to consider the amendments together.

Michael Keenan (Stirling, Liberal Party, Minister for Justice) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the amendments be agreed to.

The Native Title Amendment (Indigenous Land Use Agreements) Bill 2017 is a carefully targeted reform to resolve the uncertainty created by the McGlade decision for existing and future Indigenous land use agreements across Australia. The bill passed the Senate today, incorporating two sets of government amendments. The first of these was a response to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee's inquiry into the bill. The government accepted the recommendations of the committee to remove the measures from the bill that were not required to address the uncertainty created by the McGlade decision, and introduced government amendments to achieve this. Those amendments were agreed to by the Senate today.

The second set of government amendments was introduced at the request of the Cape York Land Council, which brought to the attention of the government a number of ILUAs in Cape York that did not fall within the ambit of the validation provisions of the act. The Cape York Land Council were anxious to ensure that the benefits provided to native title holders in Cape York under these agreements were valid, and the government amendments agreed to in the Senate today effects the protection of these agreements.

The bill in its amended form will ensure that the ILUA system is and remains a key mechanism for Indigenous Australians to enjoy social and economic benefits associated with their native title rights. While the government is pleased to be able to deliver this important reform and deliver for native title holders, it is unfortunate that this did not happen much earlier. Labor repeatedly stood ready to support the bill on 11 May, yet in the Senate they voted against the motion to sit just one extra day to ensure that the vital certainty provided by this bill could be delivered in a timely way. It was most unfortunate, given the circumstances, that this bill is absolutely urgent. It is urgent that it provides the certainty that is required to all the stakeholders within this debate. I hope that the House finally see sense and passes these amendments quickly.

Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Attorney General) Share this | Link to 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.

Linda Burney (Barton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It gives me no pleasure to stand and speak in this debate this evening. However, as the shadow Attorney-General has outlined, these are Labor's amendments. The two ministers opposite might show a little bit of respect for this instead of joking around and thinking it is funny. You might just sit there and listen. The shadow Attorney-General has made very clear the history of native title in this country. I attended the Mabo family's event for the 25th anniversary of the High Court decision in the Mabo case. It was a really special event. Of course, that decision is what led to Paul Keating bringing in the Native Title Act. I well remember, as others in this chamber will remember, the attacks on native title, led by John Howard and his government in 1997, and the consequent amendments to the native title legislation.

In politics, pragmatism is an important thing. As the shadow Attorney-General has said, as Labor has said, this is a process we have taken seriously. Yes, we needed more time, because there had been no consultation. The hapless Attorney-General had rushed this legislation in and unnecessarily wanted it to go through in a very short period of time. Labor showed respect and it is Labor's amendments that are being discussed this evening to try to fix a mess that has been created by the Attorney and others.

I pay enormous respect to Senators Dodson and McCarthy and those in the other place who have worked assiduously to make sure that the rights of Indigenous people have been upheld in this. I have a sense that this issue has a long way to run, in terms of legal proceedings. Some traditional owner groups have made that very clear. But this is important because something like 126 ILUAs have been signed, and the McGlade case has made the uncertainty of those ILUAs a reality. That is why we have had to pursue this piece of legislation and the amendments that have been put forward.

The inept way in which the government has handled this—and I have watched this very carefully—astounds me. Given the lack of respect this government has shown to Aboriginal people and the very fact that had it not been for Labor standing up for Indigenous people, saying that there had to be consultation, saying that there needed to be a Senate inquiry into this, then we would see a much different outcome than that which we are seeing tonight. The reality of what has been put before you results from Labor pursuing discussions and consultations and insisting on the Senate inquiry. It seems clear from comments that there needs to be a very close look at the native title legislation in the future. As the shadow Attorney said, this is no ordinary piece of legislation, this is no ordinary piece of law and this is not about anything ordinary. It goes to the heart of what connects Aboriginal people, and that is land. Our connection to country is absolutely fundamental to our identity and to our place in the land in this country. Native title legislation is of importance to that. It is very easy for people to make jokes about this. It is very easy for people like the Attorney to think that this can go through in just one day. But land and connection are important, as this side of the House understand. We understand the importance of cultural connection to country and that the native title legislation has for the making of law in this land. It was not until the native title legislation in 1992 that law was created between Aboriginal people and the state. That is the significance of this legislation. I thank Labor for its persistence in ensuring that we get this as correct as we can.

Michael Keenan (Stirling, Liberal Party, Minister for Justice) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was going to let this debate proceed, because we are very keen to get this done, but there has been such nonsense and such an enormous number of untruths from the last two speakers that I am required to get up and correct the record. The last two speakers, the shadow Attorney-General and the member for Barton, have been questioning why the government has been proceeding urgently with this. We have been proceeding with this urgently because all of the stakeholders in this debate have been asking us to do that. They have been saying that the uncertainty that was created by this decision is something of this parliament needs to deal with quickly. We need to deal with it as soon as possible. Let me give you a sense of the correspondence we have received on this issue from the stakeholders. The National Native Title Council, in a letter to the Attorney-General dated 5 May: 'On this, the National Native Title Council urges the parliament to consider this bill as soon as possible.' It is the stakeholders who have been affected by the uncertainty that was cast by this decision of the Federal Court who have required us to move consistently and quickly on this.

The Labor Party, for reasons that are not quite clear to me, has consistently stood in the way of the parliament dealing with this urgently. We are dealing with it urgently not because we do not respect native titleholders, which I think is an enormously silly argument to make in this place. We are dealing with it quickly because we have been asked by native titleholders to deal with it quickly. That is why the parliament needs to deal with it expeditiously, that is why the government have been moving to deal with it so expeditiously and that is why the government have made dealing with this an urgent priority of our legislative process.

The Senate did not deal with it last time, even though we went to the Senate and said: 'This is urgent. We believe that the Senate needs to sit one more day to deal with it. We believe that it makes sense to extend the sitting hours of the Senate to sit on a Friday.' I would not have thought, for a piece of urgent legislation that so fundamentally deals with land usage in Australia, that that was a particularly big ask. But Labor senators do not work Fridays, apparently. It is work to rule up there. They refuse to work Fridays to deal with this urgent piece of government legislation that every single stakeholder in this debate has been asking us to deal with quickly.

As I have said, stakeholders have consistently and repeatedly urged the parliament to act quickly here. They have repeatedly urged us to get on with it. By the way, because we are so keen to do this, we have accommodated the opposition's requests in relation to this bill. We have sought to work with them. Indeed, I acknowledge, in particular, Senator Dodson's role in making some sensible suggestions, particularly in proposing a roundtable. He has engaged with us very constructively about this. I would have thought that engaging with the government constructively about this is a model that other Labor members might look to and deal with the government in the same way.

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

All that Labor has asked for from the start of the debate on this bill—from the very first time this bill was shown to us—is that there be consultation. That is all that the Indigenous community of Australia wanted, and that is why Labor pursued the idea that there should be consultation. There has been consultation, and that consultation has allowed for amendments—sensible amendments, practical amendments and amendments which constrained the undue scope of the bill as it was first introduced. The government should be thankful. The government should be thanking the Labor Party for making sure that there was time for that consultation and that there was time for those ideas to come forward.

But, regrettably, this is a government that does not want to talk with Indigenous people. It is a government that wishes to talk at Indigenous people in every statement by this Minister for Justice and every statement by the Attorney-General. There are untruths from the Minister for Justice, here now, about the supposed unanimity of the Aboriginal community of Australia. It is not true that every single Indigenous group said, 'Pass this bill straightaway.' Far from it. The government is showing, by the ignorant statements made by this Minister for Justice, that it does not know how to listen. If it was a government that knew how to listen to Indigenous people then it would have heard the voices of Indigenous people saying that there needed to be consultation. But, regrettably, the foolish Minister for Justice, who represents the Attorney-General in this place, has shown constantly that this government does not know how to listen, and it certainly has not listened to the Indigenous community here.

I want to reiterate that, for Labor, this bill is not about mining rights, as regrettably it seems to have been for the government. Rather, it is about land rights. That is something that my colleague Senator McCarthy said in the other place. I wish it were the case that, for the government, it was about land rights, native title and the compact that the Native Title Act is between the Australian polity and the Indigenous people of our country, but they do not seem to understand that. For this government, this bill has been about the Adani Carmichael coalmine. It is very disappointing, as I said before, to read the comments of the Prime Minister when he was in India in April when he said to the head of the Adani corporation that the native title laws that stood in the way of this mine would be fixed. That was his word—'fixed'—as if all that this act of parliament was was some ordinary piece of legislation and not the incredibly important legislation that it actually is.

Let me make clear again: there are some 126 ILUAs that this bill will validate. We accept that that is a just outcome for the communities that made those agreements under the law as it then was, and for those with whom those agreements were made. Regularising those agreements is a very important step. But, to make clear also, it is not my understanding that this bill will provide some kind of removal of a final legal hurdle for the Adani mine, as some media reports have suggested. As the Attorney-General has acknowledged in debate in the other place, there are in fact several very serious pieces of litigation that remain on foot in relation to the Adani mine. In particular, the Wangan and Jagalingou people, the traditional owners of much of the land on which the mine and its facilities are going to be built, or are proposed to be built, have several legal actions on foot against Adani.

Most of the cases that have been brought by the Wangan and Jagalingou people in the Federal Court and in the Supreme Court of Queensland will be entirely unaffected by the passage of this bill. In particular, they have made clear that there are some very serious allegations of fraud that have been made against Adani regarding the processes under which the Wangan and Jagalingou agreement was purportedly reached. Those proceedings, which may very well impact on the validity of any Indigenous land use agreement, will only commence trial hearings in March of next year, and there are other legal actions underway, including a case that challenges the validity of the licences issued by the Queensland government.

I repeat: for Labor, this has been about ensuring that there has been adequate consultation with the Indigenous people of Australia—a word that this government seems to have trouble understanding the meaning of. Its conduct of this bill has shown that. Again, the Native Title Act is a compact between the Australian people and the Indigenous people of Australia. It needs to be treated with the utmost respect, which, unfortunately, this government has not shown.

Warren Snowdon (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for External Territories) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think I am probably the only person left in this place—certainly in the House of Representatives, but I think also in the Senate—who was involved in the negotiations over the original native title legislation and who was a member of the cabinet committee that actually negotiated the native title legislation with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, so I have some background in this subject. I can say that the issue that the shadow Attorney has spoken about was something that was at the forefront of the mind of the Keating government at the time—that you actually had to make sure that you spoke to, listened to, talked with and negotiated with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to get the right outcome for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.

Some might argue, and I think it is a fair argument, that by the time the native title legislation passed through the Senate, it was a lot less than it could have been because of the attitude of those opposite, then in opposition in the parliament, and because of some independents who sought to water down and change the legislation to lessen people's rights. Be that as it may, the native title legislation was ultimately passed. What we know now, as a result of the McGlade court cases, is that there are different interpretations of how negotiations should take place.

Now, let me be very clear: Labor is about the protection of native title rights. That is our fundamental objective in this process, not listening to mining companies and saying, 'Let's prosecute this as quickly as possible to get it out of the way so you can be guaranteed access to land.' That was not part of our considerations—never was and never will be. Our considerations were, and are, the legitimate rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people as native title holders. This was about protecting native title rights, not mining rights. Our decisions were about giving native title holders certainty for the future.

This bill will now validate 126 ILUAs, as the shadow Attorney has said. This is the outcome for the communities that made these agreements under the law as it then was, and for those with whom those agreements were made. As the shadow Attorney has said, this legislation will not provide some sort of green light for Adani—it simply will not. There are actions on foot, as the shadow Attorney has said, one of which, at least, will not be in the court until May next year. That is an issue for Adani, perhaps, and for the government, but not for native title holders. Their rights have been protected. That is what we want to make sure happens in this legislation. I say to the member opposite, the Minister for Justice, when you are talking about negotiating and talking with Aboriginal people, you do actually need to sit down. One of the issues is that he said, 'What about the native title rep bodies, the peak native title bodies?' They too have a responsibility to talk to their members. They too have a responsibility to make sure that they are informed by discussions with the native title holders, not just peak native title bodies. They have a responsibility to talk with them and then represent their views.

I was at the round table which the shadow Attorney-General was at, which was orchestrated by Senator Pat Dodson—

Michael Keenan (Stirling, Liberal Party, Minister for Justice) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It was his suggestion.

Warren Snowdon (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for External Territories) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Absolutely—it was at his request. The Minister for Indigenous Affairs, Senator Scullion, was there, as was the Attorney. What I found interesting in that round table was the absolute lack of coherent knowledge by the Attorney of the process. I thought we would have seen a lot more understanding of the need to negotiate and talk broadly with the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community. That is the point, Minister. You need to talk broadly with the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people across this country around these issues so that you have an informed view from them, from which you can make an informed decision. That is the point. We have got to this position today because of the process which was brought about by Labor and ultimately the agreement by the Attorney. That is how it was brought about. The positive changes which are being made are a direct result of that intervention. The Cape York changes which you refer to would not have happened at all had it not been for the delay in discussing this legislation. I am pleased to be able to support these well-constructed amendments moved in the Senate and passed by the Senate.

Luke Gosling (Solomon, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Native Title Act was passed by the Keating government in 1993. It gives legislative form to the historic High Court Mabo decision. This year we celebrate 25 years since that decision was handed down, which is obviously a historic moment for our country. I think it is important to put some of these things on the record. I want to acknowledge my colleague, the member for Lingiari, because in 1993 he was instrumental in supporting the Aboriginal negotiators, who spent months walking the halls of parliament trying to broker an acceptable and fair legislative response to the High Court's native title decision. The member for Lingiari has a long and very significant role in supporting and fighting for the aspirations of our first nations. So it was as he helped to broker what became the Native Title Act in 1993, which was a seminal time in our history as a nation, and a seminal and proud time for Labor. In fact, we have worked out that my current office here in Parliament House was often used during this time by negotiators, many of them proud Aboriginal leaders from the Top End.

The Native Title Act followed on from the Northern Territory land rights act—a Labor policy passed into legislation by a Liberal Prime Minister, Malcolm Fraser, in 1976. It was the first attempt by an Australian government to legally recognise the Aboriginal system of land ownership, and it put into law the concept of inalienable freehold title. It continues to inspire, and I am very proud of the role the Northern Territory has played in the ongoing battle for land and native title rights, whether that be the Yolngu people and the Gove case; the bark petition; the Wave Hill walk-off led by Gurindji man Vincent Lingiari; the Barunga Statement; or, closer to home and closer to my electorate, the Kenbi land claim, which took 37 years.

Since 1993 Labor has works to ensure that the Native Title Act continues to facilitate the recognition and protection of Indigenous land rights throughout our great nation. The McGlade decision of the full Federal Court invalidated over 100 existing ILUAs and introduced a great deal of uncertainty into negotiations for new ILUAs. Labor believes that the parliament should provide certainty to native title holders and users of the native title system while also protecting the integrity of that system. While Labor will support this bill as substantially amended, Labor is supporting only changes to the Native Title Act that will restore the legal status quo as it was prior to the recent Federal Court decision in McGlade. This means that ILUAs already entered into will be restored to the position they were in prior to McGlade and that future agreements will be negotiated under the same procedure.

The Turnbull government tried to rush its original legislation through the parliament without proper consultation. They tried to do this before there was a chance to properly consider its implications or to listen to the voices of native title holders and other Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander organisations. Labor insisted on a full Senate inquiry so that these voices could be heard. As a result of consultations with Indigenous Australians and users of the native title system that followed, Labor has supported changes to the bill to narrow its effect. This is what native title holders have asked us to do. They have been our first concern throughout this process, as they always have been over the decades.

Importantly, Labor has blocked the government's attempt to give itself unfettered power over ILUAs. We have insisted on amendments that make sure that control rests with native title holders, not politicians here in Canberra. This is about respecting the decisions of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and giving certainty to the agreements that native title holders have entered into. It is the right thing to do. The minister would do well to be a little bit humble from time to time, to listen to people and to make sure that proper consultation is done. We know that they have a bit of a tendency over that side of the House to grab as much unfettered power as they can, but Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians can depend on Labor, who will ensure that they are consulted and that their rights are properly protected.

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What a long and winding road it has been to get to this point we are at tonight. It does not give me great pleasure to speak about some of the misfortunes that have taken place in getting this bill to where we have it tonight. When this bill was first introduced into this House—I think it was 15 February, if I am not mistaken—I was ready to talk then. When it came back the following day, I was ready to talk again, yet the government simply gagged debate at that point. They were not happy at all to have this discussion then and there. I know it something of an inconvenience for the ministers now to have to sit here and listen to some of the debate going on tonight.

Michael Keenan (Stirling, Liberal Party, Minister for Justice) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It certainly is.

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I take that interjection. The minister says it certainly is inconvenient to be taking part in a democratic debate about how we best strengthen and protect native title rights in Australia. That is the one thing this government has never got. I will tell you what, Minister, you might want to have a listen to this. Quotes have been used here time and again tonight about the Prime Minister going across to India, having his discussions with Adani and saying: 'You know what? If this native title issue's a bit of a problem, we can fix it.' We have news for everybody on the opposite side of the benches: this is not your gift to be giving out. Native title is not a gift you give and take back at will. That is not how it works. You have misunderstood it from day one. The member for Lingiari gave you a very instructive history lesson as to how this bill was arrived at, and set the record straight about the opposition that came from members now who sit on those government benches.

Tony Pasin (Barker, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Don't mention the member for Solomon; his contribution wasn't noteworthy.

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You failed to understand it then; you have failed to get it now. The idea that you think consultation is not a necessary part of the discussions around native title is just gobsmacking. You guys always want to truncate this process. You do not want me to talk now, you did not want us to have a Senate inquiry and you did not want to have the debate the first time around. You think that you can just have some kind of fly-in fly-out mode of consultation going on here. That is not good enough. You do a grave disservice to the Indigenous people of Australia, member for Barker, sitting here, chipping in. You are very chipper at the moment. You should stand up and stand with Labor every time we seek to strengthen and protect these rights. You need to take note of your history.

Tony Pasin (Barker, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We are in screaming agreement. Go back to your seat if you want a fight.

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Excuse me, members opposite! It was only in the previous sitting weeks that representatives of the plaintiffs of the Mabo decision stood on the floor of this parliament. They were here to celebrate the 25th anniversary of the historic Mabo decision, which gave this nation native title rights for the first time ever. But, as I mentioned earlier, this is not a gift for you guys to dole out as you see fit. It is a common law right of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.

I know it is sometimes difficult for you to understand this. You have been completely muddle-headed the entire time in conflating two completely different sets of rights and arguments—land rights versus mining rights. No wonder you have people in Australia confused when you muddle in Adani with this conversation. You led that conversation. Your Prime Minister actually set up this confusion, this conflation of two distinct arguments, from day one. You should be ashamed of yourselves for allowing that misinformation to continue in this country.

You should stand tonight and thank Labor for saving your butt, because you would have been completely embarrassed had this legislation gone through without these amendments. As usual, you could not help yourselves. You completely overreached. You went well beyond the scope of what was necessary in the bill in the first place. That has finally been reined in thanks to the work of our colleagues in the Senate, who led a very thorough process to knock this bill into shape so that the parliament could pass it and have some confidence in doing so. I commend the work of Labor for getting this right.

Tim Hammond (Perth, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do not pretend to have been in this place for a long time, but in my short time here there have been things that have made me very proud to be a member of the Labor Party, sitting on this side. There also have been things in the conduct of those opposite that have profoundly disturbed me, and what we see here is conduct that is nothing more than profoundly disturbing. Let me explain why. Let's explain the conduct we have seen in recent times. What we have seen here, quite frankly, is an exercise demonstrable of either muddle-headed cack-handedness or just not understanding the issues at hand.

Not only did the federal parliamentary Labor Party, which I am incredibly proud to be part of, usher in historic legislation in the Native Title Act back in 1993; what we have seen every step of the way is meaningful attempts to ensure that Indigenous people in this country do not have things done to them but, rather, we do things with them. We are standing now in the same place that our federal Labor leader Kim Beazley did back at the time of the Bringing them home report. He stood here and wept with empathy in relation to the need to make things right for Indigenous people. What have we seen in this parliamentary term, Mr Deputy Speaker? We have seen the irony of this Prime Minister standing here to deliver the Closing the gap report and having the temerity to utter those words: we must stop doing things to Aboriginal people and perhaps do things with them. I cannot help but think of the hypocrisy, in the context of the Closing the gap report, the 25th anniversary of the Mabo decision and the 50th anniversary of the 1967 referendum, and in response to an issue that everyone saw coming a million miles away—that is, the uncertainty created as a result of the McGlade decision—of the government rushing into this place a bill on which the ink was barely dry, with the expectation that we would just wave it through.

There was a very, very good reason why we did not wave it through—that is that this government just did not get the legislation right. Do not take our word for it. In the very brief—perhaps even 24 hours—period of time we had to study this bill before, through protest, it was passed to the other place, it took four attempts in the Senate in order to try and land upon some legislation able to be implemented which has simply sought to do what we have sought all along—that is, to create some stability and certainty in relation to ILUAs that are already in place. If we had taken the ignorant approach demonstrated by the government in this place, we would have done a complete disservice not only to the legislation but to all of those Indigenous people who, quite frankly, deserve much better than what they are getting here.

And the insensitivity to think that, just because some peak groups thought that the legislation as initially introduced into this place was okay, it comprised sufficient consultation! Well, it did not then and it does not now. It simply demonstrates what we have known all along: this government just does not get it. They do not get it because they are distracted, divided or worried about other things. They do not understand how important it is to do proper justice to our relationship with the Indigenous peoples of this land. We need to take a stand over here, because it is not appropriate to do things to Indigenous Australians; it is only appropriate to do things with them. (Time expired)

Cathy O'Toole (Herbert, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too may be new to this place, but I am not new to living with first-nation people. My electorate of Herbert takes in Palm Island, which is probably one of the largest discrete Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities in the country. Native title is not just legislation that we can play with at our whim. It is something that is deeply based on the rights of the first-nation people of this country. As has been said—and as I will reiterate—we do not do things to people; we do things with people. We do not walk in front of people; we walk beside people. Consultation can be a deep, genuine and curious conversation or it can be an opportunity to talk at people and tick a box. We must make sure that, at all stages in working with first-nation people, we are having genuine and engaged conversations to ensure that their rights are recognised and provided for.

My community has had four major celebrations in the last month. Firstly we celebrated the 1967 referendum through which our first-nation people came to be counted in the census. That was a momentous occasion for the people in my community. Then we had the 25-year celebration of the Mabo High Court decision. That is really meaningful and important for my community because that decision grew from the grounds at James Cook University in Townsville where Eddie Koiki Mabo was talking to two professors—Henry Reynolds and Noel Loos—about his land. Those two professors talked to him about the fact that it was not his land; it was owned by the Crown. He simply would not accept that. He did not accept that and he fought. It cost him his life in the end. Unfortunately, he died six months before the decision was handed down, but his daughter Gail, his wife, Bonita, and their families still live in our community. That High Court decision changed the face of this nation. There was great hope for Indigenous people, and from that we have native title legislation. But that was only the beginning, and maybe people did not get what they were rightly entitled to as time went on.

We then celebrated the Bringing them home 20 Years onreport. Far, far too many children from first-nations families are living in out-of-home care. It is simply not good enough. There is much more to do, and giving people a place in the world is so important to ensuring that their children are going to be cared for at home, that they have the opportunity to live in loving and fulfilling families, and that they have the right to an education, the right to a job and the right to own their own home.

Most recently, last week, we celebrated the 60th anniversary of the 1957 Palm Island strike. That strike came about through seven brave men who stood up and complained about the conditions in which they lived, the fact that they were not getting any wages and the fact that they were virtually slaves working on the island. What happened to those men? They were banished from Palm Island—banished, told to pack up and leave, to take their families and their children, and they were not allowed back. One of the sons came back after he was exempted from the act. What did that mean for those families? No wages means no inheritance. No wages means you have no opportunity to buy your own home. No wages means you have no superannuation. What does that do to families? On top of that, we want to treat native title legislation as if it is something we can simply play with at whim. That is not what we do.

That is why I am absolutely proud to stand here as a member of the Labor Party, because we believe that every citizen in our community deserves the right to a life of purpose, meaning, choice and citizenship, and that most definitely includes our first-nations people. If we are really to move on to a place of reconciliation with our first-nations people—and we must do that—we need to ensure that we pay due respect to native title legislation and do not play around with it as if it is a toy or a thing that we can manipulate to suit our own outcomes. That is not the purpose of native title. I say that the Indigenous people of this country teach us an enormous amount about hope and resilience.

Question agreed to.