Henry Pike (Bowman, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is currently a native title claim—the Quandamooka Coast claim—over much of the Redlands, which is the community that I have the honour of representing in the federal parliament. The claim covers approximately 530 square kilometres, including most of mainland Redland City and Macleay Island, Karragarra Island, Coochiemudlo Island and Lamb Island in Moreton Bay. The Redland City Council are seeking clarity from the Federal Court to determine if native title has been extinguished on council owned or managed land within the Quandamooka Coast native title claim area. Approximately 3½ thousand council owned or managed properties are included in the current native title claim. The claim is likely to see thousands of council properties, including parks, reserves and public spaces, handed over to Indigenous ownership. Much of this land is of high value to our local suburban communities but would be of little benefit in improving the economic circumstances or wellbeing of our Indigenous population.

The land in question includes some of our city's most iconic sites, including the Wellington Point Recreation Reserve, Cleveland Point Recreation Reserve and the Redland Performing Arts Centre. It also includes countless nature reserves, playgrounds and other community assets. Understandably, there is a growing level of community consternation about what a change of ownership of these land parcels would mean for how they are maintained, accessed and enjoyed by locals. Recent history on North Stradbroke Island in my electorate has raised serious concern from locals about land clearing and segregated access to land now under native title control. Our parks, reserves and public places should be available for our entire community to utilise, regardless of race. They should also be maintained in a professional and accountable way with the support of our rates. This question has to be asked: what possible utility or economic benefit can be gained from native title ownership over a neighbourhood playground? How can that ever be anything other than a financial and time burden upon the prescribed body corporate?

While the Queensland government has advised that native title has been extinguished on approximately a thousand of these properties, there remain some 2½ thousand council owned or managed sites where the Federal Court is to determine if native title has been extinguished or not. The fact that these questions are yet to be resolved continues to frustrate Redland City Council, the interests of ratepayers and the rights of the Quandamooka people.

The mounting costs for Redland City Council as a respondent to the Quandamooka Coast native title claim continues to place unreasonable pressure on planning and land use certainty and on the limited capacity of Redland City ratepayers and services. There are many sporting and community organisations who currently lease land off Redland City Council and who now have their tenure called into question due to this claim. They can't make the investment decisions required to grow their operations while their tenure is under such a cloud. These groups, as well as the Redland City Council and local residents, want a quick resolution to this issue. Consider, for instance, the Alex Hills Bombers, an Australian Rules club in my electorate. They've been working hard to develop a female program within their Australian Rules competitions, and we've been working hard on their behalf to try to secure an upgrade to the change rooms to enable female-players-approved amenity. I struggle to see how council can proceed with this project while the tenure of that land is unresolved. There is a real risk that the Redlands native title claim will drag out in the courts for decades, costing both sides millions and ultimately delivering poor outcomes for both our Indigenous and broader communities.

While the federal government provides financial support to native title claimants, Redland City Council receives no funding support from the federal government to defend the position of the broader community through the native title process. This creates a significant financial burden for Redland ratepayers.

Section 183 of the Native Title Act 1993 establishes the Native Title Respondents Funding Scheme specifically to provide grants of financial assistance to respondents in native title claims. In the years since, the sense of fairness and balance within the Native Title Act has fallen victim to partisan agendas, where the respondent funding scheme has waxed and waned at the whim of governments. The scheme was first expanded by the coalition in 1998 to remove a hardship test which previously applied to respondent applications and which was found to be prejudicial in many cases. The respondent funding scheme was again amended by the coalition government in 2005 to better promote agreement-making and to avoid the burden of overly litigious claims. These were applauded as positive reforms, in terms of fairness and sustainability.

Since then, unfortunately, the respondent funding scheme has become a political football, following a significant funding cut in 2013 during the term of the Gillard government, whilst respondent funding scheme funding was then promptly restored by the Abbott government and continued under successive coalition governments through to 2022. At a time when issues of trust and understanding in matters of Indigenous recognition weigh so heavily on Australians, it is regrettable that the incoming Albanese government chose, perversely, to abolish the Native Title Respondents Funding Scheme. The government has sought to justify this decision by claiming it was a budget repair measure. It's a difficult position to argue as, under the previous government, only $1.7 million of NTRFS funding was allocated for 2022-23. In contrast, Queensland South Native Title Services Limited was granted $25.8 million in the same financial year. Across all of Australia, native title claimant funding from the federal government was $212.6 million over this financial year and, across Queensland, this funding totalled $83.3 million.

Any informed person would argue that $1.7 million or even three or four times that amount is minuscule given the size of the federal budget and is completely dwarfed by the funding currently available to native title respondent bodies acting for claimants in such matters. In April I wrote to the Attorney-General on this front and have had no response. My repeated requests even for an acknowledgement of this correspondence have also gone completely unanswered. It is clearly not a priority for the government, but I have drawn the Attorney-General's attention to a letter he received in his first innings as Attorney-General. The then president of the Queensland Law Society wrote to him some 10 years ago to outline the society's objections to cuts to the NTRFS. In the letter dated 2013, the Queensland Law Society argued that cutting the NTRFS funding was completely at odds with the public interest. Certainly cutting it altogether, as this current government has done, of course continues to be completely at odds with the public interest.

Unfortunately, what we have here is an ideological objection to respondent funding from the Attorney-General. There is a clear sense within the Labor government that stacking the deck in favour of native title claimants is a compassionate and progressive thing to do. While I don't doubt the sincerity of their motives, I simply can't agree that seeking to contrive these outcomes is in the best interests of communities across our country or is even in the spirit of the act—an act, famously, created by the Labor government. The act doesn't say that every native title claim is legitimate. It doesn't say that respondents must roll over and provide claimants with everything they want. It outlines a process and a legal framework to assess native title claims—a process which will test and evaluate those claims and ensure that dispossession of the past is not repeated in the name of redressing historical wrongs. But this shouldn't be about ideology. It should be about fairness, and the government's role should be about ensuring that all stakeholders can meet their obligations under the federal act.

The sad reality, unfortunately, is that the successful native title claim on North Stradbroke Island has split the Indigenous community there in two. There is a growing chasm between those who wield power within the prescribed body corporate and those who are left on the outer. Many elders have confided in me that the successful claim has really left their community worse off, and I will be pushing for an outcome that leaves no community worse off on this claim and an outcome that doesn't lead to a protracted stand-off. A similar stand-off was resolved in Orange, New South Wales, through a historical agreement between the local Indigenous community and the state and local governments.

I'm going to be pushing for a collaborative approach in the Redlands between all levels of government that will deliver a similar win/win solution to what was achieved in Orange, New South Wales. Unfortunately, the approach from the Queensland state government to date has been to try to pressure Redland City Council to not contest the native title claim and to simply ignore the legitimate concerns of ratepayers. That won't lead to a fair and equitable outcome. I'll be standing up for my community and my city 100 per cent of the way.