Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

I thank the minister for his response, but, quite frankly, assuring me about current practice is not the same as this parliament determining on a new act. We have the capacity today to determine what the law ought to be, so the question of current practice, quite frankly, carries no weight with me. Our job today is to establish a new law, so it seems to me the practice argument does not wash.

The second argument you address is the question of admin law. There is some strength to that proposition, but there is a whole range of acts passed by this parliament, carried by this government, which have sought to stipulate those sorts of provisions. There are a range of provisions provided in this act which seek to regulate this area that you could also argue are supported by common law and that would not necessarily require a specific provision. And if you can have 600 pages of legislation—600 pages of regulation, requirements et cetera—I think a request to add one little bit that makes it clear that the registrar is required to stipulate on what grounds they intervene in an Indigenous corporation is not asking too much. It is not a big ask. It is a protection for the organisation that is warranted; it is a key part of procedural fairness.

As I said, there is some strength to your argument about current administrative law or common law providing support for that sort of process. But I would argue there is a fair bit in this that you could argue the same thing for but the government has sought to cover off on; the government has thought it worth stipulating. We think this is worth stipulating. We urge the government to give serious consideration to that. I do not find the government’s response convincing, and I think Indigenous organisations would prefer the assurance that that sort of procedural fairness is stipulated in the act.

In fact, there is a gap on page 573, so if we add that clause we will not even add a page; we will still only have 573 pages. Thankfully, we got the legislation on 572 pages, plus one little paragraph. So if we add this amendment we do not chop down any more trees, we do not add any great complexity to this new simplified version of the organisation, but we do tell Aboriginal people that they will get procedural fairness, that we will not be coming in and overturning democratic control over their organisations without ensuring procedural fairness. So why don’t you have a crack at providing some reassurance other than the reassurance you provided in the committee stage by way of contribution, which of course may not be as widely read and heard as we would hope. I urge the government to think about making one small concession to being clear that Indigenous corporations and Indigenous people are treated with that sort of procedural fairness, which the minister assures me will apply but will not be explicit.