Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

I was a member of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Native Title and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land Account and am pleased to see that the government has finally responded to its Report on the operation of native title representative bodies. I have not been here as long as Senator Bartlett, so this is actually, in my limited experience, a fairly rapid response to a Senate committee report.

I am pleased to see that the government has accepted a number of the recommendations, including key performance indicators, addressing the overlap between native titles and the level of funding for training and support. I am deeply concerned that, as Senator Bartlett has alluded to, the government seems to be implying that, if you supply funding for training and support, that will deal with the issues relating to native title rep bodies. I am concerned that they are shirking the need to increase funding to rep bodies. I am further concerned that the changes of legislation that they will shortly bring before this place will further undermine native title rep bodies. I will go into some of those details shortly.

The focus on staff professional development was also supported, as were the issues around standard staff recruitment criteria. They also said that they supported the recommendation to provide further details on transitionary arrangements. However, the changes that they are seeking to make to the Native Title Act will undermine native title rep bodies. They will give the minister much more prerogative about re-recognition of native title rep bodies. It does not actually set a time frame for the secondary notification when they are reregistering again. It does not set a time frame for when the minister has to make his or her decision. And I think that will significantly destabilise rep bodies.

The report also says that the government agrees to and accepts the recommendations regarding examining the issue of resourcing for core responsibility for prescribed bodies corporate. This was a very important recommendation because, time and time again during the hearings, it came up that prescribed bodies corporate were totally underfunded for the work that they were expected to do. While the government has acknowledged this issue and has undertaken to look into it, that is not the same as giving an undertaking that it is going to actually adequately fund PBCs. I understand that it has said that it is still considering this point. But I believe that the government really needs to act on this immediately and fund these bodies, because they are struggling to meet their workloads.

When you look at the recommendations that the government have partially accepted, they have partially accepted recommendations on the level of funding provided to rep bodies for capacity development and making pooled funding available for emergency and unforeseen circumstances. They have also said that they will look at monitoring salary differentials. I think the government need to go further in their commitment to these recommendations.

I am particularly concerned, however, about two of the recommendations. The government has rejected the call for the establishment of an independent advisory panel on the re-recognition of NTRBs and reviewing the level of operational funding provided to NTRBs.

I am also concerned about the tenor of the government’s response to the recommendation around an independent advisory panel. They say, basically, in their response, that they can rely on the Office of Indigenous Policy Coordination. But, if some of the advice and some of the decisions that have been coming out of the OIPC lately—such as the new whole-of-government response to providing services to Aboriginal communities—are anything to go by, I am very deeply concerned that the minister thinks he just needs to rely on the OIPC to provide advice on re-recognition of bodies.

This goes to the comments that I made previously about the minister having much more executive decision making control now over native title rep bodies and, after the second stage of re-recognition, does not have to inform the bodies; there is no time line on when he or she informs the bodies of their re-recognition. This can and will make it extremely difficult for native title rep bodies to do long-term planning. I am deeply concerned at the approach the government is taking on this one.

I am also very concerned about the fact that the government are not committing to operational funding for native title rep bodies. During the hearings, the issue of funding came up again and again, and it came up again during the recent inquiry into the Native Title Act. I am particularly concerned about this because the changes the government are proposing will further undermine native title rep bodies, give greater coercive powers to the Native Title Tribunal and allow non-Aboriginal corporations to take on responsibility for representing and consulting with native title holders.

In particular, the changes are going to undermine native title rep bodies by making their continued existence much more uncertain, through the periodic recognition process. When the new process comes into being, the minister can decide whether to give a rep body one, two or three years recognition. If they only give a group 12 months recognition, it is going to be very difficult for the group to accomplish anything in that 12 months or to plan into the long term. These changes are heaping a lot more administrative load onto the shoulders of NTRBs, without addressing the already pressing issue of underfunding. As I said earlier, the changes are giving a lot more executive discretion to the minister to deregister NTRBs, to change the areas that they represent, to change their boundaries and to affect their financial decision making. By changing the criteria for assessing the performance of NTRBs, I believe these changes are also further undermining NTRBs.

The proposed changes to the Native Title Act in a number of ways contradict the claims that the government are making in their response. I have not had time to go through in any great detail the response from the government to the report. Where I have studied it in more detail, so far it seems to me to indicate that what the government are saying they are agreeing to and accepting is a bit different to the reality. I have some concerns that, even when the government have said, ‘Yes, we’ll accept this recommendation,’ if you get down to the fine detail and then cross-reference that to their proposal under the Native Title Act, in fact they are not being as supportive of the recommendations as one is led to believe.

The government’s commitment to native title must be severely questioned with the approach that they are taking to the changes to the Native Title Act. There were many submissions to the inquiry that highlighted people’s very strong concerns with the changes, in particular the transferring of the negotiation responsibility to the Native Title Tribunal. The tribunal operates more effectively in some states than in others, but nearly all the submissions indicated they had a great deal of concern with the transferring of that negotiation responsibility solely to the tribunal. I think that further undermines native title rep bodies’ ability to do their job, to negotiate and to come to a successful outcome. There was a study released yesterday or the day before yesterday in Queensland that showed that, where mining companies are involved, the outcomes through the tribunal are overwhelmingly in favour of mining companies as opposed to native title rep bodies. I hope that is not a sign of things to come in the future because I think that will further undermine native title in Australia. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.