Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

The opposition supports the Democrat amendment. Much of this has been covered, I know, in the sense that we have run it up to the government, and the government has ignored it as usual and maintained its position. The Democrat amendments do try to ameliorate some of the problems that beset this bill. The ultimate test of this bill will be whether it does endure and this amendment does do what the government claims it will do. On that score, it will be helpful if, in a while, the government can come back with the figures to say how this is such an improvement on the past, demonstrating that it has provided support and assistance to the bodies in their tasks and showing that the claims get processed, not just in the sense of numbers but in the sense of proper and enduring outcomes. That will be the ultimate test of the words here and what we are arguing here. The ultimate test is for the government to demonstrate that in the ensuing period.

Labor does not think that these changes will provide that. It does not think that there will be sufficient outcomes. When you look at the range of submitters to the Senate committee inquiry who were not convinced and when you look at the changes themselves, the various amendments, and hold them up to the light, they do not, on face value, look like they will provide a better outcome. There is still a range of serious problems with the bill. It is recognised that, in picking up some of the recommendations, there will be a slight improvement. But it seems to be that, even with that, you do have serious problems that face the bill and face the native title process today, particularly the length of time taken for the resolution of claims and the view that the system is clogged, bureaucratic and tied up with red tape. I have already mentioned those things, in my speech in the second reading debate. I reiterate that Labor does not believe that these changes—I will not call them reforms—will reduce red tape and does not believe that they will save taxpayers money.