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

The Greens oppose item 7 in schedule 1 in the following terms:

(5)    Schedule 1, item 7, page 4 (lines 25 to 30), TO BE OPPOSED.

The Greens have made clear that we have some very deep concerns about this bill, and we are seeking to move a series of amendments to fix some of the issues. This amendment opposes the imposition of periodic recognition, which is schedule 1, item 7. The Greens believe that limited term recognition periods are unnecessary and that there are already sufficient provisions available to the minister in the limited number of cases where there may be problems with the proper administration and effective functioning of particular representative bodies.

This provision is a very blunt instrument and will introduce substantial administration and transition costs without a clear rationale. We do not believe that it will produce any tangible benefits. Periodic recognition undermines the security, stability and administrative independence of representative bodies to no good cause. We are concerned that it will expose representative bodies to political pressures. It undermines their ability to plan for activities for the longer term. The minister already has the discretion to use the periodic funding provisions and to impose accountability measures as a condition of funding. The minister already has the discretion to withdraw recognition where an NTRB is not performing. We believe that limited recognition would give too much discretionary power to the executive.

I will note, as I did in my speech on the second reading, that the Minerals Council also has very strong concerns about the native title representative bodies being undermined and about the introduction of a further element of instability through these provisions. I believe that this particular provision will not help to achieve better functioning representative bodies. As I said, this will further undermine them. If we were really about improving the capacity of representative bodies, we would be looking at better funding and better capacity building for the representative bodies rather than introducing an extremely blunt instrument.

I have a series of questions. What is the intent of this particular provision to do with periodic recognition? How is it supposed to work better? Why won’t it create more bureaucracy? Why won’t it create instability and uncertainty? The industry opposes this provision and others. Why does the government think that is? What happens to ongoing native title claims and negotiations when the time runs out?