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

In whose opinion and in whose view is it about getting the job done? Is it native title holders? Or is it about helping to facilitate getting this done more quickly for mining interests? The fact is that the issue we are discussing at the moment is about representation and part of it is about effective consultation, and it was clearly the intent, because it is in the act, that rep bodies should be able to satisfactorily represent persons who hold or may hold native title in the area. That means, to me, that when this act was formulated we had enough foresight to know that to get the job done they had to be able to adequately represent persons who hold or may hold native title in the area. I also think that is why the act put in place that they needed to be able to consult effectively with Aboriginal people and Torres Strait Islanders living in the area, because that is also about getting the job done. To get an effective job done that delivers meaningful outcomes to native title holders you need to be able to satisfactorily represent those people who hold or may hold title and you need to be able to consult.

Those requirements are now being taken out. What is more, what is being added is that you can have non-Indigenous people as representatives. I think those two things conflict. I do not think that these changes will deliver getting the job done to native title holders. We already know that the act is not delivering to native title holders, and in my speech in the second reading debate I articulated some of the research that has been done around those issues. The recent research shows that it is not delivering to native title holders. I do not believe that these amendments removing those requirements and adding non-Indigenous representation will effectively deliver outcomes to native title holders.