Andrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Democrats) Share this | Hansard source

Senator Ludwig has outlined most of the detail of the Native Title Amendment (Technical Amendments) Bill 2007, so I will not repeat all of that. I would note that the government have circulated a number of amendments which respond to much of the report into the legislation by the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, and I welcome that. These days I am regularly critical of the lack of interest by the government on many occasions in the Senate committee process, the ridiculously truncated time frames that they apply and their lack of interest in the findings of the committee at the end of the process. So, in the interests of balance, I have equally to make note of it when they do listen and pay attention to the committee’s findings.

This is the second native title amendment legislation that has been before the Senate this year. To some extent that is a symptom of the fact that the native title regime has significant imperfections. I recognise and acknowledge that the amendments that have been introduced this year are intended to address these imperfections, and some of them do go some way to doing that, but I also suggest that a lot of them revisit some of the flaws in the original native title arrangements, particularly those that were put in place under the so-called 10-point plan and heavily modified but nonetheless passed by the Senate, not with my support but obviously with majority support, quite some years ago—in 1998 if my memory serves me correctly.

Linked into that are some of the institutional shortcomings with the native title arrangements. Senator Ludwig has alluded to some of those as well. Some of the other shortcomings are those that you can never fix with law; they are the ones to do with attitudinal shortcomings, particularly at the level of state and federal governments as well as some other key stakeholders. There has been too much foot dragging, there has been too much resistance and there has been too much apprehension and fear about what native title is. Indeed, there has been grotesque misinformation in some cases. I am pleased to say there is less of that than in years gone by.

Again in the interest of balance, I note that despite its shortcomings—and they are significant—native title is delivering results. I spoke in the Senate earlier today in the matter of public interest debate about the Productivity Commission’s latest report on the state of play with Indigenous equality in Australia. There were a range of indicators in a report they have released—their third report looking at indicators for Indigenous people with regard to health, education and other things—and one of the measures that has progressed is an increase in the areas that have had native title determinations or Indigenous land use agreements put over them. Not all of those land use agreements are perfect or ideal by any means, but many of them have delivered positive results for Indigenous people. Some of those that have not certainly still have the potential within them to do so, and the work still has to be done so there is potential there.

In that same speech today, I spoke about an agreement that has just been reached with the Queensland state government and traditional landowner groups on Cape York, putting in place a framework that should enable the prospects of further land use agreements and joint management over areas where native title has been recognised that have national parks put over them. Many of those things would not have been put in place or would have been harder to put in place if there was not that underpinning recognition of native title. Of course it should be noted that Far North Queensland—the Torres Strait Islands specifically, and with the Wik case on Cape York—is in one respect the birthplace of native title, in the legal sense at least. So it is delivering some results, slowly, torturously and with a lot of anguish in some cases. I do not dispute those flaws, but it is important to emphasise the positives that are being delivered in some areas. Inasmuch as these changes here today will go to further enhance those, then they should be welcomed.

I made some further comments in my contribution to the Senate committee report. I have no additional comments there, so I will not repeat those; I refer the Senate to those. As I said, the government has made some amendments that go some of the way to some of those and I have other amendments here that I can address when we get to the committee stage of the debate. It is an area that is important; it has moved out of the public and media spotlight and perhaps in some ways that is a good thing. It takes some of the heat out of it most of the time. We can focus on making it work better for everybody. But let us not forget that the primary aim of native title, certainly in the Democrats’ view, is to provide some mechanism for some limiting or halting of the damage done through dispossession of Indigenous peoples. That can never be fully reversed, of course, but it is a mechanism for halting further dispossession and, where feasible, for enabling the remaining title to be used for the benefit of Indigenous Australians.

To that end, I again implore governments, both state and federal, to do more in this area to facilitate the positive opportunities that native title represents for all Australians, not just for Indigenous people. We do still have examples, like the appeal that was launched by both state and federal governments against the Noongar land claim in Western Australia. I think the appeal against that was unfortunate. We have other circumstances in the Northern Territory. I have spoken a number of times in this place about delays in native title claims in south-east Queensland. It is not just a matter for those who are in northern areas or the remote parts of Queensland; there are claims in and around metropolitan areas, including in and around Brisbane and the Gold Coast. We have had the claim of the Githabul recognised in northern New South Wales, which is very positive. Their claim stretches over into southern Queensland—across the Mount Lindsay and Beaudesert areas—and it seems incongruous and unfortunate that it has been concluded on the New South Wales side of the border with some positive arrangements but there is still no recognition on the Queensland side. It is also important to once again repeat the call for further and more effective resourcing of Indigenous bodies; not just the native title representative bodies, but also the PBCs and others who wish to engage in the native title process. Streamlining and promptness are important—particularly when you are dealing with establishing connection to country, some knowledge of which resides in elderly people—but it should not be at the expense of a just outcome. We need to always guard against that.

I will speak further on my amendments in the committee stage of the debate. I think that at least some of the amendments that are made to this legislation, technical though they may be, should improve the operation of the native title regime for most stakeholders. While it is important to have it operate effectively for everybody, having it operate effectively and fairly for Indigenous people has to be a primary goal. On balance, these changes do that, but, again, to some extent it comes down not just to what is in the act itself but also to the attitudes of those who engage with it and the resources and capacities available, particularly to Indigenous people, to engage with it.