Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I think Senator Crossin sums it up pretty well when she says that the number of submissions are reflective, not so much of the significance of the Native Title Amendment Bill 2009because it is significant to speed up the process of dealing with native title claims; that is very important—but of the further reforms being planned by the government. So I think that on issues such as the burden of proof the process that has been instigated by the Attorney-General is appropriate.

This bill, by enabling the Federal Court to determine whether the National Native Title Tribunal or any other body should mediate native title claims, is an important step forward in the process. It gives the Federal Court a central role in managing native title claims. It specifies the manner in which mediations are conducted, changes the power of the courts in relation to agreed statements of fact and consent orders, enables native title proceedings to rely on new evidence rules and allows for transitional and technical amendments.

The motivation of the bill is a good one, because it deals with a backlog of native title claims and allows the Federal Court to more efficiently decide to delegate or set up mediation to resolve these claims. Of course, I welcome any move to more expeditiously and fairly handle native title claims and note the broad support—both political and in the community—for these changes.

I believe that the connection between Indigenous Australians and the land is fundamental. Noel Pearson, in an essay in 2007 for the Griffith Review headed ‘White guilt, victimhood and the quest for a radical centre’, made the point:

Our rights to our traditional lands, to our languages and our cultures, our identities and traditions are a constant part of our work for a better future for our people.

And it is that connection to the land that is integral in advancing the betterment of Indigenous communities around Australia. So I believe that anything that can be done responsibly to speed up the native title process can only help the advancement of Indigenous Australians. That is why I support this bill.

I do have some questions I would like to put on notice, and I have briefly discussed this with the government. It is clear that the role of mediation will be expanded under the regime in this bill. My question to the government is: what further funding will there be for what I expect will be an increase in mediation? What sorts of outcomes are expected from that, in the sense of how many more cases will go to mediation and what the impact will be on the backlog of claims? In other words, there is no question that the government’s intent to more expeditiously resolve claims is laudable. What performance indicators will there be—in the sense of the yardsticks to determine how quickly claims are being resolved and the likely legal costs? There is a real concern about the very significant legal costs of these claims, let alone the time involved. What does the government expect will be the impact of the bill in reducing the time and the costs involved?

There have been some critics, and I refer to a paper by A Chalk, ‘Redefining the Role of the Federal Court in Settling Native Title Matters’, presented to the third annual Negotiating Native Title Forum in Melbourne on 19 and 20 February this year. In that paper he said:

... the current system for resolving matters has not been successful. It has certainly failed the taxpayer. But more importantly it has failed Indigenous people. It has allowed a once in a century opportunity to redress one of the fundamental scars of our country to slip away. In this regard, we all suffer from the failure.

My question is: to what extent will these changes make a difference in terms of both the costs and the time frames involved in resolving claims; and will there be a benchmark or a mechanism to report back within 12 months or 18 months so that we know how successful these reforms have been in terms of process and whether there should be others, so that if there is a need for further change that can be put on the agenda? So, with those few words I indicate my support for this legislation. I certainly hope that it has the desired outcomes in terms of more expeditiously resolving claims, which I think we all agree is a good thing.