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

I want to make another attempt at understanding the government's logic with respect to the issue of extinguishment. During the Senate inquiry, we received a number of submissions that raised concerns about ILUAs that were agreed by the majority, not all the named applicants, as per the McGlade decision. Instead of this blanket approach to agreeing to all of the registered ILUAs, a number proposed that there should be a process to review them to make sure people are happy with those agreements. To my mind, this is germane to the discussion we are having, because they are proposing an alternative approach. I know for a fact that in the South West WA the extinguishment of native title is one of the issues for the people who are opposing the ILUAs in the South West. They are concerned that they have to give up extinguishment over, admittedly, rather smaller areas of land, but that is one of their key concerns. To my mind, if not to yours, this is an important issue, because these may be the agreements that people would particularly like to have a look at. The fact that they are included here means it was not a consensus decision to extinguish native title. Some people see that as a threshold—I am not saying everybody, but some people do. That is why I do not understand, when you actually have pulled out the information, you cannot give us a list. We know there is one in Queensland, which has to do with transport corridor, as I understand it, but what are the others? That is why it is important. This goes to the heart of what many people are concerned about.