Amanda Stoker (Queensland, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister to the Attorney-General) Share this | Hansard source

Thank you very much for the question. Extensive consultation has been undertaken on the development of this bill, with a focus on traditional owners, including native title representation bodies, registered native title bodies and other Indigenous stakeholders. The principles of free, prior and informed consent have been implemented in this bill by engaging in good faith consultation with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in relation to the decisions that affect them, consistent with the principles of international law under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

The Native Title Act contains safeguards and rights to ensure that native title claimants and holders are notified, consulted and, in certain circumstances, have the opportunity to negotiate or enter into agreements before activities can occur on native title land. The primary source of these processes is the future acts regime in the act. That sets out requirements that must be met before development and other activities on native title land can be validly done. In most instances, the activities will trigger notification rights, but more substantive procedure rights are available in circumstances such as mining and exploration—for instance, tenure upgrades and compulsory acquisition. In the case of mining and exploration, which I'm going to assume for the moment is something you might be interested in, the relevant native title holders or claimants have the right to negotiate with the proponent, including negotiating for compensation for the impairment of native title rights. Agreements concluded in this way are, as you know, referred to as section 31 agreements.

Alternatively, the native title act allows traditional owners to enter into an ILUA, which are flexible agreements that can provide native title groups with a range of economic, social and cultural benefits that they negotiate. There are a range of measures seeking to improve outcomes for traditional owners, including improving the autonomy and control that native titled holders have to make decisions around the use of their land. An example I can give you, for instance, is the measures which allow claim groups to impose conditions on the authority of their authorised representative. The measures which enable parties to disregard historical extinguishment of native title claims over certain areas like national parks are another example. The ability to impose a condition on the authority of an authorised representative is, of course, particularly important, because it allows the native title group to make rules according to their own custom about whether or not unanimous or majority or some other kind of decision-making threshold must be reached before a matter can go forward.