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

Your question goes to retrospectivity, but before I go to that, if it's okay, I'll just clarify a matter I took on notice a moment ago. The National Native Title Council does support, based on the advice I've been given, the bill. I hope that's of use to you.

As to the question of retrospectivity, the only measure in the bill that applies retrospectively is the validation of section 31 agreements, and that goes to the matter raised in the decision of McGlade v Native Title Registrar and others, of which, Senator Thorpe, I know you are familiar. For those listening at home, under that measure, section 31 agreements that were entered into prior to the commencement of schedule 9 will be validated provided that at least one member of each relevant native title party is a party to the agreement. Schedule 9 commences on the day after the act receives royal assent. This means that the validation of section 31 agreements extends to the day after royal assent, if that makes sense. This time frame was agreed with stakeholders during the consultation process on the basis that the effect of the McGlade decision on section 31 agreements hadn't yet been tested, so its impact and its effect was uncertain. All parties who were part of that stakeholder consultation process acknowledged that the uncertainty was not a desirable quality to continue.

If you have further questions about retrospectivity, I can come back to that. Importantly, the amendments which allow the applicant to act by majority do not apply retrospectively. The bill clearly provides that the ability for the applicant to act by majority applies only after the provisions commence—that's at item 55(2) in schedule 1 of the bill, if that reference helps—being six months after other provisions in the bill commence, and that's on a date to be fixed by proclamation.