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

In relation to the matter of transparency and accountability for funds raised by Senator Hanson, I can indicate that schedule 8 includes measures to improve the transparency, accountability and governance around native title corporation decision-making. But the particular focus in this bill is on membership, as Senator Hanson's identified. The amendments will do important things, though, that indirectly affect accountability for funds by removing the discretion of directors to refuse membership to a native title corporation where an applicant meets the eligibility requirements and has applied for membership in the required manner. They will require corporations to align the membership criteria with native title determination and also limit the grounds for cancelling membership to those provided for under the Corporations (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) Act—the C(ATSI) Act. As Senator Hanson knows, that's the one that deals primarily with financial accountability matters.

May I provide some answers to matters I took on notice yesterday. The first was in relation to a question asked by Senator Thorpe:

Minister, can you also inform me which mining companies asked the government to fix this problem for them?

I would like to address that question now so that it can be taken into account in dealing with the bill but also because the premise of the question isn't accurate. It assumes this bill came forward only because mining companies asked for it, and that is, in fact, false. In the wake of the 2017 McGlade decision, the Native Title Amendment (Indigenous Land Use Agreements) Bill 2017 was brought before the parliament. During the Senate inquiry for that bill, a number of stakeholders, including the National Native Title Council, raised concerns that McGlade may also have ramifications for section 31 agreements. Due to the urgent need to address the issues raised by McGlade that couldn't be properly considered at the time—and it deserved a proper consultation process that meaningfully involved everybody who has an interest in the sector, so a proper and extensive consultation process was undertaken.

The measures in schedule 9 of the bill to confirm the validity of these agreements are supported by a broad range of stakeholders in the native title sector. That includes the National Native Title Council, quite importantly, and its members, but it also includes peak mining groups such as the Minerals Council of Australia and the Association of Mining and Exploration Companies as well as state and territory governments. It is very important to note that this bill was not triggered by some request from mining companies; it was triggered by genuine concern raised in the Senate inquiry process from many stakeholders, including the National Native Title Council.

Finally, there was a question yesterday about who constituted the membership of the expert technical advisory group. I set out everyone that I understood was in the group, and I concluded by saying, 'As I understand it, industry wasn't a part of the expert technical advisory group.' I wasn't actually correct about that. If I can clarify: peak industry bodies were members of the expert technical advisory group, including the Minerals Council of Australia, the National Farmers Federation and the Pastoralists and Graziers Association of Western Australia. The states and territories have also been closely engaged in the development of the bill, and they participated in the expert technical advisory group process, along with, as I mentioned yesterday, the National Native Title Council so that the design has a balanced process.