Andrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

I want to speak on the government’s response to the report of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Native Title and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land Account, Report on the operation of native title representative bodies. The report was tabled in March 2006, so the government has taken 12 months to come back to the Senate on this. I might note in passing that the government has also tabled its response to the report of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories, Antarctica: Australia’s pristine frontier: The adequacy of funding for Australia’s Antarctic program. That report was tabled in June 2005, so it has taken nearly two years for the government’s response to that one. I suppose we should be grateful that the response to the Report on the operation of native representative bodies has taken only 12 months. While it has 19 recommendations—and I suppose it does take a little longer to determine responses to that many recommendations—I believe it is still appropriate for the government to be aiming for the three-month benchmark for providing responses. Another reason for that is that in the intervening period there have been ongoing consultations regarding further changes to the Native Title Act, some of which go to the heart of the role of native title representative bodies. I believe it would have been quite feasible and appropriate for the government to respond to the committee’s recommendations much earlier. If they had been clearly detailed and specified, they could have been available for the government’s consultations leading up to the preparation of the legislation before the chamber regarding changes to the Native Title Act that were reported by the Senate committee this week—as well as a few that are still in the pipeline.

The government responses to the recommendations on the whole are positive. A few were not accepted but a large number of them were and that is welcomed. Some that were accepted in part go to the issue of the level of funding provided to native title representative bodies, and I want to re-emphasise the importance of that. The government understandably and appropriately have said that the issue is about capacity building as much as it is about funding. That is true up to a point, but I do not think you can completely disconnect one from the other. The government have stated that there is significant capacity building activity being undertaken within current funding levels; therefore, there is no requirement for an immediate funding review and that on completion the current projects will be evaluated, and at that stage the Office of Indigenous Policy Coordination will review the adequacy of funding.

I think there was sufficient evidence given at the very recent Senate committee inquiry into the proposed legislation amending the Native Title Act to reinforce the concerns that were expressed by the joint committee 12 months ago. I urge the government to take a step further forward than it has in some of those areas. I also note the recommendation from the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee that was tabled earlier this week recommending that the federal government finalise and implement the proposed funding arrangements for prescribed bodies corporate as a high priority. There was no doubt that the evidence presented to the committee emphasised the importance of this.

The changes that are going to be made to the Native Title Act—speaking on the assumption that they will be passed by the Senate in one shape or form—will continue to put a very high level of responsibility on the native title representative bodies that perform an important role and, by and large, perform it quite well. There is enormous diversity in some of the native title claims that are being put forward and it is an incredibly difficult task for representative bodies to be able to assist in those native title claims. It is crucially important that those representative bodies perform that role effectively not only for the traditional owners and Indigenous Australians but also for all of us.

This week we saw the positive news of the New South Wales Labor government reaching a very important agreement with the Githabul people in far north New South Wales. It recognised the Githabul people’s continuing connection to the lands there and their native title rights, and provided the potential for some very significant opportunities for the Githabul people. Unfortunately, on the other side of the border, where I live, the Queensland Labor government are a long way behind in finalising and recognising the claim from those same Githabul people. State borders have no relevance when it comes to the traditional lands of Indigenous Australians. We have major and very positive progress on the New South Wales side of the border yet very limited progress on the Queensland side of the border. Frankly, the reasons given by the Queensland government as to their lack of progress on the matter do not stack up. When it comes to native title claims in Queensland, particularly in the south-east corner, the government has an unfortunate record of not facilitating or encouraging their successful conclusion. It may be a different matter in other parts of the state, but when it comes to the built-up areas, particularly in the south-east corner, that willingness is not there.

I take the opportunity with this response to urge all levels of government, particularly in my state of Queensland and with the historic Noongar claim in Western Australia, to get over this notion that native title is an inconvenience, a concession, a battle or a negative for white Australia, governments or landholders. I believe native title has as much to offer non-Indigenous Australians as it has for Indigenous Australians. Indeed, given the potential that was evident at the time of the Mabo and Wik court rulings, the opportunities for Indigenous Australians have sadly fallen far short of what could have been achieved if greater political courage and more political will had been shown.

There is still potential there for real positives for Indigenous Australians, as the Githabul claim has shown. But I believe that the positives and the potential for non-Indigenous Australians are not emphasised enough. Speaking for south-east Queensland, where I have lived my entire life: for the councils and the people in the non-Indigenous communities of south-east Queensland to know and to be able to see and recognise that the Indigenous peoples of that region still have continuing connection to the land, even amongst the massive urban development that has occurred there, would be a real positive and would really open up further opportunities and potential for that region.

I really do not understand why there is such reluctance on the part of governments to progress these claims. It is not just the Githabul claim over Mount Lindsay, the Beaudesert Shire area and the Border Ranges. There are other claims on the Gold Coast. There are very important claims for North Stradbroke Island and some of the islands in Moreton Bay. There is real potential there and it should be finalised.

To go back to the government response, that means better support for native title rep bodies, as well as more political will from state governments and also more assistance with staff training. Whilst the government, in its wording of the response, has accepted the recommendations regarding recruitment strategies to address the professional staffing needs of rep bodies, I still would like to see that being delivered on the ground in a way that is meaningful, particularly for Indigenous people themselves.

A lot of the money is going to anthropologists and lawyers who are non-Indigenous. And whilst there are Indigenous people employed in some of these rep bodies, a lot of them are not in the highly paid and highly skilled areas and there needs to be a lot more done about that. I do not really see that as reflected adequately yet in the response that has occurred to date.

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

I was a member of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Native Title and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land Account and am pleased to see that the government has finally responded to its Report on the operation of native title representative bodies. I have not been here as long as Senator Bartlett, so this is actually, in my limited experience, a fairly rapid response to a Senate committee report.

I am pleased to see that the government has accepted a number of the recommendations, including key performance indicators, addressing the overlap between native titles and the level of funding for training and support. I am deeply concerned that, as Senator Bartlett has alluded to, the government seems to be implying that, if you supply funding for training and support, that will deal with the issues relating to native title rep bodies. I am concerned that they are shirking the need to increase funding to rep bodies. I am further concerned that the changes of legislation that they will shortly bring before this place will further undermine native title rep bodies. I will go into some of those details shortly.

The focus on staff professional development was also supported, as were the issues around standard staff recruitment criteria. They also said that they supported the recommendation to provide further details on transitionary arrangements. However, the changes that they are seeking to make to the Native Title Act will undermine native title rep bodies. They will give the minister much more prerogative about re-recognition of native title rep bodies. It does not actually set a time frame for the secondary notification when they are reregistering again. It does not set a time frame for when the minister has to make his or her decision. And I think that will significantly destabilise rep bodies.

The report also says that the government agrees to and accepts the recommendations regarding examining the issue of resourcing for core responsibility for prescribed bodies corporate. This was a very important recommendation because, time and time again during the hearings, it came up that prescribed bodies corporate were totally underfunded for the work that they were expected to do. While the government has acknowledged this issue and has undertaken to look into it, that is not the same as giving an undertaking that it is going to actually adequately fund PBCs. I understand that it has said that it is still considering this point. But I believe that the government really needs to act on this immediately and fund these bodies, because they are struggling to meet their workloads.

When you look at the recommendations that the government have partially accepted, they have partially accepted recommendations on the level of funding provided to rep bodies for capacity development and making pooled funding available for emergency and unforeseen circumstances. They have also said that they will look at monitoring salary differentials. I think the government need to go further in their commitment to these recommendations.

I am particularly concerned, however, about two of the recommendations. The government has rejected the call for the establishment of an independent advisory panel on the re-recognition of NTRBs and reviewing the level of operational funding provided to NTRBs.

I am also concerned about the tenor of the government’s response to the recommendation around an independent advisory panel. They say, basically, in their response, that they can rely on the Office of Indigenous Policy Coordination. But, if some of the advice and some of the decisions that have been coming out of the OIPC lately—such as the new whole-of-government response to providing services to Aboriginal communities—are anything to go by, I am very deeply concerned that the minister thinks he just needs to rely on the OIPC to provide advice on re-recognition of bodies.

This goes to the comments that I made previously about the minister having much more executive decision making control now over native title rep bodies and, after the second stage of re-recognition, does not have to inform the bodies; there is no time line on when he or she informs the bodies of their re-recognition. This can and will make it extremely difficult for native title rep bodies to do long-term planning. I am deeply concerned at the approach the government is taking on this one.

I am also very concerned about the fact that the government are not committing to operational funding for native title rep bodies. During the hearings, the issue of funding came up again and again, and it came up again during the recent inquiry into the Native Title Act. I am particularly concerned about this because the changes the government are proposing will further undermine native title rep bodies, give greater coercive powers to the Native Title Tribunal and allow non-Aboriginal corporations to take on responsibility for representing and consulting with native title holders.

In particular, the changes are going to undermine native title rep bodies by making their continued existence much more uncertain, through the periodic recognition process. When the new process comes into being, the minister can decide whether to give a rep body one, two or three years recognition. If they only give a group 12 months recognition, it is going to be very difficult for the group to accomplish anything in that 12 months or to plan into the long term. These changes are heaping a lot more administrative load onto the shoulders of NTRBs, without addressing the already pressing issue of underfunding. As I said earlier, the changes are giving a lot more executive discretion to the minister to deregister NTRBs, to change the areas that they represent, to change their boundaries and to affect their financial decision making. By changing the criteria for assessing the performance of NTRBs, I believe these changes are also further undermining NTRBs.

The proposed changes to the Native Title Act in a number of ways contradict the claims that the government are making in their response. I have not had time to go through in any great detail the response from the government to the report. Where I have studied it in more detail, so far it seems to me to indicate that what the government are saying they are agreeing to and accepting is a bit different to the reality. I have some concerns that, even when the government have said, ‘Yes, we’ll accept this recommendation,’ if you get down to the fine detail and then cross-reference that to their proposal under the Native Title Act, in fact they are not being as supportive of the recommendations as one is led to believe.

The government’s commitment to native title must be severely questioned with the approach that they are taking to the changes to the Native Title Act. There were many submissions to the inquiry that highlighted people’s very strong concerns with the changes, in particular the transferring of the negotiation responsibility to the Native Title Tribunal. The tribunal operates more effectively in some states than in others, but nearly all the submissions indicated they had a great deal of concern with the transferring of that negotiation responsibility solely to the tribunal. I think that further undermines native title rep bodies’ ability to do their job, to negotiate and to come to a successful outcome. There was a study released yesterday or the day before yesterday in Queensland that showed that, where mining companies are involved, the outcomes through the tribunal are overwhelmingly in favour of mining companies as opposed to native title rep bodies. I hope that is not a sign of things to come in the future because I think that will further undermine native title in Australia. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.