Sue Lines (WA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The committee is considering the Native Title Legislation Amendment Bill 2020. The question is that the bill stand as printed.

Lidia Thorpe (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have a few more follow-up questions for the minister. Minister, the National Native Title Council noted in their submission to the committee inquiry into this bill that they do not—I repeat, do not—support Commonwealth intervention in native title proceedings as set out in schedule 5, because the bill seeks to clarify the role of the Commonwealth minister in native title proceedings. Under this bill, would the Commonwealth be a party to any agreement if it has intervened?

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

The clarification that's made in the bill for the Commonwealth minister to have a role in agreeing to consent determinations is necessary because there's currently an inconsistency about whether or not the Commonwealth minister is or isn't a relevant party to consent determinations over the whole of an area or part of an area, and their consent is required to determinations under both circumstances. So there is currently an inconsistency relating to the role of the Commonwealth minister as intervener in the provisions giving the Federal Court the power to make the orders in relation to the whole of the claimed area, compared to orders in relation to part of a claimed area. This is appropriate, as the Commonwealth minister will only intervene—I think this is getting to the crux of your question—in a native title proceeding where there is a significant matter of law to be determined and there is a need for the Commonwealth, as administrators of the Native Title Act, to assist the court. It's not anticipated that the Commonwealth will be participating as a matter of course, but, where there is a novel question of law that needs to be resolved so that all people who are participants in the system have clarity about how it operates, then that avenue is available.

Lidia Thorpe (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, can you outline how and why the Commonwealth might oppose an agreement even when all the other parties are in agreement?

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

It's the position of the Commonwealth to support decisions by parties to resolve matters by consent. So, that's not anticipated.

Lidia Thorpe (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, can you outline to me, in detail, how this bill will support the clans and nations that are excluded because they are in a minority on decision-making processes?

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

The answer really was given yesterday. The decision about how to go about decision-making processes and whether or not there's going to be the acceptance by a native title group of a particular decision is in their hands. If a particular group wants to make it so that more than majority is required—whether that's special majority or whether that's unanimity—that's a decision for the people who are affected by the decision; that's not a matter for the Commonwealth.

Pauline Hanson (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The bill we have been asked to consider today may appear at first to be relatively simple. Altering decision-making from requiring a unanimous vote to requiring a majority vote does make sense and is in line with the accepted practice in most modern democracies. But my problem with this bill isn't so much what it contains as what it doesn't contain. We were asked by Senator Thorpe and the Greens to tick off on proposed amendments which she well knows contain no mention of accountability of full funds, outcome evaluations of the expended moneys, the effectiveness of the management of funds, and every other audit or performance related process that normally applies to the use of taxpayer funds.

It's almost as if Senator Thorpe is saying to the Australian people that Indigenous communities and authorities should be held to a lower standard than the rest of Australia in their use of taxpayer funds. It's almost as if the senator doesn't understand that an open and transparent review of the use of funds is a prime driver towards improving performance and processes going forward in future projects and grants. Perhaps Senator Thorpe doesn't understand that empowering performance and holding people to a higher standard in any area is a highly empowering process. But I'm sure Senator Thorpe and every one of her fellow Greens knows that the continuing empowerment of Indigenous groups and communities across the nation—something every right-thinking Australian supports—spells oblivion and total irrelevance for the posturing Greens and their mates in the Indigenous activist industry.

Senator Thorpe relishes her moment in the spotlight when she has an opportunity to harp on the theme of perceived Indigenous oppression and constantly labels Indigenous Australians as oppressed victims. There is never a mention from Senator Thorpe of Indigenous successes. That would seriously get in the way of her narrative of centuries of continuing oppression and enslavement. Preach only the negatives and do it relentlessly, and some of it might even stick in uninformed minds as fact. That's a classic tactic of the Left that we see every day in this place and across the media. Senator Thorpe and Senator Dodson would have us believe that any legislation to do with Indigenous issues is introduced to benefit mining companies. Senator Thorpe calls the $33 billion that went to all Australians, including Indigenous Australians, and a further $6 billion for Indigenous-only issues last year 'scraps'. Really? Scraps? Was $39 billion 'scraps'?

Senator Thorpe also hides an inconvenient truth when she fails to disclose that as far back as 2015 native title has been recognised over approximately 2,469,647 square kilometres—that's around 32 per cent of the Australian landmass—for less than three per cent of the population. That's a statistic that we will never hear from the Greens truth deniers, so I will repeat it for their benefit: there's around 32 per cent of the Australian land mass for around 750,000 people who identify as Indigenous—not necessarily Indigenous but identify. A third of Australia under native title and $39 billion are scraps according to Senator Thorpe and her truth-denying colleagues. If almost $40 billion and around a third of Australia are scraps, we can only thank our lucky stars the Greens don't have the keys to the Treasury.

Senator Thorpe failed to point out that, as Tom Connell told us on Sky News recently, the dollar spend equates to $22,000 for every non-Indigenous Australian and $45,000 for every Indigenous Australian. And more scraps, for Senator Thorpe's information, come from a look at the mining industry, which she and her follow truth denies love to vilify. There are around 6,599 Indigenous jobs in the mining industry. That's around 3.9 per cent of the total mining workforce. Over 6,000 jobs in any industry is anything but scraps, and I'm sure those Indigenous employees who take home their pay to their families each week see it that way too. If Senator Thorpe really wants to empower any group of Australians, she might consider calling on the government to ensure there are strong accountability and audit measures incorporated in any advance of federal funds irrespective of background, race, religion or gender. If you want to be seen as empowering the group you represent, irrespective of background, race, religion or gender, if you want to escape the need for federal funding and if you want to create for yourselves a sustainable economic future, you may want to consider including in your amendments performance reviews that closely examine how effectively the funds were used and include how the funds can be better used next time to deliver better outcomes all around. It's called gradual improvement.

Any bill that comes before us here that goes to perpetuate the victimhood status of any group of Australians has no place, whether that bill includes such mechanisms or, as the case is here, omits processes that will enhance the lives and futures of that group. We should give it no credibility. Senator Thorpe apparently doesn't even mind misleading the Senate, and I quote her words from Hansard when she told the Senate yesterday:

A nuclear waste dump in South Australia: traditional owners do not consent.

Senator Thorpe well knows there's no proposal to locate a nuclear waste dump on native title land in South Australia. But when we let fact and truth get in the way of a rolling agenda aimed at painting a falsehood of permanent oppression—the Greens and Senator Thorpe are a one-act pony when it comes to Indigenous affairs. They seek to label and to perpetuate the myth of permanent victimhood over our Indigenous Australians for their own scurrilous political ends. Unlike Senator Thorpe and the Greens, I have faith in our Indigenous Australians.

I have faith in all Australians. I was raised to think of myself as a proud Australian woman. I also know that by recognising and applauding success, by providing checks and balances, by reviewing and carefully auditing performance and by always seeking to empower and improve we will prosper as a people and as a nation. Australia is a country of equal opportunity. It's not a country that should ever regard one group more or less equal than another and it should never be a country that perpetuates victimhood against any group. Notwithstanding my comments, we will support the bill.

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

Lidia Thorpe (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I've only been here four months, so I will learn people's names whilst I'm here: the senator over here brought up some interesting points which I actually agree with, surprisingly. I agree that there need to be accountability processes, absolutely. Minister, your party has received millions in donations from mining companies. The question is: have the mining companies bought your support for this bill?

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

Senator Thorpe, I'm not going to indulge this juvenile, unfounded narrative. I have made it very clear that the impetus for this bill was the Senate committee process that commenced in 2017. It was a product of the McGlade decision. You can speak to your base all you like, but it doesn't make it the truth.

Lidia Thorpe (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just a follow-up: Minister, have any of those companies donated to the Liberal Party because of this bill?

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

Senator Thorpe, you clearly didn't listen to my answer. The answer makes it very clear that this bill was not prompted by mining companies. This bill was prompted by the 2017 Senate inquiry process.

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, you claim it was a juvenile question. Why do these corporations donate to the Liberal Party? Do they not expect something in return?

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

Madam Chair, this is not a matter that is relevant to the bill. I'm happy to take questions directed to the bill. If Senator Whish-Wilson wants to make points about matters of electoral funding then he can do so in a manner that is appropriate.

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will take the opportunity to respond to that. Just yesterday we received the latest update on political donations in this country—$168 million to the Labor and Liberal parties in the last 12 months, mostly to the Liberal Party. Five per cent of donors contributed more than 50 per cent of those donations. It is the problem with our democracy and it is the problem with this place. For you to come in here and say that somehow that has nothing to do with this bill, this legislation before us—

The CHAIR: Senator Whish-Wilson, please resume your seat. Minister.

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

I have a point of order, Madam Chair. This is not relevant to the committee stage, so my point of order is relevance, and I would ask that we bring the matter back to the issues of the bill.

The CHAIR: I just remind the minister that Senator Thorpe, in her question, did relate it to native title, and Senator Whish-Wilson is doing a follow-up. It is a broad-ranging debate. Minister, you can choose whether to answer the question or not. Please continue, Senator Whish-Wilson, and then I'll go to Senator Dodson.

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Had you been here a little bit longer, Minister, you would probably know that we do tend to have a wide-ranging debate, but actually this is directly relevant to what we are discussing here. I know you've been elevated recently and you're enjoying this debate, but how can you say that big mining companies donating to your political party don't want something in return? I'm not finished yet, Senator. You, of course, have the right to take a point of order, but I'd ask that you pay me the respect of hearing me out, even though you may not want to and you may not like what I'm saying. How can you say that these mining companies that give millions of dollars to your political party don't want something in return? It is legalised bribery, what happens through political donations. It is pay for play. You can say that perhaps it's not this exact issue, but how would you know, if you're not the person who's working the relationships with these large corporations, with these industries? We need to cap political donations in this country for this exact reason, because this is a democracy, and the public interest matters. While I accept that these big corporations and these industries do some public good—there's no doubt about that: they employ people and they contribute to our economies and our communities—what they want is not always in the public interest. There should be a fair, level playing field in terms of influence in this place. That was Senator Thorpe's question. It was about political influence. What kind of influence do these companies have? It is directly relevant to this debate. I'm just taking my own longwinded point of order on your saying that this was a juvenile question. It goes to the heart of the problems in this place and in our democracy and with this bill.

The CHAIR: Senator Thorpe, I indicated I was giving the call to Senator Dodson. Sorry, Minister; did you wish to respond?

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

If that was meant to be a question, I think I should answer it, and the answer is: I gave a full answer to Senator Thorpe's question. It was that this is not prompted by any kind of donation process. This is prompted by the 2017 inquiry process. All of the evidence shows it, and no amount of condescension from Senator Whish-Wilson changes the fact that that is the genesis of this bill, and the consultation process that has emerged shows that it is one that is supported by all of the stakeholders relevant to it, including the National Native Title Council. Thank you for the indulgence, Senator Dodson.

Patrick Dodson (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Reconciliation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, I want to thank you for your commitment to the review of the act by the social justice commissioner. For clarity, are you able to say whether the review will be in accordance with section 209 of the Native Title Act?

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

I'm instructed that the answer is yes.

Patrick Dodson (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Reconciliation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, given that any comprehensive review of the Native Title Act will require significant resources—we are speaking about resources, for example, to engage with traditional owners in remote locations—can you provide the parliament information about what additional resources will be provided to the commissioner and to the native title rep bodies and PBCs to enable this review to be effective?

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

At this stage, the intention is for the review to be done within the existing resources of the social justice commissioner.

Lidia Thorpe (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, can you tell me what your understanding is of cultural practices around decision-making for clans and nations around what they allow or do not allow to happen on country?

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

The relevant point, I think, Senator Thorpe—I'm not going to speak to you chapter and verse, because you know this very well; as you have said frequently, you're an Indigenous native title holder yourself—what's important about this bill is that it allows native title holders to, in a sense, choose their own adventure, because they can do things in a way that is relevant to their group's customs and practices. Through the mechanism for imposing conditions on the exercise of authority there is the ability to use a decision-making process that works for them so that it can truly reflect the diversity of the ways in which decision-making can occur across different communities.

Lidia Thorpe (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, if you don't understand how clans and nations make decision-making processes, then why is this bill being introduced? What's happening on the ground out there is that traditional owners in their thousands are being excluded from decision-making that ultimately destroys country or gives country away. If you don't have an understanding of cultural practice in terms of decision-making, then how is this bill relevant? How can you put this bill forward?

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

Senator Thorpe, I don't accept the premise of your question. I didn't say that at all, so I have nothing further to add.

Lidia Thorpe (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, why are you trying to impose a majority decision-making process on clans and nations that have been acting by consensus for over 80, 90, 100,000 years?

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

To be very clear, the majority rule is a default one. Any clan that wishes to adopt a decision-making model that requires consensus or unanimity is a matter entirely for them; they can impose conditions to that effect. I think we have made it very clear in this debate that the ability to impose a process that suits the practices of a particular group is remaining entirely in their hands.

Lidia Thorpe (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move amendments (1) to (13) on sheet 1185 together:

(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table items 2 to 4), omit the table items.

(2) Clause 2, page 2 (table items 5 to 7), omit the table items, substitute:

(3) Clause 2, page 2 (table items 8 to 11), omit the table items.

(4) Schedules 1 and 2, page 4 (line 1) to page 24 (line 5), to be opposed.

(5) Schedule 3, heading to Part 1, page 25 (line 2), omit the heading, substitute:

Part 1—Crown land areas (including park areas)

(6) Schedule 3, heading to Division 1, page 25 (line 3), omit the heading.

(7) Schedule 3, item 1, page 25 (line 11), omit "such as national parks etc.", substitute "of Crown land, including national parks etc.,"

(8) Schedule 3, item 2, page 25 (line 15), omit the heading to section 47C, substitute:

47C Agreed Crown land (including national parks etc.) covered by native title applications

(9) Schedule 3, item 2, page 25 (line 16) to page 26 (line 7), omit subsection 47C(1), substitute:

When section applies

(1) This section applies if:

(a) a claimant application or a revised native title determination application is made in relation to an area that is, or is part of, an area that is:

  (i) Crown land (see subsection (11)); or

  (ii) covered by a freehold estate held by the Crown, or a statutory authority of the Crown, in any of its capacities; and

(b) the operation of this section in relation to an area (the agreement area) that is in an onshore place and comprises the whole or a part of the area referred to in paragraph (a), has been agreed to in writing by:

  (i) any registered native title body corporate concerned or the applicant for any native title claim group concerned; and

  (ii) in the case of an area that is a park area—whichever of the Commonwealth, the State or the Territory by or under whose law the park area was set aside, or the interest over the park area was granted or vested, as mentioned in subsection (3); and

  (iii) in the case of an area other than a park area—whichever of the Commonwealth, the State or the Territory is the Crown in respect of the area; and

(c) none of sections 47, 47A and 47B applies in relation to the agreement area.

(10) Schedule 3, item 2, page 26 (line 8), omit "paragraph (1) (c)", substitute "paragraph (1) (a)".

(11) Schedule 3, item 5, page 29 (line13), omit "national parks etc.", substitute "agreed crown land (including national parks etc.)".

(12) Schedule 3, Division 2, page 31 (lines 8 to 19), to be opposed.

(13) Schedules 4 to 9, page 33 (line 1) to page 60 (line 14), to be opposed.

The CHAIR: Senator Thorpe, even though you have moved the amendments together, the two questions will be put separately.

Wendy Askew (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that schedules 1 and 2 and 4 to 9 and division 2 of schedule 3 stand as printed.

Wendy Askew (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question now is that amendments (1) to (3) and (5) to (11) on sheet 1185 be agreed to.