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

I seek leave to amend business of the Senate notice of motion No. 1 in the terms circulated in the chamber.

Leave granted.

I amend the motion and move the amended motion:

That the following matter be referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 4 June 2024:

(a) the establishment of a sunset date in relation to submission of claims of native title, after which no further claims of native title can be made; and

(b) the effectiveness of the operation of the native title system, options to improve economic development resulting from native title, and options to improve certainty over the claim process.

I rise to speak to this motion. What I am asking for is a reference to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for an inquiry into the establishment of a sunset date in relation to a submission of claims of native title after which no further claims of native title can be made. The reporting date for that will be 24 June. Paragraph (b) of the amended motion I have put up is:

(b) the effectiveness of the operation of the native title system, options to improve economic development resulting from native title, and options to improve certainty over the claim process.

I already know what's going to happen here. I know my motion is going to go down. And it's because in this chamber, whenever I put up any motion calling for accountability—like, I want an investigation into NATSIC and ACS, to do with Aboriginal accountability—I don't get the support. Yet the taxpayers are wanting accountability, but they're not having it. And when I put up a private member's bill on identification, to aboriginality—again, it's voted down; no accountability. And I know now, the same thing: this is going to go down.

But I am a woman of principle, and I must speak on behalf of so many Australians who have had enough, who have had a gutful. And it's very important that we have a look at this. I know Senator David Pocock is going to be voting against it. Now, just to give you an outline of this whole thing, Senator Pocock is actually from Zimbabwe. He went through being forced off his land because of the Blacks. He and his family were given 90 days to leave, because of the taking over of the land. He then was given the opportunity to come out here to live in Australia. He's had a great life. He's been one of the Wallabies. He's now a member of this parliament and has a casting vote on just about all matters of importance on legislation in this parliament. But on every occasion that I put up a motion to call for accountability, Senator Pocock says no, and also with this motion: he won't be voting for it. So, he's quite happy to see Australians constantly losing land in this nation, when the same thing happened to him in South Africa, in Zimbabwe. He's allowing it to happen here, with no accountability. It's quite amazing that someone who has had it happen to him and his family is quite prepared to see it happen here in Australia, without questioning, without accountability—nothing. It's like, nup, door shut, not interested.

I want to speak on behalf of many Australians who feel the same way as I do—a commonsense approach to it, that we just want answers, we want accountability. Native title has been a major issue impacting all Australians' land rights for more than 30 years since the Mabo and Wik decisions. It's time to put an end to it and introduce equal rights for all with respect to Australian land. Today more than half of Australia is under native title, and if all pending claims are factored in, up to 62 per cent of our country will be under it. That's almost two-thirds of this continent claimed by less than two per cent of the national population. I say less than two per cent because native title claimants must meet a higher eligibility threshold than just anyone who ticks a box to claim they're Indigenous. Only about 430,000 Australians meet this definition, as opposed to the 812,000 people who claimed Indigenous heritage at the 2021 census. I remind senators that this was a 25.2 increase on the 2016 figure, compared with an eight per cent rise in the overall national population.

I am moving this motion on behalf of millions of Australians who've had a gutful of native title. They're sick and tired of the explicit racial double standards underpinning native title. Non-indigenous Australians must work, save and borrow in order to get title to land. They have to buy it or at least inherit it from family who have bought it. Native title claimants don't need to do anything like that. They need only claim a form of historic spiritual or cultural connection—which, at best, had some validity generations ago but has been effectively rendered meaningless since. Why should a mythical belief in the spirit of a serpent inhabiting a nameless creek prevent a farmer from building a crossing over it, as happened in Western Australia earlier this year? I can't make spiritual connections claims like that. My great-grandparents worked land in the Lockyer Valley with their own hands many years ago. Their connection was more than spiritual or cultural. They poured their blood, sweat and tears into the land, raising their children on it. But my claim of connection to that land would never be recognised by granting me title. I'm Indigenous to Australia like anyone else born here, but, because I'm not Aboriginal, that sort of claim for land rights is denied to me.

I do not only refer to native title claims. Aboriginal Australians can make claims on any Crown land that's considered unused, and their legal costs will be fully funded by the Australian government. Respondents to these claims such as local government are not afforded the same support, despite the cost of running into millions of dollars. Even successful native title claimants, depending on who they are, are not able to take advantage of the economic opportunities.

I'm going to take that interjection from the Greens senator saying, 'Of course they are funded.' No, they're not. That was my question last week on the floor. But the Queensland South Native Title Services has in their budget $71 million given to them to make claims in Queensland. The budget was stripped of any money given to the respondents for this. There is no money in the budget. They stripped it. And what was in it? There was $7.1 million. So you're ill-advised or you don't listen to what's going on in the chamber to understand it, to make these allegations again. You make alligators, but you don't even know what you're talking about. That's why this has to be brought to attention. You're making allegations there; they're not true. The respondents are not given—

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Take a seat, please, Senator Hanson. We have a point of order.

David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I ask you to direct Senator Hanson to address her remarks through the chair and I ask you to bring her to attention.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you. I'm sure Senator Hanson heard that and will accordingly direct her remarks through me rather than across the chamber. Please continue, Senator Hanson.

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

I'd love to refer my remarks to you, but I will respond to senators if they want to make interjections here. If I know they're not telling the truth, I will do that. Through you, Chair—

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Shoebridge is, I presume, standing on the same point of order. Senator Hanson, you did indeed direct your remarks not through me.

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

I said 'through the chair' and I said I'll respond to an interjection for someone who's making a remark I can't let go unanswered and have lies told.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Shoebridge, did you wish to make a point of order?

David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Simply that the senator immediately flouted your ruling as soon as you made it. It was a polite, well-considered response from the chair, and literally within seconds of it this senator flouted your direction.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Shoebridge. The interjections are also disorderly, so, if you expect Senator Hanson to speak through the chair, you should wait to speak in this debate. Please continue, Senator Hanson.

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

Thank you very much. As I was saying, respondents to these claims such as local government are not afforded the same support, despite the cost of running into millions of dollars. My research shows there is an enormous number of claims put out through Queensland. Not only that; about 40,000 claims are put out in New South Wales alone. This has got nothing to do with native title; this is on top of native title.

The fact is that, just after the Howard government got in, he actually did move a sunset clause, and that was thrown out. I am aware that a fund was put up of about $1 billion, and that money was in perpetuity then to buy land, so about $40 million was also used to buy land. So, apart from native title and these claims on Crown land plus the funds that were set up, this has got to the point where Australians have had enough. They are effectively held hostage by the Aboriginal land councils, who refuse to give up control of the land and money generated from it.

Even the successful native title claimants, depending on who they are, are not able to take advantage of the economic opportunities. A lot of this land is handed over to the land councils. I've got to congratulate Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price on the fact that she wanted an inquiry into the land councils because of their corruption. That money is not going to the people. They rake in the billions from the royalties. They rake in the monies from the leases and landowners, but—guess what?—it doesn't go back to the Aboriginal people. This is where the Aboriginal people have themselves come to me and said: 'We want our own land. We want to be able to build our own houses. We want to get a loan. We want to build our businesses. But do you know what? We're controlled by the land councils.' This is what you've allowed to go on and on and on. That's why these people are in communities that are so downtrodden and beaten down by nepotism and by people in positions who are looking after their own jobs. That's exactly where the Voice will take us, as well, and that's another point.

There is another form of corruption here, and I talk about the land councils' control over the people that they are supposed to be looking after. But they don't. They name all these charities and rake in billions of taxpayers' dollars that go out the door. Where's the accountability? There's none. What I ask for today is for native title to be extinguished after 25 June. Put in your claims. Then, for a period after that, they'll all have to be sorted through. But the fact is that we have to call an end to it. At the end of the day, it is another form of corruption that prevents billions of taxpayer dollars for Indigenous disadvantage from getting to people who need it. It was John Howard who proposed a sunset clause for native title claims, and this might have been implemented if not for the Independent senator for Tasmania, Brian Harradine. A sunset clause is what I propose be examined in this inquiry along with the operation of the native title system, options to improve certainty over the claims process and options to improve economic development opportunities.

As I said, I believe that mid-June 2025 would give plenty of time to allow any remaining claims of native title to be lodged. After that, it will be time for equality. After that, all Australians, regardless of race, will have to do the same thing to purchase land—work, save and borrow. Special connections will be simply that, held in spirit only. If we intend to make a statement in this country that we are equal and that we're all Australians together, we need to think about this. I know you're not going to vote for it. You're not interested in accountability. You're not interested in pulling Australians together. It's all about division in this place all the time. That's a shame, because many Australians really want that. They are screaming out for equality. If we were to get rid of the idea of a person being of this race or that race or another race and say that we're all Australians born together in this country, you might have a chance of pulling it together and you might have a chance of looking after the maligned.

Regardless of whether you're Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander or not, we have many Australians in this country who are disadvantaged and living in poverty. The Smith Family advertise that there are about two million children in this country living in poverty. What are you doing about that? You're doing absolutely nothing. The cost of living is destroying people. They are losing their homes; they don't have roofs over their heads; they have nothing. But all you're worried about now is your Voice to Parliament, which you don't need, because you have a voice. You know exactly what the problems are. But this is all about setting up sovereignty for another nation within the nation. That's what this is all about. That's why you need this native title to keep going on and on and on. Like I said, when you have only two per cent of the population owning what will be more than 60 per cent of the landmass of Australia, you have big problems. I, like many Australians, worked through blood, sweat and tears with the long hours to make the money to buy my land, and that's the way it should be. Forget about what happened 250 years ago. I'm not interested in that. We're all Australians born here today. Instead of making claims all the time, let everyone get their land the same way. Work for it as Australians regardless of your background, race or who you are. We're all Australians and should be treated equally, and I'll keep saying that time and time again.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the motion of Senator Hanson as amended regarding native title. To commence my remarks, there is significant merit in paragraph (b) of Senator Hanson's motion. In fact, if Senator Hanson had merely moved paragraph (b) I could assure you that the Liberals would have easily been able to support it. The issue we have in paragraph (a) is it is legally problematic. One concern we have is that it could lead to an increase in litigation. So on that basis, while paragraph (a) remains in it, we are unable to support the motion in its present form. As I said, if it was just paragraph (b) we could support the motion. Paragraph (b) of the motion asks the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee to inquire into 'the effectiveness of the operation of the native title system, options to improve economic development resulting from native title, and options to improve certainty over the claim process'.

The coalition recognises the merit of an inquiry into the native title system. Many would be aware that native title is a form of property rights that sits alongside other property rights like freehold title. Dealing with native title has become a routine part of doing business on land in Australia. It touches on the full range of primary industries. Agricultural, pastoral, mining and other forms of economic development are all affected by native title. The proper use, as Senator Hanson has stated, has enormous potential to unlock economic benefits for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. We on this side of the chamber recognise the potential economic benefits of using native title to stimulate investment and jobs in regional and remote Australia. It makes good sense. If you have rights to use land, why not capitalise on them for the benefit of your community? But in far too many cases—and this is why we would support part (b) of the motion—the potential economic effects from native title are not being realised. For too long, native title rights have not delivered the kinds of outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities that we would have liked to have seen them deliver. It is therefore appropriate that we do consider the effectiveness of the operation of the native title system.

The Native Title Act, for anybody who has tried to read it, for anyone who has tried to practise in the area of it, is notoriously complex. It involves myriad confusing concepts, all of which interplay in complex ways to affect native title claims. For example, the Native Title Act involves the concepts of a past act regime, which is an act that occurred before the native title commenced, and a future act regime, which is an act that was to occur after the Native Title Act commenced but, given we are now in 2023, ironically, may actually have happened in the past. Now if that isn't confusing enough, just to highlight the labyrinth of complexity, there is also the concept of the intermediate period act, which sits within the future act regime and, on top of that, may be a category A, Bill, C or D intermediate period act. Now try telling that to someone who is trying to make a living that they themselves now need to consider a category A intermediate period act that sits within the future act regime. You have lost them. They are gone. Their eyes have already glazed over.

But the complexity in native title does not stop with the basic concepts. The act sets out the procedural rights that go with native title and some of the ways in which native title can be used. It allows native title groups, for example, to negotiate individual land use agreements. It allows them into enter into so-called section 31 or tripartite agreements between the Commonwealth, the state and the relevant native title holders. It also covers various other sorts of agreements. Importantly though, the act also sets out pathways for the claim and recognition of native title rights whether through negotiation or litigation.

As I said, there are many issues to explore. That is why paragraph (b) of the motion absolutely warrants support. In relation to paragraph (a), the biggest concern I have is that, if this is agreed to, it could actually make the problem more legally complex and could actually see an increase in litigation, and that is absolutely not what we want to see.

Basic questions absolutely should be explored and looked into. Is the claims process too complex? Are applicant groups adequately representing the will of native title holders? Do native title holders and applicant groups face procedural barriers that are baked into the Native Title Act? Are there fast-track options? Do we need to simplify the system? Is the tripartite agreement system under section 31 of the Native Title Act doing everything it could? Are the governance arrangements—and this is incredibly important, and it is something Senator Hanson spoke of—for registered native title bodies corporate appropriate? Do they need to be revisited? Are we seeing inefficiencies caused by structural and procedural barriers? Again, as Senator Hanson has raised: what role are the land councils playing and are they are a help to this process or, alternatively, are they actually a hindrance? Is the Native Title Tribunal performing as we would hope in terms of timeliness and process? Quite possibly not. What about the role of the Federal Court in all of this?

Ultimately, if you are going to have native title, the one thing we need to be sure of is that we are realising the economic opportunities for those who most need it. The other thing we need to explore and potentially simplify is how the native title system interacts with heritage planning and with environmental laws. Does that interaction create barriers to development? If that is creating barriers to development then absolutely this does need to be looked at. There are so many questions that need to be considered. That is why we acknowledge the wisdom of paragraph (b) of Senator Hanson's motion. It is a sensible part. It is a sensible thing to look at. It is absolutely worthy of substantial policy debate.

But in relation to paragraph (a), I'm concerned about the legal issues. Paragraph (a) of the motion calls for 'the establishment of a sunset date in relation to submission of claims of native title, after which no further claims of native title can be made'. The issue I have with this particular part of the motion is whether or not the proposal to sunset native title claims would work from a legal perspective in the context of the Native Title Act. We know how complex—I have already read it out—the Native Title Act itself actually is. We don't know how that sunsetting of claims would work. It is unclear what would happen to all the various claims that are on foot as we speak. Even if we worked through the complexity of the Native Title Act, it is unclear whether it is even possible—and this is one of the issues I have again in terms of the legalities of paragraph (a)—to sunset native title claims.

This is one of the issues that arise in relation to paragraph (a) in any event. Native title itself exists in Australian law. When you look at paragraph (a) of the motion you need to remember that Eddie Mabo did not need a Native Title Act. He did not even need a claim process. In Eddie Mabo's case his rights were recognised by the High Court under the common law of Australia and, importantly, those rights were not granted as a result of some kind of a claim. The court actually said that they just simply exist, and they had continued in existence since before European arrival because of his continuing connection that he had with the land and the waters. The court, therefore, decided to recognise those rights.

Even if you do go down the path of pursuing the idea of sunsetting native title claims under the Native Title Act, it appears at first glance, based on the legalities of what we are looking at, that native title rights would nevertheless continue to exist. Our concern, therefore, is you do not really than give effect to paragraph (a)—you potentially cause more litigation and what you end up doing is pushing Indigenous communities into recognising those rights through claims by litigation under the common law. In other words, you could actually end up in a situation that is more complex and potentially sees an increase in litigation, which is something that I would have thought none of us want to see. I'm completely in support of paragraph (b) of Senator Hansen's motion. I think it is a really good path to take. What I don't want to see is lawyers benefiting out of an increase in litigation and money spent on legal fees. Ultimately, that will not improve outcomes for communities, and that is the concern we have in relation to paragraph (a). You could make the system more complex—not meaning to, but that could well be the end result. You actually lead to an increase in litigation, which I would have thought defeats the purpose of Senator Hansen's motion. But in relation to paragraph (b), the committee inquiry into:

the effectiveness of the operation of the native title system options to improve economic development resulting from native title and options to improve certainty over the claim process.

there are certainly merit of an inquiry by way of that formulation.

Dorinda Cox (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

COX () (): Are we surprised that this is happening yet again? No, I'm not. Nidja bala cartwarra. It seems that every day there is another motion that is cooked up and rolled up in trying to get extra donations and staying relevant in the media. I want to be crystal clear before the onset of this. Native title is not what it should have been, and I thank Senator Cash for talking specifically about Eddie Koiki Mabo's High Court challenges. That was, in fact, about terra nullius, and he won twice in the High Court, not just once. And he did not have a big bag of cash of the $71 million that Senator Hansen mentioned before to challenge any of these cases. So this landmark decision could have and should have really changed the land rights for First Nations people in this country, who had so much taken away from them.

This decision should have seen First Nations people enjoying their country and their rights to country, such as ngany moort, my Noongar and Yamatji heritage. And, for a short second, we relished in this victory and were hopeful of all that could have come from it. But then the Native Title Act was born. It came, only to end up with what can only be described as a mainstream definition of our connection to country. The ownership was misrepresented in this legislation, and it got rammed into a Western legal system and concept. We call ourselves traditional owners, but the concept of ownership is very different for First Nations people. We don't own the land in the sense of private ownership or even Crown land. We own the land in the sense that we see ourselves as part of the land, and they are not separate entities. In fact, there's no hierarchy involved in that. We are not above country and we do not own country at the exclusion of other people, unlike what some people are alluding to, particularly in this motion. We are here to nurture and care for our country, just as it cares for us. It is an interconnected relationship—that's the way I'd like to describe that.

This is and has been a very hard description for a Western legal system with a Western understanding of property ownership rights—and Senator Cash has talked about that in great detail—which inherently means you own something at the exclusion of others because it's yours. That's what that does; it frames it in that way.

Now, there definitely needs to be an inquiry into native title reform. I'm not going to stand here and say that there doesn't. It's not a perfect system; I believe it is not. First and foremost, the right to compensate people needs to be decoupled from the right for groups to say no in relation to particular projects on their country. That is the first thing. We have seen this clause in particular—and it is misrepresented—through native title groups to tell them that if they don't provide their free, prior and informed consent they don't have any right to compensation. That is the decoupling that needs to happen.

The Native title: the way forward report following the Juukan Gorge debacle—and 'debacle' is the only way we can describe it—recommended that there be a review of native title and provided some really key points that should guide this review, such as the operation of section 31, the right to negotiate and the role of the National Native Title Tribunal. It also goes to the standards for negotiation of agreements to require adherence to the principles of free, prior and informed consent. These were at the heart of some of the evidence that I and people like Senator Dodson from my home state of Western Australia heard during the inquiry into the Juukan Gorge incident. And the prohibition of gag clauses: in this place people need to understand that those gag clauses are still in existence, in 40-year-old agreements in Western Australia—and clarifying the role of PBCs and land councils in relation to cultural heritage and the protection and preservation of that Aboriginal cultural heritage.

The Greens would support this being framed in a way that would seek to strengthen the Native Title Act, would seek, as we've already been through an inquiry and heard evidence from industry and First Nations groups across the country, being able to continue to have a conversation that is well-informed and respectful in relation to what this means. So, I really struggle to think that, in forming this motion, Senator Hanson in particular doesn't understand or, frankly, respect just how difficult and timely it is to gather all the evidence that's needed to make a successful native title claim. And she wouldn't know, as she's already alluded to in her speech that she is not an Indigenous person, not an Aboriginal person. So, she wouldn't understand what that means, and the intense emotional labour that is constantly put on Indigenous people, First Peoples of this country, to have to prove their identity.

We've had this yarn more than once in this place. That basically means we're translating 65,000 years of history and culture for whitefellas to understand, for a court to understand, for lawyers and others—legal teams—to understand and advocate for. Let me give you a real-life example—and it's great to see my fellow senators from my home state of Western Australia, because they will know this example very well. But I want to preface this by saying that there are still issues with this particular process, and we must continue to improve the systems that are built for us, not by us. The South West Native Title Settlement is the largest native title settlement in Australia's history. This settlement will affect an estimated 30,000 Noongar people and encompasses approximately 200,000 square kilometres, which is the size of Belarus, in the south-west part of Western Australia. We belong to the largest cultural block in the country. Of this settlement, there are a couple of parts that I'd like to address in detail. One is a recognition act that was put into the Western Australian state parliament, called the Noongar (Koorah, Nitja, Boordahwan) (Past, Present, Future) Recognition Act 2016. And it was the Noongar Boodja Trust that established and created nation-building activities to decolonise the system that was created for Noongar people—the resurrection of our language so that we could gain back all the things that are required for social justice for Noongar people. The Noongar land estate is up to 320,000 of development of cultural lands of cooperative and joint management agreements of national parks and a south-west conservation estate, land access to certain Crown lands for customary activities and the list goes on. This was brokered by Liberal government Western Australia, the Barnett government, which saw some sense in sitting down and talking it through after the court denied our people, after Justice Wilcox found that we had a 30,000-year-old connection to our lands and our waters in Perth.

This process is far from perfect, as I said, but highlights 26 years of work. I want to acknowledge all of the applicants and all of the people who were part of this process. This motion before our chamber early this evening is to undermine the rights to claim native title; to remove our rights to negotiate; in fact, to get rid of them completely by putting a deadline on people being able to make any native title claims. I want to be really clear and really frank. This is not about native title. This is not about looking at economic development—I find that laughable. This is about cultural assimilation; that's what it is about. You cannot deny people their rights to their country, to their culture, to their songlines, to their birthing places, to their old peoples' stories being told for generations, for tens of thousands of years before colonisation in this country. The Greens are proud to stand here today and say that we are against that. We are against the fact that this motion would be brought to this place. It's a continual attack upon our people.

[Noongar language] Noonakoort moort kwonbarr. Djinying nidjar mungart Boorah. Koort boodjar nidja ngaarl boodjar. Kaarl boodjar. Kaarl boodjar. In this place. It's the cleansing. We cannot continue to do this. We need to heal our people. It is disgusting that we continue to have these conversations.

Gerard Rennick (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in favour of this motion. This is the house of review. The Senate is the house of review. We've had numerous speakers tonight say that the Native Title Act is not perfect, so why can't we have an inquiry into it? Don't let perfection be the enemy of good, so let's have a look into it. We need to ask ourselves: What is the problem here? Personally, I've always had an issue with native title because it's got no inbuilt redundancy. Are we still going to talk about native title in a 100 years, 200 years? Or will this Native Title Act finally be put to bed?

While I concur with the original Mabo decision—that, if traditional owners can prove continuous association with the land then they are entitled to that land—I have a problem with the continual claims over unused council land or unused state land. I pay taxes. My constituents, fellow working Australians, also pay taxes. So to say they already don't have a claim over this land is ridiculous. There are parts of Redland Shire—the Waverton bowls club—and my old stomping ground in Sydney that have been basically given up to native title. There is no continuous association with land. For a very long time, the North Sydney Council used that particular bowling club as a bowling club. It was there for all the people of North Sydney, for other people in Sydney and for whoever may attend. So the idea we can now go and rewrite laws that say 'you have title over this' or 'you have title over that', when will it end? We are one country, and the fact that we have different laws for different races is actually a contravention of the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination.

I don't usually like to rely on foreign treaties to get my point across—and this also applies to the Voice, mind you, which also has no inbuilt redundancy. Once it's in the Constitution it will be there forever as well. Quite frankly, I think that if the Native Title Act doesn't actually have a sunset clause then it also falls into a breach of the International Convention on Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. I'll read out article 1.4 of that convention:

4. Special measures taken for the sole purpose of securing adequate advancement of certain racial or ethnic groups or individuals requiring such protection as may be necessary in order to ensure such groups or individuals equal enjoyment or exercise of human rights and fundamental freedoms shall not be deemed racial discrimination, provided, however, that such measures do not, as a consequence, lead to the maintenance of separate rights for different racial groups and that they shall not be continued after the objectives for which they were taken have been achieved.

In other words, you cannot continue to have affirmative action, or any other action, once that standard of living has been improved.

I just want to raise this again: the 1992 decision—the Mabo decision—that High Court decision was sound, even though I must admit it was a close contest. It was 4-3 between High Court judges. But it was reasonable: continuous grounds. And yet that particular condition of the original Mabo decision has been watered down over the years, where we are getting claims over a large part of Australia. This isn't actually doing anything to help the Aboriginal people at all. The only people this is helping are the lawyers, because this is a lawyer's picnic for claims against the federal government, or the state government for that matter—or local councils. Of course the lawyers are basically fleecing the pockets of taxpayers here.

As usual, they use virtue-signalling to justify their extortion, but that's what we're looking at here. I think there does need to be an inquiry into this; I think it's time we called out the rorts. We also need to have a look at a section of the tax act: section 59 and, I think, 15 and 50, where land councils don't actually have to pay income tax on royalties and native title payments. Yet again, this cuts both ways. We always hear in this chamber about how the Aboriginals were dispossessed of their land and that somehow they've been discriminated against. But there have also been benefits brought into this country as well. I don't see why these measures have to continue indefinitely.

There can be an argument about whether we can wrap it up by 2025, but let's have the inquiry and let's investigate that. But to say that it's not workable, or that there's one thing wrong so therefore we won't have the inquiry, I totally disagree with that. We've seen too much of this under the Albanese government: not enough transparency, not enough scrutiny and not enough accountability. The whole point of the Senate is that it's the house of review. The Native Title Act is now 30 years old, and I think it's due for a revision. We have to ask ourselves this: when they introduced the Native Title Act back in, I think, 1993, or 94 or 92—whatever—was this the intended result? That today, 30 years on, we have claims over various parts of Australia that are only going to get tied up in the courts, indefinitely? It's a lawyer's picnic, and various bureaucratic agencies will be involved to deal with these native titles disputes.

Of course the problem with that is that these people aren't working on the front end, providing services to the regions where people do need help and where you can actually work on closing the gap. I'll leave it at that.

Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sometimes in this place it's a mistake to respond to the speaker who spoke before you. But I would ask, through you, Acting Deputy President Pratt, for Senator Rennick to reflect on how small-minded a comment that really is, to say—

Gerard Rennick (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That's a personal reflection, and I ask that he withdraw that remark.

Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm happy to assist the Senate by withdrawing. But to say 'when will it end'—just reflect on that phrase. 'When will it end?' From 235 years into a 60,000-year history in this country—

Gerard Rennick (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No evidence of that. You're making it up.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Rennick, desist from interjecting, please.

Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is an extraordinary thing to say.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Ayres, please hold. Senator Rennick?

Gerard Rennick (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I ask you to direct Senator Ayres to make his remarks through the chair, please.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will draw that to Senator Ayres's attention.

Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Chair, it is an extraordinary thing to say. Then to go on to say that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in this country have 'somehow been discriminated against'—how can you live in this country and not see what it is about us not to think clearly about our history? We are a stronger country when we reflect honestly on our history. When we see that tens of thousands of years right across the country, 60,000 years in some parts of the country—

Gerard Rennick (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sixty thousand—there you go again.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Rennick, desist from interjecting.

Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

that should be a source of national pride. That should not be the subject of the sort of snide contribution that we just saw.

The problem with this proposition, apart from the fact that it doesn't actually propose a genuine inquiry, that the outcome it seeks is not legally possible and, of course, the small question of fairness for native title claimants, is in its origins. I heard Senator Cash's contribution. I listened very carefully to her falling over herself to almost agree with Senator Hanson's proposal. Senator Hanson was expelled from the Liberal Party in 1996; I'm not sure it'd happen now. I think that, in some elements of the thinking that goes on here, she fits right in. What's happened in the extremist takeover of the backbench of the Liberal Party—the extremist takeover of what passes for an opposition in this place—is, of course, that it has opened the doors to the kinds of propositions—

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Ayres, please pause. Senator Rennick?

Gerard Rennick (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Ayres is imputing motive. I would ask that he address the motion rather than go to discriminatory, prejudicial motives that he is casting upon Senator Hanson and myself.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Please continue, Senator Ayres.

Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So what is this all really about? It is about projecting imported, US-style extremist politics into this place and out there in the community—disinformation out there into the community. What's it really all about? The 'no' Voice campaign is exactly what this sort of bottom-of-the-barrel material is. Why has that been allowed to happen? It's been allowed to happen because the truth is that there is a strong case for the Voice to parliament. I respect the fact that not everybody agrees with it. I accept that absolutely. I accept the fact that there are conservative voices in Australian politics who support the Voice to Parliament. There are conservative voices in Australian politics who I respect who oppose the Voice to Parliament. There are competing strands of conservatism and liberalism that struggle to reconcile themselves over some of these questions, and I respect that absolutely. I've heard the articulation in this place for the 'yes' position from people on the conservative side of politics, and I've listened carefully. I've heard people on the conservative side articulate the 'no' case carefully and dispassionately. I don't agree with their proposition, but I accept that it's informed by their approach to traditional conservative or liberal values. The problem here is the takeover of the articulation of the 'no' campaign in the Liberal Party and the National Party by imported US-style extremism. It's say anything, do anything.

Gerard Rennick (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A point of order. He's imputing motive again, and he's not speaking through the chair. He's pointing deliberately and making personal reflections, rather than talking to the motion. I would ask that he maintains relevance and talks to the motion, rather than impute motives about people who disagree with the Voice.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Rennick, is it an imputation of an improper motive? I don't know if you've taken offence to—

Gerard Rennick (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He is pointing at me directly.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will direct Senator Ayres to direct his remarks through the chair. If you believe that it is improper of him to impugn a motive in relation to US politics then you could rise and say what is improper about the motive. Senator Ayres.

Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's clear when you listen to Senator Cash's contribution. She said, 'If we are going to have native title.' See, this strand of thinking about native title has been there all the way through. At every juncture where questions around native title have been raised in this place, people in the coalition are steadfastly opposed. Look at what happened around the Mabo decision, at the utter disgrace of leaders of the Liberal and National parties holding up maps, trying to frighten ordinary Australians with the idea that somehow their backyard was going to be subject to claims. In the Wik claim, there was exactly the same kind of utterly reprehensible behaviour. Why did they do that? Because they were trying to secure—

Senator Rennick interjecting—

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Excuse me, Senator Ayres. Senator Rennick, if you want to take points of order to ask Senator Ayres to adhere to the standing orders then you ought to do so yourself by not interjecting. Please continue, Senator Ayres.

Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Why did that happen? It was for narrow, base, political advantage in the same way that, when the Native Title Act came through this place, people on that side of politics claimed that the sky would fall in. When the apology to the stolen generations was made, people on that side claimed that the sky was going to fall in. In fact, the Leader of the Opposition in the other place said a whole lot of things that he has subsequently apologised for. He said he got it wrong. In the same year, he is making the same claims about the Voice to Parliament proposition. These claims of the sky falling in are completely consistent, and people over there expect that Australians are silly enough to have forgotten all of the other times that they have made the same claim.

This extremist takeover is a problem for the Liberal and National parties. I see that Mr Mundine is using the 'no' campaign and extremist politics as a vehicle for securing his political ambitions to find his way into Liberal Party preselection. That is what his campaign is all about. Do you want to see more extremist politics in this place? Well, let's see how this proceeds.

Firstly, on the inquiry, it is not a genuine proposal for an inquiry. It is a stunt that is there for social media purposes alone.

Gerard Rennick (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A point of order, Acting Deputy President: Senator Ayres is imputing motive about the motion and the inquiry. It is not his role to impute motive. If he doesn't want the inquiry, he can state the reasons why, but to say it's some stunt is to impute motive. That's partisan, and this chamber deserves better respect about a process. This is a house of review. We're entitled to review legislative acts of parliament without being vilified to the extent that Senator Ayres has done tonight.

Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On the point of order, if the threshold that is set for what you can say about a motion is that you can't say that something is a stunt, I think that's a very high threshold.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Hanson?

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

I want that withdrawn. I want the comment that he made—that this is a stunt—withdrawn.

Matt O'Sullivan (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If I can just contribute to the points of order that have been made here, my recollection of what Senator Ayres said is that it wasn't coming from something like a genuine place, and I think that does reflect on the motives of the mover of the motion.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Ayres, we do seem to have had people in the chamber call for a rather strict adherence to the definition of impugning a motive. I am going to invite you to continue your remarks in a manner that debates the issues. Thank you.

Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Hanson is on her feet.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Hanson?

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

I said that I want that remark withdrawn.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

About a 'stunt', did you say?

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

Yes, I did. My notice of motion is not a stunt. I want that remark withdrawn.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Okay. Senator Ayres?

Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm happy to withdraw. Senator Hanson has clearly already worked out what she thinks this inquiry should achieve. The second problem here is, of course, that it's not legally possible to achieve what's being sought. The core outcome that the motion seeks can't be achieved. Native title rights are sourced from the traditional laws and customs of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. They weren't just created by the Native Title Act. The High Court's decision in Mabo No. 2 in 1992 overturned the fiction that Australia was terra nullius—land belonging to no-one. It established native title as a fundamental right belonging to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in recognition of their traditional right to this land and their occupation of it for thousands of years.

As a decision of the High Court, it is not something that is open to this parliament to just abandon. It can't be achieved. It is part of the fabric of our common law. The common law actually matters in this place. Any attempt by the parliament to create a sunset date would completely ignore what native title rights are and how they're recognised by law in Australia.

Back in the 1990s, Australians were told that they would lose their backyards to native title. It wasn't true then, and it isn't true now. Native title offers traditional owners the opportunity to build a better future for themselves and for their children. It empowers them to step up and play a role in managing land and waters, safeguarding cultural heritage and creating employment for their communities. The motion pretends to care about economic reforms or economic outcomes for native title holders, but that is clearly contradicted by its call for a sunset date.

Each native title claim is different. Some are simpler and easier to resolve. Others involve complex issues that are outside of the applicant's control. There have now been 450 positive determinations of native title, and native title has been recognised to exist over 43 per cent of Australia. There are a further 139 claims for native title that have not yet been determined. Under Senator Hanson's proposition, in other words, that's at least 139 cases where native title claimants would be denied justice. I urge fellow senators to reject this ill-conceived and divisive proposal.

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

As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia I speak to Senator Hanson's motion, which I'll read for clarification. It states:

That the following matter be referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 4 June 2024:

(a) the establishment of a sunset date in relation to submission of claims of native title, after which no further claims of native title can be made; and

(b) the effectiveness of the operation of the native title system, options to improve economic development resulting from native title, and options to improve certainty over the claim process.

We want an inquiry.

Since the concept of native title was accepted by the High Court in the case of Mabo there have been mixed views from Indigenous and non-Indigenous commentators as to the benefits that have flowed to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. The extent and nature of these was spelt out in the now rather complex Native Title Act 1993 and some further decisions of the High Court, including the Wik case in 1996. The act sets out a bundle of rights, some exclusive and some non-exclusive. Some exclusive rights relate to traditional activities, including the rights to fish, hunt and gather within the determined claim area—and I note as an aside here that Minister Plibersek's latest piece of legislation seeks to take that away from Aboriginals, according to Aboriginals in northern Australia—but those rights cannot be transferred or on sold. Native title is extinguished by subsequent freehold and suppressed by leasehold, although that may revive at the expiry of the lease. Recent figures from the Native Title Tribunal indicate that determinations comprise more than 50 per cent of Australian land mass, more than half of our country.

One of the features of the Native Title Act is the attempt to balance the rights of all parties. The use of Indigenous land use agreements is a way of establishing possible land use, including mining leases and other means of gaining some commercial benefit, registered for the traditional owners. These can be varied at some later time through the National Native Title Tribunal.

When we were last in Cooktown we met with a local community leader, an upstanding man, who shared with us his views on native title and its impacts on his community and on many communities across Cape York. He said that native title was important from the aspect of recognition of the Indigenous perspective of their relationship with the land and recognising that Indigenous people were the first inhabitants of Australia and that they have inherent property rights in the land. His view was that the Native Title Act was not providing Indigenous people with something tangible, because they could not use native title to advance any individual interests. Land under native title cannot be mortgaged to help build a home or be used as collateral to support a business loan. The land is essentially locked up and not used to support small projects.

It's really about seizing the land, holding it and not giving it to anyone to use. It's no wonder that we see the words 'United Nations' so frequently in the Native Title Act preamble. This is a land grab and the Aboriginals are not benefiting. Because the land is not freehold, nobody is able to work towards owning their own home because the property is now locked away out of reach. No-one is getting this land. The Commonwealth government are able to reclaim native title land and convert it to freehold, and some compensation is then paid to the traditional owners, but this does not benefit any individuals. People in the cities think that this was all fixed years ago. They don't realise that the No. 1 complaint in remote Aboriginal communities across the north of Australia is that they can't get access to land to have their own houses and their own businesses. With land ownership prevented, there is little incentive to work towards beneficial goals. My friend said that he wished to own his own place in this community. He cannot own his own place in the community. He wishes to build up and expand his small business as a shop owner but he cannot buy the premises. He must hope that he can lease the shop from the local traditional owners.

These comments were echoed right across the cape by constituents, council mayors and council members, and in the Territory and, we've heard also, in Western Australia. It was universal. Not one person to whom we spoke had a good thing to say about native title, other than that it provides some recognition of them as First Australians.

When asked about the government's closing the gap policy, he made the telling comment that the government was not serious about closing the gap because that would be contrary to the white and black Aboriginal industry that thrives on keeping Aboriginals dependent. With the exception of two Aboriginal members of parliament, Senator Nampijinpa Price and Senator Kerynne Liddle, Aboriginal senators—the other nine—don't talk about the white and black Aboriginal industry that consists of lawyers, consultants, activists, academics, politicians and bureaucratics who are living parasitically off the money that is given to Aboriginal communities. They've stolen it from the Aboriginal communities. The billions of dollars that are poured into solving the problem are siphoned off by those supposed to be assisting, and little of the money and other handouts makes it to those in real need. That's what's going on in this country. It's important for many people to keep the gap wide open.

I listened to a councillor on Badu Island, up in the Torres Strait, about closing the gap. I've been across the cape twice, and to some communities three times. In every community we asked, 'What about closing the gap?' Some people said, 'What's closing the gap?' Others said, 'It's useless.' When we asked this particular councillor on Badu Island, he said to me, 'Malcolm, the point about closing the gap is that it will never be closed because there are people feeding off the maintenance of the gap.' The parasitic white and black Aboriginal industry are feeding off closing the gap.

My friend went on to say that one of the biggest problems in communities was the lack of decent community housing. There were 19 people living in one of the local houses, and many people were homeless. In his community, 70 per cent of the residents were receiving welfare. Many were not coping. Mental health issues were climbing. What my staff have seen on Mornington Island is disgraceful. It's caused by the white and black Aboriginal industry. They perpetuate the misery so that they can get the funds. As I said, this was a common comment across the cape and up into the Torres Strait.

Further north, a mayor told me that the problems also involved how grant moneys were divided up between the various interest groups, and again highlighted the housing and employment crises. There were no jobs and there was not enough housing.

Why will only two Aboriginal members of this Senate discuss the white and black Aboriginal industry? I have to commend Senator Nampijinpa Price for doing so with vigour. She points out that that white and black industry is destroying accountability, and things in Aboriginal communities won't change without accountability. The people in the communities that I've listened to are hungry for autonomy and accountability. They want it.

I understand that in 1998 John Howard, as Prime Minister, attempted to amend the Native Title Act by putting in place a sunset clause. John Howard, I'm advised, moved to put in place a sunset clause. As Prime Minister, what advice did he get on the legality? Senator Cash would get some answers to clause (a) if there was some form of inquiry. What's wrong with having an inquiry? Why do you keep blocking Senator Pauline Hanson wanting simple inquiries into basic, fundamental questions?

As I understand it, before Cook arrived the Torres Strait Islands had some form of property rights, handed down from generation to generation, where the holder of the land was clearly recognised. But the mainland not so, I'm advised. We were reminded by Senator Rennick that the High Court decision on Mabo was very close: four to three. We need an inquiry to see how it's working and to go back to fundamentals. 'Thirty-one years,' Senator Rennick said. 'We need an inquiry. We're the house of review.' I concur with Senator Rennick.

Senator Ayres raises the point about Aboriginal Warren Mundine possibly entering the Senate. I don't know, but does Senator Ayres not want Aboriginals in the Senate because of their views? No-one tonight has offered a solution to the native title problem of land locking, although revisiting Indigenous land use agreements and considering leases for individual housing projects may deserve further consideration.

Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the question be now put.

Question agreed to.

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question now is that the motion, as amended, moved by Senator Hanson be agreed to. Point of clarification, Senator O'Sullivan?

Matt O'Sullivan (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I just want to be clear on the question. I understood that there was an amendment to the motion.

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes.

Matt O'Sullivan (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Has it already been amended?

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question before the chair at the moment is that the motion as amended by Senator Hanson be agreed to. Is a division required? In that case, as it is after 6.30, the matter will be noted and the division will be completed, in accordance with standing orders, tomorrow.