Kerrynne Liddle (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Child Protection and the Prevention of Family Violence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

LIDDLE () (): What a load of hypocrisy there was on show today from the Australian Greens, the Labor Party and some Independents. A motion voted down today seeking to better understand native title outcomes and opportunities is a missed opportunity to improve the lives of Indigenous Australians. It is ridiculous and disingenuous to talk of self-determination and to have voted against this motion.

Co-signed by crossbench Senators Lambie and Thorpe and me, this motion sought to start to tackle an issue for which there is much evidence and much urgency. Shadow minister for Indigenous Australians Senator Nampijinpa Price, hosted native title holders from Central Australia, who were in the chamber to watch in disgust, disappointment and disbelief that their concerns were ignored.

This was an opportunity to let people speak. It wasn't about hearing from organisations and statutory authorities, but about letting native title holders tell us their view, in their words, what's going on from their perspective. Why has native title been in place for more than 30 years, yet people are land rich and dirt poor? Why have some land rights bodies had mining units for decades, yet never a new mine? Why have so many prescribed bodies corporate, the first point of contact for government and other parties wishing to undertake activities on native title land, entered into administration? How many continue to see little financial return, despite formal agreements with developments, resources and tourism operators and prosperity on their doorstep?

They want to talk about this. They don't have what the Albanese government called 'consultation fatigue'. Elders and the CLC's current chairman travelled to Canberra because of their resolve to see change.

The Labor Party, the Australian Greens and those Independents who voted against this motion simply found it expedient, convenient and plausible to say no. How could you, when there is so much evidence that this is needed? What you lack is courage and a will to secure and support their will for change.

Consider the admission from Labor just yesterday about Anindilyakwa Land Council's poor governance and the lack of commitment to improvement—something the Labor government knew about 18 months ago. How terrible is it that, as custodians of the land on which we pay so much respect every single day, you responded the way that you did?

It was a simple motion which potentially had the ability to change lives and to give hope that someone was listening. It was to examine the role of governance in and the accountability of native title representative bodies and prescribed bodies corporate, and the impact of the Native Title Act. It included the concepts of free, prior and informed consent, consultation and negotiation, the integrity of the register of members, transparency and accountability in decision-making and the process for progressing and approving developments. It was not just about land councils; it was about native title—which includes the perspectives of the impact of native title and its act—and gave space for talk on PBCs, native title rep bodies and traditional owners. Did the Labor Party, the Australian Greens or the Independents who voted against it even read the motion?

This was broader than the reviews that occur periodically by the ANAO, because it was to give voice to people, not those employed by a statutory authority of government: the land councils. Let's be honest with the Australian people; that's what the ANAO looks at—just the land councils in the Northern Territory. This motion was about looking at so much more, giving so many more people the opportunity to speak up, speak out and be heard.

Ironically, the Greens and the Labor Party spent 2023 talking so much about Voice, yet today they voted down providing Indigenous Australians an opportunity to speak. In objecting, the Labor Party said: 'First Nations communities are already experiencing consultation fatigue. This wasteful duplication would be confusing and distressing for First Nations communities.' Well, thanks for caring—caring so much you still said no! The Labor Party said: 'We don't need another standing committee with another review. The motion isn't about governance; it's about politics.' Rubbish.

Certainly the Australian Labor Party, the Australian Greens and those Independents who voted against it made it about politics, when in fact this was about people and unrealised potential. (Time expired)