David Johnston (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Justice and Customs) Share this | Hansard source

The rep bodies are funded to provide a service, not to undertake a broader advocacy role with respect to the nebulous nature of Indigenous affairs. They are there for a discrete purpose, and that is to provide outcomes and to assist in the expeditious processing of native title claims to the satisfaction of the claimants and with the recognition of their rights. The functions of rep bodies will not be changed. Obligations of rep bodies are not changed or amended through this legislation. The amendments that the opposition seeks to move are opposed to the further emphasis upon the outcome. This is not about the process. This is not about the rep bodies having some sort of secure position in life; this is about having them do the right thing by the intended beneficiaries of this legislation. The intended beneficiaries were the native title holders.

Let us talk about opposition amendment (2) on sheet 5208. The opposition opposes the extension of eligibility for recognition to Corporations Act companies. Anybody with any experience in this area knows that representative bodies right around Australia from time to time employ corporate consultants, and indeed large law firms from the capital cities, to administer and assist in the future process and in the processing of claims through the Federal Court.

For some reason unbeknownst to the government the opposition is very frightened that somehow an efficient corporate entity or consultant will come along and usurp the bureaucratic dream that rep bodies in Australia have become. Who could complain about the very good work being done by New South Wales Native Title Services, Queensland South Native Title Services and Native Title Services Victoria—three corporate entities who are doing a very good job and stand as a practical example of what we are seeking to enable the minister to do to facilitate the delivery of an outcome to native title claimants? But, no, the opposition cannot see that and does not want to see that.

With respect to amendment (4), the opposition are proposing to remove a provision that helps to guarantee that only existing rep bodies are invited to apply for recognition during the transition period. They complain about stability. They complain about all these things. Here is an example of what we are doing: only existing rep bodies are invited to apply. The opposition’s position is a confused position up against all of the other amendments that they seek to put up. Certainly the government would not resile from its public commitment to guarantee all existing native title representative bodies a term of recognition under the new arrangements if they want one. This is what native title rep bodies have been promised and what they expect, and it is what they will get. If what the opposition were really trying to do was oppose fixed terms altogether, of course that would be an entirely unacceptable outcome.

Turning to amendment (7), the opposition wants to largely retain the unworkable criteria for derecognition. It is cumbersome and ineffective. No-one can forget the Queensland South Representative Body that laboured on, ineffectual and racked with division, for some 18 months because the powers were not sufficient or effective enough to enable a quick and speedy solution to that problem. Who suffers when these representative bodies cannot find their way to delivering the service? It is the people whom the act intended to benefit: the native title claimants. It is totally unacceptable that claimants can be left without services for a year and a half while a clearly dysfunctional organisation drags out the process of its inevitable demise. We are arresting that; we are changing that; we are fixing that to the benefit of Aboriginal people. The outcome is very clear, and yet the opposition opposes this move.

Let us move to opposition amendments (5), (6), (8), (9) and (11) to (15) on sheet 5208. Amendment (5) wants to prevent a simplification of the recognition criteria. I would have thought that was a very good thing. Amendment (6) wants to prevent the minister extending boundaries of rep bodies on his initiative and simplify the criteria for extending those boundaries. The opposition are opposed to that. Interesting—I cannot understand it. It is not in line with their platitudes. Amendment (8) prevents changes to when the minister must consider the fairness of bodies’ organisational structures and administrative processes consequent on changes to recognition and related criteria. I would have thought that spoke for itself. Amendment (9) wants to prevent consequential amendment following the removal of strategic plans. Amendment (11) will prevent consequential amendment following the removal of annual reports. These are things that make life easier for these rep bodies. Amendments (12), (13), (14) and (15) remove application provisions consequent on other opposition amendments.

I do not think I need to say much more other than to underline that the government’s reforms are clearly designed to simplify the process. These reforms will simplify the way that services can be delivered and that accountability and oversight can occur with respect to these rep bodies in the hope and with the intent and the objective that there will be better outcomes for Indigenous people who are native title claimants.