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

I want to make a concluding comment in this stage for neatness’s sake. I note the chamber will not oppose schedule 3, so I will not continue to argue on that but I have concluding comments from the Democrats. We do not dispute the aim. The minister has outlined the government’s aim of getting negotiated settlements rather than prolonged, very expensive and often not terribly constructive court battles. What we are less convinced about is whether that will be the effect of these changes. I think a lot of the debate we have had backwards and forwards during the committee stage of this debate has not been about the goal, which has broadly—in most cases anyway—been shared; it has been about what the actual effect will be and whether the government’s preferred model will achieve that. I guess we will see for ourselves in any case once this is passed into law, but it is something that does merit continual monitoring.

I also want to emphasise that, whilst negotiated settlements are desirable as a general principle and certainly minimise the expense—nobody likes to see all the resources going to lawyers to slug it out when the resources could be going directly to the parties, Indigenous groups in particular, and the communities involved, the areas and regions that are covered by the native title claims—we do still need to make sure that there are just outcomes. Obviously, to date there have been, under some of the land use agreements, agreements reached without having to go through all the court processes but some of them have not been terribly fair or have not been as substantial or as beneficial as they could have been. I am not saying that all of the ones that have not been good have been exploitative agreements. In many cases it is simply that they have not been as adequate as they could have been and therefore the potential has not been realised. It is not always just one group managing to use its better resources to convince the others to reach an agreement that is not really as good as they could have got; it is also that sometimes it does not reach its full potential.

I am not convinced that all of the changes in this legislation will improve that situation although, in saying that, there are some that should be beneficial. But there are some real concerns about the legislation in its totality and what it might mean with respect to the power balance when you are having conciliation and negotiations—where the resources lie, who the greater onus is upon and where the areas of capacity and capability lie. For all of those things, I am not convinced the balance has been improved by this change.

I finish, however, by returning to where I started in the second reading stage. I believe there still needs to be a significant improvement in the attitude of governments in particular, and here I am talking as much about state governments, to the potential native title offers. I actually think there have been some significant improvements, particularly within the minerals sector, the mining sector, in their attitudes to the potential that native title presents—not what is embedded in native title itself but the potential that lies within the rights attached to having native title recognised. There is positive potential there for the minerals industry itself. It is not some sort of handout to Indigenous people or some sort of benevolent bestowing of recognition; it is a very positive, dynamic thing that can be embedded in native title that can provide benefits for all parties.

I realise that is not present in all cases and I am not seeking to be too starry-eyed about it, but I think that positive potential is there much more often than people realise. There is a growing realisation of that. I think it was clear, as we saw even from the evidence to the Senate committee inquiry, that some of the representatives from the minerals industry are keen to empower and strengthen the ability of Indigenous groups to engage with this process more effectively because that is in the minerals industry’s interest as well.

There have been really significant advances compared to where we were 10 years ago, but moving forward has not been universal, even in that sector, and advances are certainly still not present in many of the state and territory governments. If we really saw a shift in attitude and view at the state government level and a determination to share that positive vision with the wider community to shift public attitudes, awareness and understanding about the potential that native title represents then that would probably do a lot more to move things forward than anything we could do here mucking around with the legislation. If people engage with the whole system on a more cooperative basis to recognise the potential positives it presents for the entire community then I think we could get a lot further forward.

I would even use my own region in south-east Queensland where I have lived all my life as an example of this. I think there is enormous potential there to shift the way we perceive our region, our own home area, if we step forward and embrace the reality—it is not just a hope or a nice pleasant feeling; it is a reality—that there is a continuing connection between traditional owners and many areas of that land that goes back tens of thousands of years to well before European settlement. It has been knocked around a fair bit, but that culture and that connection with country is still there in parts.

I have mentioned before the claim of the Githabul people in northern New South Wales. That is around Mount Barney and over into the southern rainforest area of Queensland near Quandamooka and the northern Stradbroke Island region. There is an indisputable, very clear and continuing connection with country there. It would obviously be beneficial for the traditional owners there to have that resolved, but it would be beneficial for everybody in that community and region to recognise, celebrate, promote, embrace and move forward with the recognition that our whole wider community has amongst it a continuing culture that is alive and has a connection going back tens of thousands of years. I think it would be a huge value-add, frankly, to the way people within that region perceive native title and the way we could promote it. The same applies of course to most other areas of Australia and, in some respects, doing that in urban areas would have its own special benefits as well.

I once again plea for a greater positive embrace of the potential of native title by state governments, as well as those various industry bodies, groups and individuals. It is not all simple, easy and sweet, and it presents a lot of difficulties, as I imagine all of us know, within Indigenous communities as well. It has been unfortunate to see some of the unintended consequences from the way the legislation as framed was interpreted and how that has created internal division within Indigenous groups. I am not sure whether these changes we have made today will assist with that or not. They may—and I certainly hope they do—but, again, I think it is as much about shifting attitudes as anything else. I think we can all still play a role in that whilst we continue to debate the effectiveness or otherwise of the act.