Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I thought I might talk about the bill before us! Labor has a long history with native title in this country. It was Labor, under Whitlam, who returned traditional lands in the Northern Territory to the Gurindji people, with the Prime Minister famously pouring sand into Vincent Lingiari's hands. It was Labor, under Keating, that introduced the Native Title Act in the wake of the historic Mabo ruling. And I do not say this to boast; I do not think any Australian could argue that as a nation our relationships with our first peoples have been without shortcomings or without error. I say it because Labor have a deep and enduring relationship with native title. It is something that we care about, it is something that we take seriously, it is something that we wish to protect, and it is this history and this perspective on the significance of native title and its seriousness as an issue that have guided every decision we have sought to take in relation to the bill before us.

The integrity of the native title system is the only consideration that has been front of mind for the participants in negotiations around this bill, the Native Title Amendment (Indigenous Land Use Agreements) Bill 2017. This is the reason we are providing support to this bill. The recent McGlade decision by the Federal Court does have the potential to throw the entire future of our native title system into uncertainty. This is a real problem, and it needs to be solved. It is disappointing that this is not the approach that has been taken by others in this place.

The Greens political party do not have a policy position on this bill; they have a political strategy. They have been trying to tie these native title changes to Adani ever since the challenges related to the McGlade case first presented. Senator Siewert, back in February this year, said:

The news that Attorney General Brandis will hurriedly push through changes to the Native Title Act smacks of knee jerk reaction to a significant situation because they want to protect the Adani coal mine project …

There have been numerous comments from the member for Melbourne all this week. All this week, we have heard about it in this chamber. Senator Waters said on Tuesday:

No means no, yet this government is completely deaf to them, such that we now have a bill to ram through a reduction in native title rights just so the Adani mine can get up.

Senator Siewert did it again today, during the debate on suspending standing orders. These statements are highly irresponsible. In characterising the Labor Party's position as being associated with Adani, the Greens political party have been highly irresponsible and entirely incorrect. This bill is not about Adani, and Labor's approach is not about Adani. Our approach has been about addressing a real problem that has presented.

The McGlade decision found that an Indigenous land use agreement for a particular area could not be registered unless all members of the registered native title claimant group were parties to the agreement. Whilst people may wish to deny this, this throws up huge logistical problems. If left unanswered, it means that more than 100 Indigenous land use agreements could be invalid. These are agreements that were negotiated in good faith by native title holders with land users on the basis of the law as it was then understood. They concern very large areas of land across Australia, including national parks, agricultural ventures and mining ventures. I had the very good fortune to attend the signing of an ILUA, probably about a decade ago, in relation to a national park in New South Wales and to see how very, very significant it was to the three women who had been fighting for that agreement to come into force for more than a decade. These agreements provide long-term benefits to communities and they fund services that are important to those communities.

In essence, this bill responds to the uncertainty in that decision. It amends the Native Title Act so that any Indigenous land use agreement which was authorised and registered prior to the decision will be valid, even if it was not signed by all members of the claimant group. Labor is supporting changes to the legislation only to the extent that they will restore the law to the status quo, as it was before the McGlade decision.

Sitting suspended from 18:00 to 20:00