George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Hansard source

Whatever is the most efficient.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: We will move them separately, Senator Brandis.

I move government amendment (3) on sheet ZA429.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Do you mean 249?

No, 429. In other words, this one.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Yes. That is 249. I think you said '429'.

Yes. There is a disconformity between the sheet and the running sheet.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: I can see that now.

(

Native Title Amendment (Indigenous Land Use Agreements) Bill 2017

(Government)

(3) Schedule 1, item 9, page 5 (line 26), after "native", insert "title".

That merely corrects a typographical error in item 9 of the schedule, the omission of the word 'Title' so that it would read 'Native Title' as it was plainly intended to read.

Question agreed to.

I move government amendment on sheet ZA431.

(1) Schedule 1, item 9, page 5 (after line 26), after subitem (1), insert:

  (1A) This item also applies if:

  (a) paragraphs (1)(a) and (b) apply to an agreement; and

  (b) the agreement was not an indigenous land use agreement (within the meaning of that section) only because:

     (i) if there was only one registered native title claimant in relation to land or waters in the area—none of the persons who comprised that registered native title claimant was a party to the agreement; and

     (ii) if there was more than one registered native title claimant in relation to land or waters in the area—for any registered native title claimant, none of the persons who comprised that registered native title claimant was a party to the agreement; and

  (c) the agreement was registered on the Register of Indigenous Land Use Agreements on or before 2 February 2017.

Since the bill's introduction, the Cape York Land Council has advised the government of a small number of ILUAs that were made and registered when none of the members of the registered native title claimant were a party to the ILUA. These agreements are small in number and are the result of circumstances where it may not have been possible or indeed appropriate to obtain the signatures of the members of the registered native title claimant. I have been advised that this practice was confined to very limited situations such as where all members of the registered native title claimant were deceased or where they were not the right people to be party to agreements over a certain area of land in the claim—that is to say, it was not appropriate for them to speak for that part of the country.

One of these agreements, the Western Cape Communities Co-Existence Agreement, was entered into back in 2001 at a time when practice in relation to the negotiation and registration of ILUAs was developing. This agreement has provided and continues to provide considerable benefits to the Indigenous people of Cape York. It would be a significant detriment to these people were this agreement to be invalidated. All of these agreements were accepted for registration by the National Native Title Tribunal and were subject to the usual objections process following lodgement for registration.

The government therefore believes it is important to give effect to requests from the Cape York Land Council to validate these ILUAs. The bill now includes an additional round for application of the retrospective validation provisions where an agreement had been registered on or before 2 February 2017 but no members of the registered native title claimant were party. The measure is confined to retrospectively validating only those agreements that have been already registered and therefore would have been through the rigorous authorisation and objection processes set out by the act. The bill will not validate agreements without signatures where the agreement is under negotiation or not yet registered, and should not be taken to indicate the way in which agreements will be made in the future.