Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

I do not seek to prolong this. I want to get these answers; and I am not going to get these answers. It is clear that these agreements, for all the goodwill in the world, did not meet the provisions of the Native Title Act. That is why you are having to validate them in this way. A 'representative of the named applicant'? How many other times has a 'representative of the named applicant' signed on?

I am not having a go at Cape York about this; I am having a go at the fact that these were registered in the first place. We cannot be confident that there was not some other interpretation used for some of the other agreements that have been registered. It is not just about Cape York; it is about all of them and in what other circumstances this has occurred. That is why people are concerned. That is why we remain concerned about this blanket agreement supporting all these ILUAs. These were not consistent with the law. I acknowledge that there was probably goodwill on most of them, but we do not know. That is why we had a lot of sympathy and support for the submissions to the inquiry that said that we should be looking at these agreements in more detail rather than just signing them all off. Minister, I note that the piece of paper that you tabled—and thank you—says at the end:

This information was provided in good faith by the National Native Title Tribunal and should be treated as sensitive. A more extensive review of the ILUA register and each ILUA would need to be conducted to confirm these figures.

So, in other words, you cannot confirm that it is just 126. You cannot give me the list of those that extinguish native title.

We have at least nine agreements that we know that no registered claimants signed on to. Some had representatives sign on and there was one where the claimant, as I understand it, was deceased. That is why there are still so many questions over what you say is a really simple piece of legislation. It is not. That is why the Greens cannot support this agreement, despite having sympathy for the approach that the Cape York council takes in terms of one claim having representatives from the regions involved as named applicants and then getting specific traditional owners to sign off on some agreements. I understand that. There are too many open questions about how these were registered in the first place. They were not consistent with the law—however you want to spin it. That is why we cannot sign on to this amendment.