Senate debates

Wednesday, 10 May 2017

Bills

Native Title Amendment (Indigenous Land Use Agreements) Bill 2017; Second Reading

11:57 am

Photo of Patrick DodsonPatrick Dodson (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | | Hansard source

The Native Title Amendment (Indigenous Land Use Agreements) Bill 2017, introduced by the government to the other place on 15 February this year, amends the Native Title Act in an effort to resolve uncertainty that was created by the decision of the full Federal Court in McGlade v Registrar National Native Title Tribunal, handed down on 2 February this year. The Native Title Act was passed by the Keating government in 1993 and gave legislative form to the historic decision of the High Court of Australia in Mabo and Others v Queensland (No. 2) 1992, which held that the doctrine of terra nullius did not apply where there were already people present; it was a legal fiction to justify dispossession of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples of their lands and waters. Following the Mabo decision, any Indigenous land rights which had not been extinguished by the Crown continued to exist in Australia. Since 1993 the Native Title Act has enabled the continued recognition and protection of Indigenous peoples' land rights. It has also set out a framework, or a regime, to enable third parties, including governments, to deal with native title applicants or holders.

It is Labor's view that any changes to the Native Title Act must be properly considered and consulted upon with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. Such matters should never be taken or treated as if they were just business as usual. The Native Title Act provides a legislative process for native title groups to negotiate with other parties to form voluntary agreements in relation to the use of land and waters. They are referred to as Indigenous Land Use Agreements—ILUAs for short. Currently, under section 24CD of the act, all persons in the native title group must be parties to an area agreement. If there is a registered native title claimant, for the purposes of the act, the native title group consists of the registered native title claimant. A registered native title claimant is defined under section 253 as:

… a person or persons whose name or names appear in an entry on the Register of Native Title Claims …

This enables a person or persons to enter into agreements as authorised by the native title group. Decisions around this are influenced by customary decision-making processes, and they can be quite complex, different and diverse across Australia.

The decision in McGlade found that an area agreement, an ILUA, could not be registered unless all members of the registered native title claimant were parties to the agreement—that is, unless all registered native title claimants had signed the area ILUA, including members of the group who may have died. This ruling overturned the decision in Bygrave, which found that an area ILUA could be registered if it had been signed by at least one member of a registered native title claimant group. Post McGlade, the only alternative available to a registered native title claim group is to reauthorise a new application and make an application under section 66B of the act to remove any member of the group who refused to sign. Stakeholders have indicated that that process can impose high costs on registered native title claimant groups and cause delays. It can also cause confusion, hostility and division.

The McGlade decision has potentially far-reaching implications, with some 126 existing registered ILUAs that have been made in reliance on the decision in Bygrave over the past seven years prior to the McGlade ruling, the validity of which could now be subject to challenge in the Federal Court on the basis of the McGlade decision. These ILUAs include agreements concerning very large areas of land across Australia, including ILUAs made with respect to national parks, agriculture ventures and mining ventures. They also include access over leaseholders. In essence, this bill responds to the McGlade decision by amending the Native Title Act so that any area ILUA which was authorised and registered prior to the McGlade decision will be valid, despite not being signed by all members of the registered native title claimant group.

We have been advised by the government that this change to the law will ensure the validity of approximately 126 registered ILUAs that were negotiated in good faith by native title holders with land users on the basis of the law as it was then understood to be. These amendments will also enable the registration of area ILUAs that were lodged for registration prior to the McGlade decision despite not being signed by all members of the registered native title group.

The further amendments proposed in the last weeks by the Cape York Land Council, the last of which was circulated to us last night, would extend the bill to also validate ILUAs that could otherwise be rendered invalid, if successfully challenged in the Federal Court on the basis that they were not signed by any registered native title claimant. However, I wish to emphasise that, while the potential exists for existing ILUAs to be challenged because they do not comply with the requirements of the law as clarified in the McGlade decision, no such challenges have been mounted. This is important. Registered ILUAs remain valid, unless successfully challenged in the court. Given that no challenges to existing ILUAs have been lodged, and given that it usually takes many months for a matter to be listed for hearing in the Federal Court—let alone a decision—the urgency which has been claimed by the government to pass this bill appears to be greatly exaggerated.

The opposition agrees to the amendments as finally determined by the government, but we express our disappointment with the regrettable way in which the government has managed the process for consultation on the changes contained in the bill, which has been a source of unnecessary angst, confusion and delay. The legislation, hopefully, returns clarity and confidence to the agreement-making process at the heart of the Native Title Act.

Our eventual agreement has been provided, despite major flaws in the process and handling by the government. We have seen an Olympian series of false starts, redrafted amendments at the last minute, policy backflipping and legislative somersaulting as late as half an hour before the budget was released last night. It highlights how inept the government is in consulting with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and the low regard they have for the native title rights of Aboriginal people. The issue could have been resolved nearly three years ago, if the Attorney-General, Senator Brandis, had picked up the Australian Law Reform Commission report on his now-famous bookshelf, read it and set the proposed reforms into legislation.

The government and especially the Attorney-General have been dragged by Labor into consultations with native title bodies. We pushed in the Senate for a committee process—which allowed only one day for a hearing, but allowed at least a window of opportunity for native title groups and industry to comment on the bill as it then stood. Labor insisted on a full Senate inquiry so that these voices could be heard, and on subsequent consultations with Indigenous Australians and users of the native title system.

As a result of these consultations, Labor has supported changes to the bill to narrow its effect. This is what native title holders have asked us to do. They have been our first concern throughout this process. I have personally met with representatives of native title claimants groups across Australia and I have listened to their issues, their concerns and their hopes. Aboriginal people have a right to object if they believe their native title rights are at risk, especially by extinguishment, and they should be heard. Importantly, Labor has blocked the government's attempt to give itself unfettered power over Indigenous Land Use Agreements. We have insisted on amendments that make sure that control rests with native title holders, not politicians in Canberra. This is about respecting the decisions of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and giving certainty to the agreements that native title holders have entered into.

Unfortunately, in my view the government has made a complete mess of its amendments to the Native Title Act from start to finish. In particular, despite extensive past experience, the government has yet to give reasons for the urgency with which it is approaching this bill. Native title is much too important to be treated with such dismissive contempt; even small changes to native title law make significant differences to how the system works. This is one of the reasons why it is vital that native title claimants and stakeholders, for whom the native title system is so important, be consulted. For many of these people the experience of not being consulted shows a high degree of disrespect and disregard. Many of the Indigenous people who are involved, in my view, are terribly experienced and skilled in the operations of the act, and it has basically been the government's blundering in this House that has failed to give significant time to examine all proposed changes to this act and to make sure those changes have the support of the Indigenous people.

That is why elected representatives in this place must be able to speak to what is being done to the Native Title Act, and to any concerns that they may have.    Labor has been endeavouring to make sure that these things happen, especially for Indigenous voices—even those who disagree with the negotiated outcomes of their fellow native title holders. I referred this to the Senate committee and, in a very short time, it identified a benchmark for potentially making the legislation workable and coherent. It was not until after some persuasion to the government that the representative bodies were even consulted around the proposal as it then stood.

The fundamental object of the Native Title Act, as introduced and passed by Labor, has always been to respect and protect native title rights. It was the Howard government that introduced the 'bucket loads of extinguishment' concept into the act and its heinous nature and impact upon Indigenous peoples. Native title is not an act of largesse or generosity by the parliament, but recognition of what the High Court found to be a common law right of possession that has survived colonisation and is held by the native title holders—either after gruelling litigation processes in the Federal Court or by way of consent by state governments.

This understanding was turned on its head during the Howard era with a knee jerk response to the Wik judgement, with a legislative intent, as I said, for 'bucket loads of extinguishment'. I recall that the applicants in the McGlade case opposed the South West agreement because they were fundamentally opposed to the permanent extinguishment of their rightful inheritance. I have urged the Western Australian government, in the agreement-making process, to rethink the need for extinguishment in the ILUA processes and move toward the suspension of native title rights only for the purposes of agreement. One impact of this legislation is that the South West Aboriginal Land and Sea Council will now have to review their decision-making processes and renegotiate the ILUA that underpins the agreement, and that is going to be costly. We have urged the Western Australian government, as I said, not only to reconsider their policy position on extinguishment, but to invest in negotiations and mediation to bring together the parties of the Noongar people around this proposed agreement.

Another native title claimant group that has strong interest in the issues is the Wangan and Jagalingou Traditional Owners Council. The group has several different legal processes afoot to press its disagreement with the Adani ILUA, and they will be entirely unaffected by this bill.

The McGlade issue is only the most recent of many legal issues in dispute with respect to the Adani ILUA, and it arose from an action by the Noongar people of Western Australia in relation to developments there. This legal process and these amendments are not about a coal mine; they are about native title and the rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in relation to their lands and waters. This bill is not about one single project that is being negotiated; it is about providing certainty to well over 100 agreements, already struck by native title holders or claimants and in operation for years, and it clarifies the way forward for future ILUAs to proceed. But we might be excused for thinking it is about one project, because everything I have heard from the other side of the chamber has been only about the overseas owners of the Adani mining leases, not about the native title rights and interests.

Under Labor, we will bring the workings of the Native Title Act back to its fundamental purposes—that is, the recognition and protection of native title rights. We will be informed in the first place by the recommendations of the Australian Law Reform Commission and reports to COAG. But, fundamentally, we will be informed by the views of the native title claimants and owners across Australia, rather than just by the views of the powerful and privileged.

12:16 pm

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

I, too, rise today to speak to the Native Title Amendment (Indigenous Land Use Agreements) Bill 2017. The bill responds to the Federal Court decision that places doubt over some Indigenous Land Use Agreements, commonly called ILUAs. They are bringing this forward because there was a recent decision of the full bench of the Federal Court in what is commonly called the McGlade case, where the court found that all individual members of the registered native title claimant, the authorised representatives of the broader native title claim group, must be party to the area Indigenous Land Use Agreement for it to be registered—including those who are now deceased. This decision overturned a previous decision known as Bygrave, from 2010, which held that an area ILUA could be registered if it were signed by at least one member of the registered native title claimant on behalf of the majority.

The decision in McGlade has created uncertainty around the validity of registered area ILUAs that were not signed by all members of the registered native title claimants. There are, we are told, 126 of these agreements on the register, although the list of these agreements has not been made available. It has been requested, I know, of the government, and certainly the committee raised the issue. I understand that in fact there are now more than 126, given the issues that have been raised by Cape York about which amendments have been circulated.

At this stage the Australian Greens cannot support the bill. We understand the complex issues that are involved, but we feel that the bill is still being rushed and that the latest amendments are a further indication of that.

The bill was introduced and rushed through the House of Representatives fairly soon after the Federal Court decision—driven, we believe, largely by the so-called threat that this could pose to ramming the Adani mine through and getting that development up and running. The developers are concerned that the Adani mine may be at risk because the ILUA may be found to be invalid. We understand that the native title rep bodies have raised concerns about the decisions made under Bygrave and the issues around Bygrave for some time. Senator Dodson just referred to that. These issues have been raised with the government. Yet, for years no action has been taken. All of a sudden, now we have to have action.

The lack of consultation that has been undertaken with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities regarding this bill is of serious concern. I do understand that there was a meeting—I think it was last week or the week before—of 15 native title rep bodies. At least that is something. However, that does not mean that all native title claimants have been consulted. They were not consulted prior to the development of the bill. The lack of consultation that has been undertaken with these communities is, as I said, seriously concerning. So too is the short time frame that was provided for the Senate inquiry into the bill. We had concerns about the time frame from the beginning. We attempted to extend the reporting date for the inquiry to 8 May. Unfortunately, this was not supported by the Senate. Consequently, submitters did not have very long at all to develop their submissions. The committee was able to hold only one hearing. This is particularly concerning given the complexity of the native title arrangements, the changes and the significance of these amendments.

I flag here that I have circulated a second reading amendment. We believe that we need to have a look at the amendments that have been circulated, as new matters have emerged on this bill. So not only are we dealing with the complexity of it in the first place; there are also new matters that we need to look at. The bill is in two parts. Part 1 measures will affect the roles for future ILUAs—that is, those that are made on or after the commencement of the bill. Part 2 measures will affect existing area ILUAs made after the Bygrave decision and that were made on or before 2 February 2017.

Firstly, I would like to turn to part 2 measures. Area agreements that were made or registered prior to the McGlade decision will be subject to the amendments contained in items 9 to 13. These include the proposed Adani ILUA. As a consequence of items 9 and 10 of schedule 1, existing ILUAs that are not signed by all individual members of an RNTC will be considered to be, and to always have been, a valid ILUA. Area agreements that were authorised or lodged for registration prior to McGlade will be able to be registered, even if they were not signed by all individual members of the RNTC.

Item 12 relates solely to the agreements that were subject to the McGlade decision. These are the South West WA claimants that were not happy with the outcome of the ILUA process and that took this court action. So those ILUAs—there is a number involved there—are being considered separately. If this bill passes, these agreements will be taken to be ILUAs from the date of commencement of the amending act. However, these agreements will still need to go through part of the process again—the registration process. People who are not happy with the process will be able to lodge complaints again. I think it is very clear from the evidence that the committee received that the claimants who took the court action in the first place are very unhappy with this bill and the approach the government has taken.

As previously mentioned, the National Native Title Tribunal is aware of at least 126 existing ILUAs that were affected by the McGlade decision. I understand that that must be larger now. Some submitters to the inquiry, including the National Native Title Council and National Congress of Australia's First Peoples, supported securing the existing ILUAs and placing their validity beyond doubt. There is some doubt—and doubt was raised—about whether ILUAs will, in fact, be automatically taken off the register. Evidence given to us during the committee inquiry shows that there would need to be action taken, in fact, if you were to come off the register. So this is largely a scare campaign rather than all ILUAs suddenly being thrown in doubt. If it is a good ILUA you would think people would want it to remain registered—say it was a mining company; the claimants would want to keep it there.

Some submitters to the inquiry raised concerns about retrospectively validating the affected ILUAs, however many there may be. One felt it did not have sufficient information regarding the affected ILUAs to determine whether the amendments were appropriate. And because we have not seen the list, we do not know. Mr Greg McIntyre SC said in his submission:

The Committee has an obligation to satisfy itself that the circumstances relating to each of those agreements which resulted in the registered native title claimant group not acting unanimously did not have a justification in terms of declining to agree to an ILUA for a reason which legitimately addressed the rights and interests of the native title claim group. It should not be assumed without investigation that the majority decision of the native title claim group was correct and any view to the contrary has no legitimacy.

There is, however, very little detail available about the affected ILUAs, and while we know that there are at least 126 ILUAs post 2010 that are affected by the decision in McGlade, we do not know the reason for the members of the registered native title claimants not signing the agreement. We do not know the specific numbers that were not signed due to a member being deceased. We also do not know the numbers of ILUAs affected due to a deceased person not signing between 1998 and 2010, the period prior to Bygrave.

It would be helpful to know why all the individual members of the registered native title claimants did not sign on to the affected ILUAs. Is it because the member was deceased or incapacitated? Were they representing the views of their constituency, the group they represented? Did they decline to sign because the agreement related to another's country? Or were they being vexatious? We just do not know.

The Australian Greens also have concerns regarding the scope of the power conferred on the minister via item 14 of schedule 1 and its relationship to item 11 on the same schedule. The EM to the bill does not indicate in what circumstances the rule-making power conferred on the minister would be required; therefore, it is difficult to assess this amendment and its necessity. We know there are amendments related to item 11 and we will be raising issues about this in the committee process of this bill.

The Australian Greens agree with the majority committee report that the government should consider any implications for the right to negotiate agreements. However, more time is needed for any amendments to be considered by the committee and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people's communities and organisations. This was raised during the committee discussion. It is an issue that still needs to be looked at. Part 1 measures amended decision-making processes for future area ILUAs to, supposedly, improve the process. However, items 1 and 5 of schedule 1 do not reinstate the interpretation applied in Bygrave. Rather, these amendments will apply a new set of rules to future area ILUAs. Specifically, the native title claimant group will be able to nominate which member or members of the registered native title claimant are required to be parties to the area ILUA or, where no members have been nominated, a majority of the members of the registered native title claimant must be parties to the area ILUA.

The National Congress of Australia's First Peoples strongly opposes item 1, which amends section 24CD(2)(a) to allow for the nominating of members or a simple majority of the members where no members are nominated. In their submission, they said:

No Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander person should have their native title rights violated by an ILUA they do not agree to. Allowing in ILUAs where a potentially large proportion of the native title claim group disagrees is unjust and compromises our native title rights.

There is an argument that some decisions are so significant that they should require unanimous support of those affected or, at least, a higher threshold than a mere majority, particularly where they involve significant consequences for native title holders, such as surrender of native title. This is a very important for the southwest groups in WA.

It is worth noting here that, unlike a standard contract, people who hold native title rights and interests who are not a party to the area agreement can be bound by the agreement upon its registration. In this regard, procedural safeguard relating to registration is crucially important. In its submission, the Law Council of Australia said:

The requirement that all the people who comprise the registered native title claimant be a party to the agreement is one of those safeguards and the removal of it should be carefully considered.

The Australian Greens agree with the suggestion in the majority committee report that the Commonwealth look at the proposals put forward to amend the act in relation to ILUAs that involve significant consequences for native title holders like the surrendering of native title rights. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, committees and organisations should be consulted on an amendment related to this.

On the other hand, a number of submitters argued that a single member or small group of members of the registered native title claimant should not be able to frustrate the will of the majority by withholding their consent to being a party to an area ILUA, which is a possibility in light of McGlade. The potential for such a situation will likely reduce the number of area ILUAs being negotiated and entered into. In such a circumstance, the native title group would have to make a section 66B removal application to remove the member or members who refuse to become a party, and it has been pointed out that this process can be costly and time consuming. Conversely, if a member of the registered native title claimant feels that the authorisation has not been upheld, they would decline to sign the agreement, withholding their consent to being a party to the area ILUA. In this regard, the Law Council said:

… one of the advantages of the 66B process is that the person is then made accountable to the community for the action … and if they are genuinely acting outside their mandate, they would be removed.

Following the McGlade, a section 66B process would be required to remove a deceased person from the registered native title claimant. This does not accord with the cultural practice of many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities—specifically, for example, not naming a deceased individual from the registered native title claimant is not explicitly dealt with in the amendments contained in the bill; however the amendments contained in items 1 and 5 of schedule 1 do overcome this issue. At least one submitter to the inquiry suggested that a more streamlined process is needed for removing and replacing a member where they have passed away or lost capacity, and that they would support a bill being put forward to deal with this issue.

A number of alternative proposals were put forward for the consideration of the committee, specifically with regard to the default position of the majority contained in item 1 of the bill. One proposal was that alternative dispute resolution processes should be looked at as a means for resolving disputes within claim groups. Another proposal, from the National Congress of Australia's First Peoples, advocates for all RNTCs to sign an ILUA, which was the process prior to Bygrave, and that 'a process be developed for determining voluntary and informed consent to mitigate against exploitation of our peoples'. They too propose an alternative dispute resolution process, specifically mediation, either where the claim group is unable to choose who should make up the RNTCs or where not all the members chosen agree to sign the ILUA. Another proposal is that the traditional owners of the land as a group consent to any action to be taken on the land, similar to the requirements of section 23(3) of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976. It is argued that such an approach better reflects Aboriginal decision-making processes than the default position contained in the bill, as it requires more than a mere majority.

The Law Council of Australia offered yet another alternative suggestion, specifically that subparagraph 24CD(2)(a)(ii) be removed from the amendments. This would have the effect of upholding the decision in McGlade and require that all individual members of the registered native title claimant be a party to an area ILUA, unless a lesser number is specified by a claim group at the authorisation meeting.

Items 4 and 6 of schedule 1 remove the requirement, under sections 251A and 251B of the Native Title Act, for a group's traditional decision-making process to be used where one exists. This deals with the issues around the utilisation of a non-traditional decision-making process. In any case, the Greens are specifically concerned about that and we will discuss that further, given that there are amendments that deal with that. Setting out in the explanatory memorandum the need for these items does not alleviate the concerns. As I said, I will go further into that when we discuss the amendments.

During the committee inquiry, concerns about ILUAs were raised that were outside the scope of the inquiry, such as barriers to negotiation, the power imbalance between the parties, the ability to apply only once for registration, the role of prescribed body corporates, non-claimant applications and the enforceability of the agreements. Such concerns demonstrate the need for further consultation with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities with regard to changes to not only ILUAs but specifically the broader Native Title Act itself.

The points that were made in the committee and that I have just articulated in my contribution point out the complexity of the issues that we are dealing with and the concerns members of the community have about the rushed nature of the native title changes. I and the Greens acknowledge that we need to address this issue. I have had lots of emails, particularly calling on us not to support these amendments at this stage because there has not been enough consultation. We are unable to support these changes at the moment, although we acknowledge that change is needed.

12:36 pm

Photo of Ian MacdonaldIan Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | | Hansard source

I want to make a few brief remarks on the Native Title Amendment (Indigenous Land Use Agreements) Bill 2017 as I was the Chairman of the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee that conducted an inquiry into these proposed amendments. I indicate that my comments will be brief. This is an essential piece of legislation. It is important to so many people, particularly to Indigenous people who benefit from the way the ILUAs were constructed under what everyone believed was the law. It is also particularly important to people looking for jobs in Central Queensland around the Adani project and, I might add, to people in Weipa and Gladstone. For a moment it was thought that the failure to address this court decision would lead to the shutting down of Weipa and perhaps the consequent shutting down of the aluminium industry in Gladstone, so it was very important that that be clarified.

It is also very important for Queensland revenue. As a Queenslander I am very keen to see more development in my state, supported in this instance, I might say, by the Queensland state Labor government. It will not only bring jobs to Queensland and help Queenslanders currently without work but also help the state's revenue. With the government we have in Queensland at the moment, any assistance with state revenue is very important. As I said, it is essential it be clarified so that the Adani process can proceed and that Weipa can go ahead with its work without too many concerns. Of course, it is important for Australia. All Australians need the certainty that this amendment bill will bring.

Senators will understand that after the Bygrave decision in the courts a certain process was put in place. Everyone understood that to be the law to be applied. For six or seven years following Bygrave there was a process put in place where Indigenous groups had to agree to ILUAs and the majority ruled. That was thought to be the law. It was uncontroversial. It is the way we operate as a democracy. But the decision in McGlade changed all that. The judge there determined that, on the law, it required not just a majority but also everybody in that group, even including deceased people. I think the judge, in his commentary, when some comments were made about how this would throw the whole system into chaos, said: 'Well, I'm only here to interpret the law. If that issue needs to be addressed, then that is a matter for parliament.' That is why this bill is here. It is a matter that parliament should and must deal with, and we are dealing with it at the moment. It is important that it be done as quickly as possible. All congratulations to the Attorney-General and his department for getting this to this stage by this time.

As chairman of the committee, I acknowledge and thank all of those who made submissions to the committee, particularly those who were called, came and gave evidence to the committee. A lot of people put a lot of effort into this. The committee particularly appreciates the contributions made by all of the submitters and by those who were kind enough to come to share their views, their understandings and their wishes with the committee at that one hearing in Brisbane. I also thank the members of my committee, particularly Senator Dodson, who has already spoken, and Senator Siewert. Both have played fairly lead roles in the work of the committee to date. I appreciate their contributions, as I do for other members of the committee: Senator Pratt, Senator Fawcett, Senator Watt and Senator Williams. It is good to see that, as a result of the committee's work, an opportunity was given to all of those who had a view on this issue to come forward to give their advice. My understanding of the submissions and of the evidence given directly to the committee was that, by and large, most people understood the need for legislative intervention to overrule the impacts of the McGlade decision.

The committee determined to recommend that the bill be passed. There were, in the original drafts, some elements of the amending bill which were not directly related to McGlade. Members of the committee thought, as some of the submitters suggested, that it was not really germane to this particular issue; it was something that needed to be addressed, but perhaps not with the same urgency that the McGlade aspects were to be addressed. The committee recommended that those that were not directly related to McGlade should be removed. It suggested to the government that they bring them back later when more time is available to fully consider necessary amendments to the Native Title Act.

I understand that it is the government's intention to, at some time in the future, bring forward another bill with a wider range of amendments to the Native Title Act, which have been suggested to the government by Indigenous groups and by all of those involved with native title issues over a long period of time. It does need upgrading. I understand that the government will do that later on and that we will be fully consulted. The committee will no doubt meet at some time in the future when that bill does eventually come forward. But, for the moment, we are just concentrating on the McGlade decision to make sure that Australia, effectively, did not come to a halt. For the last six, seven or eight years since Bygrave, all of these ILUAs were entered into in good faith on the understanding that everybody had of the law—that a majority decision of the Indigenous group was what the law required. That is how it has been actioned and processed for the last seven or eight years—whatever it is—since Bygrave.

Since the committee reported, there have been a number of other issues raised that were not particularly raised in the committee hearings or by the government at that time. They have subsequently been raised. I understand there has been a lot of work done by the Attorney-General's Department and by the Attorney-General himself with Senator Dodson and others, including Carpentaria Land Council, Cape York Land Council and the Northern Land Council, to fine tune, if I could put it that way, some of the amendments—

Photo of Christopher BackChristopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | | Hansard source

Order, Senator Macdonald. If you would resume your seat. You will be in continuation.