Mr SNOWDON (11:52 AM) —I am pleased to address the report of the parliamentary Joint Standing Committee on Native Title and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land Fund, entitled Native Title and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land Fund—Parliamentary Joint Committee—Report—19th report—Second interim report for the s.206(d) inquiry—Indigenous land use agreements—Government response, particularly as it relates to Indigenous land use agreements. I note the government has accepted, at least in part, some of the committee’s conclusions and recommendations—that is, the principle that agreements provide the most effective way of achieving lasting outcomes is of central importance in the Native Title Act. It is worth pointing out that the Indigenous land use agreements were a result of the amendments to the Native Title Act in 1998. That is important because those amendments came about as a result of initiatives from Indigenous Australians to try to improve in the legislation the way in which they could deal with land where they had rights under the Native Title Act.

Prior to the 1998 amendments, there was general consensus that there was a need to improve the agreement-making provisions under the legislation. The original act was inadequate in that regard. As someone who was working for Indigenous organisations at the time of the 1998 amendments, I know that the very strong thrust of their view was that the only way in which they could treat their land appropriately under the Native Title Act was to reach agreements with the ILUA proposals. This provides them with a framework and a capacity to contract arrangements with users of the land—for all manner of purposes—so that they can gain a substantial benefit, not only for themselves but for their communities. It is interesting to understand that the ILUA proposals have been developed to such an extent that they provide a capacity, particularly in the Northern Territory, the area with which I am most conversant, to deal with land in a way which, hitherto, Indigenous organisations were unable to.

I note that in the case of the Northern Territory these agreements have been wide ranging. They have addressed issues in the pastoral areas and have addressed issues to do with community living areas, mining and exploration, and parks and reserves. I will quote if I may from the Central Land Council annual report of 2004-05, in which they refer to Indigenous land use agreements and other agreements. The Central Land Council is a native title representative body under the native title legislation, as is the Northern Land Council for the northern half of the Northern Territory. ‘The CLC, under this legislation, has implemented a clear strategy to secure beneficial outcomes for native title holders through negotiated Indigenous land use agreements and other agreements, including good faith agreements under section 31 of the Native Title Act.’

I think we need to comprehend here that there was a myth. From 1996, when the original native title legislation went through the parliament, to 1998, when the legislation was being debated, there was a view from some in the community—particularly from some in the pastoral industry and the mining sector—that somehow or other the world would end if Indigenous Australians’ rights to land were recognised in the form that was proposed under the native title legislation and that their commercial interests would be undermined.

Of course, what we have learnt as a result of goodwill from the Indigenous landowners—in this case, in the Northern Territory the native title holders and applicants—and from people who are fair-minded and of good faith in the pastoral industries and the mining sector in the Northern Territory is that their mutual interests came together under this legislation so that they were able to reach agreements which were beneficial to all parties. Unlike the previous Northern Territory administration, the current Labor government—elected in 2001—has adopted a very proactive stance and approach to dealing with Indigenous people and their land-owning arrangements, both under the native title legislation and under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act. In this context it is beneficial and important that we appreciate what this means.

I mentioned earlier the relationship with the pastoral industry. The CLC, as I am advised through its annual report, has executed 24 agreements in respect of exploration and mining, including 12 Indigenous land use agreements, that have been registered with the Native Title Tribunal. A number of these agreements were reached in 2005 and some of them are quite significant. They relate to places right throughout Central Australia. I can refer to some of them already: there was an agreement with Magellan at an area called Lake Lewis for mining and with Otter Gold, Tanami and Exploration NL at Coniston at Napperby. Then there are section 31 agreements with a whole range of mining interests at Supplejack, Napperby and Tennant Creek. These are important because they have demonstrated the capacity for the mining industry to work constructively with Indigenous interests through the native title legislation and, as a result of that legislation, formulate ILUAs to their mutual benefit.

We need to contemplate—and it might be worth while recognising—that the previous conservative administration in the Northern Territory took the view that they were not prepared to accept the existence of native title legislation and opposed at every opportunity attempts by Indigenous people to deal with their native title interests on land, particularly in the pastoral sector. They had no time for Indigenous interests in relation to land which might otherwise be seen as crown land.

The current Northern Territory government took the view, after they were elected in 2001, that they would accept the existence of native title and immediately set about a process whereby they could negotiate a set of arrangements and agreements about how they might deal with native title in the Northern Territory. As part of that process, they reached an agreement with the two Northern Territory land councils—the Northern Land Council and the Central Land Council—which operate as native title representative bodies. They set out to register a number of Indigenous land use agreements, which were then published by the Northern Territory government. These are quite extensive. They will guarantee now and into the future access to parks and reserves in the Northern Territory that historically had been Northern Territory land, but now recognising them as having an Aboriginal interest and an underlying title—a native title—and the Indigenous landowners reaching agreement with the Northern Territory government that these lands could be used for the benefit of all Territorians and, indeed, all Australians.

This was done without any great sense of drama. It has not been easy. Of course, the negotiations, as you will appreciate, were difficult, but they have reached a successful outcome. They mean that, through the process of negotiating Indigenous land use agreements, very large areas of the Northern Territory, parks and reserves, are now under land use agreements. Not only are there new management plans being developed for these lands—which will involve Indigenous people and give them a direct benefit as a result—but also they provide a management plan which gives Indigenous people the capacity to influence how the land is utilised and how it is managed in an appropriate way jointly with the Northern Territory government.

Those sorts of historical arrangements did not exist prior to the election of the current Labor Northern Territory government in 2001. The previous conservative government of the Country Liberal Party took the view that they not only opposed land rights under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act but that they would oppose at every opportunity the prospect of Indigenous Australians having their rights recognised under the native title legislation. Because a different view has been adopted by the current government, we have seen very successful outcomes in negotiating Indigenous land use agreements with the Northern Territory government regarding parks and reserves. There have been a couple of exceptions where difficulties have arisen, but by and large they have reached agreement.

A division having been called in the House of Representatives—

Mr SNOWDON —Of course the interesting thing about the document we are referring to is that it was published in 2001. At that point I was a member of the committee and participated in this inquiry. We now know that things have moved on since then and the experience of the native title representative bodies, representing native title applicants and native title holders, has grown. As I said earlier, in the Northern Territory this has meant a very mature approach by both the native title rep bodies and commercial interests, as well as the Northern Territory government, in using ILUAs to the mutual benefit of all parties.

One of the interesting things that I think needs to be contemplated is the resourcing of native title representative bodies to carry out the functions under the Native Title Act. There are significant issues that the Commonwealth needs to confront. I note that the minister has indicated a desire to amend the native title legislation in a rather perfunctory way. He has not indicated what those amendments will be. I hope they will include amendments which might adequately address the funding of native title rep bodies so they can properly carry out their functions. When you look at the roles of the native title rep bodies and the statutory authorities which are there to administer native title, relatively speaking, the native title rep bodies are dramatically underfunded.

On the other hand, the Native Title Tribunal is more than adequately funded. We noted during the inquiries that were undertaken as far back as 2001 that, because of the lack of resources, many of the rep bodies, when making submissions to the committee, indicated they found it very difficult to carry out their functions in a proper and appropriate manner. In the context of these ILUAs, because they lacked funding at that point, they found it difficult to properly represent the interests of their clients. Clearly, as I said earlier, things have progressed since that time, but it remains the case that there has been a severe underfunding of native title rep bodies and that the issue of funding needs to be addressed. The funding arrangement needs to be rebalanced so that more resources are given to native title rep bodies and fewer resources are given to the tribunal.

I am someone who was glad to be part of the Keating cabinet considerations of the Native Title Act. I am pleased to have been someone who was able to be in the parliament and vote for that historic piece of legislation. I am pleased to have been able to assist Indigenous interests in putting proposals to amend the Native Title Act in 1998. And I am pleased to now be engaged with Indigenous interests across Australia, but particularly in the Northern Territory, around issues to do with native title. But I am most concerned: I do not believe the government has properly and adequately addressed the needs of the native title rep bodies so they can properly carry out their functions.

I note that it is important that the government scrutinise the work of these bodies, and that they be properly accountable. But it is also true that we need to be accountable downwards as well as upwards. It is very difficult for these native title rep bodies to carry out their functions if they are not adequately and properly resourced. I say to the government: of all the recommendations they ought to be considering, one of the most important is to properly and adequately fund these organisations. As to the other matters addressed in the report, I make the point that the report was done in 2001. We have moved a long way in terms of experience since then, and it may now be time to have another inquiry—or at least revisit the issues addressed in this inquiry—to see how, contemporaneously, they might be changed. I say to the government: this is a very paltry response to a report of 2001. Why has it taken almost five years?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lindsay)—I thank the member for Snowdon.

Mr Snowdon —The member for Snowdon?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER —I am sorry; the member for Lingiari.