Senator BOSWELL (Leader of the National Party of Australia in the Senate)(9.48 a.m.) —I am speaking in continuation on this Native Title Amendment (Tribunal Appointments) Bill . The bill goes to the qualifications for appointments of presidential members of the National Native Title Tribunal and provides for the establishment of a register to enable temporary appointments to the tribunal.

This bill allowed me to make some remarks on general native title administration. Yesterday I referred to a claim made by the Undumbi people on the Sunshine Coast and I pointed out a number of claim restrictions that they wanted to place on properties. In point (o) of their claim, they claim a right to:

. . . grant or refuse permission to any other person to do some or all of (a) to (n) either at all or subject to terms and conditions.

That is an issue that the Native Title Tribunal will have to look at very closely. Families out west have overlapping claims on their properties. Why should they not be anxious?

The author of the article I quoted from yesterday made a lot of the alleged fear that properties would be taken away from farmers. Neither the NFF nor the National Party of Australia have ever told leaseholders that this would be the case. The article claims that the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) and the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Tim Fischer) travelled to Longreach to counter the mischievous information pastoralists had been fed. I was at Longreach and I have been to many meetings where the issue of native title has been raised. People are not fearful of losing their properties. They are fearful of how coexistence can work, how there can be two titles to the one piece of property; fearful of how native title might develop and restrict their family, living and business activities; and fearful of years of court cases before they will really know where they stand on their own properties.

Does anyone honestly think that, if we believed properties were going to be grabbed, the National Party of Australia would not have kicked up a major stink by now on that issue? It has not happened. There never was any major concern on that point put out by any reputable organisation. There are too many other real things to be worried about.

The article mentioned a land valuer who said that not one of his company's Queensland valuers has found a single sale which can be said to have been devalued by the Wik decision. Firstly, it should be pointed out that one does not have to sell land in order for it to be devalued. Indeed, devaluation would be a definite disincentive. Secondly, the schedule to a QIDC lending document gives the corporation the discretion to decide that the value of a property has been reduced by virtue of an Aboriginal claim in respect of actual or alleged rights. The existence of a claim on a property can constitute an `event of default' where, in the opinion of the corporation, such circumstances materially reduce the value of the mortgaged property or materially adversely affect the financial position of the mortgagor and/or the debtor.  The existence of a native title claim is clearly seen by this major rural lender in Queensland as pivotal to the value and financial viability of the property.

I would also like to refer to a letter from one of Australia's leading banks which states, in reference to a property sale negotiation:

The bank will not countenance any further delays, particularly given that the security property is not apparently in a `Wik' affected area.

That is an acknowledgment that sales in Wik-affected areas experience delays and difficulties because of it, and all of this is important for the tribunal to understand.

So it is quite obvious that the article in the Australian has got it wrong when it comes to the implications of native title for property sales. The country's major banks consider it a definite factor in their lending services policy.

The author found one pastoralist who thought the Aboriginal people wanted to take her farm. Of course, she was surprised that that was not the case when she sat down with the local Aboriginal people. As this pastoralist said, `the most important thing to them is recognition.'

What the author failed to mention is that the claims start off with the local Aboriginal people with whom the leaseholders have grown up or at least know well. What happens then is that the representative Aboriginal body gets involved with the registration and, from then on, leaseholders have to deal with quite a different group of people, whom they do not know and who have legal and other resources.

An example, which the tribunal ought to look at, of how this can make it very difficult and complicated to get agreement was reported in the Courier-Mail on 24 February this year. I am very glad Senator Woodley is in the Senate to hear this. The tribunal ought to be be able to understand this. A Cape York cattleman, Alan Pedersen, had been negotiating successfully with local Aborigines with whom he want to school in Mareeba. Some are among his closest friends. He states:

I started talking with the elders but they got pushed aside and the solicitors and the land councils got into the act.

The former land council chairman, Bob Colless, said that the failure to forge an agreement prompted his resignation from the land council. He stated:

Alan is the fourth generation. His father grew up with our people. Tears were flowing when the agreement was almost reached. Some of the old people just wanted to be able to return to their land to die.

I don't know why solicitors have to look at things as a win-lose situation.

He also stated:

The accepted authority of the people making decisions was so diluted by some radical bucks; people who had never been to the land before—

Senator Woodley interjecting—

Senator BOSWELL —I am quoting an Aboriginal talking about Aboriginals, and it is a direct quote from an Aboriginal. He continues:

but suddenly wanted to be cattle barons and miners overnight.

Pedersen has driven more than 3,000 kilometres to attend meetings and says that the whole process had cost him more than $15,000, while `everyone else, the Aboriginal people, the government officials, the solicitors, all are paid.'

As he says, most land-holders are not opposed to access agreements with local Aborigines. It is when the elders get pushed aside and replaced with solicitors and strangers that the difficulties arise, and the good working relationship between black and white Australians that existed in the bush before native title is irreparably damaged.

Native title negotiations are not achieved by sitting across the kitchen table with the friendly locals, as the article's token pastoralist will unhappily find out. The author is correct in assessing the whole situation as providing three basic options for farmers: legislate, litigate or negotiate. If both sides cannot agree, as in the Pedersen case, with interference from lawyers and radicals, then there are two options left. If legislation does not give certainty, there is only one option left and that is litigation.

As the author noted, times have been very tough in the bush over the past decade. There is no money for litigation, so what then? There is no need to cultivate fear. Don McGauchie is only guilty of trying to protect his people from their legitimate concerns. In that, he has the overwhelming support of rural Australia.