Senator MINCHIN (Special Minister of State and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister)(7.21 p.m.) —I know it is a long debate, Senator Bolkus, but calm down. Your proposed section 191A(3) says that if there is no appeal, the registrar must enter the certification, stating that the native title rights and interests confer possession, occupation, use and enjoyment of the area concerned on the relevant people to the exclusion of all others. That is a conferral by the rep body on the people it identifies—and it alone—and the grant to them of exclusive possession of the area of land.

Let us not quibble about what is being done here. That is an extraordinary power to bestow upon a rep body. What the High Court said as to native title is that our common law recognises the traditional law and custom and recognises that native title right where the court is satisfied that the native title claimants have maintained their traditional connection to the area and there has been no extinguishing act by government. That is what native title is about.

We are recognising the quite legitimate interest in Aboriginal people who already occupy land having the addition of native title. That occurs through our sections 47A and 47B, where we ensure that no regard should be paid to any previous extinguishment act. It takes that whole issue out of the equation. This proposition is made worse by the Greens (WA) proposition that national parks in the area concerned be included. As I say, we would be conferring exclusive possession over national parks if the Greens (WA) amendment were incorporated. I would have thought that would pose extraordinary legal consequences and difficulties.

Senator Woodley has made accusations against the Queensland government. The Queensland government, of all Australian governments, has concluded an agreement in Hopevale. After the Federal Court makes the appropriate determination, it will result in, for the first time on the Australian mainland, a group of people exercising determined native title rights. As this government and I have said, we applaud the Queensland government for negotiating that agreement in quite difficult circumstances, even though it is a DOGIT land. So there are processes in place and it can be achieved. Our amendments will facilitate it. We believe that this proposition simply goes too far. It has constitutional problems. It confers too great a responsibility and power on the representative body and puts it into a conflict of interest situation.