Henry Pike (Bowman, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Part 2 of schedule 3 of the Attorney-General's Portfolio Miscellaneous Measures Bill 2023 repeals section 213A of the Native Title Act 1993. In effect, this would abolish the native title respondent funding scheme. This scheme has provided grants of financial assistance to respondents in native title claims to help them meet their obligations under the federal act. I'm advised that, since the inception of the scheme, support has been provided to 469 pastoralists, 375 local governments, 319 fishers, 286 who fell into the 'other' category, 91 miners, eight recreational users and so on.

Sadly, over the years, the fairness and balance within the Native Title Act has fallen victim to partisan agendas; the respondent funding scheme has waxed and waned at the whim of governments. The scheme was first expanded by the coalition in 1998 to remove a hardship test which previously applied to respondent applications and which was found to be prejudicial in many cases. The respondent funding scheme was again amended by the coalition in 2005 and 2007 to better promote agreement-making and avoid the burden of over-litigious claims. These were applauded as positive reform in terms of fairness and sustainability.

Unfortunately, the respondent funding scheme has since become a political football, following a significant funding cut in 2013 during the term of the Gillard government. The funding scheme was promptly restored by the Abbott government and continued under successive coalition governments through to 2022. I find it deeply regrettable that the Labor government has chosen to abolish the native title respondent funding scheme through this bill, particularly at a time when my community is facing one of the biggest native title claims this country has ever seen.

The Attorney-General's second reading speech states that many significant questions of native title law have now been settled, and the government considers that many current native title respondents, which are generally commercially viable or sound entities, would have the capacity to deal with native title matters as part of their ordinary business costs. Well, that is simply not the case. It is not the case in my community of the Redlands. There is currently a native title claim, the Quandamooka Coast Claim, over much of the Redlands—the community I have the honour of representing in this place. The claim covers approximately 530 square kilometres, including most of mainland Redland City Council local government area and Macleay, Karragarra, Coochiemudlo and Lamb islands in the southern Moreton Bay.

Redland City Council is seeking clarity from the Federal Court to determine if native title has been extinguished on council owned or managed land within the Quandamooka Coast native title claim area. Approximately 3,500 council owned or managed properties are included in the current native title claim. The claim is likely to see thousands of council properties, including parks, reserves and public spaces, handed over to Indigenous ownership. Much of this land is of high value to our suburban communities but would be of little benefit in improving the economic circumstances or wellbeing of our Indigenous population. The land in question includes some of our city's most iconic sites, such as the Wellington Point Reserve, Cleveland Point reserve, the Redland Performing Arts Centre and even the Cleveland Cemetery. It also includes countless nature reserves, playgrounds and other community assets.

Understandably, there is a growing level of community consternation about what a change of ownership of these land parcels would mean for how they are maintained, accessed and enjoyed by locals. Recent history on North Stradbroke Island has raised serious concerns from locals about land clearing and segregated access to land now under native title control. Just this week we saw a $20,000 fine issued for the illegal clearing of 2,900 square metres of protected vegetation on some native title land within North Stradbroke Island.

Our parks, reserves and public spaces should be available for our entire community to utilise, regardless of race. They should also be maintained in a professional and accountable way with the support of our rates. The question has to be asked: What possible utility or economic benefit can be gained for Indigenous people from taking ownership over a neighbourhood playground? How can that ever be anything other than a financial and time burden upon the prescribed body corporate? The fact that these questions are yet to be resolved continues to frustrate Redland City Council, the interests of ratepayers and the rights of the Quandamooka people.

The mounting cost for Redland City Council, as the respondent to the native title claim, continues to place unreasonable pressure on planning and land use certainty and on the limited capacity of Redland City Council ratepayers and services. There are many sporting and community organisations who currently lease land off Redland City Council which now have their tenure called into question due to this claim. They can't make the investment decisions required to grow their operations while this tenure is under a cloud. These groups, as well as Redland City Council and local residents, want a quick resolution to this issue.

Consider, as an example, the Alex Hills Bombers, an Australian rules club in my electorate. We've been working hard to secure an upgrade to change rooms to improve the amenity for female players. I struggle to see how council can proceed with that project until the tenure of that land is resolved. There is a real risk that the Redlands native title claim drags out in the courts for decades, costing both sides millions and ultimately delivering poor outcomes for both our Indigenous and broader communities.

The Sunday Mail recently estimated that the total cost for Redland City Council could exceed $210 million. While the federal government provides financial support to the native title claimants, Redland City Council receives no financial support from the federal government to defend the position of the broader community through native title processes. This creates a significant financial burden on ratepayers.

I recently sent a petition to the Attorney-General with over 5,000 local signatories asking for the Native Title Respondents Funding Scheme to not be erased, but this call from my community has fallen on deaf ears. I would draw the Attorney-General's attention to a letter he received in his first innings as Attorney-General that the then president of the Queensland Law Society wrote to him some 10 years ago to outline the society's objections to cuts to the NTRFS being made at that time. In that letter, dated back in 2013, the Queensland Law Society argued that cuts to this funding stream was completely at odds with the public interest. Further to the position of the Queensland Law Society, I would argue that if scaling back the NTRFS was previously considered to be at odds with the public interest, the abolition of the whole scheme is even more so. Unfortunately, what we have here is an ideological objection to respondent funding from the Attorney-General.

The government has sought to justify this decision by claiming it was a budget repair measure. This position is difficult to argue as the previous coalition government allocated only a modest $1.7 million to this funding scheme in 2022-23. In contrast, the Queensland South Native Title Services was granted $25.8 million in the same financial year by the Commonwealth for the performance of native title functions under the act. Across all of Australia, native title claimant funding from the federal government was $212.6 million last financial year. Across Queensland, this funding totalled $83.3 million. Any informed person would argue that $1.7 million or even three or four times that amount is minuscule given the size of the federal budget, and it is completely dwarfed by the funding currently available to native title representative bodies acting for claimants in such matters.

There is clearly a sense within the Labor government that stacking the deck in favour of native title claimants is a compassionate and progressive thing to do. While I don't doubt the sincerity of their motives, I simply can't agree that seeking to precontrive these outcomes is in the best interests of the communities across the country or even in the spirit of the act. The Native Title Act was famously created by a Labor government. The act doesn't say that every native title claim is legitimate. It doesn't say that respondents must roll over and provide claimants with everything they want. It outlines a process and a legal framework to assess native title claims, a process to test and evaluate those claims, a process to ensure that dispossession of the past is not repeated in the name of redressing historical wrongs. This shouldn't be about ideology. It should be about fairness. The government's role should be about ensuring that all stakeholders can meet their obligations under the federal act. In order to ensure a fair and equitable outcome, I'm pushing for the federal government to provide equal funding to support both the claimants and Redland City Council through the legal process. This bill will unfortunately kill a key avenue through which this funding equality could be achieved. I've been pushing for an outcome that leaves no community worse off and an outcome that doesn't lead to a protracted stand-off.

A similar stand-off was resolved in Orange, New South Wales, through an historic agreement between the local Indigenous community and the state and local governments. The agreement saw multiple claims resolved in a collaborative way through a mutually beneficial land swap determined between the parties. This deal preserved public access to community recreation land, protected sites of cultural significance and supported the creation of local Indigenous jobs. I'm pushing for a collaborative approach in the Redlands between all levels of government that will deliver a similar win-win solution to what was achieved in Orange. Unfortunately the approach from the Queensland state government to date has been to pressure Redland City Council not to contest the native title claim and to simply ignore the legitimate concerns of ratepayers. That wouldn't be a fair or equitable outcome, and I commend Redland City Council for taking the decisions they've taken to date. I'll be standing up for my community and my city 100 per cent of the way on this important issue. The coalition strongly encourages the government to reconsider the scrapping of the Native Title Respondent Funding Scheme through this bill.

Stephen Bates (Brisbane, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Attorney-General's Portfolio Miscellaneous Measures Bill 2023 makes miscellaneous changes to Attorney-General matters, including removing the legislative framework for the recently abolished Native Title Respondent Funding Scheme. We understand that it is this minor administrative aspect of the bill that the opposition opposes. The Greens will be supporting the bill here today, but we reserve our position in the Senate as we continue discussions with stakeholders about the matters that have been raised.

Schedule 1 amends the ASIC Act, Corporations Act, Judiciary Act, NCCP Act, SI(S) Act to confer jurisdiction on the Federal Court to hear and determine a range of summary and indictable offences relating to entities and conduct against those acts and the Criminal Code within the regulatory remit of ASIC. This new jurisdiction makes sense for the Federal Court, which has significant relevant expertise.

Schedule 2 will allow the sheriff to request a state or territory jury official, with the consent of the relevant state or territory, to prepare and provide a jury panel to the sheriff, thereby streamlining the process. Schedule 3 amends the Marriage Act to enable an authorised witness to remotely witness the signing of the notice of marriage by the parties to the marriage. It also creates the position of deputy registrar of marriage celebrants, changes some paperwork requirements for celebrants, allows for refunds of marriage celebrant fees and says a celebrant must be physically present at a marriage. I can foreshadow that the Greens may be moving amendments in the Senate to address some technical impacts of the current laws regarding marriage celebrants.

Schedule 4 repeals obsolete legislation, including the legislative framework underpinning the now-abolished native title respondent scheme. This scheme was abolished as an election commitment from Labor and has not been funded in the last budget. Funding respondents to native title claims without means-testing tips the scales towards wealthy landowners and miners and can act as a real impediment to First Nations communities getting fair outcomes under the native title scheme. As I said, we will be supporting the bill in the House but reserving our position, pending amendments, in the Senate.

Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Attorney-General's Portfolio Miscellaneous Measures Bill 2023 will make a range of important amendments to update, clarify and improve the intended operation of legislation administered by the Attorney-General's portfolio. The bill will enhance the capacity of the Australian court system to deal with corporate crime offences and enable a more efficient jury preparation process in the federal court of Australia. The bill will also formalise the government's election commitment to abolish the native title respondent scheme. Thirty years on from the enactment of the Native Title Act, the law is largely settled, and legal costs associated with responding to native title claims should now be treated as an ordinary business expense.

The bill will also clarify and improve the operation of the Commonwealth Marriage Celebrants Program, provide greater accessibility for marrying couples by allowing couples to have the notice of intended marriage witnessed remotely and streamline the administrative process used in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia for family law arbitration applications to review an arbitral award or to determine a question of law. In conclusion, these amendments will make a number of appropriate and necessary improvements to laws in my portfolio. I commend the bill to the House.

Terry Young (Longman, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As it is necessary to resolve this question to enable further questions to be considered in relation to this bill, in accordance with standing order 195 the bill will be returned to the House for further consideration.