Bills Digest no. 182 2006–07
Native Title Amendment (Technical Amendments) Bill
2007
WARNING:
This Digest was prepared for debate. It reflects the legislation as
introduced and does not canvass subsequent amendments. This Digest
does not have any official legal status. Other sources should be
consulted to determine the subsequent official status of the
Bill.
CONTENTS
Passage History
Purpose
Background
Concluding Comments
Endnotes
Contact Officer & Copyright Details
Passage History
-
future acts, Indigenous land use agreements and
the making and resolution of native title applications;
-
the scope of alternative state or territory
regimes to the right to negotiate established under section 43 of
the Act;
-
the obligations of the Registrar of the Native
Title Tribunal in relation to the registration of native title
applications, native title representative bodies, and prescribed
bodies corporate; and
-
the amendment of provisions so they reflect the
framework of the Legislative Instruments Act 2003 (the
LIA).
Information regarding the background to this
Bill can be found in Parliamentary Library s Bills Digest No.
77 2006-07, Native Title Amendment Bill 2006.(1)
This background can be summarised by reference to the September
2005 announcement by the Attorney-General that he intended to
modify a range of provisions in the mechanics of the Native Title
process.(2) At the time he emphasised that the changes
were not designed to effect the substance of the Native Title
legislation, but would be focussed on ensuring quicker, more
satisfactory outcomes for all concerned.(3)
This Bill is agreed by nearly all parties to
contain a large number of minor, technical and non-controversial
amendments, however not all the amendments are necessarily minor or
technical.(4) In recognition of the minor/technical
nature of most of these amendments, this Digest will focus
predominantly on particular areas of concern where it is believed
the changes may be significant.
The Senate Standing Committee on Legal and
Constitutional Affairs Inquiry into the Bill elicited 12
submissions, which identified a variety of concerns. Due to the
disparate nature of these concerns (although there are common
themes amongst them), the Digest offers a tabulated form of
commentary, grouped according to the Schedule in which the areas of
concern fall. The note form of these dot-point summaries should be
supplemented by reference to the original Submissions. The Tables
are in the following format:
|
Item
No.
|
Section affected and
summary of change
|
Issue raised by the
party contributing to the Senate Inquiry.
|
Contributor and
Submission No.
|
|
Item
No.
|
Section affected and
summary of change
|
Issue raised by the
party contributing to the Senate Inquiry.
|
Contributor and
Submission No.
|
|
Item 7.
|
Proposed Section 60AB - Fees
for services provided by registered native title bodies corporate
in performing certain functions
|
While endorsing the thrust of this
amendment Ergon also suggest an additional clause which would
exempt those providing infrastructure or services for the benefit
of native title holders from being charged fees by the Registered
Native Title Body Corporate.
|
Ergon Energy (Submission No.
3)
|
|
Item
20
|
Section 24CI -
Objections against registration (proposed amendments to subsection 3 would limit
the use that the NNTT can make of information it received in the
course of providing assistance to those seeking to have an
objection to a registration of a claim withdrawn. The limitations
would apply across a range of sections.)
|
The Carpentaria Land Council
Aboriginal Corporation (CLCAC) identify the significant drain on
resources that they can experience when responding to objections to
Indigenous Land Use Agreements (ILUA s). They suggest that the
native title determination process should be copied in the case of
certified ILUA s.
|
Carpentaria Land Council Aboriginal
Corporation (Submission No. 7).
|
|
Item
35
|
Section 24KA - Facilities for
services to the public (The proposed insertion of ss(2)(la) to
this section would provide for automatic weather stations to be
validated as facility for service to the public.)
|
The National Native Title Council
(NNTC) argue this is a further incursion into native title rights
and interests. It breaches the Attorney-General s earlier
commitment to avoid reducing native title rights. The NNTC oppose
the amendment.
|
National Native Title Council
(Submission No. 5)
|
|
Item
56
|
Section 29 Notification of
parties affected (proposed amendment to ss. 29(8) which deals
with Multiple Acts, a provision allowing the Minister to notify multiple parties (i.e. the
public) of multiple acts.)
|
The Human Rights and Equal
Opportunities Commission (HREOC) is concerned that practices which
would be allowed under the amendments would require native title
holders and their representative bodies to wade through many
notifications that were irrelevant to them and that this may mean
they fail to identify significant notifications.
|
Human Rights and Equal
Opportunities Commission (Submission No. 10)
|
|
Item
72
|
Section 62 Information etc. in
relation to certain applications (Proposed amendment to ss
(1)(a)(v) which would require information regarding authorisation
and its process to be included in an application.)
|
The NNTC vigorously oppose this
proposal, citing other provisions under which this information is
made available. They say the proposal is unnecessary and will only
add yet another layer of complexity for native title
claimants.
|
National Native Title Council
(Submission No. 5)
|
|
Item
76
|
Section 62 Information etc. in
relation to certain applications (Proposed amendment to ss.
(3)(a)(iv) which would require applicants to include details of
authorisation decision-making process).
|
Once again the NNTC suggests there
are multiple avenues for checking on authorisation, and that the
proposal adds an extra unnecessary layer of complexity for native
title claimants to deal with.
|
National Native Title Council
(Submission No. 5)
|
|
Item
82
|
Section 66B Replacing the
applicant (Proposed amendment to ss. (1) which makes
provisions for certain applicants to be removed from the
application.)
|
The NNTC supports this amendment
but suggests various ways the drafting and purpose of the amendment
could be made clearer or more effective.
|
National Native Title Council
(Submission No. 5)
|
|
Item
82
|
As above.
|
The CLCAC raises a number of
concerns regarding this amendment. It points out that authorisation
meetings are costly and time consuming. If an authorisation process
or meeting is required to remove the name of deceased applicants or
applicants who consent to their removal then there will be on-going
problems with the utility of the provisions. It is also suggested
that further clarifications are needed with respect to the
interactions of different provisions with this
provision.
|
Carpentaria Land Council Aboriginal
Corporation (Submission No. 7)
|
|
Item
87
|
Section 84 Parties
(Proposed amendment to insert ss. (6A) which would allow any party
to withdraw without leave before substantive hearings
commence).
|
The NNTC supports this amendment
but suggests costs should be able to be claimed (from either
applicants or other parties).
|
National Native Title Council
(Submission No. 5)
|
|
Item
88
|
Proposed Section
84D Proceedings
affected by possible defect in authorisation (this amendment
would allow the Federal Court to order evidence be provided which
illustrates the authorisation for an application. The order could
be made on their own motion, another party to the proceedings or a
member of the application. If the authorisation is not in order
then the Court may, in spite of the defect, continue with the
application).
|
The NNTC supports the Court s
flexibility with respect to continuing on with an application,
however it rejects the ordering of proof of authorisation. It
argues the breadth of the provisions leave it open to abuse, and
suggests someone requesting the information should be required by
the Court to show cause.
|
National Native Title Council
(Submission No. 5)
|
|
Item
88
|
As above.
|
While supporting the intent of the
amendment the CLCAC argues that further guidance is needed with
respect to the process under proposed s. 84D. In particular there
is a recommendation that certain issues not be left to be decided
by the Court, in order that greater clarity be achieved for claim
groups.
|
Carpentaria Land Council Aboriginal
Corporation (Submission No. 7)
|
|
Item
91
|
Section 87A - Power of Federal
Court to make determination for part of an area (subsection
(1)(c)(v) )
|
The Court s power to make a
determination is restricted by the requirement to obtain the
consent of those with an interest in the area. Ergon believe that
interests in their infrastructure used for energy generation may
not be sufficiently covered due to historical anomalies regarding
ownership of their facilities. Consequently they are concerned they
may not be able to join as a party whose consent must be sought
before a determination is made.
|
Ergon Energy (Submission No.
3)
|
|
|
Section 253 - Other
definitions (in particular the definition of interest, in
relation to land or waters )
|
The broad definition of interest in
relation to Land or Waters in this section may be insufficient to
cover Ergon s infrastructure and they suggest an amendment which
would cover their interests.
|
Ergon Energy (Submission No.
3)
|
|
Item
91
|
Section 87A - Power of Federal
Court to make determination for part of an area (proposed
amendment to ss. (1)(c)(v) would broaden the basis on which people
can join a consent determination).
|
The NNTC believes that the current
provision is adequate, and that if it is to be broadened there
would be a corresponding power vested in the Federal Court to
exercise a discretion with respect to whether a person s interests
are likely to be affected by the proposed agreement.
|
National Native Title Council
(Submission No. 5)
|
|
Item
91
|
As above.
|
The Minerals Council of Australia
(MCA) rejects the currently proposed amendment on the basis that it
is too broad and may allow non-bona fide parties into the process.
Furthermore latecomers to the process could derail established
negotiations and create delays. Finally the MCA argues the NNTT
already has the discretion to allow amendments to the registered
interests in appropriate circumstances. The Council supports
removing proprietary from the subsections but recommends retaining
the current formulation.
|
Minerals Council of
Australia (Submission No. 8)
|
|
Item
101
|
Section 190A - Registrar to
consider claims (proposed amendments to ss. (2) which would
seek to set certain time frames on the Registrar s consideration of
claims.)
|
The CLCAC argues the drafting is
too vague and that, by setting aspirational targets the legislation
is failing to address the issue of time delays. The CLCAC
recommends a more definitive time frame be imposed.
|
Carpentaria Land Council Aboriginal
Corporation (Submission No. 7)
|
|
Item
102
|
Section 190A - Registrar to
consider claims
|
The NSW Government supports the
amendment to s. 190A which will ensure an automatic acceptance of
an amendment which reduces the area of a claim. It goes on to
suggest that removing names of deceased applicants from an
application or purely procedural changes should similarly be
extempt from a re-application of the registration test.
|
The NSW Government
(Submission No. 9)
|
|
Item
107
|
Amend section 190D and insert
proposed sections 190E and 190F. These provisions
deal with the internal review of registration decisions.
|
The NNTC flags in the strongest
terms its rejection of allowing the registration test be used to
reject claims. It says the Government has flagrantly gone back on
[its] assurance not to use the registration test for the purpose of
dismissal in the substantive determination proceedings. It goes on
to suggest drafting modifications that will clarify that applicants
can first seek internal reconsideration of the registration
decision before applying to the Federal Court.
|
National Native Title Council
(Submission No. 5)
|
|
Item
107
|
As above.
|
The CLCAC raises a number of
concerns regarding these amendments. It indicates a number of ways
in which the appropriate process of appealing and reviewing
decisions needs to be clarified. It says very strongly that
[c]laims should not be in a position where they can be dismissed on
the basis that they have not passed the registration test The
registration test process should not be confused with the role of
the Court.
|
Carpentaria Land Council Aboriginal
Corporation (Submission No. 7)
|
|
Item
107.
|
Proposed section
190E - If the
claim cannot be registered reconsideration by the
Registrar
|
The Tribunal points out the
ramifications of failing the Registration Test are now greater than
they were previously. They suggest that consequently it is
appropriate for the appeal to lie to a Tribunal Member rather than
the Registrar. They argue a statutory office holder who is
independent of the Registrar may give the applicant greater
confidence the application is being considered afresh.
|
National Native Title Tribunal
(Submission No. 4)
|
|
Item
112
|
Section 199C - Removal of
details of agreement from Register (Proposed amendment to
(1)(c)(i), which would specify on which grounds the Registrar may
decide that an agreement has expired).
|
The NNTC endorses the amendment,
but also notes its concerns that the capacity to amend an
Indigenous Land Use Agreement has not been provided for subsequent
on the Government s discussion paper on the matter.
|
National Native Title Council
(Submission No. 5)
|
|
Item 62
& 63 (also 127, 138 and 139)
|
Changes to section 43 -
Modification of Subdivision if satisfactory alternative State
or Territory provisions.
|
HREOC raises strong concerns
regarding proposed amendments to s. 43 contained in these items.
They say these amendments cannot be called technical amendments The
inclusion of the capacity of alternative state and territory
regimes to replace the right to negotiate provisions was a
particularly controversial matter at the time of the extended,
often bitter, debate between the representatives of competing
interests in 1998. They also comment retrospective validation of
invalidly done future acts (including legislative acts) has been a
too common aspect of amendments to this Act. The proposed
amendments would include a validation of South Australian
provisions contained in the Mining Act 1971 (SA) and the
Opal Mining Act 1995 (SA). The Commission objects to this
on the basis that it has not involved appropriate consultation, the
recognition is not as limited as it could be and there has been no
just compensation for any resultant loss. It recommends against
these amendments.
|
Human Rights and Equal
Opportunities Commission (Submission No. 10)
|
|
Item
No.
|
Section affected and
summary of change
|
Issue raised by the
party contributing to the Senate Inquiry.
|
Contributor and
Submission No.
|
|
Item
5
|
Section 59 - Kinds of
prescribed bodies corporate (changes which would allow
Regulations to specify the default Prescribed Body Corporate and
the kinds of Prescribed Body Corporate (PBC)).
|
The NNTC raises its serious
concerns regarding this unfettered capacity to make regulations
regarding PBC s. In particular they are concerned that under the
new Corporations (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) Act 2006 such Regulations could allow PBCs with
non-Aboriginal members. The Council argues this would be entirely
inappropriate for native title bodies. Native title is based upon
Aboriginal traditional laws and customs. It suggests amendments
which would deal with this issue in accordance with the provisions
of the Corporations (Aboriginal and
Torres Strait
Islander) Act
2006.
|
National Native Title Council
(Submission No. 5)
|
|
Item
7
|
Proposed sections
60AB - Fees for
services provided by registered native title bodies corporate in
performing certain functions and 60AC -
Opinion of the Registrar of Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander Corporations
|
The MCA points out it has long
maintained that Native Title Representative Bodies (NTRBs) and PBCs
are chronically under resourced. It goes on to say that while it
supports existing practice whereby industry pays additional
commercial costs associated with specific Registered Native Title
Representative Bodies (RNTBC s) activities. However, the MCA
strongly opposes the ability of RNTCSs to charge a fee for
fulfilling their core statutory responsibilities. Consequently it
supports amending ss. 60AB(1) to restrict the charges appropriately
and the deletion of ss. 60AB(2).
|
Minerals Council of
Australia (Submission No. 8)
|
|
Item
7
|
As above.
|
The NNTC expresses concerns at a
range of issues inherent in these changes. They object to the
entire proposal as unnecessary and discriminatory with a superadded
regulatory ability. In particular they raise the issue of the
inherent dangers in excessive use of regulations. This concern is
particularly directed at proposed ss60AB(5)(c) which allows
regulations to be made prohibiting RNTBC s from charging fees in
any other circumstance. The NNTC also voices concerns over the
Registrar of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Corporations
being able to give a binding opinion as to whether fees are
payable. This request for an opinion is unfettered and, according
to the NNTC, could be used to avoid paying fees, while the prospect
of being left without the payment of fees while the matter is
resolved without any clear framework for the timely resolution of
the matter does not appeal to the NNTC.
|
National Native Title Council
(Submission No. 5)
|
|
Items
1, 2, 5 and 6
|
Proposed amendments to a number of
sections would enable the creation of regulations which may both
stipulate the kinds of bodies corporate that may be determined as a
trust PBC or an agent PBC, and also the body corporate that is to
be determined.
|
HREOC argues strenuously against
the Government s proposed amendments to the creation of alternative
or replacement PBC s. In particular they argue that it should be
the Courts, rather than Government created regulations, which
become the determining factor when replacing a PBC. The Courts,
furthermore, should have every possible regard to the wishes of the
native title holders in this task. The Commission recognises there
may be situations where, as a matter of urgency, there is a need to
establish a trust or agent PBC. However it argues the Court is the
appropriate body to determine which body corporate will hold the
native title and/or perform the agency functions in relation to
native title.
|
Human Rights and Equal
Opportunities Commission (Submission No. 10)
|
Schedule 4 makes a large number of amendments
which change disallowable and written instruments into legislative
instruments. The Legislative Instruments Act 2003 (the
LIA) establishes a comprehensive regime for the registration,
tabling, scrutiny and sunsetting of Commonwealth legislative
instruments. The definition of a legislative instrument is
described in section 5 of the LIA. This section provides that a
legislative instrument is a written instrument of a legislative
character made in the exercise of a power delegated by the
Parliament. An instrument is taken to be legislative if it
determines or alters the law, rather than applying it in a
particular case, and has the direct or indirect effect of affecting
a privilege or interest, imposing an obligation, creating a right,
or varying or removing an obligation or right.(5)
A legislative instrument made after 1 January
2005 is not enforceable unless the instrument is registered on the
Federal Register of Legislative Instruments. The Federal Register
of Legislative Instruments is an electronic database, incorporated
in the ComLaw website.(6)
The Act emphasises the importance of
consultation by encouraging rule makers to consult experts and
those likely to be affected by an instrument before it is
made.(7)
The explanatory statement for the instrument,
which will be tabled in the Parliament and accessible on the
register, must also contain a description of any consultation
undertaken, or if not undertaken, an explanation for its
absence.(8)
|
Section affected and summary of change
|
Issue raised by the party contributing to the Senate
Inquiry.
|
Contributor and Submission No.
|
|
Section
24LA- Low impact future acts
|
No
amendments are proposed for this Section in the Bill. The
submission raises the question of whether Councils should have to
comply with native title procedural requirements when they are
conducting work designed to protect public safety and health.
|
Local
Government Association of Queensland Inc (Submission No. 1)
|
|
As
above.
|
The NSW
Government submits that the Commonwealth should reconsider their
decision not to amend this section and suggest they should include
amendments allowing Government to act in the interests of the
community and public safety where such action may be required in
urgent circumstances.
|
The NSW
Government (Submission No. 9)
|
|
Section
94C - Order dismissing an application relating to a future
act
|
The NNTT
points to the need to fix an unforseen consequence of earlier
amendments.
|
National
Native Title Tribunal (Submission No. 4)
|
|
Sections
251A - Authorising the making of indigenous land use
agreements and 251B - Authorising the making of
applications
|
Concerns
that difficulties in achieving consensus can hamper effective
outcomes and that the drafting of these sections fails to recognise
the complexity in communities operations.
|
National
Indigenous Council (Submission No. 2)
|
|
Indigenous Land Use Agreements (ILUAs)
|
The NSW
Government suggests that amendments are needed to ensure that minor
changes can be made to an ILUA without the need for the ILUA to be
taken from the Register, re-authorised and re-registered.
|
The NSW
Government (Submission No. 9)
|
Report of the Senate Standing
Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs
The Committee s Report into this Bill found
common ground with respect to five recommendations, however the ALP
put in a dissenting report, and the Democrats and Greens put in
additional comments which express disquiet over issues raised in
submissions to the Inquiry and suggested further time was needed to
consider the matters.
The five majority recommendations
included:
-
A qualification on the need to obtain consent
from a party with an interest in relation to relevant land and
waters which stipulates that the Federal Court must be satisfied
that the interest is likely to be affected by the proposed
determination.
-
A clarification with respect to the order in
which reviews or the Native Title Registrar s decision not to
accept a claim can be accepted, and a requirement that the review
should be conducted by a Member of the NNTT.
-
That further consideration be given to provide
a simple process of removing applicants who are deceased or
incapacitated.(9)
The ALP s recommendations pick up on HREOC s
concerns regarding the alternative state regimes and recommend that
the Bill s amendments should be delayed pending consultation with
native title holders (10) They also identify that the
Federal Court should continue to determine prescribed bodies
corporate and that PBC s should be allowed to continue charging
fees. They also recognise that FaCSIA s legal advice is that there
is a need for a statutory authority for this fee regime, however
they recommend the Bill s provisions be amended. The ALP recommends
that the NTA be amended to prevent non-indigenous people being
members of a prescribed body corporate. Finally they recommend that
parties seeking an order for the production of evidence of
authorization should be required to show cause as to why the court
should make the order.
There are themes which keep recurring as
interested parties discuss the Government s administration of
Native Title issues. One central concern voiced by HREOC is that,
while the NTA:
represents a pragmatic compromise by the
legislators of this country at every point of potential friction
between native title rights and interests and other property
interests, native title has had to give way. It is of great
importance that any further changes that are made to the [NTA] do
not disadvantage or impede the recognition and protection of
traditional property rights further.(11)
HREOC also refers to the current legislative
regime as being the product of extended, and often bitter, debate
between the representatives of competing interests in the lead up
to the enactment of the 1998 amendments. (12)
Consequently, they argue, the delicate balance arrived at by
political compromise should not be disturbed and the right to
negotiate should not be further abridged by amendments in this
Bill. They argue with respect to the Bill s provisions that:
It is wrong in principle that acts done in
contravention of the law, and that adversely affect the rights and
interests of others, are later retrospectively validated to avoid
the consequences of the resulting invalidity.(13)
The NNTC also identifies a need to maintain
the position of native title holders and regards some provisions of
the Bill as representing further steps backwards. They express
concerns:
that the effect of some amendments will be
adverse to the government's stated intention that 'substantive
rights are not to be reduced'.(14)
Other recurring themes that were also
discussed in Bills Digest No. 77 2006-07, Native Title
Amendment Bill 2006, include the issue of the government s
consultation in this area, and the question of the resources
available to native title bodies. These issues were, once again,
referred to in submissions to the Inquiry.
The NNTC raises on-going concerns about the
Government s consultation methods, commenting that the fee regime
proposed in Schedule 3:
does not accord respect to Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander people in its construction, and is reflective of
the lack of detailed consultation with them, on a partnership
basis, by the Government. This lack of approach applies to this and
other rounds of amendments to the Native Title
Act.(15)
HREOC comments that there was a shortness of
time provided for [the Senate] inquiry, and there are a number of
recommendations in their Submission which recommend more
comprehensive consultation.
The submission from the Attorney-General s
Department and the Department of Families, Community Services and
Indigenous Affairs to the Senate Inquiry contains details of their
consultations. There were two discussion papers released, with the
first paper attracting nineteen written submissions and the second
paper attracting seventeen written submissions.(16)
The Departments comment that proposals which
would have significantly altered the balance of rights and interest
in the NTA were not progressed. They also comment:
Stakeholder feedback on the proposals in the
discussion papers was a key factor in determining whether proposals
in the discussion papers were progressed in the Bill. Comments made
by stakeholders during the consultation process also informed the
drafting of the provisions in the Bill.(17)
The Submission from the MCA says:
The MCA has long maintained that Native Title
Representative Bodies (NTRBs) and Prescribed Body Corporate (PBCs)
are chronically under resourced. PBCs are a critical component in
the native title system and are the logical forum to represent the
broader Indigenous economic interests in a region.
There is a strong need for core government funding of PBCs to
ensure appropriate capacity to meet their statutory functions,
which include negotiating future acts. In addition, government
funding should also be provided to assist the development of
independent Indigenous enterprise.(18)
The National Indigenous Council (NIC), perhaps
with some wisdom, commented in its submission to the Senate s
Inquiry in this Bill that:
[a]s an advisory body to Government we are not
well placed to respond in a meaningful manner to the technical
amendments to the Native Title Act
1993.(19)
Undoubtedly the NIC s summary of its situation
may be accurate, however, its decision not to respond substantively
to the Bill raises broader issues. It might be argued the NIC s
position highlights the debates that have been conducted as to
whether there is a need for an appropriately resourced
representative national body for Australia s Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander peoples. The NIC is the body established by the
Government after it abolished the Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander Commission. It is run through a Secretariat supported by
the Office of Indigenous Policy Coordination in the Department of
Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs.(20)
The terms of reference of the NIC include the promotion of
constructive dialogue and engagement between Government and
indigenous persons and bodies. (21)
Broader questions of resourcing have, once
again, been raised in the submissions. The submissions from
indigenous groups often refer to the difficulties and costs
inherent in complying with the bureaucratic demands of the Native
Title Act, while the Minerals Council of Australia says
There is a strong need for core government
funding of PBCs to ensure appropriate capacity to meet their
statutory functions, which include negotiating future acts. In
addition, government funding should also be provided to assist the
development of independent indigenous
enterprise.(22)
The Government has tabled Government
amendments to the Bill which address some of the issues raised by
the Committee s Report. Unfortunately time constrains do not allow
for an analysis of the impact of the amendments to the Bill in this
Digest.
- Magarey, K. Bills
Digest No. 77 2006-07, Native Title
Amendment Bill 2006, 6 February 2007, http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/BD/2006-07/07bd077.htm
accessed on 13 June 2007.
- Practical Reforms to
deliver better outcomes in Native Title , Attorney-General, the
Hon. Philip Ruddock MP, Media Release 163/2005, 7 September
2005.
- The Attorney-General
s website comments on the Bill: The Government recognises that,
following the amendments to the Native Title Act in 1998, the
existing regime continues to provide a sound framework for the
resolution of native title issues. The fundamentals of native title
are settled. Nevertheless, stakeholders across the system
acknowledge that the current processes remain expensive and slow.
The proposed measures are intended to ensure that the existing
processes work more effectively and efficiently in securing
outcomes.
http://www.ag.gov.au/www/agd/agd.nsf/Page/RWP73DB7F92B8E8CE99CA25723A00803C08
accessed on 29 January 2007.
- In its submission to the Senate Legal and Constitutional
Affairs Committee s Inquiry into the Bill the Attorney-General s
Department could be thought to recognise this implicitly when it
comments with respect to this Bill that [t]he majority of measures
in the Bill will make these minor and technical amendments to the
Native Title Act. (Attorney-General s Department, Submission No. 6,
Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, p.
5).
- Australian Public Service Commission, Foundations of
Governance in the Australian Public Service, Canberra, 2005,
http://www.apsc.gov.au/foundations/preparinglegislation.htm
accessed on 13 June 2007.
- ibid, the legislative instruments website can be found at
http://frli.law.gov.au/
- ibid.
- ibid.
- Summarised from Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs
Committee, Report Native Title Amendment (Technical
Amendments) Bill 2007 [Provisions], May 2007,
http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/legcon_ctte/native_title_tech/report/index.htm
accessed on 12 June 2007.
- ibid.
- Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission, Submission No.
10, p. 2.
- ibid, p. 5.
- ibid.
- National Native Title Council, Submission No. 5, p. 1.
- ibid, p. 6.
- Submission No. 6, p. 6.
- ibid.
- Minerals Council of Australia, Submission No. 8, p. 2.
- Submission No. 2. The NIC made this same comment in November
2006.
- See for instance ABC News Online, ATSIC attacks new National
Indigenous Council, November 6, 2004, http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200411/s1236200.htm
accessed on 13 June 2007.
Note the NIC website states [t]he NIC is not a replacement for the
ATSIC and not a representative body. It is not involved in specific
funding proposals or program/planning matters in individual
communities or regions.
- Item 7 in the Terms of Reference. See further
http://www.atsia.gov.au/NIC/default.aspx
- Submission No. 7, p. 2.
Kirsty Magarey
13 June 2007
Bills Digest Service
Parliamentary Library
© Commonwealth of Australia
This work is copyright. Except to the extent of uses permitted
by the Copyright Act 1968, no person may reproduce or transmit any
part of this work by any process without the prior written consent
of the Parliamentary Librarian. This requirement does not apply to
members of the Parliament of Australia acting in the course of
their official duties.
This work has been prepared to support the work of the Australian
Parliament using information available at the time of production.
The views expressed do not reflect an official position of the
Parliamentary Library, nor do they constitute professional legal
opinion.
Feedback is welcome and may be provided to: web.library@aph.gov.au. Any
concerns or complaints should be directed to the Parliamentary
Librarian. Parliamentary Library staff are available to discuss the
contents of publications with Senators and Members and their staff.
To access this service, clients may contact the author or the
Library’s Central Entry Point for referral.
Back to top