8.1 The Committee notes the advice of the Special Minister
of State that the Bill is supported by State Governments of all political
persuasions.[1] That said, however,
the Governments have emphasised that the amendment Bill is not as far-reaching
as they would have wished. For example, the submission from the South
Australian Government said (pp. 3-4):
To the extent that the State of South Australia has any concern
with the 10 Point Plan it is that the Plan does not go far enough in
prescribing the various rights and duties of the co-existing parties.
It still leaves too much for the courts to resolve. Nevertheless, the
State of South Australia supports the 10 Point Plan as a significant
improvement on the NTA as originally drafted, and as the best that appears
to be currently achievable.
8.2 Having considered the Native Title Amendment Bill 1997, the Committee
recommends: That the Bill be adopted subject to the following:
* the definition of 'bank' in the proposed s.203CB be broadened
to include credit unions (para.2.12);
* that governments should deal sensitively and on a case-by-basis
with those situations where Indigenous people continue to live on reserves
but are unable to register native title applications (para.4.25);
* clarification of the conditions under which opal exploration
may occur (para.6.24); and
* amendment of the proposed new s.82(2) to refer to undue
prejudice (para.7.10);
Warren Entsch MP
Committee Chair
[Return to table of Contents]
Footnotes:
[1] Evidence, p.2004.
Top
|