Chapter 3 - Key issues
3.1
Most evidence received by the committee expressed in-principle support
for the general direction of the Bill. However, concerns were raised in
relation to the following matters, which are discussed in turn below:
- internal review of registration decisions (proposed sections 190E
and 190F);
- amendments relating to PBCs (Schedule 3);
- defects in authorisation processes;
- determinations for part of an area (section 87A);
- alternative state regimes; and
- other issues.
Internal review of registration decisions (proposed sections 190E and 190F)
3.2
Item 107 of Schedule 1 would provide for internal review of registration
decisions by the Native Title Registrar (or his or her delegate) in addition to
the existing provision for review by the Federal Court. In particular, proposed
section 190E provides that where a claim is not accepted for registration under
section 190A, the applicant may apply to the Registrar to reconsider the claim.
3.3
The National Native Title Tribunal (NNTT) submitted that a Member of the
Tribunal, rather than the Registrar, should conduct a reconsideration under
proposed section 190E. The NNTT explained:
...the ramifications of not being accepted for registration are
now potentially greater than they were prior to the amendment of s. 190D by the
Native Title Amendment Act 2007. Not being accepted for registration
because of a failure to meet one or more of the merit conditions of the
registration test may lead to dismissal of the application by the Federal Court
pursuant to ss. 190D(6) and (7) of the Native Title Act 1993.[1]
3.4
The NNTT stated that:
Having the reconsideration under s. 190E conducted by a Member
would ensure that the reconsideration is undertaken by a statutory office
holder who is independent of the Registrar and could give the applicant greater
confidence that the application was considered afresh without regard to the
previous decision.[2]
3.5
In evidence to the committee the Registrar explained further:
As a matter of practice, most of my delegates are located in one
office. They are in Sydney. We are not a large organisation. We only have 230
full-time equivalent employees, unlike Centrelink or Immigration, where you can
have internal review officers in other parts of the organisation because the
volume of matters being reviewed is far greater. We do not have the huge office
and employee infrastructure to do that...The advantages of that are that you
get a collegiate atmosphere, and given this is a particular area—a peculiar
area of the law, in a sense—you get a common understanding developing over time
amongst those people who have the job of carrying out the registration test.[3]
3.6
Mr Martin Dore of the North Queensland Land Council supported the
proposal for internal review of registration test decisions and the NNTT's
submission that reviews should be conducted by a member:
I would support that, as long as the member had a legal
background. The registration test has turned out to be—due to various court
decisions and interpretations of the tribunal delegates themselves—highly
technical, highly legalised and, unfortunately in my opinion, far from what it
set out to be originally.[4]
3.7
In its submission, the National Native Title Council (NNTC), while
noting its opposition to the dismissal of claims that do not pass the
registration test,[5]
pointed out that section 190F 'does not clearly indicate that applicants can
first seek internal reconsideration of a registration decision and then, if not
satisfied, apply to the Federal Court for formal review'. The NNTC concluded
that this proposed provision should be clarified.[6]
3.8
The Carpentaria Land Council similarly observed that proposed sections
190E and 190F need to be clarified. For example, the Carpentaria Land Council
pointed out that 'there is nothing to stipulate that an application cannot be made
to the Federal Court while an application is also with the Native Title
Registrar'.[7]
The Carpentaria Land Council further suggested that:
It would be helpful if wording was inserted either in s 190E or
in a note under that section referring to s 24FE(b)(ii). This is important to
alert practitioners that for s 24FA protection to occur, reconsideration of an
adverse registration test decision must be applied for within 28 days of the s 190D(1)
notice.[8]
Department response
3.9
On the issue of whether reconsideration of registration decisions should
be conducted by the Registrar or a Member of the NNTT, a representative of the
Attorney-General's Department noted that the Department was still considering
the issue, but was inclined to the view that the Registrar and his delegates
should carry out reviews given their considerable experience in dealing with
registration decisions.[9]
The Department further explained:
Other measures in the bill also seek to maintain a separation
between members and the information that is held by the tribunal in relation to
its various functions and the information that can be passed to members in the
claims resolution or mediation function. So we think, consistent with that,
there are some sound reasons to keep the members primarily involved in the
mediation function rather than in the administrative functions...that the
registrar carries out.[10]
3.10
The Attorney-General's Department also submitted that the interaction
between proposed sections 190E and 190F was clear:
We think that the provisions are sufficiently clear: a party has
the choice of seeking internal review by the registrar or of going directly to
the court. If a party does seek internal review by the registrar, it can then
go to the court if it chooses. So there are two paths, and we believe that that
is sufficiently clear. But, of course, if the committee is of the view that it
is not sufficiently clear then we can consider whether a note should be
inserted in the legislation.[11]
Amendments relating to PBCs (Schedule 3)
Fees for services
3.11
Several submissions commented on proposed sections 60AB and 60AC which
deal with fees for services provided by PBCs, and the giving of opinions about
those fees by the Registrar of Aboriginal Corporations (see item 7, Schedule
3).
3.12
The NNTC regarded the proposal for a fee regime for PBCs as
'discriminatory' and 'uncertain'.[12]
The NNTC submitted that PBCs can already charge fees for services which they
provide, just as any other incorporated body can. The NNTC therefore argued
that the proposed fee regime in reality therefore only restricts the ability of
PBCs to charge fees, rather than enabling them to do so.[13]
Similarly, the North Queensland Land Council gave evidence that:
[PBCs] are registered corporations and there is no reason, in my
opinion, why they cannot charge for their services now. To impose a statutory
regime, in fact, controls and constricts them rather than gives them some
freedom to act.[14]
3.13
However, it is noted that the PBC Report explained that:
Under the existing legislative regime, PBCs are not able to seek
reimbursement from or charge third parties for costs and disbursements expended
or incurred (or estimated to be expended or incurred) by the PBC in performing
its functions under the NTA [Native Title Act] or the PBC Regulations. Essentially,
this is because a fee may only be charged for the performance of a statutory
duty or function if the statute provides for such a charge either expressly or
by necessary implication. While this would probably not prevent the PBC from
applying moneys obtained through an agreement to offset its negotiation costs,
it would be preferable to provide clear authority for PBCs to recover the costs
incurred in performing its functions.[15]
3.14
The NNTC further objected to what it described as 'intrusive' provisions
enabling the Registrar of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Corporations to
give binding opinions on whether fees are or are not payable in any given
situation.[16]
3.15
The Minerals Council of Australia (the Minerals Council) recognised the
need for adequate resourcing and funding of PBCs. It also supported the 'Bill's
formalisation of existing practice where industry pays additional commercial
costs associated with specific [PBC] activities.'[17]
However, the Minerals Council strongly opposed the ability of PBCs to charge a
fee for fulfilling their core statutory responsibilities. The Minerals Council
argued that funding for these core statutory functions should be provided by
government. It therefore recommended that proposed section 60AB be amended so
that a PBC may only charge a fee for additional costs incurred directly in
relation to specific commercial negotiation. The Minerals Council further
recommended the deletion of subsection 60AB(2) (which allows regulations to
provide for a PBC to charge certain persons a fee for costs incurred in
performing other functions specified in the regulations).[18]
3.16
Ergon Energy agreed with the 'thrust of this amendment' noting that:
Usually, a native title agreement (including an ILUA) is sought
by a person (other than in a claims resolution context), for a purpose which
relates to advancing the interests of that person (for example a new mine, land
development project etc). In those circumstances, where a Registered Native
Title Body Corporate ("RNTBC") is asked to expend its time and
resources on negotiating an agreement to enable the project or activity to
proceed, it is reasonable that the RNTBC's costs be recovered from the person
seeking the benefit.[19]
3.17
However, Ergon Energy suggested that the same rationale does not apply
where the person is seeking a native title agreement for the purposes of
providing a benefit solely or primarily to the PBC (or the native title holders
which the PBC represents). Ergon Energy stated that an example of this would be
where a native title agreement was required in order to construct a remote area
power station which would provide electricity primarily to the native title
holders. Ergon Energy therefore proposed that an additional exemption be
included in proposed section 60AB to cover these circumstances.[20]
Department response
3.18
A representative of the Department of Families, Community Services and
Indigenous Affairs (FaCSIA) explained that the purpose of these amendments was
to ensure PBCs had the power to charge a fee for the performance of their
statutory functions:
It has been put to you that PBCs are no different from any other
incorporated body, they should be able to charge essentially whatever the
market can bear and there is no need for any form of legislation in this area.
I respectfully disagree, because it would appear to us [that] PBCs, where they
are performing a statutory function, may lack the legal power to do so. It is
accepted as a matter of law that a fee can only be charged for the performance
of a statutory duty or function if the statute provides for such a charge,
either expressly or by necessary implication.[21]
3.19
FaCSIA also advised:
There may be some confusion about the non-statutory costs of the
PBCs, which have been an issue that I know the Minerals Council has made a
submission to this committee about before. The government is addressing that by
agreeing that it will be considering funding for the operational costs of PBCs
on a case-by-case basis in the future. As a result of the combination of
clarifying that the PBCs have the power [to] charge for their statutory
functions and of a change in policy in relation to the operational costs of the
PBCs and other changes which arose out of the PBC report...it will now be on a
much clearer, firmer footing than has been the case.[22]
3.20
In relation to the proposal from Ergon Energy for an exemption
preventing a PBC from charging a fee where the sole or primary beneficiary of
the agreement is the native title holders, a representative from FaCSIA noted:
... if it is a proposal that is to the benefit of the native
title holders clearly it is something that native title holders can themselves
take into account as to whether they charge any fee at all, and it may not be
appropriate to put in place a legislative ouster.[23]
Default PBCs
3.21
The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC) was concerned
about two aspects of the amendments relating to default PBCs.[24]
Its first concern related to the proposed provisions allowing regulations to
prescribe not only the kinds of body corporate that may be determined as a trust
PBC or an agent PBC, but also the actual body corporate that will be the trust
or agent PBC (items 1, 2, 5 and 6 of Schedule 3).[25]
3.22
In particular, HREOC objected to the notion that regulations might be
used to 'dictate' to native title holders the body that will hold their native
title and/or act as their exclusive agent in relation to the protection and
management of their native title. HREOC described this as a 'radical shift' in
the current legislative policy, because the choice of body would not be made by
the Court (having regard to the wishes of the native title holders), but by the
regulations. HREOC also observed that there had not been any consultation on this
proposal with native title holders, claimants or representative bodies.[26]
3.23
HREOC's second major concern was that items 1, 2 and 6 of Schedule 3 authorise
regulations allowing another person or body, instead of the Federal Court, to
determine the PBC that will replace the PBC originally determined by the Court.
HREOC argued that 'this is another radical departure from the existing legal
policy by which the determination of the trust or agent PBC is exclusively
within the jurisdiction of the Court'. HREOC further expressed its view that:
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 the native title. It is not appropriate that power to re-determine
that body corporate be potentially vested in a Commonwealth (or State or Territory)
public servant. This is particularly so where that public servant could be
determining a request by the native title holders to "transfer out"
of a Commonwealth sponsored prescribed default PBC.[27]
3.24
HREOC therefore recommended that items 1, 2 and 6 of Schedule 3 not be
enacted to the extent that they authorise regulations:
- to prescribe the particular body corporate that may be determined
as a PBC; or
- that would allow a person or body other than the Court to
determine a PBC.[28]
3.25
The NNTC suggested in relation to the appointment of default PBCs that
proposed subsection 59(1) should restrict the regulation-making power by
stating that bodies that may be PBCs must not be bodies that have members who
are not Indigenous.[29]
Department response
3.26
A representative of FaCSIA advised that the Australian Government's
intention was that the Court would continue to determine PBCs:
Practically speaking...we cannot currently foresee circumstances
in which a body other than a court might determine the body. But we thought it
useful to put a little bit of scope in this regulation-making power, in case
that should prove necessary.[30]
Defects in authorisation processes
3.27
The NNTC and Carpentaria Land Council raised concerns with the proposed
amendments relating to authorisation processes for native title applications.[31]
3.28
More specifically, the NNTC opposed the amendments contained in items 72
and 76 of Schedule 1 of the Bill. Item 72 amends section 62 of the Native Title
Act. It would require the applicant to include a statement (in the affidavit
accompanying the application) setting out details of the decision‑making
process which authorised the applicant to make the claimant application.[32]
Item 76 would make a similar amendment to the requirements for making a
compensation application.
3.29
The NNTC felt that these amendments were 'unnecessary' and would 'only
add yet another layer of complexity for native title claimants to an already
legally complex process'. The NNTC argued that:
Clarification of authorisation is already provided for in s190C of
the NTA [Native Title Act] through the certification process or through proof
of authorisation. Schedule R of the current application form ("Form
1") already requires that proof of authorisation be comprehensively set
out.[33]
3.30
Mr Martin Dore of the North Queensland Land Council gave evidence of the
practical difficulties associated with applicants being required to provide
evidence of authorisation:
Sometimes that information is best put by someone other than the
applicants. An example might be that someone is appointed to be one of the
applicants by being nominated for authorisation at a meeting out of respect for
their position as a senior elder in the group who may not even be at the
meeting but who may have previously indicated their consent to so act. For them
to then have to swear an affidavit about matters that they have no direct
knowledge of seems somewhat contradictory.[34]
3.31
However, the Registrar of the NNTT noted that if the new provision was
complied with it would reduce the work of the NNTT in applying the registration
test:
One of the issues that my delegates have to deal with,
particularly around authorised applications, is having to sort of peer below
the meniscus layer of the application to see what is going on around the
claimant group and around the processes of authorisation...
Sometimes we have insufficient information, and we proceed on
the basis that we do have some duty to inquire, and we go back to applicants
and their representatives and say, ‘It is not quite clear what was going on at
that authorisation meeting; can you provide some further details?’ I have to
say that some of the affidavits that come in are very sparing in describing
what has been going on in authorisation and the arrangements that were being
made, and I think it is fair to say that, historically, information has, in
some instances, been light on.[35]
3.32
The NNTC supported aspects of item 88, which would insert proposed
section 84D into the Native Title Act. Proposed section 84D seeks to clarify
the powers of the Federal Court in relation to authorisation issues. The NNTC
supported allowing the Court to hear and determine an application despite a
defect in authorisation. However, the NNTC argued that proposed paragraphs
84D(2)(b) and (c), which would allow applications for the production of
evidence to be made by any party to the proceeding, or any member of the claim
or compensation group, could be open to abuse. The NNTC therefore suggested
that the proposed provision require the application for production of evidence
of authorisation to show cause to the Court why such an order should be made.[36]
3.33
The Carpentaria Land Council commented that the proposed section 84D
provides 'some clarity regarding situations where there are questions
surrounding the authorisation of applications'. However, it considered that the
proposed section should more specifically address situations where a defective
authorisation may be rectified and how this could occur, rather than leaving it
entirely to the Court to determine.[37]
Determinations for part of an area: section 87A
3.34
A number of submissions also discussed the proposed amendments to
section 87A, contained in item 91 of Schedule 1. Section 87A enables the
Court to make a determination over part of a claim area where some, but not
all, parties agree to the determination. Section 87A requires the consent of
certain parties to the proceeding, including each person who holds a registered
proprietary interest in the determination area.
3.35
During the committee's inquiry into the Native Title Amendment Bill 2006,
concerns were expressed that this provision may exclude persons with
significant interests in the determination area, such as owners of
infrastructure installed under statutory powers. This would include the owners
of telecommunications networks, and electricity and gas distribution systems.
Recommendation 9 of the committee’s report on that bill therefore recommended
that the Australian Government consider amendments to section 87A in the
technical amendments to the Native Title Act.[38]
Item 91 proposes to repeal and replace subparagraph 87A(1)(c)(v) in response to
these concerns.
3.36
In particular, proposed subparagraph 87A(1)(c)(v) would provide that
each person who:
- holds an interest (rather than a registered proprietary interest)
in relation to land or waters in any part of the determination area at the time
the agreement is made; and
- is a party to the proceedings,
must consent before a
determination may be made under section 87A.
3.37
The term 'interest, in relation to land or waters' is defined in section
253 of the Native Title Act. According to the Explanatory Memorandum, most
parties to the proceeding holding an interest that falls within the
determination area will be required to consent to a determination under section
87A as amended.[39]
3.38
Ergon Energy agreed with the proposed amendments to section 87A, but
suggested that the amendments could go further. Ergon Energy was concerned that
the definition of 'interest in relation to land or waters' in section 253 would
not be sufficient to cover its interest in inherited electricity infrastructure
where the original legal or statutory basis for the installation of that
infrastructure is unclear.[40]
3.39
Ergon Energy suggested that this uncertainty could be addressed by
widening the definition of 'interests in relation to land or waters' in section
253 to include 'a legal or equitable interest in, or right to operate, any
infrastructure facility on the land or waters.'[41]
3.40
By contrast, the NNTC felt that the original version of 87A contained in
the Native Title Amendment Bill 2006 was 'adequate and appropriate'. The NNTC
expressed its view that the existing definition of 'interest' in section 253 is
'so wide as to potentially frustrate parties with a real (as opposed to a
merely theoretical) interest from being able to negotiate a sensible consent
determination'.[42]
The NNTC therefore proposed that:
...in order to balance the considerations, the proposed section
could be amended to vest in the Federal Court a discretion in terms that it
could require that consent is required from a party holding an interest in the
land or waters where the Court is satisfied that the party's interest is likely
to be affected by the proposed agreement.[43]
3.41
Similarly, the Minerals Council opposed the proposed amendment to
section 87A, recommending that the requirement for a registered proprietary
interest should remain. In fact, the Minerals Council considered that the
proposed amendment is 'both unnecessary and potentially destabilising'.[44]
The Minerals Council argued that the amendment:
- removes the existing registration test applied to ensure that
parties to a consent determination process have genuine and specific interests
that will be impacted on by the determination process, beyond the general
rights and interests of all Australians; and
- enables parties, who are not a registered interest, to come late
into the consent determination process, which has the potential to derail
negotiations and delay outcomes of negotiations which may have already
substantially progressed.[45]
Department response
3.42
A representative of the Attorney-General's Department explained the
competing interests the proposed amendment of section 87A was seeking to
balance:
Certainly, the intention of the reforms generally is to seek to
expedite the way in which the native title processes can operate. It was
certainly desirable to ensure that only parties who have real and significant
interests should be required to consent, with the safeguards that all other
parties still have the entitlement to object to the process and the court still
has to decide whether it is willing to make the determination notwithstanding
the objections that might be made. [46]
3.43
The Department also submitted:
At this stage we do not see a need to make a specific exemption
for infrastructure. We think that the sort of interests that Ergon is talking
about would be covered. I also note that they have some questions about tenure
in any event. Providing there was sufficient government executive power at the
time to carry out the relevant act, we think there that would be sufficient to
bring it within legal interest.[47]
Alternative state regimes
3.44
HREOC also raised concerns in relation to items 62 and 63 of Schedule 1,
which seek to clarify the scope of alternative state regimes under section 43
of the Native Title Act.[48]
The Explanatory Memorandum explains that section 43:
...enables a State or Territory to establish right to negotiate
procedures which operate to the exclusion of the provisions in the Native Title
Act where the Commonwealth Minister is satisfied the alternative provisions
meet statutory criteria set out in subsection 43(2). The key amendments put
beyond doubt the validity of the current South Australian section 43
determinations in relation to mining and opal mining (made in 1995 and 1997
respectively) which had the effect of replacing the Native Title Act right to
negotiate provisions with a right to negotiate regime under South Australian
legislation.[49]
3.45
However, HREOC argued that items 62 and 63 'cannot be called technical
amendments'. HREOC was concerned 'at the proposed inclusion of provisions to
retrospectively validate actions done in contravention of the provisions of the
Act.'[50]
In particular, HREOC noted that:
The reasoning for the adjustment being made does not indicate
that there is any confusion over the scope of a permissible alternative State
regime. It is purely to address the operation of an alternative State regime
that was unlawfully made.[51]
3.46
HREOC suggested that such retrospective validation of invalidly done
future acts has undermined Indigenous confidence in the Native Title Act in the
past. HREOC therefore urged the committee to recommend that the relevant items
not be enacted, or at the very least, that any amendments should be as narrow
as possible in scope, and should follow extensive consultation with affected Indigenous
peoples.[52]
Other issues
Order dismissing an application
relating to a future act: section 94C
3.47
The NNTT raised an issue in relation to section 94C of the Native Title
Act.[53]
Section 94C requires the Federal Court to dismiss certain claimant applications
that are deemed to be in response to a future act notice where the relevant
future act has been finalised. Under paragraphs 94C(1)(b) and (c), the
application must have been made and registered within a certain timeframe
measured in relation to the 'notification day' specified in the future act
notice.
3.48
However, the NNTT explained, that prior to 30 September 1998, future act notices did not contain a notification day. The NNTT was therefore concerned no
application made before that date would be covered by section 94C. The NNTT
also pointed out that future act notices under alternate provisions applying in
South Australia do not contain a notification day. Again, the NNTT was
concerned that applications lodged in response to those notices would not be
covered by section 94C. The NNTT argued that the policy intention behind
section 94C was that applications made in response to these future act notices
should be covered by section 94C.[54]
3.49
The NNTT proposed that this 'defect' could be remedied by amending
section 94C to cover applications lodged in response to:
- future act notices given before 30 September 1998 and registered within two months of when the notice was given; or
- a South Australian future act notice and registered within two
months of when that notice was given,
where the relevant future act is now finalised.[55]
Department response
3.50
The Attorney-General's Department noted that the number of applications
excluded by the drafting of section 94C was greater than initially thought and
that, as a result, the government is considering whether amendments to the Bill
may be required.[56]
Low impact future acts: section
24LA
3.51
Both the NSW Government and the Local Government Association of
Queensland (LGAQ) pointed out that a proposal to amend section 24LA of the
Native Title Act was included in the second discussion paper released by the
Attorney-General's Department, but has not been included in the Bill.[57]
3.52
Section 24LA currently permits certain future acts which have a minimal
effect on native title to be done without the need to comply with any
procedural requirements. For example, subsection 24LA(2) allows excavation or
clearing undertaken for the protection of public health or safety, or for
environmental protection, to be carried out as a low impact future act.
However, such acts may not be carried under this provision after a
determination native title exists over the land.[58]
3.53
The second discussion paper released by the Attorney-General's
Department contained a proposal to amend section 24LA to cover acts carried out
after a native title determination has been made and, in particular:
...to allow such acts to be carried out by or on behalf of
Government authorities for reasons of public health or safety or environmental
protection, but only in circumstances where the determined native title holders
do not have exclusive rights over the relevant land.[59]
3.54
Both the New South Wales Government and LGAQ suggested that this
amendment should be re-considered for inclusion in the Bill.[60]
In particular, the LGAQ submitted that, if the proposed amendment is not made,
local councils will have to either:
- enter into negotiations with each claimant group in its local
government area with a view to reaching an Indigenous Land Use Agreement; or
- issue notices to native title holders at least 28 days prior to
undertaking any 'low impact' work regardless of public health and safety
issues.[61]
3.55
LGAQ argued that 'either option represents a significant outlay of
resources, significant loss of productive time, and an onerous administrative burden'.[62]
Department response
3.56
The committee received evidence regarding consultation the Attorney‑General's
Department had conducted in relation to the proposal to amend section 24LA:
We thought that it seemed like a sensible proposal, and that is
why we initially floated it for consultation. We had some very strong responses
to that from a range of parties—both stakeholders on the native title
representative side as well as the Law Council...When we inquired further about
that proposal with the Local Government Association of Queensland, they
indicated that there had in fact been no practical problems with the way in
which these provisions currently operate. It was simply a theoretical problem
that they were concerned about. Given the very strong concerns that had been
raised, it did not seem appropriate to seek to move this amendment forward to
address what was only a theoretical problem where no practical issues had
arisen to date.[63]
Replacement and removal of
applicants: section 66B
3.57
Item 82 of Schedule 1 proposes to amend section 66B of the Native Title
Act to 'streamline the process for replacing the native title applicant in
claims'.[64]
3.58
However, the Carpentaria Land Council expressed the view that the
proposed amendments to section 66B would not improve the process for any of the
parties involved:
....to replace applicants under s 66B an authorisation meeting is
generally required. The costs in terms of money, staff and other resources to
NTRBs for authorisation meetings are usually high and therefore unlikely to
occur in such circumstances...Therefore, the practical consequences of the
amended s 66B will be the same as they are now, that those who no longer wish
to be applicants will be applicants in name only and deceased and incapacitated
applicant’s names will also still remain on the register.[65]
3.59
Carpentaria Land Council suggested that the removal of applicants who
consent to their removal, or who are deceased or incapacitated, should be dealt
with separately to section 66B:
The process in these two cases (where an applicant consents to
their removal and where an applicant is deceased or incapacitated) should and
could be as simple as filing an application (Notice of Motion) in the Court
along with a supporting affidavit from an applicant who no longer wishes to
retain that role and a supporting affidavit from a legal representative or
applicant attaching a death certificate or medical certificate to remove a
deceased or incapacitated applicant.[66]
3.60
The NNTC was concerned that the proposed amendments to section 66B only
referred to the replacement of applicants on claimant applications, and
did not clearly cover the removal of the name of a deceased applicant.
The NNTC therefore suggested clarifications to the proposed amendments to
subsection 66B(1) to ensure that it covers the removal of the name of a
deceased applicant, not just the replacement of such applicants.[67]
Multiple future act notices
3.61
Item 56 of Schedule 1 would amend subsection 29(8) of the Native Title
Act, which relates to notification of multiple future acts in the same notice.
The Explanatory Memorandum states:
Existing subsection 29(8) enables the Government party to give
notice to the public of two or more acts to which Subdivision P applies in the
same notice. There is no equivalent provision to enable notice to be given of
two or more acts to specific persons. The requirement to give individual
notices in relation to each future act is inefficient. Item 56 would insert
proposed subsection 29(8) which would provide that the Commonwealth Minister may
determine the circumstances and manner in which persons under subsection 29(2)
may be given notice of two or more acts in the same notice. This determination
would be a legislative instrument.[68]
3.62
HREOC expressed concern that such notices could be issued in a manner
that:
- required native title holders and their representative
bodies to wade through many notifications that were irrelevant to them; and
- would make it more likely that important notifications
will slip through the cracks.[69]
3.63
For example, HREOC told the committee that 'at least one State has to
date commonly given blanket notification to representative bodies of hundreds
of licences at the one time'. HREOC
suggested that this amendment:
...could be easily improved by placing conditions or restrictions
on the use of s.29 notices that notify more than one proposed future act. The
provision as drafted could be modified so that a s.29 notice may only contain
notice of more than one Subdivision P future act if each of the future acts
notified affects land claimed by the one native title claim group, or, at the
least, land within the one representative body area.[70]
Department response
3.64
A representative of the Attorney-General's Department advised the
committee that the government intended to set out the requirements for future
act notifications in the determination made under proposed subsection 29(8):
The bill envisages that there will be a notices determination
made by the Attorney and that determination will cover the conditions that
should be imposed on future act notices, in particular, ensuring that there is
a reasonable provision in the way in which such notifications are given to
enable a PBC or NTRB to reasonably readily determine what the pieces of land
are that are going to be affected.[71]
Other issues
3.65
The NNTC also raised a number of other issues. For example, it:
- opposed the proposal to validate automatic weather stations as a
facility for service to the public on the basis that this would be a 'further
incursion into native title rights and interests';[72]
- supported the proposal to allow respondent parties to withdraw
without leave at any time prior to the commencement of a substantive hearing.
However, it suggested that any party (including other respondents) should be
able to seek costs upon the withdrawal, and that a like right to withdraw
should be accorded to applicants;[73]
and
- noted that proposals referred to in the second discussion paper
(paras 16-20) to provide for amendments of ILUAs were not included in the Bill.[74]
3.66
The Carpentaria Land Council welcomed the amendment to encourage the
Native Title Registrar to apply the registration test in a timely manner. At
the same time, it suggested that the wording requiring the Registrar to use his
or her 'best endeavours' to finish considering a claim was too weak. However,
it is noted that this wording reflects the wording of the existing section
190A.[75]
3.67
Finally, a number of drafting errors in the Bill were identified during
the committee's inquiry.[76]
A representative of the Attorney-General's Department advised that the government
was addressing these errors.[77]
Committee view
3.68
The committee is pleased to note that the proposed amendments in the Bill
have been the subject of extensive consultation and, in particular, that FaCSIA
and the Attorney-General's Department have made adjustments to the proposals
now embodied in the Bill in response to feedback from stakeholders.[78]
3.69
The committee also acknowledges that the proposed amendment of section
87A, which provides for consent determinations over part of a claim area, seeks
to address recommendation 9 of its report regarding the Native Title Amendment
Bill 2006.[79]
The committee received conflicting evidence in relation to this amendment. Some
parties suggested that the amendment to broaden the range of parties who must
consent to a determination, to include those who hold unregistered or
non-proprietary interests in relation to land and waters, would not capture all
significant interest holders. Other parties considered that the amendments went
too far. The NNTC suggested that section 87A should require consent from
parties with an interest in relation to land and waters where the Court is
satisfied that the party's interest is likely to be affected by the proposed
agreement.[80]
In the view of the committee, this proposal strikes an appropriate balance
between the need to efficiently resolve native title matters and the need to
protect those with substantive interests in the claim area.
3.70
The committee heard a variety of views on the issue of whether reviews
of the decision of the Native Title Registrar not to register a claim should be
carried out by the Registrar and his delegates or by a Member of the NNTT. The
committee considers that it would be more appropriate for reconsideration of
registration decisions under proposed section 190E to be conducted by a Member
of the NNTT. In particular, the committee accepts that applicants would have
greater confidence in the independence of the review if it were conducted by a
Member.
3.71
The committee considers that there is some ambiguity in the interaction
between proposed sections 190E and 190F. It does appear that the provisions
would currently permit an applicant to apply to the Court for review of the
Registrar's decision not to accept a claim while the NNTT was conducting an
internal review of that decision under proposed section 190E. The committee
recommends that the provisions be amended to ensure that review by the NNTT
does not occur in parallel with an application to the Court.
3.72
The committee accepts evidence from FaCSIA that the amendments in
relation to the charging of fees by PBCs for the performance of their statutory
functions are necessary in order to regularise the existing practice of parties
negotiating with PBCs. In its report on the Native Title Amendment Bill 2006,
the committee recommended that the Australian Government finalise and implement
proposed funding arrangements for PBCs as a high priority.[81]
The committee welcomes advice that the Australian Government is currently
preparing guidelines for funding of the operational costs of PBCs in certain
circumstances.
3.73
The NNTC suggested that the regulation-making power in proposed
subsection 59(1) should be limited to ensure that non-Indigenous people cannot
be members of PBCs. The committee considers that the issue of the appropriate
membership of a PBC is best left to the native title holders. In particular, it
is possible that native title holders may wish to accord non-voting membership
to non-Indigenous spouses or advisors.
3.74
It was clear from evidence to the committee that there is a need to
establish a mechanism providing for a default PBC where the native title
holders fail to nominate a PBC or a PBC is wound up. FaCSIA advised the
committee that the intention of the government is that regulations providing
for the determination of a default PBC would designate the Federal Court as the
body responsible for determining the PBC. The committee is strongly of the view
that the Court is the appropriate body to determine PBCs and accepts this
assurance that the government intends to provide for the Court to determine
PBCs under the regulations. While the committee is mindful of concerns that the
native title holders should not be dictated to in relation to the legal entity
which represents their native title interests, it seems appropriate to make
provision for the determination of a replacement body in the narrow
circumstances envisaged. Furthermore, the initiatives to address the funding needs
of PBCs should ensure the sustainability of PBCs and reduce the need for
recourse to these provisions.
3.75
Evidence to the committee suggested that the proposed process for the
removal of applicants who consent to removal, or who are deceased or
incapacitated, could be further simplified. In the committee's view, there is
some merit in the suggestion that the Native Title Act should separately
provide for the removal of an applicant where there is no need for replacement
of that applicant.
3.76
The committee notes the concerns of HREOC in relation to the amendments
relating to alternative state regimes and, in particular, the provisions to put
beyond doubt the validity of the current systems for approving mining and opal
mining in South Australia.[82]
However, the committee supports their enactment given that the amendments
simply seek to place on a firm footing the understanding parties have been
operating upon to date.
3.77
The NNTC submitted that where a party seeks a Court order, under
proposed section 84D, requiring an applicant to produce evidence of
authorisation, the party seeking the order should be required to show cause why
the Court should make the order. In the committee's view, the drafting of this
provision already ensures that the Court has a discretion as to whether to make
the order. As a result, the Court will be able to require the party seeking the
order to provide information as to why the order is required.
3.78
Finally, the committee recommends that the various drafting errors in
the Bill, identified during the committee's inquiry, be rectified.
Recommendation 1
3.79
The committee recommends that proposed subparagraph 87A(1)(c)(v) require
consent from a party, with an interest in relation to land and waters in the
determination area, where the Federal Court is satisfied that the interest is
likely to be affected by the proposed determination.
Recommendation 2
3.80
The committee recommends that proposed section 190F be amended to
clarify that an applicant may not apply to the Federal Court for review of the Native
Title Registrar's decision not to accept a claim while the National Native Title
Tribunal is reconsidering the claim under proposed section 190E.
Recommendation 3
3.81
The committee recommends that proposed section 190E be amended to
provide that reconsideration of the Native Title Registrar's decision not to
accept a claim should be carried out by a Member of the National Native Title
Tribunal.
Recommendation 4
3.82
The committee recommends that the Australian Government consider
amending the Bill to provide a separate, simplified process for the removal of
an applicant who consents to removal, or who is deceased or incapacitated,
where there is no requirement to replace that applicant.
Recommendation 5
3.83
The committee recommends that drafting errors in items 88, 123 and 138
of Schedule 1 of the Bill and section 94C of the Native Title Act be rectified.
Recommendation 6
3.84
Subject to the preceding recommendations, the committee recommends that
the Senate pass the Bill.
Senator Guy Barnett
Chair
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page